Climate change is caused by humans

[Harald]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html

That's the bad news. "The debate is over, at least for rational people."

The good news is that we can do something about it. If we act now.

The question is: is Bush rational? Will he sign up to Kyoto, or are short-term considerations about pissing off his mates in the energy industry going to trump certain disaster and MILLIONS of deaths?

The other question is: are the Chinese rational?

How do we save our planet when certain countries aren't rational?

[MarcUK]

"who cares, because Jesus is about to pop from the sky any moment and whisk all us good little people into heaven." -George.W 2004

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Harald
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html

That's the bad news. "The debate is over, at least for rational people."

The good news is that we can do something about it. If we act now.

The question is: is Bush rational? Will he sign up to Kyoto, or are short-term considerations about pissing off his mates in the energy industry going to trump certain disaster and MILLIONS of deaths?

The other question is: are the Chinese rational?

How do we save our planet when certain countries aren't rational?

Which is more rational, to sign on to an agreement and then fail at the goals, or to set reasonable goals and then meet them?

Do you have any conclusive proof that Europe, which signed onto this agreement has actually met or will meet the goals stated in it?

I mean we are all about results, not just good politics right?

Nick

[e1618978]

Kyoto is a piece of trash, and anyone who is not blinded by "Bush hatred" knows that. If Clinton was still president, we still wouldn't have signed the Kyoto agreement.

I think that the debate ended long ago, at least amoung rational people, about global warming being a real phenomonon, and about it being at least partially caused by human activities.

I still have not heard an answer to my question from a previous thread, though:

The world temparature at 6000 BC was 2 degrees C above the current temparature, and things were fine (the polar bears survived, etc). All accounts indicate that at that temparature life was much better for humans that it is now. Current estimates are a 2 degree gain over the next 70 years - why are we worried?

I don't think that oil will last that long, and coal will be replaced long before we get to "climate optimum" (the 2 degree hike). In 2075, we just won't be doing that much to the CO2 levels anymore.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by trumptman
Which is more rational, to sign on to an agreement and then fail at the goals, or to set reasonable goals and then meet them?

Do you have any conclusive proof that Europe, which signed onto this agreement has actually met or will meet the goals stated in it?

I mean we are all about results, not just good politics right?

Nick
Britain, France and Germany have declared they'll try and meet the carbon emission targets set out in Kyoto regardless of whether the Americans say they'll bother or not.

We can't prove wether they'll manage it or not because it hasn't happened yet and that's not the point anyway.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Britain, France and Germany have declared they'll try and meet the carbon emission targets set out in Kyoto regardless of whether the Americans say they'll bother or not.

We can't prove wether they'll manage it or not because it hasn't happened yet and that's not the point anyway.

But Spain blew through its limits like a sneeze in a cheap tissue.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by e1618978
But Spain blew through its limits like a sneeze in a cheap tissue.
Sign Kyoto. Then complain about European carbon emissions.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Britain, France and Germany have declared they'll try and meet the carbon emission targets set out in Kyoto regardless of whether the Americans say they'll bother or not.

We can't prove wether they'll manage it or not because it hasn't happened yet and that's not the point anyway.

So you are saying lets argue about something that hasn't happened yet but a piece of paper says some parties might try harder than others?

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Sign Kyoto. Then complain about European carbon emissions.

Sign a piece of paper that says that you will try. Then don't try.

Don't sign a piece of paper but say you will try, but don't complain about others who signed a piece of paper.

Nice reasoning.

Nick

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by trumptman
So you are saying lets argue about something that hasn't happened yet but a piece of paper says some parties might try harder than others?

Nick
I think we should stick to the topic. Should Bush sign Kyoto? If you think he shouldn't, explain why.

I can't respond to your post because I really, honestly don't understand it.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Edit: let's stick to the topic.

Will America under George Bush address its carbon emissions? Should it?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Edit: let's stick to the topic.

Will America under George Bush address its carbon emissions? Should it?

To me that means having the ability to reason, use logic, etc.

I then simply asked you a few questions about the parties you claim are "rational" and how we can compare if one is and theo the other is not based off actions that haven't happened yet.

You sign a piece of paper claiming you will live a good life.

I declare my intent to live a good life but won't commit to it on paper.

We then must decide, based off no actions, simply some claimed intent who is going go be better?

That doesn't sound very rational to me at all. Yet you want us to use it as the basis of a discussion.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I think we should stick to the topic. Should Bush sign Kyoto? If you think he shouldn't, explain why.

I can't respond to your post because I really, honestly don't understand it.

Perhaps it is because the initial post doesn't make sense. You asked if certain people or countries are rational.

Now I look at a graph like this...http://ghg.unfccc.int/graphics/graph1.gif

I see some "rational Kyoto" countries like oh... Canada, Spain, etc... who are either neck and neck, or well above the United States in CO2 emission increases, yet they signed a wonderful piece of paper that makes them "rational" in your view.

That graph of course doesn't even included exempted parties like India and China which I'm sure are would be through the roof comparitive to 1990.

Again, do actions or signing a piece of paper make one rational?

Nick

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
I see some "rational Kyoto" countries like oh... Canada, Spain, etc... who are either neck and neck, or well above the United States in CO2 emission increases, yet they signed a wonderful piece of paper that makes them "rational" in your view. Do you have any evidence that countries won't be able to reduce their emissions? It looks from your graph like there's a very wide variety of increases and decreases from the 1990 level. That at least suggests to me that it's possible to reduce.

Countries like Spain and others might have increased emissions, but perhaps the treaty will encourage countries to meet the goals. That's really the purpose of a treaty, is it not - to say "if we all do this, it will have a bigger effect than if we do it alone."

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
Do you have any evidence that countries won't be able to reduce their emissions? It looks from your graph like there's a very wide variety of increases and decreases from the 1990 level. That at least suggests to me that it's possible to reduce.

Countries like Spain and others might have increased emissions, but perhaps the treaty will encourage countries to meet the goals. That's really the purpose of a treaty, is it not - to say "if we all do this, it will have a bigger effect than if we do it alone."

Many of the countries that made reductions were simply removing the very dirty soviet technologies that were used in their countries and replacing them with western versions.

One of the reasons that Germany was so ready to jump on board was that the pollutions levels from East Germany would allow it to make the reductions by doing no more than changing that half of the country to better western technology.

However many of the other countries, including very well intentioned western countries do not have the ability to make such jumps in their attempts to generate less carbon dioxide.

Nick

[groverat]

Originally posted by trumptman
Which is more rational, to sign on to an agreement and then fail at the goals, or to set reasonable goals and then meet them?

The second one is more rational. It is also less likely to happen under the current US administration.

[e1618978]

The world temparature at 6000 BC was 2 degrees C above the current temparature, and things were fine (the polar bears survived, etc). All accounts indicate that at that temparature life was much better for humans that it is now. Current estimates are a 2 degree gain over the next 70 years - why are we worried?

I don't think that oil will last that long, and coal will be replaced long before we get to "climate optimum" (the 2 degree hike). In 2075, we just won't be doing that much to the CO2 levels anymore. [/B]

Nobody going to address this? You can't argue that we should reduce CO2 unless you can prove that it is nessessary.

Unless you disarm my reasoning above, I am going to go buy a V8 and start cranking out CO2...

[trumptman]

Originally posted by groverat
The second one is more rational. It is also less likely to happen under the current US administration.

Do you have any proof that Clinton did a better job of actually reducing green house emissions?

Not passing the buck, just asking. If you want me to consider an alternative to Bush, then please present a real alternative.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
That graph doesn't measure total emissions, only the percent of emission changes relative to 1990. I would think the fact that Monaco and Portugal are higher on the graph suggests something about that. So even though emission increases are bad and should be reduced globally, the U.S. is far less rational because it produces far more emissions and has not agreed to reduce them, unlike the other countries.

The graph deals with Kyoto which attempts to get at in terms of results.

The Parties included in Annex I shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate
anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A
do not exceed their assigned amounts, calculated pursuant to their quantified emission
limitation and reduction commitments inscribed in Annex B and in accordance with the
provisions of this Article, with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases
by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012.

I consider the graph relevent because it measures what the Kyoto Treaty is attempting to accomplish. If you have some other information about this, I'll be happy to read it.

Nick

[e1618978]

I consider the graph relevent because it measures what the Kyoto Treaty is attempting to accomplish. If you have some other information about this, I'll be happy to read it.


Just looking at the graph shows you who supports the treaty and who does not. The EU is currently at -2.5% because of the eastern european decline, so that they get to sell carbon credits (because they get to share the carbon burden between countries).

The only countries that are voting against their self-interest are Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by e1618978
Nobody going to address this? You can't argue that we should reduce CO2 unless you can prove that it is nessessary.

Unless you disarm my reasoning above, I am going to go buy a V8 and start cranking out CO2...

Or we all could just continue breathing....:D

There are several parties around here that I believe we should nominate for reduced CO2 emissions.:lol:

Nick

[Harald]

Pardon me, but no-one seems to want to address the question.

What should we do to save our planet?

[SpcMs]

http://eetd.lbl.gov/newsletter/cbs_nl/nl15/images/carbon.gif

Srry, it's the best graph i could Google in 15secs ;)
The second bar indicates tons of Carbon Dioxide emissions per capita in 1991. Now tell me what country would disproportionally benefit from returning to 1991 levels of emission? That's right, the US.
For those of you who consider Kyoto 'unbalanced', wouldn't it be much fairer if all countries were allowed the same emission per capita (or, perhaps, per GDP)? Kyoto even doesn't go there, and allows countries like the US, to continue to profit from its 'dirty' past. Koyoto may be unbalanced, but it's not the developed countries that got the short end of the deal imo.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Harald
Pardon me, but no-one seems to want to address the question.

What should we do to save our planet?

Prove that it is in danger first. Sure - I'll admit that probably a billion people will die if the seas rise 50 feet. That does not mean that the world is in danger.

We just need to move people away from the coasts.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
No, the graph deals with what I said it deals with.

Sure. But you used it in a misleading fashion, suggesting that tiny Monaco is less rational than the United States with regard to emissions increases, when that number is only a percentage relative to emissions in 1990. The United States can have a relatively small increase of a huge number of emissions, and dwarf the increases of other countries that you said were "well above the emission increases" of our country. Get what I'm saying?

The graph deals with Kyoto, what it doesn't deal with is per capita pollutions levels which is what you care to discuss and which goes beyond even Kyoto.

Sure I can understand that Monaco, in breaking an agreement might cause much less harm because they are a miniscule country in relation to the United States.

That doesn't change the nature of Kyoto, what was agreed to and whether people really are going to honor their agreements in that matter.

Your view is basically that Kyoto doesn't do enough. That is fine, however if it doesnt' do enough, and people still don't honor it, what does that say for future agreements that would be even stricter?

Nick

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by trumptman
The graph deals with Kyoto, what it doesn't deal with is per capita pollutions levels which is what you care to discuss and which goes beyond even Kyoto.

Sure I can understand that Monaco, in breaking an agreement might cause much less harm because they are a miniscule country in relation to the United States.

That doesn't change the nature of Kyoto, what was agreed to and whether people really are going to honor their agreements in that matter.

Your view is basically that Kyoto doesn't do enough. That is fine, however if it doesnt' do enough, and people still don't honor it, what does that say for future agreements that would be even stricter?

Nick
I'm not sure what you're arguing. It seems to be that because Spain and Monaco haven't met their commitments we might as well give up. Is that right?

There's no point in bothering anyway, because look, Spain and Monaco haven't met their commitments. We're totally doomed anyway.

Well thanks for throwing your weight behind this treaty THAT YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SIGNED.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I'm not sure what you're arguing. It seems to be that because Spain and Monaco haven't met their commitments we might as well give up. Is that right?

There's no point in bothering anyway, because look, Spain and Monaco haven't met their commitments. We're totally doomed anyway.

Well thanks for throwing your weight behind this treaty THAT YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SIGNED.

You keep on going, without addressing the points that get brought up:

1. Kyoto will not do anything for CO2 levels, it is just a financial transfer from the US to Europe and China. There is absolutely no reason to sign it - none.

2. Temparature levels were higher in the past. We will lose coastline, but it didn't trigger an iceage then so why will it now?

3. CO2 levels can only go as high as the subterranian carbon will let it go. When we run out of coal and oil, we will no longer be able to raise CO2 levels, and we are going to get to that point regardless of any treaty, it might take a little more time, but we will get there.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I'm not sure what you're arguing. It seems to be that because Spain and Monaco haven't met their commitments we might as well give up. Is that right?

There's no point in bothering anyway, because look, Spain and Monaco haven't met their commitments. We're totally doomed anyway.

Well thanks for throwing your weight behind this treaty THAT YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SIGNED.

No the point is exactly what you brought up. Spain and Monaco are "rational" because they have signed this treaty and then not honored it. The United States has not signed it and therefore is not rational, even though their pollution growth has been lower.

It shows the absurdity of looking at a signed piece of paper instead of looking at results.

You complain that the United States hasn't signed it. Yet in spirit they've honored it better than Cananda which has signed it. So who is more rational, the people who lie more effectively?

Nick

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
No the point is exactly what you brought up. Spain and Monaco are "rational" because they have signed this treaty and then not honored it. The United States has not signed it and therefore is not rational, even though their pollution growth has been lower. The treaty went into effect literally a matter of hours ago. I agree that we should complain if people sign it but don't follow through - but let's at least wait a reasonable time frame to see if the treaty has any effect.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
The treaty went into effect literally a matter of hours ago. I agree that we should complain if people sign it but don't follow through - but let's at least wait a reasonable time frame to see if the treaty has any effect.

You can still see intent before actual enforcement though. I mean if you are expected to get to 5% below 1990 levels, shouldn't you be insuring you aren't shooting up 40% or so before the treaty goes into effect?

It would still be interesting to find a chart that shows China and India now as compared to 1990. China has already passed the United States as the largest consumer on the planet and yet they are exempted from Kyoto.

I know the poster of this topic wants to stay on topic, that topic being that George Bush is a big asshole in his opinion. But that shouldn't be framed as a question of rationality because what rational person would sign an agreement that would destroy their own economy while giving two large and up and coming countries an entirely free pass?

Nick

[hardeeharhar]

So it isn't an ideal treaty, but lack of support from the US means that future treaties which may be effective in regulating environmental degradation have less of a chance of even going beyond the "Houston, we have a problem" phase. It is tongue in cheek to suggest that the main reason we didn't sign on to Kyoto was because the Indian and Chinese economies will be allowed to pollute. We didn't sign it because there is this false perception that the costs it takes to modifying our pollution output would hamper our economy.

What US companies should do now is self-regulate to levels better than those agreed upon in Kyoto. Proving a commitment to the environment even if our government doesn't have one.

[Harald]

Originally posted by e1618978
Prove that it is in danger first. Sure - I'll admit that probably a billion people will die if the seas rise 50 feet. That does not mean that the world is in danger.

We just need to move people away from the coasts.

You're a lunatic.

There is endless evidence and countless verifiable models demonstating what will happen to our planet if the temperatures rise.

If the temperatures rise with population density as it is now, the areas that will be able to grow food will disappear. What do you propose humanity will eat?

If you have to move New York, LA, London and ... most of the major capitals of the planet, what do you think will happen to the economy of the world? You may find your shops will close, and the firms that move food, and grow it. And the hospitals.

Oh, and you can prove that Saddam would have had a nuke? Can you prove that Bin Laden will nuke New York? No, but the risk is worth the money.

And the transfer of money? We're just asking you to emit as much CO2 as the rest of us per capita, but you'd rather keep everyone with a SUV then save the planet.

In short: you are extremely, wilfully ignorant of the enormous pile of facts, and the stakes we face are infinitely higher then any other.

[e1618978]

There is endless evidence and countless verifiable models demonstating what will happen to our planet if the temperatures rise.

I am not a lunitic - I just want an answer to this question, which you did not address:

If the temparature over the next 70 years is only going to rise 2 degrees, and we had that same temparature at 6000 BC with thriving civilisations, why do you think that disaster looms?

We will lose coastal cities, it is true. However, our food production will go up.

And we can't grow CO2 with population, we only have so much oil and coal.

[e1618978]

the stakes we face are infinitely higher then any other.

No - the stakes for global warming are high, but a comet hitting the earth is a much bigger deal.

We spend way too much money combatting global warming, and not enough trying to avoid a collision.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by e1618978
If the temparature over the next 70 years is only going to rise 2 degrees, and we had that same temparature at 6000 BC with thriving civilisations, why do you think that disaster looms?

We will lose coastal cities, it is true. However, our food production will go up.

And we can't grow CO2 with population, we only have so much oil and coal.
For a start: there's the problem of the unpredecented rapidity of the temperature rise. Hurricanes, floods, drought. The planet's weather is fucked. Even America's going to suffer.

6,000 years BC? Flourishing civilisations? We'd only invented farming 4,000 before that! In 3,800 BC the entire population of the planet was about 25,000,000. That's half the population of present day London. Flourishing civilisations my arse. We hadn't even invented the alphabet.

Oh, the population of the planet today?

According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Bureau of the Census, the total population of the World, projected to 2/19/05 at 19:00:18 GMT (2/19/05 at 2:00:18 PM EST) is 6,419,769,833

We are not going to be able to feed ourselves. Desertification, failing rains, floods and hurricanes. 'Only 2 degrees' is catastrophic.

[e1618978]

We are not going to be able to feed ourselves. Desertification, failing rains, floods and hurricanes. 'Only 2 degrees' is catastrophic. [/B]

I don't think that you are correct - the rainfall is supposed to increase due to added evaporation from the oceans. Do a google search on "climate optimum":

"During the First Climate Optimum, which followed an Ice Age, agriculture came into being, writing was invented, cities began to be built and other important advances occurred. "From its origins around 8000BC," writes Moore, "agriculture spread northward, appearing in Greece about 6000BC, Hungary in 5000BC, France in 4500BC, and Poland in 4250BC. Is it chance that this northward spread followed a gradual warming of the climate that made agriculture more feasible at higher latitudes?"

The Little Climate Optimum was an unprecedented period of human progress marked by the construction of some of Europe’s most famous buildings, including St. Mark’s in Venice, the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the cathedrals at Santiago de Compostela, Notre Dame, Canterbury and Chartres. The building surge ended with the advent of a prolonged cooling, known as the Little Ice Age which lasted from 1300 to 1800. This period saw the Black Death and a general stagnation of human progress. Both of these periods, incidentally, were warmer than current temperatures and are about the same as the upper bound of the IPCC predictions."

[hardeeharhar]

You are reading way too much into corrolations between climate and human advancement as well as having a Euro-centric focus.

During the development of agriculture unchecked grazing (and the increase in temperature) created the Sahara and Arabian deserts. Recent scientific studies show that on plains where the have created an artificial temperature rise invasive plants found in drier locals thrive while snuffing out the plants with deep roots -- the result is desertification.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
*sigh* (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/3145.php)



What on earth were you saying about countries not meeting their commitments?

You don't see the irony of that enforcement mechanism do you?

Stop, or I'll say stop again!
:lol:
Nick

[Harald]

We're going to get a pissing contest on who's right here e-number.

In my corner, all the data and the scientists.

In yours, you, and ... ?

Find me a link that says food production will go up when you can't grow grain in the places it's grown no, let's say, in the US midwest.

There's too many of us. Too many people. A 5% decrease in available agricultural land is a catastrophic disaster.

And if you think we're going to shrug off moving all our major capitals, you are MAD.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
No.

:err:

If you don't make these marks, will make even lower marks that you will have to meet... and if you don't make those... well... hmm.....

Nick

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
You are reading way too much into corrolations between climate and human advancement as well as having a Euro-centric focus.

During the development of agriculture unchecked grazing (and the increase in temperature) created the Sahara and Arabian deserts. Recent scientific studies show that on plains where the have created an artificial temperature rise invasive plants found in drier locals thrive while snuffing out the plants with deep roots -- the result is desertification.

Maybe so, but the rest of the world saw those same temparatures and did not turn into a desert, also the earth was cooling slightly (and had been at a near constant temparature for 4000 years) at 4000 BC when the Sahara was created. I thought that the sahara desert was created by a change in the tilt of the earth (presession).

It seems to me that the people who hold stong opinions about CO2 limits also believe that oil will soon run out. These two opinions seem to be contradictory.

[e1618978]

Find me a link that says food production will go up

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateFutureClimateUSClimate.html

"In the Central North American region, the two models that include the effect of sulfates estimate that rainfall may increase slightly more than evaporation, leading to modest increases in soil moisture during both winter and summer."

Also - the available farmland in Canada would increase.

CO2 helps crop growth, more is better on that front.

Rivers would be much larger.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateFutureClimateUSClimate.html

"In the Central North American region, the two models that include the effect of sulfates estimate that rainfall may increase slightly more than evaporation, leading to modest increases in soil moisture during both winter and summer."

Also - the available farmland in Canada would increase.

CO2 helps crop growth, more is better on that front.

Rivers would be much larger.

The statement: CO2 helps crop growth, more is better on that front -- isn't true. You get inhibition of growth at hightened levels of C02.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
The statement: CO2 helps crop growth, more is better on that front -- isn't true. You get inhibition of growth at hightened levels of C02.

At what point does it kick in?

[e1618978]

Looking around on google - it seems to me that 95% of the effect on humans will be the sea level rise. 5% of the effect will be storm related (hurricanes, etc).

I think that the benefits of global warming will be a lusher, greener world - locally things will vary a lot, and the lush/green areas will be further from the equator than they are now. The equatorial regions will be too hot, but they also bear the brunt of hurricanes and typhoons, so just don't live there.

I maintain my position that collision with a comet should take much higher prioity than global warming. Global warming is guarenteed, has a limit (based on the subterrainian carbon), and we can't really do anything to prevent it.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
Maybe so, but the rest of the world saw those same temparatures and did not turn into a desert, also the earth was cooling slightly (and had been at a near constant temparature for 4000 years) at 4000 BC when the Sahara was created. I thought that the sahara desert was created by a change in the tilt of the earth (presession).

It seems to me that the people who hold stong opinions about CO2 limits also believe that oil will soon run out. These two opinions seem to be contradictory.

Re: Sahara, the two events may be self-feeding -- that is there was a marked acceleration in the rate of desertification at about the time that agriculture was developed. Could this have occured without humans? No one can know for sure.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
Looking around on google - it seems to me that 95% of the effect on humans will be the sea level rise. 5% of the effect will be storm related (hurricanes, etc).

I think that the benefits of global warming will be a lusher, greener world - locally things will vary a lot, and the lush/green areas will be further from the equator than they are now. The equatorial regions will be too hot, but they also bear the brunt of hurricanes and typhoons, so just don't live there.

You are a lunatic. You live in North Carolina and are telling people that it is just easy enough not to live in a giant swath of the world because it will be too hot, or too dangerous climatically. Global warming does not result in lush growth. It just doesn't. Nasty nearly rootless plants grow in hotter moisture-less climates. These plants can hardly be called lush.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Re: Sahara, the two events may be self-feeding -- that is there was a marked acceleration in the rate of desertification at about the time that agriculture was developed. Could this have occured without humans? No one can know for sure.

About the Sahara and the tilt of the earth:

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl9920.html

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
You are a lunatic. You live in North Carolina and are telling people that it is just easy enough not to live in a giant swath of the world because it will be too hot, or too dangerous climatically. Global warming does not result in lush growth. It just doesn't. Nasty nearly rootless plants grow in hotter moisture-less climates. These plants can hardly be called lush.

I don't know what North Carolina has to do with it.

Lets just agree to meet back here in 50 years and compare notes. If you were right I will buy you a beer.

Unless we get hit by a comet by then.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
I don't know what North Carolina has to do with it.

Lets just agree to meet back here in 50 years and compare notes. If you were right I will buy you a beer.

Unless we get hit by a comet by then.

NC gets hit by hurricanes.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
About the Sahara and the tilt of the earth:

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl9920.html

I read the original report. They see an inexplicable increase in the rate at about 4000 BC...

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
At what point does it kick in?

It doesn't just kick in. There are a lot of factors including the shift on dependence of ammonium fertilizers over nitrates, direct inhibition of dark metabolism (which if your cloud cover is increased will most assuredly be a higher fraction of the time) etc etc.

[e1618978]

From 3000 BC to 2000 BC the world was both warmer and wetter than it is now. I'm looking for a graph that shows temparature and rainfall for the last 10,000 years - but I am having trouble finding one. If you know of one please post it.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I read the original report. They see an inexplicable increase in the rate at about 4000 BC...

I think that it is pretty clear that it wasn't caused by the global temparature, since it happend suddenly, in less than 300 years, after 4000 years of warmth.

[e1618978]

Forgive me if I can't take you all too seriously. Every time I hear one of your catastophy claims, I look in the climate record and find the reverse.

Here is another counterpoint. The earth of the dinosaurs was 15 degrees warmer than it is now (roughly the same as we will get if we pump every drop of coal and oil). There was tons of rainfall - enough to supply food for millions of huge beasts.

Throw me a bone here - show me anything in the last 10,000 years that makes you think that rising global temparatures results in a more arid climate worldwide. I don't think that it does, I think that the climate gets wetter, and I think that the variations in the last 10,000 years bear that out.

[hardeeharhar]

Climate is chaotic. Looking at the past for clues as to what the future holds is idiotic -- and most definitely wrong since by definition, a chaotic system never passes through the same point twice. So on the up side, we may be floating around a climate strange attractor that keeps us nice and warm and wet, or on the flip side we may be flying around a large climate butterfly.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Climate is chaotic. Looking at the past for clues as to what the future holds is idiotic -- and most definitely wrong since by definition, a chaotic system never passes through the same point twice. So on the up side, we may be floating around a climate strange attractor that keeps us nice and warm and wet, or on the flip side we may be flying around a large climate butterfly.

That is a cop out. You have *nothing* to make you think that a future warmer climate will be dryer. I have the whole of climate history, plus this:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalw...eUSClimate.html

"In the Central North American region, the two models that include the effect of sulfates estimate that rainfall may increase slightly more than evaporation, leading to modest increases in soil moisture during both winter and summer."

Also - there are two CO2 studies with plants, only one of them (the california one) came up with the CO2 plant inhibitor. I submit that the jury is still out on the effects of CO2 on plant growth.

[SDW2001]

The Kyoto treaty is garbage for so meany reaons. It exempts some of the world's largest polluters, and worse...it will not be very effective especially for the cost involved.

Here's a fun link that any "thinking, rational, critical liberal" should read.

http://www.junkscience.com/

And as another poster said, the US would not have signed Kyoto even if Clinton was still president. In fact, it would not matter who was president at all. The Senate would never ratify it.

As for climate change being caused by humans, that is still a theory which cannot be proved. The reason it cannot be proved is that it is impossible to look at a 50 year temperature spike (or 100) and draw a conclusion from it. I don't care which method you use or what kind of data you have. Anything based on historical impact obervations is going to be flawed. Anyone that knows how to read a line graph has to admit that conclusions relating to the entire graph must be based ON the entire graph, not .01% of it, which is pretty much what temperature changes models are.

This does not mean we should keep polluting the environment. We need to research alternative fuels (in particular, for automobiles) and lose our oil habit. Though we're not going to run out anytime soon, it is a pullutant and it is finite.

[e1618978]

As for climate change being caused by humans, that is still a theory which cannot be proved.

I was with you until that point. The National Geographic special on climate change had a graph that convinced me. It showed temparature and CO2 levels for the last 400,000 years (data taken from a lake bed, I think).

The current CO2 level spike is an obvious anomoly - and temparature and CO2 are obviously correlated. At least if the graph is based on valid data, I don't think it can be argued that humans are a significant factor in recent climate change.

[dmz]

The reason (one very good reason) the Kyoto was not signed by America is that, while the Clinton administration KNEW it was coming, it sat on it's hands concerning emissions. Bush came into this framework and realized he would have to REDUCE EMMISSIONS BY A THIRD and wisely waited for the next bus. From what I understand, the next round will include China and Brazil, and is probably when America will get on board.

three points:

1. As usuall this has gotten reduced to "Bush hates the environment" (and Hallibuton, the Neocons) --- a dead giveaway that someone is not being rational.

2. No one here is talking about the fact that this treaty will include "carbon credits" that countries like Japan, who will have a very hard time reducing their emissions, will be able to trade credits with other countries. Some of this "reduction" will not be global, only shifted around. (not all bad, but it should be noted)

3. I listened to Living on Earth yesterday and they linked to a paper BY enviromentalists FOR enviromentalists, entitled The Death of the Envirionmental Movement (http://thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf). Pretty interesting, apparently they believe the tactics of 30 years ago don't fit today's issues, whodathunkit?

...also mp3 (http://www.livingonearth.org/audio/050218/050218envirodeath.mp3) on the Kyoto thing from yesterday's show.

[Res]

I am glad we did not sign the Kyoto Treaty - With China and India excluded it will just encourage companies to redistribute their heavy manufacturing plants to the excluded countries. It will have a negligible effect on the worlds greenhouse gasses and waist a lot of money that would be better spent perfecting a clean substitute for oil and coal.

[Jubelum]

Kyoto is another tool by the chronic capitalist-haters to stop growth. It has very little to do with the environment. Environmental discussions (85% at least) are based on conflicting economic views, not endangered species (like blue states) and oceans.

In my dealings with the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, I have found a group of people who are in such denial of the facts that they are laughable. They threatened to sue me over cutting a non-native shrub from my land. They were not all-for the damn "protected" species, they did not want me selling it to a developer for an evil capitalist office building. They told me so. LOL

I think human-caused global warming is the tool of a load of agenda-armed scientists and business-haters. Sure, it might be getting warmer over the next few hundred years, but it is impossible to isolate HUMANS as the SINGLE cause. (Geophysical, Sun output, volcanoes, normal climate cycles, etc.) What arrogance. Even the most slanted scientist has to agree that there have been millions of years of hot/cold cycles, before we were even here. I LOVE GLOBAL WARMING- without it, we would still be in an ice age. Human-caused global warming cannot be isolated as a variable. Period.

Look at the chart on page one. Look whose output is falling? The former soviet satellite states. Why? They are modernizing their industry with western technology. You environmentalists need to focus on the ChiComs. They are the "threat" for the next century as their industry explodes in size. But of course, that will not happen, because Bush and the Republicans must be stopped- while a real environmental problem is brewing.

Maybe Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, and the Clintons are heating us up with all this hot air and hot-headed rhetoric?

:smokey:

[e1618978]

In my dealings with the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, I have found a group of people who are in such denial of the facts that they are laughable. They threatened to sue me over cutting a non-native shrub from my land. They were not all-for the damn "protected" species, they did not want me selling it to a developer for an evil capitalist office building. They told me so.

I hope that you recorded that conversation.

I have had similar interactions with environmentalists, which is why I hate the environmental movement - I want a clean environment, and I believe that global warming is a man made phenomonon, but I can't stand the environmentalists.

I talked to one a few years ago, and the converstation went like this:

me: What is the goal of your movement?

him: To bring everyone back to the good healthy lifesyle - we need everyone to go back to hunter-gatherer, everyone was heathy and the world lived at peace.

me: You do realise that you would have to kill 98% of the people on the planet to do that, right, who do you want to kill first?

him: You just don't understand.

Not everyone in the environmental movement is a dolt, but many are. When you are dealing with somebody that is the intellectual equivelant of "that guy that voted for bush because he had a good handshake", it is irriatating when they think they are a "blue state intellectual".

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by e1618978
I was with you until that point. The National Geographic special on climate change had a graph that convinced me. It showed temparature and CO2 levels for the last 400,000 years (data taken from a lake bed, I think).

The current CO2 level spike is an obvious anomoly - and temparature and CO2 are obviously correlated. At least if the graph is based on valid data, I don't think it can be argued that humans are a significant factor in recent climate change.

I don't know if I buy that we can accurately predict temperature through sampling a lake bed. Maybe within a few degrees, but not to the tenths and hundreths of degrees we need to. Do you have a link showing that data?

[SDW2001]

Kyoto is another tool by the chronic capitalist-haters to stop growth. It has very little to do with the environment. Environmental discussions (85% at least) are based on conflicting economic views, not endangered species (like blue states) and oceans.

:lol:

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by Jubelum
I think human-caused global warming is the tool of a load of agenda-armed scientists and business-haters.
Just to clarify: Are you saying that claims pollution is a primary cause of global warming are something people made up because they hate business?

If so, what do you believe to be the reason for this business hatred? What adenda are these scientists armed with?

[e1618978]

Do you have a link showing that data? [/B]

Unfortunately, it was in the print version of the magazine.

The lake bed measurements are taken from a long bore into the earth, they don't just scrape mud off the bottom of the lake or something.

Anyway, it is the only data that we have - lake bed and ice cores. Similar data (fossils in rock strata) seems to be accurate enough to be the same world wide, so I believe the lake bed data.

But that data shows that there was no world wide flood for Noah to sail on, so maybe it isn't accurate after all... :D

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by e1618978
Unfortunately, it was in the print version of the magazine.

The lake bed measurements are taken from a long bore into the earth, they don't just scrape mud off the bottom of the lake or something.

Anyway, it is the only data that we have - lake bed and ice cores. Similar data (fossils in rock strata) seems to be accurate enough to be the same world wide, so I believe the lake bed data.

But that data shows that there was no world wide flood for Noah to sail on, so maybe it isn't accurate after all... :D

I need you to be more specific. What data exactly? How do they come to these conclusions? I'm not calling bullshit on you, but on "them".

[e1618978]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I need you to be more specific. What data exactly? How do they come to these conclusions? I'm not calling bullshit on you, but on "them".

Here is one:

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#100,000years

Just google search on 400,000 and climate.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by e1618978
Here is one:

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#100,000years

Just google search on 400,000 and climate.

Well again, I still don't think we have any real way of measuring temperature from that far back, only ways of estimating it. Secondly, look at the data. Yes, it shows higher temperatures, but there are also fairly wide variations throughout history.

I think we need to be reducing pollution, don't get me wrong. I am simply not going to be an alarmist about it.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Well again, I still don't think we have any real way of measuring temperature from that far back, only ways of estimating it. Secondly, look at the data. Yes, it shows higher temperatures, but there are also fairly wide variations throughout history.

I think we need to be reducing pollution, don't get me wrong. I am simply not going to be an alarmist about it.

Great. Do you understand the variations or are you discounting the data because there are variations? I wouldn't expect smooth transitions, in fact, the data is pretty much the way I would expect it to be.

There are very few natural processes that give smooth transitions.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Well again, I still don't think we have any real way of measuring temperature from that far back, only ways of estimating it. Secondly, look at the data. Yes, it shows higher temperatures, but there are also fairly wide variations throughout history.

I think we need to be reducing pollution, don't get me wrong. I am simply not going to be an alarmist about it.

Look at the correlation between temparature and CO2 - the two graphs match up almost exactly - down to the smallest squiggle.

What is the probibility of that happening with random graphs?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by e1618978
Look at the correlation between temparature and CO2 - the two graphs match up almost exactly - down to the smallest squiggle.

What is the probibility of that happening with random graphs?

Ahh, but the real questions is:

What is the true source of that C02? That's where the real bullshit begins.

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by e1618978
Kyoto is a piece of trash, and anyone who is not blinded by "Bush hatred" knows that. If Clinton was still president, we still wouldn't have signed the Kyoto agreement.

I think that the debate ended long ago, at least amoung rational people, about global warming being a real phenomonon, and about it being at least partially caused by human activities.

I still have not heard an answer to my question from a previous thread, though:

The world temparature at 6000 BC was 2 degrees C above the current temparature, and things were fine (the polar bears survived, etc). All accounts indicate that at that temparature life was much better for humans that it is now. Current estimates are a 2 degree gain over the next 70 years - why are we worried?

I don't think that oil will last that long, and coal will be replaced long before we get to "climate optimum" (the 2 degree hike). In 2075, we just won't be doing that much to the CO2 levels anymore.

This is a prime example of why Americans don't sign up to the Kyoto agreement. Do you not realise that this climate change is not natural. It is caused by the pollution of humans and nature has seen nothing like it.

In the UK fish levels are decreasing rapidly due to overfishing and if something is not done they will run out. Fish are extremely important for the ecosystem. If the temperatures rise 2°C acid is released from the bottom of the ocean, this kills of the fish as well as warming up the sea. Sea rising causes floods and more extreme weather. Climate change is a problem, America being the biggest polluter should reduce their omissions even if it's just to protect the lungs of Americans and not climate change.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Ahh, but the real questions is:

What is the true source of that C02? That's where the real bullshit begins.

Well, it has to come from consumed biomass or a sudden acidification of inorganic carbonate salts (although this brings into question where the acid would suddenly come from). Consumed biomass, hmm, that sounds familiar, you know decayed animal plant matter, hell, burned oil. So are humans contributing to the rise in CO2 levels. Yeah. That is pretty much known and widely accepted.

SDW2001, can you even keep track of the conservative anti-environmentalist arguments? Its not that humans aren't contributing to the rise in CO2, its that we don't know that these rises will produce warming (although, we do have a correlation with the modern rise in CO2 levels and the slow warming of the earth)...

God, what an idiot.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by MacCrazy
This is a prime example of why Americans don't sign up to the Kyoto agreement. Do you not realise that this climate change is not natural. It is caused by the pollution of humans and nature has seen nothing like it.

In the UK fish levels are decreasing rapidly due to overfishing and if something is not done they will run out. Fish are extremely important for the ecosystem. If the temperatures rise 2°C acid is released from the bottom of the ocean, this kills of the fish as well as warming up the sea. Sea rising causes floods and more extreme weather. Climate change is a problem, America being the biggest polluter should reduce their omissions even if it's just to protect the lungs of Americans and not climate change.

No - Americans don't sign Kyoto because it is a stupid treaty that will not reduce CO2.

Over fishing has nothing to do with climate change.

Nature has seen plenty of things like this - where to you think the carbon came from? It was originally in the atmosphere, and submerged plant matter turning to oil gradually sunk more and more carbon underground.

Regarding the acid release at 2 degree rise - why did the fish survive the exact same temparature 8000 years ago? I don't think that any of the dire warnings about the temparature rise (except for loss of coastline) are valid for that reason.

Also, you seem to be mixing up CO2 and other pollution - we are doing a pretty good job at stopping pollution that would hurt our lungs, just look at the progress that we have made in the air quality of our cities.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Ahh, but the real questions is:

What is the true source of that C02? That's where the real bullshit begins.

Actually, to me, this seems like the lowest BS part of the discussion - everyone knows where the CO2 comes from.

1) we dig or pump it out of the ground, as oil and other petrochemicals.

2) we burn trees and other plants, and replace it with plants that have less bulk (and less carbon).

3) Volcanos spew it into the air

Anything that is part of a carbon cycle (burn firewood, grow tree, burn firewood, etc) only temporarily adds carbon to the atmosphere. So cow farts (100 million tons a year from 1.3 billion cows), are probably not a major factor in global warming.

[e1618978]

Its not that humans aren't contributing to the rise in CO2, its that we don't know that these rises will produce warming (although, we do have a correlation with the modern rise in CO2 levels and the slow warming of the earth)...

God, what an idiot. [/B]

You probably could have done without the last bit (remember, no personal attacks, thats the law!).

Anyway, I am conservative, and I believe that we are warming the earth, but:

- I don't think that we can stop it. Carbon is limited, and we will use a whole bunch of it. Hopefully we will get hydrogen fusion before we pump too much into the air.

- I think that the negative effects have been overblown, except we should be doing a lot more to prepare for sudden sea level rise.

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by e1618978
No - Americans don't sign Kyoto because it is a stupid treaty that will not reduce CO2.

Over fishing has nothing to do with climate change.

Nature has seen plenty of things like this - where to you think the carbon came from? It was originally in the atmosphere, and submerged plant matter turning to oil gradually sunk more and more carbon underground.

Regarding the acid release at 2 degree rise - why did the fish survive the exact same temparature 8000 years ago? I don't think that any of the dire warnings about the temparature rise (except for loss of coastline) are valid for that reason.

Also, you seem to be mixing up CO2 and other pollution - we are doing a pretty good job at stopping pollution that would hurt our lungs, just look at the progress that we have made in the air quality of our cities.

The only reason it will not reduce CO2 is because if the Americans did sign up to it they would ignore it, just like the UN. To state climate change does not matter or is irrelevant is just ignorant.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by MacCrazy
The only reason it will not reduce CO2 is because if the Americans did sign up to it they would ignore it, just like the UN. To state climate change does not matter or is irrelevant is just ignorant.

I never said that climate change didn't matter.

Tell me how you think the Kyoto treaty will affect climate change, because I don't see how it will have any effect at all.

If we signed Kyoto, and did not ignore it, it would still have absolutely no effect on the world's CO2 output. We would just buy carbon credits from Russia and Europe. China and India would bump up their production, because we could not, and the world would be no better than it is now.

And we ignore the UN because it deserves to be ignored.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
You probably could have done without the last bit (remember, no personal attacks, thats the law!).

Hell. SDW doesn't understand anything but braggadocio.

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by e1618978
I never said that climate change didn't matter.

Tell me how you think the Kyoto treaty will affect climate change, because I don't see how it will have any effect at all.

If we signed Kyoto, and did not ignore it, it would still have absolutely no effect on the world's CO2 output. We would just buy carbon credits from Russia and Europe. China and India would bump up their production, because we could not, and the world would be no better than it is now.

And we ignore the UN because it deserves to be ignored.

Well something needs to be done and the Kyoto agreement is the best thing we've got. Blair's making poverty and climate top of his agenda when he's president of G8.

I think I remember you stating that 2°C didn't matter. Well it's a large increase if you look at the history of the Earth and temperature change.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by MacCrazy
Well something needs to be done and the Kyoto agreement is the best thing we've got. Blair's making poverty and climate top of his agenda when he's president of G8.

I think I remember you stating that 2°C didn't matter. Well it's a large increase if you look at the history of the Earth and temperature change.

If the best thing we have got is useless and expensive, it is better to do nothing. The best way to fight poverty is to send jobs to the third world, and nobody does that better than the US.

And 2 degrees is not a large increase - it was 2 degrees warmer from 8000 BC to 3000 BC. 2 degrees is withing the normal range for the last 10,000 years.

But I never said that 2 degrees temparature rise didn't matter, it will rise the seas and have some effect (possibly catastrophic effect) our coastal cities. My objection is to the idea that it will cause a global drought - I think that the earth will have more rain, not less.

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by e1618978
If the best thing we have got is useless and expensive, it is better to do nothing.


The best thing to do is to reduce the CO2 emissions. It's better for the people as well as the environment.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by MacCrazy
The best thing to do is to reduce the CO2 emissions. It's better for the people as well as the environment.

I agree, but Kyoto does not get us there - it does not even set us on the path to getting us there. All it does is transfer money from the US to the rest of the world (China, India, Russia and the EU in particular).

The Kyoto agreement is just one in a number of initiatives to reduce US wealth and power, it has no other purpose.

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by e1618978
The Kyoto agreement is just one in a number of initiatives to reduce US wealth and power, it has no other purpose.

I think you're being overly sceptical. What would you recommend we did to reduce CO2 emissions. Remembering Bush denies that there is a problem and says he doesn't care.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by MacCrazy
I think you're being overly sceptical. What would you recommend we did to reduce CO2 emissions. Remembering Bush denies that there is a problem and says he doesn't care.

A few ideas for addressing atmospheric CO2:

1) remove "gas guzzler tax" exemption for SUVs and trucks in the US, make exemption for commercially licenced vehicles only.

2) make an agreement to close down all worldwide coal-based powerplants, except for the new really clean ones - this might require infusions of cash for 3rd world countries.

3) bring the good quality low-sulphur deisel fuel to the US, so that we can get some of those high-mpg European style cars and trucks.

4) Try to stop worldwide deforrestation.

5) Forrests only absorb CO2 for the first twenty years of their growth - after that they balance out. If you remove large trees from the rainforrest in a gentle way, and turn those trees into books, furnature or houses, you actually help trap more CO2, because of the re-growth. We need to build a lot of things out of wood, and allow the forrests to re-grow afterwards.

6) Work on hydrogeon fusion, build a ton of pebble bed nuclear reactors.

7) Start using bio-fuel more. If we use enough, this will cause third world famine, though, so you have to watch out.

8) Solar towers, like they are building in Australia

http://www.wentworth.nsw.gov.au/solartower/

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by e1618978
A few ideas for addressing atmospheric CO2:

1) remove "gas guzzler tax" exemption for SUVs and trucks in the US, make exemption for commercially licenced vehicles only.

2) make an agreement to close down all worldwide coal-based powerplants, except for the new really clean ones - this might require infusions of cash for 3rd world countries.

3) bring the good quality low-sulphur deisel fuel to the US, so that we can get some of those high-mpg European style cars and trucks.

4) Try to stop worldwide deforrestation.

5) Forrests only absorb CO2 for the first twenty years of their growth - after that they balance out. If you remove large trees from the rainforrest in a gentle way, and turn those trees into books, furnature or houses, you actually help trap more CO2, because of the re-growth. We need to build a lot of things out of wood, and allow the forrests to re-grow afterwards.

6) Work on hydrogeon fusion, build a ton of pebble bed nuclear reactors.

7) Start using bio-fuel more. If we use enough, this will cause third world famine, though, so you have to watch out.

8) Solar towers, like they are building in Australia

http://www.wentworth.nsw.gov.au/solartower/

Well I would like to see all that happen. BUT with Bush around I wouldn't expect it anytime soon. The Kyoto agreement is at least trying to set the ball moving. If the US wanted to do more that would be amazing. However, I doubt the majority of any country really care enough. People are too selfish. Political leaders don;t trend to care because most believe in short term policies because they want to get re-elected (pensions in the UK are a joke!). But if you're suggestions happened I'd be very happy.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by MacCrazy
This is a prime example of why Americans don't sign up to the Kyoto agreement. Do you not realise that this climate change is not natural. It is caused by the pollution of humans and nature has seen nothing like it.

In the UK fish levels are decreasing rapidly due to overfishing and if something is not done they will run out. Fish are extremely important for the ecosystem. If the temperatures rise 2°C acid is released from the bottom of the ocean, this kills of the fish as well as warming up the sea. Sea rising causes floods and more extreme weather. Climate change is a problem, America being the biggest polluter should reduce their omissions even if it's just to protect the lungs of Americans and not climate change.

Let me know when the UK "runs out of fish"

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Well, it has to come from consumed biomass or a sudden acidification of inorganic carbonate salts (although this brings into question where the acid would suddenly come from). Consumed biomass, hmm, that sounds familiar, you know decayed animal plant matter, hell, burned oil. So are humans contributing to the rise in CO2 levels. Yeah. That is pretty much known and widely accepted.

SDW2001, can you even keep track of the conservative anti-environmentalist arguments? Its not that humans aren't contributing to the rise in CO2, its that we don't know that these rises will produce warming (although, we do have a correlation with the modern rise in CO2 levels and the slow warming of the earth)...

God, what an idiot.

The source of CO2 has NOT been completely defined. It is certainly likely that we ARE contributing, but it is not clear cut. Even if we are, the effect of that contribution is not defined either.

The current global warming frenzy is no different than the ozone craze of the 1980s. That turned out to be totally overblown too.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by MacCrazy
Well I would like to see all that happen. BUT with Bush around I wouldn't expect it anytime soon. The Kyoto agreement is at least trying to set the ball moving. If the US wanted to do more that would be amazing. However, I doubt the majority of any country really care enough. People are too selfish. Political leaders don;t trend to care because most believe in short term policies because they want to get re-elected (pensions in the UK are a joke!). But if you're suggestions happened I'd be very happy.

Kyoto is garbage and will be ineffective. It won't get any "ball" rolling.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The source of CO2 has NOT been completely defined. It is certainly likely that we ARE contributing, but it is not clear cut. Even if we are, the effect of that contribution is not defined either.

The current global warming frenzy is no different than the ozone craze of the 1980s. That turned out to be totally overblown too.

No. We ARE contributing. Period. The effect isn't defined in the sense that we don't know how much we are contributing relative to other sources. Increased green house gases does increase the heat retention capabilities of the atmosphere. There IS a green house gas effect.

We took precautions with respect to the ozone hole, or did you forget about those? The entire point here is to avoid what we predict will be disasters.

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Let me know when the UK "runs out of fish"

There are current fishing restrictions in the UK but at the current rate of fishing the fish in the UK WILL run out, starting with cod - a farmer wouldn't kill of all his pigs without having replacements; unfortunately you can't monitor the fish population as easily. There is a lot of research which states if the fishing is not seriously reduced there will be no cod left in the channel.

[Omega]

I wish I lived in the fantasy world that SDW2001 lived in.

To believe that we are not the biggest danger on this planet is sheer folly. Only when it is gone will you truly realise what you have lost, but of course you will never be able to blame yourself.

WAKE UP! This planet does not give a shit about conservatism/liberalism, money and power. It is about doing what is right for every species on this planet (except cockroaches, I hate cockroaches!).

All kidding aside, we are killing this planet, and we will reap what we sow. I "pray" that space exploration can save us, because personally, from what I see at the moment, we are fvcked.

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by Omega
I wish I lived in the fantasy world that SDW2001 lived in.

To believe that we are not the biggest danger on this planet is sheer folly. Only when it is gone will you truly realise what you have lost, but of course you will never be able to blame yourself.

WAKE UP! This planet does not give a shit about conservatism/liberalism, money and power. It is about doing what is right for every species on this planet (except cockroaches, I hate cockroaches!).

All kidding aside, we are killing this planet, and we will reap what we sow. I "pray" that space exploration can save us, because personally, from what I see at the moment, we are fvcked.

The problem is people don't care because it 'wont effect them.' People are selfish.