h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Global Warming - Rewrite - A4383128
Author: radioactiveBigAl1 - on a different planet. SExpert. Keeper of Mnemonics and of the Renowned Glowing Pickle - U723247

Well, I really wrote this Entry to provide a link from my Entry on West Nile Virus (A4353068).

It is essentially complete, although there are minor editorial things like: I need to remember how to insert the symbol for 'degree centigrade'.

Also, I need to think of a summary which isn't trite and banal.

I think I may also a paragraph about the complexitieas of 'Climate Modelling'.

But I'm keen to see what other PR'r's think thus far.

Hi there.

Good entry. A nice little summary. When I clicked on this, I envisioned a very long thing, but I was nicely surprised. Then scared to death.
Speaking of, if you want to read something massive that will scare you to death about Climate Change (is that the proper terminology, by the way? I've been scolded for saying Global warming) read Elizabeth Kolbert's series in the New Yorker... http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050425fa_fact3 I can only find a link to one, but it's powerful stuff.

"About 80% of atmospheric methane is produced by decomposition in rice paddies, swamps and the intestines of grazing animals such as cattle."

Ah, who can forget Reagan blaming global warming on flatulent cows?

Anyway, good luck with the entry.

Jodan.

I have either forgotten or wasn't aware of Pres. Reagans comments re GW and flatulent cows. However, I do remember an article in an XMas edition of New Scientist which calculated how much CH4 is emitted into the atmosphere due to turkeys (flatulence) destined for the dinner table!

I've now put in all (I hope) the codes for degrees C.

Interesting. Of course, if I was writing it, I would point out the whole thing is one big paranoid theory manufactured by scientists in the pay of the EU, but each to his own.

There shouldn't be an apostrophe in "CFCs". I've been reading that damn Lynn Truss book again.

B

It's ostriches like you who are responsible for b all being done about it

Wot, apostrophes?

It's scaremongers like you that are responsible for the whole world being worried about it without very much in the way of verifiable proof.

But we shouldn't argue about it on PR.

B

btw, I corrected the apostrophe - but can't do much (as an individual) about the GW!

P.S. Even if the wealth of scientific evidence/opinion ultimately turned out to be wrong, then no harm would have accrued due to endeavours to reduce greenhouse has emissions . However, if it's correct and insufficient steps are taken, then...

I meant to add that I am a type of person who believes that wallowing in a soup of our own excrement can only be harmful.

All of these things you talk about...I'm unsure what to say if people aren't even a little worried by them...I mean they do show at least a trend in a definite direction, so why be so disbelieving.

Part of me wants to make it even more convincing (well, obviously Master B doesn't feel it's convincing at all) because it's important...but I don't know how that could be done without making it very long and boring.

I've put a 'Summary' in now.

Of course, the phrase "no harm would have accrued due to endeavours to reduce greenhouse has emissions" can have different validity depending on your viewpoint. From the virewpoint of a developing nation, or of a fully-developed nation whose economy is greatly tied to energy consumption presently dominated by burning petroleum products, there is quite a bit of potential economic harm in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That's the real key in the political battle currently being waged by G. W. Bush et al, Russia, China, etc. It may seem terribly unfair to those in the EU who worry about the effects of global warming, but from some others shoes it seems terribly unfair to be limited by those who already have a densely populated, close-knit, fully developed infrastructure that can much more easily make the transition to an oil-less economy.

I'm not arguing one side or another, just making an observation about the real issue that clouds the true scientific study of the phenomenon of global warming - a phenomenon which, by the way, is very well summarized in this article.

- JD (sorry, I'll try to turn verbose mode off next time)

Hi there,

Just posting the following comment which I put in the wrong forum (article forum, not peer review forum)when I read JD's comments about 'the politics behind the climate change debate'. That would make a brilliant entry in itself. You've only just touched on the economic situation and I don't really know much about these things but maybe an explanation of how the petrol industry affects different countries would be useful. A look at new technologies that are supposedly able to replace the dependance on fossil fuels would also be good.

Anyway here's my original message:

Wow! This is a very informative article. I didn't really know much about global warming despite about 10 years of 'debate' on TV and in the last 10 minutes I've found out far more about it than I even thought was involved. I have just read the original entry and it definitely needs to be replaced. Maybe quotes from that could be added to your entry as an example of the uninformed cynical nonsense that labels anyone who is interested in the future of the earth as "environmentalists". This usually goes along with an image of whingeing hippies who don't talk about anything else.

Anyway, enough ranting. I found a few typing errors in the entry and there was 1 sentence that didn't seem to scan right. I've listed all the mistakes with bits to be added or deleted in brackets.

Mean Sea Level, 3rd paragraph - "low-(0)lying"

Impact on Tundra, 4th paragraph - "The tundra ... of vast importance to global ecology" (is)

Desertification, 3rd paragraph - "The Kalahari region (stretches) covers"

Impact on World Forests, 2nd paragraph - "This has very serious implication...!" (s)
3rd paragraph - "if left to their own devices... Boreal forests" (.)
4th paragraph - "Different tree species favour temperatures ranges" (Other treee species favour different temperature ranges)
5th paragraph - "will decline..." (.)

Keep up the good work.

Cheers
chiefaberach

CA. As you say, the stuff you mentioned in your first para wouykld be good in a separate Entry. I think it uis just a little bit tangential to this particular Entry.

Just putting this back to the top of PR. I've added paragraphs on ozone and CFC's..
In searching for Links I discovered 'The Ozone Homepage' A689475, which is intended as a series of Entries aimed at educating about dangers to the ozone layer. It's a Writing Workshop venture. Wonders if this Entry can be part of it?

Interesting. Comprehensive. Well written.

But merely a paranoid theory?

Fact: The tropical ocean waters near Florida are at historical high levels, powering more frequent, more powerful and much earlier hurricanes.

Fact: Signs at the Portage Glacier State Park in Alaska simply state "1917" a mile and half from the park entrance. Subsequent signs say "1936", "1955", "1972", "1988" and, finally, you reach the poor shrunken glacier...and recognize the sign meanings...the glacier now ends over two miles from where it ended only a century ago.

Global warming?...of course not...a paranoid theory ...and please may I recommend you to for membership in the Flat Earth Society, as well, to which I belong. I've never really beleived the drivel recounted by Navigator Juan Sebastián de Elcano who claimed to have circumnavigated the Earth...obviously he merely sailed in a circle, avoiding the edges.

Phred

Excellent work. Just about to accept this Update into the EG via the new update process, hopefully ensuring that this finds its way onto the Front Page in the not-too-distant future...

P

Good work

Whoop! Well done! Good to see this replacing the old one