Mount Kilimanjaro loses snowcap - first time in 11,000 years
Further evidence of global warming? Just one of those darn cyclical phases? (Wasn't the last cycle the start of the last Ice Age?). Discuss:
quote:
Photos Show Climate Change; Ministers Meet in UK
Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:54 AM ET
By Jeremy Lovell
LONDON (Reuters) - A photo of Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years will be used as dramatic testimony for action against global warming as ministers from the world's biggest polluters meet Tuesday.
Gathering in London for a two-day brainstorming session on the environment agenda of Britain's presidency of the Group of Eight rich nations, the environment and energy ministers from 20 countries will be handed a book containing the stark image of Africa's tallest mountain, among others.
"This is a wake-up call and an unequivocal message that a low-carbon global economy is necessary, achievable and affordable," said Steve Howard of the Climate Group charity which organized the book and an associated exhibition.
"We are breaking climate change out of the environment box. This crisis affects all of us. This is a global challenge and we need real leadership to address these major problems -- and these ministers can give that leadership," he told Reuters.
The pictures include one of Kilimanjaro almost bare of its icecap because of global warming, and coastal defenses in the Marshall Islands threatened with swamping from rising sea levels.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has vowed to make climate change and Africa the twin targets of Britain's presidencies of both the G8 and European Union this year -- bringing both to the fore at a summit meeting in Gleneagles in Scotland in July.
The Kyoto Protocol on cutting emissions of greenhouse gases came into force in February but is still shunned by the world's biggest emitter, the United States, and puts scant limits on China, rising fast up the ranks.
INFORMAL INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Senior officials from both countries will be at the London meeting, whose main thrust is how to achieve the environmental Holy Grail of a sustainably growing low carbon economy.
"There is an attempt to draw the United States in after its refusal to sign Kyoto," said a spokeswoman for environmental pressure group Greenpeace.
"It is very sensitive given that the developing countries are trying to climb the development curve and the developed countries must not be seen to be doing anything to hold them back," she told Reuters.
A senior official at Britain's Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is co-organizing the meeting -- the first of environment and energy ministers from developed and developing nations -- said the aim was to find common ground.
"This is a chance for people to get together and by not forcing them to negotiate a very concrete outcome ... allow them to explore common interests," she said.
"There are plenty of technologies out there which we can deploy which can help with that shift (to a low-carbon economy) straight away. We know that energy efficiency can already deliver huge carbon savings at a net benefit to our society," she told Reuters.
British think-tank the Institute for Public Policy Research has proposed a multi-tiered approach, calling for progressively deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by rich nations but more flexible commitments from the developing world.
These should be made against the backdrop of long-term efforts to take Kyoto -- with the United States and Australia aboard in some form -- beyond the end of its first phase in 2012, it said.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
Mar-16-2005 23:24
biznology
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Dec 2000
Location:
no.
youre a commu-fascist|
___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'
Mar-16-2005 23:35
Arbiter
Naked Power Organ
Registered: May 2002
Location:
An odd proposition, given that much of Asia has just gone through the coldest winter they've experienced in years. Are we to conclude, therefore, that we must address the global cooling threat immediately?
I think it should suffice to say, that photographs of meteorological anomalies and localized temperature trends over a geologically insignificant period of time are not a cogent basis upon which to posit a global climate shift, much less to even begin to establish a demonstrable causal link between such a climate shift and CO2 emissions.
Mar-17-2005 03:47
altoid
Junior tranceaddict
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD
what he meant to say is we need to get more data from a longer period of time in order to properly make a claim between co2 emissions and global warming. What he is thinking is we're just getting out of an ice age and this could be a normal occurance of events.
Mar-17-2005 21:59
NeoPhono
Übermensch
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: In Orbit
Hmm...maybe we should look at all the factors, and not the ones that fit our agenda.
According to Nature’s Betsy Mason, “Although it’s tempting to blame the (Kilimanjaro) ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the more likely culprit.”
Forests at the base of Kilimanjaro have been steadily disappearing for decades. “Without the forests’ humidity,” Mason reports, “previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.”
Mar-17-2005 23:36
trancaholic
Danish Prophet of Doom
Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Aalborg
quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
An odd proposition, given that much of Asia has just gone through the coldest winter they've experienced in years. Are we to conclude, therefore, that we must address the global cooling threat immediately?
I think it should suffice to say, that photographs of meteorological anomalies and localized temperature trends over a geologically insignificant period of time are not a cogent basis upon which to posit a global climate shift, much less to even begin to establish a demonstrable causal link between such a climate shift and CO2 emissions.
Adhering to the maximum expected utility principle (which is the currently accepted model of rational behaviour) we should take actions to limit CO_2 emissions, not because it is very likely that global warming is taking place, but because the consequences of not acting in a setting where global warming is taking place is much much worse than that of acting in a setting where global warming is not taking place. It's the same reasoning that makes you lock your door at night, even if there's only a remote chance of a criminal actually trying to gain entry to your house.
Mar-18-2005 14:51
Shakka
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Feb 2003
Location:
quote:
Originally posted by NeoPhono
Hmm...maybe we should look at all the factors, and not the ones that fit our agenda.
I completely concede that one possible instance like this does not in any way entail a sound conclusion of global warming. It's why I posted it as a question, rather than an assertion.
And as always, trancaholic makes a very good point as well.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
Mar-18-2005 15:31
trancaholic
Danish Prophet of Doom
Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Aalborg
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
And as always, trancaholic makes a very good point as well.
Wauw. Praise - in addition to a free Sander K gig tonight. This is turning out to be my weekend.
Seriously, the global warming debate always provokes me - I think I have raised my arguement beforem, though. Too bad I cannot repeatedly beat Bush on the head with a stack of scientific papers whenever I reiterate it...
Mar-19-2005 03:31
smokeape
Lowland Trance Addict
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Heart of Dixie
quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
An odd proposition, given that much of Asia has just gone through the coldest winter they've experienced in years. Are we to conclude, therefore, that we must address the global cooling threat immediately?
I think it should suffice to say, that photographs of meteorological anomalies and localized temperature trends over a geologically insignificant period of time are not a cogent basis upon which to posit a global climate shift, much less to even begin to establish a demonstrable causal link between such a climate shift and CO2 emissions.
Agree. Kilamanjaro losing an icecap cannnot be directly linked to a global trend. It could be a result of a trend, but not prima facie evidence in and of itself.
[[[smoke]]]
Mar-19-2005 03:36
Arbiter
Naked Power Organ
Registered: May 2002
Location:
quote:
Originally posted by trancaholic
Adhering to the maximum expected utility principle (which is the currently accepted model of rational behaviour) we should take actions to limit CO_2 emissions, not because it is very likely that global warming is taking place, but because the consequences of not acting in a setting where global warming is taking place is much much worse than that of acting in a setting where global warming is not taking place. It's the same reasoning that makes you lock your door at night, even if there's only a remote chance of a criminal actually trying to gain entry to your house.
A false analogy, to be sure. A criminal attempting to enter a house is a known problem that can occur and has many times in the past and which also has a definite cause.
A more analagous behavior would be to spend billions of dollars constructing the walls, ceilings, and floors out of gold ore because you hold the unfounded belief that it is the only material that will prevent aliens from teleporting you out of your house and abducting you, despite the fact that there is no reliable evidence that alien abductions have ever occurred nor is there any evidence to suggest that the proposed solution would address the problem in any way.
Mar-19-2005 09:39
DrUg_Tit0
e^(i*pi)+1=0
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
A false analogy, to be sure. A criminal attempting to enter a house is a known problem that can occur and has many times in the past and which also has a definite cause.
A more analagous behavior would be to spend billions of dollars constructing the walls, ceilings, and floors out of gold ore because you hold the unfounded belief that it is the only material that will prevent aliens from teleporting you out of your house and abducting you, despite the fact that there is no reliable evidence that alien abductions have ever occurred nor is there any evidence to suggest that the proposed solution would address the problem in any way.
I think your analogy is much more faulty than tranceaholic's one. Let's look at the basic premises:
1) Carbon dioxide is better at absorbing heat than other major gases in our atmosphere like oxygen and nitrogen.
2) Carbon dioxide amount in our atmosphere has increased by about 40% since 1850.
3) There has not been an increase in natural emissions of carbon dioxide.
4) There has been a significant increase in human emissions of carbon dioxide.
5) Mean global temperature has shown a slight increase since it started to be measured.
Therefore we may conclude that it is likely that carbon dioxide increase in atmosphere should cause global warming, and that conclusion is also supported with evidence. The evidence shown is so far shakey, but since there is no other evidence to prove the opposite and since the evidence is among the lines of what we should expect from the first 4 premises, it is reasonable to conclude that global warming is a pretty realistic threat.
