Ha, the world is growing up. - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-24-2001, 07:05 PM   #1
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: London
Posts: 353
Local Time: 02:35 PM
Why should we have to make sacrifices to compensate for the greed and gluttony and arrogance of the Americans? This is a problem that affects us all, it's a global problem and it requires global solutions. It is completely unfair to ask some countries to endure enormous inconvieneces to their way of life when the country that produces a quarter of the world's environmental problems carries on as if nothing has happened. This is not a first step, this is a cop-out. It's more of a step back than a step forward because we had this deal struck in Kyoto in 1998 with the commitment of the US and now we are trying to pretend that less than that is acceptable. What we need now is not just a first step, but a giant leap. And if America isn't prepared to shoulder the sacrifices which that entails then it should be forced into complience because there can be no room for the dragging of feet when we are negotiating the future of this planet.

------------------
Mock the silence while you can.
__________________

__________________
misterboo is offline  
Old 07-24-2001, 07:16 PM   #2
She wore graaaapes
 
Like O2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Slightly north of the Lone Star state
Posts: 1,800
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Ignorant American here who really does want to know/understand what you guys are talking about. Someone, please provide a link to information about this.

Thanks

------------------
"See, the rock star gets his way. Thank you very much. This feels very Elvis. Thank you."

Bono - Houston, Texas 4-2-01
__________________

__________________
Like O2 is offline  
Old 07-24-2001, 07:36 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 09:35 AM
The Kyoto Protocol, agreed to by Al Gore in 1997, would require the U.S. to reduce our emissions to 7 percent below our 1990 levels. Yet, as Bush pointed out, China is wholly exempted from Kyoto's restrictions even though it is the world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Bush agreed to continue to pursue climate research. But he pointed out that the U.S. has spent $18 billion on climate research since 1990, more than Japan and all 15 nations of the European Union combined.

Science has become politics in disguise. Global controls will be hurtful to both our ecology and our economy.

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-25-2001, 02:50 AM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 03:35 PM
Blahblahblah, only talking will not change anything.
For the first time there are agreemets about reducing
polution. America did loby not to sign but canada, japan
and australia did sign the agreement.

Hee, you do know that America produce 25 % of all
the greenhouse gasses whit 5 % of the world population ?
Realy a great achievement.

Yesterday there was a programme about the Eskimos
in Alsaka. They told that the see between russia and alaska
hardly have ice in the winter. It should be I.2 meter thick
but it is 30 cm the last years. Even the perma-frost layer
is starting to meld so Houses get dameged .

I8 billion for rechearch for doing nothing, a real waste.


------------------
I can`t change the world but i can
change the world in me.

Read you, Rono.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 07-25-2001, 03:03 AM   #5
Refugee
 
Klodomir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,198
Local Time: 03:35 PM
Research is fine, but it's time to take action, and I think most people can see this.

America cannot be forced into compliance, so the best thing the rest of the world can do now is get on with things and make the best of the situation as it is. We can only hope that an American president with a global conscience comes along again in the near future. But we cannot allow even a country as big and powerful as the US to hold back the work that needs to be done. This is not an ideal situation, but it's better than the whole agreement falling apart.
__________________
Klodomir is offline  
Old 07-25-2001, 03:54 AM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 03:35 PM
Ha, the world is growing up.

And whitout America. I am proud of all the countries
that decide to go for kyoto. O.K., it is weaken a lot
but every long journey starts whit the first step.

Viva Pronk.

------------------
I can`t change the world but i can
change the world in me.

Read you, Rono.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 07-25-2001, 05:06 AM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 03:35 PM
So what did the US research and what were there conclusions?
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 07-25-2001, 08:15 AM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 03:35 PM
From The Times (UK);

Quote:
America rejects germ warfare treaty

The United States has rejected a draft agreement designed to give teeth to an anti-germ warfare treaty. "In our assessment the draft protocol would put national security and confidential business information at risk," US chief negotiator Donald Mahley said in Geneva. But Washington still supported the 1972 UN treaty banning the use of biological weapons, and would come up with new proposals on how to enforce it, he said.
Some countries are still waiting to reach puberty.


[This message has been edited by DrTeeth (edited 07-25-2001).]
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 07-25-2001, 11:59 AM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono:
Blahblahblah, only talking will not change anything. For the first time there are agreemets about reducing
polution. America did loby not to sign but canada, japan and australia did sign the agreement.
Hee, you do know that America produce 25 % of all the greenhouse gasses whit 5 % of the world population ? Realy a great achievement. Yesterday there was a programme about the Eskimos in Alsaka. They told that the see between russia and alaska
hardly have ice in the winter. It should be I.2 meter thick but it is 30 cm the last years. Even the perma-frost layer
is starting to meld so Houses get dameged .
I8 billion for rechearch for doing nothing, a real waste.
Rono, there is always to sides to every story:

Kyoto Protocol:
"A useless appendage
to an irrelevant treaty"
Testimony of
Patrick J. Michaels
Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia,
and Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at Cato Institute

to:
Committee on Small Business
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.

July 29, 1998

Thank you for soliciting my testimony on the science of climate change as it pertains to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Nearly ten years ago, I first testified on climate change in the U.S. House of Representatives. At that time, I argued that forecasts of dramatic and deleterious global warming were likely to be in error because of the very modest climate changes that had been observed to that date. Further, it would eventually be recognized that this more moderate climate change would be inordinately directed into the winter and night, rather than the summer, and that this could be benign or even beneficial. I testified that the likely warming, based on the observed data, was between 1.0 and 1.5°C for doubling the natural carbon dioxide greenhouse effect.

The preceding paragraph was excerpted verbatim from my last testimony before this House, on November 6, 1997. Since that last testimony, new scientific advances have been published in the refereed literature that have now proven the validity of this position. The key findings include:

Documentation that observed climate change is several times below the amount predicted by the climate models that served as the basis for the Framework Convention on Climate Change (Hansen et al., 1998),
Documentation that observed changes are largely confined to winter in the very coldest continental airmasses of Siberia and northwestern North America (Balling et al., 1998),
Documentation that the variation, or unpredictability, of regional temperatures has declined significantly on a global basis while there was no change in precipitation (Michaels et al., 1998),
Documentation that, in the United States, drought has decreased while flooding has not increased (Lins and Slack, 1997),
Documentation that carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a rate below the most conservative United Nations’ scenarios, because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation (Hansen et al., 1998),
Documentation that the second most important human greenhouse enhancer—methane—is not likely to increase appreciably in the next 100 years (Dlugokencky et al., 1998),
Documentation that the direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated (Myhre et al., 1998), and
Documentation that the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will have no discernable impact on global climate within any reasonable policy timeframe (Wigley, 1998).
In toto, these findings lead inescapably to the conclusion that the magnitude and the threat from global warming is greatly diminished. They should provoke a re-examination of the need for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol.

Historical Background

Ten years ago, on June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a strong "cause and effect relationship" between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere. His testimony coincided with a very hot, dry period (much worse than the summer of 1998), and subsequent polls showed that, as a result of his testimony, the public believed that the 1988 drought was caused by human-induced global warming.

At that time, Hansen also produced a model of the future behavior of the globe’s temperature, which he had turned into a video movie that was heavily shopped in Congress. That model was one of many similar calculations that were used in the First Scientific Assessment of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC", 1990), which stated that "when the latest atmospheric models are run with the present concentrations of greenhouse gases, their simulation of climate is generally realistic on large scales."

That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Figure 2 compares this to the observed temperature changes from three independent sources. Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted. Lower atmosphere temperatures measured by ascending thermistors on weather balloons show a decline of 0.36°C and satellites measuring the same layer (our only truly global measure) showed a decline of 0.24°C.

The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure, and IPCC’s 1990 statement about the realistic nature of these projections was simply wrong.

This failure did not surprise me. On a 100 year time scale, the models were predicting a warming of about 1.5° by 1988. The observed change was 0.5°C. That the models continued to fail in the last ten years at the rate that they were failing in the previous century was strong evidence for my original thesis. How much might we have saved, including the notorious Kyoto Protocol, if we had just listened to nature instead of a manmade computer?

By 1995, in its second full Assessment of climate change, the IPCC admitted the validity of its critics’ position: "When increases in greenhouse gases only are taken into account...most [climate models] produce a greater mean warming than has been observed to date, unless a lower climate sensitivity [to the greenhouse effect] is used...There is growing evidence that increases in sulfate aerosols are partially counteracting the [warming] due to increases in greenhouse gases."

IPCC is presenting two alternative hypotheses: Either the base warming was simply overestimated, or, some other anthropogenerated emission is preventing the warming from being observed. IPCC omitted a third source for the error: Perhaps the greenhouse gases were not increasing at the projected rate.

As evidence comes in, the first and third reasons appear to be carrying the day. The direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated (Myhre et al., 1998). Carbon dioxide is not accumulating in the atmosphere at even the lowest rate estimated by IPCC in 1992 (Hansen et al., 1998), and the the second most important greenhouse emission, methane, began to decrease its rate of increase in 1981 (Etheridge et al., 1998), some 15 years before the recent IPCC report that projects an increased rate of emissions for the next 50 years.

Only the sulfate hypothesis allows the exaggerated notion of climate change any credibility. It is not surprising that this is the one that IPCC continues to champion because it raises the spectre of "dangerous" interference in the climate system, which is what the Framework Convention on Climate Change was designed to prevent. If there is no "dangerous" interference, there is no need for the Convention, or the subsequent Kyoto Protocol, and the IPCC has failed in its mission. The U.N. General Assembly, more than ten years ago, directed the IPCC to provide the basis for the Convention.

Why did it not warm as predicted?

a. The sulfate hypothesis

Are sulfate aerosols responsible for the now-admitted dearth of warming? In previous testimony I have shown how poorly this argument stands the critical test of the data. Suffice it to say that the entire record of three dimensional atmospheric temperature does not appear consistent with this hypothesis. Instead of repeating that argument, I would simply point out that the southern half of the planet is virtually devoid of sulfates, and should have warmed at a prodigious and consistent rate for the last two decades. Unfortunately, we have very few longterm weather records from that half of the planet, and almost all come from the relatively uncommon landmasses. However, we do have nearly two decades of satellite data (Figure 3). They show a statistically significant decline in temperature—exactly the opposite to what the sulfate hypothesis predicts.

b. Was the sensitivity overestimated?

If sulfates do not explain the lack of warming, one option is that the sensitivity to climate change was overestimated. The large warmings predicted by the failed models that back the Framework Convention rely on a roughly threefold amplification of carbon dioxide warming by increased atmospheric moisture. Yet Spencer and Braswell (1997) have found that the expected moisture is not there.

Perhaps even more remarkable is that amount of direct warming by carbon dioxide was also overestimated (Myhre et al., 1998). This is the basic driving force behind the entire issue!

c. Was the increase in greenhouse gases overestimated?

Dlugokencky et al. (1998) recently demonstrated that the concentration of methane in the atmosphere—currently 30% of the human greenhouse potential—is rapidly stabilizing. It has done this because its concentration is coming into chemical equilibrium with other atmospheric reactants. His calculations strongly suggest that the concentration will remain stable in the future. The IPCC assumed that, without any controls, the methane warming effect would double by 2050 and increase by 125% by 2100.

Hansen et al. (1998) recently calculated that the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are increasing at approximately 60% of the rate that is normally projected. Notably, he argues that the biosphere is absorbing CO2 at a rate much faster than anticipated, as he wrote that "Apparently the rate of uptake by CO2 sinks, either the ocean, or, more likely the forests and soils (our emphasis) has increased."

DECLINING PROJECTIONS OF GLOBAL WARMING

In the ten years since my first testimony, estimates of global warming to the year 2100 have declined. When the latest findings are factored in, the projected warming is now at the lower limit I noted in 1989. Following is a summary of that decline in median projected warming for the next century:

IPCC 1990 initial estimate: 3.2°C

IPCC revised 1992 estimate: 2.6°C

IPCC revised 1995 estimate: 2.0°C

After allowing for overestimation of direct CO2 warming: 1.7°C

After allowing for flattening of Methane concentration: 1.4°C

After allowing for decrease in carbon dioxide accumulation: 1.0°C

The Nature of Observed Change

Winter Warming

Greenhouse physics predicts that the driest airmasses should respond first and most strongly to changes induced by human activities. These, in fact, are generally the coldest airmasses, such as the great high pressure system that dominates Siberia in the winter, and its only slightly more benign cousin in northwestern North America. When the jet stream attains a proper orientation, it is this airmass that migrates south and kills orange trees in Florida.

A look at the trends in the satellite data—our only truly global record of lower atmosphere temperature—is remarkably revealing. While there is no overall global warming trend, there is a pronounced warming trend in the coldest winter regions.

Balling, Michaels, et al. (1998) examined surface temperature records since 1945 and found also that warming was largely confined to the coldest winter airmasses, in agreement with the satellite. A warming of the coldest, driest airmasses, is by definition, a relative warming of the nights compared to the days. And, by extension, this is the type of climate change that slightly lengthens the growing season, as the coldest temperature occurs at night.

Climate Variability

Michaels et al. (1998) recently examined the surface temperature history in order to answer three questions:

Is the temperature becoming more variable from year-to-year? We found a statistically significant decline in interannual variability worldwide (Figure 4) .

Is the variation from day-to-day increasing? We found no statistically significant change.

Are the number of record high or low temperatures increasing? We found no statistically significant change.

In summary, here is what the climate has done during the greenhouse enhancement: The most notable change is that the coldest airmasses of winter in Siberia and North America have warmed slightly. The only change in weather variability has been a tendency towards reduced year-to-year variability.

Our results should be integrated with a recent study of U.S. streamflow by Lins and Slack (1997). In an investigation of undisturbed sites, they found no change in the frequency of highest flow (flood) events, but a decrease in the lowest flow (drought) events.

We are not entering a world of increased variability, unpredictability and peril, but rather the opposite. If this is a human interference in the climate, it is hardly "dangerous."

The Kyoto Protocol: How Much Warming is Prevented?

This analysis assumes the IPCC’s "consensus" estimate of 2.0°C of warming by the year 2100 in the absence of substantial emissions stabilization. Please note that my testimony indicates this is a considerable overestimation.

The Kyoto Protocol requires that the United States reduce its overall greenhouse gas emissions by a remarkable 43% for the 2008-2012 average, compared to where they would have been if we continue on the trajectory established in the last two decades. The economic costs are enormous, they are but not the subject of this hearing. What are the climate benefits?

Wigley (1998) recently calculated the "saved" warming, under the assumptions noted above, that would accrue if every nation met its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. According to him, the earth’s temperature in 2050 will be 0.07°C lower as a result. My own calculations produced a similar answer. Wigley is a Senior Scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.

0.07°C is an amount so small that it cannot be reliably measured by ground-based thermometers. If one assumes the more likely scenario that warming to the year 2100 will be approximately half of the IPCC estimate, the saved warming drops to 0.04°C over the next fifty years.

This is no benefit at an enormous cost.

*****

In conclusion, the observed data on climate and recent emissions trends clearly indicate that the concept of "dangerous" interference in the climate system is outmoded within any reasonable horizon. This makes the Kyoto Protocol a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty. It is time to reconsider the Framework Convention.


__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-25-2001, 12:10 PM   #10
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 07:35 AM
copy
paste

------------------
Running to Stand Still-"you gotta cry without weeping, talk without speaking, scream without raising your voice."

"we're not burning out we're burning up...we're the loudest folk band in the world!"-Bono
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 07-25-2001, 12:55 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 03:35 PM
It's not that hard to copy/paste

Quote:

July 19, 2001

EARTH LIKELY TO WARM 4-7 DEGREES BY 2100

BOULDER -- There's a nine out of ten chance that global average temperatures will rise 3-9 degrees Fahrenheit over the coming century, with a 4-7 degree increase most likely, according to a new probability analysis by scientists in the United States and England. The most likely projected increase is five times the one-degree temperature rise observed over the past century. As early as 2030 the planet is likely to heat up 1-2 degree, say the scientists. The study appears in the July 20 issue of the journal Science.

"We are assigning probabilities to long-term projections to aid policy makers in assessing the risks that might accompany various courses of action or nonaction," says first author Tom Wigley of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "If all scenarios are believed to be equally likely, it's difficult to plan." NCAR's primary sponsor is the National Science Foundation.

An estimated global warming range of 2.5-10.4 degree F was announced earlier this year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), composed of hundreds of scientists around the world. But the likelihood that the earth's temperature would warm only 2.5 degree or as much as 10.4 degree is very low, say NCAR's Wigley and coauthor Sarah Raper of the University of East Anglia in England and the Alfred Wegener Institut for Polar and Marine Research in Germany.

Even warming of 4-7 degree F, however, is very large compared with the observed warming over the past century, they write. "Whether or not such rapid warming will occur . . . depends on actions taken to control climate change," they continue. In arriving at their estimates, the scientists assumed that no policies would be implemented to curb climate change before 2100.

If a rapid warming and its expected impacts occur in the near future, even swift societal attempts at control would yield little immediate success, say the authors. "The climate's inertia would lead to only a slow response to such efforts and guarantee that future warming would still be large," they write.

New estimates of sulfur dioxide and other emissions, along with updated information on carbon storage, ocean circulation, radiation, and other components of the earth system have improved computer models of the earth's climate and led the IPCC to both raise and widen its estimated range of global temperature increase. The latest range of 2.5-10.4 degree F is up significantly from the panel's 1995 estimates of 1.4-6.3 degree.

In their analysis Wigley and Raper attempted to interpret the likelihood of the new estimates, taking into account the wide uncertainties about future human activities and the climate's response to them. They identified the main sources of uncertainty and estimated the probability of their values falling within defined ranges. They then used these results to "drive" a simplified climate model and combined the various model results into probability ranges for temperature increases.

The National Science Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute funded the study. NCAR is managed by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, a consortium of 66 universities offering Ph.D.s in atmospheric and related sciences.

## source: NASA

__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 07-25-2001, 01:52 PM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonoman:
copy
paste
Of course, it's copy and paste. There's no way I'm smart enough to come up with that.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-25-2001, 01:54 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth:
It's not that hard to copy/paste
You are exactly right, it's not that hard to copy and paste.
Like I said, there's 2 sides to every story. with this issue, i guess you have to make up your mind based on which scientists' beliefs/reserach you subcribe to.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-25-2001, 06:03 PM   #14
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Austin, TX USA
Posts: 54
Local Time: 02:35 PM
Well, it's not surprising to see that a "scientist" who works for the Cato Institute is against the Kyoto treaty...I wonder why?

[This message has been edited by radiodivision (edited 07-25-2001).]
__________________
radiodivision is offline  
Old 07-25-2001, 06:18 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by radiodivision:
Well, it's not surprising to see that a "scientist" who works for the Cato Institute is against the Kyoto treaty...I wonder why?
[This message has been edited by radiodivision (edited 07-25-2001).]
Because the Cato Institute is a well-respected journal and has intelligent and learned people writing for it?
__________________

__________________
sulawesigirl4 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com