NOAA: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years, reducing CO2 emissions won't help

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Climate change is "largely irreversible" for the next 1,000 years even if carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be abruptly halted, according to a new study led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The study's authors said there was "no going back" after the report showed that changes in surface temperature, rainfall and sea level are "largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after CO2 emissions are completely stopped."

NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon said the study, published in this week's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, showed that current human choices on carbon dioxide emissions are set to "irreversibly change the planet."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090127/ts_al..._20090127132619

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

you sure know how to ruin steven's day.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This isn't much of a surprise to me - I don't think anyone expected that things would even themselves out overnight.

Kinda like expecting the fish to come back the week after you stop dumping arsenic in a lake.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

What about all the natural CO2 emmissions? Volcanoes etc.......

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

What about all the natural CO2 emmissions? Volcanoes etc.......

washington dc.........

[mawilson 2,133]

Great, it's irreversible, nothing we can do. Can we move on now please?

[Peikko 1,575]

What about them?

Think about it this way. The earth has evolved a natural balance of 'available' carbon dioxide and that which has been locked away. The argument has been how much of a shift from the natural balance can the earth accommodate before it has an effect on that balance. Once the balance is shifted, how easy or necessary is it to attempt to shift it back?

Fixating on individual causes really isn't very helpful.

However, a shift away from fossil fuels is inevitable and necessary no matter what. It is not a renewable resource, period.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It is not a renewable resource, period.

Rush Limbaugh says it is.

[chri'stina 190]

If Bush hadn't been President for 8 years, this would not have happened.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

What about them?

Think about it this way. The earth has evolved a natural balance of 'available' carbon dioxide and that which has been locked away. The argument has been how much of a shift from the natural balance can the earth accommodate before it has an effect on that balance. Once the balance is shifted, how easy or necessary is it to attempt to shift it back?

Fixating on individual causes really isn't very helpful.

However, a shift away from fossil fuels is inevitable and necessary no matter what. It is not a renewable resource, period.

Exactly.

[mawilson 2,133]

It is not a renewable resource, period.

Rush Limbaugh says it is.

Rush is correct.

There are companies working on producing oil from algae:

http://www.originoil.com/

Edited January 27, 2009 by mawilson

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is a freebie...

Earth's climate is complex and influenced by many things, particularly changes in its orbit, volcanic eruptions, and changes in the energy emitted from the Sun. It is well known that the world has experienced warm or cold periods in the past without any interference from humans. The ice ages are good examples of global changes to the climate, and warm periods have seen grapes grown across much of Britain.

Over the several hundred thousand years covered by the ice core record, the temperature changes were primarily driven by changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Over this period, changes in temperature did drive changes in carbon dioxide (CO2). Since the Industrial Revolution (over the last 100 years), CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due because to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels.

The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate, such as those due to orbit changes, led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...ce/myths/3.html

[Peikko 1,575]

It is not a renewable resource, period.

Rush Limbaugh says it is.

Rush is correct.

There are companies working on producing oil from algae:

http://www.originoil.com/

I remember someone posting about that before and it is fascinating. However, from what I remember, even this promising research doesn't claim to produce the vast quantities of oil at incredibly low cost that nature has provided.

The current reserves of fossil fuels were deposited over a long period of time and have been consumed in a extremely short period of time (relative to the age of the earth and the length of time it took to create those reserves).

So, with all due respect, in the terms we understand, fossil fuels are not a 'renewable' resource

I'm interested in buying shares in the company though...

[mawilson 2,133]

I'm interested in buying shares in the company though...

Well if you're interested, OOIL is their ticker symbol.

They are a penny stock right now (37c/share), but in 5 years... who knows!

[Peikko 1,575]

Got to speculate to accumulate. I need to do more research but that seems like a good buy if the theory is realizable.