HEY CLIMATE CHANGE DOUBTERS!

[Dru]

Your tax dollars funded this study

 

"No Doubt" Human Activity Is Affecting Global Climate, Top Scientists

Conclude

 

National Center for Atmospheric Research

Boulder, Colorado

December 2, 2003

Distributed by Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department

of State

 

BOULDER-Two of the nation's premier atmospheric scientists, after reviewing

extensive research by their colleagues, say there is no longer any doubt

that human activities are having measurable-and increasing-impacts on global

climate. Their study cites atmospheric observations and multiple computer

models to paint a detailed picture of climate changes likely to buffet Earth

in coming decades, including rising temperatures and an increase in extreme

weather events, such as flooding and drought. The study appears December 5

in Science as part of the journal's "State of the Planet" series.

 

The coauthors-Thomas Karl, director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center,

and Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National

Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)-conclude that industrial emissions

have been the dominant influence on climate change for the past 50 years,

overwhelming natural forces. The most important of these emissions is carbon

dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps solar radiation and warms the planet.

 

"There is no doubt that the composition of the atmosphere is changing

because of human activities, and today greenhouse gases are the largest

human influence on global climate," they write. "The likely result is more

frequent heat waves, droughts, extreme precipitation events, and related

impacts, e.g., wildfires, heat stress, vegetation changes, and sea-level

rise which will be regionally dependent."

 

The article cites research indicating that, between 1990 and 2100, there is

a 90 percent probability that global temperatures will rise by 1.7 to 4.9

degrees Celsius (3.1 to 8.9 degrees Fahrenheit), because of human influences

on climate. Such warming would have widespread impacts on society and the

environment, including continued melting of glaciers and the great ice

sheets of Greenland, inundating the world's coasts. The authors base their

estimate on computer model experiments by climate scientists, observations

of atmospheric changes, and recorded climate changes over the past century.

 

However, there is still large uncertainty in understanding the global

climate and how it will change, says Karl. If temperatures rise 1.7 degrees,

the expected changes would be relatively small, whereas a 4.9-degree

increase could bring drastic impacts, some of which may be unforeseen.

 

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen by 31 percent since

pre-industrial times, from 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to over

370 ppmv today. Other human activities, such as emissions of sulfate and

soot particles and the development of urban areas, have significant but more

localized climate impacts. Such activities may enhance or mask the

larger-scale warming from greenhouse gases, but not offset it, according to

the authors.

 

If societies could successfully cut emissions and stabilize carbon dioxide

levels in the atmosphere, temperatures would still increase by an estimated

0.5 degree C (0.9 degree F) over a period of decades, Karl and Trenberth

warn. This is because greenhouse gases are slow to cycle out of the

atmosphere. "Given what has happened to date and is projected in the future,

significant further climate change is guaranteed," the authors state.

 

If current emissions continue, the world would face the fastest rate of

climate change in at least the last 10,000 years. This could potentially

alter ocean current circulations and radically change existing climate

patterns. Moreover, certain natural processes would tend to accelerate the

warming. For example, as snow cover melts away, the darker land and water

surface would absorb more solar radiation, further increasing temperatures.

 

Karl and Trenberth say more research is needed to pin down both the global

and regional impacts of climate change. Scientists, for example, have yet to

determine the temperature impacts of increased cloud cover or how changes in

the atmosphere will influence El Niño, the periodic warming of Pacific Ocean

waters that affects weather patterns throughout much of the world. The

authors call for multiple computer model studies to address the complex

aspects of weather and climate. The models must be able to integrate all

components of Earth's climate system-physical, chemical, and biological.

This, in turn, will require considerable international cooperation and the

establishment of a global climate monitoring system to collect and analyze

data.

 

Because of the broad range of potential change in temperature, it's

extremely important to ensure that we have a comprehensive observing system

to track unforeseen changes and variations, says Karl.

 

"Climate change is truly a global issue, one that may prove to be humanity's

greatest challenge," the authors conclude. "It is very unlikely to be

adequately addressed without greatly improved international cooperation and

action."

 

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.

Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

[lummox]

i call bullshit.

[RobBob]

This is but one risk of allowing the world's population to increase. I say we go ahead and clean up the world. We will institute a global plan, where nations are graded on:

 

a) birth rate

b) per capita creation of trash, noxious or disease-causing emmissions,

etc.

c) ability to police themselves

 

All these parameters will receive appropriate weighting (CO2 emmissions are part of the equation but fairly low on the list of bad human activities). The UN will dispatch people to forcibly institute a mass sterilization program in the worst-offending countries first. Any nation that hasn't reached a flat or declining birthrate within 5 years will get "the plan." It won't be popular, but by God we'll fix this pollution problem at its roots!

[Doctorb]

Who cares? Burn everything until the skies are black and it rains acid. Kill every human being on the planet. Global human extinction is the only way to end human caused climate change.

[JoshK]

I agree that some sort of global campaign needs to be started to curb the birth rate and give, um "incentives" to not worsen the already shit-upon natural environment. That's why Bush pulling out of Kyoto (sp?) and other such crap is such a travesty. This country, by far, is the worse polluter per capita. It's hard to swallow, but for as much good as we do for the world, we also wreck it more than anybody else.

 

While this might seem an overwhleming problem to tackle, everybody can help take the first step by getting Bush out of office next year. That is the best gift this country can give the world.

[RobBob]

This country, by far, is the worse polluter per capita.

 

That's where we disagree. The asian brown cloud needs to be addressed first and foremost. More dioxins etc. coming out of dung fires than out of hazardous-waste incinerators. Problem is, if we curb reproduction in asia fast, in a few years the likes of peter puget will be whining 'cause the price of their slave-made goods went up.

[JoshK]

Some places in Asian have done a very good job of curbing pop. growth, China in particular. Most of the others, obviously, have not. Africa is also a big problem in this category, but obviously not in pollution since they don't produce a whole lot. CO2 emissions by our often old and dirty power plants and manufacturing sector are still the biggest problem when talking about CO2 specifically. Whatever we do to clean up, another really big issue will be watching the developing world very closely and, like it or not, providing them with money and incentives to build up their economies much cleaner than we did in the last century. If we just replace our pollution with somebody elses, it does little.

[catbirdseat]

RobBob said:

This country, by far, is the worse polluter per capita.

 

That's where we disagree. The asian brown cloud needs to be addressed first and foremost. More dioxins etc. coming out of dung fires than out of hazardous-waste incinerators. Problem is, if we curb reproduction in asia fast, in a few years the likes of peter puget will be whining 'cause the price of their slave-made goods went up.

Although they produce more soot and sulfur dioxide than we do, we produce far more CO2, which is the primary greenhouse gas. Dioxin does not come from dung fires. Hospital incinerators, toxic waste incinerators and pulp mills are the largest sources.

[RobBob]

A modest proposal for preventing the children of poor people in Ireland from being a burden to their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the public (1729)

By Jonathan Swift

[RobBob]

Catbird, I believe I'm right in saying that relatively small dung-fires and home trash-fires in asia (aside from being particulate sources) contribute more dioxins to the environment than modern US hazardous-waste incinerators. Any partial- or poor-combustion process is a source.

 

Also interesting to note:

New research suggests that forest fires are a major and natural source of dioxinsi. In fact, in 2002, forest fires probably emitted nearly as much dioxin to the environment as did all other Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-quantified sources combined. Dioxin emissions from industrial and commercial sources have declined steadily over the past several decades. As emissions from these sources are further curtailed through regulation and technology, forest fires should continue to be viewed as a major source of dioxins to the environment.

[scrambler]

RobBob said:

Catbird, I believe I'm right in saying that relatively small dung-fires and home trash-fires in asia (aside from being particulate sources) contribute more dioxins to the environment than modern US hazardous-waste incinerators. Any partial- or poor-combustion process is a source.

 

Also interesting to note:

New research suggests that forest fires are a major and natural source of dioxinsi. In fact, in 2002, forest fires probably emitted nearly as much dioxin to the environment as did all other Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-quantified sources combined. Dioxin emissions from industrial and commercial sources have declined steadily over the past several decades. As emissions from these sources are further curtailed through regulation and technology, forest fires should continue to be viewed as a major source of dioxins to the environment.

 

Right, and Ronald Reagan said that ketchup was a vegetable and that trees cause pollution. Seriously ,this shouldn't be a partisian issue as it seems to be.

 

I would be all for seeing our power plants converted to using clean alternative fuels to produce electricity, and see other developments such as have Detroit produce hybrid cars. Leave petrochemicals for pharmaceuticals, plastics, and fertilizer.

 

Rather than propose a manned mission to the Moon or Mars, or some other grand scheme, I'd like to see the next Bush administration propose something along the lines of a 25 year plan (or whatever) to wean us off of Middle East oil and become the world's leader in alternative energy. We will have to make the transition at some time in the not-so-distant future, why not sooner?

[catbirdseat]

RobBob said:

Catbird, I believe I'm right in saying that relatively small dung-fires and home trash-fires in asia (aside from being particulate sources) contribute more dioxins to the environment than modern US hazardous-waste incinerators. Any partial- or poor-combustion process is a source.

 

Trash fires can produce dioxin. If you burn any plastic which contains chlorine, such as PVC, you will get some dioxin.

[chelle]

scrambler said:

Rather than propose a manned mission to the Moon or Mars, or some other grand scheme, I'd like to see the next Bush administration propose something along the lines of a 25 year plan (or whatever) to wean us off of Middle East oil and become the world's leader in alternative energy. We will have to make the transition at some time in the not-so-distant future, why not sooner?

 

And it would have been nice if in his last pledge on the issue he had earmarked money to explore ways to affordibly produce hydrogen fuel cells that did not involve burning fossil fuels and creating more pollution than the fuel cell cars would save.

[JoshK]

ehmmic said:

scrambler said:

Rather than propose a manned mission to the Moon or Mars, or some other grand scheme, I'd like to see the next Bush administration propose something along the lines of a 25 year plan (or whatever) to wean us off of Middle East oil and become the world's leader in alternative energy. We will have to make the transition at some time in the not-so-distant future, why not sooner?

 

And it would have been nice if in his last pledge on the issue he had earmarked money to explore ways to affordibly produce hydrogen fuel cells that did not involve burning fossil fuels and creating more pollution than the fuel cell cars would save.

 

More than either of these things, we can make a BIGGER difference by getting rid of Bush and letting a real administration come up with this plan. It isn't him that is going to help address this problem, that is for sure.

[Fairweather]

Glad to hear you are all on board the (CO2-free!) Nuclear Power bandwagon! Lets fire up those reactors ASAP.

[scrambler]

No, not nuclear, instead clean alternative energy sources. Too bad Germany is taking the lead in phasing out nuclear powerplants and in instituting other alternative energy.

[Fairweather]

scrambler said:

No, not nuclear, instead clean alternative energy sources. Too bad Germany is taking the lead in phasing out nuclear powerplants and in instituting other alternative energy.

 

Strange I haven't read about any specifics, and since Germany relies on nuclear for 30% of its electricity production, and is rich in Uranium, I doubt I will. No doubt they will replace this nuclear generated electricity with more fossil-fuel fired generating stations like the ones that currently account for over 60% of their power production. I would also point out that Germany has yet to ratify The Kyoto Accord.

 

 

[scrambler]

It's not necessarily who's right or wrong, rather it's the dialectic that's important.

 

Fairweather said:

scrambler said:

No, not nuclear, instead clean alternative energy sources. Too bad Germany is taking the lead in phasing out nuclear powerplants and in instituting other alternative energy.

 

Strange I haven't read about any specifics, and since Germany relies on nuclear for 30% of its electricity production, and is rich in Uranium, I doubt I will. No doubt they will replace this nuclear generated electricity with more fossil-fuel fired generating stations like the ones that currently account for over 60% of their power production. I would also point out that Germany has yet to ratify The Kyoto Accord.

 

Germany took a major step towards ending its nuclear power programme yesterday when it shut down the first of its 19 atomic power stations.

 

The shutdown followed an agreement three years ago with the industry to close all the nuclear power plants by 2025. The Greens had earlier insisted that they would only go into government with the Social Democrats if nuclear power were abolished.

 

Yesterday the Green environment minister, Jürgen Tritten, hailed the shutdown as a historic step. "Nuclear power has no future in Germany. No country is pulling out as quickly," he said.

 

The next operational nuclear plant earmarked for closure is Germany's oldest, the 340 megawatt Obrigheim reactor in the south-western state of Baden-Württemberg. It is due to be taken off the grid by November 2005.

 

However, it is still unclear how Europe's largest economy will make up for the loss of atomic power, which satisfies a third of its energy requirements.

 

--end of excerpts

Germany begins phasing out nuclear power

 

So, yes. Atomic power accounts for 30% of Germany's energy consumption. Also true, ...."abandoning nuclear energy will mean importing electricity from countries with bad nuclear safety records, or increasing electricity output - and carbon dioxide emissions - from conventional power plants."

 

Also: "The opposition Christian Democrats, meanwhile, who currently enjoy a vast opinion poll lead, have promised to reverse the shutdown if they win the next general election."

 

 

Regarding Kyoto Protocol: "The European Union and each of its member states have ratified the Kyoto Protocol as of May 31, taking a significant step toward the EU's commitment to enabling the international climate protection agreement to enter into force before the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in August/September 2002. The ratification papers of the EU and the 15 member states, including Germany, were deposited at United Nations headquarters in New York in a ceremony on May 31."

- EU Fulfills Commitment and Calls on Other Nations to Support Kyoto

 

I doubt that since the US and Russia refused to sign the agreement that the Kyoto Protocol will become international law.

 

 

As far as leadership in developing and instituting alternative energy sources, I have a hunch that this will come from the European Union. We'll continue to use our military to secure Middle East oil while the EU will seek other solutions. My guess...didn't research.

 

[EWolfe]

Hey, CoastDwellers:

 

 

[Blake]

High crude birth rates are a major effect-more than cause-of poverty, of course the idiots at the WTO can't see this, which helps leads to maintenace of status quo. "Take care of the people, and the Population will take care of itself."

[catbirdseat]

Nuclear power is the cleanest most cost-efficient energy source there is. The Germans are idiots for abandoning plants that have many years of useful life left. When you decommision a plant you have to deal with waste disposal whether you do it now or later. But by waiting until the plant has operated for it's normal 30-40 year life span, at least you've gotten your money's worth out of it.

[klenke]

catbirdseat said:The Germans are idiots for abandoning plants that have many years of useful life left.

You got that right! I'm thinking I'm gonna change my last name to Klenkowski.

[scott_harpell]

Nuclear power is the cleanest...

short term... yeah.

[JoshK]

Notice fairweather quickly becomes quiet after the entirety of his posts is quickly proven wrong.

 

Any other diatribe from Rush or Ann Coulter ya wanna cough up?

[Fairweather]

JoshK said:

Notice fairweather quickly becomes quiet after the entirety of his posts is quickly proven wrong.

 

Any other diatribe from Rush or Ann Coulter ya wanna cough up?

 

JoshK, Russian Girly-Man in training,

 

WTF are you talking about, you asswipe? Did you read the posts/replies? Are you truly the moron I always suspected you to be? Here is my source:

 

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html

 

Some of the words are kinda' big. This might help....

an early Christmas gift for you:

 

http://www.m-w.com/home.htm