**
Wow, Kim! You managed to come up with some coclusion that I didn’t. Man you’re good. Since I didn’t come to that conclusion I suppose I don’t have to justify it. Still I’d like to know what Bush can do about something when it has been happening for the past 14,000 years? Maybe we sped things up a bit but the sky isn’t falling. I’m more concerned with air quailty then I am with global warming.
Marc
**
Uh, you do realize that the climate here on earth changes from time to time? Not to long ago a huge portion of North America was covered with ice. I’m convinced that global warming is real. I am not convinced that human beings are the primary cause of global warming though I do recognize the possibility that we’re a factor.
Heh heh…I’m sorry that was just to funny.
Marc
I see, so which one of these two has the most affect on mean sea level do you think?
Because it may not be our fault, it doesn’t have to be addressed?
Pop quiz. Some maniac shoots you in the chest. You are leaking blood all over. It’s not your fault, though. Do you do anything about it?
tj
I always thought that the whole point was to stop fucking with the environment. That’s what all the environmentalist thought seems to have as it’s goal. Now you’re saying that we should also cure mother nature’s problems as well?
Anyways, let’s assume that global warming occurs and is primarily caused by humans. Just for the sake of argument. What (and let’s go for worst case scenario here) will be the effects of Bush’s presidency? In the long term, assuming that Gore would have been far more environmentally friendly than his Senatorial record would have us believe, and that Bush will allow oil companies to do anything they want, up to and including genocide, what will be the effects of the next four years? In short, what exactly have we (or the Supreme Court, if that’s what you’d rather believe) doomed ourselves to in selecting Bush?
Regarding human impact, here’s the basic argument in a nutshell.
Regarding climatic records, there are two general methods.
Non-paleo info depicts a warming trend, sharply increasing since the turn of the century and even more so in the last several decades. Paleo info points out the fact that we’re in an interglacial stage in a cycle of glaciation. And that the interglacial stages of the cycle tend to be about 1/4 as long (20,000 vs. 80,000 years). In other words, given the last 100,000 years, it’s hot out. This would be the geological time scale climatic effect. The ~.5 degree C rise in avg. temp since the turn of the century would most likely be the anthropogenic (human) climatic effect.
To get a basic understanding of this (along with general climatic cycles and all that other good stuff that will let you approach this issue as informed), try a general earth system text, such as that which I have just culled from: Our Changing Planet: An Introduction to Earth System Science and Global Environmental Change, by Fred Mackenzie.
-ellis
And on the other side of the planet it’s been pretty much the hottest summer on record - regularly hitting 40+'C (something like 105+'F) in the shade, due in part to the hole in the ozone layer over Antartica undoubtedly created by humans. Although last I heard it was slightly smaller than before, however its size does go up and down.
Are you sure its so undoubtable? So far as I know the hole opens during the antartic spring and closes back up later in the year. This past year, 2000, just happens to be the biggest hole anyone has ever seen. At least since human observation started. Nah, I don’t think we caused that hole but maybe we had something to do with it being bigger.
Marc
But, of course, the heat in the Souothern Hemisphere doesn’t even begin to compensate for the cold in the Northern Hemisphere, as even the Goddard Institute for Space Studies admits.
Incidentally, where does this “Southern Hemispheric warming is due to ozone depletion” nonsense come from?
Kim, how about summarizing for us all those global warming papers you’ve obviously read and fully digested, perhaps in abstract form (along with briefs of articles by the much-loathed minority view)? Thanks.
Still waiting for someone (especially those among us who have dedicated their careers to the edification and reform of mankind) to address the political motives behind Kyoto.
By the way, I love the name “Tiffany Wu”.
First of all, the political motives behind the Kyoto Convention are a myth. The big polluters poured money into advertising, telling people that countries such as India and Mexico wouldn’t have to reduce emissions as much as the United States. There’s a perfectly obvious reason for this: the US produces a huge percent of the world’s emissions (23% of emissions from only 6% of population), so naturally, we would expect to have to reduce emissions more. Furthermore, we don’t need to hurt the economy to do this. We just need to institute the same common-sense measures that Japan and Western Europe already have. Has it ever occured to you economic alarmists that it would be good for our economy if less money flowed out to OPEC each year?
>> Hasn’t this been one of the coldest winters on record?
No, certainly not in all areas. In Central Europe, it’s hovered at least 15 degrees F above normal, and some parts of Germany haven’t had serious snowfall for four years now (as compared to an average of over 2 feet/year.) In the US, there have been major storms and cold snaps, but some areas such as the Southwest have remained quite warm.
Fettering the U.S. economy while placing few or no limits on nations such as Mexico and China will have a variety of detrimental environmental consequences. While our own record on environmental protection could stand improvement, it’s far superior to what less developed nations are willing or able to muster. It won’t be America that generates the next big environmental disasters, fueled by unrestrained population growth and poorly planned growth schemes.
Is anyone else just a wee bit distrustful of these claims that cutting our industrial output to suit Kyoto will put a big dent in greenhouse emissions and have a neutral or even positive effect on our economy? “This won’t hurt a bit. Nurse, get the big scalpel. No, I said BIG SCALPEL!”
Jackmannii,
As others have pointed out, when it comes to energy use per capita, the developed world in general and the U.S. in particular are by far the worst offenders. Do you think it is reasonable to ask the initial cuts to come from places where almost no family has a car or from places where something like 50% of new vehicle sales are SUVs and most are being driven down the road as single-occupancy vehicles?
The idea is that Kyoto is a start. The technologies that are developed as a result of it can be transferred to the developing world, so they don’t have to go through the same degree of environmentally-destructive phase we did. (Imagine if the ~2 billion people in China and India all used the same amount of energy per capita as the U.S…Holy shit!)
Noone is claiming that the Kyoto Protocol itself puts that big a dent in greenhouse emissions. The cuts proposed are alas too modest to do that. It is an attempt to try to get us onto a new trajectory and to get some new technologies going by creating incentives for nations to invest in these technologies and to also have citizens directly paying more of the external costs associated with the fossil fuels so that their use is no longer subsidized.
I think if you take a realistic look at the wastefulness of our current energy usage, it is not hard at all to imagine that we can make some cuts in that usage with little hurt. In fact, I find it sort of pessimistic to imagine we can’t get our Greenhouse Emissions down to less than 5 or 7% (I forget the exact figure) below 1990 levels by 2010.
By the way, I agree with you about the need to address these population issues. But, I can’t help but wonder then why you are not up-in-arms about Bush’s unwillingness to allow U.S. moneys to go toward international family planning orgs that use any of their own monies to provide any services or info about abortion. (Or, maybe you are up in arms about it?)
Yes, I am.
Bush wants to stop abortions everywhere but here. Not a good record for someone who apparently doesen’t want to overturn roe vs wayde.
Hmm, I just like the fact that Stoid thinks that she isin’t the one self involved.
Jackmannii: *Kim, how about summarizing for us all those global warming papers you’ve obviously read and fully digested, perhaps in abstract form (along with briefs of articles by the much-loathed minority view)? Thanks. *
The remarks in jshore’s above posts and the overviews in the links he provided do exactly that. You’re welcome.
MGibson: *Wow, Kim! You managed to come up with some coclusion that I didn’t. Man you’re good. Since I didn’t come to that conclusion I suppose I don’t have to justify it. Still I’d like to know what Bush can do about something when it has been happening for the past 14,000 years? *
Okay, let me get this straight:
The OP complains that Bush will try to ignore global climate change instead of doing anything about it.
You respond that you have seen some evidence that at least some global climate change is not human-caused and has been occurring over very long time-scales, so you want to know what Bush can do about it.
I point out that even if that is true, there’s lots of evidence that other aspects of climate change are human-caused, so it’s not justified to conclude that there’s nothing we can do about it.
You agree with me and then go right back to asking what Bush can do about something that’s been going on for 14000 years.
So perhaps I didn’t make myself sufficiently clear. No, nobody is expecting Bush to institute procedures to alter multi-millennium natural climate cycles. Yes, there is lots of evidence that at least some global climate effects are the results not of multi-millennium cycles but of quite recent human activity, and most climate scientists, as well as many informed citizens, believe that Bush can and should do something to reverse those effects. Is that better? If you want to know the specifics about the evidence and the recommendations for action, read my cites and jshore’s links.
Another point here…Yes, there have been natural cycles in the climate over the past several thousand years, but they tend to be rather gradual (with noise superimposed on top of this). The rate at which warming appears to be occurring over the last century is apparently quite unprecedented.
Are you sure its the whole last century jshore? As I recall 20 years ago they were talking about another iceage. Not a good indication of global warming.
There are a number of problems with current global-warming studies. Current atmospheric models don’t account for the effect of CO2 on vegetation, and I don’t believe they model cloud cover increases from CO2. The effect of increased cloud cover is to reflect heat during the day, and trap the heat underneath it at night. Thus, the main effect of human CO2 emissions may be to simply have warmer winter nights and therefore longer growing seasons in temperate zones. This is not a prescription for disaster.
Actual measured ground temperature increases amount to about .15 degrees per year. If that trend holds, we’ll see an overall increase of about 1.5 degrees in 100 years, which is within the limits of century-wide variation. But ground-temperate measurements are higher than atmospheric increases measured by satellites, which shouldn’t make sense if CO2 is causing it. This has led some researchers to conclude that ground-level measurements are simply the result of changes in land-use around temperature monitoring areas.
I think it’s fair to say that the jury is still out on manmade global warming as a serious issue for mankind. And even if the dire scenarios are true we’re talking about a global temperature increase of about 6.5 degrees/century, and increases in sea level of about 2-3 feet over 100 years.
This would have drastic effects for coastal communities, but it would take place over a very long period of time and give us lots of chances to take countermeasures or move out of the way. In other words, it wouldn’t necessarily be a global catastrophe.
Balanced against that is the cost of cutting those emissions. The Kyoto accords would cost trillions of dollars to comply with worldwide. That’s trillions of dollars that can not be spent on other public health concerns.
Given all this, many of us think there is ample time to continue the research before undertaking drastic actions.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kimstu *
**Jackmannii: *Kim, how about summarizing for us all those global warming papers you’ve obviously read and fully digested, perhaps in abstract form (along with briefs of articles by the much-loathed minority view)? Thanks. *
The remarks in jshore’s above posts and the overviews in the links he provided do exactly that. You’re welcome.
Evasive. Did you read those papers, or just cut-and-paste a laundry list of references?