What exactly do they mean by "10 years until it's too late"?

Question

For global warming? I see commercials all the time like " they say we only have ten years before its too late" well that doesnt say much, what's happens when it *is* too late? huh? huh? annnnd how the heck do they know?

Answer 1

Scientists know approximately how much we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change. If global temperatures get too high, it will trigger certain feedbacks, like oceans emitting carbon dioxide because CO2 becomes less soluble in warmer water. Once these feedbacks are triggered, there will be a runaway greenhouse effect and we won't be able to stop global warming. As = ^_^ = said, there's basically a tipping point if we wait too long to reduce our emissions.

The estimate is that we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by about 80% by the year 2050. In order to meet that very large reduction, realistically we need to start making some significant reductions within the next decade. That's where the '10 years until it's too late' comes from.

Answer 2

It is a catch phrase, to get everybody excited and doing all sorts of stuff, that the GW folks want. Confusing the issues and not allowing time to check out the whole facts, and discover the errors.

If they can keep you flustered and in a state of panic, they can get you to give them your unstudied support and money and do foolish things you will regret later, for them.

10 years sounds like there is still hope IF you work frantically right now at what they want. But they do not tell you what the alternatives really are, and how certain the actual data and analysis really is, especially as we get better computer models, and include more factors, and even get actual history references incorporated.

Like the Big Sale, only 3 more days!! Good advertising practice...and it works!! You run in and buy now...and later find out the prices were actually no big deal, and maybe even jacked up a bit for the Big Sale!!

But you've been emotionally stampeded into a probably unwise decision.

I have read various places that the Global Warming is 0.0177 degree per year now. Someone has made the statement without support that I could see that 2 degrees is the catastrophe point. But if you check, that would be 113 years in the future.

So unless the figures i see are wrong, we do have time to check on things and make reasoned decisions considering ALL the facts. and all the scientists, not a carefully selected group of them.

We know NOW how to induce Global Cooling, both from Nature, and from the history of the 1950's through the 70's, if we want to. We could start today, if the powers that are running things did not want us to surrender still more power and money and our freedoms to them.

And we also know from history that the periods of Global Warming have been good times, better crops, more room for people to live, increases in arts and sciences, etc. Hard to understand why this is bad, except a happy and expanding and learning people is much harder to manage for the personal gains of the few.

So stop and ask why we have to have these imposed "solutions" right now, now that we are finding out more and more are based on false and/or dubious data and predictions, and are in fact fueling a hidden economy of the super-rich big companies and investors to make billions quickly off of frightened people. Never rising above the noise level caused by all the publicity, while they work against us for our money.

And read Snopes on which of our big leaders has the really efficient and well designed home, and which has extravagant homes!! And make some considered judgments.

I think we need to un-shush those who are counseling caution and prudence and being sure of our data before we make catastrophic decisions. And shush the claims of 99.9% of scientists and other people are convinced by the carefully selected published papers and only a few crank idiots think otherwise. And shut down the terror films, at least calling them Sci-Fi terror films.

The future of the Earth may well be at stake, so we need to allow full discussion and be sure all have had their full says, and we know what and who we are dealing with.

Don't be stampeded by "the Earth will end if we don't DO something in 2 years, or 10 years, or 50 years." Especially if we do something that tips us back into the deep ice ages prematurely because it makes somebody lots of money and prestige now, and nobody looks at what history says lies ahead!

I believe we should be spending our money preparing for having more land, more food, an easier life, and continuing our research into what we can do to live even better with a warmed globe. As History has shown us, if we read and observe. And maybe exposing and running out the fear-mongers and terrorists and hypocrites of the present Consenus that seem to be determined to run the World for their own benefit.

Answer 3

It means "If I don't get your money in the next 10 years, I'll be too close to retirement to invest it properly in a slush fund I'm setting up. My kids won't go to Harvard, and I'll have to buy an 80 foot yacht instead of a 120 foot yacht!"

Answer 4

When I was in High School they said we had 500 years. They just assumed people would unite and act to fix the problem as we always had in the past. Instead, in the next decade I saw the beginning of all the things you see posted here; it ain't happening, it's natural, it isn't because of people. The rate the problem has progressed accelerated sharply after the 1970's, and again in 2000. Dana's figure of 50 years sounds reasonable based on today's numbers, but...

More and more new countries are entering the ranks of industrialized nations. Their contribution can't be estimated. It depends on whether they behave responsibly, or follow the example set by the USA. Realistically, we'll be lucky if we have 50 years. I hate to think of the conditions in 20 years though...

Answer 5

Ah yes, the old “Tipping Point” scam.

You see, the whole “Global Warming is going to be a catastrophe!” idea is just like any other campaign that’s trying to sway public opinion. Whether it’s a politician trying to get elected, or Coca-Cola trying to get you to buy Coke instead of Pepsi, the principle is the same…

Find out what the public is thinking and then launch a ‘promotion’ to try and ‘educate’ the public to think the way you want them to. So, for example, if the public starts thinking that caffeine is bad, Coca-Cola starts telling everyone that Coke has less caffeine than Pepsi.

So it is with Anthropogenic Global Warming…

Recently, the message that the public have been hearing is that “Global Warming will be a catastrophe in the year 2100.” The problem is that most people hear that and think: “I’ll be long dead by then. So why should I care?”

So, to combat this way of thinking, the Global Warming Alarmists have come up with the “Tipping Point” scam. This claims that “Global Warming may not look bad *now*, but when we reach the Tipping Point it’s going to get much, much worse very, very quickly!” Thus, we can’t wait until 2100, we need to act *now!*

Of course, it’s not actually true, anymore than any other advertising campaign is true. Is Coke better for you than Pepsi, because it has a tiny bit less caffeine? Of course not, but that’s not what we’re told, is it?

Another example, of this phenomenon in AGW is the Medieval Warm Period. In the IPCC’s 1996 report there was a graph that showed the MWP as being much warmer than today. (See it here… http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2001Q2/211/groupE/maya_files/image003.jpg ) So, the public all looked at that and thought: “Well, if it was warmer a thousand years ago, and there was no catastrophe, what are we worried about?”

So, the Global Warming Alarmists (GWAs) had to do something.

In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

So, a new campaign began to delete the MWP from history. The IPCC’s next report in 2001 contained the now infamous Mann, et al, “hockey-stick” graph (See it here… http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-20.htm )

MWP? Abolished!

Of course, the graph was a lie. It used data that was unsound (it was a proxy for CO2 not temperature) but they gave that data 390 times more weight than any other. They left data that showed the MPW, unused, in a folder named ‘Censored Data’. And they used a computer model to create the graph that would produce a hockey-stick shape even with random data.

No one has ever apologised about this.

They realised that they’d gone too far with this one – no one would accept the total abolition of the MWP, so the MBH hockey-stick graph is being quietly forgotten, to be replaced with a collection of graphs that show a little MWP, but still cooler than today (here it is… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png )

But don’t be fooled. There is a wealth of data supporting the reality of a MWP that was significantly warmer than today. (See for example… http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/quantitative.jsp )

So, in short, we are being ‘had’.

As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.

Answer 6

In the event that you need to discover pleasant thoughts for woodworking I can propose you to check here http://woodworking.toptips.org

It's perfect in the event that you are simply starting out or in case you're a prepared carpenter.
It has thousands and thousands of woodworking arrangements and you have a CAD/DWG software to view and alter the arrangements. You have regulated instructions with photographs and excellent blueprints and schematics. On the off chance that you are a beginner this is the simplest approach to start your woodworking projects, and on the off chance that you already have experience you can at any rate discover a ton of interesting thoughts!

Answer 7

They don't know what they're talking about! Climatology is a very new science, and we don't know exactly what causes climate change. I read an article by an extremely respected scientist that said that 400 years ago, CO2 levels were higher than they are today, yet temperatures were cooler. I am all for conservation, and for developing alternative energy sources, because coal mining and oil drilling are horrible for the earth, keep us dependent on oil from countries that hate us, and will eventually run out. But I can't stand it when people lie to me or exaggerate for their own agendas, plus are hypocrites to boot...AL GORE!!!!!

Answer 8

Dana 1981 makes a good point that we have to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 80%

Has anyone ever thought what it would take to cut our carbon dioxide emissions by 80%?

How would we heat our houses?

How would we heat water to bathe in?

(I am lucky. I live in a rural area. I use wood to heat my home and heat water for bathing) But how about the rest of you?

If you try to use wood, some cities are making illegal to use wood for heat because of the wood smoke.

How would we get to work? If you are close to work you can ride a bicycle, but what do you do if you are like me and live 70 miles from work?

The way I see it we cannot reduce our use of fossil fuels enough to meet that 80% target no matter what we do.

Answer 9

Their trying to convince us that if we don't do something fast, its the end of the world. Thats a bunch of ********. Those commercials are a waste of money and time.

Answer 10

Some people think there is a "tipping point" after which there will be no hope of stopping global warming.