Page 76 of 111 FirstFirst ... 2666717273747576777879808186 ... LastLast
Results 1,501 to 1,520 of 2209
  1.    #1501  
    You guys still haven't figured out who is to blame?





  2. #1502  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man View Post
    You guys still haven't figured out who is to blame?
    Daddy !!

    its been too long...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  3.    #1503  
    Napoleon Monkey - it has been too long. I'm glad to see the avatar is alive and well! I had ran out of cynical comebacks so took a well deserved break. Now got to figure out who the current misguided liberals that are active to pick on (besides you )!

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    Daddy !!

    its been too long...
  4. #1504  
    Good luck on figuring stuff out, advance!
  5. #1505  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man View Post
    You guys still haven't figured out who is to blame?
    Presto-change-o.
  6. #1506  
    More data to go figure on from this past week's issue of Science magazine:

    Science 23 November 2007:
    Vol. 318. no. 5854, pp. 1230 - 1231

    GLOBAL WARMING:
    How Urgent Is Climate Change?
    Richard A. Kerr*

    *http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0818kerr.shtml

    The latest reports from the nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were informative enough. Humans are messing with climate and will, sooner or later, get burned if they keep it up. But just how urgent is this global warming business?

    IPCC wasn't at all clear on that, at least not in its summary reports. In the absence of forthright guidance from the scientific community, news about melting ice and starving polar bears has stoked the public climate frenzy of the past couple of years. Climate researchers, on the other hand, prefer science to headlines when considering just how imminent the coming climate crunch might be. With a chance to digest the detailed IPCC products that are now available (www.ipcc.ch), many scientists are more convinced than ever that immediate action is required. The time to start "is right now," says climate modeler Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. "We can't wait any longer."

    What worries these researchers is the prospect that we've started a slow-moving but relentless avalanche of change. A warming may well arrive by mid-century that would not only do immediate grievous harm--such as increase drought in vulnerable areas--but also commit the world to delayed and even more severe damage such as many meters of sea-level rise. The system has built-in time lags. Ice sheets take centuries to melt after a warming. The atmosphere takes decades to be warmed by today's greenhouse gas emissions. And then there are the decades-long lags involved in working through the political system and changing the world energy economy. "If you want to be able to head off a few trillions of [dollars of climate] damages per year a few decades out," says glaciologist Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University in State College, "you need to start now."

    The disturbing message on the timing of global warming's effects comes in the IPCC chapters and technical summaries quietly posted online months after each of three working groups released a much-publicized Summary for Policymakers (SPM). An overall synthesis of the working group reports was released Saturday at the 27th session of IPCC. Earlier this year, only the SPMs went through the wringer of word-by-word negotiations with governments, which squeezed out a crucial table and part of another (Science, 13 April, p. 188). That information--which was always in the full reports--along with other report material, makes it clear that substantial impacts are likely to arrive sooner rather than later.
    T
    able TS.3 of Working Group II's technical summary, for example, lays out projected warmings. The uncertainties are obvious. Decades ahead, models don't agree on the amount of warming from a given amount of greenhouse gas, and no one can tell which of a half-dozen emission scenarios--from unbridled greenhouse-gas production to severe restraint--will be closest to reality. But this table strongly suggests that a middle-of-the-road, business-as-usual scenario would likely lead to a 2C warming by about the middle of this century.

    Lined up beneath the projected warmings in the table are the anticipated effects of each warming. Beneath a mid-century, 2C warming is a litany of daunting ill effects that had previously had no clear timing attached to them: increasing drought in mid-latitudes and semiarid low latitudes, placing 1 billion to 2 billion additional people under increased water stress; most corals bleached, with widespread coral mortality following within a few decades; and decreases in low-latitude crop productivity, as in wheat and maize in India and rice in China, among other pervasive impacts.
    At the bottom of the same table is a category of effects labeled "Singular Events," most dramatically sea level rise. The table shows a "Long term commitment to several metres of sea-level rise due to ice sheet loss" falling between the middle-of-the-road 2C warming and a 3C warming, which without drastic emissions reductions might well come by the end of the century. The report calls it a "commitment" because although the temperatures needed to melt much of the Greenland ice sheet might be reached in the next 50 to 100 years, the ice sheet, similar to an ice cube sitting on a countertop, will take time to melt even after the surrounding air is warm enough. Its huge thermal inertia means a lag of at least several centuries before it would largely melt away, flooding much of South Florida, Bangladesh, and major coastal cities.

    Ice sheets aren't the only thing that stretches out the time between an action--say, building a coal-fired power plant--and a global warming impact. For example, the atmosphere is slow to warm because the oceans are absorbing some of the heat trapped by the strengthening greenhouse. IPCC estimates that even if no greenhouse gases were added after the year 2000, the oceans'heat would warm the atmosphere 0.6C by the end of the century, or as much as it warmed in the last century. So the world is already committed to almost one-quarter of the warming that can be expected late in the century. And half the warming of the next couple of decades will be carried over from emissions in the past century.
    Then there are the lags that come into play ahead of the climate system. The technological infrastructure that does most of the emitting--the gasoline-fed cars and coal-fired power plants, primarily--will have to be radically altered if greenhouse emissions are to be drastically reduced. The speed at which infrastructure can be changed depends on the perceived urgency, says energy-climate analyst James Edmonds of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's office in College Park, Maryland. Past transitions from one energy source to another--say, wood to coal--took upward of 50 to 100 years, he notes. But even with a Manhattan Project imperative--something nowhere in sight--weaning cars off oil, building nuclear power plants, and rigging coal power plants to shoot the carbon dioxide into the ground will take decades, not years.

    And there's the lag while governments crank up the will to fundamentally alter the global energy system. "The biggest lag is in the political system," says geoscientist Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University. A couple of decades have already passed discussing the seriousness of the threat, as he sees it, and at the present rate it could be another 20 years before a worldwide program up to the task is in place.

    Yet another lag would enter the calculation for taking action if policymakers waited for more research to narrow the scientific uncertainties. In the 1980s, for example, the biggest uncertainty in climate science was clouds and how they would react to climate change. Fifteen years later, "we are essentially where we were then," says atmospheric scientist Robert Charlson of the University of Washington, Seattle. Clouds are still poorly understood, as are pollutant hazes, another collection of microscopic particles with a highly uncertain effect on future climate.

    With all these known time lags adding up to many decades, a lot of climate scientists say that the time for serious action is now. "We can't really afford to do a 'wait and learn' policy," says Oppenheimer. "The most important question is, when do we commit to 2? Really, there isn't a lot of headroom left. We better get cracking."

    Physics and socioeconomics may make piloting the ponderous ship of climate a cumbersome business, but researchers are also worried about navigating around the hazards they fear may be lurking unseen beneath the surface. They've hit hidden obstacles before. Back in the 1970s, atmospheric chemists were worrying that pollutant chlorine might be destroying stratospheric ozone over their heads. Yet all the while, that chlorine was teaming up with ice-cloud particles over Antarctica to wipe out stratospheric ozone through a mechanism that scientists had overlooked.

    Prestigious committees have been warning for 25 years that similar surprises could spring from the climate system. A few may be starting to show themselves. Arctic sea ice took a nosedive last summer, prompting concerns that feedbacks not properly included in models are taking hold and accelerating ice loss (Science, 5 October, p. 33). Glaciers draining both southern Greenland and West Antarctic have suddenly begun rushing to the sea, and glaciologists aren't sure why (Science, 24 March 2006, p. 1698). And theorists recently reminded their colleagues that they will never be able to eliminate the small but very real chance that the climate system--contrary to most modeling--is hypersensitive to greenhouse gases.
    The uncertainties are adding up. "You can hope the uncertainties are going to break your way," says policy analyst Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado, Boulder. "There have been times they did. But if you play that game often enough, you're going to lose some pretty big bets sometimes." In the case of global warming, Pielke says, "we don't have a lot of time to wait around." Edmonds agrees. If avoiding a 2C warming is the goal, "the world really has to get its act together pretty damn fast. The current pace isn't going to do it."



    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...urcetype=HWCIT
  7. #1507  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man View Post
    Napoleon Monkey - it has been too long. I'm glad to see the avatar is alive and well! I had ran out of cynical comebacks so took a well deserved break. Now got to figure out who the current misguided liberals that are active to pick on (besides you )!
    I don't want to contribute any more to global warming with my hot air -- so we can continue this in the Monkey thread ...
    (...including some super secret never before revealed revelations about BARYE's dark history, even a connection of sorts to gojeda ...)
    Last edited by BARYE; 12/06/2007 at 11:36 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  8. #1508  
    Cuts in emissions bill were approved in Senate panel last week. Although this may be blocked by the current administration, it will serve as a blueprint in action for the next president.

    Quote Originally Posted by News from Science Magazine 6 December 2007
    Senate Panel Adopts Emissions Curbs

    A bill that would cut U.S. greenhouse gas pollution by 70% in 2050, relative to 2005 levels, was approved by a Senate panel last night in what supporters are hailing as a landmark vote in the fight to mitigate global warming. "Today, the Senate took a giant and historic step forward toward reversing a clear and present danger to our planet," said Senator Joseph Lieberman (ICT) in a statement issued last night.
    Yesterday's vote came after dozens of hearings by the Senate Environment and Public Works committee since Democrats took control of Congress in January. During a 10-hour session yesterday, members waded through dozens of amendments before adopting the bill by a margin of 11 to 8. The vote largely followed party lines.

    Known as America's Climate Security Act of 2007 (S.2191), the bill would create a system in which businesses that create or deal with carbon emissions would be issued or sold allowances. This "cap and trade" system would allow them to emit greenhouse gases up to that level or trade the allowances if they could otherwise reduce pollution from operations with clean-energy technology. Introduced by Lieberman and Republican lawmaker John Warner of Virginia, who cast the only Republican vote in favor of the 303-page measure, the legislation affects everything from power plants to forests to elderly consumers facing rising electricity prices.

    Yesterday's debate foreshadowed a number of hurdles that could prevent the legislation from ever becoming law. Republicans unsuccessfully offered amendments that would have automatically shuttered the system if more than 10,000 automaker jobs were lost or if experts found that it was not reducing world temperatures effectively. These failed on largely party-line votes, with panel chair Barbara Boxer (DCA) repeatedly emphasizing that such "poison bill" amendments could upend the fragile coalition of environmental groups and selected industries that support the bill.

    One significant provision that did pass was a fuel standard that would require a mix resulting in fewer greenhouse gas emissions by 2020--say, by increasing the percentage of biofuels. Other efforts to toughen the bill's provisions, led by senators Bernie Sanders (IVT) and Hillary Clinton (DNY), also failed. Their amendments would have increased the magnitude of the planned reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and reduced the size of initial allowances granted to fossil fuel industries. "This is what the science community wants us to do," said Sanders of a failed amendment that would have reduced emissions by 80% in 2050, relative to 1990 levels.

    The Senate is unlikely to take any further action on the bill until next year, and getting the 60 votes needed to avoid an expected filibuster won't be easy. Beyond Warner, only a handful of Republicans are sympathetic to the bill, including senators Susan Collins (RME) and John McCain (RAZ). But McCain demands more support for nuclear energy, an issue on which Democrats won't easily budge. Previewing what is expected to be a massive campaign against the bill, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently launched advertising on the Internet and in Washington, D.C.-area airports. The ads, featuring suburban professionals cooking with candles and jogging to work in suits, argue that the legislation would make energy too expensive.

    Despite the remaining challenges, supporters see the committee vote as a victory. "Even if this bill doesn't pass the Senate and House next year, it is likely to be the blueprint for action early in the next president's term," said the Pew Environment Group in a statement.
    http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ll/2007/1206/1
  9. #1509  
  10. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1510  
    Yes, yes .... Gore is in great company indeed:

  11. #1511  
    Photoshoping out Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres

    .........on Hanukkah?

    Noch a chochem!





  12. #1512  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Photoshoping out Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres

    .........on Hanukkah?

    Noch a chochem!





    Quite symbolic of the sock-puppet's integrity, isn't it, Cell?
  13. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1513  
    So Shortie, lets put this on record...

    Are you saying Perez and Rabin are terrorists?
  14. #1514  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    So Shortie, lets put this on record...

    Are you saying Perez and Rabin are terrorists?
    Sorry to interrupt you while you're stuffing words into lifes2short's mouth, but I would just like to point out that, as President of Israel, no one has more at stake in fighting terrorism than Shimon Peres. And what he said last week was right on the mark:

    Quote Originally Posted by
    Shimon Peres,
    President of Israel
    12/01/2007

    "A threat equal to terrorism"

    As much as any nation, Israel knows the value of peace and the price of terrorism. But terror is only one dark threat scowling over economic growth and goodwill among nations. Another is global warming, which carries its own heavy foreshadowing of future conflict.
    The danger is far more than a risk that we might address with basic strategic planning and action. It presents a truly historic threat to the security of all countries and the safety of all the inhabitants of the globe. And as such, the fight against global warming will require not only national but also regional and worldwide organization.
    While we cannot point to any particular drought, hurricane or wildfire and say, with complete confidence, that this event was caused by climate change, we know that a warming world will produce more such catastrophes. And disasters create refugees. They diminish housing, food supply and clean water. They destabilize political regimes. All of this only serves to increase international tensions and raise the threat of armed aggression.
    Israel is far from the only nation to recognize the security threats of global warming. Influential U.S. military leaders have also warned that climate change could worsen international crises. Even the world community acknowledged global warming's link to peace and stability when it awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and to former U.S. Vice President Al Gore.
    It is tempting, for a small country such as Israel, to ignore the problem and hope that others deal with it. But no nation exists in isolation. Pollution is not checked by national customs, diminished water supply does not need a visa to cross a border and unruly weather does not require a permit. Indeed, the Jordan River and the Dead Sea are rapidly losing their water. These bodies of water are of significant historic, religious, cultural, economic and environmental importance for the Middle East and the world. It is, therefore, our duty to be part of the solution.
    We know that oil is the greatest polluter of the globe and the greatest financier of terror. As a fossil fuel in far-flung use, it promotes global warming and presents a growing threat to every person on earth. The nations of the earth must acknowledge how worldwide reliance on crude oil is both worsening global warming and threatening international peace and security.
    Alternatives must be found. In Israel, for example, we do not have long distances to reach by car, and therefore we may become the first country to change its fleet of cars, from those running on gasoline to those running on electricity. It has already begun.
    Israel can also pioneer research and development of alternative energy, especially solar power. We can find new methods of conserving and producing pure water and clean air. Indeed, every country has a part to play in the effort to reduce global warming. If we fail, the consequences will be far greater than bad weather or flooding. We risk conflicts across the globe that would overturn our very peace and security.
    The world stands in front of the greatest challenge of the 21st century. In December, governments of all nations will meet in Bali to start negotiating the post-Kyoto agreement under the United Nation Framework for Climate Change Convention. This starting point is a crucial building block in developing meaningful and effective global mandatory commitments to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations to the level scientists tell us is necessary to avoid the most severe consequences of global warming.
    Hard decisions ought to be taken at the national level by every individual country, but in the end, such decisions are essential for the benefit of all. And they must be brought together with international negotiations. Only worldwide responsible leadership can reduce this terrible threat. I trust such strong leadership exists and I am looking forward to seeing it in action.
    http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opini...terrorism.html
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 01/23/2008 at 09:21 AM. Reason: fixed link
  15. #1515  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    So Shortie, lets put this on record...

    Are you saying Perez and Rabin are terrorists?
    Oy veh! What an insolent little schmuck you are.
  16. #1516  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    ...(what Shimon Peres) said last week was right on the mark:


    http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_7610949
    good cite cell -- I hadn't seen it.

    The plan of Israel to transform its car fleet to all electric is a practical and cool idea for such a compact and "solar rich" country.
    Last edited by BARYE; 12/11/2007 at 12:18 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  17. #1517  
    I thought it was a good idea too, Barye. Peres really has insight into the world picture.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 12/11/2007 at 11:16 AM.
  18. #1518  
    First of all let me say that I think global warming is very real and it saddens me to no end.

    The thing I cant seem to find about it and reducing hydro carbons etc is this:

    Lets say we do eventually (hopefully sooner rather than later) reduce the HC's and become as green as sanely possible. What will happen?

    What Im asking is this, will the earth maintain its state?
    Or, will it start to "heal" itself and go back to the way it was equal to the emission volume?

    Lets say we reduce the emissions to 1985 levels... again, will the earth just stay as it is today? Or will it go back to (eventually) the way it was in 85?

    Thanks!
    ONE can be spelled as NEO.
    There is no spoon.
  19. #1519  
    Quote Originally Posted by Hdhntr23 View Post
    First of all let me say that I think global warming is very real and it saddens me to no end.

    The thing I cant seem to find about it and reducing hydro carbons etc is this:

    Lets say we do eventually (hopefully sooner rather than later) reduce the HC's and become as green as sanely possible. What will happen?

    What Im asking is this, will the earth maintain its state?
    Or, will it start to "heal" itself and go back to the way it was equal to the emission volume?

    Lets say we reduce the emissions to 1985 levels... again, will the earth just stay as it is today? Or will it go back to (eventually) the way it was in 85?

    Thanks!
    Rather than just listen to what one person spoon feeds you about global warming, I would recommend if you are interested, to take a little time to learn more about this subject yourself. And not from political blogs or other biased sources, but rather learning about the science yourself. Knowledge is power, so to speak.

    The journals Science and Nature are the two most highly reputable and respected journals that publish climate science, and they are your best resource. Some of the articles you can only get summaries for, but many you can get the full text for free, and also you can get podcasts which summarize recent findings in layman's terms.

    Nature just published a collection of articles and information about climate change just last month. There is a podcast on the link too which you might find informative too.

    http://www.nature.com/news/specials/bali/index.html

    another relevant climate change collection of articles was published in Nature earlier this year:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/445567a.html

    Nature also has their own journal which is devoted to new information about climate change, called "Nature Reports Climate Change".

    http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html

    Science magazine also has a series of articles on the subject as well from earlier in the year:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...;315/5818/1513

    and here is another article:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5839/746

    I encourage everyone to become more informed on this issue.
  20. #1520  
    Hey Cell! It's a start. Now, let's see if there's any actual muscle behind the US's intent.

    NUSA DUA, Indonesia (Reuters) - Nearly 200 nations agreed at U.N.-led talks in Bali on Saturday to launch negotiations on a new pact to fight global warming after a reversal by the United States allowed a breakthrough.

    Washington said the agreement marked a new chapter in climate diplomacy after six years of disputes with major allies since President George W. Bush pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, the main existing plan for combating warming.

    "This is the defining moment for me and my mandate as secretary-general," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said after making a return trip to Bali to implore delegates to overcome deadlock after the talks ran a day into overtime.

    Ban had been on a visit to East Timor. "I am deeply grateful to many member states for their spirit of flexibility and compromise," Ban told Reuters.

    The Bali meeting approved a "roadmap" for two years of talks to adopt a new treaty to succeed Kyoto beyond 2012, widening it to the United States and developing nations such as China and India. Under the deal, a successor pact will be agreed at a meeting in Copenhagen in late 2009.

    The deal after two weeks of talks came when the United States dramatically dropped opposition to a proposal by the main developing-nation bloc, the G77, for rich nations to do more to help the developing world fight rising greenhouse emissions.

Posting Permissions