http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4508964.stm
This article tells about Greenlands rapidly melting glacier.
And the one below tells about how the Inuit (in Alaska and Canada a.k.a. Eskimos) are sueing the U.S. gov't for violating their human rights by conducting a policy that causes the destruction of their homeland.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4511556.stm
I used to want to buy a beachfront property but I'm sure if I do it will be under water too soon!
What does everyone else think? Should the U.S. gov't sign up for Kyoto - or is it not their problem? Global Warming is a fact. 
Every person on this Planet that uses energy from their national grid that has an obligation to at least acknowledge the problems that have arision due to the use of fossil fuels and other greenhouse gas emmitting processes. 
I like America, but sometimes you are such a self centred country. Most of the problems with Ozone depletion are caused by American Heavy industry. Own up to that fact and America has taken it's first step towards joining the position of the majority of the world that are busy trying to find solutions to clear up your mess.
The trouble is The Oil companies have such a strangle hold over the American Goverment that I don't see any progress on this for some time. Ditch the need for Huge sums of money in your politics and that will help. It'd be nice to elect someone that didn't depend on how much they had in their campaign fund. There was also the strong possibilty that the kyoto agreement may have reduced the amount of waste the USA could have pumped into the atmosphere. Every other major country in the world signed up.
USA has chosen otherwise and thinks it is better then all of the rest. 
I have been reading an article in a scientific magazine recently only to discover that the likelehood of the gulfstream (Tidal current that supplys the UK with warmer waters from the south) may come to a halt in the next ten years. this could mean that Western europe would plunge into a sub zero climate.
I wouldnt really know what to say 
This actions shows that at least some people in America are thinking only about themselves and the present moment, exactly like how a dog or cat acts. YOU BET THEY DO. Major climatic changes won't happen before they're dead. So why would they care?
I know Canada is not an example about pollution and all that stuff. We still haven't started reducing our CO2 emissions and this is frustrating. But if we don't get the support of America, which actually does 25% of global pollution, we won't do it. And who will complain when florida is flooded, when New-Orleans is flooded, when New-York is flooded, when you won't be able to live in Texas because of the heat, and so on and so forth? You bet the Americans will...
Solutions? There's a ton. Here's a few ones.
-Use green energies for energy production. Green energies, to get a similar production to that of a nuclear reactor, are a lot cheaper 
Yes, this is a much unknown fact that it would be of use to publicize a bit. Know that green energies are also in a development phase. At the moment, one m2 of solar cells will get you, maximum, 150 W of energy. Sun gives us up to 1000W/m2 of energy! So, so far, we only get 15%... and this is constantly evolving. Wind power will get you about 35% of the given energy, and the prices of both energies are gowing towars the low as their production increase. 
What would you think?
-Hydrogen car. NONSENSE! some of you will say... Not that much... Again, with green energies you can produce hydrogen. Most people believe hydrogen could only be produced in nuclear centrals... FALSE! And production rates are not that stupid. At the end of the change, when the system will be set down, hydrogen will probably be cheaper to produce and buy than fuel... The problem in this system is the car in itself. Hydrogen batteries are heavy, costly and have a short lifespan. But isn't this the way of the future? 
-Hybrid cars. You all know about these, I think... if you have the means, for a few K$ more, you can get a car that will pump much less fuel than a normal one. At the actual price of gas, this could end up beeing an economy, and a good temporary solution.
-Find alternatives to plastic. Plastic industry (plastic bags, plastic packagings, etc) consume a lot of this polluting black gold. The quantity of pollution released by this industry is incredible, not counting that the plastic after needs thousands, if not millions of years to discompose...
There are also much other solutions. Some imply great investment from you, others great investment from big compagnies, other little or no investment at all. Go as you feel, and the more you do the better
Just to end on a happier note, I think that 33 of the 52 states of USA promised they'd do something anyway... Stays to see how they will do! 
I have recently heard on the radio that the Kyoto treaty will expire in a few years and in the meetings that are currently running is a chance that the USA will cooperate, but it seems to be very difficult for creating a new treaty.
The USA is in my eyes still not capable for closing a agreement for reducing the pollution gasses.
I hope that the new treaty will help in reducing more pollution gasses than the kyoto treaty.
There is so much that is uncertain about the effect of global warming that the degree of despair shown in these posts is unwarranted. Yes greenhouse gases are causing some effect on climate but the exact nature of these effects are not clearly understood.
Unfortunately for mankind the probability of global cooling is just as likely as warming.
Recorded history is such a short time relative to geological time that natural induced climate change had had only a minimal effect on civilization. The far greater danger to human health and well being than greenhouse gases is probably asteroids, volcanoes and solar output.
That is not to say that nothing should be done about CO2 it just means that focusing all our energy on one potential problem is not logical.
2005 - hottest year ever recorded. Interesting...
| SunburnedCactus wrote: |
| 2005 - hottest year ever recorded. Interesting... |
Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the 'urban heat island effect' i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming...and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out.
96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!
Extreme weather correlates with the cycle of solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions or political elections, the recent heavy rainfall in winter and spring is a perfect example of this — it occurred at solar maximum at a time when solar maxima are very intense — this pattern may well repeat every 11 years until about 2045.
Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by governments, in fact many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the 'spin' that the IPCC and media put on their findings.
The latest report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6 Celsius yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at the request of a few governments — in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians.
There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate.
Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public ... as H L Mencken said "the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" ... the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it. | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide! |
So how do you explain that the level of carbon dioxide in the air is the highest in history? In 1850 it was 280 ppm and now it's 380.
| Quote: |
Today's rising CO2 concentrations are 27 percent higher than at the highest level seen over the 650,000-year time scale, according to the study, which appears in the weekly US journal Science.
The Dome C core, extracted by the 10-country European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA), outstrips by 210,000 years the previous record-holder, drilled at an Antarctic site called Vostok.
"We have added another piece of information showing that the time scales on which humans have changed the composition of the atmosphere are extremely short compared to the natural time cycles of the climate system," said lead author Thomas Stocker of the University of Bern's Physics Institute in Switzerland. |
http://www.physorg.com/news8475.html | Bondings wrote: |
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | | 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide! |
So how do you explain that the level of carbon dioxide in the air is the highest in history? In 1850 it was 280 ppm and now it's 380.
| Quote: | Today's rising CO2 concentrations are 27 percent higher than at the highest level seen over the 650,000-year time scale, according to the study, which appears in the weekly US journal Science.
The Dome C core, extracted by the 10-country European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA), outstrips by 210,000 years the previous record-holder, drilled at an Antarctic site called Vostok.
"We have added another piece of information showing that the time scales on which humans have changed the composition of the atmosphere are extremely short compared to the natural time cycles of the climate system," said lead author Thomas Stocker of the University of Bern's Physics Institute in Switzerland. |
http://www.physorg.com/news8475.html |
Bondings, perhaps you missed the part where I stated that
| Quote: |
| 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. |
Carbon dioxide derives from multiple sources including volcanic outgassing, the combustion of organic matter and respiration processes of living aerobic organisms. It is also produced by various microorganisms from fermentation and cellular respiration.
:edit:
Have a look here
Last edited by S3nd K3ys on Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:08 pm; edited 1 time in total | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
Bondings, perhaps you missed the part where I stated that
| Quote: | | 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. |
Carbon dioxide derives from multiple sources including volcanic outgassing, the combustion of organic matter and respiration processes of living aerobic organisms. It is also produced by various microorganisms from fermentation and cellular respiration. |
If that's true, then how can you explain the sudden increase? It was never higher than 280 in the last 650.000 years.
Also, pages that start with such things are not a reliable source:
| Quote: |
| Some years ago a British newspaper arranged a square-off between a meteorologist, an astrologer and a woman with corns, to see who could best predict the weather. The woman with corns won. |
Certainly not if they put "FACTS" in front of almost every sentence.As I stated earlier the small percent of greenhouse gas coming from human sources simply tips the balance. Human sources account for about 3 percent. There is a very real danger that although there appears to be a significant human induced warming it is not significant enough to offset natural forces that may induce cooling. It will take many years to develop any kind of certainty over these issues. The prudent thing to do is to be prepared for both warming and cooling.
| Quote: |
| I have been reading an article in a scientific magazine recently only to discover that the likelehood of the gulfstream (Tidal current that supplys the UK with warmer waters from the south) may come to a halt in the next ten years. this could mean that Western europe would plunge into a sub zero climate. |
I guess that means Europe will freeze because of Global warming: ('')
It seems that the US has been slowing their rate of emissions increase without Kyoto. China and India are exploding with increased greenhouse gas emissions, and as developing countries aren't bound by penalties.
The Europeans countries and Russia have decreased emissions, but I wonder if that's a result of their economies. Russia, for sure, Germany perhaps as well.
I read earlier today that Canada was taking a beating in the Kyota penalties. That money was supposed to come from the US.
The whole thing sounds like a boondoggle, in my opinion. | wolfhnd wrote: |
There is so much that is uncertain about the effect of global warming that the degree of despair shown in these posts is unwarranted. Yes greenhouse gases are causing some effect on climate but the exact nature of these effects are not clearly understood.
Unfortunately for mankind the probability of global cooling is just as likely as warming.
Recorded history is such a short time relative to geological time that natural induced climate change had had only a minimal effect on civilization. The far greater danger to human health and well being than greenhouse gases is probably asteroids, volcanoes and solar output.
That is not to say that nothing should be done about CO2 it just means that focusing all our energy on one potential problem is not logical. |
I think perhaps we should concentrate on looking at weather cycles, rather than if the world is Globally cooling or warming. Afterall thats what effects us.
For instance Florida just seems to be hit by more and more Storm systems. Can you find any records showing this amount of Hurricanes previously? There are many more examples of increasing extreme weather cycles across the Planet. These changes over such a short period of time are exactly why we should have the Alarm bells ringing don't you think? Why wait another hundred years until you've got more history to assess the problems that are so apparent now?I think I know where you are coming from on this. The general feeling amongst that portion of the population that believes global warming is a serious issue, assumes that anything that contradicts the idea that the earth is growing warmer due to human source co2 emissions is hostile. I have no doubt that co2 emissions are making the world warmer. That said the more important but often overlooked phenomenon is the background temperature that co2 is acting on. If you think of it as an electrical signal you can see that the time at which you insert the information onto the carrier signal determines what the max voltage is at any given time. My guess is that in this case the carrier signal is a larger wave than the human influence. Determining where we are on the curve is where we should be spending the most effort. Unfortunately politics are taking us in the wrong direction. The fact that the conservatives our leading the anti global warming propaganda in no way alters my objectivity. Even if we agree that the "forces of darkness" have an agenda that is counter to the well being of most people on earth it does not change the fact that there is just too little information to know what the long term effects may be. Failure to consider and prepare for the possibility that the earth will actually cool over the next couple of decades could leave millions starving. As a humanist in the tradition of the enlightenment and as a scientist it is irresponsible to not consider all possible situations without prejudice. The little "ice age" is a historical fact but global warming remains largely conjecture without adequate information concerning the tempature pattern that co2 emissions are acting on.
| Bondings wrote: |
Also, pages that start with such things are not a reliable source:
| Quote: | | Some years ago a British newspaper arranged a square-off between a meteorologist, an astrologer and a woman with corns, to see who could best predict the weather. The woman with corns won. |
Certainly not if they put "FACTS" in front of almost every sentence. |
Not to mention that the long-range forecasts are done based on the moon cycles. It seams like a pretty hokey set-up to me after some reading through their site.
I am pretty firmly convinced the shit has already hit the fan, and that humans are the cause of it. All the numbers and percentages are nice - what matters is what that small increase does in the end. I am sure "we the scientists" will not work it out here.
Canada, where I live, has increased its emissions by 26% rather than reduced it by 5%. For a nation that prides itself in its indeed spectacular natural environment, this is embarrassing. The Netherlands, where I grew up, is seriously looking at where the water level will be in 100 years, as it will be a serious threat to their security. Note that even the americans are well aware of climate change:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
Even if you are skeptic, the possible implications are such that there is some value to attempt to err on the cautious side. Even if you doubt that polution is linked to climate change, certainly in the urbain environment polution is a very immediate problem. I have lived in some of the nicer ones where nonetheless on certain days a yellow blanket covers the city. This is also well understood with municipalities in the US, many of which were represented at the UN climate change conference in Montreal.
http://www.sundayherald.com/53282I tend to agree with the evidence supporting global warming. People can manipulate statistics and facts to support whatever arguement you want. Sure, we can go back to the prehistoric period and say, it isn't that bad. It has happened before. Etc, etc, etc.
What people should try and look for is the net impact. Are we producing more CO2 than natural cycles can re-convert it, I believe so.
- The oceans pretty much absorb a constant amount of CO2
- Trees and Rainforests around the world are declining in number, which decreases the amount of CO2 the planet can convert
- Humans are producing more CO2 than ever before.
You don't really need to be a scientist to figure it out that the system is gradually being overloaded.
withaar wrote: (Sorry I deleted the quotes for some reason)
"Canada, where I live, has increased its emissions by 26% rather than reduced it by 5%. For a nation that prides itself in its indeed spectacular natural environment, this is embarrassing. The Netherlands, where I grew up, is seriously looking at where the water level will be in 100 years, as it will be a serious threat to their security. Note that even the americans are well aware of climate change:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html"
Yeah, we are quite embarrassing....
