Fun with Global Warming - Part Deux!

Message boards : Politics : Fun with Global Warming - Part Deux!
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 34 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Darth Dogbytes™
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 03
Posts: 7512
Credit: 2,021,148
RAC: 0
United States
Message 509900 - Posted: 28 Jan 2007, 16:30:12 UTC

Charles Dickins once wrote a story about a man that distilled life into costs and money...guess who that was?
Account frozen...
ID: 509900 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 509908 - Posted: 28 Jan 2007, 16:42:35 UTC - in response to Message 509900.  

Charles Dickins once wrote a story about a man that distilled life into costs and money...guess who that was?

The same guy that finally realized that there are benefits on the other side of the equation, started to enjoy them, and thus became a much happier person?
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 509908 · Report as offensive
Profile Darth Dogbytes™
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 03
Posts: 7512
Credit: 2,021,148
RAC: 0
United States
Message 509910 - Posted: 28 Jan 2007, 16:45:03 UTC - in response to Message 509908.  

Charles Dickins once wrote a story about a man that distilled life into costs and money...guess who that was?

The same guy that finally realized that there are benefits on the other side of the equation, started to enjoy them, and thus became a much happier person?

BINGO!
Account frozen...
ID: 509910 · Report as offensive
Profile GalaxyIce
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 13 May 06
Posts: 8927
Credit: 1,361,057
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 509916 - Posted: 28 Jan 2007, 16:59:15 UTC - in response to Message 509898.  

It's all economics.

You are of course suggesting that people make rational choices, and choices that they think are good for them. For example, I will choose to do this stupid thing that loses my company heaps of money because my boss is an idiot and will like my choice because, despite the dire consequences for the company, he gets to have a free holiday.

Another example is a minister of the church asking a congregation to repent or go they will go to Hell. And retire and leave it at that. I expect he wouldn't accept people were rational or 'right thinking' enough and have to do a little more to influence them.

Because that is what it's all about. Influence China, Mexico and India to pay their way, so that "we" in the Europe and USA don't have to pay so much. Yes, economics again, but economics of the worse kind - trying to offload the cost so that we can enjoy our fat living style without worrying so much about the pollution we are causing.

Life is about economics, but it is also about being fair and square - and that starts right on your doorstep. So exactly what is the USA doing about Climate Change, and exactly what have they been doing about it in the last few years?


flaming balloons
ID: 509916 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 509926 - Posted: 28 Jan 2007, 17:29:08 UTC - in response to Message 509916.  
Last modified: 28 Jan 2007, 17:32:01 UTC

You are of course suggesting that people make rational choices, and choices that they think are good for them. For example, I will choose to do this stupid thing that loses my company heaps of money because my boss is an idiot and will like my choice because, despite the dire consequences for the company, he gets to have a free holiday.

Right, I'm suggesting exactly that people make rational choices, and choices that they think are good for them. Some people will make the choice you note above, others will choose differently because they see the costs (to the company) outweigh the benefits (the free holiday). They both made economic choices according to what is best for them. They each used different analysis (because they used the economic analysis that is best for them) and came to different conclusions. Hence the reason I noted earlier in the previous incarnation of this thread that people choose cars for different reasons, according to what is best for them.

Another example is a minister of the church asking a congregation to repent or go they will go to Hell. And retire and leave it at that. I expect he wouldn't accept people were rational or 'right thinking' enough and have to do a little more to influence them.

His flock. His choice.

Because that is what it's all about. Influence China, Mexico and India to pay their way, so that "we" in the Europe and USA don't have to pay so much. Yes, economics again, but economics of the worse kind - trying to offload the cost so that we can enjoy our fat living style without worrying so much about the pollution we are causing.

You're missing the point. While of course that is true (people act economically in their own best interests, notice that's what China, India, Russia and Mexico did--opted out) total emissions is a zero sum game--it doesn't matter who emits what if total emissions aren't cut. With China becoming number 1 and quickly dwarfing the U.S., and with 3, 4, and 11 not cutting, total emissions continue to rise. Which means that whatever predictions come to pass will come to pass regardless of what we spend. In other words, that's a waste of resources.

Life is about economics, but it is also about being fair and square - and that starts right on your doorstep.

Agreed. So maybe advocating that 1.4 billion additional Chinese take up BOINC and leave their computers on all of the time isn't the best way to cut emissions from coal burning power plants?

So exactly what is the USA doing about Climate Change, and exactly what have they been doing about it in the last few years?

Nothing. Which, as you can see from Kyoto, and the rising emissions of those that matter, is exactly what every other country has been doing. Nothing.

Oh wait, yes they do. They talk about it a lot. They do do that. "Boy oh boy is global warming bad. Let's all sign something so we can feel better about ourselves. Yay, Us!!"

That doesn't cut emissions either.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 509926 · Report as offensive
Profile BillHyland
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Apr 04
Posts: 907
Credit: 5,764,172
RAC: 0
United States
Message 509953 - Posted: 28 Jan 2007, 18:13:02 UTC

The fact that climate changes and is changing is not a matter for debate. What is a matter for debate is what effects the changing climate will have and what to do to mitigate the deleterious effects of climate change.

As Rush has said ad infinitum, any and every solution will be required to be, and to be precieved as, economically feasable. For the government to choose options that negatively affect their citizens without an unarguable positive return would be dereliction of duty. For that same government to throw vast sums of money toward a mitigation scheme, Kyoto, that will not and cannot bring benefit to their citizens would be criminal.

Some of the current research suggests that the current climate change trand will cause the ocean levels to rise dramatically within a couple of decades. Other research suggests that fresh water melt into the Atlantic Ocean will disrupt the Gulf Stream and cause ice age conditions in the northern hemisphere. What does this mean in terms of response to these conditions? What is to be done if the world ocean level rises 10 meters, 20 meters, 30 meters? In the case of the Gulf Stream stopping, will the Ice Age conditions stop the ocean level rise? Will the ice age conditions cause dramatically increased glaciation and a consequent ocean level drop? How will either warming or ice age conditions affect the major staple crop growing regions?

The responses to these suggested outcomes are, in many cases, mutually exclusive. Additional research needs to target not only the fact of climate change but also the required responses to climate change. This research will allow for a 'library' of contingency plans to be built, shorten the planning cycle and if the information is in the public arena will allow governments to properly justify needed changes to their citizenry.
ID: 509953 · Report as offensive
Profile The Gas Giant
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 01
Posts: 1904
Credit: 2,646,654
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 510015 - Posted: 28 Jan 2007, 21:03:58 UTC - in response to Message 509785.  

So can we all agree that man is now influencing climate change due to it's emissions and lack of sound environmental policy?

There is no doubt that there is a climate problem, and there is no doubt that many scientists are pointing to the view that man is influencing climate change. While the indicators are still strong, there is still not irreputable proof. This is one of the reasons why many countries, including USA, have been slow to act. It is obvious that black holes exist and do this and that - but is it? There are certain things we cannot prove, just potulate about. We do not even know what lies on the floor of out deepest oceans, and neither do we know what is really happening at the upper levels of our atmosphere.

However, we can look at what evidence there is and and we can influence the best way we can. And this does not mean making statements about 'sound policy' which is at the behest of government nonsense. At least governments are starting to take note and acknowledge what could be a very serious problem. China admits to climate failings. However, it just shows that China is going backwards - making things worse. So how are you going to get the Chinese to accept 'facts' when they are simply interested in economic growth and grabbing what they can like the West did in their periods of economic growth?

It's all very well for you to sit their in your fancy house and fancy cars with fancy holidays burning tonnes of CO2 every time you fly - and then telling China it mustn't have all thees things because the West is already killing the planet but doing nothing about it. Tell that to India and Mexico while you're at it.

So let's see. The IPCC latest report is not irrefutable proof?

That this graph alone is not enough for you to act?

Surely you can not sit there and not say without waffling on and changing the subject that yes anthropological causes are causing accelerated climate change.

ID: 510015 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 510017 - Posted: 28 Jan 2007, 21:15:46 UTC - in response to Message 510015.  
Last modified: 28 Jan 2007, 21:27:05 UTC

So let's see. The IPCC latest report is not irrefutable proof?

That this graph alone is not enough for you to act?

Surely you can not sit there and not say without waffling on and changing the subject that yes anthropological causes are causing accelerated climate change.

Hey CG,

A question: Do you think that, for example, posting the Deer Wrecktum Doorbell photo 15 times in Rocky's, or say, the Last Person to Post threads, among others, results in lower emissions? Or do such things contribute to ever-increasing emissions? How about if a billion or so Chinese started posting here?

The point being, when you say "enough for you to act," no, it isn't. If those threads are any indication, no it isn't enough. People still choose to use resources when it suits them.

But his point remains the same as mine--it doesn't matter the cause. As was noted previously, Mars managed to global warm itself quite nicely without any help from us. If burning resources for the sake of burning resources, such as is in evidence here, is OK, well, then no, it doesn't matter if humans caused it.

They won't be able to stop it.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 510017 · Report as offensive
Profile GalaxyIce
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 13 May 06
Posts: 8927
Credit: 1,361,057
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 510067 - Posted: 28 Jan 2007, 23:14:36 UTC

HM Treasury, Stern Review seems to imply that everybody must act somehow, one way or another - the Summary of Conclusions states (on page iX):

Countries facing diverse circumstances will use different approaches to make their contribution to tackling climate change. But action by individual countries is not enough. Each country, however large, is just a part of the problem. It is essential to create a shared international vision of long-term goals, and to build the international frameworks that will help each country to play its part in meeting these common goals.

Key elements of future international frameworks should include:

• Emissions trading: Expanding and linking the growing number of emissions trading schemes around the world is a powerful way to promote cost-effective reductions in emissions and to bring forward action in developing countries: strong targets in rich countries could drive flows amounting to tens of illions of dollars each year to support the transition to low-carbon development paths.

• Technology cooperation: Informal co-ordination as well as formal agreements can boost the effectiveness of investments in innovation around the world. Globally, support for energy R&D should at least double, and support for the deployment of new low-carbon technologies should increase up to five-fold. International cooperation on product standards is a powerful way to boost energy efficiency.

• Action to reduce deforestation: The loss of natural forests around the world contributes more to global emissions each year than the transport sector. Curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way to reduce emissions; largescale international pilot programmes to explore the best ways to do this could get underway very quickly.

• Adaptation: The poorest countries are most vulnerable to climate change. It is essential that climate change be fully integrated into development policy, and that rich countries honour their pledges to increase support through overseas development assistance. International funding should also support improved regional information on climate change impacts, and research into new crop varieties that will be more resilient to drought and flood.


flaming balloons
ID: 510067 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 510075 - Posted: 28 Jan 2007, 23:35:29 UTC - in response to Message 509926.  

You're missing the point. While of course that is true (people act economically in their own best interests, notice that's what China, India, Russia and Mexico did--opted out) total emissions is a zero sum game--it doesn't matter who emits what if total emissions aren't cut. With China becoming number 1 and quickly dwarfing the U.S., and with 3, 4, and 11 not cutting, total emissions continue to rise. Which means that whatever predictions come to pass will come to pass regardless of what we spend. In other words, that's a waste of resources.


As an aside, China's GDP per capita in 2005 was about $7.2K, the United States' GDP was about $43.K per capita.

As it stands today, they're second in emissions right NOW with a per capita GDP seven times LESS than the U.S. However, they have a population population 4-5 times the size of the U.S.

You want to cut total emissions, you're going to have to absolutely crush China's economic expansion.

Hey, lets sign another piece of paper! We'll all feel better about ourselves because we did something.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 510075 · Report as offensive
Profile GalaxyIce
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 13 May 06
Posts: 8927
Credit: 1,361,057
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 510080 - Posted: 28 Jan 2007, 23:51:10 UTC - in response to Message 510075.  
Last modified: 28 Jan 2007, 23:53:28 UTC

You're missing the point. While of course that is true (people act economically in their own best interests, notice that's what China, India, Russia and Mexico did--opted out) total emissions is a zero sum game--it doesn't matter who emits what if total emissions aren't cut. With China becoming number 1 and quickly dwarfing the U.S., and with 3, 4, and 11 not cutting, total emissions continue to rise. Which means that whatever predictions come to pass will come to pass regardless of what we spend. In other words, that's a waste of resources.


As an aside, China's GDP per capita in 2005 was about $7.2K, the United States' GDP was about $43.K per capita.

As it stands today, they're second in emissions right NOW with a per capita GDP seven times LESS than the U.S. However, they have a population population 4-5 times the size of the U.S.

You want to cut total emissions, you're going to have to absolutely crush China's economic expansion.

Hey, lets sign another piece of paper! We'll all feel better about ourselves because we did something.

How are you going to crush China's economic expansion? I've already said they are going backwards and making the world's climate change problem worse as we speak. (And please don't ask what "I" am going to do - this micro decision making for individuals means squat if China continues) Their current plans call for the opening of a new power station every week, most of them coal-fired. Yes, I'll say it again. ONE NEW POWER STATION EVERY WEEK from here till eternity. For those that like graphs go and argue this one out with China;


source: BBC 28 January 2007

How much CO2 do you think this lot will put into the atmosphere?


flaming balloons
ID: 510080 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 510205 - Posted: 29 Jan 2007, 3:29:22 UTC - in response to Message 509842.  

every decision people make is fundamentally an economic one. They use economics to decide.

Speak for yourself there mr... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 510205 · Report as offensive
Profile The Gas Giant
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 01
Posts: 1904
Credit: 2,646,654
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 510322 - Posted: 29 Jan 2007, 10:47:27 UTC - in response to Message 510080.  
Last modified: 29 Jan 2007, 11:03:10 UTC

You're missing the point. While of course that is true (people act economically in their own best interests, notice that's what China, India, Russia and Mexico did--opted out) total emissions is a zero sum game--it doesn't matter who emits what if total emissions aren't cut. With China becoming number 1 and quickly dwarfing the U.S., and with 3, 4, and 11 not cutting, total emissions continue to rise. Which means that whatever predictions come to pass will come to pass regardless of what we spend. In other words, that's a waste of resources.


As an aside, China's GDP per capita in 2005 was about $7.2K, the United States' GDP was about $43.K per capita.

As it stands today, they're second in emissions right NOW with a per capita GDP seven times LESS than the U.S. However, they have a population population 4-5 times the size of the U.S.

You want to cut total emissions, you're going to have to absolutely crush China's economic expansion.

Hey, lets sign another piece of paper! We'll all feel better about ourselves because we did something.

How are you going to crush China's economic expansion? I've already said they are going backwards and making the world's climate change problem worse as we speak. (And please don't ask what "I" am going to do - this micro decision making for individuals means squat if China continues) Their current plans call for the opening of a new power station every week, most of them coal-fired. Yes, I'll say it again. ONE NEW POWER STATION EVERY WEEK from here till eternity. For those that like graphs go and argue this one out with China;


source: BBC 28 January 2007

How much CO2 do you think this lot will put into the atmosphere?


So hang on a sec iX, Ice, Sir Beekeeper or whatever your nic is and Rush and Bill. You're not going to do anything because someone else is not doing enough? That's the attitude the world needs.....

China is also going to have more renewable energy on a pure total percentage of total consumption than the US and than Australia (the two highest per capita dischargers of greenhouse gas emissions) by 2020 (or so they say). So let's not do anything until it either happens or doesn't happen.

We all need to do our bit. It's a little like distributed computing, a lot of computers doing a little bit gets a lot done.

I am buying electricity sourced from renewable sources. This alone halves my greenhouse gas emissions. Now I need to work out how to, cost effectively mind you, reduce my emissions even further. I have a few choices;

1. Give money to an organisation that plants trees, but at this point in time I'm unsure about the overall honesty of the organistions so I am procrastinating. I need to see more oversight and auditing to convince me they are not taking my money and running.

2. Sell my big 6-cyl sedan and get a smaller vehicle. But man-o-man, I paid $6k for this car and I'll have to pay at least triple that for a 4-cyl car that is half decent.

3. Rid my bike to work more often.....OK OK OK....start riding my bike to work.

Hmmm....what else can I do. Oh get those energy efficient mini flourescent light bulbs, but they cost a fortune and don't work half as well as a normal incandescent bulb. They take a while to warm up and go yellow after a month or so. For me I'll stick with the good ol' standaed bulb since I'm buying renewable electricity.

Live long and BOINC.
ID: 510322 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 510407 - Posted: 29 Jan 2007, 15:52:37 UTC - in response to Message 510080.  

How are you going to crush China's economic expansion? I've already said they are going backwards and making the world's climate change problem worse as we speak. (And please don't ask what "I" am going to do - this micro decision making for individuals means squat if China continues) Their current plans call for the opening of a new power station every week, most of them coal-fired. Yes, I'll say it again. ONE NEW POWER STATION EVERY WEEK from here till eternity. For those that like graphs go and argue this one out with China;

I was speaking euphemistically about crushing their economic expansion, trying to illustrate the magnitude of the problem the pollyanna face. We're on the same sheet of paper.

How much CO2 do you think this lot will put into the atmosphere?

Plenty.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 510407 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 510432 - Posted: 29 Jan 2007, 16:35:14 UTC - in response to Message 510322.  
Last modified: 29 Jan 2007, 16:36:49 UTC

So hang on a sec iX, Ice, Sir Beekeeper or whatever your nic is and Rush and Bill. You're not going to do anything because someone else is not doing enough? That's the attitude the world needs.....

I do all that I can. Not because of the dire predictions, but because they make sense for me.

China is also going to have more renewable energy on a pure total percentage of total consumption than the US and than Australia (the two highest per capita dischargers of greenhouse gas emissions) by 2020 (or so they say). So let's not do anything until it either happens or doesn't happen.

Lets hope that they do. I wouldn't wait until then.

We all need to do our bit. It's a little like distributed computing, a lot of computers doing a little bit gets a lot done.

I am buying electricity sourced from renewable sources. This alone halves my greenhouse gas emissions. Now I need to work out how to, cost effectively mind you, reduce my emissions even further. I have a few choices;

1. Give money to an organisation that plants trees, but at this point in time I'm unsure about the overall honesty of the organistions so I am procrastinating. I need to see more oversight and auditing to convince me they are not taking my money and running.

Yeah, this makes sense. You might be better off getting people who think as you do (Greenfarce, Dirt First!, and Sierra Schlub, et cetera) to quit wasting money and start buying land. Plant all the trees you want, no one can ever cut them down.

2. Sell my big 6-cyl sedan and get a smaller vehicle. But man-o-man, I paid $6k for this car and I'll have to pay at least triple that for a 4-cyl car that is half decent.

Economics ain't very forgiving. Best of luck.

3. Rid my bike to work more often.....OK OK OK....start riding my bike to work.

Well done.

Hmmm....what else can I do. Oh get those energy efficient mini flourescent light bulbs, but they cost a fortune and don't work half as well as a normal incandescent bulb. They take a while to warm up and go yellow after a month or so. For me I'll stick with the good ol' standaed bulb since I'm buying renewable electricity.

I’ve been using nothing but, for five or six years now. They are much better than they used to be. Make sure you get really "warm" ones that mimic natural sunlight.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 510432 · Report as offensive
Profile GalaxyIce
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 13 May 06
Posts: 8927
Credit: 1,361,057
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 510437 - Posted: 29 Jan 2007, 16:39:17 UTC - in response to Message 510322.  

We all need to do our bit. It's a little like distributed computing, a lot of computers doing a little bit gets a lot done.

I am buying electricity sourced from renewable sources. This alone halves my greenhouse gas emissions. Now I need to work out how to, cost effectively mind you, reduce my emissions even further. I have a few choices;

1. Give money to an organisation that plants trees, but at this point in time I'm unsure about the overall honesty of the organistions so I am procrastinating. I need to see more oversight and auditing to convince me they are not taking my money and running.

2. Sell my big 6-cyl sedan and get a smaller vehicle. But man-o-man, I paid $6k for this car and I'll have to pay at least triple that for a 4-cyl car that is half decent.

3. Rid my bike to work more often.....OK OK OK....start riding my bike to work.

Hmmm....what else can I do. Oh get those energy efficient mini flourescent light bulbs, but they cost a fortune and don't work half as well as a normal incandescent bulb. They take a while to warm up and go yellow after a month or so. For me I'll stick with the good ol' standaed bulb since I'm buying renewable electricity.

So let me get this right. You've switched your electricity supplier. You've thought about paying for trees to be planted, but you haven't actually done it. You've thought about giving up your huge gas guzzling car for a smaller one, but you haven't actually done it. You've thought about riding a bike, but you haven't actually done it. You've thought about changing your light bulbs, but you haven't actually done it.

Seems to me you think a lot, but don't actually do anything. Apart from change your electricity supplier. Big deal. That'll save the planet for sure.


flaming balloons
ID: 510437 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 510469 - Posted: 29 Jan 2007, 18:26:07 UTC

Glaciers melt, climate talks open
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

Mountain glaciers are shrinking three times faster than they were in the 1980s, scientists have announced.

The World Glacier Monitoring Service, which continuously studies a sample of 30 glaciers around the world, says the acceleration is down to climate change.

Its announcement came as climate scientists convened in Paris to decide the final wording of a major report.

There is reported to be some disagreement over what forecasts they will make for sea level rise.

But whatever form of words they agree on, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will declare that human-induced climate change is happening and needs to be tackled.

"We will enter conditions which we have not seen in the past 10,000 years, and perhaps conditions which mankind has never experienced." --Wilfried Haeberli, WGMS.

"[The report] embodies substantial new research, it addresses gaps that existed in our knowledge earlier, it has reduced existing uncertainties," IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri told reporters at a news briefing in Paris.

"I hope policies and actions will be formed to address the problem."

The report, due out on Friday, forms the first part of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, and will be the latest definitive assessment of climate science.

Melting away

Of all the various features that make up the surface of the Earth, glaciers are perhaps showing the starkest signs of rising temperatures.

The World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS), based in Switzerland, continuously studies a set of 30 mountain glaciers in different parts of the world. It is not quite a representative sample of all mountain glaciers, but does give a reliable indication of global trends.

The latest survey, just released, shows accelerating decline. During 2005, this sample of 30 glaciers became, on average, 60-70cm thinner.

This figure is 1.6 times more than the average annual loss during the 1990s, and three times faster than in the 1980s.

With mountain glaciers typically only tens of metres thick, this meant, said WGMS director Wilfried Haeberli, that many would disappear on a timescale of decades if the trend continued.

"We can say there were times during the warmer periods of the last 10,000 years when glaciers have been comparable to what they are now," he told the BBC News website.

"But it is not the past that worries us, it is the future. With the scenarios predicted, we will enter conditions which we have not seen in the past 10,000 years, and perhaps conditions which mankind has never experienced."

Last year, WGMS scientists forecast that the Alps would lose up to three-quarters of their glaciers during the coming century.

The WGMS is closely allied to the United Nations Environment Programme, whose executive director Achim Steiner commented: "Glaciers are important sources of water for many important rivers upon which people depend for drinking water, agriculture and industrial purposes.

"The findings... should strengthen the resolve of governments to act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

Rough seas

The IPCC report due out on Friday is likely to contain stronger wording than its previous assessment, in 2001, on the likelihood that human activities are principally responsible for the climatic changes observed around the world.

The 2001 report forecast that by the end of this century, temperatures would have risen by between 1.4C and 5.8C.

The new report is likely to reduce the range of uncertainty, though not rule out the possibility entirely of increases in the order of 5.8C.

But there is reported to be disagreement over the wording on expected sea level rise.

A bigger network of tide gauges and other instruments has enabled researchers to conclude that the sea level is on average rising by about 2mm per year, or 20cm per century.

This is one of the factors which led to earlier drafts of this report projecting rises by the end of the century which were a lot less than the maximum figure of 88cm contained in the 2001 version.

But some scientists are arguing that recent observations of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets suggest a major melt may be commencing. This, they say, should be reflected in the eventual IPCC projections.

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 510469 · Report as offensive
Profile GalaxyIce
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 13 May 06
Posts: 8927
Credit: 1,361,057
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 510491 - Posted: 29 Jan 2007, 20:18:27 UTC - in response to Message 510469.  
Last modified: 29 Jan 2007, 20:19:55 UTC

Glaciers melt, climate talks open



Three photographs, taken in 1912, 1968 and 2003, show how a glacier at Vernagtferner
in Austria has shrunk. It lost over half a metre in thickness during 2005.
(Images: O Gruber, H Rentsch, M Siebers/Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities)



flaming balloons
ID: 510491 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 510501 - Posted: 29 Jan 2007, 20:33:30 UTC - in response to Message 510491.  
Last modified: 29 Jan 2007, 20:33:49 UTC

Three photographs, taken in 1912, 1968 and 2003, show how a glacier at Vernagtferner in Austria has shrunk. It lost over half a metre in thickness during 2005.

That cheeky glacier did plenty of melting between 1912 and 1968. I wonder whose fault that is?

Bob in accounting?
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 510501 · Report as offensive
Profile The Gas Giant
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 01
Posts: 1904
Credit: 2,646,654
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 510505 - Posted: 29 Jan 2007, 20:50:58 UTC - in response to Message 510437.  

We all need to do our bit. It's a little like distributed computing, a lot of computers doing a little bit gets a lot done.

I am buying electricity sourced from renewable sources. This alone halves my greenhouse gas emissions. Now I need to work out how to, cost effectively mind you, reduce my emissions even further. I have a few choices;

1. Give money to an organisation that plants trees, but at this point in time I'm unsure about the overall honesty of the organistions so I am procrastinating. I need to see more oversight and auditing to convince me they are not taking my money and running.

2. Sell my big 6-cyl sedan and get a smaller vehicle. But man-o-man, I paid $6k for this car and I'll have to pay at least triple that for a 4-cyl car that is half decent.

3. Rid my bike to work more often.....OK OK OK....start riding my bike to work.

Hmmm....what else can I do. Oh get those energy efficient mini flourescent light bulbs, but they cost a fortune and don't work half as well as a normal incandescent bulb. They take a while to warm up and go yellow after a month or so. For me I'll stick with the good ol' standaed bulb since I'm buying renewable electricity.

So let me get this right. You've switched your electricity supplier. You've thought about paying for trees to be planted, but you haven't actually done it. You've thought about giving up your huge gas guzzling car for a smaller one, but you haven't actually done it. You've thought about riding a bike, but you haven't actually done it. You've thought about changing your light bulbs, but you haven't actually done it.

Seems to me you think a lot, but don't actually do anything. Apart from change your electricity supplier. Big deal. That'll save the planet for sure.


Well, it sounds like a bucket load more than you've done. Tell us iX, Ice, Sir Beekeeper...., what are doing about it? (yes pissing contest starts now ;) )
ID: 510505 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 34 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Fun with Global Warming - Part Deux!


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.