This story is archived
NASA: Ten Years To Climate 'Tipping Point' »
Posted by: Aidenag 2 years, 5 months agoEven "moderate additional" greenhouse emissions are likely to push Earth past "critical tipping points" with "dangerous consequences for the planet," according to research conducted by NASA and the Columbia University.
Read Full Story at abcnews.go.com »
Submitted By:
Aidenag
Photographer by day, news junkie by night. My main areas of interest are politics and the environment.
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 148
-
questionseverything
May 29, 2007, 10:59 p.m.dr hanson was censured by current admin earlier so im glad to see the story,and wish to point out that the epa just dbled emmission standards in respect to coal producers of electric and thats a giant mistake
-
jordan11
May 30, 2007, 2:17 a.m.http://brneurosci.org/co2.html>>>>>
Here's a scientific explanation of how global 'warming' leads to cooling. They won't read it, but to dispute it....well, you know. They can't. Hell, they won't even bother to try to understand what the article says, but will be at a loss for words.....other than their usual dumb one's.
-
TechnologyExpert
May 30, 2007, 11:13 a.m.Yes, Edingbug but it always gives me a chance to post the Grist.org Global Warming Skeptics Guide link
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
Which I'm sure they will not read.
-
UBCONFUSE
May 30, 2007, 4:14 p.m.I agree, enough about predicting the point of no return. The weather people still cannot predict a bad storm until it is on top of them. One group says we will boil in a relentless sun and the other side says hell is freezing over. It is what it is, man will adapt as he always has and so will the roaches, fleas, ticks and mosquitoes.
-
Blackacereturn
May 30, 2007, 7:53 p.m.Let them rant, there is a reason why this GOP president have the lowest ratings of any president. They lied and you have to give them this, we all went for it. However, if last November is any indication the people are awake and lies will not do this time around.
The noise they are making are the sound of desperation!
Even they can see that this nation will have no more of their brand of leading.
-
spkguy
May 29, 2007, 10:35 p.m.Even "moderate additional" greenhouse emissions are likely to push Earth past "critical tipping points" with "dangerous consequences for the planet," according to research conducted by NASA and the Columbia University Earth Institute.
You spend billions On NASA and you have some of the best scientists on the planet telling you there's problem.
And what do you do,you ignore or ridicule them.
-
berkeley
May 29, 2007, 10:40 p.m.from what i have read, ten years is not realistic. we're already there.
-
not2needy
May 29, 2007, 10:51 p.m.The worst part is the expense to go completely green, and even if it wasn't, one person can't do it alone, it must be a joint effort on the parts of everyone.
-
jordan11
May 30, 2007, 2:24 a.m.http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth...
So what we have, is an administration doing a number on every aspect of our lives, and some ignorant fools giving them that power and making excuses for them. If this keeps up, and something doesn't happen to turn the disasters of this administration around, the rest of us are going to have to decide if we're going to let them destroy our country, our environment, our futures. It has gotten that bad.
-
nostalgia
May 30, 2007, 7:22 a.m.I want to see an actual cost estimate and the exact changes which need to be made. I want to know what the economists think the impact of the changes will be.
I have only been able to find one economist talking about the issue
Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg, argues that, although global warming is real, there is little we can do to prevent it and that we would be better off trying to adapt to living in an altered climate.
-
texangelwings
May 30, 2007, 8:47 a.m.Thanks for this article Neophile and Aidenag.
I am in hopes, with articles like this, that people will become more aware of our own individual impact on our planet. If we can make small changes in our own lives & our communities, it will be a benefit for all, for a healthier future.
The quality of our air is important to every living creature and our own health. And drinking water is necessity to mankinds exisitance. Improvement is something to strive for in lives.
-
TimALoftis
May 30, 2007, 9:02 a.m.Clearly our country has spent way to much time debating global warming and whether or not it really exists instead of working to find and implement solutions. This has led us to the current climate crisis facing the world today.
-
Rhialto
May 30, 2007, 9:03 a.m.The same NASA that lost 2 shuttles, screwed up the Hubblle space telescope, could not even keep the cameras that records space shuttles in focus. Could not even figure out on their own why their shuttle blew up during launch, they had to get a real scientist (Richard Feynmann) to tell them an O ring became brittle during cold temperatures. These people are still using 1970's computers. NASA has lost it's crediblilty.
-
FordTruck5Speed
May 30, 2007, 9:23 a.m.First off, I'm OK with cleaning up. It's a good thing. Now, on to my point. I think the whole Chicken Little screaming about the impending armageddon is a little far-fetched. Not to mention that climatologists and meteorologists have produced some compelling evidence that human activity plays a minor role, if any, in climate change. Not to trash the guys at NOAA, as their guidance has been valuable. However, when I see guys in the private sector whose livelihood depends on good forecasting coming out with conflicting evidence, it's enough for me to at least give it a look, which is something the environmentalists won't do. Once again I refer you to the ice age scare that was shouted from the rooftops 30 years ago.
-
walden3
May 30, 2007, 9:29 a.m."Studies released earlier this month report human-made emissions now spiraling upward at an accelerating rate much faster than scientists expected only a few years ago."
this study by nasa and columbia should be sobering to anyone. there are many irreversible tipping points - salinity of the ocean, gulf stream.
why debate when we should be figuring out the most cost effective way of limiting our impact.
-
FordTruck5Speed
May 30, 2007, 9:32 a.m.I'd suggest checking out Dr. William Gray (climate and tropical cyclone expert) and some of his findings regarding climate change. His research has all but debunked "global warming", yet you never see Katie Couric interviewing him. In a nutshell, the research comes down to solar activity. Solar activity has been well above normal for the last decade or two. Since the Sun is the primary source of heat for the planet, it only stands to reason that more sun equals more heat, hence a warmer planet. This sunspot activity has leveled off, and is expected to back off within the next 10 years. According to Dr. Gray, it is very likely that another COOLING cycle will take place, and possibly stronger than the last cooling cycle that we saw ending in the late 70s and early 80s. Again, I'm all for keeping an eye on pollution and "waste management." But, before the US ceases all economic activity, let's make sure we have all the facts from both sides of the aisle.
-
Amazing1
May 30, 2007, 10:07 a.m.Hey. I don't give a rip who's right and who's wrong. If the people who are warning us about global warning are right, then it's time to do something about it. Turn off the lights when you leave the room, grow your own tomatoes, throw away the electric can opener. Your light bill will be lower, you'll have great tasting tomatoes, and you'll develop a bit of wrist muscle.
Now if the people who are hollering that this is all bunk and we can't do anything about it would participate in this, they would find that they can reap the same benefits. The air is a little cleaner, the water less polluted. That's not a bad thing. It's one of them win/win things.
This is the only planet we have. Certainly there is no harm in softening the footprint of our species.
And it does not matter who is right. There will be no trophies awarded. And it may mean the survival of humankind.
-
FordTruck5Speed
May 30, 2007, 11:12 a.m.Crespi, I read Joe Bastardi's column every day on Accuweather.com, so I've seen what you're talking about. As someone who works in the academic world, I'm not surprised when I hear about a university going public against one of its own when said professor goes against the grain, and unfortunately the " grain" is usually a liberal/socialist viewpoint.
Either way, I think many have missed my point. I've said multiple times that cleaning up a little is a good thing. Hey yinz! I live in Pittsburgh. We were the smog capital of the galaxy 30 years ago. Trust me when I tell you that I understand the value of clean air. What I'm against is the SOCIALIST mentality that the government shall force all kinds of changes that people can't afford in the name of "global warming", especially when all the facts aren't in yet. I keep pointing out that everyone was CERTAIN that the ice age was already in progress in 1977.
-
TechnologyExpert
May 30, 2007, 11:19 a.m.One thing I worry about is when (assuming we reach it) we reach the tipping point, people will just say, 'oh well, I'm just gonna enjoy life and consume as much as possible ... as well as move to a place which will still be comfortable while those who cannot suffer'.
-
FordTruck5Speed
May 30, 2007, 11:22 a.m.My point is that there seems to be an agenda. If you so much as present an opposing viewpont to "global warming", you're a kook. Why is there no room to debate the causes, and whether or not it will reverse (which I still believe that it will). We can debate a war while our troops are on the ground but we can't debate "science" that has documented holes in it? Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it seems to me that we have a bunch of Rachel Carsons running around looking for ways to control the masses in the name of the environment, only this time they seem to be using CO2 as their tool to make it happen.
Yes, conserve energy when you can. No problem. Alternative fuels, go for it. But forcing changes that are bound to have profound economic reprocussions is where I draw the line.
-
dandur6
May 30, 2007, 12:22 p.m.Such a childish statement. Whatever your beliefs are about the environment, to say you are going to "try very, very hard" to pollute just to get back at those who try not to is... beyond comprehension coming from an adult.
-
-
FordTruck5Speed
May 30, 2007, 11:39 a.m.Techie, do you actually know anyone that actually says stuff like "oh well, I'm just gonna enjoy life and consume as much as possible"? I keep reading comments like that in these posts and in the mainstream media, but I can't say I've ever met anyone that thinks that way. If I run into one, though, I'll let you know.
-
FordTruck5Speed
May 30, 2007, 12:24 p.m.vieamie, I'm not sure if you're joking or serious, but either way, if you're ever in Pittsburgh, I'll buy you a beer.
-
FordTruck5Speed
May 30, 2007, 12:53 p.m.Dude, I'm not sure what being a republican has to do with anything other than the way one wold politicize the environment. I don't know if she's serious or just jagging around. I don't want to speak for someone else, but I think vieamie is trying to make a point in a semi-humorous sort of way. It's like when the the health Nazis come out and tell you that everything you've ever eaten in your life will make you fat, clog your arteries and cause cancer, the first thing I want to do is hit the McDonald's drive-thru and grab me a double quarter pounder. The point is that all the Chicken Little crap gets old after a while, and while I don't advocate polluting to the max, I can understand having a bit of a "screw you" attitude now and then.
The first 121 comments are shown. Show all 148 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
