Page 75 of 111 FirstFirst ... 2565707172737475767778798085 ... LastLast
Results 1,481 to 1,500 of 2209
  1. #1481  
    Just to keep this important topic going, I am passing along another recent article which just came out yesterday in Science. I believe if you email the author they will send you the full article if you are interested:
    --------------
    Published Online November 29, 2007
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1146961

    Climate Change, Deforestation, and the Fate of the Amazon
    Yadvinder Malhi 1*, J. Timmons Roberts 2, Richard A. Betts 3, Timothy J. Killeen 4, Wenhong Li 5, Carlos A. Nobre 6
    1 Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK.
2 Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK.; College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 23187, USA.
3 Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK.
4 Conservation International, Washington DC, 20036, USA.
5 School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332–0340, USA.
6 Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, São Jose dos Campos, SP, Brazil.

    * To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Yadvinder Malhi , E-mail: yadvinder.malhi@ouce.ox.ac.uk

    The forest biome of Amazonia is one of Earth’s greatest biological treasures, and a major component of the Earth system. This century, it faces the dual threats of deforestation and stress from climate change. In this review, we summarize some of the latest findings and thinking on these threats, explore the consequences for the forest ecosystem and its human residents, and outline options for the future of Amazonia. We also discuss the implications of new proposals to finance preservation of Amazonian forests.
  2. #1482  
    Here is another article which just came out in PNAS which I believe is open access
    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/shor...48/18925?rss=1
    It introduces an interesting new data analysis system for C02 called the Carbon Tracker.

    PNAS | November 27, 2007 | vol. 104 | no. 48 | 18925-18930

    An atmospheric perspective on North American carbon dioxide exchange: CarbonTracker

    Wouter Peters*,,, Andrew R. Jacobson*,, Colm Sweeney*,, Arlyn E. Andrews*, Thomas J. Conway*, Kenneth Masarie*, John B. Miller*,, Lori M. P. Bruhwiler*, Gabrielle Pétron*,, Adam I. Hirsch*,, Douglas E. J. Worthy, Guido R. van der Werf¶, James T. Randerson||, Paul O. Wennberg**, Maarten C. Krol, and Pieter P. Tans*

    *National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Earth System Research Laboratory, 325 Broadway R/GMD1, Boulder, CO 80305; Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, UCB 216, Boulder, CO 80303; Environment Canada, 4905 Dufferin Street, Downsview, ON, Canada M3H 5T4; ¶Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; ||Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697; **Division of Engineering and Applied Science and Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125; and Department of Meteorology and Air Quality, Wageningen University and Research Center, 6708 PB, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Communicated by A. R. Ravishankara, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO, September 27, 2007 (received for review May 23, 2007)

    We present an estimate of net CO2 exchange between the terrestrial biosphere and the atmosphere across North America for every week in the period 2000 through 2005. This estimate is derived from a set of 28,000 CO2 mole fraction observations in the global atmosphere that are fed into a state-of-the-art data assimilation system for CO2 called CarbonTracker. By design, the surface fluxes produced in CarbonTracker are consistent with the recent history of CO2 in the atmosphere and provide constraints on the net carbon flux independent from national inventories derived from accounting efforts. We find the North American terrestrial biosphere to have absorbed –0.65 PgC/yr (1 petagram = 1015 g; negative signs are used for carbon sinks) averaged over the period studied, partly offsetting the estimated 1.85 PgC/yr release by fossil fuel burning and cement manufacturing. Uncertainty on this estimate is derived from a set of sensitivity experiments and places the sink within a range of –0.4 to –1.0 PgC/yr. The estimated sink is located mainly in the deciduous forests along the East Coast (32%) and the boreal coniferous forests (22%). Terrestrial uptake fell to –0.32 PgC/yr during the large-scale drought of 2002, suggesting sensitivity of the contemporary carbon sinks to climate extremes. CarbonTracker results are in excellent agreement with a wide collection of carbon inventories that form the basis of the first North American State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR), to be released in 2007. All CarbonTracker results are freely available at http://carbontracker.noaa.gov.

    I went to carbontracker.org and it is an interesting website run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    For those who wish to learn more about global warming, the NOAA answers some FAQs:
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/infodata/faq_cat-1.html#12
  3. #1483  
    Here is another article which just came out providing more information on global warming for those in this forum who are interested. This article, reviewed in Nature's climate reports journal, provides some fairly disturbing information suggesting that those who contributed the least to climage change will suffer the greatest:
    --------------------
    Nature Reports Climate Change
    Published online: 22 November 2007 | doi:10.1038/climate.2007.68
    Unequal impacts
    Olive Heffernan

    The health burden of climate change will be greatest among those who have contributed least to the problem, finds a study that quantifies the growing ethical crises of global warming.

    Led by environmental public-health researcher Jonathan Patz of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, the study compared per capita carbon dioxide emissions with the regional distribution of four climate-sensitive health effects: malaria, malnutrition, diarrhoea and inland flood-related fatalities. Overall, the researchers found a striking disparity between countries with the highest emissions and those with the highest disease burden. For example, per capita CO2 emissions of the US are six times greater than the average among nations, yet the US also has a significantly lower disease burden than developing nations, some of which have per capita emissions 30-fold less than those of the US.

    Notably, the study highlights that 88% of the disease burden attributable to climate change affects children less than five years old, who are a 'non-consenting' part of the population. The inequity of climate change further extends to some of the proposed solutions; the scientists caution that biofuels, for example, could worsen the health impacts of climate change by competing with food crops for land and rainforests for biodiversity conservation in developing nations.

    http://origin.www.nature.com/climate...e.2007.68.html


    Figure 1 from the original article:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/212lw8m6466n645p/
  4. #1484  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Here is another article which just came out providing more information on global warming for those in this forum who are interested. This article, reviewed in Nature's climate reports journal, provides some fairly disturbing information suggesting that those who contributed the least to climage change will suffer the greatest:
    --------------------
    Nature Reports Climate Change
    Published online: 22 November 2007 | doi:10.1038/climate.2007.68
    Unequal impacts
    Olive Heffernan

    The health burden of climate change will be greatest among those who have contributed least to the problem, finds a study that quantifies the growing ethical crises of global warming.

    ...
    http://origin.www.nature.com/climate...e.2007.68.html


    Figure 1 from the original article:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/212lw8m6466n645p/
    The above may explain the disinterest of the US... why should the Bush admin and the like care if only the mortality rate of other countries goes up?

    Dec. 3 (Bloomberg) -- The Australian government ratified the Kyoto Protocol, leaving the U.S. as the only major developed nation that hasn't joined the accord aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...E5U&refer=asia
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1485  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    This article, reviewed in Nature's climate reports journal, provides some fairly disturbing information suggesting that those who contributed the least to climage change will suffer the greatest:
    Like Kyoto's China?

    Viva la alarmistas!!
  6. #1486  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Like Kyoto's China?
    If China wants to continue destroy their own resources, through deforestation, water and air pollution in an effort to burn as much coal and oil as they can to "outdo" us, they will learn the hard way how misguided that idea is. They already are, actually.
    http://www.csis.msu.edu/Publication%...balization.pdf
  7. #1487  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Like Kyoto's China?
    Look at where China stands, and where you stand, when it comes to CO2 emissions per capita. As the worst polluter, you have no right whatsoever to complain about China catching up with you, even if only a little bit, and hopefully not quite up to your silly level.
    Last edited by clulup; 12/04/2007 at 01:18 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8. #1488  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Viva la alarmistas!!
    What's the worst you can lose from more intelligent use of energy? How about less smooching with the Saudi dictators, less holding hands like lovers of your most impressive president?



    Lowering dependence on Middle East oil alone would be enough reason to start working towards lowering CO2 emissions e.g. by alternative energy sources, or by wasting less. Not so gojeda, the pro waste, pro US dependence, pro Middle East dictators lobbyist.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1489  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    If China wants to continue destroy their own resources, through deforestation, water and air pollution in an effort to burn as much coal and oil as they can to "outdo" us, they will learn the hard way how misguided that idea is. They already are, actually.
    http://www.csis.msu.edu/Publication%...balization.pdf
    Except that isn't really the point, now is it?

    The reason why the United States balked at the Kyoto Protocol was because more level-headed people looked at it and realized that China (and India) both got free-rides, inspite of their rapid industrialization and increased C02 output.
  10. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1490  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Look at where China stands, and where you stand,
    I think everyone know that the US uses the most resources, produces the most pollution, AND PRODUCES THE MOST WEALTH in the world economy.

    You are quibbling about economies of scale here.

    As the worst polluter, you have no right whatsoever to complain about China catching up with you, even if only a little bit, and hopefully not quite up to your silly level.
    Those who produce the most use the most resources as well. That is not called "silliness", that is called economics.
  11. #1491  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    I think everyone know that the US uses the most resources, produces the most pollution, AND PRODUCES THE MOST WEALTH in the world economy.

    You are quibbling about economies of scale here.



    Those who produce the most use the most resources as well. That is not called "silliness", that is called economics.
    Your knowledge of these topics is too superficial. You barely know enough to misquote.

    E.g. "economies of scale" don't make any sense here. Maybe you could realise I posted per capita figures, so the total size of the US economy plays no role here.

    On a "wealth" basis (measured by GDP) the US are really bad, too, when compared to other developed countries - see the CO2 emission/GDP comparison here: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/en...bon-efficiency

    Also, you don't seem to know what speaks against lowering dependence on Middle East oil (the other post), so I assume you like seeing your president kissing and holding the hand of the Saudi prince.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12. #1492  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    The reason why the United States balked at the Kyoto Protocol was because more level-headed people looked at it and realized that China (and India) both got free-rides, inspite of their rapid industrialization and increased C02 output.
    India and China have C02 emissions in the range of 2 metric tons per person per year, the US have almost 20 tons per person per year (see graph above).

    Only the most arrogant and/or ignorant people at the 20 tons per person level could demand from India or China to keep it as low as 2 tons per person - or call an increase from their side "free-ride".
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  13. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1493  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Your knowledge of these topics is too superficial. You barely know enough to misquote.

    E.g. "economies of scale" don't make any sense here. Maybe you could realise I posted per capita figures, so the total size of the US economy plays no role here.
    Just because you did not understand the term does not mean it makes no sense.

    The concept is simple that even a 5 year old can understand it. Large economies consume large amounts of resources and produce large amounts of waste.

    Furthermore "per capita" figures is a non-sequitur. Kyoto does not mandate reductions on a per capita basis. They mandate reductions on a national basis.

    Using GDP figures from 2006, and CO2 emissions from 2004, we come up with the following:

    The US produced 19% of the world's wealth in 2006. In 2004, we produced 22% of the world's CO2 output.

    For China, the figures are 15% and 19% respectively.

    For Russia, the figures were 3% and 6% respectively.

    Yet, under Kyoto, China gets a complete free-pass while Russia were not subject to any reductions whatsoever.

    Note that since 2004, China has overtaken the US as the world's largest CO2 emitter.

    Only the obstinately ignorant fails to see that Kyoto was the stuff of fancy.

    Also, what does not get the proper discussion in all of this is the important component of CO2 sinks. North America is the world's 3rd largest CO2 sink, with the world's ocean being the largest and the Amazon rainforest being 2nd. This phenomena reduces our CO2 footprint to the tune of 12% annually, thank in part of the massive reforestation efforts that have taken place in the US and Canada over the last 40 years.

    Europe, conversely, is a poor CO2 sink as its forests are almost wiped out due to man-made activity. Asia has never been an effective CO2 sink to begin with.

    Also, you don't seem to know what speaks against lowering dependence on Middle East oil (the other post), so I assume you like seeing your president kissing and holding the hand of the Saudi prince.
    I believe there is little disagreement that reducing dependence on foreign oil is a good thing. I am not sure about the relevancy of your comments about a picture of a president embracing a ally, who has been an ally for the better part of 70 years.

    Should I have a problem with this?
  14. #1494  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Just because you did not understand the term does not mean it makes no sense.

    The concept is simple that even a 5 year old can understand it. Large economies consume large amounts of resources and produce large amounts of waste.
    Again this has nothing to do with "economies of scale". You like using big words, but you are not quite up to the challenge. As I said, you just about know enough to misquote.
    Furthermore "per capita" figures is a non-sequitur. Kyoto does not mandate reductions on a per capita basis. They mandate reductions on a national basis.
    Here's a little riddle for you: Nation ABC needs to reduce CO2 emissions by 10%. What is the per capita reduction needed to achieve this?
    Surprise, surprise, the answer is 10%, too, what a coincidence!?

    Note that since 2004, China has overtaken the US as the world's largest CO2 emitter.
    So? The US are 4.6% of the world population, China more than 20%.

    As I said, only the most ignorant and/or arrogant could demand from a Chinese person to remain at 2 tons CO2 per year while contributing 20 tons per year to the problem.

    It seems you are one of those. So enough said, I am not going to waste more time...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1495  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Again this has nothing to do with "economies of scale". You like using big words, but you are not quite up to the challenge. As I said, you just about know enough to misquote.
    You are starting to sound like a parrot here.

    Just because you are ignorant to the notion of scalar economics does not mean "the rest of us" are stupid.

    Here's a little riddle for you: Nation ABC needs to reduce CO2 emissions by 10%. What is the per capita reduction needed to achieve this?
    Surprise, surprise, the answer is 10%, too, what a coincidence!?
    Except this is not really the case, now is it?

    Your simpleton math blinds you to the realities of the ground.

    So? The US are 4.6% of the world population, China more than 20%.
    Population is not particularly germane to the discussion.

    As I said, only the most ignorant and/or arrogant could demand from a Chinese person to remain at 2 tons CO2 per year while contributing 20 tons per year to the problem.
    Except in the case where the person who is producing those 20 tons are producing an inordinate amount of wealth in the process.

    Not only does Kyoto not expect the Chinese to remain at 2 tons/yr, Kyoto ignores what is now the world's largest polluter COMPLETELY.

    Fortunately, thinking men ruled the day and refused to sign this joke of a treaty.


    It seems you are one of those. So enough said, I am not going to waste more time...[/QUOTE]
  16. #1496  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Should I have a problem with this?
    No more than you have a problem with this, Chuckles:

    Photo taken Sept 20, 2001
  17. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1497  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    No more than you have a problem with this, Chuckles:

    Photo taken Sept 20, 2001
    You are right, I don't have a problem with any of those photos, except for your little "Sept. 20, 2001" caption under the pic of Nixon and Eisenhower with the Saudi king.

    So tell us Shortie, are you asserting that King Fahd was behind the 9/11 attacks? A simple yes or no will do. You have keep your rehearsed "Clintonisms" to yourself.

    By the way, don't forget these:





    Woops...sorry, that last picture wasn't of a US President, just someone pretending to be one.

    LOL snap!
    Last edited by gojeda; 12/05/2007 at 04:00 PM.
  18. #1498  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    You are right, I don't have a problem with any of those photos, except for your little "Sept. 20, 2001" caption under the pic of Nixon and Eisenhower with the Saudi king.
    Must be the view you get while serving as deputy sock-puppet, Chuckles. That caption is directly next to Shrub, taken 9 days after the 9/11 attacks (for the mathematically challenged). Followed up with the Repug mating ritual:
  19. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1499  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Must be the view you get while serving as deputy sock-puppet, Chuckles. That caption is directly next to Shrub, taken 9 days after the 9/11 attacks (for the mathematically challenged). Followed up with the Repug mating ritual:
    Or, instead, it could be that you either had no idea of what you were posting, are quite confused at history, or need remedial help in formatting.

    Either way, you get an A for trolling, but an F for execution.

    G'day mate
  20. #1500  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Again this has nothing to do with "economies of scale". You like using big words, but you are not quite up to the challenge. As I said, you just about know enough to misquote.
    Here's a little riddle for you: Nation ABC needs to reduce CO2 emissions by 10%. What is the per capita reduction needed to achieve this?
    Surprise, surprise, the answer is 10%, too, what a coincidence!?

    So? The US are 4.6% of the world population, China more than 20%.

    As I said, only the most ignorant and/or arrogant could demand from a Chinese person to remain at 2 tons CO2 per year while contributing 20 tons per year to the problem.

    It seems you are one of those. So enough said, I am not going to waste more time...
    And yet the US is now the only major nation which continues to thumb its arrogant nose, as Australia has now signed on. Well, maybe we should contrast the term 'nation' with 'government'. Yet, I have no doubt our "government's" arrogant defenders will drone on against these fundamental economic realities. Sad, really. Like watching a child continue to willfully stumble all over themselves though they know the wiser choices to make.

Posting Permissions