Global Warming

[bradclark1]

............

President Bush dismissed on Tuesday a report put out by his administration warning that human activities are behind climate change that is having significant effects on the environment.

The report released by the Environmental Protection Agency was a surprising endorsement of what many scientists and weather experts have long argued — that human activities such as oil refining, power plants and automobile emissions are important causes of global warming.

But it suggests nothing beyond voluntary action by industry for dealing with the so-called "greenhouse" gases, the program Bush advocated in rejecting a treaty negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 calling for mandatory reduction of those gases by industrial nations.

"I read the report put out by the bureaucracy," Mr. Bush said dismissively when asked about the EPA report, adding that he still opposes the Kyoto treaty.

[Boris]

Here's another graph taken from data in Hawaii:



But as Nir Shariv says, even if CO2 plays only a small part, pollution is still bad. I'm not sure if an astrophysicist is qualified to comment on climate change though. The problem with global warming denial, is that it gives license to pollute, thinking there will be no consequences.

Here, a nice article on the science of global warming denial:

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05...GlobalWarming/

[malkuth74]

Originally Posted by Boris

Here's another graph taken from data in Hawaii:



But as Nir Shariv says, even if CO2 plays only a small part, pollution is still bad. I'm not sure if an astrophysicist is qualified to comment on climate change though. The problem with global warming denial, is that it gives license to pollute, thinking there will be no consequences.

Here, a nice article on the science of global warming denial:

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05...GlobalWarming/

Hawaii Is a bad place for Co2 data, for ovious reasons. Its like taking Co2 readings on mt st helan.

[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by Boris

Here's another graph taken from data in Hawaii:

Ok, see what Malkuth74 wrote? Hawaii is a volcanic mountain chain.

But as Nir Shariv says, even if CO2 plays only a small part, pollution is still bad. I'm not sure if an astrophysicist is qualified to comment on climate change though. The problem with global warming denial, is that it gives license to pollute, thinking there will be no consequences.

What kind of consequenes?

Here, a nice article on the science of global warming denial:

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05...GlobalWarming/

:rotfl: :rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

............

You're in a loop, Brad. Look carefully - just one 9 word verbatim quote, from which no definite conclusions can be drawn.

Incidentally, this story is not being carried much by anyone. Did an appropriate [url=http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=environmental+protection+agency+bush&ei=UTF-8&fr=&x=wrt]Yahoo News search and maybe this is buried several pages in. Not typical for a Bush-bashing news story. :hmm:

[Bort]

Ok, see what Malkuth74 wrote? Hawaii is a volcanic mountain chain.

There is an argument to be made there, although there are more sources of data than just those sensors. I'm not sure if the sensors on Hawaii are flawed or not, but there is some evidence to suggest that may be true. Dumb place to put them, maybe the scientists liked the idea of some surfing to go with their research?

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Incidentally, this story is not being carried much by anyone. Did an appropriate [url=http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=environmental+protection+agency+bush&ei=UTF-8&fr=&x=wrt]Yahoo News search and maybe this is buried several pages in. Not typical for a Bush-bashing news story. :hmm:

Who said it was a Bush bashing? I said it's kinda funny. To me it is anyway.

"I read the report put out by the bureaucracy," Mr. Bush said dismissively when asked about the EPA report, adding that he still opposes the Kyoto treaty.

Yep, I looked at it again and it still is kinda funny.
Maybe you did'nt get it. Bush is president, the present bureacracy is his. Get it?

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Maybe you did'nt get it. Bush is president, the present bureacracy is his. Get it?

I'm not familiar with a government anywhere worldwide that doesn't have a bureaucacy, no matter who is president, prime minister or monarch at the time.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

I'm not familiar with a government anywhere worldwide that doesn't have a bureaucacy, no matter who is president, prime minister or monarch at the time.

Come on AL. You're trying to make something out of nothing. If you can't see the humor in it, oh well.

[Skybird]

If humour is disputed, I can bring it to an end :

There are many experts today that get payed by interested industrial businesses (cars,oil, energy) for just one job: casting doubt and discredit scientists that argue that there is climate change, that it is man-made, that it is coming at high costs for life on earth, and mankind. It is interesting that thinktanks that help to still spread such propaganda are always seem to have links to the politcal right and industrial conservatism, they get their money and funding from there. They are always seem to come from camps that have much to lose when today's economy and energy behavior would be made subject to tough changes.

One of the world's absolutely leading top adresses on climate research is the "Potsdam Institut für Klimaforschung", which nevertheless is relatively unknown to the wide public. It's an adress where even NASA sometimes knocks on the door to ask for advise. It's president 3 or 4 weeks ago became very angry on TV when reporting that "ridiculous sums" (talking of hundreds of millions) are being spentevery year by interested circles just to produce "counter-analysis" that discredits scientific data and findings that within the community of politically unambitioned experts from around the globe is undisputed since the better part of two decades now. But the scientific relevance of such propagandistic "examinations" and "data" is often nil, or is coming from extremely questionable sources - that often are already proven wrong. the amateur often does not know these links behind the surface. The man stressed that several times - the unbiased scientific community worldwide is united in it's agreement on assessing global climate changes since almost 20 years now. We talk about an overhwelming majority. The public nevertheless is being fooled by small lobbies that spend millions and millions for campaigns and personal attacks on leading experts in order to discredit them, so many people still think - and feel reasonable in that - that the situation is blackpainted and exaggerated by reports like the latest climate report by the UN. Scientific competence is replaced by loud yelling, and the one who shouts the loudest and most often, will win public opinion. Simple psychology.

The costs for national economies/societies to compensate for the increasing damages done by nature becoming rougher in intensity and frequency of desasters, are already to be felt and measured. The Gulf Stream has lost one quater in energy. Since years, the seasons are changing in quality of typical indices in many regions. the average global temperature has seen the by far fastest climb since several tens of thousand years, at least. The glaciers in the Alpes have almost died. the arctic is retreating, changing the suboceanic temperatures. The spreading of animal species currently is subject to immense changes. Climate-dependant deseases come to regions where they have not been found before. Desertification in Africa and southern europe races faster than ever. Floods in Asia are growing in frequncy and dimensions. Typhoons, hurricanes, Tornados - more of them, and stronger. Weather phenomenons that you have not seen in your place before suddenly pop up. Ground water levels are falling dangerously in many regions, both being a consequence of man'S doing, and causing consequences to the environment. Insurances see fast climbing costs caused by damages due to floodings, storms, avalanches. The fastest dying-ut of species since the era when the dinosaurs died.

One must be mercylessly determined not to see what is going on in order to question that something is going on. In other words: one needs to be a suicidal, dumb, total idiot.

It is argued that the costs for measures to adopt to climate change right now would be around 1% of the globes industrial profits. It is also said that not starting with that and paying for the damages that will be allowed unprepared that way in the coming decades will reach levels between 10 and 20% of global industries profits. Not checking how these numbers have been put together, simple reason tells me that the to-be-expected costs when not trying to adopt and becoming prepared for what is left to become prepared for, most likely will outclass the investements when trying to start adotping and preparing right now. We already have lost the better ammount of time that we had. We wasted it by not only doing nothing, but by pushing the harm that we did.

Even Americans have started to realise that it is becoming too expensive. Currently, Mercedes and Crysler are in a process of divorce (jajaja, I know it is not confirmed, but I tell you this is what it will end like, that marriage was a loser from the beginning). This is because Crysler simply does not sell as much cars as it would need to sell in order to stay competitive, not too mention to compensate the billions of investements Mercedes has done in recent years. Why? Because the engineers planned car types that simply do not sell as well anymore as they used to be in the past: SUV, and gasoline-thirsty megacars with monstrous engines. With surprise I red last week, that the market for such cars is slowly declining in the US. The engineers stayed with old habits, the German management gave it's nodding agreement to go on with that - and additionally to the said unspectacular quality of Crysler cars, they now sit on stocks of cars that do not sell as well anymore and do not have immediate blueprints for more economic alternatives on the table. One had invested in dinosaurs. Instead, both in america and germany, the clever Japanese cars steal the show and so far get away with it while we were sleeping too long. german car makers still believe that the premium segment is their future. they will not wake up until it is to late, I think. they lost in catalysator teczhnology against the French and Japanese, now they are in danger to loose contact to hybrid engine technology.

Practicing like this:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...004397,00.html
does not help to raise the reputation of sceptical critics who still try to put in doubt that we need to conduct massive adjustments that will affect every single one of us.

It should tell us something that those scientists that authored the UN climate report, for example, alraedy mentioned it in the title and opening summary that they leave the decision building to the policy makers. whereas those "scientists" that attack such data demand to directly influence policy (in favour of conservative industrial practices), and demand data they do not like to be seen as biased, "uncorrected", in need of being checked again. And again. And again. Since years. Since decades. Of course, more data is needed, to. And more data. And more data. And much more, always, forever. Anything is welcomed if it helps to prevent coming to unwelcomed conclusions. Nevertheless the latter call the first "incompetent", "unrespectable", "questionable in their motives", "unbalanced", "being on crusades", "fanatical believers", "people wishing for doomsday". He who calls the loudest is right, that means. Correcting factors are demanded by such critics, that should dampen the "apocalyptic conclusions", measurements should be taken that help to find "an unbalanced and objective interpretation of data from examinations that still need to be conducted in the future". As if the data that is needed is not already there - since almost 20 years, Potsdam says, and I remember the thick report that I partially red while still being a schoolboy: "Global 2000. The report to the president". I did a project on that at school. That was during Reagan's term...!
Winning time for the old industrial establishment to spend the time on doing nothing - that is what it's about. Business as usual, enjoy the profits. I flew over parts of the IPCC report. Such diffamations that often are used by critics are not to be found in it, and public commentators who spend more time with it than I did also say the same.

As an essay in a German print magazine had pointed out, the situation reminds of the hate-filled attacks of religious fundamentalists against for example Darwin'S evolution theory, and in favour of creationist's view on things. In fact there are many personnel and financial links between these circles and many platforms functioning as critics to the reports on global climate change. Also, the global criticism very massively is influenced and funded by sources and institutions of or in the US. As that essay concluded, emotion and religious feelings that way are brought into debate to raise the heat and to shout even louder, intentionally. "Den anderen niederschreien", it is called in German, "to shout down the other". And where the latest report (by far not the first one, isn't it) limits itself to deal in argument and data, sentiments amongst critics are raising - who complain about "apocalypse-believing" in such reports and do not realise that what they are up against is scientific data and argument, while they themselves turn it into an emotional debate and a question of believing only those things that fit their own lobbyist agendas. It is not about questions of practical relevance - like with the debate about evolution theory, it is about a far more general, even religious world view, that is defended with as much bitterness and spiking emoptiuons, as religion always has been fought for. Data is only objective if it allows data contradicting it. Experts are only experts, if they surrender to arguments of climate sceptics. Opposing opinions are only true if they admit that they are wrong.

Well, the IPCC study has been done by 2500 scientific experts and 1250 contributing authors from 130 countries over 6 years. See if the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, or the American Enterprise Institute, both with their highly biased agendas and links to American Corporations, conservatives and religious right-wingers, can rival that.

Who is attacking demands for climate protection the loudest? The OPEC, for it sees the financial basis of it's existence in danger if oil sales would drop. America, for it's heavy industry is aged and would desperately need modernization that would cost immense ammounts of money to make it competetive again and ecology-friendly, and countries like India and China, both with booming industries of the old orthodox design, who do not want to stop in the middle of the process of becoming economic superpowers. Interests are revealing.

What it comes down to is this: Even if by wonder and miracle all harmful emissions worldwide would be brought to zero from one day to the next, the harmful processes we monitor in the atmosphere right now would continue at the same pace for another 30-60 years, with the same self-dynamic that is present in them right now. That is caused by the longevity of the chemical agents we talk about. that means that the situation will detoriate over that ammount of time, causing maybe new independant variables that additionally project new effects, even beyond that time frame. The world in the end phase of that climatic transition without doubt will be a very, very different one than that that we know now. The trends will go on. - But we do not debate reductions on global emissions. We do not even speak about a freezing of emissions on their current levels. We simply talk about a small reduction in the speed by which we additonally raise emission rates! And even that is already too much for nations like the US, and some others. What would be needed is not only to stop the way we do, but to actively intervene in efforts and attempts to repair the damage that has been done. and that is probbaly beyond both willingness and competence of man.

Draw your conclusions. It's human megalomania - the craving for everlasting, unlimited growth.

In a physically limited environment!

[ASWnut101]

Algore's movie producing energy habits: http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/...article_id=367

Algore's home energy useage questioned: http://www.fairviewobserver.com/apps...82/1321/MTCN06


:rotfl: :rotfl:

[August]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

Algore's movie producing energy habits: http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/...article_id=367

Algore's home energy useage questioned: http://www.fairviewobserver.com/apps...82/1321/MTCN06


:rotfl: :rotfl:

Now there's an inconvenient truth....

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

Algore's movie producing energy habits: http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/...article_id=367

Algore's home energy useage questioned: http://www.fairviewobserver.com/apps...82/1321/MTCN06


:rotfl: :rotfl:

I've heard that Algore is asking for a BTU recount.

[flintlock]

In related news: Major polar study set for launch

[Wim Libaers]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Who is attacking demands for climate protection the loudest? The OPEC, for it sees the financial basis of it's existence in danger if oil sales would drop. America, for it's heavy industry is aged and would desperately need modernization that would cost immense ammounts of money to make it competetive again and ecology-friendly, and countries like India and China, both with booming industries of the old orthodox design, who do not want to stop in the middle of the process of becoming economic superpowers. Interests are revealing.

What it comes down to is this: Even if by wonder and miracle all harmful emissions worldwide would be brought to zero from one day to the next, the harmful processes we monitor in the atmosphere right now would continue at the same pace for another 30-60 years, with the same self-dynamic that is present in them right now. That is caused by the longevity of the chemical agents we talk about. that means that the situation will detoriate over that ammount of time, causing maybe new independant variables that additionally project new effects, even beyond that time frame. The world in the end phase of that climatic transition without doubt will be a very, very different one than that that we know now. The trends will go on. - But we do not debate reductions on global emissions. We do not even speak about a freezing of emissions on their current levels. We simply talk about a small reduction in the speed by which we additonally raise emission rates! And even that is already too much for nations like the US, and some others. What would be needed is not only to stop the way we do, but to actively intervene in efforts and attempts to repair the damage that has been done. and that is probbaly beyond both willingness and competence of man.

Draw your conclusions. It's human megalomania - the craving for everlasting, unlimited growth.

In a physically limited environment!

Well, you mention the important factors opposing reductions. It looks like they will not change, so perhaps reductions in consumption are a bad idea? If some countries reduce their consumption, what happens? They harm their economy, and the oil they aren't burning will be consumed by others who will benefit more. The better strategy might be to plan for possible problems with global warming, but just keep consuming oil as required until better alternatives appear.

Unilateral reductions would just penalize the good guys and reward the bad guys, if one can describe it in such admittedly simplistic terms. (of course, in the end, everybody loses, but the good guys would lose more, earlier. The unregulated commons at work link)

Also keep in mind that several factors are involved in climate change, and CO2 is the most intensively studied. While it is significant, there might be some others that matter too, and would be even harder to stop (e.g. solar changes). It's nice to want to prevent global warming, but one has to consider that, perhaps, there's not much that can be done about it and resources are better spent trying to deal with the consequences.