Paint and Coatings Industry News

Main News Page

Research Report Warns of Cataclysmic ‘Tipping Point’ for the Planet

Friday, June 8, 2012

More items for Building Envelope

Drastic change is needed, and fast, in energy consumption and carbon emissions produced from all kinds of sources—including buildings—if climate change and the ultimate catastrophic breakdown of the planet are to be mitigated.

That’s the message from a new research report published by the journal Nature, offering evidence that earth is careening toward a “tipping point,” or critical transition—think extinctions and other unpredictable results; see: Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere.

The report said humans must gain awareness of the changes we are causing and move quickly to adequately address those issues on a global scale.

“There is a very high possibility that by the end of the century, the Earth is going to be a very different place,” study researcher Anthony Barnosky told LiveScience.

Barnosky, a professor of integrative biology from the University of California, Berkeley, along with a group of 17 other scientists, warned that this “new planet might not be a pleasant place to live,” the report said.

The researchers said the human impact on ecosystems threatens to cause impacts comparable to catastrophic events of eons ago, which resulted in mass extinctions and quantum changes in Earth’s biosphere.

“Humans are now forcing another such transition, with the potential to transform Earth rapidly and irreversibly into a state unknown in human experience,” wrote the authors, who are from the U.S., Europe, Canada and South America.

Still, Barnosky adds, humans are a “clever species” that “has the solutions to these kinds of problems in our grasp,” if only mankind can summon the will to act.

At the top of the to-do list: reduced reliance on fossil fuels, more efficient use of existing farmland and more effective distribution of food, and great efforts to to establish and maintain “reservoirs of biodiversity”—broad, relatively pristine ecosystems rich in species.

But a slowing of population growth is cited as perhaps the most urgent objective that must be embraced.

Comment from Tom Schwerdt, (6/11/2012, 9:02 AM)

Population growth is already slowing (in some cases drastically) worldwide.

Comment from John McCormac, (6/11/2012, 9:49 AM)

Complete hysteria driven by false premises, faulty data and disregard for reality.

Comment from John Fauth, (6/11/2012, 11:34 AM)

It's a great relief to know that "Mother Earth" keeps tabs on our food distribution system and biodiversity. And rewards us for "doing the right thing" (as conveyed to us by Mr. Barnosky and the other High Priests of the new scientific religion).

Comment from Rich Goessman, (6/12/2012, 1:36 PM)

If this is going to become a political forum I will be opting out very soon. It is well documented the the global warming is nothing but scam, that is going to allow the government to control even more of your life.

Comment from John Fauth, (6/12/2012, 2:27 PM)

Rich, it's inevitable that politics and ideology will impact any regulated industry. Industry is regulated by politicians, and politicians are *gasp* often political and ideological. In my opinion, what makes it difficult to deal with in forums like this is the characterization of ideology and policy as "science", and therefore deserving of unwarranted attention and obedience (preferrably without deliberation or contradiction). Bottom line... don't leave. :)

Comment from Joe Maty, (6/12/2012, 2:31 PM)

Rich, Thanks for your comment. I would just reply that we view our role as reporting on news and issues that we see as of interest and importance to the design and building community. Our role is not that of political advocate or forum. As for whether global warming is a scam, we can't profess to know the science in this regard, we can only report on what scientists whose job it is to know are writing and saying on these matters.

Comment from Rich Goessman, (6/12/2012, 5:26 PM)

Ok Joe, I am curious, what is the connection to the design and building community? And I think you are professing to know the science by publishing this article, Especially if you don't report the other side.

Comment from Joe Maty, (6/12/2012, 5:51 PM)

Rich, It's not news that energy efficiency and "sustainabiliity" are major topics of discussion in the design and building communities, and net-zero buildings and reduced carbon footprint get a great deal of attention. Publication of a news story about a study does not translate into an endorsement or verification of the information reported. As for reporting the other side, this would be expected if the objective with this coverage were to produce a detailed, comprehensive review of the subject. This story is merely a brief news item about a recently issued study. An example of a more in-depth story, including coverage of more than "one side of the story," might be this one: A REACH for LEED? USGBC Hits Turbulence with Controversial Import. It can be read at http://www.durabilityanddesign.com/news/?fuseaction=view&id=7808.

Comment from Jan Peterson, (6/18/2012, 1:52 PM)

"The other side" is comprised of political "pundits" who only know how to protect the status quo. Real scientists who went to college for 12 years, and have spent their professional lives doing the research necessary to make the pronouncements they do, are pilloried and vilified for being truthful. Humans will not survive, and there will be no "building industry" if we don't pay attention! When it becomes so abundantly clear that no one can continue to "deny" reality, our grandchildren will curse us for failing to act when it could have made a difference. [Sent from my wildfire-evacuated home in Colorado]

Comment from John Fauth, (6/19/2012, 9:08 AM)

Jan, I do believe there are actual scientists who went to college for 12 years on "the other side" as well. Truth is not derived from choosing to ignore their existence, nor the long history of "settled science" throughout the course of history that turned out to be...wrong. I am personally less impressed by the existence of dueling scientists, than I am by the failure of recorded science to match predictions (ie: Chicken Little is provably incorrect). Or by the fact that world environmental conditions have experienced significant variation for eons prior to the rise of human kind. In fact, I am told by reliable sources that even wildfires have existed for similar periods. Maybe even in what would later become Colorado.

Comment from Tom Schwerdt, (6/20/2012, 12:16 PM)

Real science is rarely "settled" "The earth is flat" was replaced with "the earth is round" was replaced with "the earth is a sphere" was replaced with "the earth is an oblate spheroid" (take a sphere, squeeze it in a bit at the poles. About 13 miles in this case) was replaced with a better map of the mass distribution, et cetera.

Comment from Jan Peterson, (6/20/2012, 5:00 PM)

John, according the University of Chicago 97% of climatologists active in research concur that global warming is real and that human activity plays a role in it. How much "consensus" do you require? The failure to match predictions -unfortunately- is all to the disastrous side: all worst-case predictions of the PPCC to date have been exceeded. I tire of the nattering nabobs of negativism whose only purpose is to confuse the general public.

Comment from John Fauth, (6/21/2012, 9:18 AM)

Jan, to the contrary, climate modeling has been completely unsuccessful explaining the past, much less predicting the future. I don't think you'll get much argument about the fact that earth's climate is static. Perhaps you're near my age, and recall the scientific predictions of a coming global ice age (some scientists were even suggesting that we should cover Greenland's glaciers in carbon black to retain much needed solar heat). Warming... cooling... it just depends upon when you choose to select the data, but it's undeniable that the earth's temperature is constantly in flux and has (many times) been considerably warmer and colder than it is at present. The question, of course, is the significance (or proportion) of man's contribution to that process. I don't think you'll find much consensus on that, or even pseudo-science able to distinguish it from naturally occuring fluctuations. I remember when I moved to Western Pennsylvania in 1992 and fist visited the Pittsburgh zoo. Lovely place. A plaque on one of the walls there proclaimed that man-made global warming would result in the extinction of half the world's known species within the next twenty years. I've since moved, but often wonder if the plaque remains.

Comment from Tom Schwerdt, (6/22/2012, 9:12 AM)

A lot of the raw/original climate change data has been hidden, or even destroyed ("lost")by the climate change promoters. "Consensus" appears to be in large part because East Anglia has maintained a stalwart campaign to keep their original data secret. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

Comment from John Fauth, (6/22/2012, 9:45 AM)

Excellent point, Tom. One which speaks to personal, professional and organizational agendas. I can't imagine a scientific journal publishing an article without that transparency, much less the the development of a virtual scientific religion, coalition of politically motivated governments, and expenditures of trillions of dollars of public and private funds in pursuit of a Quixotic quest. Setting that 800 lb. gorilla aside and focusing solely on the now missing data, there is a legitimate scientific concern with the collection points by which that data was accumulated. Over the years, many rural collection points became urbanized, creating a false portrayal of rising temperatures as those stations recorded nearby heat sources and/or nighttime heat radiance from heat absorbant materials such as concrete. Many remaining rural data collection stations were also closed, becuase they were more costly to maintain. And there are plenty of other issues related to the science of data collection upon which the altar of man-made global warming was built. http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part3_GlobalTempMeasure.htm

Comment from Jim Simasko, (6/27/2012, 3:15 PM)

Everybody knows computers can't lie and they're using computers to predict the future therefore it must be true.

Comment from M. Halliwell, (6/29/2012, 10:33 AM)

Jim, you are quite right...all I have to do is look at the local weather radar...in the "historical" portion it is accurate and you can see the reflection off the mountains...but when it gets to forcasting, well, then the mountains magically move to rain down on me. Climate change is occurring....it has since long before we got here and will long after we're gone...but the AGW debate will continue for a long time to come. Personally, I don't think we have a grasp on enough of the variables yet to be able to forecast climate change and apportion how much we (as humans) are causing. Right now, we have an apparent corrolation, but that doesn't mean there is a casue-effect relationship...there are lots of absolutely unrelated things that you can show an apparent correlation between, but it doesn't mean squat.

Comment from Jan Peterson, (6/29/2012, 6:07 PM)

You guys seem to think that -just because the planet's climate is not static-- that somehow disproves that the 90 billion tons of CO2 we push into the atmosphere every year "magically" does absolutely nothing! A simple high school physics demonstration will unequivocally prove that CO2 traps heat. You attempt to focus on "soft" issues without ever addressing the FACT that global warming IS happening (after-the-fact measurements; no predictions involved) even faster than the worst case predictions of the IPCC. Science is based upon making a prediction and either affirming or denying the original premise: where are your predictions? What, you have none? You just want to deny???? Try SCIENCE!

Comment from Jan Peterson, (6/29/2012, 6:09 PM)

I, of course, meant to say "proves" rather than :disproves" in the first sentence above ;-)

Comment from John Fauth, (7/2/2012, 9:13 AM)

Jan, were you too upset to notice that no one denied that global warming is (presently) occuring? The question is, whether humans are having an effect upon the naturally occuring cycle that has produced substantially warmer, and colder, periods throughout the history of our planet. If there were a human component to the previous warming (or cooling) cycles, I think you would find a more receptive audience. But since there is not, and since science is presently unable to distinguish between naturally occuring cycles and human intervention, it should come as no surprise that considerable disagreement and skepticism exists. A scant 35 years ago, the eco-scientific community was equally adamant that we were in the midst of global cooling. Unfortunately for them, some people do have memories that exceed what we had for breakfast this morning.

Comment from Jan Peterson, (7/2/2012, 10:36 PM)

John, You repeat denier lies as if they were facts! Who says scientists can't distinguish between natural & man-made warming? Your political pundits???? Try going to www.realscience.com to find out the truth!

Comment from John Fauth, (7/3/2012, 8:20 AM)

Jan, name calling and emotional outbursts have no place in an adult conversation. I'm willing to stipulate that you sincerely believe there is sufficient evidence that convinces you that man-made global warming exists, and I won't imply that in doing so you're the tool of some third party. Hopefully it won't be too much to expect the same in return. Having said that, you're still missing the point. Please quantify for me (and those reading along) what portion of global warming is attributable to human impact. I think it's important to know whether we're talking about 1%, 90% or something in-between. If science can't quantify that within a reasonable range, then it's my opinion that people are impressed by really big statistics that are never put into perspective. So, there you go...inform me.

Comment from Buck Ofama, (7/3/2012, 10:52 AM)

Jan, your sources are tainted. AGW has been widely debunked. The only people preaching this new religion are the ones looking to control others and make money on the scam. The earths temperatures a more a function of the sun's activity, and can be directly tracked to solar flares. You sound too far gone to consider a different viewpoint, but try reading other sources. http://junkscience.com/ Best Wishes, Buckeroo

Comment from Jan Peterson, (7/3/2012, 4:58 PM)

John & Buck, you can't have it both ways. Are you refraining from name-calling, or are you claiming that anyone who doesn't believe in AGW is a tool of those "looking to control others and make money on the scam"? This is exactly why I get frustrated: you never, ever respond to any fact-based evidence that is presented by the 97% of atmospheric scientists who are demonstrating --daily-- that this is occurring. You simply switch topics, often contradicting yourselves, and throw up new straw man arguments. Go to www.realclimate.org to see what actual atmospheric scientists say. It may be too sophisticated for you to understand, though, since they actually use scientific concepts and terminology that "you" willfully misinterpret to mean that any source of climate change CANNOT be determined. Here's a question for you: how do you explain that the rate of climate change happening now is many orders of magnitude faster than any natural climate change that's happened in the last couple of million years?

Comment from Jim Simasko, (7/3/2012, 5:51 PM)

Pr

Comment from Jan Peterson, (7/3/2012, 5:53 PM)

"A scant 35 years ago, the eco-scientific community was equally adamant that we were in the midst of global cooling." This is a false statement: there were a very few scientists --and a lot of journalists-- who proclaimed such, but the vast majority of scientists did NOT jump on that bandwagon. So, again, you cannot have it both ways: either you believe the vast majority of scientists, or you proclaim the minority knows better, but not both! What you are doing is picking which side of the argument to be on based upon your preconceived notion that humans could not possibly influence climate: this is not rational decision-making, but reliance on emotional non-factual "beliefs."

Comment from Jim Simasko, (7/3/2012, 6:24 PM)

Jan Are agw skeptics morally equivalent to holocaust deniers?

Comment from John Fauth, (7/4/2012, 8:59 AM)

Jan, where do I begin? First, I never said that anyone who believes in AGW is a tool of those "looking to control others and make money off the scam". In fact, I have stipulated that you genuinely believe in the phenomena based upon a personally convincing threshold of scientific evidence. In that respect, I have been consistently more gracious than you. Second, as for a fact based conversation, I have asked you to share with me the most compelling fact... what percentage of (current) global warming is attributable to human impact? If you cannot answer that question, then all the kings horses and all the kings men cannot make a coherent "scientific" argument out of your position. Science deals in statistics somewhat more precise than "a lot". If you do nothing else during the course of this conversation, please answer this question with some specificity. In answer to your own question, I can no better answer why global warming has accelerated in the past thirty years than I can explain why it declined during the industrial revolution and remained remarkably unchanged throughout 3/4 of the last century... periods of historical industrial growth, pollution, and lack of environmental controls. And that is what distinguishes the two of us... I'm willing to admit when something is unexplainable and do not selectively choose statistics to support a predetermined outcome. Finally, I'm amused by your response to the prior opinion of the scientific community regarding global cooling. The concern was based upon 150 years of global climate statistics. I've seen several journalists who now say the issue was media led. Unfortunately, those were pre-internet days and we don't have a record of what most scientists thought, and they are (understandably) not anxious to say so today. But the media hysteria argument could be made today as well, since there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the conclusions about man-made global warming (quite a number of whom have retracted their support based upon data irregularities), but are ignored by that same media. It's truly amazing how easily you dismiss what you do not know as "false". At least profess to have an open mind, even if you don't. In conclusion, I invite you to reply (specifically) to the central issue in this debate. Everyone accepts that global warming and cooling have occured throughout the history of our planet, and that most recently we have experienced some warming. What percentage of this warming is attributable to human impact?

Comment from Jim Simasko, (7/5/2012, 7:52 PM)

80% of atmosphere is water vapor.

Comment from Jim Simasko, (7/5/2012, 9:42 PM)

90 billion ton of CO2 is a spit in the ocean relative to natural sources and don't forget the sun.

Comment from Buck Ofama, (7/6/2012, 11:14 AM)

Ahem, Jan. You mean scientists like this? http://junkscience.com/2012/07/05/nobel-prize-winner-ivar-giaever-climate-change-is-pseudoscience/

Comment from Jim Simasko, (7/6/2012, 12:58 PM)

Volcanos underwater and on land, rotting vegetation, forest fires , people and animals exhaling all sources of CO2 and don't forget the sun.

Comment from Jim Simasko, (7/6/2012, 7:29 PM)

ie. the major role the sun plays in climate change

Comment from Mark Schilling, (7/13/2012, 7:44 AM)

Anthropogenic global warming is a scam and lots of scientists are appalled by this nonsense. Regardless of what Al Gore (seriously - a Nobel Peace Prize for a crummy junk science slide-show?!) and other self-proclaimed braniacs believe, there is no consensus. The science is not settled. Per usual the doomsayers are loudmouths. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. (We forget the squeaky wheel is the one that's broken.) Most of the believers I have talked to do not know how much carbon dioxide is in the air (approx/380 ppm). They don't know that an average adult human being exhales on the order of one kg/day of CO2. They don't know that cows convert about 6% of their carbon intake to methane (about 20 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas) and that methane reacts with oxygen in the air to yield CO2 and water. They do not know that there is infinitely more water in the air and that water is a much more potent greenhouse gas. They don't understand that CO2 is much more soluble in water than oxygen and that the oceans scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere. My children learned about the carbon cycle in middle school. The oceans trap CO2, turn it into carbonate, some of that will be subducted and power volcanic eruptions. Too many people have started to refer to CO2 as a poisonous gas. Well, yes - remember Apollo 13? But CO2 is plant food. There's this thing called photosynthesis. We'd all be dead without it. Greenhouse studies have shown that crop yields soar when the CO2 level is elevated to 500-600 ppm. One of the problems with the notion that CO2 is the cause of global warming is that the geological evidence (e.g., ice cores)says otherwise. The physical and chemical evidence of the past is that warming periods preceeded rises in atmospheric CO2 level. And that makes perfect sense because CO2 is more soluble in cooler water, less soluble in warmer water. Mr. Sun is large and in charge. Most of the thermal energy on Earth is carried around in the oceans, not the atmosphere. Water has a high specific heat and a high latent heat of vaporization. Try this book - "Climate: The Counter Consensus by Professor Robert M. Carter, published by Stacey International (London). He skewers the promoters of this anthropogenic CO2 global warming nonsense, refering to it as "the greatest self-organized scientific and political conspiracy that the world has ever seen." It is a technical book but an easy read. Also try Unstopable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years by S. Singer and D. Avery, or Heaven+Earth - Global Warming:The Missing Science by Ian Pilmer.

Comment from Peter Dean, (8/2/2012, 12:33 PM)

I'm not sure I want to wade into this pool but I will just add that we all owe it to our grandchildren to be good stewards of our planet. If we choose not to look at the evidence of the effects of our behavior and refuse to make prudent choices our grandchildren will suffer. Yes I think that climate scientists are giving us the best information they can. I appreciate D&D publishing the article and suspect that many others did too but weren't motivated to comment. Your article stating that only one person had chimed in supporting the publication was motivation enough for me to add my two cents.