PDA

View Full Version : The Trashing Of The Kyoto Treaty



Sparkle1984
12-02-2003, 07:13 PM
I've just heard the news that Russia has announced that it (as well as the USA) will not ratify the Kyoto Treaty. As usual, the reason given was that it would be bad for the economy.

Why oh why must money always be given higher priority over the environment and social protection??

It reminds me of a saying:
“Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money.” Cree Indian saying.

What does everyone else think?

internet.news
12-02-2003, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by Sparkle1984@2 December 2003 - 20:13
I've just heard the news that Russia has announced that it (as well as the USA) will not ratify the Kyoto Treaty. As usual, the reason given was that it would be bad for the economy.

Why oh why must money always be given higher priority over the environment and social protection??

It reminds me of a saying:
“Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money.” Cree Indian saying.

What does everyone else think?
Yeah, totally agree - but in contrast to United States, the russian economy
is by far not as good as in the usa. If you have a look on Russia, they are
one the one side very rich people now and on the other side many people
who are homeless and have to sleep on the cold streets.
:(

j2k4
12-03-2003, 05:33 AM
Just for the hell of asking:

Couldn't Russia have decided to renounce the treaty on it's own?

Is it the perception they could only muster themselves to deny the treaty because the U.S. did?

Here's my take:

Russia decided not to ratify the treaty because Japan decided not to.

The U.S. had nothing to do with it. ;)

james_bond_rulez
12-03-2003, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@3 December 2003 - 05:33
Just for the hell of asking:

Couldn't Russia have decided to renounce the treaty on it's own?

Is it the perception they could only muster themselves to deny the treaty because the U.S. did?

Here's my take:

Russia decided not to ratify the treaty because Japan decided not to.

The U.S. had nothing to do with it. ;)
US's denying into the treaty just made it easier for Russia to say no ;)

j2k4
12-03-2003, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by james_bond_rulez+3 December 2003 - 01:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (james_bond_rulez @ 3 December 2003 - 01:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@3 December 2003 - 05:33
Just for the hell of asking:

Couldn&#39;t Russia have decided to renounce the treaty on it&#39;s own?

Is it the perception they could only muster themselves to deny the treaty because the U.S. did?

Here&#39;s my take:

Russia decided not to ratify the treaty because Japan decided not to.

The U.S. had nothing to do with it. ;)
US&#39;s denying into the treaty just made it easier for Russia to say no ;) [/b][/quote]
Prove it.

I say they are following Japan&#39;s lead.

I insist that you agree.

Remember: I am an American, and you are powerless to decide for yourself if Kyoto is good or bad.

Alex H
12-03-2003, 06:04 AM
Countries who don&#39;t sign it are fucked. It exists so that everyone gets a nice environment to live in.

Lets see who complains when the acid rain, the poisonous air and the toxic earth start appearing. And who will start demanding the world cuts down on pollution.

Economy be damned, there won&#39;t be an economy without an environment for it to exsist in&#33;

@j2k4 - :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

quiksilver_aus
12-03-2003, 06:14 AM
i did a research project on kyoto in HS here is a handout (lists some of the political views)


The Kyoto Protocol – Political Views

What is the Kyoto Protocol?
The Kyoto Protocol, which is an add-on to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), is a pact agreed by governments around the world at a United Nations conference in Kyoto, Japan in 1997. The main focus of the pact is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted by developed countries by 5.2% of 1990 levels during a period from 2008-2012. The protocol will come into force once it has been ratified by at least 55% of the participants which represent 55% of the greenhouse gases (based upon emission levels from 1990) emitted by developed countries.
The protocol can be very costly for some countries or the exact opposite for others. Countries which are unable to meet their emission requirements are able to purchase emission credits from countries where the reductions can be made at a low cost.

Political Views
United States:
 Only major country to reject entire process
 The US believes that global warming may be for natural, rather than anthropogenic (human impact), changes.
 US fears that emission reduction will almost certainly cause damage to their economy.
 Argue that developing countries aren’t putting caps on their GHG emissions
European Union:
 EU nations are leaders at international conferences in promoting to reach a treaty.
 Have continued to be loyal in their dedication to fight global warming. Keep in mind that the Green Parties of Europe are a large part of the government, especially in Germany and Scandinavia.
Canada, Russia, Japan, Australia, New Zealand:
 These developed countries fall between the United States and the EU.
 None have gone to the same extent as the US to dismiss the protocol completely.
 These countries are looking for an east way out. The Canadian government is currently discussing the matter, and hope to find a “Made in Canada” solution.
Developing World:
 Led by China (2nd largest producer of GHG), the developing world rejects any responsibility for global warming problems. They feel it was caused by, and therefore solved by the developed world.
“In the developed world only two people ride in a car, and you want us to give up riding in a bus&#33;” – Leader of the Chinese Delegation, at Kyoto
 Rapid population increases, clearing of rain forests, use of coal and other fossil fuels and the expansion of animal herds contribute to the developing world’s rising carbon dioxide and methane emissions.
Alliance of Small Island Nations:
 Some of these small islands face the risk of entirely disappearing due to rising ocean levels.
 These countries are the most enthusiastic about ratifying the protocol, that at the conference in Japan, they pushed for an across-the-board 20% reduction, but because of the little political and economic power of these countries, their suggestions received little attention.
 It would be cheaper to relocate residents in the case of a flood than it would be to solve the issue, but the citizens of the country aren’t persuaded.

As of now, the percentage of the total GHG emissions of all industrialized countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol stands at 37.1% out of the required 55%. Since the United States (36% of total GHG) has chosen not to ratify, the crucial country is Russia (17.1%), which will push the total to 54.2%. At this point, any of the following three can push to go over the top: Canada, Australia and Poland; or any two of the following three: Switzerland, New Zealand and Estonia.



EDIT: from October 2002

j2k4
12-03-2003, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by Alex H@3 December 2003 - 02:04
Countries who don&#39;t sign it are fucked. It exists so that everyone gets a nice environment to live in.


Fucked how, exactly?

Attitudinally?

Realistically?

How?

Kyoto would fuck everyone.

What we currently call "Third-World" countries would remain so, indefinitely.

The sky would have to be an extraordinary shade of blue to make up for starvation, oppression and AIDS.

I don&#39;t know, for example, that genetically-engineered crops are capable of polluting the environment, but it seems we can&#39;t even arrange for the poorer countries to feed themselves thus.

Somehow, the "international community", in the guise of the E.U., has put the kibosh on extending such technology to poor countries.

Wait &#39;til the same people whip a little "Kyoto" on them.

Nice environment, my ass.

james_bond_rulez
12-03-2003, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by j2k4+3 December 2003 - 05:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 3 December 2003 - 05:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@3 December 2003 - 01:34
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@3 December 2003 - 05:33
Just for the hell of asking:

Couldn&#39;t Russia have decided to renounce the treaty on it&#39;s own?

Is it the perception they could only muster themselves to deny the treaty because the U.S. did?

Here&#39;s my take:

Russia decided not to ratify the treaty because Japan decided not to.

The U.S. had nothing to do with it. ;)
US&#39;s denying into the treaty just made it easier for Russia to say no ;)
Prove it.

I say they are following Japan&#39;s lead.

I insist that you agree.

Remember: I am an American, and you are powerless to decide for yourself if Kyoto is good or bad. [/b][/quote]
i dont have to prove shit

this is what i heard on Canadian based news <_<

u americans only value capitalism and dont care about the environment.

Other countries follow ur lead at least ur can set a good example&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry:

j2k4
12-03-2003, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@3 December 2003 - 02:29
dont have to prove shit

this is what i heard on Canadian based news <_<

u americans only value capitalism and dont care about the environment.

Other countries follow ur lead at least ur can set a good example&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry:
You are correct.

You don&#39;t have to prove "shit".

You do have to know it, though.

If the U.S. sets such a bad example, why would other countries even want to follow it?

Are they mindless?

To borrow a stupid phrase I&#39;m tired of hearing:

"We&#39;re not the boss of you&#33;"

Alex H
12-03-2003, 06:42 AM
@j2k4 - Yes we don&#39;t have an increadibly shit-hot fantastic environment right now. What do yo think will happen if we keep going the way we are? The environment is bad now cause we polluted it. Therefore if we continue polluting, it will get worse.

Do you agree?

And everyone sucks up to America cause they want to trade with you. And cause trade is the only thing your country seems to understand, everyone have to deal on your terms

j2k4
12-03-2003, 07:20 AM
I think many of the needed controls as re: industry are in place already, and this fact needs to be recognized.

That is not to say the job is complete, as it is surely not, but the extremists act as though nothing at all is being done, which is not true.

The problem here in the U.S. is the rhetoric.

Some examples:

About 10 years ago, the Pacific northwest was beset by the anti-logging Save-the-Forest crowd, who chose, as their raison-detre, the spotted owl.

Their argument was that the spotted owl could only live in old-growth forest, which they said was at risk from the logging industry; the owls were being deprived of their habitat.

Soon, the spotted owl had attained protected status, and the logging industry sort of went away.

As the logging activity hit it&#39;s nadir, spotted owls were discovered living inside a K-Mart sign, to no evident ill.

They also proved to flourish in the new-growth left by the loggers, who are, by and large, still out of work.

Another:

Certain pulp-milling industries which require water are known to release PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls, a carcinogen) into the environment, primarily the water supply.

Sometime in the late &#39;70s-I forget exactly when-the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) had determined that a level of X parts-per-million was a safe level in water-that is to say, that was the point they determined as a threshold of no-ill-effect.

This development required the pulp industries to spend massive amounts of cash to comply with the regulations; this was an entirely legitimate endeavor, as PCBs are kind of nasty ( I suffered PCB poisoning at one time; it was, to put it mildly, very unpleasant).

The new safe-guards were very effective, and the industry was justifiably proud of it&#39;s new image as "enviro-friendly".

A couple of years later, new detection technology arose that enabled the EPA to measure on the order of parts-per-billion.

The EPA immediately changed the standard as re: PCB, based merely on the fact that they could now detect much smaller amounts of PCBs.

This obsoleted all the technology the industry had implemented; they had to start from scratch.

This type of thing is typical.

As to the international scene, the French, I believe, rely largely on nuclear power, and the international community seems not to mind.

We couldn&#39;t get a nuke plant built in the U.S. if every Democrat in the government wanted it.

Amazing.

Alex H
12-03-2003, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@3 December 2003 - 07:20
I think many of the needed controls as re: industry are in place already, and this fact needs to be recognized.

That is not to say the job is complete, as it is surely not, but the extremists act as though nothing at all is being done, which is not true.
I knew you were coming back with a nice long one&#33;

I think you&#39;re right about controls already in place, but I also think that the "exremists" are doing the right thing by kicking up a huge stink. Unfortunatly a lot of the time the only way to get any action taken is by scare tactics (And this also works everywere else: "I said NO pickle on my burger&#33; Get rid of it or I&#39;ll call the manager&#33;" or "No, the warranty is still valid. Look I bought it yesterday, plugged it in and it didn&#39;t work. Just get me a new one and I won&#39;t have to be sending notice to your legal department". :D )

Another example is Greenpeace. If they didn&#39;t resort to sabotage and lots of yelling and screaming in the 60s and 70s, there would be several species of whale that would be extinct. We may never know would have happened to the ocean&#39;s ecosystem if they had died out. The effect may have taken 50 years before we noticed it.

I&#39;d sometimes wonder why my old boss would stand there looking at a job but not doing it. I asked him and he said "I&#39;d rather spend 10 minutes thinking about a job than spending an hour fucking it up".

Preventative maintenance is a good strategy.

Barbarossa
12-03-2003, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Alex H@3 December 2003 - 05:04
Countries who don&#39;t sign it are fucked. It exists so that everyone gets a nice environment to live in.

The trouble is if countries such as the US don&#39;t sign it then we&#39;re all fucked.

ilw
12-03-2003, 12:28 PM
Kyoto would fuck everyone.

What we currently call "Third-World" countries would remain so, indefinitely.

The sky would have to be an extraordinary shade of blue to make up for starvation, oppression and AIDS.


I&#39;m not sure I understand why the kyoto agreement would make 3rd world countries stay that way indefinitely or how it would increase starvation, opression or AIDS? I thought developing countries were exempt, or are you talking about the fact that you can pay other countries to reduce their emissions instead of you reducing yours. Whose idea was that in the first place <_<
Personally i can&#39;t really see an argument to think badly of the original Kyoto agreement which basically just suggested reducing GHG emissions, but now that Japan, US, Australia and Canada have done their little job on it, I agree it is flawed. As to the US not agreeing to it, that is quite annoying I&#39;m pretty sure the US economy can handle the cuts at least as well as the European economy. Is the environment of less concern than the economy across the pond?

As to why Russia is pulling out, the only reason I can see is because they are in a unique bargaining position. If they don&#39;t agree to the treaty then its down the shi**er so they are in a great position to renegotiate some better terms/clauses. Saying their economy can&#39;t handle it seems a bit of a strange excuse, because the amount their heavy industry has decreased means they&#39;ve probably already met most of their targets and could sell off spare pollution capacity to countries that are falling behind.


I don&#39;t know, for example, that genetically-engineered crops are capable of polluting the environment, but it seems we can&#39;t even arrange for the poorer countries to feed themselves thus.

Somehow, the "international community", in the guise of the E.U., has put the kibosh on extending such technology to poor countries.

Wait &#39;til the same people whip a little "Kyoto" on them.

Unfortunately it already is the same people who are stopping the spread of GM crops on the basis that they may irretrievably damage the environment. I think you may be mixing up bleeding heart liberals with tree hugging greenies. :rolleyes:

We are already capable of producing enough food for everyone, thats not necessarily the problem, its more likely to be the massive farm subsidies and protected markets in the US and EU that are most problematic. Of course putting all our farmers out of business isn&#39;t really an option either.


I get the impression that in the US, International pressure seems to be spectacularly unpopular reason for doing something. Doesn&#39;t what the rest of the world think matter in deciding American policy? Europe and others don&#39;t just make these treaties to piss you guys off or make you the bad guys. Aren&#39;t these treaties (eg Kyoto, Landmines, International Criminal Court etc) things that would seem to make the world a better place?

j2k4
12-03-2003, 03:35 PM
ilw-

These countries could benefit from a little economic/industrial progress, could they not?

Do you think non-polluting high-tech just springs up out of the sand?

There is a progression to such events, and it would likely begin with some sort of agricultural endeavor, which also presents a nice "starter set" of GHG problems; they&#39;re called, among other things, cows, which are at times on the verge of being outlawed by the enviro-vegetarians.

To simplify, this process is what begins the movement away from crushing poverty, starvation and disease.

Look at Africa and tell me we (and you) are producing enough food.

Production may indeed be fine, but the foodstuffs are not being consumed by those in need, even if the effort is made-think Mogadishu/Somalia and throw in the warlords-get the picture?

The propagation of GE crops is being forestalled for economic reasons, nothing more.

BTW-Explain to me the difference between a "Bleeding-Heart Liberal" and a "Tree-Hugging Greenie", if you will? :)

ilw
12-03-2003, 04:03 PM
Bleeding heart liberal - Peoples lives are so important, even if it drives our economy into the ground, we must save every life we can. Typical quote: "Won&#39;t someone think of the children"
Tree hugging greenie - The environment is so important that even though it&#39;ll cost jobs and peoples livelihoods we must save every panda we can. Typical quote "dude i&#39;m so fu**ing stoned"

Helpful?


The kyoto agreement is much less restrictive on the emissions from developing countries, and i think that to a certain extent they get to choose/set their own deadlines/targets at later dates.



It puts the lion&#39;s share of the responsibility for battling climate change -- and the lion&#39;s share of the bill -- on the rich countries. The Convention notes that the largest share of historical and current emissions originates in developed countries. Its first basic principle is that these countries should take the lead in combating climate change and its adverse impacts. Specific commitments in the treaty relating to financial and technological transfers apply only to the 24 developed countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. They agree to support climate change activities in developing countries by providing financial support above and beyond any financial assistance they already provide to these countries.

Specific commitments concerning efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions and enhance natural sinks apply to the OECD countries as well as to 12 "economies in transition" (Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union).

-- The Convention recognises that poorer nations have a right to economic development. It notes that the share of global emissions of greenhouse gases originating in developing countries will grow as these countries expand their industries to improve social and economic conditions for their citizens.

source is the kyoto protocol website


The Kyoto Treaty commits industrialised nations to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, principally Carbon Dioxide, by around 5.2% below their 1990 levels over the next decade. Drawn up in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, the agreement needs to be ratified by countries who were responsible for at least 55% of the world&#39;s carbon emissions in 1990 to come into force.

The agreement was dealt a severe blow in March 2001 when President George W Bush announced that the United States would never sign it.

If and when the revised treaty takes effect in 2008, it will require all signatories, including 39 industrialised countries, to achieve different emission reduction targets.

The revised Kyoto agreement, widely credited to the European Union, made considerable compromises allowing countries like Russia to offset their targets with carbon sinks - areas of forest and farmland which absorb carbon through photosynthesis.

The Bonn agreement also reduced cuts to be made to emissions of six gases believed to be exacerbating global warming - from the original treaty&#39;s 5.2% to 2%.

It was hoped that these slightly watered down provisions would allow the US to take up the Kyoto principles - but this has not proved to be the case.


bbc website


I said we are capable of producing enough food, I&#39;m sure your aware of the subsidies and various grants farmers get for not producing food in the EU (and I&#39;m guessing the US?). Even so we constantly overproduce food and could easily produce significantly more. Making this food available to people in poorer countires may seem like a nice idea, but these countries as you point out are generally agricultural and so supplying cheap food generally just puts their farmers out of business and leaves them little chance of progressing beyond subsistence farming. Giving them GM seeds might help, or it might cause problems, either way in many cases the simplest thing to do to help would probably just be to cancel their debt.
Stopping GM seeds doesn&#39;t seem purely economic to me, to a certain extent it plausibly could be economically motivated, but saying GM crops are the answer would also be economic , ie your not trying to do whats best for them or anything philanthropic, your trying to improve your economy and to a certain extent helping them at the same time.

j2k4
12-03-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by ilw@3 December 2003 - 12:03
Bleeding heart liberal - Peoples lives are so important, even if it drives our economy into the ground, we must save every life we can. Typical quote: "Won&#39;t someone think of the children"
Tree hugging greenie - The environment is so important that even though it&#39;ll cost jobs and peoples livelihoods we must save every panda we can. Typical quote "dude i&#39;m so fu**ing stoned"

Helpful?


The kyoto agreement is much less restrictive on the emissions from developing countries, and i think that to a certain extent they get to choose/set their own deadlines/targets at later dates.



It puts the lion&#39;s share of the responsibility for battling climate change -- and the lion&#39;s share of the bill -- on the rich countries. The Convention notes that the largest share of historical and current emissions originates in developed countries. Its first basic principle is that these countries should take the lead in combating climate change and its adverse impacts. Specific commitments in the treaty relating to financial and technological transfers apply only to the 24 developed countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. They agree to support climate change activities in developing countries by providing financial support above and beyond any financial assistance they already provide to these countries.

Specific commitments concerning efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions and enhance natural sinks apply to the OECD countries as well as to 12 "economies in transition" (Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union).

-- The Convention recognises that poorer nations have a right to economic development. It notes that the share of global emissions of greenhouse gases originating in developing countries will grow as these countries expand their industries to improve social and economic conditions for their citizens.

source is the kyoto protocol website


The Kyoto Treaty commits industrialised nations to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, principally Carbon Dioxide, by around 5.2% below their 1990 levels over the next decade. Drawn up in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, the agreement needs to be ratified by countries who were responsible for at least 55% of the world&#39;s carbon emissions in 1990 to come into force.

The agreement was dealt a severe blow in March 2001 when President George W Bush announced that the United States would never sign it.

If and when the revised treaty takes effect in 2008, it will require all signatories, including 39 industrialised countries, to achieve different emission reduction targets.

The revised Kyoto agreement, widely credited to the European Union, made considerable compromises allowing countries like Russia to offset their targets with carbon sinks - areas of forest and farmland which absorb carbon through photosynthesis.

The Bonn agreement also reduced cuts to be made to emissions of six gases believed to be exacerbating global warming - from the original treaty&#39;s 5.2% to 2%.

It was hoped that these slightly watered down provisions would allow the US to take up the Kyoto principles - but this has not proved to be the case.


bbc website


I said we are capable of producing enough food, I&#39;m sure your aware of the subsidies and various grants farmers get for not producing food in the EU (and I&#39;m guessing the US?). Even so we constantly overproduce food and could easily produce significantly more. Making this food available to people in poorer countires may seem like a nice idea, but these countries as you point out are generally agricultural and so supplying cheap food generally just puts their farmers out of business and leaves them little chance of progressing beyond subsistence farming. Giving them GM seeds might help, or it might cause problems, either way in many cases the simplest thing to do to help would probably just be to cancel their debt.
Stopping GM seeds doesn&#39;t seem purely economic to me, to a certain extent it plausibly could be, but saying GM crops are the answer would also be economic , ie your not trying to do whats best for them or anything philanthropic, your trying to improve your economy and to a certain extent helping them at the same time.
Your definitions are reasonably accurate, to my assessment, although there is an overlap here.

Farm subsidies exist here, also.

They don&#39;t make sense, never have; at least not as to leaving land fallow, etc.

The poor countries I was speaking of don&#39;t even have agriculture worth mentioning.

Many have other resources (yes, like oil) they can&#39;t access, due to their other limitations.

Kyoto also stipulates the size of the "bill" be based on pollution produced, yes?

What would induce this nascent industrialization to be of the highly regulated and controlled (and low-polluting, Kyoto-friendly, but EXPENSIVE) sort, rather than the non-augmented "high pollutant" type (lightly penalized by Kyoto)?

Suppose they choose the cheap route?

Do we (and they) suffer the ills of such a plan in perpetuity?

What end, exactly, if the aim is to reduce pollution? The choice must be removed; there can be no option if reduced/eliminated pollution is the desired result.

The difficulties of administering and enforcing Kyoto&#39;s high-flown ideals are it&#39;s fatal flaw.

I hereby recommend to you a book, if you can find it:

"The Quest For Cosmic Justice" by Thomas Sowell.

Beg, steal, or borrow it (or buy it from Amazon); you&#39;ll see what I mean.

Rat Faced
12-03-2003, 05:24 PM
But we all know that there is no problem in the US....

Florida (http://tv.oneworld.net/tapestry?link=263&window=full)

Chesapeake Bay (http://tv.oneworld.net/tapestry?link=509&window=full)

Jamesi Island (http://tv.oneworld.net/tapestry?link=260&window=full)

Alaska (http://tv.oneworld.net/tapestry?link=265&window=full)

Rising Sea Levels (http://tv.oneworld.net/tapestry?link=259&window=full)

Montana (http://tv.oneworld.net/tapestry?link=258&window=full)

Alaska again (http://tv.oneworld.net/tapestry?link=257&window=full)

Carbon Trading.... (http://tv.oneworld.net/tapestry?link=251&window=full)

Effects on Global Economics... (http://tv.oneworld.net/tapestry?link=249&window=full)



Quite frankly, no politicians have the balls to grasp the problems.

Most companies have to answer to their shareholders, and wont do the decent thing; due both to costs and the advantages to their rivals if they start to address the problems on their own...


They all need Insurance in order to operate however.

The Insurance companies know the problems... I think that its upto the Insurance companies to force the Industrial Companies into change. I believe we will see this before too long....the effects of Global Warming cost the Insurance Companies Billions...

j2k4
12-03-2003, 06:32 PM
Rat-

You may or may not be right as to things like global warming, GHG, etc., but if you rely on oneworld for info, I promise you&#39;re getting agenda-driven content, and therein lies the problem: No objective sources-and, especially in this case, no proof we are not in the midst of the normal waxing and waning of the ozone layer and global temps.

You can&#39;t compare what is happening this very day to events even 500 years ago and conclude anything.

To do so is the height of presumptuousness.

One volcanic eruption of decent size (Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Pinatubo) emits atmospheric contaminants well in excess of the sum total of man&#39;s efforts throughout history.

There are greater powers at work here, and no, I don&#39;t mean God.

Or maybe I do, on second thought. ;)

I wonder what the effect of the breakup of Panagea had on the real-estate market way back when?

All that new shoreline property for sale-did the bottom fall out of the market?

The lawyers must have had a field-day sorting the riparian aspects of that development. :)

Biggles
12-03-2003, 09:29 PM
The battle lines on environmental issues are well worn.

I think it would be fair to say that the world is a richer place the greater the bio-diversity that we can sustain. Man has seriously impacted on that bio-diversity in the last 500 years. Who knows what life saving plants may have already being eradicated in the amazonian rain forest.

With regards greenhouse gases we can only approximate the models at the moment but it is clear that the world is getting warmer. This may not be primarily our doing - but then again it may be.

The world&#39;s natural cycle covers a broad span of hot and cold and we have thrived in one of its intermediate phases. Geologically these tend to be short (although I think I am ok with regards my mortgage). What is most probable is that natural cycles will kick in as we contribute to accelerated warming and we will all end up wearing snow shoes and talking like Canadians or at least those of subsequent generations will (so be warned US :rolleyes: ).

If the worst predictions are correct then we will also have to re-think our attitudes to immigration as there will, through necessity, be rather a lot of it going on and we may get a first hand experience of the boot being on the other foot (to mix metaphors) - or is that another thread?

Sparkle1984
12-03-2003, 11:39 PM
What&#39;s wrong with Oneworld? At least they are not funded by corporations:

Quote from their website:

An independent, non-profit organisation, the mission of the Television Trust for the Environment (TVE) is to act as a catalyst for the production and distribution of films on environment, development, health and human rights issues. Based in the UK but with very much a global focus, TVE uses broadcast television and other audio-visual resources - including the internet and radio - as its key platforms. It works above all to promote informed debate, new policies and practical solutions to the growing challenges of human development in the twenty-first century

Also, don&#39;t forget that George Bush&#39;s presidential campaign was partly funded by oil companies and other multi-nationals, and this may have influenced his decision to pull out of the Kyoto treaty.

I do believe that every life in the world is important, and must be saved at all costs. I would say that a stable ecological environment is a necessity for a stable economy.

The poorest people of the world will be the first to suffer if global warming gets worse - they may live in unstable homes which would be severely affected by flooding and storms.

The planet must be preserved for the future generations.

Rat Faced
12-04-2003, 12:15 AM
J2k4,

I dont now their agenda...I just did a google search and clicked on 1st thing that came up. I admit it ;)

I however, wouldnt try and say i know more about a subject than American Scientists. Professors in US universities... If you have scientific opinion refuting the clips i posted, then please feel free.

Im sure there is just as much, if not more, out there. :P


Its the final part of my post i wanted to get at... I think that the Insurance Companies will force the issue; irrespective of politics, environmentalists and industry.

j2k4
12-04-2003, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by Sparkle1984@3 December 2003 - 19:39
What&#39;s wrong with Oneworld?&nbsp; At least they are not funded by corporations:

Quote from their website:

An independent, non-profit organisation, the mission of the Television Trust for the Environment (TVE) is to act as a catalyst for the production and distribution of films on environment, development, health and human rights issues. Based in the UK but with very much a global focus, TVE uses broadcast television and other audio-visual resources - including the internet and radio - as its key platforms. It works above all to promote informed debate, new policies and practical solutions to the growing challenges of human development in the twenty-first century


Sparkle-

Where do they get their money, then?

Their mission statement is very nice; it tells you exactly nothing.

It is precisely these sources you should question; those who present themselves as simple, disinterested, and altruistic are most often the exact opposite.

While a company with a vested interest may or may not make honest statements, they are still the best sources of information, if one knows how to sort the chaff.


Rat-

Honest insurance companies can be hard to come by, but, bound as they are by their actuarials, they are generally an accurate barometer of relative risk assessment.

If pushed to the wall in the name of environmental issues, they will react by refusing to underwrite shoddy activity, and yes, you&#39;re right; that will get some attention.

j2k4
12-04-2003, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by Biggles@3 December 2003 - 17:29
The battle lines on environmental issues are well worn.

I think it would be fair to say that the world is a richer place the greater the bio-diversity that we can sustain. Man has seriously impacted on that bio-diversity in the last 500 years. Who knows what life saving plants may have already being eradicated in the amazonian rain forest.

With regards greenhouse gases we can only approximate the models at the moment but it is clear that the world is getting warmer. This may not be primarily our doing - but then again it may be.

The world&#39;s natural cycle covers a broad span of hot and cold and we have thrived in one of its intermediate phases. Geologically these tend to be short (although I think I am ok with regards my mortgage). What is most probable is that natural cycles will kick in as we contribute to accelerated warming and we will all end up wearing snow shoes and talking like Canadians or at least those of subsequent generations will (so be warned US&nbsp; :rolleyes: ).

If the worst predictions are correct then we will also have to re-think our attitudes to immigration as there will, through necessity, be rather a lot of it going on and we may get a first hand experience of the boot being on the other foot (to mix metaphors) - or is that another thread?
Biggles-

We are largely in agreement, though we are at odds (I think) as to the weight to be given the various theories about man&#39;s activities and whether it would be preferable to err on the side of caution, or not to "err" at all.

I expect we&#39;ll end up with a little of both, although I&#39;m not as pessimistic as others. :)

ilw
12-04-2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@4 December 2003 - 05:54
While a company with a vested interest may or may not make honest statements, they are still the best sources of information, if one knows how to sort the chaff.

I have to disagree, a company with vested interests will never give a balanced view and if what they say isn&#39;t honest as well....

a couple of graphs for your consideration

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/emissions.gif
http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/arctic.gif
There were also graphs with temperatures, but the method of measuring temperatures is always disputed.


Starting in 1958 measurements were made of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere near the top of Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii. Since that time the CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 315 to 355 parts per million by volume. The rise is not linear but exponential. Because no known natural mechanism can explain such a rapid increase in CO2, the inescapable conclusion is that anthropogenic (human-generated) burning of fossil fuels must be a primary reason for the observed increase in CO2.http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~engelder/geosc20/lect17.html

Thats a 13% increase in 40 years, some may come from volcanic activity, but

At Mount St Helens the maximum measured emission rate was 2.2x10^7 kg per day. The total amount of gas released during non-eruptive periods from the beginning of July to the end of October was 9.1x10^8 kg . I do not have an estimate for the volume of CO2 released during the Plinian eruptions. As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15 kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69x10^15 kg of CO2. Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from man-made sources. http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html

Personally i&#39;m a believer in the whole CO2 -> warmer planet thing, and i kinda like the planet as it is now. I&#39;m aware the changes go in cycles, but I get the impression we&#39;re seriously and dangerously advancing this particular cycle. I&#39;d rather not have all of central london submarinated.

j2k4
12-04-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by ilw+4 December 2003 - 06:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw &#064; 4 December 2003 - 06:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@4 December 2003 - 05:54
While a company with a vested interest may or may not make honest statements, they are still the best sources of information, if one knows how to sort the chaff.

I have to disagree, a company with vested interests will never give a balanced view and if what they say isn&#39;t honest as well....

[/b][/quote]
Not what I said, ilw.

To plunge into the whole activity is to commit to an in-depth examination of the impetuses and motivations of business and industry.

I don&#39;t believe I&#39;ve ever read anything of that type that could be taken at face value-everything is best looked upon as part of the larger "whole".

Your graphs may paint a dire picture, but for the most part, those who compiled the data resulting in your chart are easily countered by others who have compiled materials which show a much different eventuality.

That this circumstance can even exist is informative

The truth, as always, lies somewhere betwixt and between. ;)

Billy_Dean
12-04-2003, 08:40 PM
http://server4.uploadit.org/files/041203-j202.jpg



:)

j2k4
12-05-2003, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@4 December 2003 - 16:40
http://server4.uploadit.org/files/041203-j202.jpg



:)
Now you&#39;re getting the picture, Billy. ;)

:)

Alex H
12-05-2003, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@4 December 2003 - 05:54
Honest insurance companies can be hard to come by
Let me know if you ever find one, my current one sucks&#33;

A while ago Australia had a huge insurer (HIH) go bankrupt, so unfortunatnly they are failable too. It would be nice if they did think about the issues we&#39;ll face in a hundred years, rather than the issues we&#39;ll face next financial quater, but they don&#39;t so we come up with things like the Kyoto Treaty. But then some governments only think about the next financial quater too&#33;

Keikan
12-05-2003, 09:32 AM
Isn&#39;t the bus more enviromentally friednly than car

ilw
12-06-2003, 05:05 PM
food for thought...


Demand for &#39;Kyoto tax&#39; on the US
Scientists say the climate is warming
Countries refusing to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases should face trade sanctions, according to a British independent think-tank.

The United States has not signed the Kyoto agreement on climate change and Russia has indicated it may follow.

The New Economics Foundation wants the EU to tax imports from these countries because they enjoy a competitive disadvantage as energy costs increase.

New Economics Foundation spokesman Andrew Simms told BBC Radio 4&#39;s Today programme EU countries would be within their rights to "work out the cost of the free ride America is getting" and raise that amount.

"There are very few signals the United States understands - they do understand economic signals," Mr Simms added. "There is only a certain amount of time people can go around behaving like teenagers who don&#39;t have to care about anybody else," he told Today.&nbsp; "We are about half a century away from being ecologically and economically bankrupt because of global warming."

The British diplomat who proposed environmental sanctions 20 years ago, Sir Crispin Tickell, told the programme the United States&#39; refusal to sign the United Nations Climate Change Convention was the "height of irresponsibility".

The protocol, negotiated to implement the convention, requires industrialised countries to cut their emissions of six gases which scientists believe are exacerbating natural climate change.

Signatories will by some time between 2008 and 2012 have to cut emissions to 5.2% below their 1990 levels.

But many scientists say cuts of around 60-70% will be needed by mid-century to avoid runaway climate change.

source: where else

btw j2 which kind of scpetic are you
1) The earth isn&#39;t actually getting warmer its just inaccurate measurements
2) The earth has been warmer, but its within normal temperature fluctuations, ie essentially there is no global warming
3) Global warming is occuring but our input to the effect is negligible

Billy_Dean
12-06-2003, 05:13 PM
4) Global warming is a fact, but it will cost the US too much money to do anything about it.


:)

Sparkle1984
12-06-2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@6 December 2003 - 16:13
4) Global warming is a fact, but it will cost the US too much money to do anything about it.


:)
Well they have plenty of money, so why don&#39;t they pay to do something about it? The corporations should pay for the damage they have caused to the environment.

j2k4
12-06-2003, 09:33 PM
[QUOTE=Sparkle1984,6 December 2003 - 13:45][QUOTE=Billy_Dean,6 December 2003 - 16:13] 4) Global warming is a fact, but it will cost the US too much money to do anything about it.


:)
Well they have plenty of money, so why don&#39;t they pay to do something about it? The corporations should pay for the damage they have caused to the environment.

Sparkle-

Haven&#39;t you heard?

We&#39;re spending our spare cash on another trip to the Moon, so you&#39;ll just have to wait.


ilw-

Given the choice (and thank you for that), I would subscribe to:

2) The earth has been warmer, but its within normal temperature fluctuations, ie essentially there is no global warming....

with the added caveat that: ....whether or not the activites of man have any effect, it is probably not sufficient to cause any permanent change; that the effects are as transient as our presence here.

Which, translated, means I&#39;m gonna drive my car and eat beef from GHG-producing cows until I die-I don&#39;t care who tries to stop me. ;)

Sparkle1984
12-07-2003, 03:32 PM
Which, translated, means I&#39;m gonna drive my car and eat beef from GHG-producing cows until I die-I don&#39;t care who tries to stop me.&nbsp;

When your house is under floodwater (probably caused by climate-change) then, just don&#39;t ask us why, OK? ;)

Billy_Dean
12-07-2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@7 December 2003 - 06:33
2) The earth has been warmer, but its within normal temperature fluctuations, ie essentially there is no global warming....

with the added caveat that: ....whether or not the activites of man have any effect, it is probably not sufficient to cause any permanent change; that the effects are as transient as our presence here.

Which, translated, means I&#39;m gonna drive my car and eat beef from GHG-producing cows until I die-I don&#39;t care who tries to stop me. ;)
My point is this; if we cut emissions, reduce greenhouse gases, and do everything in our power to stop the decline; if we do all this, and in 50 years time we find we were wrong, we will have done no damage. We would, at least , have a cleaner environment, and a more energy efficient world.

If we go your way, and in 50 years we discover that you were wrong, we could be fucked&#33; Why take a chance?

It reminds me of a press conference after the first A-Bomb was exploded. Oppenheimer was asked how sure he was that the atomic chain reaction wouldn&#39;t destroy the Earth. His answer? 95%. By his estimation, there was a one-in-twenty chance of destroying us all, and he took it&#33;

Now certain scientists and politicians want to risk it all again.

So enjoy your ozone destroying car, and eat your rainforest destroying beef, because your grandchildren will want to know what they were like, back in the good old days.



:)

J'Pol
12-07-2003, 04:14 PM
Why is it always the rainforests that people get so bothered about ?

I&#39;ve always wondered that, it&#39;s always "What about the rainforests". Aren&#39;t they just big, wet forests ?

Billy_Dean
12-07-2003, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@8 December 2003 - 01:14
Why is it always the rainforests that people get so bothered about ?

I&#39;ve always wondered that, it&#39;s always "What about the rainforests". Aren&#39;t they just big, wet forests ?
Are you serious?


:)

J'Pol
12-07-2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+7 December 2003 - 19:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 7 December 2003 - 19:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@8 December 2003 - 01:14
Why is it always the rainforests that people get so bothered about ?

I&#39;ve always wondered that, it&#39;s always "What about the rainforests". Aren&#39;t they just big, wet forests ?
Are you serious?


:) [/b][/quote]
Absolutely

Billy_Dean
12-07-2003, 06:22 PM
Oh, OK, just wondered.


:)

hobbes
12-07-2003, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@7 December 2003 - 17:14
Why is it always the rainforests that people get so bothered about ?

I&#39;ve always wondered that, it&#39;s always "What about the rainforests". Aren&#39;t they just big, wet forests ?
I have spottily read the thread and I must say that there is an enormous amount of speculation going on here.

I am particularly addressing the links left by RF if I seem off the Kyoto Treaty a bit.

The trend I notice is that people are not aware that the Earth is an organism. They like to think of it as a static entity and do not realize that it is constantly undergoing change in both position of its land masses and in environmental temperatures.

Remember, all land masses at one point were attached, but due to movement in the tectonic plates they have separated to form todays continents. These movements continue and there will be always be remodeling of our shorelines from erosion.

An example that is easy to appreciate is a river valleyhttp://nm.water.usgs.gov/images/rivervalley.gif

At one point the river has a certain course, but over centuries it&#39;s specific course will meander back and forth within the river valley. As you can see, the river valley can be 50 miles or more across. So when Billy Bob puts his trailer next to the river and freaks out when it becomes flooded we understand that this is a natural phenomenon, not a result of global warming. So why must we consider coastal erosion to be un-natural entity, a man-made global warming side effect, rather than part of the natural cycle of the ocean.

It is probably because we look at the world from our myopic human points of view. We live in cycles of 100 years in a world that has billion year cycles.

Consider that we are all living at the time of the last Ice Age. Would we have felt that our campfires were melting the glaciars and this was going to lead to the flooding of the world. Man has this funny habit of thinking that he is so important. We all know that the development of the Ice Age and its retreat was part of the natural cycle.

Ice Ages will come and they will go. Temperatures have been higher in the past than they are today. This temperature cycle is akin to the fluatuations in the course of a river over time. There is nothing we can do about this, we just have to adapt to it.

So if you want to live on the coast, or in a flood plain, or next to a fault line, expect that nature is going to come visit you eventually and stop pointing your finger at fossil fuel emissions as if that has any significant bearing on natural inevitability.


I, of course, support being environmentally responsible, but I think that the whole global warming thing is just another of mans&#39; megalomaniacal obssesions.


edit: quoting Jpol makes no sense in relation to the above post, I&#39;m working on that now.

hobbes
12-07-2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@7 December 2003 - 17:14
Why is it always the rainforests that people get so bothered about ?

I&#39;ve always wondered that, it&#39;s always "What about the rainforests". Aren&#39;t they just big, wet forests ?
People get bothered about Rain Forests for an number of emotive reasons. It is largely unexplored and people fear that plants and animals may become extinct before they are even discovered.

However, my offense goes back to my belief that we should use resources as they were intended.

One misunderstanding about rain forests is that they have lush soil. The truth is that the soil is very thin and instead of tree roots burrowing deep for stability, they grow laterally just under the surface. So when you rip a swath in the rain forest, you are setting up a domino-effect of trees toppling.

But more to the point, this thin soil needs the protection of the forest canopy. If you use this land for grazing, the constant rain erodes the exposed thin soil turning grazing land into clay and rock.

The problem is that the local people are being used to raise cheap beef for McDonald&#39;s for their a short term gain. When a field becomes unusable, they just tear more forest down.

Once the soil is gone and the cows have been moved, that lost rain forest will take several hundred years to be reclaimed.

So land must be used for what it can support, not exploited short term because it is cheaper to have poor countries raise the cattle and import the beef, than to produce it locally. There is no shortage of land here to raise the cattle to support our beef market, it is simply a matter of economics.

Eventually, these short-term gains will end as the rain forests disappear and then what do you have? Nothing but useless clay and rock.

That is why rainforest exploitation is such an issue.

J'Pol
12-07-2003, 07:55 PM
That makes sense, thank you. I wasn&#39;t aware of the thin soil / shallow root combination.

I can&#39;t pretend to be that bothered about all of these undiscovered species, it really isn&#39;t that interesting to me. I&#39;ve done without them this far, I can just as well carry on without them.

Thank you for your last two posts btw, I thoroughly enjoyed them for both content and style. A pleasure to read.

MagicNakor
12-08-2003, 03:19 AM
There is also quite a number of medical ingredients that can only be found in the rainforest, and so when the forest goes, so do various cures and vaccines.

:ninja:

ilw
12-08-2003, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@6 December 2003 - 21:33
that the effects are as transient as our presence here.
I agree, but i&#39;m gonna be gutted if the effects are a major factor in our transience :o

Personally i&#39;m a believer, after the amount of scientific debate and data gathering that has occured, I think i&#39;m on safe ground siding with the large majority of researchers in saying that we are having an significant impact on the climate of our planet. I&#39;ll just cross my fingers that we (and by that i mean you :P ) don&#39;t leave it too late, i&#39;m hoping a few more record breaking weather years may provide the impetus.

j2k4
12-08-2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by ilw@8 December 2003 - 12:25
the large majority of researchers in saying that we are having an significant impact on the climate of our planet.
You&#39;d be letting yourself in for a lot of work, but an attempt to solidly verify this supposition would prove revealing.

If you can make any headway, I think you will find no such majority exists; they do, however, enjoy great popularity with the media, due to their sensationalistic aspect. ;)

Barbarossa
12-08-2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by ilw+8 December 2003 - 15:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw @ 8 December 2003 - 15:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@6 December 2003 - 21:33
&nbsp; that the effects are as transient as our presence here.
I agree, but i&#39;m gonna be gutted if the effects are a major factor in our transience :o

Personally i&#39;m a believer, after the amount of scientific debate and data gathering that has occured, I think i&#39;m on safe ground siding with the large majority of researchers in saying that we are having an significant impact on the climate of our planet. I&#39;ll just cross my fingers that we (and by that i mean you :P ) don&#39;t leave it too late, i&#39;m hoping a few more record breaking weather years may provide the impetus. [/b][/quote]
An Asteroid is going to make a bigger "significant impact" than humans ever will, so don&#39;t worry about it.


...and don&#39;t think it won&#39;t happen, it will, it is as inevitable as night following day...

<_<

ilw
12-08-2003, 05:30 PM
Fair point I can&#39;t prove it, but the UN backs me up:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)
World Meteorological Organisation (WMO)

Their expert panels all agree (but they&#39;re all run by the UN so...)
I&#39;m gonna see if i can find any other worldwide organisations to back up my claim, but i gotta go home now so i&#39;ll leave it till tomorrow.
I haven&#39;t checked them out but if www.worldwatch.org and the wwf agree then I think thats all the big worldwide organisations.

Rat Faced
12-08-2003, 05:36 PM
Causes of Global Warming
The causes of global warming are generally not in dispute. What is in dispute is the question of what the major causes of global warming are. The following things have an effect on the earth&#39;s temperature:
The trapping of heat by greenhouse gases (greenhouse effect)
Variation in the output of the sun (solar variation)
Reflectivity of the earth&#39;s surface (see deforestation)
...

Some of these causes are human in origin, such as deforestation. Others are natural, such as solar variation. The greenhouse effect includes both human causes, such as the burning of fossil fuel, and natural causes, such as volcanic emissions.
The greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is the trapping of some solar radiation by a planet&#39;s atmosphere, specifically by greenhouse gases, increasing the temperature on and near the surface. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be about 14-36K cooler.

The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased in recent years, and many scientists believe that the greenhouse effect is the major cause of recent global warming.
The solar variation theory
In 1991, Knud Lassen of the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen and his colleague Eigil Friis-Christensen found a strong correlation between the length of the solar cycle and temperature changes throughout the northern hemisphere. Initially, they used sunspot and temperature measurements from 1861 to 1989, but later found that climate records dating back four centuries supported their findings. This relationship appeared to account for nearly 80 per cent of the measured temperature changes over this period (see graph). Sallie Baliunas, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has been among the supporters of the theory that changes in the sun "can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming." [http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html] On May 6, 2000, however, New Scientist magazine reported that Lassen and astrophysicist Peter Thejll had updated Lassen&#39;s 1991 research and found that while the solar cycle still accounts for about half the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 °C since 1980. "The curves diverge after 1980," Thejll said, "and it&#39;s a startlingly large deviation. Something else is acting on the climate. ... It has the fingerprints of the greenhouse effect."[http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg16622370.800] Later that same year, Peter Stott and other researchers at the Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom published a paper in which they reported on the most comprehensive model simulations to date of the climate of the 20th century. Their study looked at both natural forcing agents (solar variations and volcanic emissions) as well as anthropogenic forcing (greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols). Like Lassen and Thejll, they found that the natural factors accounted for gradual warming to about 1960 followed by a return to late 19th-century temperatures, consistent with the gradual change in solar forcing throughout the 20th century and volcanic activity during the past few decades. These factors alone, however, could not account for the warming in recent decades. Similarly, anthropogenic forcing alone was insufficient to explain the 1910-1945 warming, but was necessary to simulate the warming since 1976. Stott&#39;s team found that combining all of these factors enabled them to closely simulate global temperature changes throughout the 20th century. They predicted that continued greenhouse gas emissions would cause additional future temperature increases "at a rate similar to that observed in recent decades."A [ of the relationship between natural and anthropogenic factors contributing to climate change appears in "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis," a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm>http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig12-7.htm graphical representation of the relationship between natural and anthropogenic factors contributing to climate change appears in "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis," a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm]


Consequences of Global Warming
Many researchers predict disastrous consequences for a warming of 1.5 to 7 degrees celsius.

If warming continues at the present rate, it may result in changes in ocean circulation, catastrophic global climate change, loss of biodiversity and irreversible damage to agriculture in those ecoregions most affected. In some regions, e.g. Western Europe, Bangladesh, damage is projected to be extreme, due to loss of Gulf Stream warming and global sea level rise respectively. More frequent bouts of destructive weather are also anticipated, and risk experts in the insurance industry have expressed very strong concerns, advocating a proactive approach based on the precautionary principle. Estimates accepted by the IPCC and by some insurance industry bodies estimate up to 3.5 billion people could be affected by rising disease, loss of fresh water supply, and other impacts.

Many public policy organizations and government officials are concerned that the current warming has the potential for harm to the environment and agriculture.

This is a matter of considerable controversy, with environmentalist groups typically emphasizing the possible dangers and groups close to industry questioning the climate models and consequences of global warming - and funding scientists to do so.

Due to potential effects on human health and economy due to the impact on the environment, global warming is the cause of great concern. Some important environmental changes have been observed and linked to global warming.

The examples of secondary evidence cited above (lessened snow cover, rising sea levels, weather changes) are examples of consequences of global warming that may influence not only human activities but also the ecosystems. Increasing global temperature means that ecosystems may change; some species may be forced out of their habitats (possibly to extinction) because of changing conditions, while others may spread. Few of the terrestrial ecoregions on Earth could expect to be unaffected.

Another cause of great concern is sea level rise.

Sea levels are rising 1 to 2 centimetres (around half an inch) per decade, and some small countries in the Pacific Ocean are expressing concerns that if this rise in sea level continues, they soon will be entirely under water.

Global warming causes the sea level to rise mainly because sea water expands as it warms, but some scientists are concerned that in the future, the polar ice caps and glaciers may melt.

As a consequence, the sea level could rise several metres.

At the moment, scientists are not expecting any major ice melting in the next 100 years.

(Sources: IPCC for the data and the mass media for the general perception that climate change is important.) Some researchers have found a negative correlation between sea level rise and average global temperature; water evaporates more quickly than it expands.

(Source: Science and Environmental Policy Project) As the climate gets hotter, evaporation will increase.

This will cause heavier rainfall and more erosion.

Many people think that it could result in more extreme weather as global warming progresses.

Global warming can also have other, less obvious effects.

The North Atlantic drift, for instance, is driven by temperature changes.

It seems as though it is diminishing as the climate grows warmer, and this means that areas like Scandinavia and Britain that are warmed by the drift might face a colder climate in spite of the general global warming. It is now feared that Global Warming may be able to trigger the type of abrupt massive temperature shifts which bracketed the Younger Dryas period.

However, global warming can also have positive effects, since higher temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations improve the ecosystems&#39; productivity.

Satellite data shows that the productivity of the Northern Hemisphere has increased since 1982.

On the other hand, an increase in the total amount of biomass produced is not necessarily all good, since biodiversity can still decrease even though a small number of species are flourishing.

Similarly, from the human economic viewpoint, an increase in total biomass but a decrease in crop harvests would be a net disadvantage. In addition, IPCC models predict that higher CO2 concentrations would only spur growth of flora up to a point; after that, though greenhouse effects and warming would continue there would be no compensatory increase in growth.

Other researchers (a small minority), feel that up to 1.5 degrees Centrigade of warming would increase crop yields and stabilize weather; many of these doubt a larger warming is likely. In response, some advocates of strong early measures (well beyond Kyoto) note that the belief in beneficial effects and the doubt that a large warming is possible should be independent if these conclusions were in fact neutrally derived from scientific research, rather than being optimistically driven by ideology or oil money.

Others go somewhat further and indicate that anyone who believes that to "wait and see," potentially disadvantaging 3.5 billion people to seek narrow advantage in a few growing regions in developed nations, or wait for "technological fixes," amounts to a declaration of war on the entire planet&#39;s population. They argue that long before any northern nation, e.g. Russia, Canada, would enjoy greater crop yields, the developed nations would be exterminated by biological warfare or other weapons of mass destruction launched by groups easily recruited from the most drastically affected world populations. This is of course a political not a scientific argument for action.


Actions in response to Global Warming
In opposition to action stand the fossil fuel industry and skeptics, who oppose immediate action to mitigate Global Warming. They argue that crippling industry and infrastructure to prevent an unconfirmed ecological catastrophe does not make economic sense and that healthy economies are required to fund technologically innovative solutions, as required by the UNFCCC. President G. W. Bush, made this argument in rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. Bush did not reject the science outright, and argued that the greenhouse gas control was a matter of voluntary restraint by industry. Many U.S. states have nonetheless put strong controls on greenhouse gases.
The Kyoto Protocol
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) establishes a process for developing an international response to the perceived global warming problem. 181 countries have ratified the UNFCCC, including all industrial nations.

The UNFCCC, however, does not provide any binding emission targets.

The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC proposes binding greenhouse gas limits for developed countries. It has been ratified by 104 countries, representing 43.9% of emissions. Developed countries are required to limit their emissions to, on average, 5.2% below 1990 levels: 29% below pre-Kyoto estimates for 2010. The precise amounts vary from an 8% reduction for the European Union to a permitted increase of 10% for Iceland. Controversially, developing countries, including India and China, are exempted from reductions until they become sufficiently industrialised.

Because global warming is a "tragedy of the commons" problem, the Kyoto Protocol will not take effect until 90 days after countries responsible for over 55% of emissions ratify it. This will occur when Russia ratifies it. The United States, responsible for one-third of emissions of greenhouse, has signed the Kyoto Protocol, but does not intend to ratify it.

See also: Global warming potential, Carbon sequestration, Impact of global climate changes on agriculture


External Links & References
Every source has a point of view or a sponsor which might be a source of bias.

If you discover evidence for bias or a major source of its funding, please include it in the site&#39;s description.

Scientific websites:
NASA&#39;s Global Hydrology and Climate Center
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA, US Department of Commerce

United Nations websites:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by WMO and UNEP (below) in 1988
http://www.wmo.ch -- the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
http://www.unep.org/ -- the United Nations Environment Programme
http://unfccc.int/ -- the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC)
IPCC report: summary for policy makers, (2001) (pdf file)
IPCC report: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis -- Technical Summaries (pdf file)

Environmentalist websites:
http://www.greenpeace.org/ -- Greenpeace
http://www.panda.org/climate/ -- the Worldwide Wildlife Fund (WWF)
http://www.worldwatch.org/about -- Worldwatch Institute

Industry-sponsored (even in part):
http://www.cei.org -- the Competitive Enterprise Institute
Access to Energy
CO2 science magazine
http://www.junkscience.com -- PR Watch says, "Steven Milloy&#39;s website is actually a good example of junk science itself, heaping adolescent insults on any and all scientists (ranging from Samuel Epstein to the New England Journal of Medicine) who fail to defend the corporate, anti-environmentalist worldview." (Source: [http://www.prwatch.org/links/science.html>http://www.ipcc.ch -- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by WMO and UNEP (below) in 1988
http://www.wmo.ch -- the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
http://www.unep.org/ -- the United Nations Environment Programme
http://unfccc.int/ -- the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC)
IPCC report: summary for policy makers, (2001) (pdf file)
IPCC report: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis -- Technical Summaries (pdf file)

Environmentalist websites:
http://www.greenpeace.org/ -- Greenpeace
http://www.panda.org/climate/ -- the Worldwide Wildlife Fund (WWF)
http://www.worldwatch.org/about -- Worldwatch Institute

Industry-sponsored (even in part):
http://www.cei.org -- the Competitive Enterprise Institute
Access to Energy
CO2 science magazine
http://www.junkscience.com -- PR Watch says, "Steven Milloy&#39;s website is actually a good example of junk science itself, heaping adolescent insults on any and all scientists (ranging from Samuel Epstein to the New England Journal of Medicine) who fail to defend the corporate, anti-environmentalist worldview." (Source: [http://www.prwatch.org/links/science.html])

Independent (or receives too little support to constitute "sponsorship"):
Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical environmentalist, (2001) ISBN 0521010683. After investigating his book and his other work, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, a panel of eminent scientists, found him guilty of "scientific dishonesty.">[, analysis of industry efforts to discredit global warming science, by Bob Burton and Sheldon Rampton, published in the Earth Island Journal.
Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 2 May 2001 -- Lindzen is a professor at MIT
http://www.sepp.org/ -- the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
BBC News summary of climate change

Other websites (viewpoint or sponsorship unknown):
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org
http://www.globalwarming.org
http://www.theclimate.info



Source (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Global-warming/temp)



Public controversy continues to surround the hypothesis that human activities are contributing to significant global warming. A small number of scientists with backgrounds in climate research -- notably S. Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, Sherwood Idso and Richard S. Lindzen -- dispute the theory (see global warming skepticism). Also, a number of industry-backed organizations (including the Global Climate Coalition, the Greening Earth Society and Singer&#39;s Science and Environmental Policy Project have claimed that the theory is fraudulent or unproven.



Same source...


The proportion of scientists who support or oppose any of the various global warming theories is a matter of controversy in its own right. Environmentalists and their allies claim virtually unanimous support for the global warming theory from the scientific community. Opponents maintain that it is the other way around, claiming that the overwhelming majority of scientists either dismiss global warming altogether or merely consider it "unproven" (see global warming skepticism).


Same source....

Considering something unproven does not mean you dismiss something... in my opinion the environmentalists win that arguement. :P

j2k4
12-08-2003, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@8 December 2003 - 13:36
in my opinion...
This about sums it up.

My opinion is different.

Rat-

Your post was very long, and to my way of thinking, probably comprehensive and exhaustively thorough and persuasive to someone who heretofore had no opinion.

I scanned it pretty closely, but found no organizations that were not either part of the U.N. or of a suspect agenda, in my opinion.

Any organization can purport to be fair-minded and then proceed to solicit opinions which support an agenda they say they do not have.

Greenpeace is an example; I don&#39;t think anyone could, in conscience, say they don&#39;t have an agenda.

Again-my opinion only; I refuse to jump off the cliff of "opinion" cloaked as having been sanctioned by a non-existent majority or morality.

Believe it or not, scientific "opinion" is bought, sold and negotiated just as every other commodity, and you should beware of buying into these ideologies merely because some supposedly altruistic organization says "it is so, we have scientists who have proven it&#33;"

If you extend the skepticism with which you view the U.S. into other areas, you&#39;d be better off.

Rat Faced
12-08-2003, 06:25 PM
j2k4...

Would you think anyone that doesnt vote automatically agree&#39;s with a certain party? and that vote should be awarded to that party?

I said in my opinion that considering something as unproven does not make it something to dismiss....if you do not agree with this then you must be a "Bleeding Heart Liberal", afterall the same argument is used to keep people in custody prior to a trial... Its not proven, but we cant dismiss it...

In this case the charge has been read, we&#39;re waiting for the trial...


The source i posted from was not a UN organisation, and included evidence of the US government and the view of the organisations against the evidence, it was trying very hard not to be biased...if you look at the source near the bottom it rewrites again and again to try and eliminate bias prior to including it.

I have yet to see any evidence posted by yourself or any other that dismiss Global warming, except "Your Opinion".....at least we&#39;re trying to find evidence.

Possibly this is because all your websites belong to organisations funded by Industry?



PS.

NASA is a UN organisation? with an Agenda :blink:

as an exapmle :P

Not everyone that disagrees with your views has an "Agenda"

j2k4
12-08-2003, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@8 December 2003 - 14:25
I have yet to see any evidence posted by yourself or any other that dismiss Global warming, except "Your Opinion".....at least we&#39;re trying to find evidence.

Possibly this is because all your websites belong to organisations funded by Industry?



PS.

NASA is a UN organisation? with an Agenda&nbsp; :blink:

as an exapmle :P

Not everyone that disagrees with your views has an "Agenda"

Rat-

I have not got, nor do I refer to, any websites.

You would have me offer up something (a website) in which I place no credibility, to refute another website I regard as suspect.

I guess my point is that I don&#39;t regard "websites" as repositories of truth, no matter who sponsors them, and I regard the offering of them and/or their content as a vain and futile exercise-that is to say that I don&#39;t think the fact of your or my or anybody else&#39;s having googled, read or digested them to lend them any credibility whatsoever.

In any case, NASA&#39;s presence in your post was, to say the least, overwhelmed by the other organizations mentioned.

clocker
12-08-2003, 07:12 PM
Out of curiousity j2, if your opinions are not based on information gathered on the web, and you dismiss out of hand those sources that support an opposing viewpoint...then where is your information coming from?

j2k4
12-08-2003, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by clocker@8 December 2003 - 15:12
Out of curiousity j2, if your opinions are not based on information gathered on the web, and you dismiss out of hand those sources that support an opposing viewpoint...then where is your information coming from?
I read, as everyone else does, then apply what I already know, try to imagine what I might not know, use such common-sense as I can muster, smear a little logic on it, look at it through the lenses of several pairs of jaundice- and rose-colored glasses I keep on hand for just this purpose, and come to a conclusion.

I generally conclude it is either all bull/horse shit or a close derivative. ;)

Rat Faced
12-08-2003, 07:56 PM
Oh....your looking at it politically, my mistake.

I&#39;ll try and reduce the number of Science posts, and start on the economic :P

J'Pol
12-08-2003, 08:10 PM
Someone once said - common sense is the sum of the prejudices we gather during our life. It may have been me, I&#39;m not sure.

It is interesting how this discussion is so polarised. Either mankind is destroying the planet in an ever increasing orgy of greenhouse gasses, tree murders and so forth. Or we are so insignificant that whatever we do will effect the environment not one jot.

I as ever take the middle of the road position and say. Billy Dean is probably right. Why not clean up our mess anyway. Worst case scenario we have a cleaner, more efficient world. If we have to sacrifice some wealth, resulting in major job losses and poverty, then it is a price we have to pay.

It honestly isn&#39;t that easy to change the infra-structure of major industries and economies without serious ramifications. These may result in the industries failing, or having to restructure, or cut costs elsewhere, which normally means people.

I am serious when I say Billy is probably right and we should clean our act up, it can&#39;t be a bad thing. However there are two sides to the discussion. There are consequences, am I the only person willing to see both sides ?

Reasonable of Glasgow.

hobbes
12-08-2003, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@8 December 2003 - 21:10
Someone once said - common sense is the sum of the prejudices we gather during our life. It may have been me, I&#39;m not sure.

It is interesting how this discussion is so polarised. Either mankind is destroying the planet in an ever increasing orgy of greenhouse gasses, tree murders and so forth. Or we are so insignificant that whatever we do will effect the environment not one jot.

I as ever take the middle of the road position and say. Billy Dean is probably right. Why not clean up our mess anyway. Worst case scenario we have a cleaner, more efficient world. If we have to sacrifice some wealth, resulting in major job losses and poverty, then it is a price we have to pay.

It honestly isn&#39;t that easy to change the infra-structure of major industries and economies without serious ramifications. These may result in the industries failing, or having to restructure, or cut costs elsewhere, which normally means people.

I am serious when I say Billy is probably right and we should clean our act up, it can&#39;t be a bad thing. However there are two sides to the discussion. There are consequences, am I the only person willing to see both sides ?

Reasonable of Glasgow.
I agree with Billy as well. Unfortunately our politicians live in the moment. None are willing to be hated in their time and appreciated long after their deaths.

This is one of the inherent problems in a 4 year term versus King for life. I have been calling for a "benevolant King" for quite some time, now.

J'Pol
12-08-2003, 08:45 PM
They certainly aren&#39;t likely to be popular with the large industries, supporting small business, employees and communities which their changing policies may effect.

These things can have a ripple effect way beyond the big business which people see as the enemy. As you know they do not stand (or fall) alone.

If the butterfly in the rain-forest can cause the hurricane, the hurricane can certainly effect any butterflies it meets.

Biggles
12-08-2003, 09:21 PM
Like J&#39;Pol I take a more middling view.

As I am unfortunately old enough to remember the 60s and 70s (well parts of them at least) :rolleyes: I consider the world to be somewhat cleaner now than it was then. I appreciate that this is not the case everywhere and that there is some way to go on certain pollutants. However, if I had a choice of falling in the Clyde now or back in the 60s I would without hestitation choose now (although not in December as hypothermia has no respect for clean water).

Rat Faced
12-08-2003, 09:48 PM
A lot of the work is self financing though...although there is an initial cost, the savings pay for themselves in the medium term; such as heat recovery systems. These reduce the amount of power that is needed, as the heat generated by process&#39;s is used as a power source in its own right.

Then there Carbon Dumps.........who the hell objects to planting forests on land that is being subsidiced to remain un-cropped?

I could understand the arguments if the technology to meet the targets wasnt already available, and in the medium to long term actually beneficial to industry at large.

Not all instances of course, as was hilighted earlier....if Industry implements changes just to have the goalposts moved, they will fight and i wouldnt blame them.

Its the "Heads up their Arse" attitude i dont understand.

Biggles
12-08-2003, 09:56 PM
Rat Face

I think they are simply comfortable in that position :blink:

The big difficulty is as ever short-termism. The long term financial benefits may be ok but this year&#39;s financial report and price earnings ratios may look depressed.

Coupled in with this is the fear that the competitors will take short cuts. However, quite how they can look over their shoulders with their heads firmly implanted is beyond me.

Alex H
12-09-2003, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@8 December 2003 - 18:07
I scanned it pretty closely, but found no organizations that were not either part of the U.N. or of a suspect agenda, in my opinion.
Does that mean you&#39;re putting the United Nations in the same category as tree hugging hippies? Yes, hard as it may seem, I too hate extreamist environmentalists (but greatly admire their commitment).

And, am I correct in the understanding that you believe we (humans) are going to have AN effect on the planet Earth, so global warming may as well be it? I&#39;ve noticed this idea mooted in the thread.

j2k4
12-09-2003, 05:47 AM
Let&#39;s see if I can get this across:

I am for preserving our environment, including the rain forest.

I am for cleaning up the messes we have made, and that we can clean up.

I am in favor of requiring businesses to have realistic, effective, redundant pollution controls.

I am in favor of punishing those industries, businesses and individuals who transgress against the environment.

However:

I am not in favor of restricting business or industry merely on the "chance" it may harm the environment, or the idea some agenda-driven group "thinks" it might.

Unless it can be proven conclusively to be the case, then these organizations ought to stand down.

I am in favor of a "world public" developing an aversion to inflammatory and subversive environmentalist rhetoric.

I think "environmental terrorists" should be treated the same way as Al Qaeda, not honored for their "commitment".

Hope that clears a few things up.

As an aside: the Mississippi River delta, and it&#39;s inherent natural structuring (upon which the city of New Orleans is built) is, as a matter of natural course, changing in ways that put the survival of New Orleans at risk.

Would taking steps to save the city be wrong?

Would taking steps to preserve the delta be wrong?

While I&#39;m at it:

Should Venice, Italy be preserved or not?

Opinions?

ilw
12-09-2003, 01:27 PM
US President George W Bush has been told by leading scientists that climate change is real and getting worse.
Their White House-commissioned report is now being reviewed by the president as he prepares to face European leaders angered by his attack on the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
A panel from the National Academy of Sciences said a leading cause is emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. Correspondents say this could put pressure on the administration to shift its position on global warming.

"Temperatures are, in fact, rising," the panel warned. "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the earth&#39;s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise," the report said.

It warned that "national policy decisions made now and in the longer-term future will influence the extent of any damage suffered by vulnerable human populations and ecosystems later in this century".



Info on the NAS, their &#39;agenda&#39; seems (imho) to be to look at the scientific evidence:

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is the president of the National Academy of Sciences.

Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer. The Academy membership is comprised of approximately 2,000 members and 300 foreign associates, of whom more than 180 have won Nobel Prizes.


Most mainstream scientists believe that human activity - notably emissions of greenhouse gases - has contributed to a significant increase in the average surface temperature of the planet. from BBC news website but they don&#39;&#39;t back it up.


Clearly i still can&#39;t show that a large majority are of the opinion that we&#39;re affecting the environment, because I can&#39;t find any surveys. However, i haven&#39;t seen any scientific bodies that have published reports that go against it and i&#39;d be willing to put money on it being at least a majority of researchers who believe.

Rat Faced
12-09-2003, 01:27 PM
Yes we should try and preserve them.

Same we should want to preserve the Low Countries and Oceanic Island Nations.

Is this wrong?


I love the way that some dont want to do anything until there is conclusive proof, by which time its way too late.

However, saving New Orleans from the Mississippi, and having it drownd in the Mexican Gulf appears to be indicative...



By the way, what proportion of USA&#39;s major cities are on the coast, and/or under sea level? When are you going to think about saving them? What will the Sea Defences Cost?

In Europe for the last 10 years, there is unprecedented flooding...why not ask the Insurance/Governmental Agencies how much this is costing? Just for starters....

j2k4
12-09-2003, 03:46 PM
Okay, try this:

From the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change-

Great Lakes Ice Cover
Volume 6, Number 16: 16 April 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few days ago, we came across a news report from the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune entitled "Greenhouse effect may make Minnesota into Kansas." As the former of these states had been home to several generations of our ancestors, we were naturally curious to learn about its impending transformation, so we read on.
All sorts of bad things were prophesied. Hence, we were not surprised to learn that the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) had organized the study on which the story was based and had also raised the money for it. Nevertheless, we went to their web site to learn more.

At the UCS website we were greeted by a press release stating "Global Warming Will Alter Character of Great Lakes Region." One of the predicted changes that caught our collective eye was the claim there would be less winter ice cover of the lakes within the region as the area warmed. Turning to the actual report upon which the press release was based (Kling et al., 2003), we found this was indeed what was predicted, although with respect to recorded reality, the authors stated that "in the Great Lakes themselves, the extent of ice cover has been highly variable from 1963 to the present with no long-term trend [our italics]." Nevertheless, they promoted the notion of declining winter ice cover by stating immediately thereafter that "in recent years the Great Lakes have had little ice cover."

Determined to dig a bit deeper into this latter claim, we turned to the study of Assel et al. (2003) -- which was not referenced by Kling et al. -- to see if there was any evidence for this assertion. For Lakes Michigan, Huron and Ontario, there was none; winter ice cover at the end of the measurement period was essentially the same as it was at the beginning. Lakes Superior and Erie, on the other hand, did show a bit of a decline in winter ice cover. However, in the following and most recent winter (2002) -- data for which were not available when the paper of Assel et al. was written but were subsequently reported on the Internet by the Canadian Ice Service -- Lakes Superior and Erie, as well as Lake Huron, experienced 100% ice cover, as noted by Reuters and CBC News on 11 March 2003 and by CNN and the London Free Press News on 12 March 2003.

So how unusual is it for Lakes Superior, Huron and Erie to freeze over completely? And in the same year?

In carefully inspecting the data presentations of Assel et al., it appears that in addition to 2002, prior complete freeze-overs of Lake Erie occurred in 1998, 1997, 1979, 1978 and 1977. Lake Superior, on the other hand, froze over completely only twice before, in 1996 and 1979; while Lake Huron never completely froze over during the prior period of time stretching all the way back to 1963. In addition, the data reveal that only once before have two of these three Great Lakes ever experienced 100% ice cover in the same year (1979); and never before, in the period from 1963 to the present, have all three of them completely frozen over in the same year.

Of course, one incredibly anomalous year does not define a trend. But it can sure raise havoc with the status quo or any prior weak trend. Hence, much more data will clearly be required before we can say with any confidence what the long-term future will hold for the climate of the Great Lakes region, although that fact appears to be no impediment to those intent on scaring the people of the world into believing they must act now, and in heroic fashion, to prevent catastrophic consequences.

The senior author of the Union of Concerned Scientists study, for example, is quoted in that organization&#39;s press release of 8 April 2003 as saying that the people of the Great Lakes region need to "reduce the amount of fossil fuels [they] burn to produce electricity and drive [their] cars," while another of the authors (a staff scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists) says that "waiting 10 or more years to reduce emissions will increase the eventual severity, expense, and likelihood of irreversible losses," which, she adds, would be "a terrible legacy to leave our children and grandchildren."

It is amazing that such great ills can be so emotionally projected on the basis of so little firm data.

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

References
Assel, R., Cronk, K. and Norton, D. 2003. Recent trends in Laurentian Great Lakes ice cover. Climatic Change 57: 185-204.

Kling, G.W., Hayhoe, K., Johnson, L.B., Magnuson, J.J., Polasky, S., Robinson, S.K., Shuter, B.J., Wander, M.M., Wuebbles, D.J., Zak, D.R., Lindroth, R.L., Moser, S.C. and Wilson, M.L. 2003. Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region: Impacts on our Communities and Ecosystems. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA, and Ecological Society of America, Washington, DC.

I&#39;ve watched and experienced this phenomenon.

I have personal anecdotal evidence which I deem sufficient to counter any claims of global warming; Lake Superior is about 150 feet from me as I type this.

I should accede the possibility that this fearsome "Global" concern may somehow be skipping over me, but, hey, if the PC assholes have, in their quest to turn language on it&#39;s head, deemed that the term "global" has acquired a "spottiness" it didn&#39;t possess previously, I must have missed that, too.

Rat-

If we act to save New Orleans and/or Venice or any other coastal cities, we would be interfering with the "natural" course of events, not to mention risking massive violations of "Wetlands" legislation.

How do you propose we work around these difficulties?

Sparkle1984
12-09-2003, 03:58 PM
I am in favor of a "world public" developing an aversion to inflammatory and subversive environmentalist rhetoric.

I think "environmental terrorists" should be treated the same way as Al Qaeda, not honored for their "commitment".

Firstly, what on earth is a "world public"?&#33;
And I can&#39;t believe that what you call "environmental terrorists" should be treated the same way as Al Qaeda&#33;&#33;
Have you ever seen an environmentalist killing people?&#33;&#33;

clocker
12-09-2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Sparkle1984@9 December 2003 - 08:58

Have you ever seen an environmentalist killing people?&#33;&#33;
Ask a logger about the joys of discovering a spiked tree....

j2k4
12-09-2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Sparkle1984@9 December 2003 - 11:58

I am in favor of a "world public" developing an aversion to inflammatory and subversive environmentalist rhetoric.

I think "environmental terrorists" should be treated the same way as Al Qaeda, not honored for their "commitment".

Firstly, what on earth is a "world public"?&#33;
And I can&#39;t believe that what you call "environmental terrorists" should be treated the same way as Al Qaeda&#33;&#33;
Have you ever seen an environmentalist killing people?&#33;&#33;
Sparkle-

Absent a long track record of popular usage, what would you imagine my newly coined term World Public to mean?

Are you without mental capacity or imagination or something?

Hey-if the PC people can do it, so can I.

Welcome to MY New World Order.

Re: your statement about equating enviro-terrorists with Al Qaeda:

Yes, you heard me right-OFF WITH THEIR FUCKIN&#39;HEADS&#33;

A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

ilw
12-09-2003, 04:22 PM
Global warming has had a surprising impact on the Great Lakes region of the U.S. – more snow. A comparative study of snowfall records in and outside of the Great Lakes region indicated a significant increase in snowfall in the Great Lakes region since the 1930s but no such increase in non-Great Lakes areas.
...
Syracuse, NY, one of the snowiest cities in the U.S., experienced four of its largest snowfalls on record in the 1990s – the warmest decade in the 20th century, ...

“Recent increases in the water temperature of the Great Lakes are consistent with global warming,” said Burnett. “Such increases widen the gap between water temperature and air temperature – the ideal condition for snowfall.”

The research team compared snowfall records from fifteen weather stations within the Great Lakes region with ten stations at sites outside of the region. Records dating back to 1931 were available for eight of the lake-effect and six of the non-lake-effect areas. Records for the rest of the sample date back to 1950.

“We found a statistically significant increase in snowfall in the lake-effect region since 1931, but no such increase in the non-lake-effect area during the same period,” said Burnett. “This leads us to believe that recent increases in lake-effect snowfall are not the result of changes in regional weather disturbances.”

Its interesting that the lake froze over implying that the water temp must have been low despite what that says. Global warming doesn&#39;t always mean warmer temperatures and drier weather, it means changes in weather patterns and an on average increase.

On the subject of ice
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1825000/images/_1825283_ice150.jpg

Originally posted by various

The sea level along the coast of Maine has risen 30-50 cm since 1750 A.D. and along the coast of Nova Scotia as much as 60 cm.

"In some glaciers, like the South Cascade Glacier in Washington ...&nbsp; the present rate of melting is greater than it ever has been for the last 5,000 years."

* Arctic temperatures during the late 20th century appear to have been the warmest in 400 years.

&nbsp; &nbsp; * Satellite data suggest that the extent of snow cover has declined by 10 percent since the late 1960s.

&nbsp; &nbsp; * Since the 1950s, the extent of northern hemisphere spring and summer sea-ice decreased by about 10 to 15 percent, and researchers have measured a decline of roughly 40 percent in the thickness of Arctic sea-ice during late summer and early autumn during the past several decades.

&nbsp; &nbsp; * Since the 1950s, Alaska has warmed by an average of 4 degrees Fahrenheit.

&nbsp; &nbsp; * Pine Island Glacier, part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, thinned by up to 1.6 meters (5.2 feet) per year between 1992 and 1999.

j2k4
12-09-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by ilw@9 December 2003 - 12:22

Its interesting that the lake froze over implying that the water temp must have been low despite what that says. Global warming doesn&#39;t always mean warmer temperatures and drier weather, it means changes in weather patterns. Note also that what they&#39;re arguing against is a speculative newspaper article and a hypothesis for a paper.&nbsp; &nbsp;


It is also noteworthy that Mother Nature doesn&#39;t read these studies or consult these scientists before she has her way.

ilw and all the rest of you:

We could bang on about this until the impending Ice Age.

I move that we agree to disagree.

I don&#39;t mind that you disagree, but "however-many" against "one" is tiring, and I would like to do other things with the little time we have left than debate this any further.

I&#39;ll settle for the draw.

ilw
12-09-2003, 04:40 PM
fine with me, I&#39;ll just keep my fingers crossed for some sort of sanctions / a change of government (opinion) across the pond.

J'Pol
12-09-2003, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by ilw@9 December 2003 - 17:22
Global warming doesn&#39;t always mean warmer temperatures and drier weather, it means changes in weather patterns and an on average increase.


Sorry, I&#39;m a reasonable man, but you cannot have that.

I will allow you to twist logic, but that is just preposterous and quite frankly beyond the pale.

Now do the decent thing and apologise to everyone who read the above sentence and recoiled in horror.

Rat Faced
12-09-2003, 07:29 PM
If we act to save New Orleans and/or Venice or any other coastal cities, we would be interfering with the "natural" course of events, not to mention risking massive violations of "Wetlands" legislation.

How do you propose we work around these difficulties?



Oh, you think im an environmentalist...

Sorry to disappoint, but New Orleans etc comes way above "Wetlands" in my priorities.

I just dont want to wade to work every morning, and am willing to come out of my comfort zone to some extent so i dont have to do this in my old age ;)

J'Pol
12-09-2003, 07:35 PM
Would flooding in New Orleans reach as far as Newcastle. :blink:

That puts a whole new perspective on it. Everyone switch of your computers, televisions, fridges, freezers and all electrical apparatus. We must conserve energy or the world is doo............

Rat Faced
12-09-2003, 07:42 PM
:P

j2k4
12-11-2003, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@9 December 2003 - 15:29

If we act to save New Orleans and/or Venice or any other coastal cities, we would be interfering with the "natural" course of events, not to mention risking massive violations of "Wetlands" legislation.

How do you propose we work around these difficulties?



Oh, you think im an environmentalist...

Sorry to disappoint, but New Orleans etc comes way above "Wetlands" in my priorities.

I just dont want to wade to work every morning, and am willing to come out of my comfort zone to some extent so i dont have to do this in my old age ;)
Rat-

How could you think that of me?

To call you or anyone an environmentalist would be beyond me.

I think you are just as crass as I am, and I mean that sincerely. :)

MagicNakor
12-11-2003, 07:25 AM
Then again, there are some cities on the planet that probably should be submerged.

:ninja:

j2k4
12-11-2003, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by MagicNakor@11 December 2003 - 03:25
Then again, there are some cities on the planet that probably should be submerged.

:ninja:
Very true.

A poll, perhaps? :huh:

j2k4
12-11-2003, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@11 December 2003 - 15:05
Edinburgh, please let it be Edinburgh.

(Pronounced Edin Bureaux in the ewe essay.)
Perhaps we (the U.S.) could arrange a special one-time-only emission of GHG to be anchored in geo-synchronous orbit at whatever glacial latitude constitutes the closest northern approach to Edinburgh?

I will see if my auspices are sufficient, Fugs, but remember:

This will probably represent the bulk of my Christmas goodwill toward you-mayhaps a fruitcake if you are especially good. :)

Biggles
12-11-2003, 10:34 PM
:(

I rather like Edinburgh - ok some of the Moringside worthys are straight from "The prime of Miss Jean Brodie" but the city itself is rather beautiful.

I suspect JP is of Govan ilk or something similar and a prejudice or two is showing around the edges (or straight up the middle). :)


Water being water I think there is every probability that the lowest lying cities will get their feet wet first (unless the laws of physics have changed in these more politically correct educational days).

J'Pol
12-11-2003, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by Biggles@11 December 2003 - 23:34
:(

I rather like Edinburgh - ok some of the Moringside worthys are straight from "The prime of Miss Jean Brodie" but the city itself is rather beautiful.

I suspect JP is of Govan ilk or something similar and a prejudice or two is showing around the edges (or straight up the middle). :)


Water being water I think there is every probability that the lowest lying cities will get their feet wet first (unless the laws of physics have changed in these more politically correct educational days).
Edinburgh is Twee beyond Tweedom. The Tweenies come from Edinburgh. They plant Twees in Edinburgh. Everyone wears Tweed. They all think they are Tweemendous.They Tweek their PC PC&#39;s.

j2k4
12-11-2003, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@11 December 2003 - 18:52
Edinburgh is Twee beyond Tweedom. The Tweenies come from Edinburgh. They plant Twees in Edinburgh. Everyone wears Tweed. They all think they are Tweemendous.They Tweek their PC PC&#39;s.
REALLY?&#33;?&#33;?

Gosh, I had no idea......

Biggles
12-11-2003, 11:09 PM
Ok...

That was.....















quite funny&#33; :D

I am not from Edinburgh, but I still like it as a city. However, I am a teuchter so what do I know - we even ate tweed when I was a kid (or at least it seemed like it).