New Orleans

[FourLaneBlue]

Oh right, I thought they were deemed exempt from it because they were 'developing' countries. So that leaves the USA as the bad guy then.

351984[/snapback]

The USA and Australia both refused to ratify it and Australia didn't even sign it. Developing countries do have some leeway and are exempt in some ways (not too sure what the specifics are) but are supposed to cut back on certain things. However regardless of this, the USA is still the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases despite having about only a quarter of the population of India and a sixth of China's. It's all become a political debate about jobs and industry for the USA and Australia yet while it is understandable surely something has to be done now rather than later if people want their kids and grandkids living in a healthier world.

As for "The US is no angel but China and India are the ones to watch as they don't really care at all." Well...both China and India have some developed parts yet have hundreds of millions below the poverty line. The US doesn't quite have that excuse, especially as the factions against less pollution tends to be megarich companies.

Wikipedia - Kyoto Protocol

Edited October 8, 2005 by FourLaneBlue

[pg]

Interesting graph on CO2 concentration and temperature variability taken from the Antarctic ice sheet.

Current CO2 levels are 25% higher than any level in the past 400,000 years. Not the interesting the lag between increased temperature variability and increased CO2 production is not present at the moment... ie the CO2 is being injected... not a by product of normal climate variability (e.g. change in the tilt of the earth's axis, variability in the sun's output).

I've spoken to a few climatologists, and that graph and data is pretty much a nail and shut case.

Global warming is already here. Hang on.. its gonna be a hell of ride.

Edited October 13, 2005 by pg

[American]

For those who believe that global warming is "fact" I recommend Michael Crichton's new novel. Several interesting facts, though I'm only a quarter of the way through it:

The average temperature in Antartica has DROPPED over the past 100+ years.

"Side-looking radar measurements show West Antartic ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/jr. Reversing the melting trend of the last 6,000 years." (My emphasis added.) Joughlin, I and Tulaczyk, S, 2000.

Iceland and Greenland both got colder in the second half of the 20th Century than they were in the first half, with Glaciers getting larger.

Between 1940 and 1970, Carbon dioxide levels rose, yet temperatures dropped, showing that there is no correlation between rising levels of CO2 and "rising" temperatures.

Global temperature data has no scientific basis for collection. A lot of the temperature taking earlier in the century were from people walking outside and looking at a thermometer. Maybe got too lazy some days? In the US, which has some of the best-maintained weather stations in the world, temperatures haven't gone up by much, and have periods of going down (see 1940-1970 - also see the last 2 winters where I froze my keester off and found out last year for the first time in the 5 years I owned my car that its thermometer shows negative temperatures (farenheit)).

Another interesting article I found HERE while researching this more.

People talk about corporations sponsoring research to prove their points, what about environmental groups doing the same? How much money do you think groups like Greenpeace need to raise a year to sustain? How do they get people to give? They try to scare us into thinking the end of the world is near.

[Jimbo]

There was an interesting and rather scary Horizon or some such documentary that was examining the discrepancy between rising CO2 levels and the fact that the temperature hasn't gone up that much. The found the answer because it has also been found that evaporation rates have dropped. They have been testing evaporation rates out in Australia and although the levels of sunlight are the same the rate water has been evaporationg from their test pools has been dropping. The have linked this to high particulate levels in the upper atmosphere cutting down the amount of sunlight hitting the earth and hence keeping the temperature down. So it may be we are in for a double whammy - cut down CO2 & end up in an ice-age - clean up our emmissions and accelerate global warming

[Neil Weaver]

Jimbo, global dimming I think was the term used. Is this the one ? Remember watching it - wasn't it a year or more ago? If they're right, global warming will be just a little annoyance.

[pg]

Global temperature data has no scientific basis for collection. A lot of the temperature taking earlier in the century were from people walking outside and looking at a thermometer. Maybe got too lazy some days? In the US, which has some of the best-maintained weather stations in the world, temperatures haven't gone up by much, and have periods of going down (see 1940-1970 - also see the last 2 winters where I froze my keester off and found out last year for the first time in the 5 years I owned my car that its thermometer shows negative temperatures (farenheit)).

352115[/snapback]

No scientific basis!?!

You're talking about trends that over 20-40 years. That is a blink of an eye for climate-change timescale.

Have a look at that graph again.

No-one doubts temperature variability. We all know that the Romans used to grow wine in the balmy south of England 2000 years ago.

But that graph suggests something real is happening, which is significant compared to data obtained for a very, very long timescale.

[neekoy]

I thought that we only had about a 100 years of measured weather stats anyway?

How can either side be confident with 100 years of data of a planet 100 billion years old?

[pg]

We do.

But that's the beauty of a deep ice core sample You get close to half a million years worth of data, which is long enough to be statistically significant.

[jim mk2]

For those who believe that global warming is "fact" I recommend Michael Crichton's new novel.

.

352115[/snapback]

Scientic argument based on a novel. Marvellous.

And coming soon to a cinema near you: a Hollywood film based on historical fact.

[American]

Try actually reading it. He uses cited facts from published research to back up his points, unlike you scum from Rupert's papers.

[Paul]

Gentlemen, gentlemen........please

[USABlue]

No scientific basis!?! 

No-one doubts temperature variability.  We all know that the Romans used to grow wine in the balmy south of England 2000 years ago.

352501[/snapback]

I must have lived a sheltered life, I've never seen a wine tree, or is it a bush or plant of some form.

[colin]

Try actually reading it. He uses cited facts from published research to back up his points...

352543[/snapback]

American,

Jim is right, Crighton is a writer of fiction.

There is almost unanimous agreement in the independent scientific community that global warming is here and it's real.

Have a look at the top story in the respected

New Scientist magazine

and then type "global warming" in its search engine. You'll find some very sobering articles.

Including this one

Edited October 10, 2005 by colin

[American]

Colin, did you bother reading the link I posted before you dreamed of an almost unanimous agreement? I can find you a ton more... How many would it take before you admit that you were wrong and unanimous isn't even close? Why did temperatures go down during one of the largest industrial booms, a boom that lacked the government regulation we have now?

How about when they said temperatures would rise and they were 300% off in how much? How many other scientists are wrong by 300% and still considered credible?

[dave birch]

Looking at the graph presented by pg, I would have thought that we were in for a massive reduction in temperature rather than an increasing one.

As Co2 levels increased (with a lag following an increase in Temp) the temperature dropped, resulting in a reduction in Co2.

The only unknown at the moment, is, will the Co2 levels fall?

[philipl]

I think its worth putting some indisputable facts on the page.

- Levels of Co2 in the atmosphere are at an indisputable high level.

- plant and tree growth, ice cores and even river sediment are indisputable sources of data on historic atmospheric composition. Every year going back over 500,000 has effectively been analysed.

- ozone holes are real

- rising sea levels are real

- hurricanes are real

[Neil Weaver]

Errrr, without wishing to digress too much, anyone else see a pic of a rather attractive blond lass where, apparently, pg has put a graph showing CO2 concentration? Nice link pg

[pg]

Fixed it!

[colin]

If a picture is worth a thousand words then here's a long post.

bye bye ice

[blue phil]

These things run in cycles - always have done . What our American and many scientists (including our own David Bellamy I believe ) dispute is what the impact of our modern way of living has to do with it all . Maybe a lot , maybe virtually nothing ......

Do you drive a car Colin ? Or go abroad on airplanes ? If so , you and others like you should look to themselves before blaming Bush and the bad ol' US of A .....

PS - I wonder who got all the blame in past centuries ..

[Eddie]

God

[American]

I just find it interesting that Colin ignores the FACT that the majority of Antartic ice is STOPPING a 6,000 year receeding trend and only focusing on a small area not even near 1% of the continent.

[dave birch]

If we are at the top of a "warming trend", then we'd better stock up on longjohns and other thermals.

Now, there's an opportunity for a smart young fellow to corner the market

Edited October 14, 2005 by dave birch

[Billy Castell]

I believe that the world naturally warms and cools in a cycle. However, barring immense natural disasters, Earth has not had so much crap pumped into the atmosphere. So all that stuff could be a real danger in the future.

[colin]

many scientists (including our own David Bellamy I believe ) dispute is what the impact of our modern way of living has to do with it all

  Do you drive a car Colin ?  Or go abroad on airplanes ? If so , you and others like you should look to themselves before blaming Bush and the bad ol' US of A  .....

353140[/snapback]

You're just taking the opposite view out of habit

(A) David Bellamy has stopped denying global warming exists.

(

(i)If you don't beleive in global warming then why do you suggest that my not driving a car will make any difference?

(ii) If you do beleive in global warming then presumably you'll be taking your own advice and stop driving.

(C ) Have I blamed George Bush or the USA? Care to show me where?

American,

Post us some pictures of ice sheets, or glaciers, or mountains with snow lines where the "before" and "after" shows them either advancing or static.

Edited October 16, 2005 by colin