Global War(m/n)ing
given to grunge
Posts: 244
Woke up this morning, can't believe my eyes - Yesterday it was around 0 Celsius = 32 Fahrenheit temperature in the air, and now I'm sitting on my balcony with shortsleeves t-shirt, with laptop in my hands, having a dreamview over my city of Makarska (here is the picture of it 
if you want to see - it's worth of seeing it(heaven on earth!)) and it's 11 celsius = 51.8 F in the air!
It IS nice NOW, BUT how will it be for our grandchildren for 50-100 years?!
Is anybody thinking of future? It is forecasted that 2007 will be the WARMEST year in all of the time since temperature is beeing measured!
Were are we exactly going?!
if you want to see - it's worth of seeing it(heaven on earth!)) and it's 11 celsius = 51.8 F in the air!It IS nice NOW, BUT how will it be for our grandchildren for 50-100 years?!
Is anybody thinking of future? It is forecasted that 2007 will be the WARMEST year in all of the time since temperature is beeing measured!
Were are we exactly going?!
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
It's not normal! Hey?!
Kyoto conference is the one which takes care of it, but, again, America don't listen!
the large amount of gas emission is the reason for global warming!
We got to the point where even if we stop to emission gases in our atmosphere, temperature will continue to raise for next 15 yrs and PLANET will still be warmer and warmer.
In next 50 yrs water level will go up for half meter!!!
I think you're missing my point. It maybe 20 degrees warmer than normal where you are, but its 19 degrees colder than normal someplace else. Still warmer than normal, but not to the extreme you are making it...
Those fucking dinosaurs were a bunch of SUV-driving bastards.
In all seriousness, the planet has had multiple climate changes, both cooling (the ice ages) and warming (ie ending the ice ages, the "Dust Bowl" era, etc). Think about the timespace of the planets history, the range of temperatures of the universe. It's bound to get slighly (relative to the universe) warmer and cooler.
The earth is in a warming trend, no doubt. The question is, of the greenhouse gases, how much of that is due to man's activity? Fuck if I know, I'm an accountant and all I know is what I read/hear, and then applying my own reasoning (as per the parapgraph above).
And of course the answer is split typically & predictably by political wing, so everyone argues talking points based on their agenda.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/
Last two centuries, the major impact on nature environment has man, who was changing it to make his life better as soon as possible, not taking care for possibly damages which can affect nowadays life of all the people in the world.
There are half of all the forests in the world are now cleaned land, more frequently by setting fire to get land for cattle breeding and agriculture, what brought us to water-drainage of healthy subtropic areas and deserts expending. Fossil fuels burning and forest fires are increasing carbon dioxide content in the stratosphere, what amplifies greenhouse effect which, again, makes temperature and ultraviolet rays quantity on the Earth higher and higher.
Holy shit!!! Based on your highly scientific 2-day trend you are going to be cooked like a fried egg tomorrow. You better run for your life, the sky is falling!
LikeAnOcean, how come if its cold here, there's a balance, so its warmer somewhere else?
fanch75, i really dont want to be extinct. SUVs are ugly anyway, even Porsche managed to make an ugly car.
I'm convinced the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere is due to man, since its the result of e.g. burning fossil fuels. Yes also from poop and things like that, but that had no big impact the last 15.000 years.
Please tell me the net effect Kyoto will have. I've seen no evidence that there will be a meaningful reduction in warming as a result of Kyoto. As with most things of this magnitude Kyoto is more about politics and show. Also, what does the cost / benefit analysis of Kyoto look like?
he United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified. The United States is as of 2005 the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
Cost-benefit analysis
Economists have been trying to analyse the overall net benefit of Kyoto Protocol through cost-benefit analysis. Just as in the case of climatology, there is disagreement due to large uncertainties in economic variables. Still, the estimates so far generally indicate either that observing the Kyoto Protocol is more expensive than not observing the Kyoto Protocol or that the Kyoto Protocol has a marginal net benefit which exceeds the cost of simply adjusting to global warming. A study in Nature found that "accounting only for local external costs, together with production costs, to identify energy strategies, compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would imply lower, not higher, overall costs."
The recent Copenhagen consensus project found that the Kyoto Protocol would slow down the process of global warming, but have a superficial overall benefit. Defenders of the Kyoto Protocol argue, however, that while the initial greenhouse gas cuts may have little effect, they set the political precedent for bigger (and more effective) cuts in the future. They also advocate commitment to the precautionary principle. Critics point out that additional higher curbs on carbon emission are likely to cause significantly higher increase in cost, making such defence moot. Moreover, the precautionary principle could apply to any political, social, economic or environmental consequence, which might have equally devastating effect in terms of poverty and environment, making the precautionary argument irrelevant. The Stern Review (a UK government sponsored report into the economic impacts of climate change) concluded that one percent of global GDP is required to be invested in order to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
Sign the postcard and add some comments. I wrote a lot, especially about waste incinerators (so called "waste to energy facilities"), which should be banned as they are global warming machines, as well as producers of cancer causing pollution. That's been my preoccupation lately, fighting an incinerator in my community. We should be comprehensively recycling instead...and limiting our driving, developing alternative fuels, making maximum use of sunlight to limit dependence on electricity from coal (which produces carbon dioxide in its burning as well as destroying mountains in its mining), etc., etc...
So much to do to help.
In the meantime, sign the postcard at the above website and consider joining the Sierra Club.
www.sallysbeadworks.com
Not too long ago, a twister struck London. I thought: "Freak twister, it happens, tough shit."
A week ago, I encountered a mini-twister while driving. Bloody scary. I later read it struck a village not far from there and wreaked havoc.
Saturday, a mini tornado swept through a housing estate in Hampshire, UK.
Maybe my memory is shite, but I can't remember these things happening this regularly until now.
My neighbourhood is flooded most the time now as well. And where has winter gone?
Maybe this is unrelated to climate change, maybe not. But I don't fancy waiting for the moment when the mini tornados turn into big ones before we clean up our act, literally.
I'm discarding all thought
I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
I'm like an opening band for the sun
THESE TORNADOS has the connection/relation to temperature!
They are created because of temperature and air pressure.
temperature in europe also depend on a warm sea (on my language it is called Golfska struja - I don't know how to say it on English, sorry) that's going in north-eastern part of Europe and it's heating it(EU).
It's all connected....
it really depends on how much you value life ... but let's set aside the impact to life in general and look only at the simple things ... how much do all these natural disaster cost to fix up? ... what is their impact on the precious economy? ... loss production days, cleanup, repairs, etc...
all the while - if we just all did a small bit by conserving energy and resources (initiatives that would actually save the person money either short or long term) we could easily meet kyoto's targets ... most countries in europe are doing it with little effort ... but if u want to buy into the PR campaign that its either the economy or the planet - then its gonna take more explaining ...
LOL. Nice! 4.5B by 2012??? Does anyone here believe it? Talk about preying on fear.
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rose by a record amount over the past year. It is the third successive year in which they have increased sharply. Scientists are at a loss to explain why the rapid rise has taken place, but fear the trend could be the first sign of runaway global warming. Indeed hilarious
I get the feeling who bought the false WMD theroy here are the ones shouting loudest the factual change in the earth climate is scare tactics. And yes I agree 4.5B is a very very high estimate in a short time, but people die from long conditions every day caused by polution.
Additional: Today was the warmest januari 9th ever recorded here. Flowers are blooming, caterpilars are hatching, it is not that these things are truelly unique, they just never happenend so often years in a row. We're setting record after record year in and out.
the ignorant boo hoo global warming; those who study it worry; the rest seem to just wonder about it.
the easiest way to slow down global warming would be a trade embargo on china; the biggest pollution generator; but you can't do without your chinese made toys; can you people?
Your WMD theory is interesting but irrelevant, at least in my case. I didn't believe in WMDs and I am not in favor of Iraq, so the WMD fear mongering didn't work with me. At the same time, the global warming fear mongering appears to be having an effect on some people, and not others. I happen to be one who doesn't buy into the doomsday scenarios. If you really believe 4.5B people will die in the next 5 years due to global warming, Al Gore probably has a job for you.
By that same logic I think we're headed for an ice age. Seattle is going to have a high of 29 degrees on Thursday. That's damned cold for here. So based on that one day trend, we're in for a real cooling spell.
And most of the people who raged about Saddam and invading Iraq toned down indeed. So you've completely missed the point, we are breaking records year in and out, and not just in numbers of people, problematic flooding and air polution, but of higher temperatures. If a large group of people study it and present the same results I worry too. I wonder why I feel so alone in this case. Sure blame China, you think they will do anything on the short term? I doubt it, untill they are faced with big problems. Why point at others if we can do something ourselfs?
The commission said a global decrease of 30% was needed to prevent damage from climate change.
In unveiling its new energy strategy, the EU's executive arm said cuts of 30% for the whole world would help ensure temperatures rose by no more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
The report - which echoed warnings contained in Sir Nicholas Stern's analysis, commissioned by Tony Blair - said there would be billions of pounds of damage if action was not taken.
It predicted rising temperatures would kill an extra 11,000 people in Europe every year within 10 years even if today's proposals were acted upon swiftly.
Residents of Italy and Spain could expect to suffer most from drought, fire, dry soil and other climate change-related factors, the report said.
The commission said its targets were "both technically feasible and economically affordable if action is taken quickly," and called on other regions to act as well.
The EU has repeatedly said the US - the world's biggest polluter - and other major economies would have to play their part in confronting climate change.
"This is by far the most ambitious target by any country or group of countries around the world," the commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, said as he unveiled the new strategy.
"We are not speaking about European warming, we are speaking about global warming."
However, environmentalists criticised the commission for setting an EU target below the one it is seeking for the world as a whole.
The conservation group WWF pointed out that the UK and some other EU governments - including Germany, the current holder of the EU presidency, France and Sweden - have already offered support for the higher 30% greenhouse gas reduction target.
"It is staggering that, despite clear support for achievable, tougher targets from the biggest carbon emitters in the EU, the commission has set targets that are substantially lower," Keith Allott, the head of WWF-UK's climate change programme, said.
"The UK must ensure that the 30% figure is put firmly back on the table before the vital summit of EU heads of state in March."
The EU energy commission said it was high time Europe had an energy policy to fight climate change, reduce the risk of external dependency and increase the competitiveness of the European economy.
The vulnerability of EU energy supplies has been highlighted by the recent dispute between Russia and Belarus that has hit oil exports to several EU nations, including Germany and Poland.
A similar row between Russia and Ukraine a year ago also disrupted supplies to some EU countries.
The union has sought to play a leading role in climate change by introducing an emissions trading scheme (ETS), in which businesses are allocated carbon emission allowances.
The scheme penalises heavy polluters financially because they have to buy extra permits if they exceed their allowances.
To make energy markets more efficient, the commission wants to break up huge power companies such as Germany's E.ON, separating their generation and distribution businesses to avoid a conflict of interest.
However, given German and French opposition to the idea, it recommended the lesser option of utilities handing over the management of grid businesses while retaining ownership.
Brussels will also look at strengthening the role of regulators to promote the development of a smoothly functioning internal EU market for electricity and gas.
The EU energy strategy will be debated by environment ministers of the bloc's 27 countries in Brussels next month.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/energy/story/0,,1987011,00.html
The warm year has nothing to do with global warming. It's just a warm year in some places as always. For example... the northwest USA is experiencing record colds (i believe...) while the east is getting the warm. It's all coincidental.
People hear all this stuff about global warming in the past few years, Al Gore's movie comes out, and now a warm winter turns into the apocolypse.
Global warming is a serious problem facing the planet. If you think it's bullshit you have to at least admit that every single solution to it (lower emissions, fuel efficient cars, new, renewable, cleaner fuel sources, etc etc etc) should be done for our own well being anyway.
This is without a doubt the biggest reason I hate politicians.. they give way to oil and car companies seemingly without a second thought to our future.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
http://wwwa.accuweather.com/pressroom.asp?pr=wx_258.htm
I do believe that the warm and unusual temperatures DO in fact have much to do with Global warming. It would be one thing if this year was an anomoly, then yes, I would not attribute it to global warming. I do think this is very much an indicator of a changing climate because of the pattern of record breaking temperatures where year after year, global temperature records are broken along with major changes in storm patterns and frequency of extreme weather. Here in Vancouver, we are having a brutal winter. Cold weather and storm after storm after storm has been hitting us when cold areas are unusually warm. It is clearly out of whack especially when you look at the records over the last year. The difference is undeniable.
Personally I don't think it matters if it exists or not. There are a billion other reasons to want to take the steps in reducing emissions and everything else around this issue.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Really?
http://www.carbonplanet.com/home/country_emissions.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-environment-co2-emissions
Want more?
-C Addison
This sounds really stupid when you consider that people have only be recording temperature accurately for 150-200 years. It's even funnier that you suggested looking at the past year to determine whether the present was normal. How can you say the last year was normal? Theres probably a pretty high chance that any given year will be different from the previous.