| Author | Message | ||
     Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 973 Registered: 9-2001  |
Cuts in Carbon Dioxide Emissions Urged By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (Dec. 14) -- The world's chief climate scientist on Tuesday disputed the U.S. government contention that cutbacks in carbon dioxide emissions are not yet warranted to check global warming. Experts readied a report, meanwhile, saying 2004 will be one of the warmest years on record. ''The science says you've got to reduce emissions,'' Rajendra K. Pachauri told The Associated Press in an interview midway through a two-week international climate conference. The Kyoto Protocol, the international accord requiring cuts in carbon dioxide, ''is driven by the need to reduce emissions, and on that there is no question,'' said Pachauri, chairman of a U.N.-sponsored network of climatologists. Scientists largely blame the accumulation of carbon dioxide and other ''greenhouse gases'' in the atmosphere for the rising temperatures of the past century. The 10 warmest years globally, since records were first kept in the 19th century, have all occurred since 1990, the top three since 1998. Specialists here this week will issue a report saying 2004 ranks as the fourth- or fifth-warmest year recorded. Conference delegates from dozens of nations are fine-tuning the workings of the Kyoto pact, which takes effect Feb. 16. It sets targets for 30 industrial nations - excluding the nonparticipating United States and Australia - to reduce emissions of six greenhouse gases, most importantly carbon dioxide, a byproduct of coal, oil and gasoline use. The United States is a member of the umbrella U.N. treaty on climate change, and it signed that treaty's Kyoto Protocol in 1997. But President Bush renounced the Kyoto agreement in 2001, saying emission reductions would hurt the U.S. economy. Before leaving for the annual climate-treaty talks, U.S. negotiator Harlan Watson told reporters in Washington that the United States - the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide - would eventually stop the growth in its emissions ''as the science justifies.'' After arriving here, he said the Kyoto Protocol's approach was ''not based on science.'' Asked about Watson's statements, Pachauri was emphatic. ''The science says you've got to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The science says you've got to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,'' he said. ''What may be subject to uncertainty and subject to debate is who is to reduce how much.'' As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Indian scientist oversees the work of hundreds of specialists who regularly assess the latest research on climate change and its likely effects. "I think the next round of action will only come from an acceptance of the science." In its last major report, in 2001, the panel projected that global temperatures in the 21st century would increase by 3 to 10 degrees, depending on many factors, including how quickly and deeply gas emissions were cut back. Warming is predicted to cause greater extremes in temperature, and possibly dry out farmlands, stir up fiercer storms and raise ocean levels, among other impacts, the panel said. At the conference Tuesday, European scientists said even an additional 2 degrees might threaten South American water supplies and reduce Asian food yields. One of the world's leading climate institutes, the British government's Hadley Center, issued a report at the conference Tuesday on work done to narrow the uncertainties, by running many dozens more model scenarios through its supercomputers. It said temperatures would most likely rise by an additional 5 degrees by later this century if the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere doubles from its pre-industrial levels - a probable scenario if emissions are not controlled. Pachauri said the evidence of change is everywhere - in the doubling of extreme weather events recorded by the World Meteorological Organization, in the melting of glaciers worldwide, and in the one-degree global temperature rise of the past century. ''The evidence is so strong, the observations so strong, it's very difficult to close your eyes to it,'' he said. ''I was born in the mountains in India. I've seen the kinds of changes that have taken place with snow cover, with the seasons, with the extent of warming, precipitation patterns, the impact on forests.'' Delegations at the conference are searching for ways to bring the United States into the Kyoto process and acceptance of mandatory reductions in gases. Besides the economic argument, Bush complained that some poor but rapidly industrializing nations, such as China and India, were not obligated by Kyoto's short-term targets. Pachauri said he was heartened by the actions of individual U.S. states, particularly in the U.S. Northeast, to impose carbon-dioxide reductions on power plants, for example. ''I think the next round of action will only come from an acceptance of the science,'' he said. AP-NY-12-14-04 21:01 EST | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 498 Registered: 5-2004  |
Climate Change Impact? Look in Your Backyard http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20041214/sc_nm/environment_cl imate_dc BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (Reuters) - To witness the impact of a warming planet, one need not make a costly trip to the melting Arctic ice cap. Proof of climate change is right there in most people's backyards, scientists said on Tuesday. There, plants, birds, insects, mammals and fish are rapidly responding to changes in the climate. Flowering may happen earlier, while birds may not survive extreme temperatures. "Widespread ecological impacts of climate change are already visible in every part of the world and in every ecosystem, even your backyard," said Arnold Van Vliet, a scientist who studied extreme weather and nature's response for environmental group World Wide Fund for Nature or WWF. On the sidelines of the U.N. conference on climate change, WWF said it wants to use the study to push top negotiators to act more swiftly to stop global warming caused mostly by industry and the burning of fossil fuels. "The environmental ministers arrive today and there is an incredible lack of urgency in the hallways," said Jennifer Morgan, director of WWF's climate change program. Warm winters, hot summers, excessive precipitation and extended droughts are all blamed for changing what goes on outside our windows. The study shows that plants, for example, are now flowering up to 30 days earlier and at dates never documented in the last two centuries. TEMPERATURES RISE In the backyards in the Netherlands, the start of the pollen season advanced up to 22 days between 1969 and 2000. In Boston, plants flowered eight days earlier at the end of last century when compared to the beginning. Some species have shown a dramatic increase in range area, like the Mountain Pine Beetle, which has spread over millions of hectares (acres) in North America. Butterflies that migrate to the Netherlands from Southern Europe used to arrive in May, but the recent warm years have produced first sightings in January. In the last 100 years, northern Europe has become 10 to 40 percent wetter and southern Europe up to 20 percent drier. Residents of the conference host city Buenos Aires also are quick to tell how climate change has affected them: It hasn't snowed in the Argentine capital since the 1940s and old-timers tell how they used to wear scarves and mittens all winter. The world's average temperatures have already risen nearly one degree Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) since the pre-industrial era and the European Union (news - web sites) and many environmental groups say it should not exceed 2 degrees. But Van Vliet, a professor at Wageningen University, said his findings have made him even more cautious. "We recommend a ceiling of 1.5 degrees Celsius (3 degree Fahrenheit). Two degrees is far too high." | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 1285 Registered: 12-2001 |
I'm sorry this is bad science because it doesn't conform to my bible-based outlook on physical reality. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2902 Registered: 8-2003 |
No one is disputing that global temperatures are rising (the high being in 1998, and 2004 will be the 4th or 5th warmest). The question is whether it's human activity that is the primary culprit or even the 'tipping point', and that's not proven. When Kyoto leaves out the #2 and #6 greenhouse gas 'violators' (that being China and Brazil respectively), it's obvious that Kyoto won't amount to a hill of beans anyway. Here's a re-do of the boilerplate libs always use to get attention. Women more at risk from climate change: Canadian at UN conference 11:32 AM EST Dec 15 BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) - Severe weather caused by global warming can pose greater physical danger to women than men, a Canadian attending a UN conference on climate change said Friday. "For instance, often women don't know how to swim, so in a flood situation that can lead to a higher instance of death or injury," Angie Daze, a program manager with a Canadian group called Reducing Vulnerability to Climate Change, said. Plans for international co-operation to fight global warming beyond the end of the Kyoto Protocol dominated the United Nations conference on climate change. " | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 1289 Registered: 12-2001 |
"Here's a re-do of the boilerplate libs always use to get attention." What does that mean? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 503 Registered: 5-2004 |
cjc quoted: Now THAT is funny. But back to the main topic, it will be impossible to prove that humans are the cause of global warming. In a sense, it's a Heisenbergian (???) dillema. If we're around to gather the data, then we're having an impact. I'm not a chicken little about this stuff. But it would be nice if there was some common sense used by some of the extremists on boths sides. I personally don't think anyone on these boards comes close to the extremists I'm talking about. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2904 Registered: 8-2003 |
Lib Boilerplate to get attention is best contained in an old joke. God calls up 3 papers -- NY Post, Wall Street Journal and the NY Times. He says 'That's it. The world will end tomorrow. I'm disgusted by all this, and I'm going to end it all." All 3 papers rush out late breaking editions with the following headlines: NY Post -- "IT'S OVER!" Wall Street Journal -- "World To End Tomorrow. Markets to Close Early." NY Times -- "God To End World Tomorrow. Women and Children Hardest Hit." I misspoke slightly, and rather mean that the left uses "women hardest hit" or the like to say not only are things bad, but hey -- all the poor women and kids are really going to get it bad to the point of being laughable. | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 1290 Registered: 12-2001 |
Yeah, but, what does that have to do with science? Couldn't I as easily say that attacking the messenger is a standard conservative method for avoid substantive debate? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2905 Registered: 8-2003 |
The science is not definitive that human activity is the primary culprit behind global warming, or that curtailing same can have a measurable impact on stopping it. What does the science say will be the net reduction in global warming if Kyoto was entirely implemented? 1/10th of 1 degree? | ||
| notehead Citizen Username: Notehead Post Number: 1802 Registered: 5-2001  |
I hope I don't regret pointing this out... but Michael Crichton's latest novel is about eco-terrorists who conspire to make horrible things happen around the world to "prove" that global warming is happening, although it actually isn't -- at least, not in the novel. Crichton, who is not a scientist but also is no dummy, has apparently done quite a lot of research, and has decided that global warming is not happening. I don't know how he explains all the stuff like retreating glaciers, robins in the arctic circle, weather patterns, etc. http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/books/12/14/books.michael.crichton.ap/index.html | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2906 Registered: 8-2003 |
The argument has never been that global warming isn't happening. It's the 'why' and how that relates to human activity. | ||
| notehead Citizen Username: Notehead Post Number: 1803 Registered: 5-2001 |
I agree, that's usually the nature of the argument. But, apparently, Crichton seems to think that it isn't even happening, never mind the cause. And man, he's really getting some heat for it. My wife just sent me this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/14/science/earth/14fear.html | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 979 Registered: 9-2001 |
Crichton may not be a dummy, but he was pretty far off base with Jurassic Park, both in the cloning side and in the chaos theory side. There is no debate that the world is warming. There is no debate that this will make great changes in the ecosystem. There is no doubt that human activity adds to the forces that cause the warming. It is irrelevant whether the warming would have happened or not--the effects will still cause changes in human existence. We cannot stop long-term secular changes in the environment that would happen anyway. But we can change our behaviors that may be accelerating or enhancing the changes. And since we are going to adapt to the changes anyway, we might as well start now. Better to phase it in than face it with no time to prepare. I don't care if China or India do not follow suit--as the largest market in the world, as the driver of all technology and innovation, we should start reducing CO2 output and converting to cleaner energy sources. The world will follow. And we get the benefit of less dependency on the Mid East, cleaner air and water, and jobs created by demand for new technology. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1383 Registered: 1-2003  |
Conservatives would LOVE substantitive debate on this. Unfortunately that rarely happens. Realistic objections are always drowned out by the left. The world's average temperatures have already risen nearly one degree Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) since the pre-industrial era and the European Union (news - web sites) and many environmental groups say it should not exceed 2 degrees. But Van Vliet, a professor at Wageningen University, said his findings have made him even more cautious. "We recommend a ceiling of 1.5 degrees Celsius (3 degree Fahrenheit). Two degrees is far too high." Great reccomendation, how do you propose to achieve that since 1) There is NO evidence that man made emmissions of CO2 or other "greenhouse" gasses have caused this. 2) Even if the US and all of the developing countries in the world adhered to the Kyoto treaty, not one scientist believes that the world would cool, or even that the world would stop warming at the same rate it is now. 3) How exactly does one put a ceiling on the Earth's temperature? 4) Which temperature? Atmospheric temp, Core temp, ground temp? If atmospheric temp, the lower or upper? If ground temp, ground temp taken where? 5) The earths atmosphere is 98% water vapor. What if that is somehow holding more heat, water does hold heat afterall. What if its this and not greenhouse emmissions? How would we change that and would we even want to? 6) what about all of the scientists that don't believe CO2 and other emmissions are causing the warming? Why are they immediately discounted? 7) Deserts were fertile ground thousands of years ago and then they changed. Drought, famine, etc happened to whoever lived there. this was long before and man made emmissions "changed" anything. What if this is all just a natural cycle that cannot be changed? Show me ANY solid proof that its not? | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 161 Registered: 5-2001 |
cjc, I've seen quite a bit of argument by those on the right side of the aisle that say it isn't happening. Rush Limbaugh, the American Policy Center, Steven Milloy, Ann Coulter, etc. have all either denied its existence or positioned themselves on both sides ("there is no global warming and even if there is it has nothing to do with humans"). | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2908 Registered: 8-2003 |
I do occasionally listen to Limbaugh, and I'm not aware that he's said overall world temperatures haven't increased at all. You must listen more than I do. As to the others, I can't comment authoritatively. But so what. Leftist wackos versus rightwing wackos...who cares. The argument and the lack of definitive resolution remain. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 594 Registered: 7-2004 |
"Conservatives would LOVE substantitive debate on this." Wrong again, Janay. I've pointed out time and again here that when it comes to science, especially the science of environmental concerns, President Bush does NOT want to hear any positions that contradict his agenda. Now you're just making stuff up... Here's only one for instance (from the National Resources Defense Council): Bush administration's environmental policies ignore science, scientists say October 19, 2004: Forty-eight Nobel laureates have added their voices to the mounting criticism of the Bush administration's attitude towards science. In a recent letter, these scientists stated that this administration ignores unbiased scientific advice and evidence when making public policy. The scientists say that, unlike its predecessors, this administration has institutionalized control over scientific reports to ensure they are consistent with President Bush's policy initiatives. In addition to suppressing research findings to suit its political objectives, scientists charge the administration with skewing advisory panels and squelching discussion within federal research agencies. These problems have been most notable in the field of climate change. Earlier this month, three NASA scientists and several other NASA officials described how news releases on global warming studies have been delayed or revised by Bush officials "to play down definitiveness and risks." | ||
| Face Citizen Username: Face Post Number: 459 Registered: 5-2001  |
It's too bad so many frustrated MOL critics are focused on the Bush Administration's alleged motives and not its arguments. As it turns out, several key players in the climate-change debate are starting to come around to President Bush's view. What is that view? Early on in his first term, President Bush labeled the treaty "fatally flawed" and announced the U.S. would not participate in its schedule of forced emissions reductions. Why? Firstly, Kyoto would impose significant economic damage upon the American economy. Second, the reduction targets and timetables are impractical from a technological perspective. Third, the treaty exempted developing economies such as India and China from any restrictions even though their emissions are rising rapidly. Instead, the Bush team under Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham charted a different course, which involved investment in basic research, technology transfer to poor countries, and bilateral agreements. So what has been happening? On the first day of the Buenos Aires conference, a group of developing countries, including China, announced that they would not commit to any specific emissions reductions in the future. Gao Feng, a top official in the Chinese foreign ministry, boldly stated: "We are a developing country, we're not yet making international commitments.... We will continue to attend to our energy needs. We will need to increase our energy consumption for the next 30 to 50 years." If you have a few minutes, here is an article that may provide you with additional insight. “Low Carbon Future?” It's harder than you think By Ronald Bailey http://www.reason.com/rb/rb121504.shtml | ||
| Duncan Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 3640 Registered: 12-2001  |
China a developing country??? | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 162 Registered: 5-2001 |
cjc, While I agree that those that I mentioned are wackos, they are decidedly mainstream wackos (based on ratings and book sales). In other words, what they say goes a long way with Bush supporters. This is what Limbaugh had to say in one of his books, "Despite the hysterics of a few pseudo-scientists, there is no reason to believe in global warming." |
