 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
|
|
|
Subject: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: mooman Date: 27 Jun 01 - 04:42 AM At CarolC's suggestion, here is a fresh thread (the orginal was over 150 long) for those who would like to continue the discussion. Here's a blueclickablethingy to the original thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: mooman Date: 27 Jun 01 - 10:19 AM Refresh |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Jun 01 - 12:27 PM An energy tax on full sized pickups and SUV's would make a huge difference in Canada and the US. I don't know how many people come to work everyday in a vehicle with enough Steel and motor to haul 20 or 30 people. The waste is astounding. But then again, they are the most profitable sector of the North American auto market. Think of all the jobs. The solutions are not simple. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 27 Jun 01 - 01:02 PM I think, Rob Dale, that is one of the aspects President Bush is taking into account when he says the implemention of the Treaty would create economic hardships. I know that will not be a valid argument to many here at the Mudcat, but I can't see how it cannot. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Kim C Date: 27 Jun 01 - 01:15 PM If they tax full-size trucks and SUVs they will have to tax every vehicle with an engine larger than 4 cylinders. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: MMario Date: 27 Jun 01 - 01:18 PM "should" not "have to" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: northfolk/al cholger Date: 27 Jun 01 - 01:19 PM I think that the trade off in jobs versus the environment is an issue that unnecessarily divides us. Ostensibly for every SUV we don't make there will be a commensurate job loss... that could be mitigated by the production of (1) mass transit systems, (2) alternate fuel vehicles, (3) smaller more efficient fossil fuel based vehicles. One other consideration... When the public interest is served by disrupting the economy, a public works program of equivalent scale ought to be considered...model it after the G.I. bill of rights, after world war II, and apply it to workers who lose their jobs due to nuclear plant shutdowns chemical plant shutdowns changes in the tobacco based farm economy shutdown of the monstrous insurance industry, as we experience useful movement toward health care reform. And, to George Bush and the one other person, who still doesn't accept Global warming as fact, quit being ideological syncophants, quit halting progress and harming people, and get the hell out of the way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: gnu Date: 27 Jun 01 - 01:34 PM Exempt full sized pickups used for commercial purposes from the energy tax, please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: mousethief Date: 27 Jun 01 - 01:36 PM If they're commercially licensed, fine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Jun 01 - 03:07 PM Aye. There's the rub. I heard a few years ago that the main reason for the boom is SUV's was the Gas guzzler tax in California. Cars were taxed extra based upon gas consumption and truck and SUV's were not. Therefore consmers and manufacturers flocked to trucks and SUV's. A 5,000 pound SUV is still going to consume more fuel in driving and more materials in the construction than a 2,500 pound car. If America were to encourage more people to switch to fuel efficient cars as of today. It would still loose out because foreign companies dominate the low end of the market. Jobs would be exported the economy would suffer. Switch to public transport? Almost impossible to do with the current infrastructure and lifestyles in spread out Cities like LA , in the smaller cities and in the suburbs. It would take a complete change in outlook for millions of people. Can the government legislate this? Can they commit to it in international treaties? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 27 Jun 01 - 07:32 PM Northfolk: I assume you did not intentionally fail to add an "s" to persons in your post, is so? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: CarolC Date: 27 Jun 01 - 08:26 PM I have a segment from a 'News Hour With Jim Leherer' (sp?) on video tape that deals with the issue of global warming. I don't know the date, because I didn't tape the beginning of the show, but it aired some time in the last couple of weeks. The segment addresses some of the issues that have been brought up on this thread and the previous one. I'm going to transcribe the relevant parts and post them. This is going to take me a little while, so I will probably post them later tonight or tomorrow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Kim C Date: 28 Jun 01 - 12:27 PM I am skeptical about the whole thing. Each side has "facts" which proves they alone are right. I am trying to keep an open mind on the issue. I agree that most people are probably not as environmentally responsible as they should be; however sometimes we are limited as to what we can each do as individuals. Geography and economics may prevent us from doing all we'd like. I'd like to have solar panels in my house. But they cost money. I'd like to have an extry little car to drive around town when I don't need the Jeep. But that costs money too and I can only afford one car payment. I live in a house with no central heat or air. I have a woodstove, and several fans. I compost my food scraps. I recycle my newspapers... but that's another one. There is now no longer a recycling center in my part of town. Sigh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Jun 01 - 12:59 PM My father "recycles" his newspaper through his woodstove. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 28 Jun 01 - 02:10 PM Doesn't that add to pollution, RobDale? :>) I find myself in agreement with Kim C. There is just too much good evidence on both sides to really know which is right. I referred earlier to the Fox News Network show when they were featuring a debate on global warming. There were to "experts" on the show. One said global warming was a real threat, and the other said it wasn't. Both had good credentials and about all they did for the whole show was disagree with each other. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be environmentally responsible, of course, but maybe for reasons other than the threat of global warming. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: CarolC Date: 28 Jun 01 - 04:57 PM Ok. Here's the first part. On the subject of the European Union's position on the ratification of the Kyoto treaty, and President Bush's response to it...
On day three of his European tour, Bush was in Gothenburg, Sweden for a meeting with the leaders of the European Union's 15 member nations.
In the streets, thousands demonstrated against the president's rejection of the Kyoto treaty, a 1997 agreement that would commit countries to reduce greenhouse emissions. The president has argued that the treaty was wrong to exempt developing nations like China and India, and would hurt the U.S. economically. That stance has been criticized by European leaders, and in a press conference Swedish Prime Minister, Goran Persson, the current EU president, said that the two sides had agreed to disagree. (He said,) "The European Union will stick to the Kyoto protocol, and go for a ratification process. The U.S. has chosen another policy. But we have the same targets. And we have to meet the same problems. Climate change is not isolated to Europe, or to America. It's a global (fact?). So never the less, if you are in favor or against the Kyoto protocol, you have to take action. So we agreed to disagree about substance, but agreed to go on with some type of procedure that can lead us back to a position that we can cooperate and try to support each other. We will call for personal representatives to follow up our discussion and that will mean that we send a signal that we (will) go on ahead with the Kyoto protocol, the American government (will) go on ahead with their policy." President Bush: "As the Prime Minister said, we don't agree on the Kyoto treaty, but we do agree that climate change is a serious issue, and we must work together. We believe that our economies can grow and at the same time come up with climate change solutions." In fact, no EU country has yet ratified Kyoto although more than thirty smaller nations have done so. EU commission president Romano Prodi was asked 'why not'. "There is no one single country who has declared not to ratify it. The ratification process has started already in some countries and is going on, and there is no one message of refusal or delay of ratification." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: MAV Date: 28 Jun 01 - 05:19 PM
A. Has your nation signed the Kyoto treaty?
B. The US Senate by 95 to 0 rejected it. (dems too)
C. Romania HAS signed it.
D. American industry is among if not THE cleanest.
(Hi Carol) mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: CarolC Date: 28 Jun 01 - 06:06 PM (Hi MAV. How's it going?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Jun 01 - 06:14 PM DougR I guess it adds to pollution, but not quite as much as if he threw out the paper and used that much firewood. I don't have any hard data. I don't hold much hope for a political solution. The same thing is happening as killed the fishing industry back home in Newfoundland. Globaly it is better if everyone conserves. But economically, each country which conserves by itsself is at a disadvantage. Bush has to answer to the voters. I guess the voters need to be persuaded. I think it would have to be a project on the scale of the Apollo moon landings or mobilizing the country to fight a global war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: MAV Date: 28 Jun 01 - 06:47 PM Just think how much environmental damage, waste, pollution and needless misdirection of human energy is caused by the entire NEWSPAPER cycle: from clearcutting the Maine woods, to dioxin in the Maine rivers from the papermaking process, to the diesel fueled stinky big trucks, to the disgusting landfills everywhere.
Shame on the politically correct NY Times et al.
Not a clean American industry. I'll continue to get my news online.
mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: CarolC Date: 28 Jun 01 - 07:08 PM Public Television's pretty good, too. Although paper would be much more environmentally friendly if it were made from hemp. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 28 Jun 01 - 08:50 PM Some folk would probably say it tasted better too, Carol C. :>) Rob: I wasn't being serious, just funning you. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 28 Jun 01 - 10:15 PM More than one has said that there are no easy answers. I can see the effects of global warming on the glaciers within an hours drive of me, I know that a number of animals and insects are extending their ranges north, and the temperature curves are inclined upward. Are we affecting the climate or is the change the result of changes in our solar system and the wobbling of the earth on its axis? Pollution is a serious problem in many areas, but some of the attempts to improve the situation are poorly thought out. The Kyoto "agreement" is badly flawed because the pollution clouds over areas such as China, not included in the accord, are among the most serious. Our rail system is poor; much of out cross-country transport went to the truckers as a result. Automobile engines are much more efficient today- I remember the cars of my childhood which were exceptional if they got 10-12 miles to the gallon- but we will continue to drive until public transit improves (no one will vote in the changes because they are taxed enough already). And so on and on ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: CarolC Date: 28 Jun 01 - 11:26 PM Here's some more on the European Union's decision to ratify the Kyoto protocol.
The moderator was Terence Smith.
The panel was...
Terry Anderson - Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, and Executive Director, Political Economy Research Center
Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin - Republican Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee
Joe Romm - Executive Director, Center for Energy and Climate Solutions
Svend Auken - Denmark's Minister of Environment and Energy
Svend Auken, "It was not quite true what was said that none of us had ratified the Kyoto Protocol. In my country, just two weeks ago, ninety percent... conservatives, social democrats, everybody... ninety percent of all the members of Parliament decided to ratify the Kyoto protocol, but in Europe, we can only ratify it all together, and we will do so when the rules of the game have been set up."
Terence Smith, "So the process is not entirely complete, but it's on the way..." Svend Auken, "The Parliament has made it's decision. It has assented....Technically, we cannot ratify it before the rules have been written down and that's why we are meeting in Bonn, to write down the rules. After that, then Europe will ratify it. And we are committed to ratifying it before the meeting in Johannesburg, ten years after Rio. So it will happen." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: GUEST,Robdale@home Date: 28 Jun 01 - 11:56 PM Global Warming, th "yes" campaign.
Ya can't wrap fish in Public Radio
The world really needs to clean itsself up
I won't ratify
The glaciers are gettting smaller
I won't ratify Think of all the new real estate on Baffin Island! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 29 Jun 01 - 01:40 AM Any gas or oil there, Robdale? **BG** DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Jun 01 - 09:32 AM I think you are on to something there Doug! There is very little vegitation in Canada's far north particularly in the Arctic Archepelago (sic). If golbal warming were to turn this into a rainforest, An area roughly twice the size of Brazil, then the carbon balance in the atmosphere would be restored and we would not have to worry about global warming! Take me back to my bamboo shack on beautiful Ellsmere Island |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Kim C Date: 29 Jun 01 - 09:48 AM Sure, you can burn newspaper in a woodstove, but it burns so quickly it doesn't add to the heat, so you'd still end up using the same amount of firewood. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 29 Jun 01 - 12:46 PM Glad you recognized my remark in the way it was intended, RobDale; humor.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: annamill Date: 29 Jun 01 - 02:17 PM About this global warming thing.. I just want it to get just warm enough for me to have summer all year long, like Cali. Then I wouldn't have to move. **BG** Love, annamill |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 29 Jun 01 - 03:44 PM You want summer, annamill? Come to Arizona. You'll get LOTS of summer! :>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Kim C Date: 29 Jun 01 - 05:36 PM Or Tennessee. Depends on how humid you want it. And I don't have any air conditioning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 29 Jun 01 - 06:09 PM Jeeze, Kim C., no air conditioning? Don't know how you tolerate it. Speaking of global warming! **G** DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: CarolC Date: 03 Jul 01 - 02:07 AM In the first 'global warming' thread, mooman posted the following...
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming, yes/no?
I attended a seminar of the "European-Japanese Experts Group" (a sort of "think tank") a few years ago and heard a very good presentation by the Japanese Environmental Director (or something similar) of one of the big Japanese electronics companies who had totally implemented he international environmental management standard, ISO 14001, at ALL of their numerous manufacturing sites.
He quoted that in Europe legislators often talk of "PPP" (usually an acronym for "public-private partnerships"). In his company they used the same acronym but, this time, standing for "(environmental) "protection provides profits". This struck me as very interesting.
The company had completely rationalised its materials procurement and use policy, its energy use, its discharges to water and air (which is basically throwing money down the drain or up the flue), and redesign of the energy usage and radiation emission of its projects (which enabled it to label many of its products "green" which immediately interested a large group of consumers). The implementation of the environmental management process certainly cost them a lot of money but, in the longer term, enabled them to make greater profits due to energy and material savings, less money spent on "clean up" and greater sales.
Perhaps this is an example of the type of innovative thinking you were referring to Carol?
Great example, mooman. I didn't know about that one.
Here are some more excerpts from the 'News Hour' show that address these issues...
Svend Auken, "Our experience is that you can have enormous gains in energy efficiency. We have prosperity in Denmark the same as the United States, but we only use half the energy, per citizen, as the United States does. We've shifted to renewable energy... we've already achieved twenty percent of our power supply in renewable energy. We are moving towards one third. And it has given thousands of jobs in Denmark. Denmark, alone, has..."
Moderator, "It has created jobs?"
Svend Auken, "It has created jobs. More than fifty percent of the world's wind energy turbines are made on Danish technology, and it's given thousands of new jobs and billions of dollars in export income. It's just one example, as Mr. Romm just said, that by using less energy, by being more efficient, by using renewables, you save money, and you make jobs, not the other way around." Joe Romm, "Let's take one example of a well known large energy using company... Dupont. Dupont pledged that between 1990 and 2010, it would keep its energy consumption flat while it grew sixty percent, and in 2010, it would get ten percent of its power from renewable energy. And if Dupont can do it, I think the entire country can do it. And my concern is that by failing to take strong action, what's going to happen is by the time we get around to taking action...we're going to be buying wind turbines from Denmark, and from the Europeans and the Japanese, and losing the jobs that we would create otherwise if we were the leader, which we really ought to be." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: CarolC Date: 03 Jul 01 - 08:13 PM On the subject of whether or not the treaty is balanced, and of developing countries like China not being bound by the treaty...
Svend Auken, "Denmark has half the emissions of the United States. We are obligated to reduce by twenty-one percent. Whereas the United States only has to reduce by seven percent. China... the last five years, China has reduced by seventeen percent, whereas the United States has increased by seven percent. Despite the fact that the Chinese only use one-seventh of the energy that every American uses. So, as a matter of fact, the rest of the world is doing the job."
Rep. Tauzin suggested that the US had to cut it's levels by thirty to forty percent. Joe Romm responded as follows... Joe Romm, "This notion that we have to cut by thirty to forty percent is ridiculous. We have to cut seven percent below 1990 levels. If we waited until the last year to drop, then we would have a thirty to forty percent cut." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 04 Jul 01 - 12:27 AM God bless you, Carol C, you are a true believer, and I admire you for it. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: CarolC Date: 04 Jul 01 - 12:44 AM Thanks DougR. (I think) This is the only world we have right now. We need to take good care of it and not take it for granted. It's our home. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 04 Jul 01 - 01:22 PM I was being sincere, CarolC, nothing other than that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: CarolC Date: 04 Jul 01 - 04:54 PM Well, thanks again, without any qualifiers. I like to be cautious around you since you encouraged so many of my kind to vote for Ralph Nader. (*grin*) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: thosp Date: 04 Jul 01 - 05:02 PM and i'd like to thank you (DougR)also -- for encouraging people to vote for ralph nader -- i only wish (as i'm sure you do also)that more people would have voted for him-- at least enough to have had him elected -- peace (Y) thosp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: CarolC Date: 04 Jul 01 - 06:18 PM (if you say so, thosp) ( *big grin* ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Lox Date: 04 Jul 01 - 07:02 PM Canada doesn't need global warming to grow rain forests It already has them Not tropical ones but tundra rainforests and guess what they are being destroyed too lox |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: GUEST,RobDale Date: 04 Jul 01 - 08:46 PM Tundra rainforests? There's not much more than lichens and bushes on tundra. British Columbia has huge temperate rainforests. And yes the companies harvesting the trees should be using less drastic methods than clearcutting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 05 Jul 01 - 12:55 AM Thosp: sorry, I have to fess up. I was only encouraging folks to vote for Nader to split the Democratic vote. CarolC. and kat saw through me from the start. I wouldn't vote for Nader for anything. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: mooman Date: 05 Jul 01 - 06:19 AM The environmental problems with tundral regions and global warming are varied and worrying. The main concern in relation to global warming is that, as the underlying permafrost melts, methane (a greenhouse gase) will be released from the tundra, contributing further to the vicious circle. This article here, prepared by the US Environmental Protection Agency, details some of the environmental effects that global warming are having/will have in Alaska, a region of mostly pristine ecosystems including tundral systems. mooman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Eluned Date: 05 Jul 01 - 06:33 AM And if the tundra melts, a lot of species will die. *sigh* KimC - a quick question. If newspaper is soaked, formed, and dried into a denser mass (we used to do this in the 70's, called 'em "paper logs"), do they contribute anything significant in the way of heat? I'm afraid while I remember MAKING these things, I don't really remember BURNING them! Eluned |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: GUEST,Celtic Soul Date: 05 Jul 01 - 09:42 AM Rob Dale Said: "An energy tax on full sized pickups and SUV's would make a huge difference in Canada and the US. I don't know how many people come to work everyday in a vehicle with enough Steel and motor to haul 20 or 30 people. The waste is astounding. But then again, they are the most profitable sector of the North American auto market. Think of all the jobs. The solutions are not simple". :::giggle!!::: My honey and I call SUV's "Mini Vans". Have you ever noticed how many of them are being driven by youngish men with children? We theorize that they buy "Sports Utility Vehicles" because they don't want the stigma of driving a mini van, but they need a large vehicle to transport the kids to soccer. We have even seen one fellow with an SUV going slowly and deliberately *around* a speed bump. ;D I think it an utter waste of material and resources that these things are being purchased for the function of a city vehicle. It is a shame that they are being used as such when something smaller and/or easier on the environment would do. Rob Dales point is valid though, it is a booming industry. But this speaks more to me about status and what is currently trendy than it does the industry itself. Detriot was doing fine before the advent of the SUV's popularity. If we as consumers would stop buying things because they're popular and start considering our actual needs combined with the impact on the world, then the industry would not *be* reliant on the sales of SUV's to maintain itself. Everyone would be driving the new chic hybrid (electric/gas) cars instead, which would keep the industry alive and kicking. It is too bad that being a responsible and considerate consumer is not trendy. Wow! Look at all that, and me a newcomer. It makes me want to sing "If I were King of the Forest" ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Jul 01 - 10:03 AM Half the vehicles in the parking lot where I am now are Large SUV's and full sized crew cab pickups. Single drivers for each machine. Let's be honest, for the dirver these machines are a benefit, roomy, comfortable lots of steel around you if you get in a crash. That's the problem with conservation, what is good for the individual is not always what is best for everyone. I think it may be very difficult to change in the United States whe "The pursuit of happiness" is considered a "right" Detroit has to pour R&D money into more environmentally friendly vehicles. But that won't work without consumer demand. Maybe instead of chaining themselves to trees, environmental activists should be chaining themselves to gas pumps. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: CarolC Date: 05 Jul 01 - 05:35 PM Using tax incentives to encourage people to stop driving heavy vehicles for non-commercial uses and to buy more environmentally friendly vehicles might be a good start. And I think that keeping the price of gasoline high enough to keep poeple mindful of how much they are using would help as well.
There are many people here in the US who would gladly buy vehicles using the new technologies if they were readily available. I think this is the new growth sector in the market. When automobile makers finally figure this out, they'll be more vigorous in helping to get these products out there. This isn't going to take a big effort. It's only going to take a few important people waking up to the potential to make some good money from this new market. Money can drive change for the good just as well as it can drive destructive change. It just takes a few people with good imaginations and a bit of pluck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: GUEST,RobDale Date: 05 Jul 01 - 06:20 PM It would help if wealthy people and celebrities set and example Maybe if Arnold S. drove a clean vehicle instead of a Humvee? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 05 Jul 01 - 08:54 PM There ain't no shade under a gasoline pump, RobDale. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: katlaughing Date: 12 Jul 01 - 05:33 PM There is a new report out, which seems substantial judging from the participants. Anyone who has been following these threads might like to read it by clicking here. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: thosp Date: 12 Jul 01 - 09:30 PM thanks Kat! -- i hope it wakes some people up! Doug -- i knew what you were doing - i was (hopefully)gently joshing you. ---- i was also hoping that the Greens/Nader would show well --- so i wasn't about to discourage you from encouraging people to vote for Nader (even if you weren't serious) --- and with Bush as resident - i think alot more people are becoming enviormentally aware (at least i hope so) sorry Malcome ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: thosp Date: 18 Jul 01 - 11:26 PM for some students perspectives' try this blueclicketything anyway i hope it works peace (Y) thosp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: JedMarum Date: 29 Jan 02 - 11:31 AM more food for thought: Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Getting Thicker By Steve Connor, Science Editor, Independent News 19 January 2002 Parts of the west Antarctic ice sheet are getting thicker rather than thinner according to a study that casts doubt on one of the greatest fears surrounding global warming. Previous studies have suggested that the western ice sheet is unstable and could melt disastrously in a warmer world, causing sea levels to rise by as much as five metres. However, an investigation by scientists who studied the shrinkage and expansion of ice using satellite radars has found that rather than losing about 21 billion tons of ice a year, west Antarctica is accumulating nearly 27 billion tons. Ian Joughin, from Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Slawek Tulaczyk, of the University of California Santa Cruz, believe their study is more accurate and extensive than previous work and could indicate a reversal of a 10,000-year trend in glacier shrinkage which began after the last Ice Age. "The ice sheet has been retreating for the last few thousand years, but we think the end of this retreat has come," said Dr Joughin. "But I hesitate to say that we can stop worrying about it." This latest study covers a limited area of land and the scientists point out that ice sheets in other regions, such as the Pine Island Glacier and the Thwaites Glacier, are thinning. Most scientists agree that the west Antarctic ice sheet is potentially unstable and even a small amount of melting caused by global warming could release vast amounts of ice into the sea. But it has proved difficult to monitor what is happening within the Antarctic ice system and a warmer world might cause more snowfall, resulting in more ice on glaciers. Dr Duncan Whingam, a glaciologist at University College London, said: "It's harder than ever to predict how this area of Antarctica is going to evolve." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 29 Jan 02 - 11:43 AM You're a brave man, Jed Marum. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: CarolC Date: 29 Jan 02 - 02:21 PM I'm sure he is, DougR, but I don't see how that applies here. Did you read that article very carefully? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 29 Jan 02 - 06:45 PM Yes, Carol, I read the article when it was printed in the newspaper over the weekend. I was referring to Jed's bringing the subject back up again, and it was meant in jest. I just failed to include a :>) or a **BG** or even a *G* (sigh) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Wolfgang Date: 30 Jan 02 - 02:17 PM I had seen that article as well and would have posted it here if I had found an English version, just for the sake of debate. But now Jed has done that already I hasten to post another article from this month with a completely different conclusion, namely from Jan 4 2002 in Science. Lesson 1: It is easy to find each month a new finding for each side of this debate Lesson 2: The future of complex systems is less clear than we'd like it to be Lesson 3: Never trust a single scientific finding for any political decision Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Wolfgang Date: 30 Jan 02 - 02:36 PM and just for the fun of it (now that I am in my SEARCH-mode): The original article to Jed's short version Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Bobert Date: 30 Jan 02 - 02:39 PM Whether or not "global warming" is occuring or not is open to debate and given the relatively short time that mankind has recorded weather, probably cannot be absolutely proven. It is my belief, however, that at the rate we are burning up non-renewable resources, that we probably are warming the planet, creating some real nasty air to breath and not showing too much respect for future generations. We have the technology right now to produce all the electricity needed to run the earth with renewable resources and without burning one gallon of oil, lump of coal or uranium. But this current generation of earthlings does not have the courage or wisdom. Too bad, because future generations will most certainly look back at us as caring more for immediate gratification than for the planet we will be leaving to be cleaned up... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: MMario Date: 30 Jan 02 - 02:56 PM wolfgang - that's a paid subscription site! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: JedMarum Date: 30 Jan 02 - 03:04 PM ... just more food for thought. The point is the debate continues, we don't always understand the data we see, and opinions change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Mark Clark Date: 30 Jan 02 - 03:22 PM Okay, help me out here. I also read that parts of Antarctic ice sheet are getting thicker, not thinner. But what does that say about global temprature trends? It would appear that making ice requires water and in order to get airborne water vapor to Antarctica it has to be evaporated into the air. The rate of evaporation increases as temperatures rise, not when they fall. Cooler air can carry less water vapor than warmer air. One might expect increased thickness in the ice sheet—below the melting point of course—to be an indication that the atmosphere is carrying more water vapor; ergo, is becoming warmer on average. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 30 Jan 02 - 03:28 PM Wolfgang: I like those three lessons. So true. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Maryrrf Date: 30 Jan 02 - 03:43 PM I don't know if there's global warming going on or not, but here in Richmond Virginia it sure feels like it. I went out to lunch with my co-worker today in his convertible with the top down. People were walking around in shorts and tee-shirts. The thermometer registered 83 degrees F. I've never seen anything like this, and we've had very little cold weather this winter. This whole week it's been in the seventies. It feels surreal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Mark Clark Date: 30 Jan 02 - 03:51 PM Right on, DougR. I meant to comment on those as well. Of course I'd really like to know who is paying the salary of anyone adding evidence to either side of the debate. My sense is that unaligned scientists agree that global warming is really happening and the ones who offer opposing views are mostly being subsidized to create fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD). They often sound like President Clinton, needing an academic definition for “it.” I could believe that some scientists around the world might weigh in on the side of global warming just poke a stick in the eye of the U.S. Still, I'd be interested in compelling evidence against global warming that has no tie to the energy industry nor the military-industrial complex. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 30 Jan 02 - 04:42 PM Fair enough, Mark. I agree. Evidence presented by a subsidized source is certainly suspect. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: GUEST,Boab Date: 31 Jan 02 - 01:52 AM ONE--I'm a septagenarian, and probably fairly close to the curtain. A main aim of my life has always been to help in leaving this Earth as healthy as possible; it doesn't belong to me --or you---it belongs to the innocent kids [and animals--]and the yet unborn. TWO---As far as I can gauge, global warming is a fact.We may be entering a natural warming cycle---but there is NO doubt that human activity is exacerbating it. THREE--- NOBODY can state with any certainty that fossil fuel burning, deforestation, etc. is NOT causing accelerated warming. So it follows that those who persist in advocating the continued "march of progress" in the present manner are purely and simply gambling that they MIGHT be right---and using for chips the lives of children and the future of the Earth as a viable life-sustaining planet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Wolfgang Date: 31 Jan 02 - 07:25 AM MMario, paid subscription? You mean you can't see it? Well, I can and I don't pay, but perhaps access is paid by my university and I didn't know. Here's the summary of the first link: New Take on Climate Modeling The world is getting hotter, and humans are at least partly to blame--but that's about all that climate researchers can confidently say about global warming. Their bottom-up approach--trying to understand the role of every part in the dizzyingly complex climate machine--has left the crucial question of how bad things could get unanswered. In the 4 January issue of Science, a group of researchers describe a new top-down approach: They plugged different combinations of values for fundamental properties of the climate system into a computer model and looked to see how well the model's output matched long-term observations. The results suggest that global warming is probably a serious threat and that it could get even hotter than most scientists believe. As Mark has pointed out, both seemingly conflicting articles could even be true (or one or none) if global warming would lead to more precipitation in Antarctica. That could mean, for instance that global warming could come with many of the foretold bad consequences like more deserts and storms and all that, but without the predicted amount of sea level rise.
Some early models you have read of just simply (which doesn't mean that they are simple to work out; simple models are difficult enough) assume that temperature rises, eveything else is constant, and then calculate sea level rise. But then you can start thinking The main reason for disagreement is that tiny variations in the assumptions or starting values of those models still lead to grossly different conclusions. From a local point of view, global warming even could make the climate colder. Some of the models predict the gulf stream to stop transporting warm water from the Carribbean to Europe. That would lead to half of Scandinavia being covered with ice and to a breakdown of European economy due to local cooling. Wolfgang
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Mark Clark Date: 31 Jan 02 - 03:09 PM Good points, Wolfgang. I'm certainly no physicist but I believe the earth's atmosphere and oceans still obey the laws of fluid mechanics. If you've ever watched a pan of water placed on the stove to heat, you've seen how it behaves. At first there is very little change in the water but as the temprature rises, currents are set up in the pan that you can see as distortions of your view of the pan's bottom. These currents become more violent as the water is warmed. It's reasonable to expect that our atmosphere behaves something like that. As long as it remains cool, air masses tend to stay put. The warm regions stay warm and the cold regions stay cold. But increase the temprature and the system becomes more fluid; things start to move more rapidly. More movement in the atmosphere means air masses don't necessarily stay put any more. As Wolfgang pointed out, global warming doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be warmer where you are. It may mean that cold air that used to be more or less stationary somewhere else now moves through your region. As air masses begin to move more rapidly, the frequency and energy of violent storms is likely to increase. As we all have now learned, the motion of the atmosphere (weather) is not a liner system. It is subject to the whims of chaos theory. The butterfly effect predicts that local weather can suddenly jump from acceptable to catastrophically violent with only a negligible increase in energy input. In theory, the point at which the system becomes discontinuous could be predicted by a computer but in practice the calculation is impossible because the initial state of the system can never be known in enough detail to be useful.
I don't believe we can rely on Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis to stabilize the earth's climate for us—even if it comes to be regarded as science—because, as I recall, it makes no allowance for the excesses of mankind's industrial excesses.
To do nothing, in my opinion, is like doing nothing about a tumor because it hasn't yet been shown to be malignant.
- Mark |
|
Subject: HELP: Joe Clone From: Mark Clark Date: 31 Jan 02 - 03:12 PM I'm really sorry but I've done it again. Can someone please properly close the active link in my post above? Thanks, - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Wolfgang Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:55 AM 'The end of communism has contributed to global warming.' This may sound like a joke but it isn't. It's called the Gorbachev effect by German scientist Graßl (in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters). The end of communism has done a lot for cleaner air in middle Europe (closing down of dirty industries in GDR, Poland and Chechoslovakia). As a consequence, less small dirt particles and aerosols are in the clouds and therefore more sun energy comes through. It has been debated controversely whether more aerosols is a cooling or a warming factor but the end of communism with a quite abrupt closing down of dirty industries has provided the researchers with a real life experiment of enormous proportions. The different and differing models can be checked against the data and it seems to be clear now, more than 10 years later, that the clouds now let more sunlight through (2.8%) and that, on the balance of all factors, cleaner air contributes to global warming. Graßl's recommendation, by the way, is not to reintroduce communism or to provide tax deduction benefits to dirty production plants, but to acknowledge that it is a very complicated field and that sensible action "has to tackle all reasons for climate change at the same time". Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: mooman Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:36 AM Oh dear...going to get drawn in again! As a scientist, part of whose responsibilities involve monitoring environmental affairs for an industry sector (medical technology - admittedly not a big polluter), I see plenty of scientific evidence on an almost daily basis that at least convinces me that there is a serious problem and that human activities are a major contributor (sorry Wolfgang - although I have the highest respect for you as an academic and scientist we'll have to agree to differ on this one!). Going back to Mark Clark's post, clickit here to see whether it will be warmer where you are. Increasingly warmly! mooman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: CarolC Date: 12 Nov 02 - 09:17 AM For some reason, I had the impression that it isn't so much the amount of light that gets into our atmosphere that causes warming as much as it is the amount that is trapped in our atmosphere that is the cause. I thought that particulate matter in the atmosphere was trapping certain kinds of light and that this was called the "greenhouse effect". Anybody got any information on this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: mooman Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:03 AM Dear CarolC, There are a number of interesting issues here. You are right in that it is not so much the light that gets in that is a problem (the sun will continue to shine for a while yet one hopes) but the trapping of long wave radiation being emitted. Here there are many factors at play including greenhouse gases (especially CO2, methane, water vapour plus some others), the amount of particulate matter in the atmosphere (which influences cloud formation) and reflection of radiation by clouds. Other key factors include temperature and its effect on the various carbon "sinks" and, naturally, the level of production of CO2 via processes such as the respiration of living organisms and the burning of bound carbon or fossil fuels, the rate of photosynthesis of CO2 by plants (the highest leaf area indices which provide a measure for this are in tropical rainforests which are disappearing at an alarming rate) and the rate of storage of carbon in carbon sinks. In this sense, the paper by Grassl that Wolfgang quotes is spot on....the causal effects are complicated and highly interrelated and hence all have to be addressed at the same time. mooman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: CarolC Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:39 AM Thanks mooman! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: GUEST,Forum Lurker Date: 12 Nov 02 - 02:29 PM It is probably the case that the Earth is getting warmer, and also probably the case that human industry has something to do with it. However, we cannot say that we must take any particular action until we understand all of the consequences. While the planet may be warming now, it has been at lower than average temperatures for a long time. Global warming may be leading it back to the normal levels. If we manage to cut all greenhouse gas emissions and end global warming, we may fall into the ice age for which we are thousands of years overdue. Causing the oceans to recede and the icecaps to come barreling down will prove just as dangerous as driving the sea level up until it floods India and Holland. We must not try to take massive policy decisions when our knowledge of the consequences is so imperfect. This does not mean, however, that we should not cut down on our pollution and fossil fuel use. While the significance of CO2 in the atmosphere is not clear, no one can argue that filling our oceans with toxic wastes and draining our finite resources is a good goal. Reducing the amount of resources consumed and wastes produced will have a much greater effect than slowing the rate of warming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: GUEST,Taliesn Date: 13 Nov 02 - 10:05 AM I'm watching 3 factors 1) The watch on the increase in frequency and/or intensity of hurricanes/tornadoes_ The 70+ tornadoes that cut a 5 state swath in the U.S. earleir this week would've been unusually high activity during a normal the Spring season, but in "Autumn"? 2) The watch on the spread of more exotic diseases that occur "naturally" as they are no longer confined to the extreme heat zones that spawned them ( forget the "unnatrual" Biological weapon bugs ) 3) The rate at whicdh China adopts "western-style" energy consumption and emissions from *industrial* & *vehicular* Just imagine another population of the U.S. with private cars and flying more along with the manufacturing plants running at capacity to produce them along with what they are producing now. I know there's more ,but I don't have time so I've chosen these 3 factors as the best "flashpoint" warnings of cause/effect enviornment distortion measures. In my opinion Saddam should have been hunted down as a Global War Criminal *just* for ordering the setting of the Kuwaiti Oil fields which burned for almost a full year at full blast. I guess Bush Sr. is just accustomed to thinking of burning oil as profitable regardless of how it's done: it's all about market scarcity , stupid. Yeah it's a cheap shot , but that's how I still feel . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Wolfgang Date: 13 Nov 02 - 10:14 AM Mooman, I fail completely to see in which point you disagree. Puzzled Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: mooman Date: 13 Nov 02 - 10:32 AM Dear Wolfgang, I thought that you were arguing that there is no conclusive scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that human activity is contributing significantly to global warming (or perhaps to express it in a better way ...that there is an equivalent level of scientific data to support both sides of the debate and that drawing a conclusion is therefore premature). If I am mistaken, then my humble apologies! I tend to react instinctively on this topic because, as the scientist in my organization responsible for environmental matters, I have read so many papers on the subject and at least am personally convinced by the evidence. Very best regards, mooman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Wolfgang Date: 13 Nov 02 - 11:16 AM Mooman, if you refer to all my posts on that topic you have a point. I see too that we differ (sometimes). I had thought that you were only relating to my last post (which came after a very long break) and in that there was hardly a reason for disagreemant (so I thought and if there was I'd have wished to know) looking forward to see you next May. Wolfgang |