Global War(m/n)ing

Obi Once

jeffbr wrote:

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.

I never wrote I buy it, it's just the ingnorance you pretend to have when you talk about the effects of global warming, even if this article is just theory. It's happening around u and oil is running out, and less countries who have it are willing to trade. Something has to change. An increase in temperature must be stopped and alternate fuels, means of power found.

And most of the people who raged about Saddam and invading Iraq toned down indeed.

jeffbr wrote:

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.

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.

onelongsong wrote:

the ignorant boo hoo global warming; those who study it worry; the rest seem to just wonder about it.

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.

onelongsong wrote:

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?

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?

Obi Once

The EU must cut greenhouse gases by at least 20% from their 1990 levels by 2020, the European commission said today.

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

Pearl Jam and toast

given to grunge wrote:

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!!!

Americans listen,.. American politicians (like Mr Bush backing out of the kyoto treaty due to oil tycoon pressure..) don't.

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.

ThumbingMyWay32

How do you people post in your sleep?

fanch75

Winter is coming with a vengeance. At least until the updated forecast.

http://wwwa.accuweather.com/pressroom.asp?pr=wx_258.htm

sourdough

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

Americans listen,.. American politicians (like Mr Bush backing out of the kyoto treaty due to oil tycoon pressure..) don't.

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.

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.

LikeAnOcean

sourdough wrote:

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.

But you do realize the "record breaking temperatures" are breaking records from like 100 years ago, so given that, it was pretty warm a hundred years ago as well.. I'm not argueing our impact on global warming, but if it ends up being pretty damn cold and snowy the rest of the winter, nobody will speak on the issue until else wise..

Pearl Jam and toast

LikeAnOcean wrote:

But you do realize the "record breaking temperatures" are breaking records from like 100 years ago, so given that, it was pretty warm a hundred years ago as well.. I'm not argueing our impact on global warming, but if it ends up being pretty damn cold and snowy the rest of the winter, nobody will speak on the issue until else wise..

That and we don't have enough evidence to draw any real conclusions about this yet. Science is a long-term business.

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.

Scubascott

onelongsong wrote:

china; the biggest pollution generator;

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?

searchlightsoul

sourdough wrote:

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.

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.

Kann

Global warming is a controversial theory. Much like evolution in its time. I'm not saying both theories will have the same destiny but in my understanding our knowledge of global warming still is small and scientists are discovering new effects every year. So maybe one day people will look back and see in global warming a theory as strong as evolution. And then what?

I don't have extensive knowledge on global warming (and I don't read enough about it to keep up with new breakthrough on the subject) but I understand it's a very complicated subject. You can't limit the debate on :
"see temperatures are higher today than 50 years ago"
"yeah but this is moot since data on temperature does not go back far enough in history".
Global warming isn't just a meteorological threat, it's also a medical threat (more and more children are born with respiratory problems in big cities, old people have trouble living with current temperatures...), an environmental threat, and an economical threat.
I read an article posted here I think wich stated that taking preemptive actions on global warming before we hit the consequences is more dangerous than facing the consequence (on an economical level of course) but what of the human, nature and moral level?
I think the subject is all a matter of opinions (only the solutions are a matter of arguments), trouble is, if one day people believing in global warming are proven right, it won't be worth saying "ha! told you so".

polaris

LikeAnOcean wrote:

But you do realize the "record breaking temperatures" are breaking records from like 100 years ago, so given that, it was pretty warm a hundred years ago as well.. I'm not argueing our impact on global warming, but if it ends up being pretty damn cold and snowy the rest of the winter, nobody will speak on the issue until else wise..

this is where the lingo is screwing everyone up ... climate change is what we are focusing on ... severe cold areas ARE an indication of climate change as well ... yes, the overall earth temperature is gradually rising (which it has for the last decade) but the immediate impacts are more fluctuations in weather patterns ... so, we'll have extreme warm areas while also have extreme cold areas - it is the level of extremities that are increasing that gives us the "talked" about weather everywhere ...

if we hit a deep freeze here in southern ontario - we'll be talking about it alright ...

Obi Once

As polaris wrote, a extreme cold winter isnt proof there is no global warming, its the extreme fluctuations that are an indication, and its not the last 10 years, see for yourself: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
It's not anymore comparing to 100 years ago, but to a year or 2 ago. And I know the Dutch have been measuring temperatures for longer than 150 - 200 years.

Byrnzie

LikeAnOcean wrote:

to help ease our troubled minds..

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/

Are you a fan of Billy Childish and the Buff Medways?

searchlightsoul

Obi Once wrote:

As polaris wrote, a extreme cold winter isnt proof there is no global warming, its the extreme fluctuations that are an indication, and its not the last 10 years, see for yourself: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
It's not anymore comparing to 100 years ago, but to a year or 2 ago. And I know the Dutch have been measuring temperatures for longer than 150 - 200 years.

Yes but there have been extreme climatic fluctuations for the last 3 million years. When you truly understand this you realise how stupid it looks quibbling over changes on the scale of a decade or 2 centuries.

polaris

searchlightsoul wrote:

Yes but there have been extreme climatic fluctuations for the last 3 million years. When you truly understand this you realise how stupid it looks quibbling over changes on the scale of a decade or 2 centuries.

each of the major periods of climate change can be attributed to some natural phenomena such as volcanic eruptions ... in which case the cause and effect are the same ... volcanoes spew enormous amount of ash into the atmosphere trapping the heat thus causing major climate change which is what we are doing now with greenhosue gases ...

it is so obvious to so many people/countries in the world yet you consider it stupid?? ... please enlighten us on what it is you know that so many experts don't?

searchlightsoul

polaris wrote:

each of the major periods of climate change can be attributed to some natural phenomena such as volcanic eruptions ... in which case the cause and effect are the same ... volcanoes spew enormous amount of ash into the atmosphere trapping the heat thus causing major climate change which is what we are doing now with greenhosue gases ...

it is so obvious to so many people/countries in the world yet you consider it stupid?? ... please enlighten us on what it is you know that so many experts don't?

Major climatic changes over that period were not due to volcanism that is a mistake instead it is a result of milankovich cycles. Volcanism effects climate for decades not millenia. My problem is that people buy what is largely an environmentalist scare campaign so easily without really thinking about it.
People are ill informed they seem to think that there is no debate when most of my lecturers who are very smart people don't see it like that, but this never gets out.

polaris

searchlightsoul wrote:

Major climatic changes over that period were not due to volcanism that is a mistake instead it is a result of milankovich cycles. Volcanism effects climate for decades not millenia. My problem is that people buy what is largely an environmentalist scare campaign so easily without really thinking about it.
People are ill informed they seem to think that there is no debate when most of my lecturers who are very smart people don't see it like that, but this never gets out.

that theory has no significant backing from the major climate experts ... can i ask who your lecturers are and what is their background?

what is the purpose of an enviro scare campaign?? ... what do we have to gain? ...

the science is very basic - if you accept the concept of the greenhouse effect and you understand how weather works - it is fairly straight forward ... the only issue is what the actual impacts and consequences are ... that is what is left to debate ...

searchlightsoul

My lecturers are geologist. where do you think all the theories for climate change come from? The only evidence we have is in the past not in a computer model, that is only a hypothesis.
I don't think anyone understands how the Weather works, it's not predictable.

searchlightsoul

I would really look up 'Milankovich cycles' its pretty much THE theory of Climate change.