the Global Warming debate

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

hey steve, its the tree's fault carbon dioxide is on the rise! it's their job to remove it from the atmosphere! damn trees are screwing off on the job! i say a war on trees! well, maybe it is because of fossil fuels. maybe you should lead by example on this....when your fiancee has her visa have her travel to the usa by sailboat!

Stupid trees. Maybe the threat of mass deforestation will straighten them out.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So far, not one single post here can dispute the premise of global warming in the OP, yet oddly, people will continue to debate whether global warming is a real concern or not.

It's true. We're screwed. Deal with it.

We're only screwed if people are indifferent about the potential crisis. And people will only remain indifferent until it directly affects them. Meanwhile, we could be changing public policy that would help prevent future environmental catastrophies such as New Orleans with Hurrican Katrina.

[PsychoKat 0]

The natural greenhouse effect, discovered two centuries ago, is basically a good thing, as it originally warmed Earth enough to develop and sustain life.

But about 150 years ago, when the industrial age began, all the new engines that drove the new machinery started to burn fossil fuels — coal, oil and gas — in enormous quantities that far surpassed the wood fires that civilizations had previously used for warmth.

And all this new burning poured — and still pours — greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Chief among these is carbon dioxide (CO2), which spews forth from chimneys and exhaust pipes.

This extra injection from industry thickens the blanket of the atmosphere, so to speak.

It means Earth now absorbs — and holds — more heat than it radiates back into space.

"The planet is now out of balance with space," as one climate scientist put it.

So the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere has crept up in tandem with the increased concentration of greenhouse gases that people put into the air.

One hundred and fifty years ago, our atmosphere had about 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide; now that figure has reached 381 parts per million, an increase of 35 percent.

When the concentration of greenhouse gases gets to roughly 400 parts per million, say many scientists, we'll probably be close to the threshold beyond which the impacts of climate change become extremely severe.

The threshold cannot be precisely predicted; it is a continuum, and scientists cannot know exactly where such dangerous limits of greenhouse gas concentrations lie, since modern science has never witnessed this process before.

But since climate directly affects agriculture, water supplies and human health, these changes could become highly disruptive to civilization and security.

But scientists work hard to improve their estimates, and to keep up with the many dramatic changes that global warming has already produced in all regions of the planet.

That's Global Warming in a nutshell...

Now, who here can find any scientific publication that disagrees with the above premise?

Not really disagree but some effects attributed to global warming could also fit the bill for a magnetic poll shift also specifically the effects of sunspots involved in this. Although no one knows what exact effects a poll shift will have regarding life on earth. According to studies these have occurred every few hundred thousand years, but at this point it's been over 730,000 years meaning we are way over due for one. What are the possibilities that this might be playing a big part in the changes attributed to global warming and part of a normal process?

Logically speaking sure we are contributing polutants to the air, but there have always been forest fires and smoke filling the atmosphere. And don't forget the type of gasses things like tar pits would give off....much like petrolium gasses.

Just some thoughts

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So far, not one single post here can dispute the premise of global warming in the OP, yet oddly, people will continue to debate whether global warming is a real concern or not.

I don't dispute it. If nothing else its common sense not to rubbish the environment.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

So far, not one single post here can dispute the premise of global warming in the OP, yet oddly, people will continue to debate whether global warming is a real concern or not.

The OP talks of 150 years. The earth is 4.5 Billion years old. Global warming is a natural occurence. We may be affecting the rate of global warming... that's the real debate.

[mmmbop1976 1]

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...othing/#more-32

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...omises/#more-57

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...-downs/#more-83

an excerpt from the 3rd link...

future global warming can be predicted much more accurately then is generally realized…we predict additional warming in the next 50 years of 3/4ºC ± 1/4ºC, a warming rate of 0.15ºC ± 0.05ºC per decade.

in other words, don't throw out your snow shovels yet.

also, you will see that vegetation has increased dramatically over the last 20 years, and therefore, so has co2 uptake. so my apologies to the trees, it seems they are doing their part.

i guess that leaves the sailboat, eh steve? might want to get your honey enrolled in those sailing classes now.

[dalegg 143]

As long as Bush says it's not true, then it ain't

Well, I guess it's true then....

Bush admits human activity contributes to global warming:

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So far, not one single post here can dispute the premise of global warming in the OP, yet oddly, people will continue to debate whether global warming is a real concern or not.

The OP talks of 150 years. The earth is 4.5 Billion years old. Global warming is a natural occurence. We may be affecting the rate of global warming... that's the real debate.

It's about balance. Yes, there is an ebb and flow of temperature changes over time, but that's not the issue as Alex mentioned earlier. The debate is to how much of an effect are humans in speeding up the process...and the bigger question is - Can we adopt changes that will significantly lower CO2 emissions without it having a negative effect on our economy?

As to temperatures beyond 150 years ago...

The hockey stick graph, created by a group of climate researchers in the late 1990s, reflects average Northern Hemisphere temperature changes over the past several centuries. It was the first comprehensive study combining data from many different archives of temperature including tree rings, ice cores, and coral reefs. It demonstrated that Northern Hemisphere temperatures rose sharply during the late 20th century, in marked contrast to the relatively small temperature fluctuations during the previous six centuries. The graph got its name because its shape resembles a hockey stick, with the blade end representing the sharp temperature rise over recent years.

[cmartyn 0]

We're only screwed if people are indifferent about the potential crisis. And people will only remain indifferent until it directly affects them. Meanwhile, we could be changing public policy that would help prevent future environmental catastrophies such as New Orleans with Hurrican Katrina.

30 years ago I would have agreed with this statement but public policy is a cruel joke. No one is going to make any public policy changes that could possibly harm the perceived competitiveness of major corporations. They would rather burn the atmosphere off than do that.

Look at this Moron from CNN.. I forget his name, he's a neighbor of the president of Jet Blue. They are talking about Coal Gas or some kind of fuel from coal which will take about a 150 - 200 billion dollar investment. Companies are quite willing to make the investment if the government will guarantee them say 45.00 USD / barrel. Well, the government knows full well that when America stops sucking on the Mideast hose the price of crude will go down to nothing and thusly hurt American competitiveness in the long run.

This is the flaw with Capitalism and competing nation states. You cant fix it. It is a fundamental flaw.

My advice is to buy a gun. Or 2 or three.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We're only screwed if people are indifferent about the potential crisis. And people will only remain indifferent until it directly affects them. Meanwhile, we could be changing public policy that would help prevent future environmental catastrophies such as New Orleans with Hurrican Katrina.

30 years ago I would have agreed with this statement but public policy is a cruel joke. No one is going to make any public policy changes that could possibly harm the perceived competitiveness of major corporations. They would rather burn the atmosphere off than do that.

The U.S. is behind even China when it comes to fuel efficiency standards. While the rest of the industrialized world has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, we've thumbed our noses. It's not because of capitalism - it's because of lack of leadership in making it an important issue.

[Ban Hammer 13,644]

We're only screwed if people are indifferent about the potential crisis. And people will only remain indifferent until it directly affects them. Meanwhile, we could be changing public policy that would help prevent future environmental catastrophies such as New Orleans with Hurrican Katrina.

30 years ago I would have agreed with this statement but public policy is a cruel joke. No one is going to make any public policy changes that could possibly harm the perceived competitiveness of major corporations. They would rather burn the atmosphere off than do that.

Look at this Moron from CNN.. I forget his name, he's a neighbor of the president of Jet Blue. They are talking about Coal Gas or some kind of fuel from coal which will take about a 150 - 200 billion dollar investment. Companies are quite willing to make the investment if the government will guarantee them say 45.00 USD / barrel. Well, the government knows full well that when America stops sucking on the Mideast hose the price of crude will go down to nothing and thusly hurt American competitiveness in the long run.

This is the flaw with Capitalism and competing nation states. You cant fix it. It is a fundamental flaw.

My advice is to buy a gun. Or 2 or three.

need advice on calibers? ask me

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

I read somewhere (sorry, no links handy) that cows are a big problem in this global warming phenom.

I say we tube all these cows and use those gases to pwer the world, if not a small town or two.

Daniel

:energetic:

[cmartyn 0]

Cows are a big problem.

A cow is considered a very inefficient protein converter.

A chicken is much more efficient.

Eating chickens is better for the environment than eating cows.

You dont hear a lot about this. The beef lobby goes nuts whenever anyone mentions anything about trying to cut down on beef consumption.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Rebuffing Bush, 132 Mayors Embrace Kyoto Rules

By ELI SANDERS

SEATTLE, May 13 - Unsettled by a series of dry winters in this normally wet city, Mayor Greg Nickels has begun a nationwide effort to do something the Bush administration will not: carry out the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

Mr. Nickels, a Democrat, says 131 other likeminded mayors have joined a bipartisan coalition to fight global warming on the local level, in an implicit rejection of the administration's policy.

The mayors, from cities as liberal as Los Angeles and as conservative as Hurst, Tex., represent nearly 29 million citizens in 35 states, according to Mayor Nickels's office. They are pledging to have their cities meet what would have been a binding requirement for the nation had the Bush administration not rejected the Kyoto Protocol: a reduction in heat-trapping gas emissions to levels 7 percent below those of 1990, by 2012.

On Thursday, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg brought New York City into the coalition, the latest Republican mayor to join.

Mr. Nickels said that to achieve the 7 percent reduction, Seattle was requiring cruise ships that dock in its bustling port to turn off their diesel engines while resupplying and to rely only on electric power provided by the city, a requirement that has forced some ships to retrofit. And by the end of this year the city's power utility, Seattle City Light, will be the only utility in the country with no net emissions of greenhouse gases, the mayor's office said.

Salt Lake City has become Utah's largest buyer of wind power in order to meet its reduction target. In New York, the Bloomberg administration is trying to reduce emissions from the municipal fleet by buying hybrid electric-gasoline-powered vehicles.

Nathan Mantua, assistant director of the Center for Science in the Earth System at the University of Washington, which estimates the impact of global warming on the Northwest, said the coalition's efforts were laudable, but probably of limited global impact.

"It is clearly a politically significant step in the right direction," Dr. Mantua said. "It may be an environmentally significant step for air quality in the cities that are going to do this, but for the global warming problem it is a baby step."

Mr. Nickels said he decided to act when the Kyoto Protocol took effect in February without the support of the United States, the world's largest producer of heat-trapping gases. On that day, he announced he would try to carry out the agreement himself, at least as far as Seattle was concerned, and called on other mayors to join him.

The coalition is not the first effort by local leaders to take up the initiative on climate change. California, under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, is moving to limit carbon dioxide emissions, and Gov. George A. Pataki of New York, also a Republican, has led efforts to reduce power plant emissions in the Northeast. But the coalition is unusual in its open embrace of an international agreement that the Bush administration has spurned, Mayor Nickels's office said, and is significant because cities are huge contributors to the nation's emission of heat-trapping gases.

Michele St. Martin, communications director for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the Kyoto Protocol would have resulted in a loss of five million jobs in the United States and could raise energy prices.

Ms. St. Martin said President Bush "favors an aggressive approach" on climate change, "one that fosters economic growth that will lead to new technology and innovation."

But many of the mayors said they were acting precisely out of concern for the economic vitality of their cities. Mr. Nickels, for example, pointed out that the dry winters and the steep decline projected in the glaciers of the Cascade range could affect Seattle's supply of drinking water and hydroelectric power.

The mayor of low-lying New Orleans, C. Ray Nagin, a Democrat, said he joined the coalition because a projected rise in sea levels "threatens the very existence of New Orleans."

In Hawaii, the mayor of Maui County, Alan Arakawa, a Republican, said he joined because he was frustrated by the administration's slowness to recognize the scientific consensus that climate change was happening because of human interference.

"I'm hoping it sends a message they really need to start looking at what's really happening in the real world," Mayor Arakawa said.

Mayor Nickels said it was no accident that most cities that had joined were in coastal states. The mayor of Alexandria, Va., is worried about increased flooding; mayors in Florida are worried about hurricanes.

But Mr. Nickels has also found supporters in the country's interior. Jerry Ryan, the Republican mayor of Bellevue, Neb., said he had signed on because of concerns about the effects of droughts on his farming community. Mr. Ryan described himself as a strong Bush supporter, but said he felt that the president's approach to global warming should be more like his approach to terrorism.

"You've got to ask, 'Is it remotely possible that there is a threat?' " he said. "If the answer is yes, you've got to act now."

[GaryC 7]

Kyoto is nothing more than an attempt by anti-capitalist and devoloping countries to wreck our economy. It seems odd that we are subject to it but a lot of other countries are not. If you remember Clinton, your liberal god, was the first not to sign it. He was right not to do so. Kyoto is social engineering on a global scale.

I showed evidence in the other thread that Co2 that humans make do nothing to raise the global temps. But for some reason I was ignored. So I will post it again,

As you can see Co2 from natural sources FAR outweigh what humans do. Would you like to discount this source?

QUOTE

Results in natural warming of troposphere. Natural greenhouse gases - water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4). Natural sources for CO2 include volcanoes, and animal and bacterial respiration. 1992 estimates of CO2 input to the atmosphere were 7 billion tons (humans) and 200 billion tons (natural sources) (Ray and Guzzo, 1993). Human activities add small amounts of nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), CFCs, PFCs and additional CO2 and CH4. Humans, volcanoes, and other sources add soot, particulates (including dust and sulfates) and other chemicals. However, some compounds may increase the reflectivity of clouds and may actually decrease the greenhouse effect.

Source: http://www.gpc.edu/~jsummero/EnvSciChpt11.htm