That's a British spelling!Going Blrrrrh as it proceeds I assume?
It only works in a country where you roll your R's
Global warming.
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16013
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
WASHINGTON - By 2020, the United States will emit almost one-fifth more gases that lead to global warming than it did in 2000, increasing the risks of drought and scarce water supplies.
That projection comes from an internal draft report from the Bush administration that is more than a year overdue at the United Nations. The Associated Press obtained a copy Saturday.
The United States already is responsible for roughly one-quarter of the world’s carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases that scientists blame for global warming.
Story continues below ?
advertisement
The draft report, which is still being completed, projects that the current administration’s climate policy would result in the emission of 9.2 billion tons of greenhouse gases in 2020, a 19 percent increase from 7.7 billion tons in 2000.
Doing more than slowing the growth rate of greenhouse gas emissions, which remains the administration’s stated goal, will be decided “as the science justifies,” according to the draft report. The biggest source of the gases is the burning of fossil fuels, chiefly oil, coal and natural gas.
Report comes on heels of U.N. statement
But an authoritative U.N. report last month from hundreds of scientists and government officials said global warming is “very likely” caused by mankind and that climate change will continue for centuries even if heat-trapping gases are reduced. That report was approved by 113 nations including the United States.
It was the strongest language ever used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose last report came in 2001.
Despite the dire outlook, most scientists say huge sea level rises and the most catastrophic storms and droughts may be avoided if strong action is taken soon.
“We’re on a path to exceeding levels of global warming that will cause catastrophic consequences, and we really need to be seriously reducing emissions, not just reducing the growth rate as the president is doing,” Michael MacCracken, chief scientist at the nonpartisan Climate Institute in Washington, said Saturday. Until 2001, he coordinated the government’s studies of the consequences of global warming,
The administration’s internal draft covers inventories of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, projected environmental consequences and policies to limit emissions and risk. The New York Times reported on the draft in Saturday’s editions.
Click for related content
Interactive look at the greenhouse effect
U.N. panel: Clean energy R&D is vital
Delayed by ‘interagency review process’
The White House Council on Environmental Quality has been coordinating the draft report. A spokeswoman, Kristen Hellmer, said it “will show that the president’s portfolio of actions and his financial commitment to addressing climate change are working. And the president is always looking at ways to address our energy security and environmental needs.”
Hellmer blamed the delay in completing the fourth U.S. Climate Action Report on the “extensive interagency review process” the draft must go through. The report, which was due no later than Jan. 1, 2006, is required under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Among the consequences of a warming world anticipated in the report is “a distinct reduction in spring snowpack in the northwestern United States,” which supplies much of the water in that region, the report says.
Critics say U.S. evading an ‘honest statement’
Warmer temperatures expected from more greenhouse gases would only “exacerbate present drought risks in the United States by increasing the rate of evaporation,” it says.
Rick Piltz, director of Climate Science Watch, a nonprofit watchdog program, said Saturday he expects the final report will evade a full discussion of how global warming might affect the nation.
“I think it is very likely that the main reason the report has been held up for more than a year beyond the deadline is because the administration is reluctant to make an honest statement about likely climate change impacts on this country,” said Piltz, a former senior associate with the federal Climate Change Science Program.
The U.S. spends $3 billion a year to research technologies to cut global warming and $2 billion on climate research. Bush has formed a partnership with Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea — producers of half the world’s greenhouse gases — to attract private money for cleaner energy technologies. He envisions using more hydrogen-powered vehicles, electricity from renewable energy sources and clean coal technology.
Shortly after taking office, Bush rejected the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a U.N. treaty that requires industrial nations to cut global warming gases by 2012 by an average 5 percent below 1990 levels.
He argued that cutting the U.S. share to below 6 billion tons a year, as the treaty would have required, would have cost 5 million U.S. jobs. He objected, too, that such high-polluting developing nations as China and India are not required to reduce emissions.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Rate this story
Well, here's part of the problem............
john
That projection comes from an internal draft report from the Bush administration that is more than a year overdue at the United Nations. The Associated Press obtained a copy Saturday.
The United States already is responsible for roughly one-quarter of the world’s carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases that scientists blame for global warming.
Story continues below ?
advertisement
The draft report, which is still being completed, projects that the current administration’s climate policy would result in the emission of 9.2 billion tons of greenhouse gases in 2020, a 19 percent increase from 7.7 billion tons in 2000.
Doing more than slowing the growth rate of greenhouse gas emissions, which remains the administration’s stated goal, will be decided “as the science justifies,” according to the draft report. The biggest source of the gases is the burning of fossil fuels, chiefly oil, coal and natural gas.
Report comes on heels of U.N. statement
But an authoritative U.N. report last month from hundreds of scientists and government officials said global warming is “very likely” caused by mankind and that climate change will continue for centuries even if heat-trapping gases are reduced. That report was approved by 113 nations including the United States.
It was the strongest language ever used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose last report came in 2001.
Despite the dire outlook, most scientists say huge sea level rises and the most catastrophic storms and droughts may be avoided if strong action is taken soon.
“We’re on a path to exceeding levels of global warming that will cause catastrophic consequences, and we really need to be seriously reducing emissions, not just reducing the growth rate as the president is doing,” Michael MacCracken, chief scientist at the nonpartisan Climate Institute in Washington, said Saturday. Until 2001, he coordinated the government’s studies of the consequences of global warming,
The administration’s internal draft covers inventories of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, projected environmental consequences and policies to limit emissions and risk. The New York Times reported on the draft in Saturday’s editions.
Click for related content
Interactive look at the greenhouse effect
U.N. panel: Clean energy R&D is vital
Delayed by ‘interagency review process’
The White House Council on Environmental Quality has been coordinating the draft report. A spokeswoman, Kristen Hellmer, said it “will show that the president’s portfolio of actions and his financial commitment to addressing climate change are working. And the president is always looking at ways to address our energy security and environmental needs.”
Hellmer blamed the delay in completing the fourth U.S. Climate Action Report on the “extensive interagency review process” the draft must go through. The report, which was due no later than Jan. 1, 2006, is required under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Among the consequences of a warming world anticipated in the report is “a distinct reduction in spring snowpack in the northwestern United States,” which supplies much of the water in that region, the report says.
Critics say U.S. evading an ‘honest statement’
Warmer temperatures expected from more greenhouse gases would only “exacerbate present drought risks in the United States by increasing the rate of evaporation,” it says.
Rick Piltz, director of Climate Science Watch, a nonprofit watchdog program, said Saturday he expects the final report will evade a full discussion of how global warming might affect the nation.
“I think it is very likely that the main reason the report has been held up for more than a year beyond the deadline is because the administration is reluctant to make an honest statement about likely climate change impacts on this country,” said Piltz, a former senior associate with the federal Climate Change Science Program.
The U.S. spends $3 billion a year to research technologies to cut global warming and $2 billion on climate research. Bush has formed a partnership with Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea — producers of half the world’s greenhouse gases — to attract private money for cleaner energy technologies. He envisions using more hydrogen-powered vehicles, electricity from renewable energy sources and clean coal technology.
Shortly after taking office, Bush rejected the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a U.N. treaty that requires industrial nations to cut global warming gases by 2012 by an average 5 percent below 1990 levels.
He argued that cutting the U.S. share to below 6 billion tons a year, as the treaty would have required, would have cost 5 million U.S. jobs. He objected, too, that such high-polluting developing nations as China and India are not required to reduce emissions.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Rate this story
Well, here's part of the problem............
john
-
Forum Monk
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
- Location: USA
John,
I read your previous report and did a detailed point by point analysis which for some reason, I lost due to a temporary glitch in my connection!
Its very frustrating!
I don't want to repeat it as it was too much work. The bottom line is this. The report clearly showed 210gt 'natural' source Co2 emissions are entering the atmosphere compared to a little over 7gt from man-made sources. Thirty times less. Of the 7gt released, 55% is absorbed by the soil, vegetation and oceans leaving about 3gt floating around in the air. That rate varies somewhat year to year due to unknown causation. A dip in the early 1990s may have resulted from Mt. Pinutabo and other variations seem to correlate with El Nino.
In the end, the report seems to reach NO conclusion of its own. It seems to be a statement of facts only. Therefore I reach no conclusion.
I read your previous report and did a detailed point by point analysis which for some reason, I lost due to a temporary glitch in my connection!
Its very frustrating! I don't want to repeat it as it was too much work. The bottom line is this. The report clearly showed 210gt 'natural' source Co2 emissions are entering the atmosphere compared to a little over 7gt from man-made sources. Thirty times less. Of the 7gt released, 55% is absorbed by the soil, vegetation and oceans leaving about 3gt floating around in the air. That rate varies somewhat year to year due to unknown causation. A dip in the early 1990s may have resulted from Mt. Pinutabo and other variations seem to correlate with El Nino.
In the end, the report seems to reach NO conclusion of its own. It seems to be a statement of facts only. Therefore I reach no conclusion.
-
Forum Monk
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
- Location: USA
After reading Johns nice report and then looking at his most recent post, it occurs to me:
Do you realize that if we killed off 10 percent of the earth's vegetation, the resulting reduction in CO2 emissions would offset about 90% of the worlds man-made output (as long as we didn't kill it off by burning it). Its a ridiculous idea of course. But it is food for thought.
Do you realize that if we killed off 10 percent of the earth's vegetation, the resulting reduction in CO2 emissions would offset about 90% of the worlds man-made output (as long as we didn't kill it off by burning it). Its a ridiculous idea of course. But it is food for thought.
That's correct Monk, at least that's how I read it.
John, please stop bombarding me with these pieces of data, they have no effect on my concerns.
Try this.
Previous highs of temp and CO2 have been followed by a crash in both.
Do you agree?
Will this be repeated?
Yes or no?
Which would be the least worst alternative, more warmth or another ice age?
These are the only things that matter, the data that you keep posting unfortunately does not address these questions.
What the world needs to know is which of these scenarios we might be facing.
A warm world would be a better alternative than another ice age like in the past, would you not agree?
John, please stop bombarding me with these pieces of data, they have no effect on my concerns.
Try this.
Previous highs of temp and CO2 have been followed by a crash in both.
Do you agree?
Will this be repeated?
Yes or no?
Which would be the least worst alternative, more warmth or another ice age?
These are the only things that matter, the data that you keep posting unfortunately does not address these questions.
What the world needs to know is which of these scenarios we might be facing.
A warm world would be a better alternative than another ice age like in the past, would you not agree?
Today's Sunday Express carries an article 'proving' that GW is caused by the Sun.
A BBC Channel 4 programme is to be shown on the subject later this week.
There is information on the subject on Channel 4's website, unfortunately I lack the skill to post it, if possible perhaps someone else could oblige.
A BBC Channel 4 programme is to be shown on the subject later this week.
There is information on the subject on Channel 4's website, unfortunately I lack the skill to post it, if possible perhaps someone else could oblige.
-
Forum Monk
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
- Location: USA
Don't know what specifically your referring to, but here is a link to channel 4's GW page.
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsi ... index.html
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsi ... index.html
'The ice core record goes to the very heart of the problem we have,' says Tim Ball, Climatologist and Prof Emeritus of Geography at the University of Winnipeg in the documentary. 'They said if CO2 increases in the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up'.
In fact, the experts in the film argue that increased CO2 levels are actually a result of temperature rises, not their cause, and that this alternate view is rarely heard. 'So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans, is shown to be wrong.'
'I've often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system,' says John Christy, Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center, NSSTC University of Alabama. 'Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true.'
That's it Monk, many thanks. I need to work on my computer skills I fear.
Paints a different picture though doesn't it?
I've always found that when people are promoting their ideas as the only pathway to salvation it's good idea to start looking at the evidence, and this programme seems to support my contentions that we need to learn a great deal more before we start meddling.
Paints a different picture though doesn't it?
I've always found that when people are promoting their ideas as the only pathway to salvation it's good idea to start looking at the evidence, and this programme seems to support my contentions that we need to learn a great deal more before we start meddling.
-
Forum Monk
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
- Location: USA
Hey Stan,
Just to reinforce your fears, men have been trying for a while to punch a hole in the mantle:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID ... 414B7F0000
Too bad its 1000s of miles thick, eh?
Just to reinforce your fears, men have been trying for a while to punch a hole in the mantle:
Src: Wikipedia also here:The second attempt to retrieve samples from the Earth's mantle is scheduled for 2007 [2]. As part of the Chikyu Hakken mission, it will use the Japanese vessel 'Chikyu' to drill up to 7000m (23,000 ft) below the seabed. This is nearly three times as deep as preceding oceanic drillings, which are preferred over land drillings because the crust at the seabed is thinner. The first attempt, known as Project Mohole, was abandoned in 1966 after repeated failures and cost over-runs. The deepest they managed to penetrate was about 180m (590 ft). In 2005 the third-deepest oceanic borehole hole reached 1416 meters (4,644 feet) below the sea floor from the ocean drilling vessel JOIDES Resolution.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID ... 414B7F0000
Too bad its 1000s of miles thick, eh?
Good Morning Folks!
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/T293180.htm
For what It's worth, I agree with john and respect his opinion. We have been poor stewards of the planet. At the same time I don't believe that there is anything that humankind can do at the moment to prevent global warming or a possible ensuing ice age.
Grow more trees!
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/T293180.htm
More of the same.TOKYO, March 2 (Reuters) - Japan has had the warmest winter ever and central Tokyo has seen no snow so far -- the first time since records began, the official weather forecaster said on Friday.
"We have never seen a year without snow in the central Tokyo area. We started taking snow records in 1877," an official with Japan's Meteorological Agency said. "If central Tokyo does not see snow before long, it will be for the first time since then."
For what It's worth, I agree with john and respect his opinion. We have been poor stewards of the planet. At the same time I don't believe that there is anything that humankind can do at the moment to prevent global warming or a possible ensuing ice age.
Grow more trees!
I also share John's concerns Beag, very much so in fact. That is why I am so concerned that the wrong trees are being barked up, again!
There appears to be an element of evangelism in so many of the believers of CO2 or bust that seems to totally ignore any alternative ideas.
Mind you Beag, as far as I'm aware our government is only prepared to finance those who are prepared to sing to their hymn sheet.
There appears to be an element of evangelism in so many of the believers of CO2 or bust that seems to totally ignore any alternative ideas.
Mind you Beag, as far as I'm aware our government is only prepared to finance those who are prepared to sing to their hymn sheet.
Yes - I agree with you also Digit, and I don't feel like I'm contradicting myself. Everyone is playing politics, it seems, with something that we can do nothing about.
I stress again, though, that I am an environmentalist at heart, and we can do so very much to reduce our dependancy on fossil fuels.
I stress again, though, that I am an environmentalist at heart, and we can do so very much to reduce our dependancy on fossil fuels.
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16013
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
Probably true, people like to believe in the "ONE CORRECT ANSWER" hypothesis for any issue and the world is seldom so simple.There appears to be an element of evangelism in so many of the believers of CO2 or bust
Still, what harm can come from conserving oil, planting trees, and using alternative fuels? They may not stave off climate change but these things are good ideas in and of themselves.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin