Global warming, global cooling

Status
Not open for further replies.
China, India to escape carbon hair shirt?

UN's climate veggie thinks so

By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author

Posted in Environment, 4th February 2009 13:41 GMT



The Nobel Prize winning chairman of the UN's climate change committee, [b[Rajendra K Pachauri,[/b]sounds Indian, doesn't it has said the the world's largest developing economies will be exempt from international pressure to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Pachauri's role is to reflect on the state of the science, and create a range of scenarios for politicians. But he regularly abandons the "policy neutral" brief and has consistently demanded the urgent adoption of "mitigation" policies - to be reflected in changes to industrial policy - rather than "adaptation".

"Of course, the developing countries will be exempted from any such restrictions but the developed countries will certainly have to cut down on emission," the Economic Times of India reports the well-known vegetarian telling a domestic audience in New Delhi.

Pauchauri has called for anthropogenic CO2 emissions (around 26.4 gigatonnes a year, compared to over 700 gigatonnes released by oceans and biomatter) to be "stabilized" by 2015, with a fall by 2020. He said that Europe and USA must make steep cuts in emissions.

Copenhagen plays host for a conference to agree the successor to the Kyoto agreement - but the developing nations' appetite for accepting binding restrictions by foreign powers is limited.

"It's difficult for China to take quantified emission reduction quotas at the Copenhagen conference, because this country is still at an early stage of development," Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao told the FT this week, referring to the conference this year that international successor to Kyoto. "Europe started its industrialisation several hundred years ago, but for China, it has only been dozens of years."

Business Green added that, "Indian officials have already indicated that they are unlikely to agree to a mandatory cap on emissions in Copenhagen, while Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin took a similarly non-committal stance on climate change in his keynote address at the Davos forum."

So that just leaves Europe and the USA, then


source
 
It seems like it would be easier to take green measures while you're developing, rather than installing gross polluters and then going back later to clean them up.
 
I like doing the right thing because I so choose.
If I Have to, it just doesn't work the same.
 
It seems like it would be easier to take green measures while you're developing, rather than installing gross polluters and then going back later to clean them up.

One would think so but clearly if the plan doesn't involve weakening the USA & parts of the EU, it's not good enough.
 
It seems like it would be easier to take green measures while you're developing, rather than installing gross polluters and then going back later to clean them up.

Not if it kills your economy and starves your citizens.
 
Tick ... tock ...

More and more jump off of the bandwagon every day.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,489985,00.html

Irish Politician Bans TV Ads About Global Warming

Monday, February 09, 2009

DUBLIN — Northern Ireland's environment minister announced Monday he has banned the local broadcast of British government ads on climate change and denounced their energy-saving message as "insidious propaganda."

Sammy Wilson has repeatedly raised eyebrows since winning the environment post in Northern Ireland's power-sharing government last year.

The hard-line Protestant, a leading light in the Democratic Unionist Party, argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming — and humanity should invest in coping with God-driven climate change, not trying to slow down a man-made problem.

His latest fight is against the central government in London, which funds an "Act on CO2" campaign encouraging the public to reduce their use of electricity and fossil fuels.

Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, but the Catholic-Protestant coalition in Belfast has autonomy in many areas.

Wilson said the Act on CO2 ads were "giving people the impression that by turning off the standby light on their TV, they could save the world from melting glaciers and being submerged in 40 feet of water."

He said the ads, which have been running on British television stations including in Northern Ireland over the past year, represented "an insidious propaganda campaign" peddling "patent nonsense."

Wilson said he had already written to the British government's Department of Energy and Climate Change warning it not to distribute any more pollution-fighting ads in Northern Ireland.

In a brief statement, that London-based agency confirmed it had received the letter and would stop running TV ads in Northern Ireland pending legal advice.

In Northern Ireland's fledgling government, individual ministers control their own policy patch — even when others in the four-party coalition oppose their decisions.

Catholics and Protestants from other parties said Wilson's TV ad ban must win majority backing from Northern Ireland's legislature to become legal. Wilson said he did not need any authority but his own.

Wilson won no support Monday from outside his own conservative party, which is Northern Ireland's top vote-getter. Other lawmakers called for his resignation.

Such disputes have been commonplace in Belfast in the power-sharing era — and individual ministers have usually prevailed.

Only last week, Education Minister Caitriona Ruane, a Catholic, abolished a decades-old academic selection test despite opposition from the Protestant side of the government. Last month, Protestant sports minister Gregory Campbell rejected plans to build a new multi-sports stadium that Catholics particularly wanted.

Tommy Gallagher, environment spokesman for a Catholic-backed party, the Social Democratic and Labour Party, said the environment minister was engaged in "grandstanding on an extreme and dangerous scale" and "must be held accountable for his maverick posturing."

"It is one thing for Sammy Wilson to hold weird views on climate change or the creation of the world. It is another when he uses his position to pursue causes which are in conflict with the objectives of the department he is supposed to be leading," Gallagher said.

David Ford, leader of a joint Catholic-Protestant party called Alliance, said Wilson's views were "profoundly unrepresentative" of Northern Ireland opinion. He expressed surprise that Wilson had not mentioned the exceptional past week of snowfall.

"Almost the only misrepresentation that the minister did not utter was the suggestion that one week's snow proves there is no global warming," Ford said.

Wilson, a motorcycle enthusiast and former schoolteacher, has long been regarded as the most irreverent character within his strait-laced party, with a tongue equally acid and witty.

His career survived a 1996 embarrassment when personal photos of him frolicking nude with a girlfriend on a French beach holiday ended up on the front pages of Belfast tabloid newspapers.
 
insidious propaganda

While I wholeheartedly agree, banning is as offensive as the initial broadcast. Why not use the next time slot to counter all the BS?
 
CNN Fact Checks Inhofe’s Diatribe Against Global Warming Science»

On Monday, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) took to the Senate floor and launched into a 45-minute diatribe on global warming science. Repeating his claim that global warming is a hoax, Inhofe said, “The American people know…when they are being used and when they are being duped by the hysterical left.”

In particular, he attacked the news media. According to Inhofe, “During the past year, the American people have been served up an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry.”

This morning, CNN hit back with a segment documenting that virtually everything Inhofe said was flatly contradicted by the facts. Watch it:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/28/inhofe-diatribe/
 
Climate Could Cross Critical Threshold by 2100, Expert Warns

CHICAGO, Illinois, February 16, 2009 (ENS) - Without decisive action by governments, corporations and individuals, global warming in the 21st century is likely to accelerate at a much faster pace and cause more environmental damage than predicted, warns a leading member of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In a business-as-usual world, higher temperatures could ignite tropical forests and melt the Arctic tundra, releasing billions of tons of greenhouse gas that could raise global temperatures even more - a vicious cycle that could spiral out of control by the end of the century, said IPCC scientist Chris Field of Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution for Science.
Chris Field, PhD (Photo courtesyCarnegie Institution for Science)

Field presented his findings Saturday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago during a symposium titled, "What Is New and Surprising Since the IPCC Fourth Assessment?"

The IPCC Fourth Assessment, for which Field was a coordinating author, was published in 2007.

"There is a real risk that human-caused climate change will accelerate the release of carbon dioxide from forest and tundra ecosystems, which have been storing a lot of carbon for thousands of years," said Field, a professor of biology and of environmental Earth system science at Stanford, and a senior fellow at Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment.

"We don't want to cross a critical threshold where this massive release of carbon starts to run on autopilot," he said.

This is a crucial year in the international effort to address climate change. Intergovernmental negotiations will be taking place all year, culminating in the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, December 7-18. There, governments are expected to finalize a treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions that will take effect when the current Kyoto Protocol expires at the end of 2012.

In their negotiations, governments rely on the facts presented in the assessment reports published by the IPCC.

Established by the United Nations in 1988, the IPCC brings together thousands of experts from around the world to assess the science and policy implications of climate change.

The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide concerning the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

In 2007, the IPCC and Al Gore were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Field was among 25 IPCC scientists who attended the award ceremony in Oslo, Norway.

In September 2008, Field was elected co-chair of Working Group 2, which is charged with assessing the impacts of climate change on social, economic and natural systems. One of his major responsibilities is to oversee the writing and editing of the "Working Group 2 Report" for the IPCC fifth assessment, slated for publication in 2014.

The fifth assessment will incorporate the results of new studies that predict more severe changes than did previous assessments.

"The IPCC fourth assessment didn't consider either the tundra-thawing or tropical forest feedbacks in detail because they weren't yet well understood," he says. "But new studies are now available, so we should be able to assess a wider range of factors and possible climate outcomes."

"The data now show that greenhouse gas emissions are accelerating much faster than we thought," said Field. "Over the last decade developing countries such as China and India have increased their electric power generation by burning more coal. Economies in the developing world are becoming more, not less carbon-intensive. We are definitely in unexplored terrain with the trajectory of climate change, in the region with forcing, and very likely impacts, much worse than predicted in the fourth assessment."
Forest fire in Indonesia (Photo courtesy CIFOR/ICRAF)

New studies are revealing potentially dangerous feedbacks in the climate system that could convert current carbon sinks into carbon sources. Field points to tropical forests as a prime example.

Vast amounts of carbon are stored in the vegetation of moist tropical forests, which are resistant to wildfires because of their wetness. But warming temperatures and shifting rainfall patterns threaten to dry the forests, making them less fireproof.

Researchers estimate that loss of forests through wildfires and other causes during the next century could boost atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide by up to 100 parts per million over the current 386 ppm, with possibly devastating consequences for global climate.

Warming in the Arctic is expected to speed up the decay of plant matter that has been in cold storage in permafrost for thousands of years.

"There is about 1,000 billion tons of carbon in these soils," says Field. "When you consider that the total amount of carbon released from fossil fuels since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is around 350 billion tons, the implications for global climate are staggering."

"One thing that seems to be certain," he said, "is that as a society we are facing a climate crisis that is larger and harder to deal with than any of us thought. The sooner we take decisive action, the better our chances are of leaving a sustainable world to future generations."

Field is founding director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution for Science, a private organization that conducts basic research for the benefit of humanity.

The author of more than 200 scientific publications, Field's research emphasizes impacts of climate change, from the molecular to the global scale. His work includes major field experiments on responses of California grassland to multi-factor global change, integrative studies on the global carbon cycle, and assessments of impacts of climate change on agriculture.

Late last year, Field was elected an AAAS Fellow by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The AAAS said Field was elected "for his central role in developing global ecology, with major contributions to the global carbon cycle, climate-change impacts, and feedbacks of ecosystems to climate change."

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2009/2009-02-16-01.asp
 
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gQy7VFLFs365aBNrduM-V_xSFP8A

Biofuels may speed up, not slow global warming: study

CHICAGO (AFP) — The use of crop-based biofuels could speed up rather than slow down global warming by fueling the destruction of rainforests, scientists warned Saturday.

Once heralded as the answer to oil, biofuels have become increasingly controversial because of their impact on food prices and the amount of energy it takes to produce them.

They could also be responsible for pumping far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than they could possibly save as a replacement for fossil fuels, according to a study released Saturday.

"If we run our cars on biofuels produced in the tropics, chances will be good that we are effectively burning rainforests in our gas tanks," warned Holly Gibbs, of Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment.

Gibbs studied satellite photos of the tropics from 1980 to 2000 and found that half of new cropland came from intact rainforests and another 30 percent from disturbed forests.

"When trees are cut down to make room for new farmland, they are usually burned, sending their stored carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide," Gibbs said.

For high-yield crops like sugar cane it would take 40 to 120 years to pay back this carbon debt.

For lower yield crops like corn or soybeans it would take 300 to 1,500 years, she told reporters at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

"Biofuels have caused alarm because of how quickly production has been growing: Global ethanol production increased by four times and biodiesel by 10 times between 2000 and 2007," Gibbs said.

"Moreover, agricultural subsidies in Indonesia and in the United States are providing added incentives to increase production of these crops."

Gibbs estimates that anywhere from a third to two thirds of recent deforestation could be as a result of the increased demand for biofuels, but said an increased demand for food and feed also play a major role.

What is certain is that much of the expansion of cropland in response to growing demand and rising prices is occurring in the tropics where there is an abundance of arable land and climates ideal for growing biofuel crops like sugar cane, soy and oil palm.

Simply growing the biofuel crops in the United States or other non-tropical countries will not solve the problem, said Michael Coe of the Woods Hole Research Center.

Recent legislation mandating increased use of ethanol has already prompted US farmers to switch from soy to corn production. But since soy demand remains high, farmers in Brazil have responded by cutting down forests to expand soy production.

"Emissions from deforestation in Brazil -- even under our best scenarios -- still swamp any decrease in greenhouse gasses in the United States," Coe told reporters.

"We can't find a way that it makes greenhouse gas sense to grow ethanol in the United States."

These findings do not mean that biofuels cannot be an important part of energy policy, Gibbs added.

Growing biofuel crops on marginal lands can have an overall positive environmental impact and there are enormous tracks of degraded land in the tropics.

But since fighting soil erosion or reversing nutrient leeching with fertilizers costs more than cutting down forests, farmers must be offered economic incentives to do so, Gibbs said.

And policy makers must also decide if the climate would be better served by returning degraded land to its natural forested state so it could act as a carbon sink and provide ecological services such as rainwater recycling, flood mitigation and habitat for endangered species.

"There are tradeoffs in all these decisions that need to be made on a case-by-case basis," she said. "We need to keep in mind that more cropland will be needed to meet the global demands for food, feed and fuel, so the best options will likely vary by circumstance."
 
Gee...Why don't we all go back to bicycles and the horse and buggy? That would solve the problem pretty quickly...

Ah, but then you would have the evil horse methane and horse manure causing GW.

The “Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act,” (CPSIA) will cause fewer bicycles to be imported from China where most of the world's bicycles are manufactured.

For an interesting read, CLICK HERE.
 
Time is growing short for the GW proponents as the Earth starts cooling without their "solutions"; and in the face of increased human activity. Their Hegellian Dialectic is starting to fall apart.

SOURCE

'Climate Scientist' Ratchets Up Global Warming Alarmism in Face of Record Cold Weather
By P.J. Gladnick (Bio | Archive)
February 15, 2009 - 09:19 ET

You're a global warming alarmist yet we're experiencing the coldest winter in decades. What to do? What to do? Well, if you are "climate scientist" Chris Field, you go even further out on the limb and declare that the climate is warming up even faster than predicted despite evidence to the contrary right outside our doors. Here is the Reuters report about Chris Field sounding the global warming alarm bells:

The climate is heating up far faster than scientists had predicted, spurred by sharp increases in greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries like China and India, a top climate scientist said on Saturday.

"The consequence of that is we are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we've considered seriously," Chris Field, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, told the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago.

Field said "the actual trajectory of climate change is more serious" than any of the climate predictions in the IPCC's fourth assessment report called "Climate Change 2007."

He said recent climate studies suggested the continued warming of the planet from greenhouse gas emissions could touch off large, destructive wildfires in tropical rain forests and melt permafrost in the Arctic tundra, releasing billions of tons of greenhouse gasses that could raise global temperatures even more.

"There is a real risk that human-caused climate change will accelerate the release of carbon dioxide from forest and tundra ecosystems, which have been storing a lot of carbon for thousands of years," Field, of Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution for Science, said in a statement.

He pointed to recent studies showing the fourth assessment report underestimated the potential severity of global warming over the next 100 years.

"We now have data showing that from 2000 to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly than we expected, primarily because developing countries, like China and India, saw a huge surge in electric power generation, almost all of it based on coal," Field said.

He said that trend was likely to continue if more countries turned to coal and other carbon-intensive fuels to meet their energy needs. If so, he said the impact of climate change would be "more serious and diverse" than the IPCC's most recent predictions.​

One "little" problem with this Reuters report written by Julie Steenhuysen. Chris Field is not a "top climate scientist." In fact, he isn't even a climate scientist at all. Just a wee bit of googling on the part of Steenhuysen would have revealed that Chris Field is a professor of biological sciences whose shtick is pushing something called "global ecology." Field has no more expertise in predicting future climate patterns than, say, a proctologist performing brain surgery.

—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top