Ask Jot

Chosen Answer by johnslat

Couldn't find any chapter summaries, but here's a pretty detailed review: Pros Clear, comprehensive and compelling explanation of the observations and analysis behind global warming predictions Cons A good deal of evangelizing along with the teaching! The Bottom Line Passionately Proselytizing Prophet Provides Poetic Predictions! Full Review Ronald Reagan is quoted as saying that what he needed was a "one-armed Economist," one who could not temper every recommendation with "On the other hand----." Tim Flannery is such an ecologist. There is no "On the other hand--" in his writing, judging from the case he makes in "The Weather Makers." It is a comprehensive synthesis of ecological information from a great many sources to make the case that mankind is spoiling the environment, and that we may be near a critical "tipping point" that will lead quickly to disastrous irreversible change in the Earth's climate. Tim Flannery is a scientist, explorer, conservationist, and author of a half-dozen prior books, mostly on the ecological history of Australia and North America. He spent a year as Professor of Australian Studies at Harvard in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, and he now lives in Adelaide, Australia, as Director of the South Australian Museum and a Professor at the University of Adelaide. His book is structured in five parts, called Gaia's Tools; One in Ten Thousand; The Science of Prediction; People in Greenhouses; and The Solution, followed by a Postscript, an Afterword, and a Climate Change Checklist. The book is well supported by references included as Endnotes, an extensive Bibliography and an Index. A very scholarly and ambitious piece of work! In Part 1, Gaia's Tools, Flannery makes heavy reference to the book by Lovelock in 1979 that argued that the Earth is a single organism that he named Gaia, and that the atmosphere is Gaia's organ of interconnection and temperature regulation, "--an extension of a living system designed to maintain a chosen environment." Living things have an active role in regulating the atmosphere to a stable and narrow range of temperature and everything is dependent on everything else. He describes the Great Aerial Ocean---the atmosphere---as an "onionskin" around the earth with four layers, and explains the existence of a "gaseous greenhouse" that regulates the earth's temperature and makes it habitable---and how it came about. The carbon cycle and the significance of certain trace gases, especially methane and CO2 is explained in very understandable terms, as is the fact that without greenhouse gases the Earth would be too cold to be habitable by humans. The long history of earth's atmosphere and climate is explained, including the ice ages and their likely cause, and the influences that ended the ice ages and led to the current "long summer"----a long period of stability that allowed the human species to develop agriculture and our current complex civilization. In Part 2, One in Ten Thousand, Flannery describes the history of past climate change occurring in "jerks," as changes occur that reach "magic gates," that result in major, rapid change, often causing mass extinctions of species. Changes in polar areas are described, as is the importance of "albedo," the coverage of snow and ice and it's influence on reflectivity, a positive feedback that reinforces warming caused by other factors. Flannery provides many examples of the often-disastrous effects on individual species of relatively small past changes in climate. In Part 3, The Science of Prediction, the author explains recent advances in the science of modeling global climate by computer simulations so that they can now simulate with reasonable accuracy past climate history, providing growing confidence in the ability to predict future climate change due to forcing functions like increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Flannery describes in considerable detail the techniques and the results, both for global climate, and the less successful attempts to model regional climate. He explains the concepts and uncertainties associated with "positive and negative feedback," the source of most of the remaining differences and uncertainties regarding global warming predictions. These feedbacks have the effect of either multiplying or diminishing the intrinsic influence of a specific change like increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Predictions of global warming made in the 60's and 70's turned out to be grossly overstated, and were the source of controversy, skepticism and confusion for a while. It was proposed that in addition to CO2, mankind was adding "aerosols" to the atmosphere---particulate matter and droplets of liquids that had the effect of increasing reflectivity of the atmosphere and sending heat from the sun back into space. The phenomenon is now part of the standard theory and is known as "global dimming"----which acts as a negative feedback and moderates the global warming caused by increased CO2 by as much as two-thirds. In Part 4, People in Greenhouses, Flannery comments on the various initiatives that have been proposed or enacted to deal with the problems related to CO2 and climate change, especially the Kyoto protocol. Details of the "hole in the ozone layer," and the international protocols that have been implemented to limit fluorocarbons to the atmosphere is discussed as one of the foremost success stories of ecology science and political cooperation. Flannery characterizes the Kyoto Protocol as "the most bitterly contested international treaty ever to be realized," and as a great divide between those who believe "--it is essential to Earth's survival, and those who are fiercely opposed on economic and ideological grounds." He also concedes that the most damning criticism of Kyoto is that is a "toothless tiger," with such modest objectives as to be irrelevant to the problem---if it is as severe as Flannery believes. He urges strengthening the goals by a factor of twelve, but also recognizes the political difficulties of getting acceptance---a dilemma wrapped in an enigma! Flannery describes another kind of international agreement that he sees ultimately replacing Kyoto, known as Contraction and Convergence, or C&C. It is based on the idea that every human being ought to have an equal right to emit greenhouse gases, a right that could be traded. Americans now emit three times more CO2 per person than Europeans, and over a hundred times the undeveloped nations. Under C&C the civilized nations would have to buy from undeveloped nations the carbon credits to cover this extreme difference. It would constitute a massive transfer of wealth from the developed nations that produced it to the undeveloped nations that produce little and therefore emit little. Flannery asserts that this would provide an "enormous" spur for the productive and wealthy to reduce emissions, and "force" the average CO2 emissions of each world citizen to "converge"---and overall emissions to "contract." Flannery remarks "Among its potential downsides is the initial cost to industrialized countries." (!) Flannery blames the resistance to climate science on activities by industry to promulgate fear of exaggerated economic impacts and doubts about the science promulgated by lobbying groups like the Global Climate Coalition, funded by energy companies, especially the coal industry. He asserts that such activities have been strengthened by the Bush administration, and is unabashed about expressing his extreme disdain for them. (With ideas like C&C floating around and being taken seriously, the opposition and skepticism seems quite understandeable to me!) He provides a chapter on engineering solutions involving CO2 sequestration, which also receives his disdain and skepticism. He describes these ideas as "---how industry envisages that our cake might be both eaten and kept, without leaving us holding a plateful of dung." In Part 5, The Solution, Flannery offers some discussion of solutions to this seemingly unavoidable impending disaster. The solution must give first priority to the generation of electricity, which is currently mostly coal-fired, and produces two-thirds or more of CO2 emissions. He favors a serious reduction in the use of coal, and a changeover to electricity generation by wind and by sunlight. He discusses pros and cons of nuclear power, and seems willing to accept it---but with some reluctance based on the well-known safety considerations and waste disposal issues. For transportation, Flannery endorses hybrid gas-electric vehicles, CAT's (Compressed Air Transport), and ships powered by wind. He recognizes that aviation will continue to require the kind of fuels now in use. Flannery envisages a need to establish a bureaucratic "carbon dictatorship"---an Earth Commission for Thermostatic Control to deal with CO2 emissions and to oversee carbon trading, resolve disputes, and enforce agreements. He seems to see this, also, as a logical extension of the Kyoto Protocol, likely to become unavoidable unless other prompt and decisive action is taken NOW. But at the end, Flannery offers a chapter called "Over to You," and makes the case that reasonable actions by individuals can avert the problem. He urges such things as making use of "green power" options now offered by most utilities; a changeover to solar hot water; selecting the most efficient refrigeration and air conditioning units, and using them intelligently and efficiently; and trading gas-guzzling SUV's for more efficient smaller vehicles. If enough people buy green power, solar panels, solar hot water, and hybrid vehicles, their costs and prices will plummet, and soon the bulk of electricity will be generated by renewable technologies. "We are fated to live in the most interesting of times, for we are now the weather makers, and the future of biodiversity and civilization hangs on our actions." +++++++++++++ Some comments: I really appreciate this book, and it's one of the best of its kind I've read. But it's as much theology as science, and more artistic persuasion than technology teaching. Here are a couple of examples of what I mean. --Early on there is a single sentence that summarizes the message of the book, for me. It goes like this (emphasis added): "If we pursue business as usual, an increase of 5 degrees F (give or take 3 degrees F) over the twenty-first century seems inevitable." "Business as usual" suggests a straight-line extrapolation of all current practices and trends, and for me it's a certainty that's NOT what will happen! Many initiatives toward carbon withdrawal are already well along. A range of 2 to 8 degrees seems to me to be an extraordinary range of uncertainty for such an important prediction, especially based on an extrapolation of all current trends! "Seems" inevitable is not a very confident statement---but I'm sure it's consistent with the uncertainties in the science to express it that way. ++++++++++++++++++ --Another example: "It's hard to avoid the feeling that the hostile ice age climate and its savage transition to the interglacial had until then stymied the great flowering of creativity and complexity." "Hard to avoid the feeling---" strikes me as a rather peculiar way to articulate what is supposedly a scientific finding! It's the sort of thing cited by Michael Crichton in his fictional criticism of climate science. On the other hand, it's a rather poetic expression of a feeling that may well be correct. +++++++++++++++++++ --Flannery cites a study involving 90,000 personal computers, led by a team at Oxford University, to make 90,000 independent calculations of the temperature effects of doubling atmospheric CO2. Here's what Flannery says about the result: "The average result---indicated that doubling of CO2 would lead to 6.1 degrees of warming. Overall, however, there was an astonishingly wide range of possibilities---from 3.4 to 20.2 degrees F---" "Astonishing" indeed! It's not so clear how this supports the statement quoted above, that an increase of 2-8 degrees F "seems" inevitable. +++++++++++++++++++ And finally, there is a sense of humor evident in this book---in spite of its grim predictions. For example, Flannery quotes a climate scientist who came home and told his wife: "The work is going very well---it looks like the end of the world." For anyone interested in global warming and the underlying science this book is clear, complete and compelling, and I give it five stars and my highest recommendation. But I believe it should be read with critical faculties tuned to maximum!

Chosen Answer by Fast boy + sexy boy + doglover

birth January 28, 1956 mammalogist, palaeontologist, and global warming activist His controversial views on shutting down conventional coal fired power stations for electricity generation in the medium term are frequently cited in the media. In late 2007, Tim Flannery suggested that some Japanese whaling in the southern oceans was sustainable, leading to concerns among some scientists, and environmental groups such as Greenpeace.

Chosen Answer by Greenleigh

First off, sorry about that. Some people tend to get a little wrapped up in things. I've been a vegetarian for a year now and I try very hard to respect peoples decisions because I expect the same back from them. To your questions: 1. You have to remember that those animals are still destroyed to fill a pretty large demand from the meat-eating public. Also, if you know anything about biology and evolution, when a population lacks a predator, the numbers will rise, but eventually food shortages (from feeding a higher number) will drive the population down again to a reasonable number. Numbers of different species rise and fall fairly frequently with no harm to their habitat. 2. Just because they are environmentalists doesn't mean that they love animals. Environmentalists are concerned with conservation of natural resources and avoidance of pollution. 3. I'm an anthropology major because I care about people, too. I partially chose my field because of what I just said. I want to help other people understand other cultures and respect peoples wish to be a part of that culture or group. Some of introductory classes were in primatology and biology (for archaeology specialization). I have a friend who wants to be a zoologist because she really does, to the bottom of her heart love animals. She eats meat. Trust me, we know about animals. We may not all be veterinarians, but we care about them enough to research and learn what we need to know. 4. I can't answer that except to say that somepeople don't know when to quit. It is your right to eat meat as much as it is ours not to. Most of us are pretty tame, but some are over the top and I'm truly sorry that this experience has made you think so ill of us. I promise we aren't all like that. In truth, we offentimes suffer the same thing. Meat-eaters think that we are unnatural freaks and after a while it really gets old. Maybe said twit had just had a dose of that shoved at them? In any case, it shouldn't have happened. Hope this helps some.

Chosen Answer by Crabby_blindguy

Its worrying, all right. This isn't actually a surprise--findings over the last couple of years have pointed to an acceleration ofthe rise in CO2 concentrations. Equally worrying is the acceleration in the melting of polar ice, which is also up sharply. What is uncertain is whether things have reached a critical level--a "tipping point," as its usually called. But if not, its looking more likely that we are getting close to one. That's the real concern to me. Dealing with CO2 emissions, per se, will hapen sooner or later (and probably sooner) simply because fossil fuel technology is obsolete and inefficient. Its simply not going to be possilbe for special interests to block implementation of more modern technologies much longer. And once that happens, the existing excesss CO2 will start breaking down--though it will take decades. BUT--if we do reach a "tipping point" we may not have that time. The climate changes resulting from global warming could become severe--more so than we really expect at this pint, and much more quickly. That would be a catastrophe on a worldwide scaleworse than any in history. Its not the individual changes that are the real problem--its large scale pattern sshifting quickly--so quicklly we won't have time to adjust, especially since some may be unpredictable.

Chosen Answer by europhile

Excuse me, although I read in TIME Magazine Asia that Hong Kong is not as clean as before, it is also good to know that it is probably CLEANER than most cities in mainland China like Beijing and Shanghai (this is according to TIME Magazine Asia, June 18 2007 issue). And, if you ask me, I think the most polluted city right now is Mexico City because of its overpopulation (I daresay second only to Tokyo, more than 30 million), that's why the city is "sinking" every year, literally. This is just my opinion. And FYI, Hong Kong IS NOT the most expensive city in the world, it's actually Moscow. If you're lucky enough, you can find and rent a flat in Lantau Island or anywhere in the outlying islands for only HK$850 a month (about US$110). The bottomline is, I love Hong Kong. Did you know that people from other Asian countries constitute 80% of Hong Kong's international contingent, and many say Hong Kong is a more open and equitable place. In closing, here's what Zoher Abdoolcarim, senior editor of TIME Magazine Asia, has to say about Hong Kong: “If New York is a state of mind, and London a state of grace, then Hong Kong is simply in a state: excited, acute, pushy, ceaselessly on the make. Some regard Hong Kong as unforgiving. Not so. It’s the most giving place there is—because it gives you the world.” - Zoher Abdoolcarim