Atlantis Online
December 12, 2019, 07:22:53 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Ancient Crash, Epic Wave
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/14/healthscience/web.1114meteor.php?page=1

 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

An Inconvenient Truth

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: An Inconvenient Truth  (Read 3535 times)
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #135 on: April 02, 2007, 03:26:54 pm »

Merlin, I think this is the case of someone seeing only what they want to see. Melting glaciers, dying coral reefs, rising ocean temps, all evidence of global warming.  With respect, the scientific disagreement on this isn't anything at all like you suggest, and it is irresponsible to suggest otherwise.

Don't make me laugh.  I'm very much in a position to know that the scientific disagreement with the Standard Model (& the AL Gore Model) of GW is exactly as I suggest.   The only irresponsible act I see on the subject is for the mainstream to continue rushing headlong into the abyss before we know what to do.  Keep in mind, whatever we save right now is going to be replaced and increased upon by next year.  As the world's population continues to grow and the industrialization and modernization of China, India and South America continues, the U.S. could shut off all carbon sources - and - the results will be null.  That's not really the issue though, the issue is "what" is causing the Earth to heat up.   Since melting glaciers, dying coral reefs and rising water temps are not proof of "what" is causing GW, I have no idea why you would bother trying to insinuate that I'm "seeing only what I want to see".  This is just more of the same...  "How dare you disagree with the majority because of all the bad stuff happening!"  I'm not swayed by the lack of evidence.  As I have told folks in this forum already, I am immune to the majority position's mob mentality and ensuing tactics.  I will go where the evidence leads me - not the rhetoric.

By the way, the Supreme Court (a conservative one) just ruled today that governments have the right to curb emissions from cars that cause greenhouse gases.  If that isn't a sign of how opinions on global warming have fallen away from the sketpics, I don't know what is.

If you are referring to the 5-4 decision that empowers the EPA to regulate the emissions of vehicles (I assume you are), then yes, I would say that times are changing.  It was a stupid argument that the EPA put up in defense, so they should have lost.  Keep in mind that I am a huge environmental proponent Jason - I have been steadfast in my defense of planetary stewardship for the past 25 years.  Because of that, I support the decision, but most specifically for my own reasons.  Ultimately, I would like to see fossil fuel go the way of the dinosaur and this is the first step to making regulations too tough for gasoline engines to meet. 

GO SOLAR!  GO HYDROGEN!  GO NUCLEAR!
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #136 on: April 02, 2007, 04:48:31 pm »

Quote
Don't confuse things. The link between CO2 and temperatures has been established, however, it is far more complicated than you're presenting it to be. CO2 may not, in itself, always be the originator of global warming, however, it does exacerbate warming trends already present, even if they are natural in origin.

I'm not confusing anything Jason, and - while we're at it, I'm not the one simplifying either. What you are failing to notice is that there is no data whatsoever that proves CO2 is the catalyst for warming. There is no proof that CO2 controls temperature - so I have no idea of what you are speaking of. All we have is anecdotal evidence that says the two have risen with one another in the past. We have as many physical models displaying temperature increasing CO2 as we do for CO2 increasing temperature.

The overall trend is, where there is rising CO2, rising temps usually follow, even if it is years away.  Does that always happen?  Well, of course there are exceptions.  Simplifying things would be to suggest that CO2 is the only factor that controls temps, and it isn't, there are other things that control temperatures as well.  I think that there is enough evidence that CO2 leads, but that it doesn't always lead.  Your problem (and that of some of the other people who are also arguing against global warming) is that they expect temps to rise almost instantaneously with the rise of CO2, and it doesn't always work like that.  Climate measure itself in more than a few years, but in decades, sometimes even centuries. It’s important to think in terms of not a couple of years here and there, but in the overall trend, which is up.
Quote
Quote from: Jason on Today at 11:00:24 am
Rising CO2 is bad news, if the ice cores are to be believed.
But that's just the thing... The ice cores don't say much. They indicate, as we have already discussed, that temperature and CO2 rose in the past in the same time frames, which hints of a related mechanism controlling both. What it doesn't say is, "Which came first, or if either is controlled by the other?" Just as the expert geologist who wrote the article referring to "ticking time bombs" said, 'we cannot be certain of the mechanism, but we have our suspicions'.
The ice cores don't say much because we are treading new ground.  Was there industrialization in the past, fossil fuel burning, cars, etc?  Hardly. We can use the past as a model for what might happen, but we can hardly use it as a projection of what's happening today, other than, of course, CO2 and temps go hand in hand.

Quote
Quote from: Jason on Today at 11:00:24 am
Rising CO2 almost always goes with rising temps. The reason why temps don't always rise at the same rate as CO2 is because there are other factors that also effect weather, volcanic eruptions, for instance, or, as presumed by scientists in the current case, the ocean, which has been said to be absorbing much of the heat from the current warming trend (ocean temps have risen by degrees, too, and the coral reef are dying off).

The problem is the word "almost". Either they "do" or they "don't". The fact that they don't always rise together is because the situation is very - very complicated (as I have preached for a long while). Also, it makes logical sense that CO2 follows temps and not the other way around; as many physical models have predicted. In that case, the fact that temps have increased and decreased without noticeable CO2 alterations would indicate that there is a threshold to surpass before the effect is made manifest. The other way around, we are unable to explain 4 episodes of global warming in the past.
Merlin, I give you more credit than thinking that climate and CO2 simply work in a straight line, they don't.  As you know other factors also affect climate, it is far more complex than you give it credit for, and yet the overall trend is CO2 first, temps second.
Here is the graph that I Am that I Am was always so fond or printing at AR:

He printed it to try and point out dicrepancies, but you can see that, for the most part, CO2 almost always leads.  Like I said, we are looking at the big picture here, not an anomaly here and there:




Quote
Keep in mind Jason - I used to be a standard model of GW supporter... I changed camps when the data stopped adding up.
Well, you are a bright guy, Merlin, I have faith that you will find your way back to recognizing the inherent dangers behind global warming again. Smiley
Report Spam   Logged
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #137 on: April 02, 2007, 04:51:33 pm »

 
   
Quote
Quote from: Jason on Today at 11:05:04 am
I don't see any emotionally driven scientists involved with this, save for the ones on the skeptic side. Think of it, most have presented literally nothing to back up their assertions (except, of course, the propaganda fed to them by the oil companies), but are so certain that global warming is a "hoax."

Oh please, that's absurd. NO EVIDENCE? They've done nothing but refute the theory with data! Are you sure that you aren't confusing media talking heads like Rush Blowhard for "experts" and "scientists"? I refer only to REAL SCIENTISTS who are not under the influence of the oil industry. Aside from myself, I know 30+ in my immediate "sphere" that agree that the issue has become 'emotionally charged' to the point that the data is being skewed so that Everything becomes evidence of GW. Don't confuse what I said - I spoke clearly, you can at least read and comprehend what I took the time to say before ignoring it and responding emotionally.
Merlin, I can sincerely say that I have never been emotional in any response I have ever given to you, that last one to me certainly sounded emotional with all those explanation points.

I have yet to see a skeptic do more than poke holes in scientific data which is usually changing as new data arises.  With that new data, nothing has arisen to suggest that global warming isn't happening. I have seen some crazy alternative theories, like the Mars one printed earlier, but it isn't accepted by the general scientitific community. As for the 30+ you know, I have no information on your private circle, but I am sure you know that no scientific theory has ever excaped complete criticsm.

Quote
Quote from: Jason on Today at 11:05:04 am
As for the agenda on the other side, if a scientist saw some other danger coming to the world, an asteroid, for instance, logically, they would try and warn people about it to stop it. Nothing hysterial or emotional about that, it's simple common sense.
You clearly are looking for me to portray this in a negative light, even if I am not. I did not use the word hysterical - that was your word. What I said was that the data was being interpreted askew by emotionally-driven scientists. I didn't call them emotional or hysterical.

Otherwise - you are comparing apples to watermelons. If there were an asteroid coming for the planet, we wouldn't be arguing. There would be evidence to show that a big rock was flying its way toward us. I'll bet arguments ensue over the best way to divert it though! In the case of GW, the growing skepticism is due not to politics, but, adherence to standard practices & logic. We want to see the models making correct predictions and we want to see some evidence showing a smoking gun.

I am not looking to portray you, or anyone in a negative light, however, I disagree with anyone who portrays scientists (who are simply presenting their findings in global warming) as emotional, alarmist, hysterical, whatever.  As for the "growing skepticsm," I don't see it, in fact, what I see is the scientific consensus firming up that industry (man) is responsible.
             
              
       
Report Spam   Logged
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #138 on: April 02, 2007, 04:55:33 pm »

Quote
Don't make me laugh.  I'm very much in a position to know that the scientific disagreement with the Standard Model (& the AL Gore Model) of GW is exactly as I suggest.


Sorry, Merlin, your words say one thing, but the way you say them speaks volumes.  You do tend to see only what you want to see, else your own emotionalism wouldn't enter into the argument.  Point is, if you were dispassionate about it, you'd be arguing less emotionally, more scientifically.  In other words, I detect a bias on your part.
Report Spam   Logged
cydonia
Full Member
***
Posts: 34



« Reply #139 on: April 03, 2007, 12:23:03 am »

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

Quote
Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage
By Chris Demorro
Staff Writer


The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate ‘green car’ is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.

Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.

The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?

You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius’s EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.

However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn’t be writing this article. It gets much worse.

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.

“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet.

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.

One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.
Report Spam   Logged
cydonia
Full Member
***
Posts: 34



« Reply #140 on: April 03, 2007, 12:24:32 am »

Can someone unemotionally prove that what is asserted in this article is false?
Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #141 on: April 05, 2007, 11:34:05 pm »

The overall trend is, where there is rising CO2, rising temps usually follow, even if it is years away.  Does that always happen?  Well, of course there are exceptions.  Simplifying things would be to suggest that CO2 is the only factor that controls temps, and it isn't, there are other things that control temperatures as well. 

I'm not simplifying, but I'm also not buying into the "It's so somplicated that you'll have to take my word for it answer".  I - for the second time in this recent discussion - realize exactly how complicated it is to determine what is "cause" and what is "effect".  What you are refusing to acknowledge is the fact that the GW models have not made one successful prediction.  In fact, their retrodictions completely violate their own theory - which is why they do not offer them.  One major problem:  The only way to make the models work is to have temp. increase prior to CO2 and then have CH4 steadily increase at a later date.  THIS WOULD INDICATE A SERIOUS FLAW IN THE THEORY.  Say what you want about complexity, I understand it - and have authored 11 papers on the subject; all peer-reviewed.

I think that there is enough evidence that CO2 leads, but that it doesn't always lead.


We disagree - since there is no evidence that has determined that.  Even the models don't predict this.  You need to do more research, but that's the last I have to say on the subject of doing more research - I'm tired of spending time trying to convince people to do their own work instead of just cutting and pasting whatever graphic they think supports their view...  Particularly when they don't have a view of their own - just a regurgitation of whatever they've heard. 

Your problem (and that of some of the other people who are also arguing against global warming) is that they expect temps to rise almost instantaneously with the rise of CO2, and it doesn't always work like that. 

You have absolutely no idea if this is correct or not.  You say that like we have witnessed this prior and have established some sort of repoire with the planet...  Either that or you think there is some sort of computer model out there that demonstartes this exact hypothesis...  {giggles}  But there isn't.  "MY PROBLEM", as you put it, is that there are people out there who don't have a frickin clue as to the dynamics or systems involved in the process, and yet they'll sit in front of a computer and orate [ad nauseum] about just how little "other people" understand.  I had a friend (professor of geology) today tell me about an argument he had online last weekend where someone told him he clearly had no idea of what he was talking about...  The subject was plate tectonics.  For the record - never did I intimate, insinuate or otherwise claim that temps and levels would rise simultaneously.  My point was simple:  FIGURE OUT WHICH CAME FIRST; the experts don't know yet.

The ice cores don't say much because we are treading new ground.  Was there industrialization in the past, fossil fuel burning, cars, etc?  Hardly. We can use the past as a model for what might happen, but we can hardly use it as a projection of what's happening today, other than, of course, CO2 and temps go hand in hand.

But that answer doesn't point to WHAT the problem is.  The fact that there was no fossil-fuel burning and industrialization actually removes manking from the previous quotient.  That's the point!  Now, I'm confused by your commentary...  If they go "hand in hand" as you say, then how can either be the catalyst for the other?  You just castigated me [in error] for *claiming* (which I didn't) that they are linear with one another and simultaneous and yet, you just said that very thing!?!  I'm only a physicist - not a paleoclimatologist, but can they be both simultaneous and linear while being non-linear and separated (time-wise)?  Is this meant to be a paradoxical reply?  I am unaware of a current theory that would have us apply quantum uncertainty and/or multiverse theory to the physical models of GCC & GW.

Merlin, I give you more credit than thinking that climate and CO2 simply work in a straight line, they don't.  As you know other factors also affect climate, it is far more complex than you give it credit for, and yet the overall trend is CO2 first, temps second.
Here is the graph that I Am that I Am was always so fond or printing at AR:

??  I have no idea why you keep saying that I am simplifying and you are pointing to complexity.  This is like being in an episode of "Punk'd" I think....  Is this opposite day?  For the final time:  I AM SAYING THIS IS SO COMPLEX THAT PEOPLE ARE BEING FORCED TO BELIEVE WHATEVER THEY ARE TOLD BECAUSE THEY:

a)  DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND IT'S COMPLEXITY, or
b)  BECOME BORED WITH THE 'DETAILS' AND JUST STICK WITH THE RHETORIC

Finally, the graph was never even commented on by me so I have no idea why you would bring it up.  The graph is based upon a morsel of data, not a dataset.  It is extrapolated, adjusted and adjucated - not even worth utilizing, but it certainly does not indicate what you are claiming.  It also doesn't support the assertion that you say "I am" was making.

Well, you are a bright guy, Merlin, I have faith that you will find your way back to recognizing the inherent dangers behind global warming again. Smiley

I do.  I see an environmental machine that's making a hell of a lot of money.  Money that could be spent developing the technology that would actually benefit us right now by reducing pollution. 
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Majeston
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 447



WWW
« Reply #142 on: April 06, 2007, 06:37:00 pm »

New Gag Rule Issued on US Scientists
 
 Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:34:54 AM PDT
 
 CLIMATE AND OCEAN SCIENTISTS PUT UNDER NEW SPEECH RESTRAINTS —
 
 Washington, DC — Federal climate, weather and marine scientists will be subject to new restrictions as to what they can say to the media or in public, according to agency documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty, concerning any scientific topic deemed "of official interest."
 
 On March 29, 2007, the Commerce Department posted a new administrative order governing "Public Communications." This new order covers the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which includes the National Weather Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Commerce’s new order will become effective in 45 days and would repeal a more liberal "open science" policy adopted by NOAA on February 14, 2006.
 
 Although couched in rhetoric about the need for "broad and open dissemination of research results [and] open exchange of scientific ideas," the new order forbids agency scientists from communicating any relevant information, even if prepared and delivered on their own time as private citizens, which has not been approved by the official chain-of-command:
 
 Any "fundamental research communication" must "before the communication occurs" be submitted to and approved by the designated "head of the operating unit." While the directive states that approval may not be withheld "based on policy, budget, or management implications of the research," it does not define these terms and limits any appeal to within Commerce;
 National Weather Service employees are allowed only "as part of their routine responsibilities to communicate information about the weather to the public".
 
 Scientists must give the Commerce Department at least two weeks "advance notice" of any written, oral or audiovisual presentation prepared on their own time if it "is a matter of official interest to the Department because it relates to Department programs, policies or operations."
 
 "This ridiculous gag order ignores the First Amendment and disrespects the world-renowned professionals who work within Commerce agencies," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "Under this policy, National Weather Service scientists can only give out name, rank, serial number and the temperature."
 
 The agency rejected a more open policy adopted last year by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The new policy also was rushed to print, despite an ongoing Commerce Office of Inspector General review of communication policies that was undertaken at congressional request.
 
  This conflict means that every scientist who answers an unexpected question at a conference puts his or her career at risk by giving an honest answer.
 
 [link to www.dailykos.com]
Report Spam   Logged

"melody has power a whole world to transform."
Forever, music will remain the universal language of men, angels, and spirits.
Harmony is the speech of Havona.

http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper44.html
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #143 on: April 07, 2007, 01:36:52 am »

Yes, the Bush Administration makes a lot of noise about how it wants to stop global warming, but, as usual, their actions don't match their words! I swear, I have never seen an administration depend more on people either not paying attention or believing them to be stupid.
Report Spam   Logged
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #144 on: April 07, 2007, 01:40:46 am »

The latest climate change report also makes some noise, but, as usual, is only a watered down report of the actual dangers of global warming.

Shows what happens when you keep letting the damned bureaucrats edit scientific information.




Delegates' debate on climate change report 'going slow'
POSTED: 4:12 a.m. EDT, April 5, 2007
Story Highlights• Delegates from 120 nations debating language in climate change report


• Severity of climate threat a source of contention
• Some delegates say talks going slow, but expect progress as deadline nears
• Report to be released Friday in Belgium


BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- Scientists and diplomats on Wednesday debated the urgency of changes in the Earth's climate as they worked on a report that will guide the world's policymakers for decades to come.

In closed-door meetings, delegates from more than 120 countries argued over revisions in a 21-page draft text, in one case highlighting how global warming will reduce staple crops in countries such as China and India, where millions of people could go hungry.

The delegates slogged through line-by-line approval of the report on how the climate has changed and projecting future scenarios, from the extinction of frogs to the likelihood of more fierce floods and storms. (Watch what makes this report different from previous UN statements )

The conference is due to release the authoritative text Friday at 10 a.m. ET. Traditionally early sessions move slowly until the delegates begin feeling deadline pressures, and delegations prepared to meet well past midnight Wednesday and Thursday nights.

"It's going slow," said Swedish delegate Mattias Lunblad.

Talks snagged in the first several paragraphs over a key sentence that set the tone for the whole report. With 90 percent confidence, the draft says: "Many natural systems, on all continents and in some oceans, are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases."

Some countries disputed the level of confidence attached to the statement, and wanted either the wording toned down or the level of certainty reduced, delegates said. The issue was handed to a small "contact group" to resolve.

The United States, which has refused to coordinate action to curb greenhouse gas emissions with other countries, was playing a low-keyed role so far, said delegates on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

"We have made too little progress so far," said Hans Verolme, of the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, or WWF, who is attending the sessions.

"We want to make sure that what comes out in the end is crisp, well structured and understandable to the layman," he said.

R.T.M. Sutamihardja of Indonesia, said one difficulty was juggling the interests of each country in weighing the impact of climate change.

"If we want to include everything, we would need a bigger map," he told The Associated Press outside the conference room.

The report stressed that climate changes will have a more devastating impact on poor countries -- and poorer citizens within rich countries -- which are less capable of adapting to shifts in weather patterns.

Many of the regions expected to be worst affected already suffer severe water shortages and hunger, which will only get worse, the final report is to say, while some parts of North America and Europe will benefit in the short-term from milder winters and longer growing seasons. (Watch Australians grapple with devastating drought )

The report is a synopsis of a more than 1,400-page assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with contributions from more than 1,000 of the world's leading climate experts, on the impact of global warming and the vulnerabilities of economies, ecosystems and human health.

It will be presented at a Group of Eight leaders summit in June in Germany, during which the EU will press President Bush to sign on to international talks to cut emissions.

It also will be the basis for a major conference in December in Bali, Indonesia, to set an international framework for controlling the emissions of carbon dioxide after 2012, the expiry date of the Kyoto Protocol, which mandates emission curbs for industrial countries.

It is the second of four reports by the climate change panel. The first, issued in February, updated the science of climate change, concluding with near certainty that global warming is caused by human behavior.

Six years in the making, the panel's latest assessment is based on scientific data on changes that already have occurred, including changing bird migrations, the earlier appearance of spring in temperate climate zones and the bleaching of tropical coral reefs from warmer sea water.

New reports appear almost daily. On Wednesday, scientists at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Boulder, Colorado, announced that the area of ocean covered by ice last month was the second-lowest in recorded history, beaten only by the March 2006 record.

Walt Meier, a scientist at the center, said the Arctic sea report was a "milestone in a strong downward trend" reflecting warmer Arctic temperatures.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/04/belgium.climate.ap/index.html
Report Spam   Logged
Luke Hodiak
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2585



« Reply #145 on: April 07, 2007, 03:40:18 am »

Here's a summary of the latest climate change report, Allison:




The Lake Eucumbene shoreline in Old Adaminaby shows the effects of Australia's 'Big Dry' drought on March 12.

Climate report: World's poorest will suffer most

POSTED: 11:53 a.m. EDT, April 6, 2007
Story Highlights• NEW: Report: Poor countries will see increased hunger and water shortages
• NEW: Scientists: Climate change will affect billions of people
• North America will see more hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves, wildfires
• Africa will be hardest hit, Europe will see its Alpine glaciers disappear

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- The world faces increased hunger and water shortages in the poorest countries, massive floods and avalanches in Asia, and species extinction unless nations adapt to climate change and halt its progress, according to a report approved Friday by an international conference on global warming.

Agreement came after an all-night session during which key sections were deleted from the draft and scientists angrily confronted government negotiators who they feared were watering down their findings.

"It has been a complex exercise," said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Several scientists objected to the editing of the final draft by government negotiators but, in the end, agreed to compromises. However, some scientists vowed never to take part in the process again.

Five days of negotiations reached a climax when the delegates removed parts of a key chart highlighting devastating effects of climate change that kick in with every rise of 1.8 degrees, and in a tussle over the level of scientific reliability attached to key statements.

There was little doubt about the science, which was based on 29,000 sets of data, much of it collected in the last five years. "For the first time we are not just arm-waving with models," Martin Perry, who conducted the grueling negotiations, told reporters.

The United States, China and Saudi Arabia raised many of the objections to the phrasing, often seeking to tone down the certainty of some of the more dire projections.

The final IPCC report is the clearest and most comprehensive scientific statement to date on the impact of global warming mainly caused by man-induced carbon dioxide pollution.

"The poorest of the poor in the world -- and this includes poor people in prosperous societies -- are going to be the worst hit," Pachauri said. "People who are poor are least able to adapt to climate change."

The report said up to 30 percent of species face an increased risk of vanishing if global temperatures rise 3.6 degrees above the average in the 1980s and 1990s.

Areas in drought will become even more dry, adding to the risks of hunger and disease, it said. The world will face heightened threats of flooding, severe storms and the erosion of coastlines.

"This is a glimpse into an apocalyptic future," the Greenpeace environmental group said of the final report.

Without action to curb carbon emissions, man's livable habitat will shrink starkly, said Stephen Schneider, a Stanford scientist who was one of the authors. "Don't be poor in a hot country, don't live in hurricane alley, watch out about being on the coasts or in the Arctic, and it's a bad idea to be on high mountains with glaciers melting."

"We can fix this," by investing a small part of the world's economic growth rate, said Schneider. "It's trillions of dollars, but it's a very trivial thing."

Negotiators pored over the 21-page draft meant to be a policy guide for governments. The summary pares down the full 1,572-page scientific assessment of the evidence of climate change so far, and the impact it will have on the Earth's most vulnerable people and ecosystems.

More than 120 nations attended the meeting. Each word was approved by consensus, and any change had to be approved by the scientists who drew up that section of the report.

Parry denied the hard-fought editing process resulted in a watered-down version, but acknowledged that "certain messages were lost."

At one point early Friday, it looked like the report "was not going to be accepted. It was very, very close to that point," said David Karoly, one of the scientific authors from the University of Oklahoma.

Though weakened by the deletion of some elements, the final report "will send a very, very clear signal" to governments, said Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate official.

The summary will be presented to the G8 summit of the world's richest nations in June, when the European Union is expected to renew appeals to President Bush to join in international efforts to control emissions of fossil fuels.

This year's series of reports by the IPCC were the first in six years from the prestigious body of 2,500 scientists, formed in 1988. Public awareness of climate change gave the IPCC's work unaccustomed importance and fueled the intensity of the closed-door negotiations during the five-day meeting.

"The urgency of this report prepared by the world's top scientists should be matched by an equally urgent response from governments," said Hans Verolme, director of the global climate change program of the World Wide Fund for Nature.

At the final session, the conference snagged over a sentence that said the impact of climate change already were being observed on every continent and in most oceans.

"There is very high confidence that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases," said the statement on the first page of text.

But China insisted on striking the word "very," injecting doubt into what the scientists argued were indisputable observations. The report's three authors refused to go along with the change, resulting in an hours-long deadlock that was broken by a U.S. compromise to delete any reference to confidence levels.

It is the second of four reports from the IPCC this year; the first report in February laid out the scientific case for how global warming is happening. This second report is the "so what" report, explaining what the effects of global warming will be.

For the first time, the scientists broke down their predictions into regions, and forecast that climate change will affect billions of people.

North America will experience more severe storms with human and economic loss, and cultural and social disruptions. It can expect more hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves and wildfires, it said. Coasts will be swamped by rising sea levels. In the short term, crop yields may increase by 5 percent to 20 percent from a longer growing season, but will plummet if temperatures rise by 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit. (Watch a worst-case scenario for U.S. cities )

Africa will be hardest hit. By 2020, up to 250 million people are likely to be exposed to water shortages. In some countries, food production could fall by half, it said.

Parts of Asia are threatened with massive flooding and avalanches from melting Himalayan glaciers. Europe also will see its Alpine glaciers disappear. Australia's Great Barrier Reef will lose much of its coral to bleaching from even moderate increases in sea temperatures, the report said.

Separately, an independent organization that keeps tabs on glacial melting in Austria's Alps said its latest survey confirms that the ice sheets continue to shrink significantly and predicted most will vanish by the end of the century.

The Austrian Alpine Association said experts measured 105 of Austria's 925 glaciers last year and found they had receded by an average of 52 1/2 feet, with one of the sheets shrinking a dramatic 262 feet during 2006. (Watch how the effects of climate change could hurt the Great Barrier Reef )

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/06/climate.report.ap/index.html
Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #146 on: April 07, 2007, 09:11:14 am »

Merlin, I can sincerely say that I have never been emotional in any response I have ever given to you, that last one to me certainly sounded emotional with all those explanation points.

And I can sincerely say that all points are lost on you.  Like a pair of others here, you read what you think you're going to read - no matter what the words are.  And, for the record, exclamation points are not just for showing emotion in the world of internet chats & blogs.  Many of us, who were educated prior to the blogospherical revolution remember that those punctuation marks are used for emphasis and vigorous - forthright delivery.  If we are to use your understanding of punctuation usage as a yardstick, I assume that things have changed.  I still remember what my English Literature teacher taught me in 11th grade:  "Stridency is seldom approved in speech, best to let your words convey your points; use punctuation to make them clear."


I have yet to see a skeptic do more than poke holes in scientific data which is usually changing as new data arises.  With that new data, nothing has arisen to suggest that global warming isn't happening. I have seen some crazy alternative theories, like the Mars one printed earlier, but it isn't accepted by the general scientitific community. As for the 30+ you know, I have no information on your private circle, but I am sure you know that no scientific theory has ever excaped complete criticsm.

But again - you glaze over a pertinent point, you create a 'paper tiger' to destroy and completely ignore the major point being made.  To "poke holes in data" is a problem in and of itself; like it or not.  But then you go on to say that "nothing has arisen to suggest that global warming isn't happening" - that's the 'paper tiger', since I am not suggesting that GW isn't happening, nor have I ever.  I'm sure that somewhere along the line you'll make another snide comment about my words and their meaning, but you cannot argue the point; never have I claimed that the planet's climate is not in a state of change.  My point all along has been that we cannot prove why it is happening, what the catalyst for the initial change was and what it will take to stop it.  We also cannot seem to make the connection between GW & GCC, therefore we insinuate, intimate and postulate...  Scientists have singled out mankind because we are the most obvious change in the planet's environment, not because they can prove we are causing it.

You are correct - no scientific theory ever escapes criticism completely; scientific Laws do.  Some theories get less than others though, and those are the ones that, despite their inability to make perfectly accurate predictions - are close, consisent and remarkable.  Then there is the Standard Model of GW...  As a scientist working on the hypothesis in the beginning, we apologized for the fact that our predictions were all wrong and we went back to the drawing table.  We continued to refine our opinions and models until they started to make accurate predictions, but that only required little bits of influence from man, but still, the situation was a runaway model...  Nowadays, when monsoon, typhoon, hurricane and tornado seasons are down (not up), large swaths of the world's northern hemishpehere grows ice pack back and the rainy season in the South hemisphere dumps pre-1950s levels of precipitation (all contrary to the predictions) - they incorporate all of those anomolies into the press released rhetoric and shout "See - Told you GW was Manmade and Happening right now!"  They'll go on to say things like, "..arid areas are going to become even drier" or "wet areas are going to become wetter" or "costal erosion is going to increase" or "...the poorest of the world are going to have it worse than the rest."  PUHLEASE - that's no prediction.  Any idiot can see that those "guesses" are easy to make since the most arid areas on the planet have been steadily growing for the past 2,000 years.  Costal erosion is a process we've been aware of for the past 5,000 years.  And finally, the poorest of the world have always had the most problems; in our "western" perception.  The poorest have a harder time (by our standards) because they have fewer resources to call upon to correct their living situation.  If they live on a coast, it's going to erode - if they live in a desert - it's not going to spontaneously erupt into a jungle.  Rhetoric is not science, and science is not being discussed here - rhetoric is.


I am not looking to portray you, or anyone in a negative light, however, I disagree with anyone who portrays scientists (who are simply presenting their findings in global warming) as emotional, alarmist, hysterical, whatever.  As for the "growing skepticsm," I don't see it, in fact, what I see is the scientific consensus firming up that industry (man) is responsible.

But your sentiment does not match your prior actions.  You are emotional on the subject every time even a modicum of truth hits home.  Whenever you mention "BIG OIL!" or "Hoax" or switch the subject to something silly like the Supreme Court decision - you are having an emotional response.  It is the same thing that causes you to not notice the growing skepticism.  You have consciously decided to respond negatively to all skepticism and criticism, probably by marginalizing its importance and rationalizing how it can never be true.  All based upon your own belief that you know the facts and the facts are as you know them.   Unlike you, I require that a theory (no matter how popular it is) provides evidence in support of itself - not build itself around observational evidence found laying in the middle of the floor. 

I challenged another poster in this forum to create a Global Warming - Global Climate Change thread here that would only allow for original discussion and scientific data - NO Cuts and Pastes, No news articles, No emotion (except for humor).  He couldn't be bothered to climb off of his self-sacrificial cross long enough to even comprehend the question.  I'm used to it though - particularly with the emotionally driven supporters of a theory that they, themselves, do not understand.
              
       
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #147 on: April 07, 2007, 09:56:25 am »

Sorry, Merlin, your words say one thing, but the way you say them speaks volumes.  You do tend to see only what you want to see, else your own emotionalism wouldn't enter into the argument.

This tactic has never worked for Byron, so I'm surprised that you would even bother; unless this was an attempt at humor...   Attempting to adopt my position so that you can switch with me, unfortunatley, requires that you ignore that I have been consisent throughout - and you have adopted every position available for tenancy on your side of the debate.  I suggest that - if you do not have a confident enough grasp of the facts or the underlying science you should stick with cutting and pasting from the internet.  Your sarcastic condescension is funny though  - don't think that humor was lost on me.   Grin

Point is, if you were dispassionate about it, you'd be arguing less emotionally, more scientifically.  In other words, I detect a bias on your part.

Your antics are so transparent - a little adolescent but with a hint of maturity.  You confuse your terms (using them inproperly in the context) which either means you are young or do not have as good a grasp of the language as you want us to believe.  To be passionate about something does not require one argues/debates emotionally.  One can certainly discuss a scientifically-based subject  passionately - without interjecting emotional material.  An prime example would be my incessant use of logic.  It is a ceaseless attempt to draw the subject away from the shouts of "Tragedy!" and back toward "Reality".  Like it or not, I have never portrayed a dire picture of what will happen if we do adopt the GW model.  I have never claimed that we are all doomed or that any continent, country, business, or individual will be adversely affected by adopting the Kyoto protocol or by curbing carbon emmissions.  Nay, I have done none of this.  On the other hand, how many times have you and your fellows adopted those very same issues as evidence in support?  That's right - you can say it...  I already know the answer.  Comparatively speaking, I have been a model of dispassionate response.  Keeping in mind that "doom & gloom" is never evidence - pro or con, I cannot imagine why it even comes up in the debate...  Oh, that's right, for "popularization" - I almost forgot what role Al Gore played in this whole debacle.

"Point is", I am passionate about the truth, the scientific method and most of all - what we are teaching today and it shows.  However, my replies are punctuated with emphasis - not emotion.  I hope you know understand the difference.

Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #148 on: April 07, 2007, 02:42:09 pm »

Quote
And I can sincerely say that all points are lost on you.  Like a pair of others here, you read what you think you're going to read - no matter what the words are. 


With respect, Merlin, you re not the person to lecture anyone on that.  An objective mind (as you claim to be) would arrive at the topic with no preconceived notions for or against global warming. You have clearly made your mind up against it, and no matter what information comes out, there apparently is no changing it.

Quote
To "poke holes in data" is a problem in and of itself; like it or not.

It depends on what sort of holes you are poking. The ones you have been poking in it (four times in the past where you claim CO2 followed, rather than led temps) is not a hole, it is an anomaly. As you can see by the chart, most of the time, it is the other way around - CO2 leading, which is where the earth is at now.


Quote
Scientists have singled out mankind because we are the most obvious change in the planet's environment, not because they can prove we are causing it.

I disagree, and, as I am sure you are aware of, so does the vast majority of the scientific community. 

Quote
I challenged another poster in this forum to create a Global Warming - Global Climate Change thread here that would only allow for original discussion and scientific data - NO Cuts and Pastes, No news articles, No emotion (except for humor).


Very difficult to have a scientific discussion if you can't at least have some graphs or cite some of the original research of scientists.  Why make an exception for humor, so apparently exceptions can be made to needle those who don't share the same beliefs?  That sounds a little immature.

Quote
But your sentiment does not match your prior actions.  You are emotional on the subject every time even a modicum of truth hits home.  Whenever you mention "BIG OIL!" or "Hoax" or switch the subject to something silly like the Supreme Court decision - you are having an emotional response. 


Hardly.  Big oil has been very much responsible for putting a lot of the propaganda out there, I have yet to see you acknowledge that fact. As for the usage of the word, "hoax," I'm assuming that is in reference to James Inhofe, the Senator who has blocked the Senate from taking measures on global warming for the last six years, who happens to believe it to be a hoax.  Both are a point of fact, and bringing up either is simply citing the reasons for the controversy (at least in the media) and why new regulations haven't been passed in Congress.  I find it a bit comical that either point would be one of contention, when apparently conservatives have been reduced to attacking Al Gore's lifestyle (though many of his proponents happen to be very rich themselves).

Quote
It is the same thing that causes you to not notice the growing skepticism.


Unlikely, I have simply not seen the growing skepticsm, nor any scientific reason for it other than people do not want to believe they are responsible.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2007, 02:45:34 pm by Jason » Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #149 on: April 07, 2007, 02:48:16 pm »

Can someone unemotionally prove that what is asserted in this article is false?

I'd like to get this on the record first:  I don't personally have an issue with any aspect of the Prius or Toyota, in fact, I think any attempt to reduce fossil-fuel usage is a good thing.  I also recognize that NiMH is a huge improvement over NiCad in density and toxicity. 

Having said that, there's this:  http://www.sprol.com/?s=sudbury+basin  Sudbury, Ontario has been voted one of the worst places in the world due to the environmental disaster that the Inco copper and nickel mine have created.  This place kind of speaks for itself - whether or not Toyota is involved.

There is the issue of Netal Metal Hydride in the waste stream.  Though NiMH batteries are not considered hazardous waste they contain do contain “mild toxins” that will degrade in the solid waste stream and make themselves quite evident when incinerated (Battery Digest, 2001).  As the proliferation of them grow with popularity, this problem will only compound itself as the years of their use increases. 

Let's take a quick peek inside the battery itself:  In NiMH batteries, the anode consists of many different alloys of "metals", including V, Ti, La, Ce, Zr, Ni, Cr, Co, Pr, Nd and Fe - the cathode Nickel oxyhydroxide and the electrolyte is Potassium hydroxide.  Vanadium and its compounds are toxic, as are Chromium compounds, Neodymium, and Lanthanum.  Nickel sulfide areate and dust is recognized as being a probable carcinogen as well.  That's just taking a quick peek.  So, mining the materials for all of this must be a bit of a mess - but can you imagine the smelting and eventual manufacturing?

Though a great amount of the smelting discussed in the editorial from the Central Conneticut State University editorial (The Recorder) is in Canada, the author never really touches on the fact that the actual manufacturing process takes place in a country that has essentially ZERO health or environmental regulations.  Not wanting to sound "too passionate" about the subject, but I'd like to see just how the process is occuring in China before I give Toyota "a pass" on the battery issue.

Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy