US ignores global heating warning

[GAHD]

1) The sun is hotter than in 8,000 years

i know this is minor sidetrack, but I don't feel it deserves a whole new topic.
Are you referring to scientists determining that the radiation levels in trees have been higher since ~1960 than in most of recorded history? If so i find it funny that no one has linked this increase to the development of the hole in the ozone, and linked it to those same pollutants and the large degree of nuclear reactors and weapons testing that has gone on.
Attributing it completely to the sun burning hotter seems a rather haphazard explanation to me, especially since standard methods of detection and recording of solar luminosity and radioactivity were not carried out prior to that time.

Just my 2 bits on that little 'discovery'.

To global warming I do agree it could become a major problem. Especially since there is a predicted upheval of the ocean's natural currents if it continues, leading to sudden and possibly violent climate change to most of the regions that remain rather temperate because of those currents.

[maddog]

It might be true that lastest findings that global warming might not be as bad, it just
that some of the actions my current president emarrasses me that I am an American.



Maddog

[C1ay]

Something I have always noticed about these reports is their failure to acknowlege any contribution from solar activity. In the 17th century solar activity dropped so low as to cause snow to lie year round where it normally melted off during the summer. This was referred to as the Maunder Minimum. Conversely, unusually active solar cycles contribure to warming the Earth. Just a slight increase of the sun's furnace could cause catastrophic weather on Earth. How much is glovbal warming caused by man and how much is caused by nature?

[pmaust]

This issue isn't so much that the earth is warming. That may be true or not. The bigger question is, is it a good or bad thing? We are still nowhere near the Medieval Climate Optimum. During that time life was good. At least for the northern Europeans. Recently, a theory has been posited by a group of researchers that suggest that we may have stalled the onset of another Ice Age as a result of human activity. I think another full blown ice age would be far more devestating than global warming. Of course, I have no proof to support that other than my gut feelings based on what I know from the past.

There is also some evidence that the warming trend isn't just isolated to earth. That in fact, the whole solar system is experiencing changes. For example, Mars appears to be in a Global Warming cycle right now. While I do not believe that we should have a cavilier attitude toward our contributions to the environment, I strongly believe that to take rash actions that can have potentially damaging economic impacts while acting on suspcious scientific conclusions can not only be politically damaging regardless of the party in power but it could cause people to loose faith in science.

I submit that the Kyoto Treaty was a good idea but poorly marketed. There were thousands of scientist who disagreed with the scientific conclusions used to sell the idea of the treaty.

Next, I believe that it is abolutely essential that science remain non-political. I am not saying that it is non-political but, that it should be.

This is a subject that is very important to me. I do not claim to be right about all of my thoughts on this and look forward to a good discussion.

Cheers!

Paul

[Fishteacher73]

If I recall there was a theory that suggested that Ice ages were not the effect of climate shifts, but the shifts in ocean currents (Brought about by shifts in the oceans salinity). This allowed the tropical regions to remain reasonabley in tact and a sort of "home base" for life. There was some diversification in the temperate areas, but most of those variations of life have again faded from the planet.

Global warming in itself is not a huge deal to life (it make kill off many species including man, but life will persist with minor shifts in median temp.). The biggest problem is the snowballing effect that the greenhouse gasses produce. Currently, the longe scale carbon cycle helps keep thes gasses in somewhat an equilibrium. The only problem is that the temp. shifts could break this cycle because of the excess gasses being poured into the system by man and devesating out photosynthetic lifeforms, which are the link for returning atmospheric carbon.

[pmaust]

Actually more plants will do better during a warming trend than a cooling trend. Humans and most other animals will thrive in a warmer climate. An Ice Age in contrast would be far more devestating.

The problem with theories is that there is a gazillion of them. We scold the President of the US for not jumping through hoops on this issue. But imagine if you can, trying to make policy decisions when there are so many different theories being thrown at you? In the mean time, steps are being taken to improve our technology and clean things up. It just takes time and money. Clobber the economy and you loose a vital ingredient necessary for technological progress not to mention your job if you are a politician.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Tormod

From CNN:

Climate report leaves U.S. policy unchanged

"President Bush is holding fast to his rejection of mandatory curbs on greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming, despite a fresh report from 300 scientists in the United States and seven other nations that shows Arctic temperatures are rising."

This bit sort of pisses me off (pardon my French):


Scientists have shown that there are two main things which influence the observed global warming: 1) The sun is hotter than in 8,000 years and 2) The atmosphere is full of man-made Carbon Dioxide and other pollutants like Nitrogen Oxides. The first is not influenced by human presence, but the other certainly is. Yet the opponents of the Kyoto protocol argue that we cannot prove beyond a doubt whether the global warming will not recede next year.

Wouldn't it make more sense to assume it will NOT recede? Global temperatures have climbed steadily for decades and are climbing still.

It seems the policy is to make sure we have jobs now. It doesn't matter if 100 million jobs (not to mention lives) are lost in 100 years from now because we don't live then. What a marvellous way to waste the world.

Someone wants the US to leave the UN. Fine. The 289 million US citizens are more important than the rmaining 5,7 billion people on Earth. Should we also move the US off the planet? Perhaps to Mars?

Wouldn't it be a little more fair to acknowledge the whole picture?

If the U.S. signed the treaty it would only result in the companies with dirty processes in the U.S. moving their operations to China and India since they are exempt. This simply results in moving U.S. jobs to these countries without reducing the emmisions the treaty is intended to reduce.. Why should the U.S. do this? Australia refuses to sign the treaty as well claiming that it is too costly.

This treaty is flawed. As long as anyone is exempt or nations are allowed to trade emmisions there will be loopholes to avoid violating the treaty. This will effectively redistribute jobs from developed nations to developing nations thereby shifting the global economy. From this aspect it is too costly and grossly unfair to developed nations.

It should also be noted that methane contributes to global warming 21 times more than carbon dioxide. The top 3 methane emitters in order of significance are China, Russia and India. Again China and India are exempt from Kyoto and Russia's commitment is delayed since it is listed in Annex I as a country transitioning to a market economy. All 3 of these though, have joined a Methane-To-Markets partnership with the U.S. and nearly a dozen other countries. The U.S. will also assist 7 of these countries with U.S. technology and $53 million in seed money.

At any rate, that is my rant on Kyoto. I hope you find it informative. I know it seems like the U.S. is being selfish and stubborn on the Kyoto Treaty but IMO, the big picture does not show this to be the case. Let's hope the future will bring a solution that discriminates against no one.