View Full Version : More global warming news!

Saturday, December 18th, 2004, 07:37 AM

2004 among hottest on record
U.N. reports 10 of the warmest years on record since 1990

Thursday, December 16, 2004 Posted: 10:03 AM EST (1503 GMT)

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) -- The year 2004, punctuated by four powerful hurricanes in the Caribbean and deadly typhoons lashing Asia, was the fourth-hottest on record, extending a trend since 1990 that has registered the 10 warmest years, a U.N. weather agency said Wednesday.

The current year was also the most expensive for the insurance industry in coping worldwide with hurricanes, typhoons and other weather-related natural disasters, according to new figures released by U.N. environmental officials.

The release of the report by the World Meteorological Organization came as environmental ministers from some 80 countries gathered in Buenos Aires for a United Nations conference on climate change, looking at ways to cut down on greenhouse gases that some say contribute heavily to Earth's warming.

Scientists say a sustained increase in temperature change is likely to continue disrupting the global climate, increasing the intensity of storms, potentially drying up farmlands and raising ocean levels, among other things.

Michel Jarraud, the World Meteorological Organization secretary-general, said the warming and increased storm activity could not be attributed to any particular cause, but was part of a global warming trend that was likely to continue.

Scientists have reported that temperatures across the globe rose an average of 1 degree over the past century with the rate of change since 1976 at roughly three times that over the past 100 years.

The World Meteorological Organization said it expects Earth's average surface temperature to rise 0.8 degrees above the normal 57 degrees Fahrenheit in 2004, adding this year to a recent pattern that included the four warmest years on record, with the hottest being 1998.

The month of October also registered as the warmest October since accurate readings began in 1861, said the agency, which is responsible for assembling data from meteorologists and climatologists worldwide.

During the summer, heat waves in southern Europe pushed temperatures to near-record highs in southern Spain, Portugal and Romania, where thermostats peaked at 104 degrees while the rest of Europe sweltered through above-average temperatures.

The extreme weather of 2004 extended to storms. Certain climate models predict more severe weather with the onset of global warming, but scientists say it is too early to tell if this year's storms are linked to climate change.

The Caribbean had four hurricanes that reached Category 4 or 5 status -- those capable of causing extreme and catastrophic damage. It was only the fourth time in recent history that so many were recorded. The hurricanes of 2004 caused more than $43 billion in damages in the Caribbean and the United States.

The worst damage was on Haiti, where as many as 1,900 people died from flooding and mudslides caused by Tropical Storm Jeanne in September.

Japan and the Philippines also saw increased extreme tropical weather, with deadly typhoons lashing both islands. Japan registered a record number of typhoons making landfall this year with 10, while back-to-back storms in the Philippines killed at least 740 people in the wettest year for the globe since 2000, the U.N. agency said.

Statistics released at the climate change conference showed that natural disasters across the world in the first 10 months of the year cost the insurance industry just over $35 billion, up from $16 billion in 2003.

Munich Re, one of the world's biggest insurance companies, said the United States tallied the highest losses at more than $26 billion, while small developing nations such as the Caribbean islands of Grenada and Grand Cayman were also hit hard.

Other parts of the world also witnessed extreme weather, with droughts occurring in the western United States, parts of Africa, Afghanistan, Australia and India. Jarraud, of the U.N. weather agency, said the droughts were part of what appears to be a surge over the last decade.

The prolonged rising temperatures and deadly storms were matched by harsh winters in other regions. Peru, Chile, and southern Argentina were all hit with severe cold and snow during June and July.

Jarraud said the high temperatures like those seen in parts of Europe this year were expected to inch up in the coming years.

Citing recent studies by European climatologists, Jarraud said heat waves in Europe "could over the next 50 years become four or five times as frequent as they are now."


Earlier spring from global warming, say researchers

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 Posted: 9:53 AM EST (1453 GMT)

ITHACA, New York (AP) -- As the first signs of winter push into the Northeast, researchers have some good news for fair weather fans -- spring is coming earlier than it used to.

The lilacs say so.

In one of the most comprehensive studies that plants in the Northeast are responding to the global warming trend, Cornell scientists and their colleagues at the University of Wisconsin found lilacs are blooming about four days earlier than they did in 1965.

David Wolfe, a plant ecology professor at Cornell whose research will be published in a forthcoming issue of the International Journal of Biometeorology, said nature's calendar is changing due to an increase in greenhouse gases.

"It's not just the weather data telling us there is a warming trend going on. We are now seeing the living world responding to the climate change as well," Wolfe said Tuesday.

The Cornell study is consistent with other examinations involving the biological impact of rising temperatures, but those studies have been much more limited in geographic scope.

Earlier this year, Harvard University scientists also reported finding evidence of earlier flowering in specimens at the Arnold Arboretum in Boston, while botanists at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. found the city's Japanese cherry trees are blooming about a week earlier than they were 30 years ago.

According to the Northeast Regional Climate Center at Cornell, the average annual temperature in the Northeast has increased by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900, which is slightly higher than the global average of 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit.

The greatest rate of warming, though, has occurred during the winter months (December to February) with an average increase of almost 3 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 100 years -- a rate that has accelerated over the past 30 years to 4.4 degrees Fahrenheit, Wolfe said.

Cornell researchers analyzed data from 72 locations throughout the Northeast where genetically identical lilacs were planted during the 1960s and 1970s as part of a joint U.S. Department of Agriculture-funded project involving Cornell and the University of Vermont.

The lilacs were planted to help farmers predict planting and harvest dates, but have now provided scientists with a historical record of bloom dates.

The Cornell study also included apples and grapes at four sites in New York, which Wolfe said were blooming six to eight days earlier than in 1965.

While some may revel over an earlier-arriving spring, Wolfe cautioned that the warming trend has many implications -- and not all good.

It could, for example, favor some invasive species and alter important interactions between plants and pollinators, insect pests, diseases and weeds.

"If the interdependence and synchrony between animals and plants are disrupted, the very survival of some species could be threatened," Wolfe said.

Climate change also could affect plant and bird migration patterns, animals' hibernation patterns, reproductive cycles, woodland composition, plant pathogens and the availability of plant food for insects and animals.

On the positive side, the warming trend is extending the growing season in the Northeast by several days -- although hotter summers can negatively affect some crops, such as apples and grapes.

Most scientists anticipate the increase in greenhouse gases -- and subsequently, the warming trend -- will continue, so it's important researchers more broadly monitor the consequences for crops, animals and natural areas, Wolfe said.

Heat-trapping greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane are produced mainly by industry, automobiles and power plants. Climatologists say the gases absorb infrared radiation and trap heat in the atmosphere.

Wednesday, March 16th, 2005, 02:35 AM
Apocalypse now: how mankind is sleepwalking to the end of the Earth Floods, storms and droughts. Melting Arctic ice, shrinking glaciers,
oceans turning to acid. The world's top scientists warned last week
that dangerous climate change is taking place today, not the day after
tomorrow. You don't believe it? Then, says Geoffrey Lean, read this...

06 February 2005

Future historians, looking back from a much hotter and less hospitable
world, are likely to play special attention to the first few weeks of
2005. As they puzzle over how a whole generation could have
sleepwalked into disaster - destroying the climate that has allowed
human civilisation to flourish over the past 11,000 years - they may
well identify the past weeks as the time when the last alarms sounded.

Last week, 200 of the world's leading climate scientists - meeting at
Tony Blair's request at the Met Office's new headquarters at Exeter -
issued the most urgent warning to date that dangerous climate change
is taking place, and that time is running out.

Next week the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty that tries to
control global warming, comes into force after a seven-year delay. But
it is clear that the protocol does not go nearly far enough.

The alarms have been going off since the beginning of one of the
warmest Januaries on record. First, Dr Rajendra Pachauri - chairman of
the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - told a
UN conference in Mauritius that the pollution which causes global
warming has reached "dangerous" levels.

Then the biggest-ever study of climate change, based at Oxford
University, reported that it could prove to be twice as catastrophic
as the IPCC's worst predictions. And an international task force -
also reporting to Tony Blair, and co-chaired by his close ally,
Stephen Byers - concluded that we could reach "the point of no return"
in a decade.

Finally, the UK head of Shell, Lord Oxburgh, took time out - just
before his company reported record profits mainly achieved by selling
oil, one of the main causes of the problem - to warn that unless
governments take urgent action there "will be a disaster".

But it was last week at the Met Office's futuristic glass
headquarters, incongruously set in a dreary industrial estate on the
outskirts of Exeter, that it all came together. The conference had
been called by the Prime Minister to advise him on how to "avoid
dangerous climate change". He needed help in persuading the world to
prioritise the issue this year during Britain's presidencies of the EU
and the G8 group of economic powers.

The conference opened with the Secretary of State for the Environment,
Margaret Beckett, warning that "a significant impact" from global
warming "is already inevitable". It continued with presentations from
top scientists and economists from every continent. These showed that
some dangerous climate change was already taking place and that
catastrophic events once thought highly improbable were now seen as
likely (see panel). Avoiding the worst was technically simple and
economically cheap, they said, provided that governments could be
persuaded to take immediate action.

About halfway through I realised that I had been here before. In the
summer of 1986 the world's leading nuclear experts gathered in Vienna
for an inquest into the accident at Chernobyl. The head of the Russian
delegation showed a film shot from a helicopter, and we suddenly found
ourselves gazing down on the red-hot exposed reactor core.

It was all, of course, much less dramatic at Exeter. But as paper
followed learned paper, once again a group of world authorities were
staring at a crisis they had devoted their lives to trying to avoid.

I am willing to bet there were few in the room who did not sense their
children or grandchildren standing invisibly at their shoulders. The
conference formally concluded that climate change was "already
occurring" and that "in many cases the risks are more serious than
previously thought". But the cautious scientific language scarcely
does justice to the sense of the meeting.

We learned that glaciers are shrinking around the world. Arctic sea
ice has lost almost half its thickness in recent decades. Natural
disasters are increasing rapidly around the world. Those caused by the
weather - such as droughts, storms, and floods - are rising three
times faster than those - such as earthquakes - that are not.

We learned that bird populations in the North Sea collapsed last year,
after the sand eels on which they feed left its warmer waters - and
how the number of scientific papers recording changes in ecosystems
due to global warming has escalated from 14 to more than a thousand in
five years.

Worse, leading scientists warned of catastrophic changes that once
they had dismissed as "improbable". The meeting was particularly
alarmed by powerful evidence, first reported in The Independent on
Sunday last July, that the oceans are slowly turning acid, threatening
all marine life (see panel).

Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey,
presented new evidence that the West Antarctic ice sheet is beginning
to melt, threatening eventually to raise sea levels by 15ft: 90 per
cent of the world's people live near current sea levels. Recalling
that the IPCC's last report had called Antarctica "a slumbering
giant", he said: "I would say that this is now an awakened giant."

Professor Mike Schlesinger, of the University of Illinois, reported
that the shutdown of the Gulf Stream, once seen as a "low probability
event", was now 45 per cent likely this century, and 70 per cent
probable by 2200. If it comes sooner rather than later it will be
catastrophic for Britain and northern Europe, giving us a climate like
Labrador (which shares our latitude) even as the rest of the world
heats up: if it comes later it could be beneficial, moderating the
worst of the warming.

The experts at Exeter were virtually unanimous about the danger,
mirroring the attitude of the climate science community as a whole:
humanity is to blame. There were a few sceptics at Exeter, including
Andrei Illarionov, an adviser to Russia's President Putin, who last
year called the Kyoto Protocol "an interstate Auschwitz". But in truth
it is much easier to find sceptics among media pundits in London or
neo-cons in Washington than among climate scientists. Even the few
contrarian climatalogists publish little research to support their
views, concentrating on questioning the work of others.

Now a new scientific consensus is emerging - that the warming must be
kept below an average increase of two degrees centigrade if
catastrophe is to be avoided. This almost certainly involves keeping
concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main cause of climate change,
below 400 parts per million.

Unfortunately we are almost there, with concentrations exceeding
370ppm and rising, but experts at the conference concluded that we
could go briefly above the danger level so long as we brought it down
rapidly afterwards. They added that this would involve the world
reducing emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 - and rich countries cutting
theirs by 30 per cent by 2020.

Economists stressed there is little time for delay. If action is put
off for a decade, it will need to be twice as radical; if it has to
wait 20 years, it will cost between three and seven times as much.

The good news is that it can be done with existing technology, by
cutting energy waste, expanding the use of renewable sources, growing
trees and crops (which remove carbon dioxide from the air) to turn
into fuel, capturing the gas before it is released from power
stations, and - maybe - using more nuclear energy.

The better news is that it would not cost much: one estimate suggested
the cost would be about 1 per cent of Europe's GNP spread over 20
years; another suggested it meant postponing an expected fivefold
increase in world wealth by just two years. Many experts believe
combatting global warming would increase prosperity, by bringing in
new technologies.

The big question is whether governments will act. President Bush's
opposition to international action remains the greatest obstacle. Tony
Blair, by almost universal agreement, remains the leader with the best
chance of persuading him to change his mind.

But so far the Prime Minister has been more influenced by the
President than the other way round. He appears to be moving away from
fighting for the pollution reductions needed in favour of agreeing on
a vague pledge to bring in new technologies sometime in the future.

By then it will be too late. And our children and grandchildren will
wonder - as we do in surveying, for example, the drift into the First
World War - "how on earth could they be so blind?"


What could happen? Wars break out over diminishing water resources as
populations grow and rains fail.

How would this come about? Over 25 per cent more people than at
present are expected to live in countries where water is scarce in the
future, and global warming will make it worse.

How likely is it? Former UN chief Boutros Boutros-Ghali has long said
that the next Middle East war will be fought for water, not oil.


What could happen? Low-lying island such as the Maldives and Tuvalu -
with highest points only a few feet above sea-level - will disappear
off the face of the Earth.

How would this come about? As the world heats up, sea levels are
rising, partly because glaciers are melting, and partly because the
water in the oceans expands as it gets warmer.

How likely is it? Inevitable. Even if global warming stopped today,
the seas would continue to rise for centuries. Some small islands have
already sunk for ever. A year ago, Tuvalu was briefly submerged.


What could happen? London, New York, Tokyo, Bombay, many other cities
and vast areas of countries from Britain to Bangladesh disappear under
tens of feet of water, as the seas rise dramatically.

How would this come about? Ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica melt.
The Greenland ice sheet would raise sea levels by more than 20ft, the
West Antarctic ice sheet by another 15ft.

How likely is it? Scientists used to think it unlikely, but this year
reported that the melting of both ice caps had begun. It will take
hundreds of years, however, for the seas to rise that much.


What could happen? Global warming escalates to the point where the
world's whole climate abruptly switches, turning it permanently into a
much hotter and less hospitable planet.

How would this come about? A process involving "positive feedback"
causes the warming to fuel itself, until it reaches a point that
finally tips the climate pattern over.

How likely is it? Abrupt flips have happened in the prehistoric past.
Scientists believe this is unlikely, at least in the foreseeable
future, but increasingly they are refusing to rule it out.


What could happen? Famously wet tropical forests, such as those in the
Amazon, go up in flames, destroying the world's richest wildlife
habitats and releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide to speed global

How would this come about? Britain's Met Office predicted in 1999 that
much of the Amazon will dry out and die within 50 years, making it
ready for sparks - from humans or lightning - to set it ablaze.

How likely is it? Very, if the predictions turn out to be right.
Already there have been massive forest fires in Borneo and Amazonia,
casting palls of highly polluting smoke over vast areas.


What could happen? Britain and northern Europe get much colder because
the Gulf Stream, which provides as much heat as the sun in winter,

How would this come about? Melting polar ice sends fresh water into
the North Atlantic. The less salty water fails to generate the
underwater current which the Gulf Stream needs.

How likely is it? About

evens for a Gulf Steam failure this century, said scientists last


What could happen? Food production collapses in Africa, for example,
as rainfall dries up and droughts increase. As farmland turns to
desert, people flee in their millions in search of food.

How would this come about? Rainfall is expected to decrease by up to
60 per cent in winter and 30 per cent in summer in southern Africa
this century. By some estimates, Zambia could lose almost all its

How likely is it? Pretty likely unless the world tackles both global
warming and Africa's decline. Scientists agree that droughts will
increase in a warmer world.


What could happen? The seas will gradually turn more and more acid.
Coral reefs, shellfish and plankton, on which all life depends, will
die off. Much of the life of the oceans will become extinct.

How would this come about? The oceans have absorbed half the carbon
dioxide, the main cause of global warming, so far emitted by humanity.
This forms dilute carbonic acid, which attacks corals and shells.

How likely is it? It is already starting. Scientists warn that the
chemistry of the oceans is changing in ways unprecedented for 20
million years. Some predict that the world's coral reefs will die
within 35 years.


What could happen? Malaria - which kills two million people worldwide
every year - reaches Britain with foreign travellers, gets picked up
by British mosquitos and becomes endemic in the warmer climate.

How would this come about? Four of our 40 mosquito species can carry
the disease, and hundreds of travellers return with it annually. The
insects breed faster, and feed more, in warmer temperatures.

How likely is it? A Department of Health study has suggested it may
happen by 2050: the Environment Agency has mentioned 2020. Some
experts say it is miraculous that it has not happened already.


What could happen? Hurricanes, typhoons and violent storms
proliferate, grow even fiercer, and hit new areas. Last September's
repeated battering of Florida and the Caribbean may be just a
foretaste of what is to come, say scientists.

How would this come about? The storms gather their energy from warm
seas, and so, as oceans heat up, fiercer ones occur and threaten areas
where at present the seas are too cool for such weather.

How likely is it? Scientists are divided over whether storms will get
more frequent and whether the process has already begun.


Wednesday, March 16th, 2005, 03:37 AM
I was trying to keep up on certain weather related things in the first 2 months of this year. Some strange things sure have happened. Here are some of the reports I had collated (I have since stopped.)

-Oxnard, California: tornado.

-United Arab Emirates: reports of the first snow fall on record.

-Sweden: still has zero snow fall since the start of winter and experiencing 45 degree weather at night.

-India: extinct volcano Narcondum erupts.

-Dundee, United Kingdom: 90 mph winds.
-North Carolina: record high of 76 degrees (50 is average)
-New Zealand: coldest temperatures in 59 years; snow, frost, hail and a tornado mark the beginning of the summer season.

-Sweden: hurricane kills 9 people.

-South Pacific: US Navy submarine collides with an undersea mountain that was not on the charts.

-Moscow, Russia: warmest temperatures on record.
-Venice, Italy: water levels -65 centimeters from normal.

-Algiers, Algeria: worst blizzard in 50 years.

-Andaman Islands/Nicobar Islands, India: 28 "aftershocks" in 24 hours ranging between 5.0 and 5.8 and 166 since 12-26-2004.

-Ecuador: 320 tremors at an average of 4.0 have hit since 01-20-2005.
-Moscow, Russia: experienced heaviest snowfall on record.

-Brisbane, Australia: dust storm
-Canberra, Australia: snowed on the Brindabella mountain ranges (not on record for summer)
-Melbourne, Australia: coldest February day on record; earthquakes reported and debunked as being caused by thunder, a power pole exploding and a meteor???
-Richmond, Australia: winds at 50 knots.
-Sydney, Australia: hail the size of golf balls.
NOTE: It is summer in Australia

And aside from this I also have a couple of moon/sun sightings being off their projected azmuth/minutes I can post if anyone is interested.

And the interesting thing is that if you notice, Moscow reports highest temperature AND heaviest snowfall on record in less than 3 weeks.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Wednesday, March 16th, 2005, 04:12 AM
OK, I am coming off my purely American position that global warming doesn't exist. It looks like we are warming. The question is can the earth reverse or counter-act this natually? (Gaia theory)

Wednesday, March 16th, 2005, 05:01 AM
I am under the distinct impression that "global warming" is a natural occuring event that precedes ice ages. It lasts for hundreds of years before it become cold. History shows that ice ages generally happen every several thousand years, and historical texts as well as scientific evidence show that abnormal periods of weather had occurred before the "frozen" period. From the best (averaged) estimations, we are overdue for another ice age. I believe the cycle is something like 3600 years or so, give or take a couple hundred years.

Thursday, August 11th, 2005, 02:02 PM
Siberia feels the heat It's a frozen peat bog the size of France and Germany combined, contains billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas and, for the first time since the ice age, it is melting

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Thursday August 11, 2005
The Guardian

A vast expanse of western Sibera is undergoing an unprecedented thaw that could dramatically increase the rate of global warming, climate scientists warn today.

Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres - the size of France and Germany combined - has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.

The area, which covers the entire sub-Arctic region of western Siberia, is the world's largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere.

It is a scenario climate scientists have feared since first identifying "tipping points" - delicate thresholds where a slight rise in the Earth's temperature can cause a dramatic change in the environment that itself triggers a far greater increase in global temperatures.

The discovery was made by Sergei Kirpotin at Tomsk State University in western Siberia and Judith Marquand at Oxford University and is reported in New Scientist today.

The researchers found that what was until recently a barren expanse of frozen peat is turning into a broken landscape of mud and lakes, some more than a kilometre across.

Dr Kirpotin told the magazine the situation was an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming". He added that the thaw had probably begun in the past three or four years.

Climate scientists yesterday reacted with alarm to the finding, and warned that predictions of future global temperatures would have to be revised upwards.

"When you start messing around with these natural systems, you can end up in situations where it's unstoppable. There are no brakes you can apply," said David Viner, a senior scientist at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"This is a big deal because you can't put the permafrost back once it's gone. The causal effect is human activity and it will ramp up temperatures even more than our emissions are doing."

In its last major report in 2001, the intergovernmental panel on climate change predicted a rise in global temperatures of 1.4C-5.8C between 1990 and 2100, but the estimate only takes account of global warming driven by known greenhouse gas emissions.

"These positive feedbacks with landmasses weren't known about then. They had no idea how much they would add to global warming," said Dr Viner.

Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. Scientists are particularly concerned about the permafrost, because as it thaws, it reveals bare ground which warms up more quickly than ice and snow, and so accelerates the rate at which the permafrost thaws.

Siberia's peat bogs have been producing methane since they formed at the end of the last ice age, but most of the gas had been trapped in the permafrost. According to Larry Smith, a hydrologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, the west Siberian peat bog could hold some 70bn tonnes of methane, a quarter of all of the methane stored in the ground around the world.

The permafrost is likely to take many decades at least to thaw, so the methane locked within it will not be released into the atmosphere in one burst, said Stephen Sitch, a climate scientist at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter.

But calculations by Dr Sitch and his colleagues show that even if methane seeped from the permafrost over the next 100 years, it would add around 700m tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year, roughly the same amount that is released annually from the world's wetlands and agriculture.

It would effectively double atmospheric levels of the gas, leading to a 10% to 25% increase in global warming, he said.

Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said the finding was a stark message to politicians to take concerted action on climate change. "We knew at some point we'd get these feedbacks happening that exacerbate global warming, but this could lead to a massive injection of greenhouse gases.

"If we don't take action very soon, we could unleash runaway global warming that will be beyond our control and it will lead to social, economic and environmental devastation worldwide," he said. "There's still time to take action, but not much.

"The assumption has been that we wouldn't see these kinds of changes until the world is a little warmer, but this suggests we're running out of time."

In May this year, another group of researchers reported signs that global warming was damaging the permafrost. Katey Walter of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, told a meeting of the Arctic Research Consortium of the US that her team had found methane hotspots in eastern Siberia. At the hotspots, methane was bubbling to the surface of the permafrost so quickly that it was preventing the surface from freezing over.

Last month, some of the world's worst air polluters, including the US and Australia, announced a partnership to cut greenhouse gas emissions through the use of new technologies.

The deal came after Tony Blair struggled at the G8 summit to get the US president, George Bush, to commit to any concerted action on climate change and has been heavily criticised for setting no targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.



Scenarios like this were probably noticed a long time ago. It's just that acting to prevent them would have compromised the Individual, and that isn't in the best interests of our modern world.

Thursday, August 11th, 2005, 03:14 PM
Last month, some of the world's worst air polluters, including the US and Australia, announced a partnership to cut greenhouse gas emissions through the use of new technologies.

Thanks for the contribution, Bush. :frown: It would be greater if they raised the tax on patrol, electricity etc. ten times.

Thursday, August 11th, 2005, 04:50 PM
If half of those ecological doomsday scenarios we hear of would be true, the oceans would be boiling by now.

Well, studies differ. Some of them proclaim we have to swim to our jobs tomorrow, others deem that we have still a lot of time in our hands. The one unifying point between these studies is that global warming actually happens, in one way or another (lest the study be funded by car industry). Be the reasons primarily our reckless and arrogant relationship with our land or the cyclic nature of Earth's shifting temperature, it's still happening, and it can't be escaped behind delusions of progress. Even if the reason would primarily be that we happen to live in a period of warming wholly natural to Earth, I doubt pollution helps us much.

Thursday, August 11th, 2005, 06:27 PM
Thanks for the contribution, Bush. :frown: It would be greater if they raised the tax on patrol, electricity etc. ten times.

In theory raising taxes sound good.But from experience from sweden that doesnt seem to work.All it does is put a strain on the economy due to higer transport costs.But i do hate it when they destroy unike habitats for money. :(

Northern Paladin
Thursday, August 11th, 2005, 08:40 PM
Thanks for the contribution, Bush. :frown: It would be greater if they raised the tax on patrol, electricity etc. ten times.

How about just not use patrol at all?:laugh:

In theory raising taxes sound good.But from experience from sweden that doesnt seem to work.All it does is put a strain on the economy due to higer transport costs.But i do hate it when they destroy unike habitats for money. :(

Yeah everything in Sweden except train transportation is insanely expensive. Eco friendly is good but their needs to be balance.

Thursday, August 11th, 2005, 10:51 PM
a friend of mine grows trees
that he sells to landscapers.

the trees are growing in wooden boxes
on his property.

some of the trees are over twenty feet tall.
i asked him what he does when they get too old.
"as long as i water them
and they keep breathing...
besides, the big ones are worth more."

i thought it might be awkward
to change the dirt,
if they get too big.
"change the dirt? why?"

does not the tree use up all the nutrients
in the dirt, after a while?

using his big toe,
he scratched "CH2O" in the earth.
"that's the formula for wood.
trees suck that outa the air.
the dirt just holds 'em down."

a simplification, surely,
but it does address the "problem"
of green-house gases
- in the same way nature always has.

Northern Paladin
Saturday, August 13th, 2005, 03:56 AM
What are you trying to say?:confused:

Saturday, August 13th, 2005, 04:15 AM
What are you trying to say?:confused:the evolution of chloroplasts
made possible a world for air-breathing animals.

they suck the "green-house gases" out of the air
and lock it up as cellulose.