MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, September 21st 2018 - 14:31 UTC

Manmade global warming is making 2013 the seventh warmest year since 1850

Thursday, November 14th 2013 - 07:42 UTC
Full article 34 comments

This year is the seventh warmest since records began in 1850 with a trend to weather extremes and the impact of storms such as Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines aggravated by rising sea levels, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Swiss Bob

    Given that the World has been warming since the Little Ice Age it is hardly surprising that the most recent years are the warmest, regardless of whether man has contributed or not.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DennisA

    Only the seventh? Why isn't it the hottest? CO2 ain't what it used to be.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 09:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    These cretins have discredited themselves by fabricating “evidence” and the use of the Gore et al, “hockey stick” which was nothing other than a device to scare the stupid.

    I wonder if the “3,000” “scientists” (including the hairdresser) are going balistic with this news that we are all going to fry by next week.

    You KNOW it makes nonsense, ha, ha, ha.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    Yep. First it warms up. Then it cools down. Something to do with the Earth spinning round, distance from the sun and the absolute zero of space. But we can see that “climate scientists” were desperate to be “recognised”. Now they are “recognised”. Total plonkers!

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yankeeboy

    Clearly the USA, UK EU needs to immediately transfer wealth to poor countries to pay for the Environmental damage we've done for the last 150yrs.

    They're now saying the world is going to go though cooling phase.

    What a bunch of idiots.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conor J

    I wonder if the eco fascists can explain why Arctic Ice has increased 60% in August 2013 from the previous year?

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2

    Don't be silly, you guys; you're not unintelligent.

    *Rate of change* is obvious for all to see.
    Weather extremes are a physical manifestation of RoC.
    Climate is the mega-system; weather extremes are what we most easily observe.
    No one weather extreme proves climatic RoC, but the amassed evidences of weather extremes points powerfully in a particular direction.
    Distributions of species are changing the world over - this is not a weather indicator, it's a climatic indicator.

    We don't have to understand everything about arguably the most complex systems that the world has got on offer.

    What we have to have is :
    an open mind to changing circumstances,
    an enquiring mind to investigate the causes, and
    sufficient understanding to emplace/redress that which we, as powerful, but mere human beings, can achieve.
    It is so easy to destroy; so difficult to redress. It's a question of entropy and its application to catastrophe theory.

    If the cream of the world's weather/climate 'scientists' - in all their many forms - are struggling to quantify, model and understand, I accept their situation and lay substantially more store in their opinions than I do in comments from my lay friends, #1-5.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 7 GeoffWard2

    Then I suggest you keep “listening” to the “3,000 scientists who have a consensus” about how much damage WE are doing to the climate. I for one will continue to look at the evidence.

    As a scientifically trained person just going through year 2 of Astro Physics from MIT by distance learning I require more than the idiots they presently put up to lie to all of us on the basis that the “consensus” may just turn out to be correct.

    Do you remember a few years ago the cry that the oceans are being forced to take in millions of tonnes of CO2 and we need to do something about it?

    Some of us looked at the data and could see no evidence to support the claim and asked why that should be. They didn’t know but were fearful of the impending poisoning of the oceans. They claimed we should dope the oceans with organic blooming organisms which would convert the CO2. Thankfully, somebody with a brain then asked how we would control the growth of these organisms and how the biosphere would cope with the additional millions of tonnes of the dead remains on the seabed and what would happen to the present ecosystem?

    Mmm. Did you read a couple of days ago the article about the iron oxide cloud some 1,500M to 3,500M deep in the ocean from Brazil to Africa emanating from the ridge vents. That alone will take a great deal of dissolved CO2 out of the equation.

    The earth has always shown immense variations on temperature over the millennia. It has now been proven scientifically, with EVIDENCE, not consensus mark you, that the world is now COOLING and there are concerns that this will have a far more damaging effect than raising the sea levels by 1 mm.

    But don’t let the scientific FACTS get in the way of “global warming”, “climate change (the new holy grail)” or whatever twaddle comes next from the “consensus” brigade. Gore’s retirement fund some people call these sheep.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • inthegutter

    Groan... come on guys, I've seen you post on other topics, and know you're better than this.

    AGW is real. There are issues regarding the details, and the best course of action, but that's it. Yes the Earth experiences variations in temperature but these occur over time periods and are inconsistent with current warming trend.

    P.S. I'm a scientist, though admittedly an astronomer.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    Always got to laugh at this one an “Ice Age” .... is a period over tens of millions of years where the Earth is cold enough to produce permanent ice sheets. Since permanent ice sheets currently exist in Greenland and Antarctica, it qualifies the current age to be an ice age.

    Within an “Ice Age” ..... there are warm periods referred to as “interglacial” and cold periods referred to as “glacial.” We are in an interglacial period right now!

    So how do people expect an “Ice Age” to finish....a melt perhaps or maybe even a warming of the Earth.....Go figure.....

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 9 inthegutter

    Yes, I am better than (wait for it) 3,000 EARTH scientists: another new term since the last one got laughed out of contention by REAL scientists.

    Have you even read the drivel in the “Not for publication – only for information” report by this bunch on Climate Change Ongoing Report?

    I am not surprised it’s not for definitive reporting because it is full of misleading percentage changes without any reference to the base value!!!!!!!!! HTF can any serious conclusion be drawn from this attempt at obfuscation?

    “The World Meteorological Organization’s annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin shows that between 1990 and 2012 there was a 32% increase in RADIATIVE FORCING – the warming effect on our climate – because of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping long-lived gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.” So what?

    It is clear that “climate change” is happening, what is still not clear is WHY. Only in the last few days we seem to have the proof that the “CO2 sequestration into the seas will be a disaster” was, as some of us thought at the time, rubbish. But we could not prove it other than by logic.

    Consider the statement in itself. Let us say we accept it at face value. Then we start looking at the DATA for CO2 in the sea and what do we find NO CHANGE! Why? NO ANSWER from the doom and gloom brigade. NOW we know, it was always being taken care of by the venting of iron into the sea itself.

    What REALLY PISSES ME OFF is how these clowns think we are as stupid as they are. What was the rise in sea level predicted by now? Low lying islands under water, etc, 10 mm rise in sea level? You do know what the WMO are saying now about that I hope? “We cannot state how much the sea level has risen around the world but it seems to be in the 1.4 mm range”. So they are guessing. Same thing with the rise in temperatures: 0.6 deg C in 30 years when they claimed it would be ten times that.

    Can't trust a word these people say.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 12:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • AzaUK

    this vid is interesting, makes the whole argument is human caused climatic change real of not

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 12 AzaUK

    I watched the video and came to the only conclusion possible: why did he bother?

    The lower right hand cell had more hysteria than any of the “We've caused it doom and gloom brigade” could ever imagine.

    Such a pity because he was doing OK until then.

    There is no doubt that we should minimize fuel use for more sensible reasons than climate change, which is undoubtedly happening as it always has in the past but there was no-one around or they lacked the technology to measure it: just like we do at the moment.

    Ah! Here we come to it: read the WMO data for yourself and ask a question: why in this day and age is it possible to screw the data up so badly? The answer is the task is too big for us with our present limited computing power and sensing devices. Check it for yourself if you disagree.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • AzaUK

    how closed minded of you, what would you propose would happen if the “doomsayers” were correct and little or no action was taken? worse case? that's not your worst case.

    He was granting for the most extreme cases

    is there not the potential for the worst cases to happen?

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 12:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 14 AzaUK

    “He” was out of control when trying to make his “point” in the lower right cell.

    Do you think for a nanosecond that there will ever be a 20 foot rise in sea levels? Even the initial pack of rabid “Global WARMING”, remember that; it's now climate change because they have been proven wrong it's cooling if anything; had to withdraw that statement when the physics of the thing were pointed out.

    It seems to me “closed minded” is when you will not consider other points of view, you are wrong in respect of me, I am waiting for the EVIDENCE to back up the nonsensical claims that have and continue to be made.

    Frankly, whatever “sacrifices” the west make, however much it costs in green levies, we are all pissing in the wind. Are you going to tell China and India that although the west has burnt more fossil fuels than they have that they CANNOT industrialise to the point that the west has? They cannot provide motor vehicle for their masses? They cannot fly all over the planet like we have?

    I suspect that you have very little, if any, scientific training and cannot therefore make your own judgement in the matter: I can and do. I think you need to look into the mirror to see someone with a closed mind.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 10:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • AzaUK

    He was emphasizing the point, on one side it wont happen and on the other side the worse possible scenario. i comparison between best and worse cases. im not saying things will or wont happen, its pretty irreverent. do nothing and risk this

    do something and risk this £££££

    its undeniable the planet is warming, Co2 emissions completely out of proportions, though have slowed but are still rising
    “The researchers conclude that human emissions of CO2 are clearly to blame.”

    you what for the evidence should you wish and maybe your right to do nothing then again maybe your be to late to do anything. though probably not any evidence can be manipulated to show what ever you feel is correct.

    Harold Wanless has projected rises between the 6ft-20ft based upon previous historic rises

    he is on about changing mind sets. changing and improving technology

    this is strong evidence to show this is true for thoughs who are open minded enough to see it.

    i understand how difficult it is to predict how things will play out

    i feel fairly sure we effect our enviroment

    another vid

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2

    Tragedy of the commons
    What chance three or four rich countries shelling out mega-millions to make life better in the other 296 countries?
    This sort of thing only happens effectively under a 'Command Economy' ... and rarely even then!
    Democracy is directed at benefiting the home country, not all those 'competitors'. Their voters are like needy shareholders in a private corporation; you don't impress the bottom line with Overseas Aid.

    I see no successful way forward.

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 16 AzaUK

    It is clear from what you post that you are very concerned about the world “warming” but now referred to as “CLIMATE CHANGE”, but the people you quote have a self-fulfilling prophesy to safeguard.

    I have no idea how old you are and you have not specified your knowledge of science so I think you are fairly young and have no knowledge of physics or chemistry. I am 67 YO and a retired professional engineer who has held very senior jobs in international companies, some of them managing laboratories with a number of scientists carrying out research in a number of fields.

    The people you seem to think know all the answers DO NOT, they only know all the questions: NO-ONE knows the answers to whether man IS influencing the climate and because the level of CO2 has increased during the industrial revolution (remember 1850?) these people have latched onto it as the holy grail of their cause.

    In many cases they quote “the records” as evidence without giving any link to the data: they used to provide links until it was shown in very many cases that:
    1) they were using the data incorrectly;
    2) they were fabricating data, to suit their “conclusions” the “hockey stick” for one;
    3) they were exaggerating the data that was there by choosing the incorrect comparisons, usually with time periods being different when the data eventually emerged;
    4) a serious misconception with US seawater readings took place over many decades and the source of the data was never calibrated. When it was calibrated the results were all over the place and in scientific terms were useless;
    5) MANY of the “scientists” early on who were cited as “agreeing the we were clearly to blame for global WARMING had no scientific training at all. The Global Warming people thought that by exaggeration and bullying “the deniers” they could have their way. They were in most part correct because it was the politicians who had to decide on the actions we “needed” to take AND WHO WOULD PAY FOR IT. Part 2-

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • AzaUK

    1) in your opinion. they were using the data incorrectly;
    2) in your opinion they were fabricating data, to suit their “conclusions” the “hockey stick” for one;
    3) in your opinion they were exaggerating the data that was there by choosing the incorrect comparisons, usually with time periods being different when the data eventually emerged;
    4) in your opinion, a serious misconception with US seawater readings took place over many decades and the source of the data was never calibrated. When it was calibrated the results were all over the place and in scientific terms were useless;
    5) in your opinion, MANY of the “scientists” early on who were cited as “agreeing the we were clearly to blame for global WARMING had no scientific training at all. The Global Warming people thought that by exaggeration and bullying “the deniers” they could have their way. They were in most part correct because it was the politicians who had to decide on the actions we “needed” to take AND WHO WOULD PAY FOR IT.

    well seeing as the links you have given are in my opinion vague its fairly understandable that the older generation try not to blame themselves for what is for many people a human caused problem.

    and for the money side of the argument i feel the people to action this and take the lead in it are the Central governments of major developed country's however i feel it should extend to all community's we all need to do our bit.

    is man influencing our environment? i learnt from a very early age we are by simply playing in the sand we very much certainly are.

    could we be effecting climate change? according to the UN they are 99% sure humans are effecting our climate

    newer vid feel free to check there sources which are in his links

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Millet

    Global warming, I hope so, I would like to plant a palm tree in my yard.

    MAN made global warming = It is just plain BS BS BS BS BS BS BS BS

    Read C-Fact if you really want the true news.about “Man made global warming”. - Millet USA

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 03:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • AzaUK

    Observed Changes in the Climate System

    Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
    changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
    warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
    concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased

    Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any
    preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012
    was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence)

    Sea Level:
    The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate
    during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901 to 2010, global
    mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m

    Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
    The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have
    increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide
    concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel
    emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed
    about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification

    and for all the guys who still believe manmade climate change is one big conspiracy

    Understanding the Climate System and its Recent Changes:
    Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse
    gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and
    understanding of the climate system
    Intergovernmental panel on climate change

    and im sorry ChrisR, ill take the words of United Nations scientists over some retired Engineer

    maybe your get your palm trees suggest you read the works of true scientists formed to advice the UN as posted here

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 09:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Millet

    AsaUK you can accept the UN scientists, and you can still believe in Santa Clause. - Millet USA

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 21 azaUK

    You have failed to answer wether you have ANY understanding of the data that the WMO and its running mate the IPCC are presenting to you.

    Do you understand EXACTLY what a median confidence is? BTW I used to lecture in Statistics to undergraduates and postgraduate (they’re the ones with at least one degree): it was like pulling teeth.

    Do you even understand what a professional engineer is, or what astrophysics is?

    You have clearly failed to understand my point about iron oxide blooms in the south Atlantic if all you can do is parrot the CO2 sink into the sea. Clue: it’s been overtaken by the new discoveries!

    No, I think you are EXACTLY the sort of person that the WMO and the IPCC are aiming this nonsense at and they are obviously succeeding.

    Not to worry, just keep you mind closed to actual facts and keep believing in something so spurious as “median confidence”, you deserve each other.

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • AzaUK

    interestingly you personal preferences are irreverent here, to be honest you could be anyone on here, therefore your word is could well be mud, unfortunately i do not accept the bullying nature of your believes. the world climate maybe in some human made mess can we afford to stand and wait?

    if as you say you are and engineer perhaps you have ideas to this potential problem?

    why do you feel they are wrong? the IPCC?

    other then mentioning your iron blooms a point which i was aware of and maintain an interest in you have not linked any of your evidence in

    I feel you seem to have a problem accepting widely viewed.

    record highs have out striped record lows for years now and overall these trends will continue, climate change in action and no “bully” will anyone with some intelligence will fall for what you are suggesting

    its easy to bury our head in the sand

    Nov 20th, 2013 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Millet

    AzaUK ,you asked the question, can we afford to wait. The answer is---- Of Course why not.. If you are tired of all the government's hype you need to read CFACT ( for the truth. AzaUK you surely must remember it was the scientist from your country that cheated on their “ science truths” a while back and got found out by the world. - Millet USA

    Nov 20th, 2013 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 24 AzaUK

    Part 2

    Politicians of course in general have no scientific or technical training and if you want evidence of that look at the present set.

    Why do engineers and scientists never bother with politics? The answer is really, really, simple: we hold TRUTH as the foremost goal and in consequence would make terrible politicians.

    If I for a nanosecond thought that the present bunch of WMO “earth scientists” had any chance of understanding the vast complexity of the planet we live on and KNEW the answers to the questions then I would readily change my position. UNTIL that happens I remain a sceptic.

    ”other then (sic) mentioning your iron blooms a point which i (sic) was aware of and maintain an interest in you have not linked any of your evidence in”

    OF COURSE NOT! Do you not understand that this phenomenon has ONLY JUST BEEN DISCOVERED! As the cloud lies between 1,500 and 3,000 M under the surface it is going to take quite a time to develop the techniques to sample, inspect and verify whether the likely chemistry in CO2 capture does in fact take place and the ACTUAL CO2 load capture. Facts, not fancies, you notice.

    This will be the last time I reply to you. I have certainly NOT bullied you, you manage that for yourself “believing” in “facts” which are not proven and have ample evidence in most cases to strike them out IF you have any formal science training that is. I note you have been very quiet on that but very quick to attempt to rubbish me. Goodbye.

    Nov 21st, 2013 - 10:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2

    I remember studying the 'black smokers' in the mid Atlantic ridge during the late '60s.
    The UK National Oceanographic Institute was well aware of its high iron content - which contributed to the 'black' through association with sulphur and hydrogen.
    This Liverpool Uni W-E transect has picked up higher concentrations than previously suspected. That's all.
    Don't hold much store in its CO2-capture argument.

    Nov 21st, 2013 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 27 GeoffWard2

    “The mid-Atlantic iron plume may provide a great nutrient attraction for phytoplankton, which form the base of many marine food webs by providing food for fish and whales. The plankton also suck (sic) in large amounts of carbon dioxide. Low levels of the micronutrient iron limit primary production and nitrogen fixation in large areas of the global ocean.”

    The “earth scientists” wanted to vastly increase the plankton levels (by dumping things they could digest into the sea) but now it seems likely that Mother Earth is doing it anyway.

    I wonder what else is happening to help fix CO2 that we are not aware of?

    Nov 21st, 2013 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2

    Hi Chris,
    I think we know pretty much all the fixers on land and in the sea.

    What we need is much more fixing - equivalent to all the *geological* carbon released to the atmos since the industrial revolution.

    And then geological time-frame C-storage.

    Humans have learned how to get the genie out of the bottle, but not how to get it back in.
    We may be a remarkably short-lived species.

    Nov 21st, 2013 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Millet

    Geoff Ward 2 ---Oh please. - Millet USA

    Nov 21st, 2013 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 29 GeoffWard2

    I admit I have not checked this since I first read it some years ago but the rise in CO2 is being blamed for “global warming” although it seems we are now cooling, BUT levels of CO2 have been an order of magnitude higher in the “middle” past without any evidence of over high temperatures to go with it.

    So how does that work? Do we have a “flag” on industrial CO2 that somehow supercharges the effect it has?

    Perhaps the global cooling will carry on for quite a time, and then we can have the CO2 blamed for the ice age to come!

    I have to say I am really ambivalent about this CO2 nonsense when whales are dying with 2 tonnes of plastic inside their gut as happened in the south of Argentina very recently. Is there not a part of the Atlantic that has many miles of plastic waste just floating around in the water and has been there for so many years? Surely the “Earth scientists” of the WMO could sort this one out with little trouble?

    There is only one real way that the planet could be killed “easily and quickly” and we are still not out of that threat and that is nuclear poisoning.

    Nov 22nd, 2013 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2

    Quick - in astro-geological time scale - might be just 1 million years; just a blink of an astronomic eye; outside our human perception-scale but classifying as a spasmic great extinction.

    Probably 'life' has evolved on many planets and become extinct in the time it takes for the light to reach us.
    Whether 'life' has contributed to its own extinction is obviously an open question, but is only likely to be testable and observed here on earth - like the great anaerobic extinctions that happened with the creation of an oxygen-rich atmosphere.
    Today, the great watchmaker in the sky is probably looking at our little experiment called sentience and wondering about its (self-destructive) nature.

    Mr Millet, you may be able to keep humanity alive by technology - like Las Vegas in the desert - but when nature pulls the plug on all the externals that support our Las Vegases, a planet with progressively less atmosphere will, eventually, just look like another Mars .. with pockets of humanity .. then no humanity.

    Our inheritors? some say cockroaches; I say 'we' may survive in microbial life-forms for a while; then we join the countless billions of dead, dry planets. The ghosts of our greater artifacts may survive into the next geological era, but probably not.

    No, we are so insignificant as an agent of change, that it takes something like messing around with the very geology of the earth for something to happen. Then we walk with the entropy of our messing, hoping to change things back but with no capacity to reverse what we have pushed over the brink. Climatic catastrophe will follow the track of classic Catastrophe Theory and there is possibly nothing we can do to arrest its terrible inevitability.
    The anthropogenic 'industrial era' is just a 'blink in a gnat's eye', and the time-scale of this terrible inevitability might be something less than another 50 generations.
    Let's hope there is some mileage in Gaia.

    Nov 22nd, 2013 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 32 GeoffWard2
    (I apologise in advance for the low level nature of my English, but I am sure you will know the reason)

    Apart from the final sentence, I like your second paragraph immensely, the same is true of the penultimate paragraph especially the first ten words.

    We must never forget that the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are inextricably linked, especially for the second, entropy law, which will always seek the lowest temperature possible in any system. So we KNOW that eventually the world will cool to whatever the temperature is of the local background.

    In the meantime of course the first rule would seem to give us an edge: but not really of course. The fact that matter (energy) can neither be created nor destroyed seems illogical to many people who have never heard of thermodynamics. Does not the fire burn and produce heat which heats the room (and the chimney and the air) and then what? You see the dilemma facing such people. I suspect that the warming alarmists rather fell afoul of that little difficulty.

    The REAL problem is of course that we think we are the centre of the universe and to contemplate our demise is something well beyond the ability of many to grasp until you explain that eventually our Sun will become a red giant and although the Sun is 92,900,000 miles (or 149,600,000 Km) [or one astronomical unit] APPROXIMATELY (because of our orbit) it will expand in its existing position until the surface of the Sun engulfs the Earth. So the Sun at that point will be 186 million miles in diameter.

    It will of course be some 7.6 billion years into the future and hopefully, if whatever we become in the intervening time is still a recognisable life form, they need to get the hell out of its WAY before then, never forgetting that we are all made of cosmic matter, and we will go back to that matter, because the First Law will never be broken as neither will the Second.

    So WHY do you think we have “caused” the change, if change there is?

    Nov 22nd, 2013 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2

    To reiterate ..
    'No, we are so insignificant as an agent of change, that it takes something like messing around with the very geology of the earth for something to happen. Then we walk with the entropy of our messing, hoping to change things back but with no capacity to reverse what we have pushed over the brink.'

    Oh, change there is all right - we've messed around with the geology. 'Contributed to' is good; 'caused' is unnecessary.
    'Additive' is important,
    and 'cusp' is a word that helps the discussion. Catastrophe Theory' is testable in this context
    and - as you say - entropy is the key.

    At least we've got away from simplistic 'global warming/cooling', but it certainly caught our attention in the 70s, even though we were then even more unable to model and predict than we are now.
    I feel sure that great *climatic instability* will be the testing ground for more robust climatic models (these are real math models, not the sort of models that Cristina talks about).

    I was serious about Gaia;
    we should hope that the negative feedback controls inherent in the complex interactions of abiotic and biotic systems are able to tip the balance against a set of positive feedbacks in the global system (accelerations to irreversability).
    I have my doubts, but time will tell.

    We - you and me - are unlikely to be around to see it at its worst;
    and the human species definitely won't be around to see it to its finality!

    Nov 23rd, 2013 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!