Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
walker

Climate Change

Recommended Posts

Akira, your first post in response to mine implied an "I've been there, I've done that, you should get over it" attitude. This may not have been intended but that's how it was interpreted. Hence why I feel I had/have a valid point about you dismissing me out of hand.

Quote[/b] ]So you knowingly espouse flawed arguments? What does that say about the rest of what you have said?
The "flawed argument" was a question ... how is it flawed?
Quote[/b] ]Ask yourself why if it's such a great idea, your nation refuses to ratify it, Akira.
Simply because I already had an answer doesn't nullify the intended result, to draw of you what your answer is.
Quote[/b] ]Or you think I'm here for your misplaced amusement?
Not at all, but you didn't exactly come off smelling like roses from your first post (in response to mine).

I don't consider this discussion here for my "misplaced amusement", far from it. I'm sorry that you feel that way, I am not attempting or intending to simply belittle anyone that disagrees with me. Please read my posts with that intent in mind.

Quote[/b] ]and far better than Bush's own idea of voluntary emission control, which you advocate
I should point out that I'm actually referring to countries like Britain (attempting a voluntary 60% reduction), China (voluntarily & demostratably (sp?) reducing coal/carbon emissions), Australia (introducing policy to reduce levels beyond Kyoto expectations), etc etc

The US Administration is a whole different kettle of fish. wink_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]Article 3 is the one you want I believe.
Thanks, I'll see what I can find there (not much else found via Googling so far, specific to the estimated total credits vs emissions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Article 3 is the one you want I believe.
Thanks, I'll see what I can find there (not much else found via Googling so far, specific to the estimated total credits vs emissions).

Article 3:

Quote[/b] ]

1. The Parties included in Annex I shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed their assigned amounts, calculated pursuant to their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments inscribed in Annex B and in accordance with the provisions of this Article, with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012.

....

10. Any emission reduction units, or any part of an assigned amount, which a Party acquires from another Party in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 or of Article 17 shall be added to the assigned amount for the acquiring Party.

11. Any emission reduction units, or any part of an assigned amount, which a Party transfers to another Party in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 or of Article 17 shall be subtracted from the assigned amount for the transferring Party.

12. Any certified emission reductions which a Party acquires from another Party in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 shall be added to the assigned amount for the acquiring Party.

And Article 6:

Quote[/b] ]

1. For the purpose of meeting its commitments under Article 3, any Party included in Annex I may transfer to, or acquire from, any other such Party emission reduction units resulting from projects aimed at reducing anthropogenic emissions by sources or enhancing anthropogenic removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in any sector of the economy, provided that:

(a) Any such project has the approval of the Parties involved;

(b) Any such project provides a reduction in emissions by sources, or an enhancement of removals by sinks, that is additional to any that would otherwise occur;

© It does not acquire any emission reduction units if it is not in compliance with its obligations under Articles 5 and 7; and

(d) The acquisition of emission reduction units shall be supplemental to domestic actions for the purposes of meeting commitments under Article 3.

2. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol may, at its first session or as soon as practicable thereafter, further elaborate guidelines for the implementation of this Article, including for verification and reporting.

3. A Party included in Annex I may authorize legal entities to participate, under its responsibility, in actions leading to the generation, transfer or acquisition under this Article of emission reduction units.

4. If a question of implementation by a Party included in Annex I of the requirements referred to in this Article is identified in accordance with the relevant provisions of Article 8, transfers and acquisitions of emission reduction units may continue to be made after the question has been identified, provided that any such units may not be used by a Party to meet its commitments under Article 3 until any issue of compliance is resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Akira, your first post in response to mine implied an "I've been there, I've done that, you should get over it" attitude. This may not have been intended but that's how it was interpreted. Hence why I feel I had/have a valid point about you dismissing me out of hand.

Ah. Then I apologize because that is not what I intended. It is of course a valid point. I just meant to refer to your "funny thing is everyone forgets" sentence, adn to point out that we had indeed discussed that before. Not a judgment upon the point you were making.

Quote[/b] ]Not at all, but you didn't exactly come off smelling like roses from your first post (in response to mine).

I don't consider this discussion here for my "misplaced amusement", far from it. I'm sorry that you feel that way, I am not attempting or intending to simply belittle anyone that disagrees with me. Please read my posts with that intent in mind.

Fair enough. Hard to tell sometimes on this forum. I will keep that in mind from now on.

Quote[/b] ]Simply because I already had an answer doesn't nullify the intended result, to draw of you what your answer is.

Ah. Then I hope you got your intended result. Just in case you are refering to my previous mentioned 2002 post where I blamed Clinton for the holdup, it should be noted that the next page Ralph rightly points at the Republican Congress.

Quote[/b] ]The US Administration is a whole different kettle of fish.

Aye, and that is my main concern. From the stand-point of the Kyoto Protocol, I always argue from the stance of a US citizen that now thinks we should have joined it in light of what Bush is now doing.

If other countries do more to voluntarily reduce emissions, and succeed, that is of course commendable. I also believe though that the global community still needs to set standards for the world to follow. If others wish to do more than outlined then of course that is great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greenhouse gases 'do warm oceans'

Quote[/b] ]Scientists say they have "compelling" evidence that ocean warming over the past 40 years can be linked to the industrial release of carbon dioxide.

US researchers compared the rise in ocean temperatures with predictions from climate models and found human activity was the most likely cause.

In coming decades, the warming will have a dramatic impact on regional water supplies, they predict.

Details of the study were released at a major science meeting in Washington DC.

The conference is the annual gathering of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

'High confidence'

"This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and likely future evolution," said lead author Tim Barnett, of the climate research division at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California.

"If you take this data and combine it with a decade of earlier results, the debate about whether or not there is a global warming signal here and now is over at least for rational people."

The team fed different scenarios into computer simulations to try to reproduce the observed rise in ocean temperatures over the last 40 years.

They used several scenarios to try to explain the oceanic observations, including natural climate variability, solar radiation and volcanic emissions, but all fell short.

"What absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming," said Dr Barnett.

This model reproduced the observed temperature changes in the oceans with a statistical confidence of 95%, conclusive proof - say the researchers - that global warming is being caused by human activities.

'Political action'

Regional water supplies will be dramatically affected by climate change in the decades immediately ahead, say the team.

The western US is already experiencing water shortages and research suggests that the region could face a water crisis within 20 years.

In the South American Andes and western China, millions of people could be left without adequate water during the summer due to accelerated melting of glaciers.

"If the snow pack melts sooner, and if societies don't have the ability catch all of that water, they're going to end up with water shortages in the summer," Dr Barnett explained.

According to the Scripps researcher, political leadership was now needed to avert a global disaster.

"Hopefully we can get the US cranked around in that direction. I think the first thing to do is figure out the global warming-related problems we have ahead of us around the world.

"Unless we know what we're dealing with, I think it's going to be pretty hard to fix it."

The effects of global climate change are there, why don´t we just adapt to the situation and try to take for granted that pollution is responsible for that situation.

Although it´s already to late to revert major changes within the climate system I guess it´s now or never to realize what is going on and to do something against it. Either this or the numbers of climate catastrophies will dominate the news oneday. Oneday soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BlackScorpion instead of replying twice in the space of a few minutes please edit your first post smile_o.gif

This thread will suffer it's own climate change and be frozen completely if people continue to duplicate post smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]No more Bondai beach.

What's the predicted rise in sea levels over the next 50 years......I'd like to buy some real estate in preparation! wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackScorpion instead of replying twice in the space of a few minutes please edit your first post smile_o.gif

This thread will suffer it's own climate change and be frozen completely if people continue to duplicate post smile_o.gif

Even the moderators seem to be heating up more than they used to be. crazy_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most scientists must make ''discoveries'' within the status quo. I.E. no global warming, no rising sea levels, no chemical pollutants, no efficient engines, no alternative forms of energy like fusion that can change the world (and ruin oil companies) overnight and above all, no discoveries that downplay their own positions. In that respect, most scientists are like any other lackey. Do not expect serious effort with TBA in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ugh its very cold in switzerland, there is ice everywhere on the roads on morning and evening the wind is not so strong but it still punchs its coldness in our faces , you can't get out with at least 3 sweaters and 3 pants on

lucky northern englands in tshirts having barbecue, bleh mad_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]No more Bondai beach.

What's the predicted rise in sea levels over the next 50 years......I'd like to buy some real estate in preparation! wink_o.gif

And idiotic people like some in UAE and Qatar are reclaiming land from sea and building houses and apartments on them designing them in all sort of funky ways like a palm shaped beach tounge_o.gif , if the tide rises wont they get submerged?

But then again maybe its a good technique to protect the present coastline from being over run?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year, we had the coldest summer in many years here in denmark.... lets have that global warming - im cold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last year, we had the coldest summer in many years here in denmark.... lets have that global warming - im cold.

With global warming you will be even colder in the end wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Portugal we're suffering the driest, coldest winter in decades...

As for the waters rising... heck, I guess living in a submarine (black, not yellow, not shaken, not even stirred tounge_o.gif ) would be a safe home, if no one shoots at it and as long as it comes with a lifetime no-leak warranty... thinking about it, a submarine would be immune to:

- tsunamis and seaquakes;

- earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes;

- lightning strikes, and, with some info, time and luck, meteor showers!!! biggrin_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last year, we had the coldest summer in many years here in denmark.... lets have that global warming - im cold.

Hi LepparD

Climate caused weather change is not smooth

Climate temperature increases do not mean a straight temperature increase. The weather systems are based on a balanced chaotic system of attractors; a bit like a bunch of spinning tops that have all been spinning around each other for a long time. Because they have been spinning around each other for so long with little major changes to them they have reached a state of equilibrium.

Flicking the tops

Suddenly altering CO2 as we have over the last few decades is the same as giving one of the tops a flick with your finger. When you do that the equilibrium is lost. The tops bash against each other with surprising and increasing force rather like a nuclear chain reaction. You do not get very predictable results. Hence the fear of scientists that Global Warming will actually cause an Ice Age in the Northern Hemisphere.

Disturbed chaotic weather indicators

Indications that our weather patterns had been disturbed would be: Unusually high incidences of weather records being broken. Catastrophic weather events happening with increased frequency. Say higher than usual numbers of tornados or tornados in areas they do not normally occur. Say higher than usual number of hurricanes and typhoons or hurricanes and typhoons in areas they do not normally occur. More flash floods. More landslides caused by overfilled water tables. Higher levels of forest fires caused by unusually dry summers. Icebergs seen beyond their normal latitudes.

Maritime Climate

Your country like the UK and Norway is warmed by the Gulf Stream and its corollary the Atlantic Conveyer in winter and cooled by it in summer. Such nations are said to have Maritime Climate. These nations do not tend to suffer from extremes of weather. The problem with global warming is that it alters the Northern freshwater intake into the Atlantic Conveyer. This is achieved through higher than normal rainfall and glacial melting.

In Europe you may have noticed that it rains more in summer. This increases the flow of fresh water into the rivers and hence the sea. You may have noticed higher levels of flooding and rivers bursting the banks. Several European rivers now regularly burst their banks. You may notice higher than usual soil erosion in hilly areas as the normal sponges for water catchments become overloaded and fail. You may have noticed a higher than normal occurrence of land slides such as those in California.

If you check the Greenland glaciers (satellite photos and historical records) you may notice they have receded rather alarmingly.

The main source of fresh water is a mixture glacial and river rain water from the Siberian planes. This has increased dramatically. Hence the fear of turning Denmark into Siberia which is probably not what you are observing. That is probably just a local blip; if it were to go that fast I would be very worried.

At present, Britain Denmark and Norway enjoys its temperate climate due to the warm air brought to us from the Gulf Stream. But, due to global warming, were the ice sheets to continue to melt, we would have some major problems. It wouldn't get hotter, as you'd think. It would, conversely, get a hell of a lot colder here in Britain.

How the Atlantic Conveyor and Gulf Stream work

You see, the North Atlantic is an incredibly important area. From a meteorological point of view, you could say it is "strategic." It is the point where the Gulf Stream sinks to join what is known as the Atlantic Conveyor, a massive rotating belt which takes cold water back along the ocean floor to the tropics, where again, it rises, to begin the journey again.

This whole process relies on the salinity of the water. As salt water cools, it's density increases, causing this drop to the floor I just mentioned. What could muck this up?

Well, naturally, fresh water from the melting ice-sheets, along with the huge Siberian rivers, which are flooding more than ever, contributing to this fresh water being thrown into the Atlantic.

Put simply, diluted salt water will not sink, the Gulf Stream would call it a day and it would get very cold. No, I mean really cold, not like last year in Denmark.

Winners and losers in an unpredictable weather world

It could all be good for say the Arabs though since it may cause a shift in monsoons and make Arab lands once again major cereal producers. This would be good as there would be a need to replace the cereal crop areas of Russia, Europe and the USA which would be damaged in a freeze. Arabs would also be able to charge more for their oil to countries like Denmark (if it was possible to still live there).

Generally speaking most people loose out though; radical weather change makes crops that once worked no longer do so. For instance you may get failures of local cereal crops in Europe as happened last year. Grapes may not ripen in wine growing areas. Generally if you can not predict the weather your crops tend to fail as you can not tell when to plant them or what crops will fruit and ripen any more.

For me the really bad indicators would be:

1) Failure or radical change of the oceanic flows of which Atlantic Conveyer or Gulf Stream is part.

2) Changes to the monsoons

3) Changes to the tropical forest micro climates (failure of the rain forest)

4) Major plankton blooms.

All four happening at the same time would probably be a global extinction event.

If you are interested you may read more here

http://faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin/teaching/Broecker99.html

Consider this a little more learned. Look at the Advective Spindown which is weather change over 100 years; versus the frightening prospect of Convective Instability that would be unpredictable and happen over just 10 years (source of the Day after Tommorrow scenario). Scientists fear the type of flows we are seeing are more reminiscent of that.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan....NG10-38

More Detailed still

http://www.clivar.org/publications/other_pubs/Villef_report.htm

Kind Regards Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The climate here has been weird this last few year, specially this winter.

+5 °C in desember?! Thunder and lightning on the winter?!

Thats not normal where I live.

EDIT: * to °

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi colossus

Over the last 15 or so years we have broken most weather records here in the UK heck we have even had a huricane in Southern England and we now seem to have tornados every couple of years.

This paper may be of interest to some.

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/p4.html

I am looking forward to an upcomming paper by a UK oceanagraphic team that has been observing the gulf stream for a long time. In an Horizon program they said they saw a shocking reduction in flow last year. The paper and observations are suposed to be published later this year.

If you want a simple explantion of how the Atlantic Conveyer, Gulf Stream and the other oceanic streams that make up the Thermohaline Conveyer (THC) then obviously wiki is the sourcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_conveyor

For the rather alarming 30 year prediction of what a a colapse would mean for the northern and southern hemespheres see this page.

Change in annual temperature 30 years after a collapse of the thermohaline circulation

thcvellinga.gif

source

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/thc/

The source of the Day after Tommorow film fears. Interestingly it looks as though antartica would become livable.

Kind Regards Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

I may be about to provoke Placebo's ire but I feel this is sufficiently importance and part of this topic to raise here in a new post in this thread and to bring the post to fore.

So I guess I takes my lumps. sad_o.gif

I searched for this in the US News but it apears that as many people warned TBA have managed to supress this report in US Media which now seems to be as censored as the worst exesses of Stalin under an increasingly Bolshevic Republican party.

It shocks me beyond words that a Pentagon warning that global warming is now more dangerous than Al Qaida can be so easily hidden from the once proud American people.

Quote[/b] ]Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war

· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years

· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York

Sunday February 22, 2004

The Observer

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

Source:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/interna....00.html

Censorship alive and thriving under TBA

Would the last free American alive please remember to turn out the light.

Sadly Walker

Edit

For those Americans who want to read the report suppressed by TBA and Censored from the American press that their Pentagon wrote here is a link but make sure no Bolshevik Republican is staring over you shoulder wink_o.gif

Download the suppressed Penatagon Report http://www.unipeak.com/gethtml....24uZG9j

And to the Bolshevik Republicans The Whole World is Watching

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war

· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years

· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Clima and terrorism?!

oh yeah, eco-terrorists.

Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war sounds like a story from a Tom Clancy book. But what the heck, when they are speaking of clima they need to add terrorism and war to convince Bush tounge_o.gif

But then again, you'll never know whats gone happen.

Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years? rock.gif

I live more north then UK and the clima has been warm instead of cool, like it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this article may be exagerated, it is not entirely impossible.

Like I said before progress on alternative sources of energy is either done privately and never publicised or it is bashed upon.

It is not some ''evil conspiracy plan'', if these were implemented, American economy would quickly collapse and you would all live in poverty. The rest of the world would follow. Even third world countries would be in trouble without rich investors to exploit them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years? rock.gif

I live more north then UK and the clima has been warm instead of cool, like it should be.

Hi colossus

I know science is hard for some people to understand but I refer you to my prevous 3 posts in this thread that explains how global warming can cause an ice age.

If you do not believe me then I think you should at least believe Scientists and the Pentgon as they are pretty good sources from oposite ends of the political spectrum. When both of them stand up to say "Look out!" I would tend to listen.

If TBA then does a suppresion and censorship job so completly that it does not even apear in the US press then I get damn certain.

Kind Regards walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years? rock.gif

I live more north then UK and the clima has been warm instead of cool, like it should be.

Weather phenomena are very complex dynamic systems yet they are not very robust to changes (appart from their sheer size and unlike any other coplex system like biological pathways or even economics). Water of different temperature has different content of salt and different density. Slight density gradients are what keep the gulf stream going and the gulf stream keeps the english isles and northwestern Europe relatively warm. Without the Gulf stream there is no reason why these places wont end up as Siberia, they are in a close parallel anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×