TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Can we finally end this ridiculous debate on global warming now?

Can we finally end this ridiculous debate on global warming now?

Considering that some of Bush's OWN people have conclusively stated that manmade greenhouse emissions play a definitive role?:

quote:

'Smoking gun' on humans and global warming claimed NASA-led scientists say ocean data ties manmade emissions to warmer Earth MSNBC staff and news service reports Updated: 3:04 p.m. ET April 28, 2005 Using ocean data collected by diving floats, U.S. climate scientists released a study Thursday that they said provides the "smoking gun" that ties manmade greenhouse gas emissions to global warming. The researchers, some of them working for NASA and the Energy Department, went a step further, implicitly criticizing President Bush for not taking stronger action to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. They said the findings confirm that computer models of climate change are on target and that global temperatures will rise 1 degree Fahrenheit this century, even if greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow. If emissions instead continue to grow, as expected, things could spin �out of our control,� especially as ocean levels rise from melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, the NASA-led scientists said. "The climate system could reach a point where large sea level change is practically impossible to avoid." The study, published Thursday in the journal Science, is the latest to report growing certainty about global warming projections. Floats and satellites used More than 1,800 technology-packed floats, deployed in oceans worldwide beginning in 2000, are regularly diving as much as a mile undersea to take temperature and other readings. Their precise measurements are supplemented by better satellite gauging of ocean levels, which rise both from meltwater and as the sea warms and expands. Researchers led by NASA�s James Hansen used the improved data to calculate the oceans� heat content and the global �energy imbalance.� They found that for every square meter of surface area, the planet is absorbing almost one watt more of the sun�s energy than it is radiating back to space as heat � a historically large imbalance. Such absorbed energy will steadily warm the atmosphere. The 0.85-watt figure corresponds well with the energy imbalance predicted by the researchers� modeling of climate change through a supercomputer, the report said. Computer models, which are numerical simulations of climate change, factor in many influences on climate, including greenhouse emissions. Such gases, produced naturally but also by humans burning fossil fuels, trap heat as they accumulate in the atmosphere. 'Can no longer be genuine doubt' Significantly, those emissions have increased at a rate consistent with the detected energy imbalance, the researchers said. �There can no longer be genuine doubt that humanmade gases are the dominant cause of observed warming,� said Hansen, director of NASA�s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. �This energy imbalance is the �smoking gun� that we have been looking for.� Fourteen other specialists from NASA, Columbia University and the Department of Energy co-authored the study. Scientists have found other possible �smoking guns� on global warming in recent years, but Klaus Hasselmann, a leading German climatologist, praised the new report for its innovative work on energy imbalance. �This is valuable additional supporting evidence� of manmade climate change, he told The Associated Press. Similar correlation in separate study In February, scientists at San Diego�s Scripps Institution of Oceanography said their research � not yet published � also showed a close correlation between climate models and the observed temperatures of oceans, further defusing skeptics� past criticism of uncertainties in modeling. Average atmospheric temperatures rose about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the 20th century, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-organized network of scientists, says computer modeling shows they will rise between 2.5 degrees and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100, depending on how well emissions are controlled. The Science study said the excess energy stored in the oceans means a 1-degree Fahrenheit rise in atmospheric temperatures is already �in the pipeline.� This agrees with findings of U.S. government climate modelers reported last month. Besides raising ocean levels, global warming is expected to intensify storms, spread disease to new areas, and shift climate zones hundreds of miles, possibly making farmlands drier and deserts wetter. Policy battle The researchers also pointed out that the Earth has significant "thermal inertia," which delays changes to the planet's energy balance. And they used that point to urge policymakers to take action. "This delay provides an opportunity to reduce the magnitude" of climate change "if appropriate action is taken," they wrote in the study. "On the other hand, if we wait for more overwhelming empirical evidence of climate change, the inertia implies that still greater climate change will be in store, which may be difficult or impossible to avoid." President Bush has said that while he believes manmade emissions are tied to global warming, it's not known just how closely and that therefore drastic steps like mandatory emission curbs are unwarranted. "We do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming," he said in a major climate policy speech in 2001. "We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it." "No one can say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming," he added, "and therefore what level must be avoided." The administration instead is relying on technology improvements and voluntary steps to reduce emissions over time. MSNBC.com's Miguel Llanos and The Associated Press contributed to this report. � 2005 MSNBC.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7665636/

Or is Bush going to fucking sit there and pretend to play dumb with all of us AGAIN, stating that the "jury is still out" while the oil industries work up a few slanted articles of their own?

And while we're at it - could we please fucking do something about the tax breaks we are giving to these tanks on the road? Here's a noble thought - why not give tax breaks to gas efficient vehicles?

What a concept, eh?

I thought he asked for tax breaks to gas efficient vehicles in his speech?

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 I thought he asked for tax breaks to gas efficient vehicles in his speech?

If he did, I missed it. I watched about 15 min. or so from the beginning, but then had to go grab some tacos and beer down the street. I'll see if I can't find that in the transcript somewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 If he did, I missed it. I watched about 15 min. or so from the beginning, but then had to go grab some tacos and beer down the street. I'll see if I can't find that in the transcript somewhere.

Tacos and beer trump all! You did the right thing.

It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise rational people will disregard the science that suggests anthropic global warming is already occurring, in the face of the growing number of reports such as this. I know that certain environmental interest groups have been somewhat disingenuous in the past with their doom and gloom scenarios, but I'm not sure how that could lead one to disregard the piling mountains of evidence and the virtual scientific consensus which suggests that anthropic global warming is already occurring and is something that we should be taking action to stop now if we want the planet to be inhabitable in 100 years.

Can anyone point to an independent scientific study that indicates, with degree of authority whatsoever, that global warming is bunk? Is there any reason why scientific bodies - who rely on the very government whose enviromental policies they are criticising for research grants - would invent this, or overhype the results where they wouldn't in any other scientific field? Is there anyone out there who can say, with a straight face, that the evidence in favour of global warming is not at least highly compelling if not conclusive? Is the risk, given the available evidence, far too great to consider restricting emissions starting immediately?

I'm thinking to the Kyoto protocol now, where many western nations (Australia included) lumped restricting carbon emmissions by just a few percent in the too hard basket. But if we can't reach even these meagre targets - that won't curb global warming all that significantly even if they are followed through with - how the fuck are we going to curb emmissions significantly when the need very suddenly arises? I can remember Bush saying, upon refusing to ratify the Kyoto Treaty, that "the American way of life will not be compromised" and that pretty much sums it up - we're reluctant to try to curb emmissions if it means that even the smallest of our creature comforts are sacrificed. But how can we be this short-sighted? How can we continue to dismiss the mounting body of evidence presented by independent scientific groups as the mere "shock and awe" tactics of a few fringe environmental groups?

If this evidence is true - if we are, already, heating up our own planet through fossil fuel emmissions - then I fear we're already fucked. No-one in any society across the globe (apart from a few parts of enlightened Europe) is prepared to make even the smallest of sacrifices to ensure that this planet is inhabitable for future generations. We could well be remembered as the generation that had the knowledge and the ability to avert catastrophe, but failed to do so because we value cheap oil more than the future of the species. The anti-global warming doctrine, propogated by those (including Libertarians, conservatives etc.) who consider themselves somehow more enlightened than the scientists trained in the field, is looking more and more irrational and unsubstantiated all the time. I'm not sure that this study in itself constitutes a "smoking gun" but - combined with all the other available evidence - it's providing a pretty damning picture for those who view a few tenths of a percent of GDP growth as being more important than the sustainability of terrestrial life.

I'm pretty drunk, so I'm hoping all this reads okay.

Sometimes it gets so hot in the summer I feel like i'm Jude Law in Gattaca

Jesus, Renegade, compared to my drunk thread:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forum/s...threadid=257278

You're a fucking Einstein on booz compared to me!

Now go eat some tacos and pass out, bub.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Jesus, Renegade, compared to my drunk thread: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forum/s...threadid=257278 You're a fucking Einstein on booz compared to me! Now go eat some tacos and pass out, bub.

Haha.

Well so long as I'm not extremely drunk (like last week when I came home and quite literally couldn't read anything on the screen - let alone post anything) all it normally means is that it takes me twice as long to write a post. I can still tell when I've made spelling errors and when what I've written doesn't make much sense, but - when I am drunk - it does usually mean that:

1) I feel more inclined to post.
2) I come across as more angry and uncompromising.
3) I go on massive tangents for no real reason, just because I want to indulge myself (I'm sure I've made dozens of posts on this forum that fit this category).
4) I use big-words unnecessarily, even if they don't really accentuate my point, just because I thought them up and don't want to let them go to waste.

I'm not that drunk right now (8 or so beers + a few shots) but believe me - I'm making more sense talking to you over the internet than I would if you were talking to me in person (my sense of speech is usually the first thing to go ).

As for the nachos, I've got a bag of corn-chips and I've also got a mini-fridge full of Heineken so I should be okay to go for at least another hour or so. (It's 5am here btw.)

EDIT: Oh and apologies for the derail.

Is about time people give this topic importance among the priorities of the each nation, more so the US. IT is logically proven now in most scenarios that Global Warming is not part of a trend as proven ... it's accelerated by years now and all because we've fueled to accelerate.. Im glad I heard Bush give priority to other types of energy, and the start for incentives.. but this is just a penny among the rest of things that need to be done!!.. drilling in the Alaska will not help the Global Warming sooo sup with thaT!

At least we give our global warming acceleration practices feel-good names, like the "Clean Skies Act" Seriously though if Rush Limbaugh doesn't think there's a human-related problem at all, I say he should move right next door to a coal plant and enjoy the healthy fumes being pumped into the air.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Im glad I heard Bush give priority to other types of energy, and the start for incentives.. but this is just a penny among the rest of things that need to be done!!.. drilling in the Alaska will not help the Global Warming sooo sup with thaT!

You're the second poster to post sentiments like these. What speech are we talking about? The same one that has its own thread? If so, then either that thread or this one is highly misunderstood. In the other thread Bush speaks of converting old military installations into coal-powered power plants. That's not going to help decrease the greenhouse effect.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 I thought he asked for tax breaks to gas efficient vehicles in his speech?

From 1999 - 2003 EPA Stats

quote:

CO2 Emissions from Stationary Combustion - Coal CO2 ✓ ✓ 2,013.8 Mobile Combustion: Road & Other CO2 ✓ ✓ 1,538.5 CO2 Emissions from Stationary Combustion - Gas CO2 ✓ ✓ 1,134.9 CO2 Emissions from Stationary Combustion - Oil CO2 ✓ ✓ 635.3 Mobile Combustion: Aviation CO2 ✓ ✓ 171.3 Fugitive Emissions from Natural Gas Operations CH4 ✓ ✓ 125.9 CO2 Emissions from Non-Energy Use of Fuels CO2 ✓ 118.0 International Bunker Fuelsb Several ✓ 85.1 Mobile Combustion: Marine CO2 ✓ 57.5 Fugitive Emissions from Coal Mining and Handling CH4 ✓ ✓ 53.8 Mobile Combustion: Road & Other N2O ✓ ✓ 39.9 Fugitive Emissions from Oil Operations CH4 ✓ 17.1 Industrial Processes Emissions from Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances Several ✓ ✓ 99.5 CO2 Emissions from Iron and Steel Production CO2 ✓ ✓ 53.8 CO2 Emissions from Cement Production CO2 ✓ ✓ 43.0 CO2 Emissions from Ammonia Production and Urea Application CO2 ✓ 15.6 SF6 Emissions from Electrical Equipment SF6 ✓ 14.1 HFC-23 Emissions from HCFC-22 Manufacture HFCs ✓ ✓ 12.3 N2O Emissions from Adipic Acid Production N2O ✓ 6.0 PFC Emissions from Aluminum Production PFCs ✓ 3.8 Agriculture Direct N2O Emissions from Agricultural Soils N2O ✓ 155.3 CH4 Emissions from Enteric Fermentation in Domestic Livestock CH4 ✓ ✓ 115.0 Indirect N2O Emissions from Nitrogen Used in Agriculture N2O ✓ ✓ 98.2 CH4 Emissions from Manure Management CH4 ✓ 39.1 Waste CH4 Emissions from Solid Waste Disposal Sites CH4 ✓ ✓ 131.2 CH4 Emissions from Wastewater Handling CH4 ✓ ✓ 36.8 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2003 Page 16 CO2 Emissions from Waste Incineration CO2 ✓ 18.8 Subtotal of Key Source Emissions 6,833.5 Total Emissions 6,900.2 Percent of Total 99.0%

>>>INTRO PAPER<<<

So basicly cars are not the biggest source of CO2. The low take up rate for things like (either gas efficent or special cars) that coupled with the lesser effect of car emissions (total 1,538.5) when compared to energy production (total 3784) means that targeting energy production would be better IMHO.

Don't get me wrong progress is progress. But if reducing emissions is your aim you should target coal use before cars as it generates about a 1/3 more CO2.

Anyway you Americans and your large cock extentions (big cars) need to be down sized (smaller better engines maybe rather than fancy new tech) a bit anyway yay for high fuel prices for you (the real driver here).

Remember goods transport will make up a fair slice of that too which might be hard to change.

Also electric cars wheres the energy going to come from short term? Ohh thouse coal power stations.....

See my responce in the other thread about nuclear energy.

EDIT: Few extra comments to clear stuff up a bit + date correction.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic You're the second poster to post sentiments like these. What speech are we talking about? The same one that has its own thread? If so, then either that thread or this one is highly misunderstood. In the other thread Bush speaks of converting old military installations into coal-powered power plants. That's not going to help decrease the greenhouse effect.

Actually Im talking from what I read on the newspaper yesterday I believe, where Bush proposed to invest into Nuclear power and start looking into other sources of energy... now on how they work I dont know. I know it wont help global warming, and that even if we stopped using CO2 today, it will still have an effect in the following decades, hence the effect will take years for the thermal temperature of the ocean to take effect and change and all the BLA BLA BLA.. im just saying that it's a step into the positive instead of more dragging into the negative, as well as a way of realizing I guess..

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish From 1999 - 2003 EPA Stats >>>INTRO PAPER<<< So basicly cars are not the biggest source of CO2. The low take up rate for things like (either gas efficent or special cars) that coupled with the lesser effect of car emissions (total 1,538.5) when compared to energy production (total 3784) means that targeting energy production would be better IMHO. Don't get me wrong progress is progress. But if reducing emissions is your aim you should target coal use before cars as it generates about a 1/3 more CO2. Anyway you Americans and your large cock extentions (big cars) need to be down sized (smaller better engines maybe rather than fancy new tech) a bit anyway yay for high fuel prices for you (the real driver here). Remember goods transport will make up a fair slice of that too which might be hard to change. Also electric cars wheres the energy going to come from short term? Ohh thouse coal power stations..... See my responce in the other thread about nuclear energy. EDIT: Few extra comments to clear stuff up a bit + date correction.

Hey excellent post Dervish....i hadnt seen a breakdown of Co2 emmissions like that before for the states, it really puts it into a simple to understand format, as to where exactly the biggest culprits are.......

I was wondering if you or anybody else knows of any good similar links that would show it on a country by country basis or a world regional basis......ive had a look but havnt come up with anything comprehensive yet.....im probably just googling the wording wrong.....ill keep looking and post a link if i find a good one.....

Looked it up for ya.


>>>LINKY<<<

One thing I would say is that with regards to global warming CO2 is not the only issue. There are other gases which cause per vol. 1000 times as much of an effect (CFCs and stuff). But CO2 makes up the very vast amount of the problem.

Mental stats though US nearly double the whole of the EU!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Looked it up for ya. >>>LINKY<<< One thing I would say is that with regards to global warming CO2 is not the only issue. There are other gases which cause per vol. 1000 times as much of an effect (CFCs and stuff). But CO2 makes up the very vast amount of the problem. Mental stats though US nearly double the whole of the EU!!!!!

Hey cheers mate....

Yeah i know from stuff i looked up before that the US with 5% of the worlds population creates nearly 25% of the worlds Co2 emmissions....mental indeed......

apperntly luxenburg emitts most co2 per capita in the developed world... interesting... a strong second place to the US tho!

one funny thing with that chart tho, how the hell can you count albania as a developed region!??!?!

and nice post renengade!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I'm too much of a fukingg elitisst to post in the fucking COR when I'm a bit on the tipsy side, so I'll make my little post here.

mmmhmm

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.