U.S. Appears to Win Global Warming Debate

[Webruary]

U.S. Appears to Win Global Warming Debate (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1439052/posts)

<SMALL>AP ^ (http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/07/08/international/i062517D56.DTL) </SMALL>


Leaders of the world's wealthy nations appeared to bow to U.S. pressure on climate change, approving a watered-down declaration Friday that avoids setting targets or timetables for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But in his final speech at the G-8 summit, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that the G-8 countries and five of the world's largest emerging economies — China, Brazil, India, Mexico and South Africa — had agreed to work together to counter global warming.

He said they would meet Nov. 1 in Britain to discuss the effort to "slow down and then in time reverse the rise in harmful greenhouse gas emissions." Blair later said climate change could not be tackled without proper support from America, China, and India. "If it is impossible to bring America into the consensus on climate change we will never ensure the huge emerging economies like China and India ... are part of the dialogue," Blair said at the end of the G-8 summit. He added that Russia has agreed to make climate change a major priority when it takes over the G-8 presidency next year.

French President Jacques Chirac has called the declaration — to be issued later Friday — a partial victory and said it ensures

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/07/08/international/i062517D56.DTL) ...

[Lazarus]

What Global Warming? They obviously havent been on my ridge in the winter on the northwest side of my house... If they were they'd be spraying aerosol in the air to try to get some degree of warming started... Brrrrrrrrrrrrr... :D

A few years back I was going to UAB at night working on a second degree in Geology... The question of Global Warming came up and our professor very pointedly debunked the whole theory and pointed out that the majority of real earth scientists - the guys doing meaningful useful research - all discount the theory as pop culture trash that is based on poor science and a neglect of the scientific principles used to establish realistic theories...

Global warming proponents are nothing more than liberal enviro-activists trying to push thru their eco-agenda... As usual they are short on real reasearch and long on hot air and PR funding... Thus politicians line up with them out of fear that the voting public MIGHT believe the movement...

Global Warming is not a scientific theory - Its a political movement... Nothing more.

[aaron11]

Global Warming is not a scientific theory - Its a political movement... Nothing more.

Right on!

And so far Bush has tried his best to avoid the issue...I only wish he had the stones to call it what it is...The fact that he hasn't suggest that it is a powerfull movment...Which is flat scary...Imagine what Hillary would do with it...:eek:

[UK_Socialist]

Im sorry but as a scientist myself I cannot believe you doubt that global warming is probably the most major environmental event of our lives.
I would love to see the research discounting it as 'A political Movement'

[jayson]

I am just happy that I can still drive my car around without some prying eyes in a satellite watching it.

I recently posted two articles on my blog about this. The first one was about a proposed "bill UK drivers by mile via satellite", and the second was simply giving everyone a certain number of "petro credits", and when you use yours up, you are forced to go find someone out there willing to sell them to you. Can't find any? Well then you better consider getting a bike...

Unfortunately, both of the articles got moved and the links are now dead. :-(

[DesertFox]

Bjorn Lonborg.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Im sorry but as a scientist myself I cannot believe you doubt that global warming is probably the most major environmental event of our lives.
I would love to see the research discounting it as 'A political Movement'
There is no doubt that there has been a slight warming trend (0.6 degrees Celsius) in the past 100+ years since the end of the Little Ice Age, more than half of it prior to 1940. However, there is no scientific evidence that that warming was caused by human activities. The warming is merely the natural recovery from that 500-year Little Ice Age.

Since the warming is natural, there is nothing we can do to stop it short of turning off the Sun.

[DesertFox]

And I think the sun would object. It's got rights too, y'know.

[aaron11]

Im sorry but as a scientist myself I cannot believe you doubt that global warming is probably the most major environmental event of our lives.
I would love to see the research discounting it as 'A political Movement'

I would like to see 2 scientist actualy agree!:hahaha:

Especially before anyone starts making Government policy based on shoddy science...

[Riverboat]

U.S. Appears to Win Global Warming Debate (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1439052/posts)That's nice, but who cares? We didn't sign that stupid Kyoto Treaty, we never will as long as Bush is in control of the White House and his senses, and even if every nation on earth signed it, . . .

. . . WHO CARES?!!!

[Naturalized-Texan]

That's nice, but who cares? We didn't sign that stupid Kyoto Treaty, we never will as long as Bush is in control of the White House and his senses, and even if every nation on earth signed it, . . .

. . . WHO CARES?!!!
Recent stories I've seen and heard indicate that the Kyoto Treaty is pretty much dead world-wide because there is no evidence that it would reduce the emissions from greenhouse gases, by far the most abundant of which is water vapor. Even if one believes the nonsense that human activities are causing global warming, the Kyoto Treaty will have little or no effect on that warming.

Since the warming is natural and can't be stopped no matter what we do, it's best that we just sit back and enjoy it.

[UK_Socialist]

There is no doubt that there has been a slight warming trend (0.6 degrees Celsius) in the past 100+ years since the end of the Little Ice Age, more than half of it prior to 1940. However, there is no scientific evidence that that warming was caused by human activities. The warming is merely the natural recovery from that 500-year Little Ice Age.

Since the warming is natural, there is nothing we can do to stop it short of turning off the Sun.

Not wanting to bore you to tears with the environmental chemistry aspect of things but needless to say CO2 absorbs IR radiation with is then given out as heat, therefore more CO2 = more heat.

Dont forget the greenhouse effect DOES exist as we wouldnt be here without it.

[washoeconservative]

And a self proclaimed socialist wouldnt have an agenda?

[UK_Socialist]

And a self proclaimed socialist wouldnt have an agenda?

Not at all, for me science and politics must be kept completely separate.

Politics is based on opinions,
Good science is based on the facts.

[Warlady]

Science is also based on theory. There are many articles by scientists who believe it's just hogwash. The environmentalists who drive around in their SUVs but complain about everyone else driving around in theirs also proclaimed global cooling a few decades ago. Now they are claiming global warming all because of .6° C change in temperature? That could be from volcano eruptions both above ground and below the sea. Volcanoes erupt more fluracarbons or whatever the hell that's called than anything humans can produce.

[TheRealLobo]

Human activities cannot even begin to compete with the naturally occurring CO2 emissions from our oceans and old growth, rain forests. If you really are interested in attempting to effect naturally occurring environmental phenomenon, then I would suggest cutting down all old growth forests and replanting with new trees to absorb more CO2.

LOLOLOLOL!!

Carl...you slay me dude.

Seriously. I know it's true, but man could you imagine the whackos actually agreeing to it?

Whacko 1: "Hey, Rainbow. It's me, Bald Eagle. Let's go kill all the trees to save all the trees."
Whacko 2: "Fer shooor".

[UK_Socialist]

I can see we are never going to agree on the point of global warming.
But surely you can't argue that we, as a planet, aren't producing more CO2 than ever.
You have the emergence of India and China as major industrial nations who now use more and more oil and coal resources.

In response to warlady,
i guess you are referring to chlorofluorocarbons? (CFCS). While i cannot comment that these are produced by volcanoes (although very unlikely as production of CFCS is a specialised lab technique) these aren't actually the biggest problem with the greenhouse effect. More with depletion of the Ozone layer which is a different case.
N.B. Do we agree that the ozone layer is disappearing?

However, CFC's are an important component of global warming as their global warming potential (GWP) is many thousands compared to CO2
Cf. CO2 GWP = 1, CFC-12 GWP = 7000.

CFCS also fill in absorption "windows" of IR where other species to do absorb.

However production of CO2 is the biggest contributor to the enhanced greenhouse effect due to the sheer volume of it.

CO2 concentration/ppm has risen to around 360ppm in 2000 compared to 280ppm in 1750 and has risen exponentially since the advent of the industrial era.

In the last two centries:
100% increase in Methane concentration
25% increase in CO2 (also high relative concentrations and long residence times)
3% increase in nitrous oxide

CO2 contribute 55% to the greenhouse effect and unlike the other gases increased CO2 emisions result on changes to other processes occuring on the Earths surface.

[washoeconservative]

Not at all, for me science and politics must be kept completely separate.

Yet you use the word socialist when describing yourself?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Science is also based on theory. There are many articles by scientists who believe it's just hogwash. The environmentalists who drive around in their SUVs but complain about everyone else driving around in theirs also proclaimed global cooling a few decades ago. Now they are claiming global warming all because of .6° C change in temperature? That could be from volcano eruptions both above ground and below the sea. Volcanoes erupt more fluracarbons or whatever the hell that's called than anything humans can produce.
There is far more evidence that the current warming trend is due to the higher incidence of solar flare activity in the past 100+ years than there is that it's caused by human activity.

There was a 500-year Little Ice Age between the 14th Century and the 19th Century. That Little Ice Age coincided with an absence, or near absence, of solar flare activity referred to as the Maunder Minimum. Prior to that, there was a 500-year warm period - the Miedeval Maximum - that probably coincided with a period of high solar flare activity.

The lack of solar flare activity during the Little Ice Age was observed by Galileo and others. Unfortunatele, it was impossible for anyone to observe that activity during the Miedeval Warm period.

It's likely that there is a 500-year cycle of solar flare activity that causes 500-year cycles of warming and cooling, but it will be at least 400 years before that can be confirmed.

[UK_Socialist]

Yet you use the word socialist when describing yourself?


Well.... Yes! This is a political forum is it not so therefore logical to state my political affiliations in my name?

Had this been a scientific forum I would have been "UK Environmental Chemist"

I don't see how the fact I am a socialist affects my ability to make informed scientific opinions

[Naturalized-Texan]

Not wanting to bore you to tears with the environmental chemistry aspect of things but needless to say CO2 absorbs IR radiation with is then given out as heat, therefore more CO2 = more heat.

Dont forget the greenhouse effect DOES exist as we wouldnt be here without it.
Having studied chemistry in college and having taught science, I'm well aware of environmental chemistry. However, there is much too much uncertainty in the data to conclude that global warming is being caused by human activities.

There is a small, but significant, number of scientists (generally referred to as junk scientists) who have a vested political interest in convincing the public that global warming is being caused by human activities despite the fact that there is no evidence for that claim. They do that so that they can keep collecting grant money from the UN and other left-wing organizations that want to place draconian controls over the economies of all nations, especially the U.S., and to establish world socialism under UN control (for more information, refer to the UN Commission on Global Governence.).

President Bush was spot on when he rescinded the Kyoto Treaty that would have cost the American economy several trillion dollars and would have caused the loss of several million jobs based on nothing more than speculation and supposition. The result would have been an economic depression that would have made the Great Depression of the 1930s look like an economic boom. Fortunately, President Bush got good advice from a panel of the American National Academies of Science that clearly stated that there were far too many uncertainties to conclude that global warming was caused by human activities..

[markus3622]

Whenever one discusses global warming it makes sense to divide it up into two parts.

1) The science of global warming
2) Kyoto / emission reduction strategies

It only muddies the waters to talk about "destroying the economy" if one is trying to talk about climatology.

Fortunately, President Bush got good advice from a panel of the American National Academies of Science that clearly stated that there were far too many uncertainties to conclude that global warming was caused by human activities.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

PS, UK Socialist, the NAS committee didn't say what Naturalized_Texan says it does (and he knows it) - one member on the committee did.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Im sorry but as a scientist myself I cannot believe you doubt that global warming is probably the most major environmental event of our lives.
I would love to see the research discounting it as 'A political Movement'

I'm sorry, but as an executive sales representative myself I cannot believe you believe that global warming is anything more than hype, la-la, socialist claptrap, a dream within a fantasy within a mirage.

The real issue goes to the question of human activities. It is idiotic to destroy whole economies, induce world-wide misery and depression, based on the speculation of socialist parasites.

http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/archive/200412/CUL20041202a.html

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/10/global-warming-something-new-under-the-sun/

http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-6-129-2490.jsp

http://www.techcentralstation.com/051005C.html

http://www.adn.com/life/story/6467581p-6347348c.html

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/04/29/global-warming-something-to-sneeze-at/#more-108

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/01/ixworld.html

http://abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_1353382.htm

[UK_Socialist]

Yes I do believe in it. And I think doing something about it now... and it turning out to be totally wrong is much better than leading our planet down the crapper to the point of no return.

Regardless of this anyway, Oil, Gas and Coal ARE running out, fast. And i believe reform is needed quickly if we're not to see economic disasters which Mr Texan talks about.

[UK_Socialist]

And our oceans produce about a million tons of CFC anually, so along with cutting down all the environmentally worthless old growth forrests we should also drain all the oceans.

As for: "CO2 concentration/ppm has risen to around 360ppm in 2000 compared to 280ppm in 1750 and has risen exponentially since the advent of the industrial era." Who collected the data in 1750 and what evidence, other than anecdotal, do you have that conclusively demonstrates human culpability?


Sorry for the profanity but how the HELL do oceans produces CFC's??

CO2 concentrations can be measured for ice bore holes etc and that data is accurate in my opinion as it comes from the Antartic Survey Group based at cambridge.

[UK_Socialist]

Well yes, If global warming just turn out to be correct and we do nothing about it then the potential effects of it are too scary to comprehend.

But of course we'd all rather have economic stabilty... bugger the fact that it could lead to the melting of the ice caps, the stopping of the gulf stream etc...

[UK_Socialist]

Sea salt and some types of plankton produce CFCs.

Are those the same bore holes that found high concentrations of CO2 associated with global warm periods going back almost 700,000 years?


Im sorry? Sea Salt, NaCl, can produce a carbon back bone with halogen branches?!

Source?

Once again... with the Bore Holes - Source?

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Yes I do believe in it. And I think doing something about it now... and it turning out to be totally wrong is much better than leading our planet down the crapper to the point of no return.

"I think doing something about it now” -- economic collapse, massive unemployment, famine, pestilence, mayhem, war -- “and it turning out to be totally wrong" -- economic collapse, massive unemployment, famine, pestilence, mayhem, war -- “is much better than leading our planet down the crapper to the point of no return.”

:nut:

Regardless of this anyway, Oil, Gas and Coal ARE running out, fast.

Nonsense.

And i believe reform is needed quickly if we're not to see economic disasters which Mr Texan talks about.

That's Mr. President of the United States of America to you, Bubba.

[UK_Socialist]

"I think doing something about it now” -- economic collapse, massive unemployment, famine, pestilence, mayhem, war -- “and it turning out to be totally wrong" -- economic collapse, massive unemployment, famine, pestilence, mayhem, war -- “is much better than leading our planet down the crapper to the point of no return.”

:nut:



Nonsense.

I suggest very strongly you check your facts. Do you think oil prices are so high because there is a surplus?


That's Mr. President of the United States of America to you, Bubba.

I was referring to Naturalized Texan actually, and i assume Bubba is an insult... OUCH, my emotions...

[UK_Socialist]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000352EA-658A-10C7-A58A83414B7F0000

http://www.esf.org/articles/85/nature02599.pdf

Yes it will put us in a position to make a much better picture of atmospheric history but I would hardly say this is conclusive proof of your position is it?
In particular the first.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Well yes, If global warming just turn out to be correct and we do nothing about it then the potential effects of it are too scary to comprehend.

But of course we'd all rather have economic stabilty... bugger the fact that it could lead to the melting of the ice caps, the stopping of the gulf stream etc...

My advice? Get out the A-frame sandwich board and, with black magic marker, etch the WORLD IS COMING TO AN END. Drill two holes at the top, insert a string and wear around your neck. Then, grow a beard, walk down the street with bulging eyes and piss yer pants.


Yes I do believe in it. And I think doing something about it now... and it turning out to be totally wrong is much better than leading our planet down the crapper to the point of no return.

Regardless of this anyway, Oil, Gas and Coal ARE running out, fast. And i believe reform is needed quickly if we're not to see economic disasters which Mr Texan talks about.

More advice. Drink your urine, or at the very least save it, stick some of it in the freezer like a Capri Sun. You will need it on the day when OUR PLANET GOES DOWN THE CRAPPER TO THE POINT OF NO RETURN!

As for carbon dioxide, well, its the engine itself, the very motivator that ignites the production of oxygen. My suggestion would be like Carl's, increase it. Then watch as the existing plants go totally apeshit.

[UK_Socialist]

Thats your opinion and i have to choice to respect it.

But the fact you our now being offensive to my views and in the other thread my family means I have nothing to say to you...

Most people on here have been welcoming of differing views and seem willing to debate. Except you.


Vile, Vile man

[Bluemoon_Rising]

I was referring to Naturalized Texan actually, and i assume Bubba is an insult... OUCH, my emotions...

My mistake. As I was not thinking of Clinton, Bubba's not an insult. I thought you were referring to Bush. Just thought it was funny to make it "Mr. President," who just happens to be a Texan, and refer to you -- a citizen of the UK and a socialist -- as Bubba, a common Southern epithet.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Thats your opinion and i have to choice to respect it.

But the fact you our now being offensive to my views and in the other thread my family means I have nothing to say to you...

Most people on here have been welcoming of differing views and seem willing to debate. Except you.


Vile, Vile man

Well, Wyatt Junker -- you are talking about Wyatt? -- has been said to be many things: obscene, loony, funny as hell (my favorite), brilliant (another favorite), disturbed, outrageous, unpredictable, insightful. "Vile"? That's new. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.






















Okay, maybe, but he’s OUR vile, vile man, and we like him.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Yes I do believe in it. And I think doing something about it now... and it turning out to be totally wrong is much better than leading our planet down the crapper to the point of no return.
Nonsense.

It makes no sense whatsoever to kill the economies of every developed nation and to prevent the economies of developing nations from growing based on nothing more than speculation and supposition. If, and only if, there is iron-clad, irrefutable PROOF that global warming is caused by human activities, the warming is so slow (0.6 degrees Celsius in more than 100 years, or less than 0.006 degrees per year) that we can easily wait several decades to do something about it rather than drive the world into a Depression based on evidence that is flimsy, at best, and fraudulent, at worst.

Regardless of this anyway, Oil, Gas and Coal ARE running out, fast. And i believe reform is needed quickly if we're not to see economic disasters which Mr Texan talks about.
There is no evidence that oil, gas, or coal are running out. However, for the sake of reducing pollution, whether or not global warming is affected, we should replace all fossil-fueled power plants in the world with clean, cheap, and safe nuclear power plants.

[aaron11]

My advice? Get out the A-frame sandwich board and, with black magic marker, etch the WORLD IS COMING TO AN END. Drill two holes at the top, insert a string and wear around your neck. Then, grow a beard, walk down the street with bulging eyes and piss yer pants.



More advice. Drink your urine, or at the very least save it, stick some of it in the freezer like a Capri Sun. You will need it on the day when OUR PLANET GOES DOWN THE CRAPPER TO THE POINT OF NO RETURN!

As for carbon dioxide, well, its the engine itself, the very motivator that ignites the production of oxygen. My suggestion would be like Carl's, increase it. Then watch as the existing plants go totally apeshit.

Wyatt rides again!:hahaha:

[Riverboat]

But the fact you our now being offensive to my views and in the other thread my family means I have nothing to say to you...Guess your work here is done. Thanks again, Wyatt!

[sunsettommy]

Im sorry but as a scientist myself I cannot believe you doubt that global warming is probably the most major environmental event of our lives.
I would love to see the research discounting it as 'A political Movement'

IPCC has not been a good source of information on the issue because they are beholden to Political pressure.

[sunsettommy]

I can see we are never going to agree on the point of global warming.
But surely you can't argue that we, as a planet, aren't producing more CO2 than ever.
You have the emergence of India and China as major industrial nations who now use more and more oil and coal resources.

In response to warlady,
i guess you are referring to chlorofluorocarbons? (CFCS). While i cannot comment that these are produced by volcanoes (although very unlikely as production of CFCS is a specialised lab technique) these aren't actually the biggest problem with the greenhouse effect. More with depletion of the Ozone layer which is a different case.
N.B. Do we agree that the ozone layer is disappearing?

However, CFC's are an important component of global warming as their global warming potential (GWP) is many thousands compared to CO2
Cf. CO2 GWP = 1, CFC-12 GWP = 7000.

CFCS also fill in absorption "windows" of IR where other species to do absorb.

However production of CO2 is the biggest contributor to the enhanced greenhouse effect due to the sheer volume of it.

CO2 concentration/ppm has risen to around 360ppm in 2000 compared to 280ppm in 1750 and has risen exponentially since the advent of the industrial era.

In the last two centries:
100% increase in Methane concentration
25% increase in CO2 (also high relative concentrations and long residence times)
3% increase in nitrous oxide

CO2 contribute 55% to the greenhouse effect and unlike the other gases increased CO2 emisions result on changes to other processes occuring on the Earths surface.

The figures you show here is very different from what I have read.What are your sources?

Meanwhile so far you say nothing about WATER VAPOR!!

[Keith J]

Sorry for the profanity but how the HELL do oceans produces CFC's??

CO2 concentrations can be measured for ice bore holes etc and that data is accurate in my opinion as it comes from the Antartic Survey Group based at cambridge.

Ice is NOT a hermetic sealing structure for any gas. It is HIGHLY unlikely any trapped gas in ICE will represent any stable storage for any length of time. Just like gases will diffuse through metals, they do so with much more ease in ice.

Furthermore, the concentration of gas deposited with snow is HIGHLY dependent on relative humidity and temperature during the snowfall.

It is all noise. Now explain missing carbon.