Global Warming, Part IV

Arts & Sciences Science & Nature
41

Not necessarily. I don’t have time right now to go into detail but there’s a fairly good summary of the effects on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

I know, it’s wikipedia, not the best source (and one I normally wouldn’t bother with), but the links at the end of the article are quite good, so I’d suggest you take a look at them rather than the article itself.

I’ll leave you with this from former chief economist and senior vice president of the World Bank, Sir Nicholas Stern. [quote]our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th Century[/quote]

He estimates that the world economy could shrink by 20% if nothing is done, yet it would only cost 1% of global GDP over the next 50 years to take adequate measures to avoid this.

I’ll be back on board this evening if you have any more questions.

42

Fine. I am all for cleaner air, reducing greenhouse gases etc. I doubt the most severe of the effects will occur. I am all for ongoing monitoring, but what is being envisioned? More of the failed Kyoto approach or something new? What do you have to say about what Kyoto has accomplished and at what cost? Also, the next five years will be the crunch for the signatories of Kyoto. How do you think that they are going to rate? and IF the most concerned nations at least in words cannot be bothered to act, why should the US when we have not even said that we are concerned? At least, the Republican side of things? And by concerned I do not mean carelessly dismissive, just after having seen what is on offer, expressed our polite disinterest?

43

Well, at least the UK is going in the right direction though I doubt the bill will have any provisions for reducing Fred Smith’s emissions.

news.independent.co.uk/environme … 355960.ece

BroonAir

44

Great sign another bill the contents of which you have no intention of meeting. All the same to me. If hypocritical lip service to greenhouse gas emissions is to be rewarded, give yourself first prize.

45

As for the first half of your response: you don’t know. As for the second half: sod off.

BroonArgon

46

Sorry, was referring to UK. Has the government met or is it on track to meet its Kyoto Treaty obligations?

Okay. But I still do not see how signing treaties actually achieves anything. Look to the UN. Shall we put “sanctions” on the polluters? and then urge the Security Council to “take action?” haha

47

Sorry, was referring to UK. Has the government met or is it on track to meet its Kyoto Treaty obligations?

Okay. But I still do not see how signing treaties actually achieves anything. Look to the UN. Shall we put “sanctions” on the polluters? and then urge the Security Council to “take action?” haha[/quote]

It’s more than a treaty. It is a proposed bill that builds a legal framework for reducing emissions and as far as I am aware, it is the first move of its kind by any government. Ambitious but achievable according to some. No doubt there are those that will say it isn’t achievable but at least it exemplifies action a step above lip-service. Absolutely no harm at all in at least reducing man’s influence in climate change even if man isn’t wholly responsible for what may be part of a natural cycle.

BroonAsserts

48

Here we go again with the malaria DDT noise - another red herring by FS, not unlike the cries of Killer bees and red ants devastating the world.

First, we are talking about global warming, not DDT. No one here talked about DDT. Last time I checked, carbon dioxide output and pollution had no positive effects on saving millions of poor, destitute lives. So until you give me the famous FS proof that the massive use of pollution and carbon dioxide and burning leads directly to the safety and health of millions of people, please stop bringing up DDT. (without going into the merits of the DDT argument)

FS’ famous logic:

Use DDT = millions lives saved

Ban DDT = million lives lost

Equals

Dump billions of tons of CO2, etc = millions of lives saved.

ergo, we should continue to dump tons and tons of CO2.

Yes, where is the debilitating effect of using mileage standards and seatbelt safety laws that must have, gosh, cost the automobile millions of wasted dollars to implement and thus cripple their competitive edge. Gee, that is why Toyota is now No.1.

Oh yea, FS is superior in logic, rhetoric, and persuasive argument.

not.

:wanker: The only hurt by seatbelt safety laws is FS waist.

49

You are free to be disinterested in this issue, even politely if you like, but the last 4 threads on the subject prove otherwise.

50

But Gore says that malaria spread by global warming is going to kill millions!

[quote]In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”[/quote]

nytimes.com/2007/03/13/scien … ref=slogin

51

sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti … ia_and_DDT

[quote]South Africa is now the largest government promotor of DDT for mosquito control. It is frequently in dispute with Mozambique over the issue, as that country prefers a precautionary approach to the pesticide, and its borders with South Africa have a high incidence of malaria.

The mining industry in southern Africa is the largest private promotor of DDT spraying, as it is a highly cost-effective way of reducing absenteeism amongst the workforce. It is has the largest Gross Geographic Product of all industries in the country.

Africa Fighting Malaria is supported by two large mining corporations, Anglo American and BHP Billiton. [/quote]

[quote]The WHO position is that the use of DDT indoors (coating walls, for example), is acceptable.[/quote] which btw, is quite different over large-scale outdoor spraying. Also, there’s the danger of creating DDT-resistant malaria from overuse.

52

Figure SPM-4 page 11 of the IPCC summary report has a chart for you. ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

The blue areas indicate natural forcing due to only solar activity and volcanoes, the red include both natural and anthropogenic. The black line is decadal averages of observations for the period 1906 to 2005.

I also gave a link to Dr Sami Solanki and his studies which can demonstrate and account for periods of warming due to the sun prior to around the middle of last century, but not for the last 3 decades. Can you provide a single peer reviewed paper that states the last 3 decades of warming can be accounted for due to the sun?

53

Yes, but that is not what happened. DDT was not banned from large-scale outdoor spraying. Yes, DDT-resistant malaria might have occurred but did it? Yet, ALL use of DDT was banned because of the “good intentions” of “concerned enviornmentalists” and as usual they were mostly wrong. AND millions of mostly Africans died and have been debilitated by malaria since then. What do these “well-intentioned” folks have to say about that? hmmm?

54

I think fred has a point here. Imagine the sacrifice increased gas taxes would have on Halliburton and associated evil smegmum. And after all the trouble they went to instigating a war that didn’t need to be fought, and all those no bid contracts they got by bribing people, and the hundreds of billions of dollars they absconded with just before moving to Dubai and setting up business with the Bin Laden group selling oil to the Chinese from Saudi Arabia thereby avoiding: 1) Taxes in the US to help pay for the care of the wounded Vets and 2) Prosecution in the US for embezzlment and so on and so forth on into a future devoid of decency or common sense or humane values…

It only gets worse. There is some comfort to be taken in that I suppose.

55

[quote=“Jack Burton”]

I’ll bet if the WHO headquarters and all their overpaid staff were to be moved from Geneva to Sub-Saharan Africa, what is “acceptable” would change pretty damn quick.

Anyway, they won’t admit Taiwan so fuck’em.

56

How’s this? And from your Liberal BBC no less…

[quote]By BBC News Online Science Editor Dr David Whitehouse
Global warming may not be caused by humanity’s fossil fuel emissions, but could be due to changes in the Sun.

Research suggests that the magnetic flux from the Sun more than doubled this century. As solar magnetism is closely linked with sunspot activity and the strength of sunlight reaching Earth, the increase could have produced warming in the global climate.

This magnetic field is caused by the Solar Wind, a stream of particles given off by the Sun which fills the solar system.

The scientists produce evidence that since 1964 the interplanetary magnetic field has increased in strength by 40%. Evidence from before the space age suggests that the magnetic field is 2.3 times stronger than it was in 1901.

Scientists do not doubt that the increased magnetic field results from a more energetic Sun. Their problem is that the effect of these increases on the Earth is unknown.

Not our fault?

The research is published in Nature and in the same journal Professor Eugene Parker, of the Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research, University of Chicago, comments that it could explain global warming.

He notes that the increased solar activity has occurred in parallel with an increase in carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. And it may not be a coincidence, he says.

Professor Parker suggests that the Sun’s increased activity caused the Earth’s global temperature to rise and that in turn warmed the oceans.

Warmer oceans absorb less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So a warmer Earth has more of the so-called greenhouse gases. Humanity’s burning of fossil fuels may therefore not be the cause of global warming.

Perilous plans

Professor Parker adds that that more research must be done about the Sun’s role in global warming before drastic action is taken here on Earth.

“It is essential to check to what extent the facts support these conclusions before embarking on drastic, perilous and perhaps misguided plans for global action,” he says.

Measurements of the magnetic field are not the only evidence for the Sun’s variable influence on the Earth. The planet went through a “little ice age” during the 17th Century, at a time when very few sunspots appeared on the surface of the Sun.

And the so-called “medieval maximum” was a period of warmer than average global weather in the 12th Century. Astronomers believe that the Sun was slightly brighter at that time. [/quote]

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/358953.stm

Back to you…

57

A report from the BBC published in June 1999. 8 years ago. The actual research likely to be older still. Professor Parker, mentioned in the article that more research had to be done.

He later (in an editorial written in 2002) said

I don’t have the link for this quote sorry, I’ve only got it in an old printed PDF.

58

I will accept that without the link.

59

Can I butt in here? I don’t know how you gents can have an informed discussion of this subject without some basics of Geochemistry. Here’s a link: science.howstuffworks.com/framed … rbonCycle/
funny how Vice President Ozone didn’t cover this subject at all in his crappy movie. :loco:
He made no mention of Comrade Milankovitch either… tsk tsk. homepage.montana.edu/~geol44 … lankov.htm

60

[quote=“cfimages”]A report from the BBC published in June 1999. 8 years ago. The actual research likely to be older still. Professor Parker, mentioned in the article that more research had to be done.

He later (in an editorial written in 2002) said

I don’t have the link for this quote sorry, I’ve only got it in an old printed PDF.[/quote]

Here’s the link , project-syndicate.org/commentary/parker1

and to prove I am be balanced and not arguing towards any goal, on the negative side of accepting Parkers alternate theory. He also said in 2000

spaceref.ca/news/viewpr.html?pid=2738

However, going back to the first link, directly following the above quote he says,

[quote]But this does not mean that human emissions are responsible for the growing accumulation of atmospheric CO2. The atmosphere contains about 750 gigatons of CO2, while total annual human emission is approximately 5.5 Gt, thus adding annually roughly 0.7% of the total. However, there is also an estimated exchange of 90 Gt per year between the atmosphere and the oceans. This means that Human CO2 emissions do not simply linger and accumulate in the atmosphere. They are rapidly distributed to the ocean surface, so that atmospheric CO2 remains at an equilibrium level.

This equilibrium is, in turn, determined by the temperature of ocean surface water. So it is plausible that the solar-driven ocean warming between 1900 and 1950 started things off by shifting the equilibrium toward higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, accelerating global warming since then. So, while our own contribution of CO2 is not helping matters, it hardly seems to be the determining factor.
[/quote]

I think his position is that to prove his theory more research needs to be done. Which may well end up supporting the current consensus that global warming is predominantly anthropogenic.