Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HPilot who wrote (26671)	12/9/2009 3:32:40 PM
From: Land Shark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Jeffrey Simpson Climate change is not weather change In Canada's northern backyard, the effects of global warming are as evident as anywhere on the planet. THE CANADIAN PRESS As the Copenhagen talks open, there's lots of bogus science around At a reception a few weeks ago, a senior minister in the Harper government stated as fact that the atmosphere was cooler today than in 1998, the inference being that climate change was a hoax, or at least not what it's cracked up to be. It's scary to have a senior minister believe such stuff, but this is the Harper government, after all. As the Copenhagen climate talks open, there's lots of bogus science around. So perhaps it's worth reviewing again what the overwhelming number of scientists around the world and across Canada are saying today. A document called the Copenhagen Diagnosis spells out where we're at. (The report was compiled by 26 scientists from seven countries, including Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria.) It makes the point – so elementary it scarcely bears repeating – that a distinction exists between weather and climate. Weather is short term – today, tomorrow, this month – whereas climate is the underlying, long-term pattern, year after year, decade after decade. Climate change is not weather change. The weather oscillates all the time; climate changes very slowly. Within that slow change are innumerable variations, but what counts is the underlying pattern. Today, for example, might be cooler than yesterday. So what? And 2008 was cooler on average than 2007. Why? Because a La Nina occurred in 2008, causing a temporary dip in average global temperature. (Despite La Nina, 2008 was the ninth-warmest year on record.) An El Nino occurred in 1998, the reason for the Harper minister's confusion, that warmed temperatures. They naturally fell thereafter before resuming their upward rise. What counts is that for the decade from 1999 to 2008, average temperatures rose 0.19 Celsius, within the long-term forecasts for global warming of most of the world's atmospheric scientists. NASA, for example, predicts decade-over-decade increases in the range of 0.17 and 0.34. There may be other short-term factors at work. There can be massive volcanic eruptions that can cause temporary cooling. There is a well-known pattern of solar variability whereby less sunlight for a few years has a cooling tendency. But, as the Copenhagen Diagnosis authors write, “neither El Nino nor solar activity nor volcanic eruptions make a significant contribution to long-term climate trends.” Long term for most atmospheric scientists is a minimum of 25 years. The atmosphere is generally unfolding – that is, warming – much as a series of United Nations reports have suggested, each providing increasing levels of scientific assurance, although couched with the qualifications one would expect from projections. In one area, however, matters have moved faster than expected. The Arctic is warming and losing its ice cover more rapidly than scientists had expected a decade ago. As the authors of the Copenhagen Diagnosis say, “perhaps the most stunning observational change … has been the shattering of the previous Arctic summer minimum sea ice extent record, something not predicted by climate models.” In Canada's northern backyard, therefore, the effects of global warming are as evident as anywhere on the planet. An ice-free Arctic summer is inevitable if warming trends continue. Whereas it was thought this ice-free situation might occur in a hundred years, new studies suggest it will happen in 30 years, or less. An Arctic cycle will thus develop: Less ice means warmer surrounding land, which means more melting, which leads to the rapid release of carbon storied in the previously frozen land, which means more carbon, and so on. Sea levels will also rise faster, because ocean water expands as it heats and melting on land produces water that flows into the oceans. All this, and more, is known to governments around the world. There isn't a single government represented at Copenhagen that rejects human-made global warming, although a few are eager to seize on anything that might cast doubt. Among these, as you would expect, are Saudi Arabia and a few other petroleum-producing states that will be severely threatened long term if the world reduces its dependence on fossil fuels. Even Ottawa and Alberta, hardly paragons of climate-change policies, admit the science. Doing something about it remains another matter, at home and abroad.

To: HPilot who wrote (26671)	12/9/2009 3:35:38 PM
From: Land Shark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

China criticizes rich nations' inaction on global warming www.chinaview.cn 2009-12-10 03:29:55 Print COPENHAGEN, Dec. 9 (Xinhua) -- China on Wednesday criticized the lack of action by developed nations in fulfilling their commitments on carbon emissions reduction and financial support to developing nations in coping with climate change. "You will find a huge gap if you make a comparison between their pledges and the actions they have so far taken," Yu Qingtai, China's special representative in the UN climate talks, said at a press conference during the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. Developing nations are asking for at least 300 billion U.S. dollars in financial support to help them deal with the impacts of climate change. Developed nations' financial commitments have fallen far short of that goal, and no money has actually been provided. On emission cuts, the United States' 4-percent pledge by 2020 compared with 1990 levels and the European Union's 20-percent goal are also criticized by developing nations as being not enough. Rich nations have pledged to reduce their emissions to 1990 levels by 2000, but none of them has fulfilled that commitment, Yu said. They should reflect on whether they have the political will to make good on their pledge, he said. "In this regard, what they need to do is to do some soul-searching." Editor: Mu Xuequan

To: HPilot who wrote (26671)	12/9/2009 3:37:05 PM
From: Land Shark	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

Study reaffirms global warming trend By ANDREW C. REVKIN and JAMES KANTER NEW YORK TIMES 12/09/2009 COPENHAGEN, Denmark — Despite recent fluctuations in global temperature year to year, which fueled claims of global cooling, a sustained global warming trend shows no signs of ending, according to new analysis by the World Meteorological Organization. The decade of the 2000s is very likely the warmest decade in the modern record, dating back 150 years, according to a provisional summary of climate conditions near the end of 2009, the organization said. The period from 2000 through 2009 has been "warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s and so on," said Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the international weather agency, speaking at a news conference at the climate talks in Copenhagen. The international assessment largely meshes with an interim analysis by the National Climatic Data Center and NASA in the United States, both of which independently estimate global and regional temperature and other weather trends. ShopSTL Marketplace Jarraud also said that 2009, with some uncertainty because several weeks remain, appears to be the fifth warmest year on record. Addressing questions about the reliability of climate data after the unauthorized release of e-mail messages and files from a British climate research unit that provides data to the global weather group, he said there was no evidence that the various independent estimates showing a warming world were in doubt. The news conference early Tuesday came after the European Commission reacted to a decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to pave the way for federal limits on emissions of carbon dioxide, saying it should give further weight to negotiations under way in Copenhagen aimed at crafting a new global agreement to curb greenhouse gases. The so-called endangerment finding by the EPA was "an important signal by the Obama administration that they are serious about tackling climate change and are demonstrating leadership," a spokesman from the European Commission said. The finding "gives new momentum following their announcement of cuts," he said. Political leaders in Copenhagen welcomed the ruling, but they were quick to press the Obama administration to do more now to sweeten its offer. Andreas Carlgren, the environment minister of Sweden, the country that currently holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, said in an e-mail message on Tuesday morning that the ruling "shows that the United States can do more than they have put on the table." Connie Hedegaard, the Danish politician who was elected on Monday as president of the conference, said in an e-mail message on Tuesday morning that the ruling in the United States "is a helpful step, as it could provide a larger degree of flexibility in the negotiations." So far, President Barack Obama has signaled a cut in emissions by about 17 percent by 2020 compared with 2005 levels. The White House also has indicated that the U.S. would contribute to a fund to tackle climate change. The gathering of more than 190 nations in Copenhagen opened on Monday with appeals for urgent action from the United Nations and from officials of countries endangered by warmer temperatures, rising sea levels and other damage such as melting glaciers. As the climate meeting got under way on Tuesday morning, environmental groups were chanting in favor of preservation of forests and handing out symbolic cardboard cutouts labeled as carbon dioxide. A major reason that hopes have risen in recent weeks is the expectation that Obama — who plans to attend the closing days of the conference next week — will formally commit the United States to making cuts in greenhouse gases. The U.S. declined to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, a previous agreement on curbing greenhouse gases, because of strong opposition in the Senate and from the Bush administration. The refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol has left a lingering mistrust of the United States in other parts of the world. The EPA finding is expected to allow Obama to tell delegates that the U.S. is moving aggressively to address the problem.

To: HPilot who wrote (26671)	12/9/2009 3:42:15 PM
From: Land Shark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Sorry skeptics, global warming is real - Updated version 5:22 PM Tue, Dec 08, 2009 \| Permalink Clayton M. McCleskey/Points Staff Writer Bio \| E-mail \| Suggest a blog topic The latest news out of Copenhagen today is plain and simple: One after the other, the British Met Office and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) went public with their latest measurements, showing that 2009 is shaping up to be the fifth hottest year on record and - more importantly - that the 'noughties' are set to be much the warmest decade ever. In other words: global warming is real. Still not convinced? "We are in a warming trend. There is no doubt about it," insisted Michael Jarraud, the Secretary General of the WMO. Despite the whole Climategate ordeal, scientists are more certain than ever that global temperatures are rising. The WMO didn't just lick it's finger and hold it up to the wind to gauge the climate. The right-leaning Daily Telegraph explains: [The] organisation, a UN body, draws its analysis on world temperatures from three separate sets of data. One is processed by the Met Office; until 2002 it ran it with the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University, of the hacked e-mail controversy, but now does the job itself. The others come from the US Government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. All have come to the same conclusion. Depending on what happens in the last three weeks of the year, it could end up as the fourth, fifth or sixth hottest on record, but it will certainly be much warmer than 2008, which was anomalously low thanks to a cooling La Nina in the Pacific. And the jump between average temperatures in the 1990s and the current decade is one of the greatest ever. So, now that we all agree that the earth is heating up, let's debate what to do about it. UPDATE: Thanks to all of y'all who left comments. We've got a good debate going here. Here are a few more sources talking about warming: The Scientific American wrote this in response to Climategate: In fact, nothing in the stolen e-mails or computer code undermines in any way the scientific consensus--which exists among scientific publications as well as scientists--that climate change is happening and humans are the cause. "There is a robust consensus that humans are altering the atmosphere and warming the planet," said meteorologist Michael Mann of The Pennsylvania State University, who also participated in the conference call and was among the scientists whose e-mails have been leaked. "Further increases in greenhouse gases will lead to increasingly greater disruption." The Financial Times, a pro-business, center-right newspaper, seconded that opinion: A majority of experts clearly agree about the problem and the need to address it urgently. The Washington Post editorial board also weighed in: By our reckoning -- and that of most scientists, policymakers and almost every government in the world -- the probability that the planet will warm in the long term because of human activity is extremely high, and the probability that allowing it to do so unabated will have disastrous effects is unacceptably large. The case that governments should hedge against that outcome is formidable enough. Climate scientists should not let themselves be goaded by the irresponsibility of the deniers into overstating the certainties of complex science or, worse, censoring discussion of them. The Economist, hardly a tree-hugging, looney lefty outfit, writes: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It warms the surface and increases the amount of water vapour that the atmosphere can hold, which in turn warms things further. How much warming you get for a given amount of carbon dioxide is hard to say, because there are feedback processes involved, such as the making of clouds, and also other factors at work. It may be that this century's warming will be moderate, staying below 2ºC. It is quite possible, though, that unless something is done the warming will be greater, and there is a real risk that it could be a lot greater, perhaps 4ºC or more. The inquiries into the "climategate" e-mails and files may find that some of the researchers fell short of the standards of their calling, or that some of the science in question does not stand up as well as its authors would wish. To think that all action on climate change should cease pending such inquiries, though, is foolish, cynical or both. And climate guru Al Gore told Slate's John Dickerson: ... the basic facts are incontrovertible. What do they think happens when we put 90 million tons up there every day? Is there some magic wand they can wave on it and presto!--physics is overturned and carbon dioxide doesn't trap heat anymore? And when we see all these things happening on the Earth itself, what in the hell do they think is causing it? The scientists have long held that the evidence in their considered word is "unequivocal," which has been endorsed by every national academy of science in every major country in the entire world. If the people that believed the moon landing was staged on a movie lot had access to unlimited money from large carbon polluters or some other special interest who wanted to confuse people into thinking that the moon landing didn't take place, I'm sure we'd have a robust debate about it right now. You'll never get folks to unanimously agree on anything. I'm sure you can still find doctors who will tell you that smoking isn't all that bad for your health. But the consensus is that yes, smoking causes cancer. Same thing with the climate and global warming. But let's pretend for a moment that this is all a scam. The world's politicians, diplomats, scientists and journalists all had a secret meeting and decided it'd be fun to trick the world into going green. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman had a great column yesterday explaining why we'd still benefit: If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull's-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent. But if we don't prepare, and climate change turns out to be real, life on this planet could become a living hell. I think the important debate isn't rehashing if the earth is heating up or if human activity is part of the problem. We should be discussing how to be more efficient in our energy usage and how Texas can benefit from environmentally-friendly projects, such as clean coal. What do you think about ideas like clean coal? How can Texas be a leader in green technology? Sure, Texas was built on oil and gas, but can we find a way to make green money?