Blog | Events | Multimedia | About | Purpose | Programs | Publications | Staff | Contact | Join   
     Login      Register    




Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view


whats new at ieet
Countdown

Ben Goertzel offering accredited summer course on The Singularity through Rutgers University

Space Exploration Part 3: The Big Picture

Morality, With Limits

Is Earth past the tipping point?

Time Machine

If Only We Were Smarter!

The Baroque Body: The Role of Body Modification in Scott Westerfeld´s Uglies

Tech Pace Fast, Opposition Uncertain: IEET Readers

Autism And Vaccines: Why People Still Believe The Hype


comments

veronica on 'Morality, With Limits' (Mar 21, 2010)

Marianne Waldow on 'If Only We Were Smarter!' (Mar 21, 2010)

CygnusX1 on 'If Only We Were Smarter!' (Mar 21, 2010)

Mike Treder on 'If Only We Were Smarter!' (Mar 21, 2010)

CygnusX1 on 'If Only We Were Smarter!' (Mar 21, 2010)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv

Comment on this entry

Climate Change Explained


Mike Treder

Mike Treder


Ethical Technology
July 10, 2009

Predictions of melting ice caps, receding glaciers, thawing permafrost, rising sea levels, longer and more frequent droughts, hyper-powerful storm systems, species depletion, refugee migration, disease outbreaks, economic disruption, and other catastrophic results are becoming more plausible with each passing year. Unless something changes very fast, the future does not look very bright.

... Complete entry


COMMENTS



Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/12  at  08:52 PM

Well, forgive me for mentioning that I understand tempertures have fallen over the last decade. Hav'nt they? AND,
Again, if I remember correctly, NASA has predicted that the Atlantic currents may turn off in 2010. It would be caused, they said, by too much fresh water pushing the current down. AND, if this happened, it is said, then a new ice age completely blanketing North America and Europe would occur.
Is anything being done about these outcomes because they sound more onerous than what you have written above. What I mean is all the opposites occuring that you have predicted. Falling sea levels, no sustainable life in the northern reaches of earth due to ice... yes, a completely different picture with one major difference, 2010 not 2100.



Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/13  at  04:16 AM

its great effort of yours putting all the facts together about climate change, global warming and possible solutions. I would like to address one important issue concerning USA. We all are aware that from 90s UN has shown the concern over climate change and subsequently it launched kyoto protocol which states compulsory GHG emission reduction for many developed countries.
In this context, what is the forthcoming steps which USA would take to support this comprehansive movement to combat climate change. Would Obama govt ratify and accept the mandate to reduce GHG emission from USA.?



Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/13  at  07:29 AM

@Robin: Temperatures have not fallen during the last decade; on the contrary, they have continued a steady trend upwards. But note the phrase "steady trend" -- in any trend, there will be outlying data points. It's when those points are averaged together that a trend can be observed. In the case of global warming, the year 1998 was an unusually warm one. But a single year anomaly does not overturn a trend. Please consult this page for a thorough explanation -
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/global-warming-stopped



Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/13  at  07:43 AM

@Robin: You're right that disruption from global warming to the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) -- also known as the "Great Ocean Conveyor Belt" -- is a serious concern because that event could drastically affect weather patterns around the world.

It's true that Europe and North America would then experience far colder and more severe winters, but at the same time average temperatures in many areas of the Southern Hemisphere would warm as much as 4° F very quickly. Although the overall effect would not be a "new ice age" (at least not everywhere), the impacts could be dramatic and devastating for hundreds of millions of people.

Melting of the Greenland ice sheet is the most likely trigger for MOC disruption, and while that melting is occurring faster than expected, it probably will not affect the currents in the way you're describing until later in this century.

For more, see - http://www.wunderground.com/education/abruptclimate.asp



Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/13  at  07:56 AM

@pranav: It's not yet certain exactly how much President Obama is willing to do in this area, nor how much support his efforts will receive from Congress. However, we can say a couple of things for sure. First, the Obama administration is actually taking the science of global warming seriously, unlike the Bush administration, and second, progress is being made toward passing the most far-reaching and comprehensive climate legislation ever considered in America.

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a landmark bill, known as ACES (also called "Waxman-Markey" for its key supporters), and now it's up to the Senate to see if they will also vote in favor of it. The bill itself is not perfect, and ultimately the U.S. will have to go much farther, but it's an excellent beginning, in my opinion. This is one of those cases where doing something is about a million times better than doing nothing.



Posted by Phil Zulli  on  07/14  at  04:09 PM

This is the most concise, accurate and informed explanation of Climate Change I've seen.

I will use it wisely. wink

Thanks.



Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/17  at  02:08 AM

In the July issue of the International Journal of Global Warming, Bo Nordell and Bruno Gervet of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Lulea University of Technology in Sweden have come up with a remarkable finding that completely changes the way we understand global warming.

The scientist's calculations show that three fourths of accumulated heat is from heat emissions. In other words, most of the global warming is from heat humans have generated, not from increased levels of greenhouse gas in the air.

Among the startling implications of this change of paradigm is nuclear power, although it has a small carbon footprint, will not slow down global warming because it produces heat emissions equivalent to three times the energy of the electricity it generates.

By the way, the above article cited is peer reviewed, not an unsubstantiated opinion (like virtually all global warming denier articles). There is already problems with current climate models, for instance the IPCC underestimated current ocean level rise by 1.6 times, and predicted Arctic ocean ice would remain well past mid-century. Furthermore, current climate models don't fully explain the PETM. Once the heat emissions from volcanic activity are included, our understanding of the last Great Extinction should be more complete.

Today, the heat our power plants, motors, and furnaces put into the environment are at least as significant as the greenhouse gas they emit into the air. Now we know, and knowing is half the battle.

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:



Recent Entries

Countdown

Ben Goertzel offering accredited summer course on The Singularity through Rutgers University

Space Exploration Part 3: The Big Picture

Morality, With Limits

Is Earth past the tipping point?

Time Machine

If Only We Were Smarter!

The Baroque Body: The Role of Body Modification in Scott Westerfeld´s Uglies

Tech Pace Fast, Opposition Uncertain: IEET Readers

Autism And Vaccines: Why People Still Believe The Hype

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter | Podcast
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 229B, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376