Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Krusher on February 08, 2005, 02:40:00 PM
-
NOT !
Many countries bound by Kyoto are running far above its overall goal of curbing rich nations' emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide from cars, factories and power plants by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.
Among Kyoto states, Spain and Portugal were 40.5 percent above 1990 levels in 2002, according to U.N. data.
Monaco, Ireland, Greece, New Zealand and Canada are all further over 1990 levels than the United States, whose emissions are 13.1 percent over the Kyoto benchmark year.
The US should adopt the treaty and then ignore it like most of the world is doing
-
so .... did you consider that the US had and has the largest output in the world
Do you understand that makes that 13.1% a huuuuge amount compared to other countries?
Climate change is here ... better just hope the gulfstream sticks around for awhile UK..... The British Isles could be in for some cold winters .....
they say it's about 50/50 that the gulf stream fails within this century.....
Remember, it's is all about $$$$ and profit.... whatelse is there? :rolleyes:
idiots
down with Corprate power!
-
Originally posted by Manedew
so .... did you consider that the US had and has the largest output in the world
Do you understand that makes that 13.1% a huuuuge amount compared to other countries?
Climate change is here ... better just hope the gulfstream sticks around for awhile UK..... You could be in for some cold winters .....
they say it's about 50/50 that the gulf stream fails within this century.....
Remember is all about $$$$$ :rolleyes:
idiots
Yes and those other nations that are blowing their Kyoto comnmitments arent one bit concerned bout the evil $$$$. Their ecominies run on love and understanding...
-
i'm glad you agree with me
-
Originally posted by Manedew
so .... did you consider that the US had and has the largest output in the world
Do you understand that makes that 13.1% a huuuuge amount compared to other countries?
Climate change is here ... better just hope the gulfstream sticks around for awhile UK..... The British Isles could be in for some cold winters .....
they say it's about 50/50 that the gulf stream fails within this century.....
Remember, it's is all about $$$$ and profit.... whatelse is there? :rolleyes:
idiots
down with Corprate power!
You have been brainwashed. First, there was the coming ice age. Then the ozone hole. Then global warming. Then the coming ice age. All caused by evil corporate thieves. La Nina. El nino. Spotted owls. The list goes on and on...
And the only common thread is that it's the same bunch trying to "save" you from the evil.
Your assignment: A 500 word paper examining Luddites and primitive communist movements.
-
Yes, but who will save Kyoto from... GODZILLA!!!
(http://www.chud.com/graphics12/Godzilla.jpg)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yes and those other nations that are blowing their Kyoto comnmitments arent one bit concerned bout the evil $$$$. Their ecominies run on love and understanding...
how many wrongs make a right?
i keep forgetting.
:)
-
all i know is the toyota treaty must be a good thing because the evil USA is against it.
-
WE'RE ALL GONNA DIIIIIIEEEEEE!
-
"they say it's about 50/50 that the gulf stream fails within this century..... "
These are the same people who wrote my grade-school textbooks, with their dire predictions of how the world would be completely out of gasoline by the year 2000.
I guess that's the nice thing about being a pessimist--if your prediction doesn't come true this year, there's always next year (or decade or century).
J_A_B
-
Just remember, there was never an ice age or global warming before mankind started to use fossil fuels and wood............
-
Regarding this issue, dead to ignorants who doesnt care who do they poison.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Just remember, there was never an ice age or global warming before mankind started to use fossil fuels and wood............
Oh.
My.
Gawd.
I hope that is a troll. If not, it is the single most ignorant thing I ever read.
I will assume it is a troll, and therefore laugh.
ha. ha.
-
Sorry shubert, I guess you would need a :rolleyes: in the post to make sure about it..........
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Sorry shubert, I guess you would need a :rolleyes: in the post to make sure about it..........
I have a hard time heaing the irony in your voice when you type...:cool:
-
perhaps those who think that preserving the environment is a 'pittance', deserve to pee in thier own water and drink it with a shot of mercury.
its another thing that ive never understood about some people who call themselves "conservatives"
conservation is the ultimate form of conservatism.
maintaining a healty eco-balance is not only essential for the human race and the planet as a whole, but it is just downright sensible and practical.
-
Absolutely JB.
Speaking from a country that will be very underwater if we don't do something I'm concerned. We haven't had real snow here since early1990's. was looking at old photos this weekend with my folks and its scary how little snow we've seen in recent years. We are definately warming up fast.
So my american cousins, please help and scrap those ridiculous gas guzzling 4x4's. Sign up Mr bush before the rest of the world disappears under water!
I'll do my bit by continuing to ride my motorcycle unless the car is absolutely necessary, and running my house as economicaly as poss.
-
Originally posted by Manedew
Do you understand that makes that 13.1% a huuuuge amount compared to other countries?
Well thanks for your condescending math lesson :rolleyes:
Its a flawed treaty and it will NEVER meet its targeted goals. We may as well sign it and ignore it. Doing so would put the US in the same company as the vast majority of the current participants.
-
Warming up fast or a weather cycle?
The artic goes through a 50 year weather cycle that starts by pushing ice out from the center which effects cold and snow cycles around its edges. Currently the 50 year cycle is pushing all of the ice to the center which is causing the north pole ice cap to look like it's shrinking but in reality getting thicker. With the ice not being pushed out and south, land masses closest to the ice cap are not experiencing the meterlogical influences that they did 50 years ago. Or have you forgotten global cooling was the eco-bogyman in the 70's.
The planet is not warming up, thats been debunked. It's all available on the Internet.
Kyoto is about the power to levy taxes on the industrialised nations by the UN for redistribution to the poorer nations and themselves. Take wealth from those who produce it and give it to those who didn't produce the wealth in the first place. Africa, Inda, west asia and most 3rd world nations produce most of the serious air pollution on the planet because they burn wood or animal waste to heat their food and warm themselves. The perminent brown cloud seen from east africa out over Inda and beyond. The United States can bairly get into the bottom of the top 20 world polluters. The US keeps dropping off the top 20 because the US has and does clean its air quality very effectivly.
Guzzling gas is not an indicator of air pollution. US EPA requirments for SUV type vehicals keep the pollution down. There are not a significant number of non-compliant SUV or crappy 4x4's in this country to be a pollution problem. Motorcycles pollute more than cars because they aren't required to have the same anti-pollution devices on board. Gas wise they are cheeper than a car.
In the 80's and 90's the eco-bogyman of global warming led us to beleive the ice caps would melt and flood the coasts. Yes the ice caps look smaller at this moment, but water level worldwide does not reflect water levels rising in proportion to the current ice cap visual shrinkage. Where then did the ice go?
In the last 100,000 years humans have been no competition as airpolluters to volcanos. We cover the planet but with all of our cars, industry and fires, we have never in one week of operation caused a 6 year winter or killed half the worlds population due to starvation from failed crops world wide. Global warming from pollution,,,Mt. St Helen, Pinitubu and all of those volcanos in mexico last century. They shot out more air pollution than mankind in the last 5000 years.
-
i seem to recall some rednecks across the way making the exact same arguements about the junk in thier yard.
:)
-
Monaco is failing the Kyoto treaty? Must be all those heavy industries like steel we see the millionaires race around once a year.
Man I'm gonna give that Prince Rainier a proper slapping the next time I see him.
-
Here's a recent article for you
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=608209
-
Yeah but when a rich fat cat's car broke down in front of my shack and he got to looking at the junk in my yard he said, son, do you know what you got sitting there under your bum? I said, well yes and no. Depends on how big the check you write for it is. I just didn't tell him they buried the whole squadron of those fitters from the dubbia dubbia number 2 in my potato feild. Think I should????:)
-
lol. i was thinking more along the lines of cars on blocks.
in response to your question.
were i a bad man i might say...
"as your attorney i would strongly advise toward committing any such facts to published writing of any kind."
:rofl
as a good man i might sell it all for scrap iron, they dig it out, they own it.
-
We need to be carefull of the end of the world histeria. Global warming due to humans may be the reason we are not covered in a 1 mile deep sheet of ice sleeping with mega fana right now.
http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_31a.html
-
"In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible." -- Final chapter, Draft TAR 2000 (Third Assessment Report), IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
-
Originally posted by bustr
We need to be carefull of the end of the world histeria. Global warming due to humans may be the reason we are not covered in a 1 mile deep sheet of ice sleeping with mega fana right now.
http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_31a.html
Well if Western Fuels Association Inc (http://www.westernfuels.org/) and their coal-powered electricity generating members say global warming is good for us, I guess it must be legit. OK, crisis over: that is a relief.
-
Ahh here come the Chinese to defend Kyoto, hillarious. And he has the gall to question the motives of another interst group...
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Hiya Krush!!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Ahh here come the Chinese to defend Kyoto, hillarious. And he has the gall to question the motives of another interst group...
:rofl :rofl :rofl
I don't particularly defend Kyoto - I'm of the opinion that Kyoto is far too limited. Its one redeeming feature is that it is at least a start.
And let's not forget if China were as "clean" and developed as the US, it would be a much much worse polluter than it is at the moment.
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/images/ChinaPerCapEnergy.gif)
According to the US DoE:
"In 2001, the United States had a per capita energy consumption of 341.8 million Btu, greater than 5.2 times the world's per capita energy consumption and slightly over 11 times China's per capita consumption. Per capita carbon emissions are similar to energy consumption patterns, with the United States emitting 5.5 metric tons of carbon per person, the world on average 1.1 metric tons, and China 0.6 metric tons of carbon per person."
At present China produces less CO2 than the US, despite having four times the population.
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/images/ChinaWorldCarbon.gif)
All things being equal it should contribute 20% of the world's pollution, what with being about 20% of the population. It currently contributes 13% CO2. The US is about 5% of the world's population: it currently contributes 24% of the CO2.
Does that mean that China should strive to be as clean as the US, and aim to produce 100% of the CO2?
-
Originally posted by -dead-
According to the US DoE:
"In 2001, the United States had a per capita energy consumption of 341.8 million Btu, greater than 5.2 times the world's per capita energy consumption and slightly over...
When one realizes that 110 countries, including China and India have a per capita GDP of less that $5000, and much of the population of the earth use energy for cooking only, much of that with biomass derived fuel, the above fact is not surprising.
The US is about 5% of the world's population: it currently contributes 24% of the CO2.
As the USA produces about 22% of the world economy (as measured by GDP) 24% of the CO2 would seem to be expected.
-
Look the answer is right there in front of us. It's been there all along but no one wants to say it.
Remove the tax break for the top 1% of Americans and it will solve all of our problems.
sorry that seems to be the answer to everything now a days.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
I don't particularly defend Kyoto - I'm of the opinion that Kyoto is far too limited. Its one redeeming feature is that it is at least a start.
And let's not forget if China were as "clean" and developed as the US, it would be a much much worse polluter than it is at the moment.
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/images/ChinaPerCapEnergy.gif)
According to the US DoE:
"In 2001, the United States had a per capita energy consumption of 341.8 million Btu, greater than 5.2 times the world's per capita energy consumption and slightly over 11 times China's per capita consumption. Per capita carbon emissions are similar to energy consumption patterns, with the United States emitting 5.5 metric tons of carbon per person, the world on average 1.1 metric tons, and China 0.6 metric tons of carbon per person."
At present China produces less CO2 than the US, despite having four times the population.
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/images/ChinaWorldCarbon.gif)
All things being equal it should contribute 20% of the world's pollution, what with being about 20% of the population. It currently contributes 13% CO2. The US is about 5% of the world's population: it currently contributes 24% of the CO2.
Does that mean that China should strive to be as clean as the US, and aim to produce 100% of the CO2?
2001?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3996855.stm
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Hiya Krush!!
Tuuumoooooorrrrrrr!!!!
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Look the answer is right there in front of us. It's been there all along but no one wants to say it.
Remove the tax break for the top 1% of Americans and it will solve all of our problems.
sorry that seems to be the answer to everything now a days.
I know you are being sarcastic but it is true that removing that tax break would be a very big help...
-
Bustr when your so called fuel efficient catalytic converter tin box is sitting for hours in traffic going nowhere burning fuel producing Co2, my motorcycle will have zipped past got me to my destination on time in half the time and as the engine will have been running for far less time will have consumed half the fuel you have. ( these are not exact figures but you get the point!)
By all means sit in your tin box pumping out toxins but just remember next time you get pissed off at the traffic jam you are stuck in you could be having far more fun on a bike and doing your bit to save the planet!:aok
-
Mind you if you keep burying your head in the sand maybe I'll need a jet ski instead! ( sorry personal water craft in US )
-
Bikes are great in the rain and snow too. Perfect for the family vacation, too, come to think of it.
-
Yes use a car when you have too but families with six cars on the drive like I've seen over here give me a break. Perhaps we should have a rule that any family can only own two cars if they live in the same household. And one must be under a litre in engine size ( sorry 1000cc )
Bikes are still more fun and useable for many situations. If you want to take the family get a sidecar like my mate has done.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Perhaps we should have a rule that any family can only own two cars if they live in the same household. And one must be under a litre in engine size ( sorry 1000cc )
Da! Comrade commisar!
-
The height of arrogance....mankind can manipulate and control nature itself.
Some of you are just plain entertaining.
-
Watch it, Rude. I'll point the freeze ray at YOUR office and drive up your energy costs.
Say you're sorry. Now.
-
According to the doom mongers it's too late anyway. So we all might as well enjoy ourselves and burn carbon. :cool:
On the other hand has anyone else noticed lately a spate of newpaper articles and TV programmes more or less on the same theme as the article on the Independant's website. Basically on the theme that it may already 'be too late' , 'We have to do something now' etc etc. To me that sounds like a concerted campaign of press briefing by somebody or other with an agenda.
Many years ago just when this scare campaign was starting I stopped believing that the current warming is caused to any large degree by us humans. That in my opinion is arrogance of the worst kind. Far too many people seem to believe that we puny humans control the weather. I would have thought the recent Tsunami would have put paid to that sort of arrogance.
Yes we are in a warm phase. That's self evident. But we are nowhere near the warm phase that saw Vikings settle in Greenland 10,000 years ago or as someone pointed out it's still not warm enough to grow grapes in Scotland just like they did in the middle ages.
The whole global warming issue is riddled with inconsistencies and half truths, muddied with emotion and speculation. It's almost like a religion. If you question the so called facts, you are treated like as if you are committing blasphemy.
Sure reducing pollution is a good thing but the hysteria being whipped up is crazy.
Frankly those of you who stil believe in man made global warming have to ask yourselves. How do you really know? You really have to question everything you are told. A lot of people simply don't and will believe any old crap they're fed dressed up as science.
I believe there will be a backlash against this global warming theory relatively soon and our descendants will laugh at our fears the way we laugh at our ancestors fears.
Meanwhile enjoy this warm period because it won't last and in a few years time it will get colder again. Guess who'll take the credit for that?
-
Your freeze ray does not concern me Toad....I have friends in Europe that will come to my aide....uhhh....well....I mean.....they might....uhhh....well, nevermind.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Your freeze ray does not concern me Toad....I have friends in Europe that will come to my aide....uhhh....well....I mean.....they might....uhhh....well, nevermind.
You have friends?!?!?!?! You been into the cooking sherry again huh Rude.
-
Global warming happens as we speak, which is due to a combination of cyclical changes in the earth's circumnavigation of the sun.
Specifically these are:
- eccentricity, the changes in ellipticity of earth's orbit around the sun and the resulting oscillations from more elliptic to less elliptic. More elliptic, earth is farther away from the sun -> cold
Less elliptic -> warm.
- earth's axial tilt ranging from 21.5 to 24.5 degrees.
- precession, which means earth's "wobble" around it's spin axis. Earth wobbles from pointing at polaris (north star) to pointing at the star vega. Tilting towards vega would result in the the northern hemisphere winter and summer solstices coinciding with the aphelion and perihelion, respectively. Therefore the northern hemisphere will experience winter when earth is furthest from the sun and summer when earth is closest to the sun, resulting in greater seasonal contrasts. At present, the earth is at perihelion very close to the winter solstice.
All these cycles have very long periodicities (23.000 to 100.00 years), but since they overlap each other, sometimes 2 or even all 3 extremes will come together resulting in drastic changes of climate for a couple hundred years.
Also, sunspot activity is vital in climate changes. This activity is also cyclic, with much shorter periodicities of about 11 years per cycle.
Currently the three big cycles mentioned above are making earth move towards a warmer period. Of course, since these cycles are so long, the changes aren't going to be abrupt and of course have been going on for quite some time now. Also, earth's climate system is a very complicated one. So even though we might in general be moving towards a warmer period that might take a couple thousand years, there might as well be "short" intervals of cooling on the way there.
Now what about mankind's impact? As of late (the last hundred years) there have been measurable changes that can probably be blamed on an increased output of CO2. Of course, every big-scale volcanic eruption emits more CO2 than mankind does in decades. That doesn't make it less of a problem though, since in the past there have been eruptions that did in fact have an impact on climate.
Consequently, even if there's no big-scale eruption during the next hundred years we might still experience climatic changes comparable to those we might have seen if there had been such an eruption.
Freaking out about it won't change a thing though, I'll keep burning oil and stuff as long as I can afford it. It's fun too!
As soon as the next big-scale eruption happens we're going to be in trouble either way... but we'll adopt.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
When one realizes that 110 countries, including China and India have a per capita GDP of less that $5000, and much of the population of the earth use energy for cooking only, much of that with biomass derived fuel, the above fact is not surprising.
As the USA produces about 22% of the world economy (as measured by GDP) 24% of the CO2 would seem to be expected.
It's a nice warm thought. But it doesn't really pan out does it? Japan should be round about 12% of the pollution were that the case, the EU (western Europe) round about the same as the US as well. But they're not are they?
Japan has about half the population of the US, and about half the GDP but still produces a quarter of the CO2.
The EU has more people living in it than the US and produces more GDP than the US, yet it doesn't produce as much CO2 as the US.
-
Originally posted by Silat
I know you are being sarcastic but it is true that removing that tax break would be a very big help...
Taxing the rich will not solve any problem.
You tax them more they take it back from their workers OR find another loop hole and WE end up paying for it. again
-
Originally posted by OneWordAnswer
2001?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3996855.stm
I just use the US DoE, because it saves people thinking it's some sinister communist plot to make the US look bad. Can I help it if they're 3 years behind the times? ;)
But yes, I'm sure China's energy use is going up: it's a developing country, ergo it is developing. And given that it has four times the population, we should expect them to surpass US levels.
And that's the problem with Kyoto, but also the point of the whole imbalance thing: you can't stop the development of these countries, and setting them the same levels of emissions reduction makes no real sense and is grossly unfair - there is no way they can develop and keep at or below the levels of their emissions in 1990.
So it's up to the developed nations to reduce their emissions right now and help reduce the emissions of developing nations. They will develop whether the developed nations help them or not, but if the developed nations help them, the development might not kill us all.
And if the US whine and plead that they can't afford to reduce their emissions, then why on earth should anyone else be inclined to? And we'd be back to the old Vonnegut planetary epitaph "we could have saved it but we were too damned cheap and lazy."
So really if we're talking gall it's people who think Kyoto is too expensive for the US and then whine because China says exactly the same thing. Especially given that China hasn't even started producing the level of emissions of the US.
-
dead... it is not quite as simple as all that... you need to also look at emissions produced vs gross national product. you will need to create some emissions in order to produce. I believe the U.S. does pretty well on the emissions vs GNP scale.
lazs
-
any talk about cars is moot ..... they can be powered by other means ... it's how you get that power tho
(forget where i saw basis for this idea ... or i'd credit him/her)
problem is ... people are used to getting thier power off the grid.....payign thier bills and more power from one huge souce.... the power plant.....
Imagine if solar, and wind power technology were mass produced for household levels .... storage would typicaly be required for the single user ..... but if people used this solar or wind power with a grid ... they could sell unused power back to the grid..... Then buy some back later at night in the case of solar-or when the wind dies down in wind power.
It would be a good idea to start trying I think ... like many others....... and pleanty of profit to be made for the power company that sets it up..... ooooooo money .....
the point is .... we aren't even trying..... and why shouldn't it be up to the goverment to try thing slike this .... they/we paid for the phone network to be laid across the country. A good investment no?
building such a power grid and promoteing people selling power back into it would be a huge step .......
just a simple idea .. pleanty out there ... but they just sit around collecting oil money, starting wars for oil (IMHO)......
so why not do somethign about it?
I just want to know why we don't try..... in the end there is money to be made by it ....... so whats the big deal..... guess it's too free of a market for people to control ..... Oil is soooo much easier to control than typical clean power ideas ...
-
a lot of alternative energy ideas have been tried, and found wanting.
Wind power is unreliable in most areas, and a major complication would be that when the wind is not available over a large area, where does the power come from? Shutting down those nasty old power plants is a good idea on the surface, but they at least provide the power we need. And there is maintenance required on that windmill. Rotating stuff, exposed to the weather, tends to break.
Passive solar is expensive and impractical in areas that suffer from clouds or that little thing called "winter".
Active solar is so expensive we don't even want to talk about it.
Feeding power back onto the grid is impractical due to the advanced gear needed to synchronize your little home powerplant with the grid. Unsynchronized? Draws power from the grid, if it doesn't blow up your Mr. Electricity unit. I am buying some motor drives with regen modules this week, (the regen module pushe power back onto the line) and the 10 HP model (about 15 amps at 480VAC) costs about $3000 per. An electrical engineer is needed to set it up to work correctly. Not something you can pick up at Home Depot.
Altermnative energy systems won't be practical until they are affordable and easy to maintain.
-
Wind power kills wildlife and must occupy huge areas of land in order to be effectyive. Not to mention it only works well in areas with consitent high speed wind.
Solar power on massive scale would play havoc with the climate as a great deal of sunlight wqould now be reflected back into the atmosphere.
Nuclear is prolly the way to but you environmental nazis prolly dont like it...
-
well duh .. heance why I put it to large oginizations like the goverment ....... we didn't just end up phone lines to nearly everywhere because it was short-run profitable
I by no means said the current grid system could do this ..... it's possible and could be tried..... but like I said pervously, It should be a govement undertakeing .... promoteing such technologies..... and ya when the wind dies down .. you get power the traditonal ways ..... the point is to CUT DOWN ON EMMISSIONS..... which this would certainly do if implemented on a wide scale ......
and if solar cells were mass produced at that level ... prices would fall.... etc etc ....
people won't try anything new?
not saying it's the perfect idea .... just that there are pleanty of ideas out there and we aren't even trying.....
===========
so 'black' solar panels reflect light back upwards? not too sure about that.....:rolleyes:
-
big drill.
deep hole.
thermal power.
-
Originally posted by JB88
big drill.
deep hole.
thermal power.
Until some geologist looking for a government grant whips up a computer model that indicates all those geothermal planets are causing a (potentially) dramatic cooling of the Earth's core.
"We must bring back the use of carbon-based fuels, before the core is irreversably cooled and we all freeze!"
-
The Day After Tomorrow is really gonna happen! AHHHHHHH!!!!!!
:D
-
Global warming is happening, Kyoto is crappy way of dealing with it.
"Earth Gets a Warm Feeling All Over
NASA -- Last year was the fourth warmest year on average for our planet since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists.
To determine if the Earth is warming or cooling, scientists look at average temperatures. To get an "average" temperature, scientists take the warmest and the coolest temperatures in a day, and calculate the temperature that is exactly in the middle of those high and low values. This provides an average temperature for a day. These average temperatures are then calculated for spots all over the Earth, over an entire year.
Scientists use temperatures taken on land and on surfaces of the oceans. Weather stations provide land measurements, and satellites provide sea surface temperature measurements over the ocean. These data are computed by NASA.
The end result recreates and calculates global temperatures, and helps scientists study climate change. Makiko Sato of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York, converted all the data into readable global temperature maps that provided the means to see the warming.
James Hansen of NASA GISS analyzed the data and said that the 2004 average temperature at Earth's surface around the world was 0.48 degrees Celsius or 0.86 Fahrenheit above the average temperature from1951 to 1980.
Globally, 1998 has proven to be the warmest year on record, with 2002 and 2003 coming in second and third, respectively. "There has been a strong warming trend over the past 30 years, a trend that has been shown to be due primarily to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," Hansen said.
Global temperatures vary from year to year and place to place, but weather stations and satellite data provide accurate records. By recording them over time, scientists develop a record of the climate, and have been able to see how it's been changing.
Some of the changes in climate are due to short-term factors like large volcanic eruptions that launched tiny particles of sulfuric acid into the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) in 1963, 1982, and 1991. These natural events can change climate for periods of time ranging from months to a few years.
Other natural events, like El Ninos, when warm water spreads over much of the tropical Pacific Ocean, also have large short-term influences on climate. The large spike in global temperature in 1998 was associated with one of the strongest El Ninos of recent centuries, and a weak El Nino contributed to the unusually high 2002-2003 global temperatures.
Even though big climate events like El Nino affect global temperatures, the increasing role of human-made pollutants plays a big part. Scientists, like Hansen, have been working to try and predict how human impacts on our climate will affect the annual world temperature trends in the future.
Hansen also said that now, Earth's surface absorbs more of the Sun's energy than gets reflected back to space. That extra energy, together with the weak El Nino, is expected to make 2005 warmer than the years of 2003 and 2004 and perhaps even warmer than 1998, which had stood out as far hotter than any year in the preceding century.
Another interesting note is that global warming is now large enough that it is beginning to affect seasons, and make them warmer than before on a more consistent basis.
Compared to the average temperatures from the 1951 to 1980 period, the largest unusually warm areas over all of 2004 were in Alaska, near the Caspian Sea, and over the Antarctic Peninsula. But compared to the previous five years, the United States as a whole was quite cool, particularly during the summer."
http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=126207
-
"Wind power is unreliable in most areas, and a major complication would be that when the wind is not available over a large area, where does the power come from?"
Of course there's also the problem that these exact same envior-freaks would be whining about the thousands of windmills covering every scenic hill.
In the end, a lot of these enviro-nuts just hate humanity, but don't have the guts to admit it.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by lazs2
dead... it is not quite as simple as all that... you need to also look at emissions produced vs gross national product. you will need to create some emissions in order to produce. I believe the U.S. does pretty well on the emissions vs GNP scale.
lazs
Firstly, GNP counts stuff that's made abroad, whereas the emissions are only counted domestically, so it's essentially a farcical trip into statistics for statistics' sake. So if you count stuff that contributes to pollution elsewhere, but ignore the pollution that the stuff causes, the US looks a lot better. But a ratio of GNP to domestic emissions is essentially a dishonest look at the problem.
And again it doesn't really pan out: Japan has about the same GNP/GNI per capita as the US and yet it produces half as much pollution per capita: Net result the GNP-emission ratio is half the US one. So what are you doing wrong?
And really, when all is said and done it much more simple than you make out, as it all boils down to one measurement: parts per million.
Above a certain level of CO2 ppm, the planet gets uninhabitable: it won't matter a bit who did it or why or what statistics they have to show us they were justified in doing it.
-
True:(
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Until some geologist looking for a government grant whips up a computer model that indicates all those geothermal planets are causing a (potentially) dramatic cooling of the Earth's core.
Or someone looks at the evidence that some geothermal plants emit CO2 and hydrogen sulfide at rates near or exceeding fossil plants.
A buddy I work with used to work at a geo plant 2 hrs east of Bakersfeild CA.
They put out tons of CO2 / hr, 90% of the gaseous emission from the plant was CO2 the vast majority of the balance was hydrogen sulfide, which they treated to gather 10 tons of elemental sulfer each day.
They also needed charcoal scrubbers to take out mercury and arsenic out of the gas and that charcoal would then become a hazardous solid waste.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Taxing the rich will not solve any problem.
You tax them more they take it back from their workers OR find another loop hole and WE end up paying for it. again
How dare you attempt to interject common sense into this. Moderate conservative jerk.:D
-
in other words:
(http://www.bug-agenda21.de/modul1/agenda21/images/treibhaus_ab.gif)
everyone capische now?;)
-
dead... I don't know what the japs are doing "right" but I do know what they are doing wrong. At least so far as I am concerned... they live in tiny little appartments in extremely crowded cities and have to be packed into public transportation in a way that peta would be apopleptic about if it were cattle being treated thus... they have to drive boring cars when they ever do get to drive and they live on a tiny little island.
Other than that... if their factories produce less pollution than ours with the same or less cost per product then maybe we should use some of their methods. If they know a way to burn coal in a more environmentaly friendly way we should look at it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
in other words:
(http://www.bug-agenda21.de/modul1/agenda21/images/treibhaus_ab.gif)
everyone capische now?;)
You're missing a few arrows, though. There should be one right next to 7 showing the percentage of the incoming solar energy reflected off out "smog shield" and into space, and another at 4 (also pointing out into space) showing the percentage of solar energy reflecting off the Earth but making it through the "smog shield." Looks like a wash to me:D . Seriously tho, what do we know for sure?
1) The average temperature over the last 30 years appears to be going up (although apparently 1998 was hotter than any of the six years since...does that mean it's peaked?).
2) Average temperatures are cyclical, there having been both very warm and very cold periods thoughout the planet's history.
3) George Lucas has lost the ability to make good movies.
That's it, and no. 3 is subjective in the minds of some poeple (not me, of course). No one has been able to prove that the cause of the current warming trend is solely or even primarily due to human activity. The science is weak, relying on statistics and often driven by political agendas. Depending on the answer they desire, analysts of the data fail to look for other correlating factors, and often extrapolate the data backwards and forward using whatever curve gives them the answer they seek. I'm all for clean air and water, but Kyoto was just too flawed, and crafted on flawed science.
-
The smog thing was artificialy keeping the temp down. As we clean up our output of particulates we reduce the masking effect of smog. scientists now believe that we are getting hotter than previously believed and at a more rapid rate. Its no good cleaning up smog and carrying on pumping out Co2.
Global Dimming
Horizon producer David Sington on why predictions about the Earth's climate will need to be re-examined.
Questions and answers about global dimming
Programme transcript
We are all seeing rather less of the Sun. Scientists looking at five decades of sunlight measurements have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface has been gradually falling. Paradoxically, the decline in sunlight may mean that global warming is a far greater threat to society than previously thought.
The effect was first spotted by Gerry Stanhill, an English scientist working in Israel. Comparing Israeli sunlight records from the 1950s with current ones, Stanhill was astonished to find a large fall in solar radiation. "There was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed me," he says.
Intrigued, he searched out records from all around the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked, with sunlight falling by 10% over the USA, nearly 30% in parts of the former Soviet Union, and even by 16% in parts of the British Isles. Although the effect varied greatly from place to place, overall the decline amounted to 1-2% globally per decade between the 1950s and the 1990s.
Gerry called the phenomenon global dimming, but his research, published in 2001, met with a sceptical response from other scientists. It was only recently, when his conclusions were confirmed by Australian scientists using a completely different method to estimate solar radiation, that climate scientists at last woke up to the reality of global dimming.
Dimming appears to be caused by air pollution. Burning coal, oil and wood, whether in cars, power stations or cooking fires, produces not only invisible carbon dioxide (the principal greenhouse gas responsible for global warming) but also tiny airborne particles of soot, ash, sulphur compounds and other pollutants.
This visible air pollution reflects sunlight back into space, preventing it reaching the surface. But the pollution also changes the optical properties of clouds. Because the particles seed the formation of water droplets, polluted clouds contain a larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. Recent research shows that this makes them more reflective than they would otherwise be, again reflecting the Sun's rays back into space.
Scientists are now worried that dimming, by shielding the oceans from the full power of the Sun, may be disrupting the pattern of the world's rainfall. There are suggestions that dimming was behind the droughts in sub-Saharan Africa which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the 1970s and 1980s. There are disturbing hints the same thing may be happening today in Asia, home to half the world's population. "My main concern is global dimming is also having a detrimental impact on the Asian monsoon," says Prof Veerhabhadran Ramanathan, one of the world's leading climate scientists. "We are talking about billions of people."
But perhaps the most alarming aspect of global dimming is that it may have led scientists to underestimate the true power of the greenhouse effect. They know how much extra energy is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere by the extra carbon dioxide (CO2) we have placed there. What has been surprising is that this extra energy has so far resulted in a temperature rise of just 0.6°C.
This has led many scientists to conclude that the present-day climate is less sensitive to the effects of carbon dioxide than it was, say, during the ice age, when a similar rise in CO2 led to a temperature rise of 6°C. But it now appears the warming from greenhouse gases has been offset by a strong cooling effect from dimming - in effect two of our pollutants have been cancelling each other out. This means that the climate may in fact be more sensitive to the greenhouse effect than thought.
If so, then this is bad news, according to Dr Peter Cox, one of the world's leading climate modellers. As things stand, CO2 levels are projected to rise strongly over coming decades, whereas there are encouraging signs that particle pollution is at last being brought under control. "We're going to be in a situation, unless we act, where the cooling pollutant is dropping off while the warming pollutant is going up. That means we'll get reduced cooling and increased heating at the same time and that's a problem for us," says Cox.
Even the most pessimistic forecasts of global warming may now have to be drastically revised upwards. That means a temperature rise of 10°C by 2100 could be on the cards, giving the UK a climate like that of North Africa, and rendering many parts of the world uninhabitable. That is unless we act urgently to curb our emissions of greenhouse gases.
want to check go here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml
(http://www.carv-tech.ch/tv17.jpg)
"Don't Panic Mr Mainwering DON'T PANIC!!!!! "
-
I'm happy to hear that our doom has been postponed for another few decades yet again..
Phew!
-
poor sons and daughters though eh!
-
Oh... I imagine my son and daughter and grand daughter will get a new crop of scientists with even more theories... I imagine they will get a reprieve too. You on the other hand seem like the type who deserves to go into hand wringing mode.
lazs
-
I'm still waiting for the acid rain that forces us to stay inside everytime there's a light drizzle.
-SW
-
The India\Asia brown cloud has been forming for the last 30 years while the industrialised west\EU\Japan has been cutting its emissions and doing everything short of returning to the stone age to make the world wide association of tree huggers happy.
The cloud over south asia seems to be doing everything the computer models says a 3 kilometer deep blanket of smog should be doing to global warming and climate change. But funny thing is, in the countries that are creating the cloud, western tree huggers would be shot or imprisoned for the kinds of activites that get them in the news and a political voice in the west. The wests emissions are a fraction of this 30 year old 3 kilometer deep brown cloud over the poor and emerging east. The west\America is not the source of global warming. Thats too easy and a cheap way to hide personal bias against the United States.
Pollution Cloud Over South Asia Threatens Economies
National Geographic News
August 12, 2002
This story aired on our U.S. cable television program National Geographic Today
A vast blanket of pollution stretching across South Asia is damaging agriculture, modifying rainfall patterns, and putting hundreds of thousands of people at risk, a new study suggests.
The findings, by scientists working with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), indicate that the spectacular economic growth seen in this part of the world in the past decade may soon falter as a result of the "Asian Brown Haze."
Vital follow-up studies are needed to unravel the precise role this three-kilometer-deep pollution blanket may be having on the region's climate and the world's.
The preliminary results indicate that the buildup of the haze, a mass of ash, acids, aerosols and other particles, is disrupting weather systems including rainfall and wind patterns and triggering droughts in western Asia.
The concern is that the regional and global impacts of the haze are set to intensify over the next 30 years as the population of the Asian region rises to an estimated five billion people.
"The haze is the result of forest fires, the burning of agricultural wastes, dramatic increases in the burning of fossil fuels in vehicles, industries, and power stations, and emissions from millions of inefficient cookers burning wood, cow dung, and other 'bio fuels,'" said Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director of UNEP.
"More research is needed, but these initial findings clearly indicate that this growing cocktail of soot, particles, aerosols, and other pollutants are becoming a major environmental hazard for Asia. There are also global implications, not least because a pollution parcel like this, which stretches three kilometers high, can travel halfway round the globe in a week," said Toepfer.
Toepfer said that the discovery of the haze highlights the need to figure out "how to achieve economic growth without sacrificing the long-term health and natural wealth of the planet. We have the initial findings, and the technological and financial resources available, let's now develop the science and find the political and moral will to achieve this for the sake of Asia, for the sake of the world."
The findings on the Asian Brown Cloud have come from observations gathered by 200 scientists working on the Indian Ocean Experiment (INDOEX), supplemented by new satellite readings and computer modelling.
Changing Climate
The blanket of pollution is reducing the amount of solar energy hitting the Earth's surface by as much as 10 to 15 percent. Meanwhile, its heat-absorbing properties are estimated to be warming the lower parts of the atmosphere considerably.
This combination of surface cooling and lower atmosphere heating appears to be altering the winter monsoon, leading to a sharp fall in rainfall over northwestern parts of Asia and an increase of rainfall along the eastern coast of Asia. However, the regional details of the predicted changes need to be verified with more comprehensive regional models and regional aerosol and climate observations.
The global models used in the report suggest that the haze may reduce precipitation over northwest India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, western China, and the neighboring western Central Asian region by between 20 and 40 percent.
"There have been two consecutive droughts in 1999 and 2000 in Pakistan and the northwestern parts of India while increased flooding in the high rainfall areas of Bangladesh, Nepal and the northeastern states of India," the report said.
The aerosols and particles in the haze are also affecting rainfall in other ways. Raindrops are becoming smaller and more numerous, triggering less frequent rainfall and longer-lived clouds. One potential consequence is to move precipitation away from populated regions.
A 10 percent reduction in the levels of solar energy hitting the region's oceans in turn reduces the evaporation of the moisture which controls summer rainfall.
Impacts on People
The reduction in sunlight may be having significant impacts on agriculture, the UNEP report said. Research carried out in India indicates that the haze may be reducing the winter rice harvests by as much as 10 percent.
Acids in the haze may, by falling as acid rain, have the potential to damage crops and trees. Ash falling on leaves can aggravate the impacts of reduced sunlight on the Earth's surface.
The pollution that is forming the haze could be leading to "several hundreds of thousands" of premature deaths as a result of higher levels of respiratory diseases, the report suggested.
Studies indicate that the level of fatalities is rising along with the levels of pollution.
Results from seven cities in India alone, including Ahmedabad, Kolkata, Delhi and Mumbai, estimate that some kinds of air pollution were annually responsible for 24,000 fatalities in the early 1990s. By the mid-1990s they resulted in an estimated 37,000 premature fatalities.
-
If you don't think theres even a hint of a problem then you got your head in a bucket!
-
I never said there wasn't a problem. Most of the finger pointing and redistribution of wealth as a solution to the problem is not addressing the problem. The United States is not the problem. The 3 kilometer deep pollution cloud from over a billion people who do not live on the North American continent is. The Kyoto protocol gives them a pass while trying to point the finger at the industrialized west who have been reducing pollution annually every decade for the last 30 years while the countries exempt who are creating the cloud and related pollution don't have to address it. You give their governments monitary incentives and money to address it and they will pocket it like they have been doing since the end of WW2. Most of their populations burn something to cook food and heat water while their 1% at the top controls where foreign money goes. Them selves. They don't have our altruistic incentives to change the status quo or save the planet. Let alone their own people. To them much of their populations are excess.
At their current rate of out put, the west could reduce ours by 50% of pre 1990 and the problem would contiue to grow. Throwing money at the 3rd world will not and has never worked. The Kyoto protocol will attempt to establish a tax taken from the non-exempt members to.....lets see..UN and oil for food...worked real good didn't it. UN will pass the monies from the tax on to the 3rd world polluters to cut back or something???????? I dont see tree huggers performing anti brown cloud pollution demostrations in the 3rd world. The 3rd world won't tollerate it. So business as usual cry at the West and call them bad guys and polluters, our systems of government make it easier to extort money, sympathy, and hysteria for their causes. But in the end the cloud gets bigger and everyone says the United States is the bad guy and has pay bigger taxes and cut more emissions for the rest of the world.
-
Sorry Bustr wasn't refering to you was referring to all the " Oh don't worry about it because I want to drive my Gas Guzzling SuV, the US can do no wrong " guys. I agree the USA is not the only problem.
Kyoto is maybe not the answer either but in the minds of the public at least it shows acceptance of the issue and a willingness to attempt to cut emmissions. By not signing the USA is giving the wrong impression. It ought to be seen to be trying which right now, in the rest of the world it isn't. Outside of your shores people believe that the USA doesn't care about the issue that is the thing.
Whatever the solution we do have a problem.
-
What happens if the composition of a planets atmosphere is changed ?
-
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/TOK80202161155.jpeg)
A hot air balloon with a banner celebrating the enactment of the Kyoto global warming pact is lifted in the air by Greenpeace Japan with the backdrop of Heian Shrine's great red wooden "torii" gate in Kyoto, western Japan, Wednesday, Feb. 16, 2005. The agreement, negotiated in Japan's ancient capital of Kyoto in 1997 and ratified by 140 nations, officially went into force at midnight New York time (0500 GMT), seven years after it was negotiated, imposing limits on emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases scientists blame for rising world temperatures, melting glaciers and rising oceans. The banner reads: Congratulations for the Kyoto Protocol enactment. Kyoto: New dawn for the climante. (AP Photo/Kyodo News)
A hot air balloon, flown by Greenpeace....
Hot air balloons are usually powered by Propane (C3H8) which when burned produces H20 and CO2
-
perhaps next time they will consider mice engines?
or is greenpeace affiliated with peta?
hmmmm.
layers upon layers.
-
I just thought it intresting that Greenpeace would celibrate the adopting of a treaty controlling CO2 emissions by making CO2 and contributing to global warming.
They could have used the inert gas Helium...
-
I watched 165 nations from the devbeloped world make a commitment to at least try and do something.
And where was the USA the worlds biggest poluter?
With its head up its own a*se smelling the greenhouse gasses!!!:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
I watched 165 nations from the devbeloped world make a commitment to at least try and do something.
And where was the USA the worlds biggest poluter?
With its head up its own a*se smelling the greenhouse gasses!!!:rolleyes:
how true, its a shame.
I'm sure there are us citicien out there who think its not a bad
idea to at least try and do something,
but politicians control it and decide, they think & decide in $.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
And where was the USA the worlds biggest poluter?
Same place as Australia and apparently Greenpeace.
-
Hardly anyone lives in Australia so I doubt they have much of a polution issue, unless you count the methane from all that Kangeroo ****!
:D