Discuss
Topics
Yes, but many are growing. An the "alraming melting" is nothing new.
The linked article is not a scientific document, it's a political document from a conservative propaganda organisation. Can't imagine why a conservative political organisation would have a problem with global warming!
Science can be found on this link. Some journal call the New Scientist seems to think that glaciers are melting and fast.
Damn... my nice long responsepost was lost due to a wireless drop out!
anyway, basically i said, "those links don't work, they dont point to anything" unless you have a NewScientist subscription. And I'm happy to discount the media as a medium based on bias. Let's just look at real data. Got any? (I mean that in a nice way)
There's a Swedish organisation that doubts Global warming. Was in the Economist a few months ago. Not paid by the Oil companies. I'll see if I can find who it is.
Don't you hate that, we need the auto-save feature, once we have auto-save we can then save the world.
Yeah, we should suggest that!
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/11/MNGEJLMT8A1.DTL
From today's SF Chronicle.
BBC World showed a very interesting doco on Siberia last night. (Hosted by their Enviroment Coorespondent David Shukman whose wife Jessica used to work with me - in case you care). Anyway all the towns, roads, runways are built on permafrost. The permafrost is beginning to melt. Everything (towns, buildings, roads) are beginning to collapse. Further as the permafrost melts, released into the atmosphere goes billions of tonnes of trapped methane. Methane has shown to be one of the most damging contributors to global warming. Consider not only the enviromental implications of this but also the economic ones and be Very Afraid.
Glaciers have been melting for 10,000 years. Some are clearly documented to have reduced by 50 kms over the last 100 years... reductions that started and continued well before the industrial age.
There are approx 600,000 glaciers in the world, yet they are studying less than 100 with measurements enough to understand what changes there have been in the last 50 years. We have no idea as to any clear state of glacial reduction.
Turn on your TV and watch ABC's Lateline. Tony Blair speaking as a I write about HM Govt's report released today.
The point is that at present there is no clear evidence that glaciers are melting at an increased rate as a result of human action. Glaciers are melting, but they've been melting for a long time.
BTW: I would highly recommend the site http://www.realclimate.org/
So far it seems to have consistently reported unbiased information on real findings and interpretations by scientists. And there is plenty of debate on both sides of the fence.
Global Warming is very real and very worrying. I have the feeling you are taking a counter-position for the sake of argument. If so, I'd rather you chose a less controversial subject. To me, your stance is akin to those who argued in 1939 that Nazi Germany poised no threat to European Jewry; to Gypises, to Homosexuals and to the world at large.
Not for the sake of argument at all. I'm, in part, trying to open people eye's to a very loud propaganda machine that has moved people to the point of hysteria. There is absolutely NO categoric evidence that human sourced global warming exists; everything is a forecast based on climate *models*. So far there has yet to be a climate model proposed that has accurately predicted global climate for more than a few months, let alone 100 years. Until climate scientists can prove what their doing will even remotely work they're not getting my energy. At the *very least* people should demand accurate prediction from models for 10 years before committing to incredible waste.
I pay little or no regard to mainstream media reports of this information, they are almost always coloured, hysterical, misinterpretations of misinterpretations designed to sell papers or documentaries.
Contrary to what you might think I *am* concerned about environmental impact. Concerned enough to spend a great deal of time finding out the facts. Some things deserve our attention: the aids epidemic, environmental pollution, habitation destruction. These are real things that should be given real attention, not left suffering because they dont have the dramatic prediction of rising sea levels swamping our coast lines or hurricanes or antarctic collapse all up against the tyranny that is mass industrial wastage.
And if you want a great example that matches global warming in terms of millions of people believing in complete hysterical fantasy (including heads of state) then look no further than Eugenics. Something that was endorsed and supported across the world that ultimately led to the massacre of the jews by Hitler. Global warmists (my term) call for the effective shutdown of industrial growth in the third world, thus leading to a crippling of growth and the continuing distress/starvation/disease of millions. Are you willing to cause that much pain based on pseudo-scientific weatherman predicting the end of the world?
If they can't predict weather 7 days ahead, how the hell are they now saying they can 100 years.
Is it propaganda destroying the great barrier reef?. See bleachings (New Scientist).
The latest report out of Britain thinks that only 1% of GDP will be require to make significant changes in order to prevent catastrophic events of global warming. This is in stark contrast to the "shutdown of industrial growth in the third world".
This detailed 700 page analysis published yesterday was commissioned by the British Treasury.
ntroducing the report, the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said unabated climate change would cost the world between 5 per cent and 20 per cent of global gross domestic product each year.
He called for "bold and decisive action" to cut carbon emissions.
Britain's Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, said Australia could play a vital role in fighting climate change. Australia had "more case than any other country to understand the force of these arguments" because of its problem with water resources, she said.
Sir Nicholas says that as early as 2035 the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could reach double pre-industrial levels, leading to a global average temperature change of more than two degrees.
Regardless of who's right and who's wrong on this debate, industrial societies, including China and India, should look at ways to be less wasteful of energy. Market based incentives (like carbon trading rights) and perhaps reasonable levels of taxation on certain forms of energy might just provide the necessary motivation to change how things are done now. You don't need a 2 tonne SUv to drive Buffy and Jody to school, a medium station wagon does just as well and 1/2 the energy use. Companies in the USA who were resistive to adopting EPA pollution regulations once forced to do so became more efficient as a result, and therefore more profitable as well. This does not have to be a zero sum game. You don't have to ride a bike to work, jusst be more intelligent in your choices. Wouldn't it be nice to have 1) less pollution, 2) require less energy importation from regions in the world wo don't like us very much, and 3) take out some insurance in case the global warmers may just be right?
Stern's figures are entirely based on a computer "simulation" of events. I'm unable to find evidence of accurate climate models (ones that predict climate change for a few years or more). As he says "No-one can predict the consequences of climate change with complete certainty"
Based on the models he "selected" (there are others which don't predict global disaster) he then goes on to project costs which on the face of them look fine. The problem is it all comes back to the computer models, which have 100% of the time been wrong in the past. Why believe them now?
Mr Stern should be taken to task for his report. It's absolutely wild propaganda. He predicts incredible loss and damage and does so based on weather prediction. It's irresponsible, regardless of how much he believes it. But it will probably get them elected in the same way not supporting helped Mr Bush.
I agree with Erik - personally, I haven't made my mind up abt global warming. But the amount of wastage (in all countries) is crazy. There's no reason to keep consuming the way we do...
Take a drive into any city centre in the night. Why are all the office lights left on? Is it too much to ask that they be turned off?
Computer models are used to predict how weather systems will be affected by global increases in temperature. Predictive computer models are not used to determine increases in average global temperatures. What the models can tell us is how these increased temperature will affect weather patterns. So we don't need these predictive models to tell us the the world is warming. We also don't need these models to tell us that the world is warming at records speeds. We can utilise ice core drills to unlock the planets climate history with impressive accuracy.
Why is it unreasonable to act upon Sir Nicholas's recommendations now and spend the 1% of global GDP per annum ($500 m) when to do nothing he indicated could cost atleast 5% of GDP and as much as 20% GDP. What have we to lose? Atleast our heirs gain a cleaner planet and at best and almost certainly we begin to redress this awful situation and SAVE THE PLANET.
From today's Crikey:
" Dear Squatters, How much does the Stern Report on climate change up the ante for the Australian government? Here’s a hint. The release of the authoritative report by the former World Bank chief economist -- predicting that climate change will reduce global GDP by up to 20% by the beginning of the next century – was greeted with this modest-sized headline on The Australian’s front page today: “PM defiant despite global warming alarm”. The gist of the PM’s response is that Australia won’t sign an international agreement that doesn't put the same limits on China and India, that coal will continue to provide most of the world's energy for several more decades, and that "the only things that will ever replace the current dirty power stations are cleaner uses of fossil fuel, or nuclear power … you will never replace them with solar or wind." Meanwhile his Treasurer hit the airwaves this morning to report that although Australia won’t sign the Kyoto Protocol, we're “on track” to meet our Kyoto emissions target -- an increase of 8% in emissions from 1990 levels by 2008-12 compared with a decrease of between 5-8% for 32 of the 38 other developed countries. So is there anything that will motivate the government to act? Logic? Science? Genuine concern for the future of the planet? Nup. How about public discussion? Today, the Stern Report was the lead news story on around half of radio news bulletins in Australia, a topic of intense discussion on many talkback radio programs, and a page-one story in most (but not all) major dailies. On the other hand, the news media with the biggest audiences – the main TV news bulletins -- covered the story this way last night (figures taken from Sydney bulletins): Channel 9 (4th story from the top), Channel 7 (6th story), Channel 10 (15th story), ABC (7th story), SBS (5th story). John Howard and Martin Wells, unlike most of the rest of us, should be very pleased with that coverage."
A voice of reason from the Telegraph (UK).
And another.
Both worth taking on board before acting emotionally.
I think that the problem, from Australia's perspective is clouded by an almost universal lack of imagination and vision. Here's some rants for you:
How can you exect your government to form a strategy when you send them back to the polls every three years?
How can you expect young people to care when they've had the same prime minister for practically all their life? - and his legacy after all that time will be a gun amnesty, a rigged vote on a republic, a talent for antagonising every culture that used to think highly of Australians, and an attitude to the environment that is reminiscent of an emu with his head in the sand.
is it imaginative to propose solving an urban water crisis by building desalination plants? No but it might just win the next election - see above.
Are rainwater tanks a viable solution? A rainwater tank for toilet and washing machine use alone would reduce domestic consumption by 60%...BUT...
...if 60% of drinking water ends up in the toilet how much of it do we actually drink? 2%.
Why don't we recycle?...Because there is an election coming up. There is ALWAYS an election coming up.
Why does it not matter anyway? Because Australian homes only consume 10% of stored water.
Industry and farming uses the rest, that is what is left after 90% of it evaporates.
Why does farming use so much water? Because we grow inappropriately selected crops, like rice - which needs to grow in 30cm of water.
Why does nobody care? Because there is an election coming up.
Maybe we use too much water because it is too cheap. Certainly for farmers this is true. Like Petrol, if it is too cheap we'll just waste it.
What does an urban water crisis have to do with farmers? They're not "stealing" our water out of the sydney basin.
No, but they have no financial incentives to be economical with water. Perhaps if the efficiency of use of all natural resources was raised world-wide, we'd have less of an issue with global warming. The Chinese are constructing 560 coal-fired powerplants. Wanna bet their pollution control technology is state of the art for 1900?
Water is - particularly in Australia - the new oil: the points are many: water is a political hot topic (even though it is neither on the Labor nor Liberal agenda) and is the subject of State government control in urban areas, even though the REAL consumers are the farmers; the latest in a long line of cooky strategies is to pipe water from the 'abundant' rivers of NT. A large proportion of the Sydney catchment water is in fact channeled to farming in the Sydney area and a more appropriate management policy governing rebates for tanks, use of bore water, native gardening, abolition of pools, recycling, crop development would at the very least give some indication that NSW/Federal government take the environment seriously....
...look at it another way: Australia has an aging population that lives longer; it has a skills shortage (if you don't belive me then you should move to Europe for a few months) and it needs to grow the population in order to support the population it has and provide an internationally competitive marketplace...the Australian environment cannot sustain the growth necessary unless a broad ranging strategy is articulated and implemented at a federal level: aside from other considerations there is a wealth of data that suggests that unless Australia sorts itself out from an environmental perspective we face a severe recession and the probability of being left behind the western world...your children will have more fundamental economic problems than you or I. http://www.optimumpopulation.org/
Great link rira, that's interesting stuff.
