Metaphysical Environmental Question . . .


I was wondering what PQ rating you'd say our own planet as it is today would be? Also say 1000 years ago and 1 million years ago . . . What of the future? Do you think our planet's health might one day be as good as the preverbial Eden . . . or better still? Humor me I'm interested to know what you people think :) . . .
1,932 views 78 replies
Reply #1 Top
tHE mASOVERSE gOD sPEAK'S :)

i aM nOT wORTHY,i aM nOT wORTHY,i aM nOT wORTHY,i aM nOT wORTHY,i aM nOT wORTHY,i aM nOT wORTHY,i aM nOT wORTHY,i aM nOT wORTHY,i aM nOT wORTHY,i aM nOT wORTHY,
[Message Edited]
Reply #2 Top
We have probably knocked it from 15 down to a 14 and are headed for thirteen if we don't start cleaning up a bit. As crowded as it is getting I am sure our morale is slipping too.

Maybe it is time to load up colony ships and hunt down a PQ 20 or better ;) I'll toss one in the queue later :)


[Message Edited]
Reply #3 Top
Cotal Ginata, I am impressed you even consider our environment. People in the US who discuss the environment are often ridiculed before they are outvoted. When can you move to the US, become a citizen, and register to vote? We can use your help. :)
Reply #4 Top
Seriously? I'd say before the rise of the apes it might have rated an 20 - rich biosphere, lots of natural resources, self sustaining food chains, etc. You would have to be disappointed with the last 5000 years or so...significant proportion of natural resources chewed up, numerous species extinct, toxic waste rendering some areas uninhabitable - I think it might have dropped to 16-17 PQ. What we need is some of those good old Civ3 clean techs!

I think it would take a profound change in thinking, especially when it comes to considering power sources, to get our PQ moving back up the scale. That, or we migrate off planet (and go stuff up somewhere else ;) ).
Reply #5 Top
Perhaps I'm the only one around here that feels our little rock is holding steady at PQ18 or 19. Sure, we've got our pollution but on the whole, the planet is astounding. It amazes me to think that one planet can maintain so many different ecosystems. Humans may be screwing things up in a few places, but all-in-all Earth is a virtual paradise. Nature has a funny way of fixing most of mankind's messes.
Reply #6 Top
I'd agree wholeheartedly with Terl on this one. We're really stuffing up this planet, we need to get some proper renewable energy going on. Power worldwide should be from renewable and sustainable resources, then we have a good base to work from. Then we can deal with the rainforests, and poverty, and 3rd world debt etc etc etc

I reckon the planet is at about 13...but we're slipping here guys. we GOTTA stop with the pollution!
Reply #7 Top
Nature has a funny way of fixing most of mankind's messes.
End of quote


I think we have finally beaten it into submission.
The forcast for Australia, and I think for all the World, is that with the rising temperatures we can expect more natural disasters. Such as bush fires, more cyclones, and more severe ones.
Violent swings, dry periods and floods.
This has certainly been true recently.
Reply #8 Top
I think Earth is a one-in-a-million planet. Way beyond PQ 26, in spite of the environmental damage we've caused. I think it's quite likely that the vast majority of the worlds out there have no life larger than bacteria.

People in the US who discuss the environment are often ridiculed before they are outvoted
End of quote


US environmentalism is really strong in some sections of the country, and really weak in others. Though admittedly the "others" control the federal government, for now.
Reply #9 Top
It's not sub-15 yet, but I wouldn't say it's far off. I'll go for 16.

Personally, I think one of the best things we could do is encourage a longer-term view - as long as the people making decisions can get away with thinking only for the next financial year or the next election, I don't think a lot's going to change.
Reply #10 Top
I think Earth is a one-in-a-million planet. Way beyond PQ 26, in spite of the environmental damage we've caused. I think it's quite likely that the vast majority of the worlds out there have no life larger than bacteria.
End of quote


Yeah, I agree with that one. In a game of GalCiv, you're amazed to see a class 30 planet, and a class 15 is just pretty good. In the real world, anything above a 5 or 10 would be very rare.

I still don't think that makes us a 30-something, but. :)
Reply #11 Top
US environmentalism is really strong in some sections of the country, and really weak in others. Though admittedly the "others" control the federal government, for now.
End of quote


Poppycock.

There are genuine disagreements regarding the science involved in making useful judgements about environmental issues. Two examples:


1) Wildfires in western US states. Nature used to manage the forests. Now we do. Evidence suggests we're doing a very poor job of it. This has a number of elements, with good points being made on all sides. The old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest are more fire-resistant, but most of the land west of the Rockies is dry and subject to catching fire. Some environmentalists are so extreme in trying to protect trees, they try to stop all logging, all thinning, even brush clearing. Combine that with our ability now to put fires out, now our forests are choked with fuels, the fires are becoming increasingly costly to fight, and increasing more likely to get started.

Look at the news this week, a dozen or so people killed in massive mud slides in California, where the fires took away the plants that were holding all that earth in place. When a heavy rain came, blam, avalanche of mud. Now... there's a causal chain to these events. If poor forest management leads to fires beyond what would be found in the absense of our firefighting efforts over the last century, then a bunch of people made choices that led directly to the deaths of the people this week.

Environmental science is far short of a simple no-brainer.


2) Mississippi River flood plain. All along the river, we've built towns, farms, cities. If there is land, we use it. Problem is, building on the flood plains along the river, we're GOING TO see devastating floods from time to time. So what do we do? We build dikes and flood walls, trying to prevent the floods. It becomes a lottery: when the heavy rains come and the river would flood, the dikes are GOING TO break somewhere. Laws of physics. So when one does break, that region gets completely inundated, instead of the flood spreading naturally across the entire flood plain, as nature used to do. So instead of a little flooding across a wide area, we get massive flooding and total destruction in whatever areas happen to have the weakest flood walls and dikes, or the worst luck.

Southern Californians in particular love to talk environment, but they have gathered by the millions in a desert hole. Water has to be shipped in through massive aqueducts. Electricity has to be bought from other states. All of that takes work, consumes energy. If they were so environmentally precocious, they'd pick up and move to Idaho or Iowa or Indiana and practice what they preach. Their economy is in crisis right now. But oh, they have all the answers, if only the stupid people in Flyover Country would stop voting for conservative candidates.

Riiiight. :)

People in the US who discuss the environment are often ridiculed before they are outvoted.
End of quote


A lot of environmentalist views ARE ridiculed. Some of those deserve ridicule. Mostly, though, the debate is still ongoing. The science isn't in yet with infallible answers, in either direction. We are still figuring out what is going on and why, and what we should do to best manage our resources.

The idea that most Americans are greedy, stupid, selfish louts who care nothing about our environment is fat load of left-wing propaganda.

Here is an example of the problem:

Personally, I think one of the best things we could do is encourage a longer-term view - as long as the people making decisions can get away with thinking only for the next financial year or the next election, I don't think a lot's going to change.
End of quote


A lot of environmentalists want simple solutions. They want to ignore financial concerns, economic concerns, who gets saddled with costs and burdens and regulations. Long term thinking must involve ACCURATE information, and coming up with that is problematic. See again, the forest fire issue. Environmentalists have a basket full of legitimate concerns, but they don't have a basket full of answers and solutions. Some of their ideas are actually making things WORSE.

The whole point of living is to survive, and while doing so, learn as much as possible, enjoy the experience as much as possible. Expecting people to subordinate their comforts and personal interests to the idealistic interests of an environment for its own sake is not a mature view. That is not going to work. Some may make the sacrifice, but it's all for naught if others then take a double share of consumption. Then what have some sacrificed for? For naught. Others will simply take what they have given.

Lasting solutions must come at the societal level, enacted into law. Laws are such a tricky thing, though. GalCiv players should understand that! Just look at the rules for a simple game. How many ways are there to defeat the spirit of the rules, but still obey the letter? How many ways are there to cheat the system? Writing good law is hard work, a tough feat. It takes a lot of vision, a lot of thought, and enough backing from the people to agree on which is the right solution to try first, then how to patch that up when it inevitably shows cracks and flaws.

We will have to work together, but the left-wing in the USA isn't interested in working together. It's stuck looking down its nose at the rest of the country, who've grown fed up with that nonsense and marginalized the elitists and self-important gasbags and wind tunnels.

US environmentalism is really strong in some sections of the country, and really weak in others. Though admittedly the "others" control the federal government, for now.
End of quote


Concern for the environment is weak nowhere in the USA. Our people just don't happen to agree on what is best to be doing, or how to balance the priorities. Yet SOME folks comfort themselves with the illusion that those who disagree with their politics must be doing so because they are too stupid to understand the issues. THAT view has permeated the left-wing of American politics, and that is what is responsible for the moderates migrating from one party to the other, changing the balance of political power. The Democrats were the majority party for decades, but now they are in the minority in both houses of congress, with governorships, and they're out of power in the executive branch. The new majority is a clear majority, but it is not a wide majority. The politics are evenly divided.

Lines like this are helping to cement the new majority, though:

People in the US who discuss the environment are often ridiculed before they are outvoted. When can you move to the US, become a citizen, and register to vote? We can use your help.
End of quote


See? One side of the political aisle is not interest in compromise, working out lasting solutions. They think they have ALL the answers and believe they should be granted the right to dictate them to the rest of us. Fortunately, the process does not work that way. In fact, it works rather well, overall -- better than any other put forth to date.


I was wondering what PQ rating you'd say our own planet as it is today would be? Also say 1000 years ago and 1 million years ago . . . What of the future? Do you think our planet's health might one day be as good as the preverbial Eden . . .
End of quote


I believe the PQ scale is far too simplistic to offer meaningful analogy. Just like the Metaverse scoring is too simplistic to measure game results accurately. To answer complex questions, one must embrace the intricacy of the issues. Rarely do simple solutions provide effective results.

How do we even begin to measure the "health" of the planet? Our data sample size is so absurdly small, compared to the life of the planet, we have a hard time figuring out what is normal. Temperature fluctations, magnetic fluctuations, the effect of the moon slowly drifting away from the Earth, and so much more. We don't even yet know how LITTLE we actually know. There is a lot work left to do before we can answer any part of your question definitively.


- Sirian
Reply #12 Top
Sirian, perhaps you misinterpret me--honestly I thought my statement was utterly uncontroversial. Like it or not (clearly you don't) in the US the term "environmentalism" is identified with a certain set of political causes (Endangered Species Act, Kyoto Protocol, Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, gas tax, and so on). Support for those causes varies widely depending on where you are in the country. This is what my statement is saying. What part of that is "poppycock"?

Perhaps you wish the term "environmentalism" was not associated with one side of those debates, but that's the way the word is used by both the left and the right.
Reply #13 Top
One thing your all missing:

MONEY

The suits dont like to lose money, caring for the enviroment brings no financial returns, as far as 90% of them are concerned if the world becomes a smog bucket it wont happen in thier lifetime so why bother to lose money? Its a sad fact that they all are all so caring for publicity wbut when it comes down to the hard changes it would upset too many suits, and those are the ones that keep the goverments in power, so its a no win situation. Peeps like us can care and care and care but it makes not one bit of difference unfortunately, sorry to sound negative but im just being honest :notsure:
Reply #14 Top
At this point I can't resist adding that you misunderstand the view from the left (on environmentalism, anyway). Liberals don't think conservatives are too stupid to judge scientific evidence properly. They think that conservatives value economic interests, and especially corporate ones, more highly relative to environmental ones than is appropriate. The most extreme rabid left wing environmentalist rhetoric is directed against the evils of Big Oil, auto companies, etc--surely you must have heard some polemic on the subject. Why do you think the far left spends so much time decrying the influence of money in politics?
[Message Edited]
Reply #15 Top
Pick up a copy of the book "The sheep look up" by John Brunner. It was originaly published in 1972, written in 1969. His vision of the near future was quite dead-on on many subjects, mostly about the environment. It's a good read if you are environmentally conscious.

~SDC~
Reply #16 Top
Great! All your input is much appreciated . . .

Sirian I don't think it's just a case of greed either but rather more like you eluded to in your response it's our limited knowlede base and resultant mismanagement of our Earth that has brought us to this dielema.

It "IS" outright stupidity to act against the planet for short term gains, don't say it isn't! I agree that as individuals, humans are capable of near divine thought and inspirational acts . . . but as a whole they act with little more intellegence (thus far) than a bacteria culture in a petrie dish (mabye even less than that sometimes). Thats no put down it's just an alien observation . . . humans - generally can't plan long-term because thier social sciences lag far behind the consequences of the technologies they've created.

Rapid blind progress without a eccumenical/spiritual base (call it whatever you want it's just the term I prefer to use) is unpredictable and I believe ultimately disasterous.

Why's that you might ask? It's because the core ethical issues are very 'hard'. As a race we're only in our infancy . . . no finger pointing needed . . . stem cell research, the rights of an unborn feutus, mercy killing, genetically modified foods, religion, capital punishment, nationalism, self determination, breast enlargements . . . Shez . . . etc etc ad infinitum . . . who has a clue or can all agree on these?

The cummulative effects and flow on from the Industrial Revolution of the early 1900s to our current level of technology is an extremely small window of time in the scheme of things. If we sit around on our hands debating the obvious while the clocks ticking we deserve no better than the dinasaurs.

The 'Kyoto Protocol' was a hopeful step in the right direction. All it asked was that all nations reduce greenhouse gas emitions by 5%. The USA and Australia didn't come along for the ride because they have industrial projects (which they're banking on) scheduled over the next 30 years that will increase emissions by an estimated 12-16%. So everyone has to pay the price of thier coninued prosperity (and that of the other 30 odd nations that gave signing the protocol a miss).

Here's some interesting points of which to the best of my knowledge are facts or if you'd prefer to call them 'best guesses' you can decide . . .

The main things which are buggering up our beautiful little planet seem to be . . .

1. Chemicals - This is the big one since alot of the damage caused is (with our current technology and understandings) 'irrevesable'. Dioxins (from incinerating chloride chemical products), TBTs (tributultins, commonly used in pesticides, production catalyists and ship paints)), chlorinated paraffins (that thing we call plastic) and organic pesticides all kinda find there way into the food chain causing a whole bunch of woeful stocastic effects (Genetic Mutation (i.e. Hemaphraditism in complicated organisms (Transexual Eagles and Polar Bears?), low birth weights, premature births, cancers and reduced immunity/hypo immunity syndromes)). The Lake Michigan population study is simply frightening (attributed to 1960's DDT use).

The really bad news here is that the effects which we are just starting to observe and formally recognize are expected to peak in about 700 years even if all use of these substances was halted immediately. :notsure:

2. Nuclear Wastes, Urainium Mining . . . Western Euros are quite touchy about what they do with thier Nuclear Waste. We'll probably never know for sure how much has simply been dumped in the Altantic, but our prodigy sure as hell will have to deal with it somehow.

Here in Australia we mine Uranium and do a great job of covering up all the spills of the processing run off into outback community water systems . . . Our little gold mine overseas with its synide spilt is world famous! The price of progress . . . sry I'm not usually synical, but the devistation was staggering.

3. Ozone destruction . . . You know I found out something today I never realized. The Ozone which protects us from UV radiation is actually created (in part, lightning creates some too) in our stratisphere by that same radiation . . . kewl hey?

Theres nothing hidden or difficult to comprehend here though . . . our CFC emmisions which don't break down in rain eventually find there way high in to the altitude. The UV acts on these gases and the chloride (which shouldn't be there in such concentrations) is released . . . yuck, beltch!

4. Very little we do is sustainable. Economically we're great at 'value adding' but creating our own little perpetual motion models (which nature has given us ample illustrations of) we can't seem to mimic.

Here is a personal fact to bring the point home. My husband designed a graphite ceramic razor about 18 years ago at Tech College. When going to patent it he found that it had been registrared about 4 months earlier by a Japanesse company, Foi! You see the advantage of the Ceramic Razor is that it doesn't go blunt and better still will cut wiskers but not hair because of its latice edge structure. Anyway a certain company (who will remain nameless brought this technology from the Japanesse Designers for a rather large sum of money.

Have you seen the basic razor technology change over the last few years? No nither have we . . . oh wait a sec they do come in convinient disposable packs of 10 now . . . Shez . . . thats just evil.

5. Salination of soil by agriculture. Need I explain, mismanagement and ignorance pure and simple. Change the composition of the landscape, parch the water table . . . presto Instant Desert! (well give it a generation or two). Oh lets just use these fertilizers . . . great idea, um what happens to the run off? Who cares . . . silly billy, heya look at the size of these Tomatoes! :SURPRISED:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Despite all of that the Most important point I think to remember is that humans are very kewl or at least have the potential to be an awesome spiecies. As the childhood custodians of Earth I predict some awful fluff ups but a full recovery . . . if not the cockroaches are waiting in the wings (and everywhere else under foot) for thier time in the Sun. Mind you they have a bit of catching up to do evolutionaryly speaking . . . but they're full of enthusiasm!

To answer my own question . . . um lets see.

Earth BC was about a 26 PQ. Right now I think there's alot of regional variation. Large parts of China, Indian, the Amazon, Brazil and other less scenic locals have been stiped clean or been polluted beyond recognition and are literaly toxic . . . PQ as low as 10.

Considering the facts as I understand them over the next 1000 years the PQ will drop at least 4 to 8 without exception everywhere. Contering or adding to this trend will be dependent on our actions and advances from here on in . . .


Reply #17 Top
See? One side of the political aisle is not interest in compromise, working out lasting solutions. They think they have ALL the answers and believe they should be granted the right to dictate them to the rest of us.
End of quote


It is a little too cute to paint all the environmentalists as the "loony left" while the right wing stands as the "voice of reason". vincible and darkspire make valid points about the influence that money has on the political process - I understand that the US president and VP have extensive history with the oil industry and receive pretty substantial bankrolling of their campaigns from these sources (and I believe the VP is in some kind of hot water at present over conflict of interests in this regard, as well as Iraq rebuilding contracts). Yes, opinions at the 'far ends' of the spectrum can be bizarre; left wing - back to the forest, right wing - profit over all and damn the consequences. The truth is most of us are in the reasonable middle and want to have a discussion about protecting the planet in a way that still gives us our consumer items and hot showers in the morning without irreversible destruction of natural resources. That doesnt mean left of centre = stupid.

Oh, and have we talked about GM foods yet? ;p
Reply #18 Top
Hmmm, interesting how this became a debate over the liberal and conservative views. Frankly, it's ridiculous to assume that the "right wing" doesn't give a crap about the environment and the "left wing" hugs a tree every morning before their daily peace protest. We all care about the environment. What we sacrifice in the name of the environment is the real discussion. Some prefer to sacrifice more than others. Sometimes at the expense of something else. There has been some serious debate about oil exploration in Alaska. Now, some think we shouldn't touch that land. Others would like to get out from under the stranglehold the Middle East has on the world. I personally think there are compromises that can be made between oil drilling and protecting the environment. If drilling for oil can be done cleanly without too much impact on the environment, I'm all for gettin' that black gold!

Anyway, this is an extremely complex issue to be discussing in a gaming forum. Suffice to say we all have our own opinions on the environment and we'll never agree on a solution 100%. But there are answers out there.
Reply #19 Top
Anyway, this is an extremely complex issue to be discussing in a gaming forum
End of quote


Dont you know a story when you see one, you newspaper hack, you!

LOL ;p LOL

As for black gold...well it's that sunlight power you SHOULD be interested in - renewable, falls all over the planet (not just in the Middle East) oh boy, I'm gonna cop it now....
[Message Edited]
Reply #20 Top
Anyway, this is an extremely complex issue to be discussing in a gaming forum.
End of quote


Perhaps I'm in the minority in thinking that the forum needs more off-topic discussion, or perhaps an off-topic forum, if this community is going to last in the long term. Galciv won't hold our interests forever, after all. Though I guess one could argue that we should keep this place Galciv-related for Stardock's sake, since they're hosting the forum. Hmm...
Reply #21 Top
Well, if you're in a minority, at least let it be a vocal one! (As for off topic, you should see the Special Forces Party Bunker topic list ;) ). Seriously, vincible, I think these things moderate themselves - if no one is interested in the topic, it will die a natural death. Hang on...that sounds like a right wing "market forces rule" capitalist kind of sentiment... ;p LOL LOL LOL

Really - I say talk it up; it adds flavour to the boards!
Reply #22 Top
The sierra club used to be a terrorist organization. Now the Earth-Firsters are the terrorists, and the Sierra Club marquarades as a PAC (that's a political action committee for the west coast greenies). Don't believe me? Look it up. I personally know people who were maimed in lumber mill incidents caused by tree spiking carried out by card-carrying members of the Sierra Club.

Ya wonder why ridicule is involved.

There is virtually no hard science in so called environmental issues such as global warming. The proofs are all circular. We see some short term temperature fluctuations that are "obviously" causing issues such as an increase of icebergs. How do we know there is an increase? We count them. How long have we been counting them? 20 years. But this is the worst year *ever!*

How do we know that an increase of iceburgs doesn't cause significant changes in albedo (look it up) which creates near-term perceived temperature fluctuations? Answer: we don't. In fact, diesel soot, not greenhouse gasses, is probably causing the current changes in the rate packed snow and ice are melting ( http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031223/ap_on_hi_te/soot_global_warming_3 )
So, all of you hippies who traded your good ole gas burning american car for a high mileage volkswagon diesel in the 80's are responsible for global warming!

Fact (don't take my word for it -- look it up): water vapor causes 90% more "greenhouse effect" than all other so-called greenhouse gasses combined, but the effects of water vapor are not taken into account when the pseudo-scientists are calculating their doomsday predictions. Reason: overall water-vapor is a self-balancing factor that is virtually unaffected by human industrial activity.

All the clap trap and rhetoric about long-term solutions really should be based on real science and thoughtful, considered analysis, not the fad of the week (weak) knee-jerk reaction.
Reply #23 Top
Interesting thread..

I'm not much for the politics aspect because we all have different views on this and nothing will ever change that.
I do know that this planet has sustained some damage that we humans cannot ever really comprehend. There were massive astroid/comet/meteorite(sp?) strikes that laid waste to entire regions (and allegedly) the entire planet. Tack on an ice age or two and yet life still persists to this day.
I think mother Earth is going to be okay, many ecosystems and species have come and gone long before we humans started to walk the land.
However this is just my opinion.
Kelly
Reply #24 Top

There is virtually no hard science in so called environmental issues such as global warming. The proofs are all circular. We see some short term temperature fluctuations that are "obviously" causing issues such as an increase of icebergs. How do we know there is an increase? We count them. How long have we been counting them? 20 years. But this is the worst year *ever!*

How do we know that an increase of iceburgs doesn't cause significant changes in albedo (look it up) which creates near-term perceived temperature fluctuations? Answer: we don't. In fact, diesel soot, not greenhouse gasses, is probably causing the current changes in the rate packed snow and ice are melting ( Link )
So, all of you hippies who traded your good ole gas burning american car for a high mileage volkswagon diesel in the 80's are responsible for global warming!

Fact (don't take my word for it -- look it up): water vapor causes 90% more "greenhouse effect" than all other so-called greenhouse gasses combined, but the effects of water vapor are not taken into account when the pseudo-scientists are calculating their doomsday predictions. Reason: overall water-vapor is a self-balancing factor that is virtually unaffected by human industrial activity.

All the clap trap and rhetoric about long-term solutions really should be based on real science and thoughtful, considered analysis, not the fad of the week (weak) knee-jerk reaction.
End of quote


Carbon Dioxide Increasing in Atmosphere

The atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, have increased since pre-industrial times from 280 part per million (ppm) to 360 ppm, a 30% increase. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are the highest in 160,000 years. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of the burning of fossil fuels, such as gasoline in an automobile or coal in a power plant generating electricity.

Methane Also Increasing

Levels of atmospheric methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, have risen 145% in the last 100 years. Methane is derived from sources such as rice paddies, bovine flatulence :) , bacteria in bogs and fossil fuel production.

More Frequent Extreme Weather

The year 1999 was the fifth-warmest year on record since the mid-1800's; 1998 being the warmest year. According to Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center (NOAA), the current pace of temperature rise is "consistent with a rate of 5.4 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit per century." By comparison, the world has warmed by 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit since the depths of the last ice age, 18,000 to 20,000 years ago.

The potential for floods and droughts is increasing."....... the heating from increased greenhouse gases enhances the hydrological cycle and increases the risk for stronger, longer-lasting or more intense droughts, and heavier rainfall events and flooding, even if these phenomena occur for natural reasons. Evidence, although circumstantial, is widespread across the United States. Examples include the intense drought in the central southern U.S in 1996, Midwest flooding in spring of 1995 and extensive flooding throughout the Mississippi Basin in 1993 even as drought occurred in the Carolinas, extreme flood events in winters of 1992-93 and 1994-95 in California but droughts in other years (e.g, 1986-87 and 1987-88 winters)," says Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).




Disappearing Glaciers

Ice is melting all over the planet. Glaciers are melting on six continents. If present warming trends continue, all glaciers in Glacier National Park could be gone by 2030. The park's Grinnell Glacier is already 90% gone. Pictured here is the glacier prior to its meltdown.

Because of global warming, the glaciers of the Ruwenzori range in Uganda are in massive retreat.

The Bering Glacier, North America's largest glacier, has lost 7 miles of its length, while losing 20-25% of parts of the glacier.

Ice cores taken from the Dunde Ice Cap in the Qilian Mountains on the northeastern margin of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau indicate that the years since 1938 have been the warmest in the last 12,000 years.


The melting is accelerating. The Lewis Glacier on Mt. Kenya (In Kenya) has lost 40% of its mass during the period 1963-1987 or at a much faster clip than during 1899-1963.

See Gary Braasch's Pictures of Receding Glaciers

In southern Peru the rate of melting of the Qori Kalis glacier during the 8 year period 1983 to 1991 was 3 times the pace of the previous 20 years, 1963 to 1983. "By the time we probably know what they are doing, it will be far too late to worry about it because they are going to be like galloping glaciers," says Ellen Mosley Thompson, climate expert at Ohio State University. [30] The Qori Kalis is receding at about two feet per day. Sitting beside the glacier, one could witness the melting hour by hour.

In a study that appeared in the journal, Science, September 15, 2000, a team led by (psedo scientists? . . . hmmm) Lonnie G. Thompson, including Ellen Mosley-Thompson, both of Ohio State, analyzed ice cores that came from deep within a glacier more than 20,000 feet high in the Himalayas. The results of their research showed that the past 100 years have been the hottest period in 1,000 years high in the Himalayas. Also their research supports other studies that demonstrated a dramatic decline in water levels of glacier-fed rivers, and that the high elevations are warming much more than the global average (one degree F). Mosley-Thompson says, "For these rivers to continue to flow year-round, they have to be fed by ice in the high mountains. The question then is where will the river flow come from during the dry season?" (Note: See Ohio State Press Release dated February 18, 2001

Greenland's glaciers are moving more rapidly to the sea, caused, perhaps, by melt water lubricating the base of the glaciers.

The Tasman Glacier in New Zealand has thinned by more than 100 meters in the past century. Glaciers in New Zealand have shrunk about 26% between 1890 and 1998.

The melting of the Gangotri Glacier in India is accelerating with an average rate of retreat of 30 meters annually. The rate between 1935 and 1990 was 18 meters per year and 7 meters annually between 1842 and 1935.

A glacier from which Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay set out to conquer Mount Everest nearly 50 years ago has retreated three miles up the mountain due to global warming. The head of the Nepal Mountaineering Association, Tashi Jangbu Sherpa, says " that Hillary and Tenzing would now have to walk two hours to find the edge of the glacier which was close to their original base camp."

Portage Glacier in the Chugach National Forest, south of Anchorage, is another casualty of climate change, say scientists at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. These researchers found that melting glaciers are responsible for at least 9 percent of the global sea-level rise over the past century.

Melting Arctic Sea Ice

The Arctic, with an area about the size of the United States, is seeing average temperatures similar to the Antarctic, almost 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the planet as a whole.

In a N.Y Times article (Nov. 17, 1999) it was reported that scientists have discovered that from 1993 through 1997 average Arctic sea ice thickness was six feet. This represents a significant reduction in Arctic sea ice from 1958 through 1976 when average thickness measured 10 feet. This means that in less than 30 years, there has been a 40% loss of arctic sea ice. In a Washington Post article (Dec. 3, 1999) it was noted that in the Arctic, sea ice is shrinking at a rate of 14,000 square miles annually, an area larger than Maryland and Delaware combined.

According to a report by Norwegian scientists, the arctic sea ice in about 50 years could disappear entirely each summer. Researchers at the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center based their predictions on satellite pictures. These pictures showed that the Arctic winter icescapes decreased by 6% (a Texas-size area) during the last 20 years.

Melting Antarctic Sea Ice

The Antarctic Peninsula has seen an increase in average temperatures of almost 5 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 50 years. Heavy sea ice has been the norm in the Antarctic, but in the 1990's sea ice disintegration has begun, notes Robin Ross, a biological oceanographer with the University of California at Santa Barbara. During the year 1998, the Antarctic displayed a record low in winter sea ice.

Greenland's Ice Sheet Melting

In a recent study by researchers from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that Greenland's ice sheet, about 8% of the Earth's grounded ice (Antarctica possessing 91% of land ice), is losing ice mass. A NASA high-tech aerial survey shows that more than 11 cubic miles of ice is melting along Greenland's coasts yearly, accounting for 7% of the annual global sea level rise. Measurements over the last century suggest that sea level has risen 9 inches, enough to cause flooding in low-lying areas, when a storm occurs. Sea level increase could worsen, if the present trend continues, says William Krabill, lead author of the NASA study.

Tropical Diseases Spreading

A recent study by New Zealand doctors, researchers at the Wellington School of Medicine's public health department said outbreaks o f dengue fever in South Pacific islands are directly related to global warming. Global warming is projected to significantly increase the range conducive to the transmission of both dengue and yellow fevers.

Sorry about the cut and paste job,

Source . . .

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm

[Message Edited]
Reply #25 Top
Well Ginata,
I would say that since the moment it is habitable (no point discussing before, hein?) it was high enough, let's say 25, then maybe it got a little higher as we understood some of the natural mechanisms at work. Since that short period of time, it is decreasing: 30, 29, 28 , 27 , 26. Then we started testing nuclear weapons in the air, underground and sea, 22, 21, 20, 19,
And then George Bush was elected 17, 16, and maybe reelected ( :sniff!: ) 15, 14 , 13 :sniff!: :sniff!: :sniff!:

I don't want to get started on this, otherwise I keep writing (complaining, screaming) and never post (:(
~SDC~
[Message Edited]