Global Overheating

[Mariner]

The phrase "global warming" has pleasant connotations. I prefer the word "overheating," because it more accurately captures the serious consequences.

From today's New York Times, by science writer William Falk:

"A BLAST FROM THE PAST

To find out whether human activities are changing the atmosphere, scientists took ice cores from ancient glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. Bubbles of air trapped in the ice provided a pristine sampling of the atmosphere going back 650,000 years. The study, published last month in the journal Science, found that the level of carbon dioxide, one of the greenhouse gases that can warm the planet, is now 27 percent higher than at any previous time. The level is even far higher now than it was in periods when the climate was much warmer and North America was largely tropical. Climatologists said the ice cores left no doubt that the burning of fossil fuels is altering the atmosphere in a substantial and unprecedented way.

THE DAY AFTER TODAY

One of the more alarming possible consequences of global warming appears to be already under way. The rapid melting of the Arctic and Greenland ice caps, a new study finds, is causing freshwater to flood into the North Atlantic. That infusion of icy water appears to be deflecting the northward flow of the warming Gulf Stream, which moderates winter temperatures for Europe and the northeastern United States. The flow of the Gulf Stream has been reduced by 30 percent since 1957, the National Oceanography Center in Britain found."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/30/opinion/30falk.html?th&emc=th

It's not a "theory" any more. It's happening, no matter how many science reports the President's head-in-the-sand followers censor. Pretty soon we're going to see European governments down our throats, as we threaten their climate via our continually increasing (not decreasing) greenhouse gas emissions. Without the Gulf Stream, London's climate would be similar to Labrador's.

This month's Sierra magazine contains very disturbing photographs showing glacial melting, as well as actual pages from science reports with big sections crossed out by the Bush Administration, to make global overheating seem less real.

If current trends continue, there will be no more arctic ice--and no more polar bears--by 2050. Bush's answer: drill in the Arctic for more oil. He thinks you can change reality by wishing it away. The right answer: make us the world leader in green technology. Instead, we're letting Japan and Europe lead the way (hybrid cars, high-speed rail, and windmills, etc). All we need is a modest commitment to research, perhaps funded by a gas tax (which the vast majority of economists, including conservatives ones, agree is the single fastest way to get us off oil, since it makes other technologies relatively cheaper while encouraging us to use less oil). As an oil man, Bush had the credibility to do this, but he threw the chance away. Idiocy.

Mariner.

 

[manu1959]

i will stipulate to all that you said....

which means....i agree that global overheating is occuring and that the US could be doing more.

but tell me.....who are the big five fosil fuel users other than the united states and what are they doing to curb thier use?

have they even done the same amount that the US has done?

if it is a global economy then should all economies have the same emmision and polution standards?

should not the kyoto treaty hold all nations to the same standard?

 

[MtnBiker]

Its all Bush's fault.

 

[Annie]

Its all Bush's fault.

MB, that's a given! C'mon now!

 

[dmp]

I don't give a rat's ass.

 

[Annie]

United States:

U.S. defends climate change position
Biggest global warming conference since Kyoto begins in Canada

Tuesday, November 29, 2005; Posted: 6:06 p.m. EST (23:06 GMT)


MONTREAL, Quebec (AP) -- U.S. officials told a U.N. conference on climate change that their government was doing more than most to protect Earth's atmosphere.

In response, leading environmental groups blasted Washington for refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol, a global treaty that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions…

….Dr. Harlan L. Watson, senior climate negotiator for the U.S. Department of State, said that while President Bush declined to join the treaty, the U.S. leader takes global warming seriously. He noted greenhouse gas emissions had gone down by 0.8 percent under Bush.

"With regard to what the United States is doing on climate change, the actions we have taken are next to none in the world," Watson told The Associated Press on the sidelines of the conference…

…The United States, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, saying it would harm the U.S. economy and is flawed by the lack of restrictions on emissions by emerging economic powers such as China and India…

…The treaty, which went into effect in February, calls on the top 35 industrialized nations to cut emissions by 5.2 percent below their 1990 levels by 2012.

This conference will set agreements on how much more emissions should be cut after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires, though signatories are falling short of their targets.

Canada is up there with Spain, Ireland, Greece and five other nations as having the biggest increases in gas emissions. According to the United Nations, Spain is the worst, with a nearly 42 percent increase in emissions between 1990 and 2003; Canada stands at 24 percent and the United States experienced an increase of 13 percent.
…
The targets vary by region: The European Union initially committed to cutting emissions to 8 percent below 1990 levels; the United States agreed to a 7 percent reduction before Bush denounced the pact in 2001, saying it would cost too much and exacerbate a bothersome energy problem for the world's largest consumer of fossil fuels… Totally ignoring the fact that Clinton signed it, knowing Congress would never sign on, which in fact they defeated with not one vote in favor of signing.

What Kyoto signatories have done:

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=104&ArticleID=1296096

Do as I say, not as I do
Europe sets poor example on Kyoto

AFTER repeatedly posing as global exemplars in the fight against global warming, the European Union's member-states need to take a long, hard look at the cold figures.
According to a new study, 10 of the EU's 15 signatories to the Kyoto agreement are on course to miss their target to reduce greenhouse gases by five per cent of their 1990 figure by 2008-2012. Indeed, the Institute of Public Policy Research says that Britain is almost alone in Europe in making progress towards fulfilling its Kyoto commitments...

…Canada, for example, which played host to a major international
climate-change conference in Montreal earlier this month, says it remains fully committed to its Kyoto obligations. However, by the end of 2003, its emissions were up 24.2 per cent on 1990 levels.

Meanwhile, since 2001, a period in which greenhouse-gas emissions across the EU have increased, those from the United States have fallen by almost one per cent…

Chart of Failures:

http://dataservice.eea.eu.int/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=1914

 

[MtnBiker]

MB, that's a given! C'mon now!

Oh yes, of course.

 

[Mariner]

fault that he has chosen to focus only on the supply side of energy (seeking to increase it), and only on one, old technology (burning ancient carbon deposits) rather than on the demand side (conservation, efficiency, etc.).

Does anyone really care to defend his $8 billion in tax cuts for oil and gas companies? This was corporate welfare at its worst. Or Cheney's closed-door sessions with the energy industry? Remember how the right pilloried Hillary Clinton for her closed-door sessions on health insurance?

U.S. 2005 greenhouse emissions were higher than 2004. The only reason for the overall fall during the Bush years was the recession. The really important figure is how much we release per person. By those figures, we're horribly wasteful. Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson calculates the average "footprint" of an American on the earth as 2 acres. If all the earth's inhabitants wanted our same standard of living--at our same low efficiency in achieving it--we'd need 4 earths.

We should be addressing this problem by showing everyone how to live well with a smaller footprint. Instead, we're eating our fast food, driving our SUV's to the mall, and building McMansions that sprawl into the woods surrounding our cities, connecting them into a wilderness-free strip mall megalopolis, obliviously.

Kyoto was a mess, yes, but at least it promoted the concept of global togetherness in addressing a global threat. For the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases to sit out Kyoto was a poke in the eye to everyone else.

Mariner

(For the record, I live in the city, am a vegetarian, run my car on biodiesel, and commute to work by skateboard. It is my time on the ocean that convinces me of the beauty and necessity of preserving wild places.)

 

[rtwngAvngr]

fault that he has chosen to focus only on the supply side of energy (seeking to increase it), and only on one, old technology (burning ancient carbon deposits) rather than on the demand side (conservation, efficiency, etc.).

Does anyone really care to defend his $8 billion in tax cuts for oil and gas companies? This was corporate welfare at its worst. Or Cheney's closed-door sessions with the energy industry? Remember how the right pilloried Hillary Clinton for her closed-door sessions on health insurance?

U.S. 2005 greenhouse emissions were higher than 2004. The only reason for the overall fall during the Bush years was the recession. The really important figure is how much we release per person. By those figures, we're horribly wasteful. Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson calculates the average "footprint" of an American on the earth as 2 acres. If all the earth's inhabitants wanted our same standard of living--at our same low efficiency in achieving it--we'd need 4 earths.

We should be addressing this problem by showing everyone how to live well with a smaller footprint. Instead, we're eating our fast food, driving our SUV's to the mall, and building McMansions that sprawl into the woods surrounding our cities, connecting them into a wilderness-free strip mall megalopolis, obliviously.

Kyoto was a mess, yes, but at least it promoted the concept of global togetherness in addressing a global threat. For the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases to sit out Kyoto was a poke in the eye to everyone else.

Mariner

(For the record, I live in the city, am a vegetarian, run my car on biodiesel, and commute to work by skateboard. It is my time on the ocean that convinces me of the beauty and necessity of preserving wild places.)

Environmental concerns are the lie satan has used to convince you that you are right in bringing humanity under your (his) control.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Who says the earth's temperature is supposed to stay the same? We constantly go through periods of heating and cooling. Environmentalism as practiced as a worldview is simply antihuman. Anti Western human to be precise. This is just Mariner's latest tack.

 

[Hobbit]

It's cooler now than it was in the middle ages. Nearly every ice shelf is expanding (the ONE that is shrinking is the only one you hear about on the news all the time, but I can't remember the name). The average temperature across Europe is going down. Less than 50 years ago, it was believed we were heading for another ice age. Now, why should I believe in global warming for even a second?

 

[Mariner]

you should believe global warming now. Please show me a link or reference for an expanding ice shelf. Quite the contrary, the arctic has had a 20% decline in sea ice over just the past few years, and the Greenland ice shelves were reported this week to be melting at twice the previously measured rate. Antarctica too is melting away at an alarming rate.

Yes, the earth has gone through cycles of heating and cooling, but the results have also been potentially catastrophic to civilization as we know it--ice ages, times when land masses have been far less than now because there was almost no ice. The current expansion of civilization over the past 10,000 years has depended on a relatively stable climate since the last ice age. The cost of adapting to a new hotter earth, or to a new ice age, will be in the tens to hundreds of trillions of dollars--and the human-caused global overheating could likely be limited with the investment of only a few tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, a thousandth as much. Why take the expensive way out? The way that could take many species with it? The way that is predicted to spread deadly tropical disease north while increasing hurricanes? (The current hurricane season was the worst in the past 150 years for which measurements have been kept--precisely what global warming predicts.) Are you ready for malaria and a dozen Katrinas a year?

Local governments and businesses are now taking the lead in this area, e.g. the northeast states choosing to limit greenhouse gas emissions. That's the wrong approach. A global problem necessitates global response, which Bush refuses to endorse.

Besides, where did so many people here get their skepticism about the science? From Bush and his oil-industry friends. Now that he himself has backtracked and is no longer questioning global overheating, the rest of you haven't caught up with him. His next step will be to be forced to do something about it. Too bad for planet earth he chose not to lead when he had the chance, and he'll have to follow instead.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

you should believe global warming now. Please show me a link or reference for an expanding ice shelf. Quite the contrary, the arctic has had a 20% decline in sea ice over just the past few years, and the Greenland ice shelves were reported this week to be melting at twice the previously measured rate. Antarctica too is melting away at an alarming rate.

Yes, the earth has gone through cycles of heating and cooling, but the results have also been potentially catastrophic to civilization as we know it--ice ages, times when land masses have been far less than now because there was almost no ice. The current expansion of civilization over the past 10,000 years has depended on a relatively stable climate since the last ice age. The cost of adapting to a new hotter earth, or to a new ice age, will be in the tens to hundreds of trillions of dollars--and the human-caused global overheating could likely be limited with the investment of only a few tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, a thousandth as much. Why take the expensive way out? The way that could take many species with it? The way that is predicted to spread deadly tropical disease north while increasing hurricanes? (The current hurricane season was the worst in the past 150 years for which measurements have been kept--precisely what global warming predicts.) Are you ready for malaria and a dozen Katrinas a year?

Local governments and businesses are now taking the lead in this area, e.g. the northeast states choosing to limit greenhouse gas emissions. That's the wrong approach. A global problem necessitates global response, which Bush refuses to endorse.

Besides, where did so many people here get their skepticism about the science? From Bush and his oil-industry friends. Now that he himself has backtracked and is no longer questioning global overheating, the rest of you haven't caught up with him. His next step will be to be forced to do something about it. Too bad for planet earth he chose not to lead when he had the chance, and he'll have to follow instead.

Mariner.

Your fear mongering will not convince the west to lay down and die.

 

[Hobbit]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020130074839.htm

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=192

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,49815,00.html

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's cooler now than it was in the middle ages. Nearly every ice shelf is expanding (the ONE that is shrinking is the only one you hear about on the news all the time, but I can't remember the name). The average temperature across Europe is going down. Less than 50 years ago, it was believed we were heading for another ice age. Now, why should I believe in global warming for even a second?

The global average temperature is increasing.

its funny how you (rightfully) criticise one group for concentrating on only one ice sheet - and then turn around and concentrate only on Europe's temps while ignoring the rest of the globe.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

 

[Mariner]

Europe is exactly what global warming models predict. Look at where northern Europe sits on the globe--it's much nearer the arctic circle than Maine. The only reason it's warmer than Canada is the Gulf Stream, which is one of the natural processes most immediately at risk from global warming. Glacial melt from Greenland is believed to be disrupting the Gulf Stream's path.

So a colder Europe is evidence for global overheating, not against it.

We sat out Kyoto, which many people said was flawed. Why did we sit out the meetings in Montreal last month? Why don't we propose a better model than Kyoto? Why don't we lead, rather than being dragged into reality by the rest of the world?

Just last month, a Pacific island was evacuated permanently due to rising sea levels. This stuff is real, folks. Notice how we ran out of names for hurricanes, and had to start using Greek letters? That never happened before. Once more, it's just what global warming models predict--the extra energy in the atmosphere has to go somewhere.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Europe is exactly what global warming models predict. Look at where northern Europe sits on the globe--it's much nearer the arctic circle than Maine. The only reason it's warmer than Canada is the Gulf Stream, which is one of the natural processes most immediately at risk from global warming. Glacial melt from Greenland is believed to be disrupting the Gulf Stream's path.

So a colder Europe is evidence for global overheating, not against it.

We sat out Kyoto, which many people said was flawed. Why did we sit out the meetings in Montreal last month? Why don't we propose a better model than Kyoto? Why don't we lead, rather than being dragged into reality by the rest of the world?

Just last month, a Pacific island was evacuated permanently due to rising sea levels. This stuff is real, folks. Notice how we ran out of names for hurricanes, and had to start using Greek letters? That never happened before. Once more, it's just what global warming models predict--the extra energy in the atmosphere has to go somewhere.

Mariner.

It's not clear that mankind is really the cause of this. We reject your scare tactics. This is only to stop america from growing. That's obvious judging by the fact that libs only criticiae america for not joing the kyoto insanity contest, and not the other big polluters. No responsible american government would consider this crap protocol.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's not clear that mankind is really the cause of this. We reject your scare tactics. This is only to stop america from growing. That's obvious judging by the fact that libs only criticiae america for not joing the kyoto insanity contest, and not the other big polluters. No responsible american government would consider this crap protocol.

Its in fact completely irrational to think that the rapidly rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere has anything to do at all with the fact that man-made emissions of CO2 are rapidly rising.

Obviously, all this extra CO2 is coming from the rain forests, which get larger and larger each year.


Even more irrational is the belief that the addition of gasses to the atmosphere which trap heat would cause heat to be trapped.

Its all part of a liberal conspiracy. Its just a coincidence that rapidly rising CO2 levels are occuring at the same time as rapidly rising production of man-made CO2 - and another coincidence that the rapidly rising levels of CO2 - a gas which traps heat - coincides with a rise in global temperatures. If you can't see this you hate America and are stupid.

 

[dmp]

Let it happen. Frankly, there's not much we can do to this world to stop or initiate an Ice Age, etc. Doesn't bother me a bit.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Its in fact completely irrational to think that the rapidly rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere has anything to do at all with the fact that man-made emissions of CO2 are rapidly rising.

Obviously, all this extra CO2 is coming from the rain forests, which get larger and larger each year.


Even more irrational is the belief that the addition of gasses to the atmosphere which trap heat would cause heat to be trapped.

Its all part of a liberal conspiracy. Its just a coincidence that rapidly rising CO2 levels are occuring at the same time as rapidly rising production of man-made CO2 - and another coincidence that the rapidly rising levels of CO2 - a gas which traps heat - coincides with a rise in global temperatures. If you can't see this you hate America and are stupid.

It is, in fact, an anti-human conspiracy.