[quote] To me, this isn't about bad science. It's about an unfair and potentially damaging treaty. <hr></blockquote>
so at least we can agree on the science part right?? even the Bush administration's own funded report accepts global warming and mentions that coastline cities are at grave risk....so where do we go from here to stop/reverse this? g
but hey, like i said, i'm at 6000 feet...let the waters rise, baby...say 1 to 2 thousand feet...that would get rid of the east coast, the far left coast, the whole midwest, most of texas, florida...and that is just the states...less humans, more water....we've had that before in history right?
...for an excellent and informative site on global emissions and check out your part of the world
Here is a repeat of the graphic as detailed above...
...and YES, the USA should join the treaty, it's in the worlds interest for them to do so, but it all comes down to the almighty Dollar in the end doesn't it?
<strong>but the Bush adminstration own report admits to global warming....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I admit that global warming is occuring. We simply do not know if this is a consequence of human activity or not. (We also do not know how fast the earth is warming.) "Fixing" this problem will cost money. It will also cost some people their livelihoods. What if we are trying to "fix" something that is a natural phenomenon? Does that make any sense?
I admit that global warming is occuring. We simply do not know if this is a consequence of human activity or not. (We also do not know how fast the earth is warming.) "Fixing" this problem will cost money. It will also cost some people their livelihoods. What if we are trying to "fix" something that is a natural phenomenon? Does that make any sense?</strong><hr></blockquote>
C'mon spaceman. You cannot seriously believe that global warming is not a consequence of human activity. No offense, but haven't you been reading the papers over the last several years. And no, we're not going to have a science debate again (especially after a series of scientific studies have been commissioned and completed numerous times).
My point and the US point and objections here are often not reported in the EU and the US's position has not been expressed over here. One of the main objections is that certain, fast growing, populous countries such as China and others, who after gaining entry into the WTO, are exempt from Kyoto under the guise that they are developing nations.
China, with over 1 Billion people, is THE world's manufacturing base, is going to be rapidly escalating on the pollution front. Not only is this not fair, as US contends, but it pits its economy against China at an unfair advantge. BTW, China is growing at 8% growth rate which is HUGE.
That is only one issue, but this never gets reported in Europe and US should say, yes, we are for the principals of Kyoto and reducing CO2 emmission but we need to balance this so that it is a level playing field without harshly penalising the US economy radically. This is an environment vs economy discussion and fairness across a level playing field when you boil it down.
But to questions if it is a result of human interaction is a rat hole. Don't go down there again and again.......
<strong>I admit that global warming is occuring. We simply do not know if this is a consequence of human activity or not.</strong><hr></blockquote>Bush's EPA website says that most of the global warming is due to human activities.
We know for a fact that:
1. Human activities produce greenhouse gases.
2. Greenhouse gases trap heat.
3. The Earth is warming.
We know the mechanisms. We know the result. To argue that there are uncertainties is no more informative than arguing that we are not omniscient.
It's the same thing as the cigarette companies denying that smoking is bad for your health. We knew that smoking puts poisons in your body, we knew that smoking-related health problems were on the rise. But there are uncertainties about it, as there are in all science. Then you have a very rich industry with an economic interest in fighting the reality.
And the epa website isn't the only indication that Bush does believe human activities cause global warming. Clearly, he's not a flat-earther on the issue.
You are aware, are you not, that there have been periods of warming and cooling throughout the history of this planet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course I am aware. Are you aware of numerous scientific studies commissioned by each president for the past decade (at least). Are you aware that even GW Bush has now aknowledged that global warming is a result of human activity.
Are you aware that this planets has been warming at its fastest ever rate since in the modern era (and i mean in the last 10,000 years)
Again, no offense spaceman, but you are clearly in the minority here and well behind the curve. Open you mind a little, read about it a little more and think about it a little.....this is NOT a naturally occuring phenomenon as you seem to believe.
[quote] Are you aware that this planets has been warming at its fastest ever rate since in the modern era (and i mean in the last 10,000 years <hr></blockquote>
That hasn't been proven. We don't have weather records worth a shit more than 200 years back.
Global warming is a theory. Here is the data from the past century:
Temperature-
Global temperatures are rising. Observations collected over the last century suggest that the average land surface temperature has risen 0.45-0.6°C (0.8-1.0°F) in the last century.
Precipitation-
Precipitation has increased by about 1 percent over the world's continents in the last century. High latitude areas are tending to see more significant increases in rainfall, while precipitation has actually declined in many tropical areas.
Sea Level-
Sea level has risen worldwide approximately 15-20 cm (6-8 inches) in the last century. Approximately 2-5 cm (1-2 inches) of the rise has resulted from the melting of mountain glaciers. Another 2-7 cm has resulted from the expansion of ocean water that resulted from warmer ocean temperatures.
Now, there are measurable changes. But 1 degree over a hundred years? Are we sure that is significant? Answer: We don't know.
Again, no offense spaceman, but you are clearly in the minority here and well behind the curve...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Being in the majority doesn't make you right nor does being in the minority mean that I'm wrong.
[quote]<strong>Open you mind a little, read about it a little more and think about it a little.....this is NOT a naturally occuring phenomenon as you seem to believe.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've done plenty of reading which is why I say we simply do not know. Really now, what makes you so sure my mind is closed about this? Because I'm in the minority? There are people smarter than me who study meteorology for a living who are at least as skeptical as I am.
[quote] "About 100 billion tons of carbon get exchanged by the biosphere in natural processes each year. We humans are adding to that about 7 billion per year. But because the natural fluxes cancel each other out, our 7 billion has made a huge difference in the concentration of carbon dioxide," Severinghaus explained.
He added, "It's gone up over 30 percent since before the industrial revolution, which is an unprecedented change in the concentration. We haven't seen anything like this in at least the last 400,000 years, and we know that because we've looked at the bubbles that are trapped in the ice, in the ice cores. So there's no doubt that human beings have caused that change. It's not a natural change."
Comments
so at least we can agree on the science part right?? even the Bush administration's own funded report accepts global warming and mentions that coastline cities are at grave risk....so where do we go from here to stop/reverse this? g
but hey, like i said, i'm at 6000 feet...let the waters rise, baby...say 1 to 2 thousand feet...that would get rid of the east coast, the far left coast, the whole midwest, most of texas, florida...and that is just the states...less humans, more water....we've had that before in history right?
[ 07-07-2002: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>
so at least we can agree on the science part right?? </strong><hr></blockquote>
No. It's about an unfair and potentially damaging treaty and it's bad science.
<a href="http://www.grida.no/db/maps/collection/climate6/"; target="_blank">http://www.grida.no/db/maps/collection/climate6/</a>;
...for an excellent and informative site on global emissions and check out your part of the world
Here is a repeat of the graphic as detailed above...
...and YES, the USA should join the treaty, it's in the worlds interest for them to do so, but it all comes down to the almighty Dollar in the end doesn't it?
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>but the Bush adminstration own report admits to global warming....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I admit that global warming is occuring. We simply do not know if this is a consequence of human activity or not. (We also do not know how fast the earth is warming.) "Fixing" this problem will cost money. It will also cost some people their livelihoods. What if we are trying to "fix" something that is a natural phenomenon? Does that make any sense?
<strong>
I admit that global warming is occuring. We simply do not know if this is a consequence of human activity or not. (We also do not know how fast the earth is warming.) "Fixing" this problem will cost money. It will also cost some people their livelihoods. What if we are trying to "fix" something that is a natural phenomenon? Does that make any sense?</strong><hr></blockquote>
C'mon spaceman. You cannot seriously believe that global warming is not a consequence of human activity. No offense, but haven't you been reading the papers over the last several years. And no, we're not going to have a science debate again (especially after a series of scientific studies have been commissioned and completed numerous times).
My point and the US point and objections here are often not reported in the EU and the US's position has not been expressed over here. One of the main objections is that certain, fast growing, populous countries such as China and others, who after gaining entry into the WTO, are exempt from Kyoto under the guise that they are developing nations.
China, with over 1 Billion people, is THE world's manufacturing base, is going to be rapidly escalating on the pollution front. Not only is this not fair, as US contends, but it pits its economy against China at an unfair advantge. BTW, China is growing at 8% growth rate which is HUGE.
That is only one issue, but this never gets reported in Europe and US should say, yes, we are for the principals of Kyoto and reducing CO2 emmission but we need to balance this so that it is a level playing field without harshly penalising the US economy radically. This is an environment vs economy discussion and fairness across a level playing field when you boil it down.
But to questions if it is a result of human interaction is a rat hole. Don't go down there again and again.......
<strong>I admit that global warming is occuring. We simply do not know if this is a consequence of human activity or not.</strong><hr></blockquote>Bush's EPA website says that most of the global warming is due to human activities.
We know for a fact that:
1. Human activities produce greenhouse gases.
2. Greenhouse gases trap heat.
3. The Earth is warming.
We know the mechanisms. We know the result. To argue that there are uncertainties is no more informative than arguing that we are not omniscient.
It's the same thing as the cigarette companies denying that smoking is bad for your health. We knew that smoking puts poisons in your body, we knew that smoking-related health problems were on the rise. But there are uncertainties about it, as there are in all science. Then you have a very rich industry with an economic interest in fighting the reality.
And the epa website isn't the only indication that Bush does believe human activities cause global warming. Clearly, he's not a flat-earther on the issue.
<strong>
C'mon spaceman. You cannot seriously believe that global warming is not a consequence of human activity. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You are aware, are you not, that there have been periods of warming and cooling throughout the history of this planet.
<strong>
You are aware, are you not, that there have been periods of warming and cooling throughout the history of this planet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course I am aware. Are you aware of numerous scientific studies commissioned by each president for the past decade (at least). Are you aware that even GW Bush has now aknowledged that global warming is a result of human activity.
Are you aware that this planets has been warming at its fastest ever rate since in the modern era (and i mean in the last 10,000 years)
Again, no offense spaceman, but you are clearly in the minority here and well behind the curve. Open you mind a little, read about it a little more and think about it a little.....this is NOT a naturally occuring phenomenon as you seem to believe.
That hasn't been proven. We don't have weather records worth a shit more than 200 years back.
Global warming is a theory. Here is the data from the past century:
Temperature-
Global temperatures are rising. Observations collected over the last century suggest that the average land surface temperature has risen 0.45-0.6°C (0.8-1.0°F) in the last century.
Precipitation-
Precipitation has increased by about 1 percent over the world's continents in the last century. High latitude areas are tending to see more significant increases in rainfall, while precipitation has actually declined in many tropical areas.
Sea Level-
Sea level has risen worldwide approximately 15-20 cm (6-8 inches) in the last century. Approximately 2-5 cm (1-2 inches) of the rise has resulted from the melting of mountain glaciers. Another 2-7 cm has resulted from the expansion of ocean water that resulted from warmer ocean temperatures.
Now, there are measurable changes. But 1 degree over a hundred years? Are we sure that is significant? Answer: We don't know.
[ 07-07-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>
Again, no offense spaceman, but you are clearly in the minority here and well behind the curve...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Being in the majority doesn't make you right nor does being in the minority mean that I'm wrong.
[quote]<strong>Open you mind a little, read about it a little more and think about it a little.....this is NOT a naturally occuring phenomenon as you seem to believe.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've done plenty of reading which is why I say we simply do not know. Really now, what makes you so sure my mind is closed about this? Because I'm in the minority? There are people smarter than me who study meteorology for a living who are at least as skeptical as I am.
<strong>
Global warming is a theory...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. And it's not just about greenhouse gases either. The theory also requires a feedback loop to occur which is pure speculation.
Interesting stuff.
[quote] "About 100 billion tons of carbon get exchanged by the biosphere in natural processes each year. We humans are adding to that about 7 billion per year. But because the natural fluxes cancel each other out, our 7 billion has made a huge difference in the concentration of carbon dioxide," Severinghaus explained.
He added, "It's gone up over 30 percent since before the industrial revolution, which is an unprecedented change in the concentration. We haven't seen anything like this in at least the last 400,000 years, and we know that because we've looked at the bubbles that are trapped in the ice, in the ice cores. So there's no doubt that human beings have caused that change. It's not a natural change."
<hr></blockquote>