• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Global Warming & Climate Change: Humans' Reactions & Responses

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4834806.stm

Sea rise could be 'catastrophic'
23 March 2006.
By Paul Rincon
BBC News science reporter

Earth could be headed for catastrophic sea level rise in the next few centuries if greenhouse gases continue to rise at present rates, experts say.

A study in the US journal Science suggests a threshold triggering a rise in sea level of several metres could be reached before the end of the century.

Scientists used an ancient period of warming to predict future changes.

Greenland could be as warm by 2100 as it was 130,000 years ago, when melting ice raised sea levels by 3-4m.

The implication is that Greenland would - eventually - melt by as much in response to present warming.

The findings come from two studies published in Science by Dr Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona in Tucson and colleagues.

Their computer models show that, in addition to widespread melting of the Greenland ice sheet, this rate of warming could also lead to the collapse of about half the West Antarctic ice sheet in 500 years.

...
Click to expand...
 
I saw a piece on some news in the last week or so and apparently South sea island nations are already negotiating for the right to move wholesale to New Zealand or Australia when their islands become untenable. :shock:
 
Can't say I've ever heard of this celeb before (must get out more!), but it's good to know that protest can change minds and actions:
Thandie quits her 4x4 to be a green goddess

Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

THANDIE NEWTON, the British star of Crash, the Hollywood hit film, has become a crusader against gas-guzzling cars after a Greenpeace activist slapped stickers on her 4x4 accusing her of adding to global warming.

This week, Newton, 33, will make her support for the anti-emissions campaign public by writing to fellow Hollywood stars and other celebrities who drive such vehicles, asking them to join her in switching to greener forms of transport.

In the Oscar-winning movie Newton played the wife of a black film director whose life changes for ever after their car is stopped by a racist and violent police officer played by Matt Dillon. One of the film’s themes is the way people’s lives can be suddenly altered by such random encounters.

For Newton, the proof that life can imitate art came just a few weeks after the film’s British release last autumn, when her car was targeted in northwest London by Cat Dorey, a Greenpeace activist.

Dorey’s simple act of planting a sticker on Newton’s BMW X5, warning “This gas-guzzling 4x4 is causing climate change”, and describing the damage done by such vehicles, has prompted the star to change her life.

“My concerns for the environment had been growing for a long time but I had not connected them with the car I drove. When I saw the sticker it just connected all the dots up,” said Newton.

The actress was so shocked to find that her car could emit twice its own 2.5-ton weight in carbon dioxide for each 12,000 miles driven that she decided to get rid of it. However, Newton went further. First she replaced the X5 with a Toyota Prius, a low-carbon car partly powered by batteries.

Now she is to begin her letter campaign by writing to stars such as Tom Cruise, with whom she appeared in Interview with the Vampire and Mission: Impossible 2; and Will Smith, with whom she is working on a new film, The Pursuit of Happyness.

In the letter Newton describes how she has replaced her X5. “I loved my X5, loved driving it, and what’s more believed it was safer for my kids, until I discovered the truth about its impact on the environment,” it says.

“As you know, extreme weather events are on the increase. The Greenland ice sheet is melting, and sea levels are rising. This climate change, which is largely brought on by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, seriously threatens generations to come.

“The hazards I thought I was preventing by driving an SUV are nothing compared to the hazards our children and grandchildren will face if more is not done now.”

Other stars targeted by Newton include Madonna and her husband Guy Ritchie; Jamie Oliver, the chef; Chris Martin, the Coldplay musician; the singer Barry Manilow; Wayne Rooney, the Manchester United and England footballer; and the Hollywood stars Kevin Costner, Bill Murray, Meg Ryan, Jack Nicholson and Ben Affleck.

Newton’s green conversion — she is also committed to buying organic food and clothes — is a coup for Greenpeace. It had already commissioned Peter Wells of Cardiff University’s automotive research centre to carry out a study into the damage done by large 4x4s.

The study, Offroad Car, Onroad Menace, will be published this week in time for Newton to enclose it with her letter. In the report Wells says large 4x4s use around 300% more fuel than an efficient family car and produce three times more greenhouse gases.

He also finds that they are three times more likely to kill a pedestrian than an ordinary passenger car and cites American studies showing death rates are up to nine times higher for the occupants of cars hit by such vehicles.

Dorey herself is amazed to have converted a Hollywood star to the green cause. She had been out with two friends putting warning stickers on “gas guzzlers” when they spotted Newton’s car.

“We picked on the really big, bad-looking vehicles and slapped them with stickers. The BMW X5 was like a red rag to a bull. It is one of the most environmentally damaging vehicles on our roads,” she said.

“Celebrities have such a big influence on public fashions and they have to realise that when they are seen clambering out of these climate wreckers it sends out a really bad message.”

However, some disagree. Richard Williamson, the deputy editor of 4x4 magazine, said it was wrong to assume that all such vehicles were gas guzzlers.

“Some four-wheel drives are very economical,” he said, “and there are even some low-carbon hybrid-engined versions now reaching the market.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 98,00.html
Click to expand...
 
Anti-logging activist wins award

A campaigner who risked his own safety to expose illegal logging operations in Liberia has been recognised with a prestigious environmental award.
Silas Siakor, 36, has won a Goldman Environmental Prize for his efforts, which resulted in the UN banning the export of Liberian timber.

The awards are described as "the Nobel Prize for grassroots environmentalism".

Mr Siakor and five other winners will receive their awards on Monday at a presentation ceremony in San Francisco.

Working for the Liberian environmental group Save My Future Foundation (Samfu), Mr Siakor revealed in 2002 that President Charles Taylor's regime was selling off the nation's forests to timber companies.

It is understood that warring factions in the region turned to logging after the trade in so-called "blood diamonds" became subject to UN sanctions.

According to the United Nations Environment Programme (Unep), illegal logging during the 14 years of civil war had reduced the nation's forest cover by almost one fifth.

Personal touch

Mr Siakor worked alongside industry contacts and fellow campaigners to gather a dossier of evidence showing the full extent of the illegal logging, corruption and human rights abuses that was fuelling the civil war.

What started as a simple exchange of material amongst a small group of people soon formed the basis of a report which caught the attention of the international community.

"In 2002, we decided that we needed a change in strategy," Mr Siakor said. "We knew that the personal touch would have an impact on international policy.

"When we published the report it was being quoted more and more within the international debate, and the Liberian Government came under increasing pressure to act," he added.

The publicity surrounding the report angered the government. Evidence contained in the report had led to the UN Security Council banning the export of timber from Liberia, which had an impact on the funds available to the warring factions in the civil war.

'Big trouble'

"At one point, President Taylor himself referred to the report on national radio," Mr Siakor recalled.

"He said that the people who were responsible for the report would be in very big trouble if he got his hands on them."

The president's warning, combined with a summons to appear before the nation's Senate, led to Mr Siakor's colleagues advising him to leave Liberia for a period of exile spent in several neighbouring countries.

In August 2003, Charles Taylor himself fled, handing power to his deputy. Soon after, UN peacekeepers arrived in Liberia.

Mr Taylor would eventually face trial for crimes against humanity during the civil war which saw more than 250,000 people killed.

Towards the end of 2005, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf became president, the first woman to be elected as an African head of state.

She cancelled all previous timber concessions made by the previous government and has promised to carry out a series of reforms.

However, this is not the end of the road for Mr Siakor. The international sanctions on timber exports are set to be lifted in June.

'Social momentum'

As director of the Sustainable Development Institute (SDI), he published a report in January outlining the sort of reforms he feels need to be carried out in order to protect the long term future of Liberia's forests and the wildlife that depends upon them.

Mr Siakor hopes that winning the Goldman Environmental Prize will encourage others to follow in his footsteps. "I would like to see more and more local people take on these issues," he said.

"We are going to need people who will insist that the rate we extract these natural resources must allow for natural regeneration.

"What we are doing now within the SDI is to support more grassroot involvement, a social momentum, that will take on this sort of campaign. If people are empowered to actively engage with the government, I strongly believe that this will be good for overall political governance."

The other winners of the Goldman Prizes, being presented in San Francisco on 24 April, include:


a young Ukrainian lawyer who successfully brought a temporary halt to the construction of a canal that would have cut through one of the world's most valuable wetlands, the Danube delta.
a veteran of the Vietnam War who convinced the Pentagon to stop plans to incinerate stockpiles of old chemical weapons.
a Brazilian whose efforts led to the creation of the world's largest group of protected tropical forests, which had been under threat of illegal logging.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4923238.stm
Click to expand...
 
It's serious – Attenborough says stop climate change
Long a sceptic, David Attenborough tells Stuart Wavell why he is now certain the planet is warming up and issues a call to arms


Like many of the animals he observes, David Attenborough is a creature of habit. For half a century he has marked out his territory in natural history films with a remit to explain what he calls “the glory of life”. Heavy sermonising is not his way. A leopard does not change its spots. Its cough is discreet.

Admiration for the veteran broadcaster, 80 earlier this month, has been tempered by chiding voices of late. An estimated 1 billion people have seen his programmes, so why, ask critics, can’t this most mesmerising of presenters use his platform to more outspoken effect? They thought he could have made the green message more explicit in his last series, Planet Earth.

This week we shall see a different Attenborough. He goes critical, assuming the mantle of a wrathful prophet as he enters the battle for the planet against climate change.

Attenborough had remained silent on the subject of global warming during the debate on its validity. “I was very sceptical,” he admits. His outlook changed when climatologists showed him graphs linking the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with rising temperatures.

“I was absolutely convinced this was no part of a normal climatic oscillation which the Earth has been going through and that it was something else,” he says.

The result of his conversion is a two-part BBC1 documentary starting on Wednesday as part of the corporation’s Climate Chaos season, in which he looks at the future impact of global warming and discovers what steps can save the planet from dramatic change. It is another luminous production by the BBC’s natural history unit, but this time infused with a stark warning.

Attenborough discovered a compelling reason for sounding the alarm. “How could I look my grandchildren in the eye and say I knew about this and I did nothing?” According to colleagues, he also feels a strong public obligation. “He’s very aware of the trust people hold in him,” says one.

I put this to Attenborough, described recently as the most trusted man in Britain after Rolf Harris. The label sends him into a paroxysm of laughter that leaves him gasping: “Quite so . . . thank you . . . I don’t think I need to say any more.”

But he does, veering off to blame himself for his part in the parlous state of the planet. “We are now realising the consequences of the things which we did: things that I did as a boy, things my parents did,” he begins. What can he mean? Yes, burning fires.

“The carbon from the open fire that my parents burnt is still up in the atmosphere and will remain there for 100 years. Absolutely innocently and unwittingly over my lifetime and my parents’ lifetimes, we have been stacking up and thickening the carbon dioxide layer. We didn’t know but now we do. No one could blame my parents for having a coal fire but they could blame me.”

Attenborough agrees there is little, “if anything”, we can do to reverse this backlog of carbon dioxide for the next 100 years. So what does he think of the assertions of Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish academic who says we should resign ourselves to a temperature increase of 2C over the next century, by which time a replacement will have been found for fossil fuel?

While acknowledging that a new energy source is “a real possibility”, Attenborough takes issue with Lomborg. “If we don’t take stock now, and even if we get to this paradisiacal situation of having consequence-free energy, the carbon dioxide ‘tanker’ will still go sailing on for another 100 years.”

The new BBC season is distinctive for the way it shows a whole range of climate indicators, from the examination of anaesthetised polar bears that are declining in numbers to climate modelling, all told by the top scientists in their field.

Cameramen record the plight of Pacific islanders on Tuvalu, driven from their homes by the highest tides they have seen. The scene shifts from the stricken trees of the Amazon to deserted villages in China, where sandstorms and drought have affected thousands of lives.There are disturbing images of rapidly retreating glaciers in Patagonia and the devastating effects of coral bleaching in the warming seas around the Great Barrier Reef.

The carbon “footprint” of an average American family is shown as black blocks floating over their heads and expanding with the decisions they take. Attenborough explains how seemingly “trivial” measures such as only filling the kettle with the amount needed, wearing a pullover when it’s cold and turning down the thermostat by one degree can produce immense savings.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 36,00.html
Click to expand...
 
An oldie, but still current and funny.


XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT FLASH XXXXX DECEMBER 7, 1997 23:56 PST XXXXX

GLOBAL WARMING ALERT: GORE BURNS 439,500 LBS OF FUEL TO ATTEND SUMMIT

"The most vulnerable part of the Earth's environment is the very thin layer
of air clinging near to the surface of the planet, that we are now so
carelessly filling with gaseous wastes that we are actually altering the
relationship between the Earth and the Sun - by trapping more solar
radiation under this growing blanket of pollution that envelops the entire
world," Vice President Gore told the U.N. Global Warming conference of 159
nations this morning in Koyto, Japan.

In what was one the most dramatic speeches in recent memory, Gore announced
to world leaders: "Whether we recognize it or not, we are now engaged in an
epic battle to right the balance of our Earth, and the tide of this battle
will turn on when the majority of people in the world become sufficiently
aroused by shared sense of urgent danger to join an all-out effort."

Applause filed the halls of the Kyoto International Conference Center. "We
must achieve a safe overall concentration level for greenhouse gases in the
Earth's atmosphere."

carbondioxidemethanenitrousoxidehydrofluorocarbonsperfluorocarbonssulfurhexa
chloride.

The message is serious. So serious in fact, the DRUDGE REPORT has
calculated that Vice President Al Gore is burning more than 439,500 pounds
of fuel, or 65,600 gallons, at a cost of more than $131,000 on his 16,000
mile daytrip, just to deliver the warning.

Now that's commitment.

Air Force II's Global Warming Express features an itinerary that takes the
vice president from Washington to Florida to Washington to Alaska to Japan
and back -- all in just 72-hours.

Saturday, December 6, 1997

9:45 a.m. Air Force II departs Andrews AFB enroute Fort Myers, Fla.

12:05 p.m. Air Force II arrives Southwest Florida Regional Airport. Gate 69-A.

2 p.m. Vice President Gore addresses the 50th Anniversary/Rededication,
Everglades Municipal Airport, Everglades National Park.

6:40 p.m. Air Force II departs Florida en route AFB.

8:35 p.m. Air Force II arrives at Andrews Air Force Base.

9:45 p.m. -- Air Force II departs Andrews Air Force Base en route Elmendorf
Air Force Base

Sunday, Dec. 7

1:15 a.m. -- Air Force II arrives Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage, Alaska

2:45 a.m. -- Air Force II departs Elmendorf Air Force Base en route Osaka, Japan

Monday, Dec. 8

5 a.m. -- Air Force II arrives Osaka International Airport, Osaka Japan


11:15 p.m. -- Air Force II departs Osaka, Japan en route Elmendorf Air Force
Base

12:35 p.m. -- Air Force II arrives Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage, Alaska

2:05 p.m. -- Air Force II departs Elmendorf Air Force Base en route Andrews
Air Force Base

Tuesday, Dec. 9

12:45 a.m. -- Air Force II arrives Andrews Air Force Base

----

"The extra heat which cannot escape is beginning to change the global
patterns of climate to which we are accustomed. Our fundamental challenge
now is to find out whether and how we can change the behaviors that are
causing the problem."

Gore's plane, a Boeing 707 gas guzzler burns on average 4.1 gallons a mile.
The complete Washington to Florida to Washington to Alaska to Japan and
return to Washington trip calculated from commercial air mileage tables is
just over 16,000 miles total. Gas gallons needed for AIR FORCE II to go
16,000 miles: 65,600. Applying the average price of $2.01 per gallon of
Jet A to the 16,000 mile r/t -- the fuel cost alone passes $131,000.00.
There are 6.7 pounds per gallon of jet fuel. Total pounds of fuel burned on
Gore's Global Warming Express -- 439,500.

Unprecedented Leadership.

_____________________________________________________
Filed by Matt Drudge
The REPORT is issued when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for breaks
AOL KEYWORD: DRUDGE
(c)DRUDGE REPORT 1997
Click to expand...


http://tinyurl.com/7tsdt
 
Scientific utterances on politicised issues are by their very nature suspect. When their career, job or funding prospects are at stake they tend to toe the party line for or against.
My personal objection to the global warming apocalypse is from history.
For example: Greenland had farming communities in the not too distant past that dated back to the Vikings.
I recall reading an article that told of twelfth century England and the building of chimneys on houses for the first time in living memory.
The recent TV coverage of ice-free ocean in the Arctic reminded me that ice-free stretches in the Arctic Ocean have been reported as long as there have been ships. I may be wrong on this one but I think that it was this fact that started the quest for the North-West Passage.
 
crunchy5 said:
... and I bet every other mofo on this sick little planet feels exactly the same. :? :( :twisted:
Click to expand...

Not me. Burned that outta my system about 15 years ago. I recognise humans for what they are. . . . a greedy waste of resources in their own right (including me of course). I deliberately do not have kids (and never can have thanks to surgery in 2000).

I look forward to the big floods. Nine years ago I got myself a nice flat on the top of a hill. At the time my friends thought I was nuts quoting flood resistance for the reason for buying a flat. It is a nice view.

210802%20001.jpg



Mind you a tsunami seems somewhat unlikely in the severn estury and I hope there enough warning to get my camcorder ready 8)
 
Yes, it is a rather nice view. I'm envious. At the moment i have another wall 3m away from my only window and i'm virtually downtown in a city...

That said, it's not very sporting to wish a flood upon your (lower) near-neighbours...

If nothing else it sounds overly biblical!
 
I see you took to the hills, nice view :D Do you include yourself in the extinction ? It would no doubt be great for the survivors and the environment if the world pop was numbered in the hundreds of mill rather than billions, but the thing is most folk who talk this way and there are many want to be in the survivor group along with us.
 
Yep I include myself. I just would rather not be first. I would like at least a few moments of "I told you so" to dwell upon so I die smiling.

Mind you in the case if a crisis I do have long life food and bottled water hidden away. I intend to survive as long as my biological design will let me.

I really must get my environmental rant blog up. Been putting that off for way too long.

My big bugbear at the moment is that during WWII scientists went from paper to a deployable H Bomb in approx 34 months. What would happen now if scientists in all fields worldwide dropped what they are doing (unless its unstable explosives then please put it down gently) and worked solidly on putting the planet back to right.

No more cancer cures, no more vaccines, no more fertility treatment to provide 6.52 billion parasitic humans with more humans.

Everything into turning this thing around and reducing humanity worldwide to a acceptible figure such as 2.5 billion (as we had in 1953) or lower. Imagine what all the scientific brains worldwide could do if they co-operated with a common goal.

Then again thats laughable. Humans co-operating on a scale like that. It wont happen as they will all have their own agenda for greed and power and popularity. They will all have the ideals of their country or religion. They would rather be famous for beating malaria now than preventing billions of deaths across many species in 50 years.

This post took about 6 mins to type therefore humanity increased by approx 864 (@ 2.4 per second).
 
As I understand population growth and resources, the planet could (stress could) support 20 billion humans (sorry to the loads of animals that would be made extinct) :cry: . This figure would mean a rethink of food distribution systems and maximal use of breadbasket regions. I used to think that reducing the pop to 2.5bill a good idea in theory - indeed, as a thought experiment. But not in reality.

The planet is far from overcrowded, qua planet, however some regions have a too great a human density (and bad political systems etc) and thus famine occurs. To posit that humans are parasitic is to, in the final analysis, posit that all life is parasitic. If we consider that 'intelligence' is an emergent property, then with human extinction, another 'animal' intelligence will probably arise - perhaps leading to very similar problems in the future. Getting rid of humans is not the answer - whether the system is voluntary or not. Birth control, distribution of resources and personal responsibility are some of the issues that need to be addressed.
 
GadaffiDuck said:
As I understand population growth and resources, the planet could (stress could) support 20 billion humans (sorry to the loads of animals that would be made extinct) :cry: . This figure would mean a rethink of food distribution systems and maximal use of breadbasket regions. I used to think that reducing the pop to 2.5bill a good idea in theory - indeed, as a thought experiment. But not in reality.
Click to expand...

Hopefully mother nature will sort that out for us. If she does not bother I am sure we will do it to ourselves at some point. Its just a shame that so many other species that do no harm to the planet would be wiped out in the process.

"C'mon bird flu find some human flu to swap RNA with and make it snappy"
 
I agree with you and I never said we were seperate. We just act differently than everything else.

However my friends 7 yr old daughter recently returned from school and informed her dad that teacher said there were 4 types of existence:
Animal
Vegetable
Mineral
Human

So even some teachers consider us outside of nature. My friend is writing to the headmaster about it. I have noticed that even some websites agree humans and animals are not the same FFS

We are animals, just animals. The greediest, mosts destructive overbreadinging, selfish animal but just an animal NOTHING MORE. We are NOT special and almost every other life form on this planet would do better in our absence (especially the other great apes).

We have much to learn from the other animals in respect of managing our living areas, co-operation, dominance, breeding, treatment of runts, food chain and so on.

I dont consider humans different or special just selfish destructive and wrong.

Anyhow enough is enough - must sort the blog out to rant in.
 
I'll go to see this but then I'm already converted so don't need the preaching.

http://tinyurl.com/kpkjq

An Inconvenient Truth: Documentary. Starring Al Gore. Directed by Davis Guggenheim. (PG. 94 minutes . At Bay Area theaters.)
If things are even half as bad as Al Gore says they are, "An Inconvenient Truth" is the most important movie anyone will make this year. The film's significance as a wake-up call about global warming overshadows all its other virtues. Yes, it handles complicated material in a clear and entertaining way. Yes, it renders cinematic what might have seemed like a static lecture, and yes, Al Gore is funny and engaging in a way you've never seen him be. But beyond that, the movie brings a feeling of history: Virtually everyone who sees this movie will be galvanized to do something about global warming -- and everyone should see this movie.

This makes the film oddly exhilarating, even though the news is mostly bad. "An Inconvenient Truth," the film version of a multimedia presentation Gore has been delivering since 1989, treats audiences like adults, presenting a detailed, lucid and intelligent explanation of a serious issue. It doesn't preach to the converted. On the contrary, it directly and respectfully addresses the questions and concerns of skeptics, methodically piling evidence on top of evidence, until the truth becomes obvious and unmistakable.

For some, the tipping point will come with the charts showing the rapid increase in global temperatures and the accompanying increases in greenhouse gases. For others, it will be the sight of polar bears struggling to find ice in the Arctic, or of shots of glaciers reduced to almost nothing in a span of only 30 or 40 years. It's a shock to see photographic evidence that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been reduced to a light dustin
 
If he ever pracaticed what he preaches, he might stop being a fuckwad in my book. Otherwise this is all part of his 08 campaign.




Man-bear-pig exists. I'm serial.*

*(South Park :p )*
 
tonyblair11 said:
If he ever pracaticed what he preaches, he might stop being a fuckwad in my book. Otherwise this is all part of his 08 campaign.




Man-bear-pig exists. I'm serial.*

*(South Park :p )*
Click to expand...

Ur prob bang on there TB11, but may be it's a sign that even the super rich are beginning to realise that they live in the environment and their wealth isn't "a shield of steel"*

*Batfink

But then the owners of the oil certainly want us to burn every last $$ worth what do you reckon a few hundred trillion $$ WORTH. :cry:
 
[/b]Britain appoints climate diplomat

The UK government has appointed an international envoy on climate.

John Ashton, a career diplomat and government adviser, will be charged with building new international partnerships to tackle climate change.

His appointment, as Margaret Beckett's representative, follows her move from the environment portfolio to become Foreign Secretary.

Friends of the Earth welcomed the move, though warning that Britain's position is undermined by its rising emissions.

"One of the areas where climate change needs to be prioritised by the British government is in the diplomatic service, and we do need someone who can help Britain maximise its leverage in countries across the world," Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth (FoE) UK told the BBC News website.

"We welcome John Ashton in this role - he is a proven advocate with a track record in helping to move the global community forward on climate change, notably in terms of persuading Russia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol."

Corridors of power

A science graduate, Mr Ashton has spent most of his career in the diplomatic service and the Foreign Office (FCO).

He was an advisor to Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten, as Britain prepared to hand the then colony back to China.

More recently Mr Ashton headed the FCO's Environment, Science and Energy department, before leaving to form a totally new scheme called E3G, a "change agency", which has brokered deals on climate and energy between developed and developing countries.

In his new role as Mrs Beckett's climate change representative, he will be expected to continue brokering such deals, but on a much wider basis.

He will also be charged with building relationships between governments and businesses, and between radically divergent philosophies on how to tackle human-induced climate change.

While United Nations negotiations on limiting emissions beyond the Kyoto Protocol struggle for momentum, other initiatives have emerged.

Notable among these are the moves begun last year under the British G8 presidency, and the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.

But some observers, including Tony Juniper, believe Britain's ability to persuade other countries to curb climate change is compromised by its own rising carbon dioxide emissions.

"The impact of the government's advocacy with other countries would be very much enhanced if it was able to meet its own targets at home," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5057678.stm
Click to expand...
 
Britain appoints climate diplomat

The UK government has appointed an international envoy on climate.

John Ashton, a career diplomat and government adviser, will be charged with building new international partnerships to tackle climate change.

His appointment, as Margaret Beckett's representative, follows her move from the environment portfolio to become Foreign Secretary.

Friends of the Earth welcomed the move, though warning that Britain's position is undermined by its rising emissions.

"One of the areas where climate change needs to be prioritised by the British government is in the diplomatic service, and we do need someone who can help Britain maximise its leverage in countries across the world," Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth (FoE) UK told the BBC News website.

"We welcome John Ashton in this role - he is a proven advocate with a track record in helping to move the global community forward on climate change, notably in terms of persuading Russia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol."

Corridors of power

A science graduate, Mr Ashton has spent most of his career in the diplomatic service and the Foreign Office (FCO).

He was an advisor to Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten, as Britain prepared to hand the then colony back to China.

More recently Mr Ashton headed the FCO's Environment, Science and Energy department, before leaving to form a totally new scheme called E3G, a "change agency", which has brokered deals on climate and energy between developed and developing countries.

In his new role as Mrs Beckett's climate change representative, he will be expected to continue brokering such deals, but on a much wider basis.

He will also be charged with building relationships between governments and businesses, and between radically divergent philosophies on how to tackle human-induced climate change.

While United Nations negotiations on limiting emissions beyond the Kyoto Protocol struggle for momentum, other initiatives have emerged.

Notable among these are the moves begun last year under the British G8 presidency, and the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.

But some observers, including Tony Juniper, believe Britain's ability to persuade other countries to curb climate change is compromised by its own rising carbon dioxide emissions.

"The impact of the government's advocacy with other countries would be very much enhanced if it was able to meet its own targets at home," he said.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5057678.stm
Click to expand...
 
An Inconvenient Truth: Documentary

Just saw "An Inconvenient Truth: Documentary" today.

It's a tad long (even at 94 minutes), but does make it's point well.

Now we all need to act on the facts before it really is too late.

That's the tough part, eh?
 
Re: An Inconvenient Truth: Documentary

ElishevaBarsabe said:
Just saw "An Inconvenient Truth: Documentary" today.

It's a tad long (even at 94 minutes), but does make it's point well.

Now we all need to act on the facts before it really is too late.

That's the tough part, eh?
Click to expand...
Don't tell us, someone tell the President (and all those OIL Co. Executives he works for). ;)
 
Kyoto promises are nothing but hot air

MANY governments, including some that claim to be leading the fight against global warming, are harbouring a dirty little secret. These countries are emitting far more greenhouse gas than they say they are, a fact that threatens to undermine not only the shaky Kyoto protocol but also the new multibillion-dollar market in carbon trading.

Under Kyoto, each government calculates how much carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide its country emits by adding together estimated emissions from individual sources. These so-called "bottom-up" estimates have long been accepted by atmospheric scientists, even though they have never been independently audited.

Now two teams that have monitored concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere say they have convincing evidence that the figures reported by many countries are wrong, especially for methane. Among the worst offenders are the UK, which may be emitting 92 per cent more methane than it declares under the Kyoto protocol, and France, which may be emitting 47 per cent more.

Peter Bergamaschi of the European Commission Joint Research Centre at Ispra, Italy, used an alternative "top-down" technique to study emissions across Europe. His technique is to measure in detail how concentrations of greenhouse gases vary across the globe. Levels are generally higher near major sources such as industrial centres, and when weather conditions trap the pollution. They are lower near natural "sinks" such as cold areas of ocean. Concentrations can also vary widely depending on factors such as the weather. Over London, for example, methane levels vary from 1800 parts per billion (ppb), the global background level, on windy days to upwards of 3000 ppb when local emissions from landfills and gas pipelines are trapped by cold night air.

By measuring these differences and tracking air movements, the scientists say they can calculate a country's emissions independently of government estimates. Bergamaschi's calculations suggest that the UK emitted 4.21 million tonnes of methane in 2004 compared to the 2.19 million tonnes it declared, while France emitted 4.43 million tonnes compared to the 3.01 million tonnes it declared. Methane is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas. While it persists in the atmosphere for only one-tenth as long as CO2, its immediate warming effect, tonne for tonne, is around 100 times greater. According to some estimates, methane is responsible for a third of current global warming, and reductions in methane emissions may be the quickest and cheapest way of slowing climate change.

Bergamaschi's figures are based on real atmospheric measurements that integrate emissions over large areas. While he admits that they cannot be entirely accurate, they are free from some of the sources of error that apply to national declared figures, which are based on uncertain extrapolations from sites such as landfills, whose emissions are highly variable.

During the course of Bergamaschi's study, the German government revised its estimate of national methane emissions upwards by some 70 per cent, placing it close to his estimate. The British and French governments continue to stick with their low estimates. Bergamaschi told New Scientist that the UK appears to be badly under-reporting methane bubbling out of landfill sites, while France's emissions seem to be generally under-reported. On the other hand, Ireland and Finland may be overestimating emissions from peat bogs.

Bergamaschi's calculations are supported by a similar study led by Euan Nisbet of Royal Holloway University of London, who is a member of the Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW), a network of atmospheric scientists organised by the UN's World Meteorological Organization. Nisbet estimates that methane emissions in the London area in the late 1990s were 40 to 80 per cent higher than declared by the government at the time.

Both scientists believe that countries outside Europe are also likely to be under-reporting their emissions, and that the problem is global. "We know the total global emissions well enough, but individual national numbers may be badly out. Some are too big and some are too small," Nisbet says.

In the past, he says, estimates of greenhouse gas emissions were inaccurate simply because of the difficulty of measuring them, but that may have changed. "Now that money enters the picture, with the Kyoto protocol rules and carbon trading, so also can fraud. There will be an incentive to under-report emissions." Nisbet, Bergamaschi and other scientists now want to create a global system for auditing emissions claims by directly measuring concentrations of greenhouse gases in the air.

Most existing monitoring sites are intended to measure background gas levels in clean ocean and mountain air. The oldest and most famous is on top of Mauna Loa in Hawaii, where US researcher David Keeling first proved half a century ago that CO2 levels in the air were rising. The network now run by GAW is far from comprehensive: it includes just one station in China, sited on the relatively unpolluted Tibetan plateau, while India's sole site is in the unpolluted mountainous Ladakh region. There is no continuous monitoring in inland Africa, and only a few stations in South America and south-east Asia. Yet these regions support more than half the world's population and are responsible for a growing proportion of its greenhouse gas emissions.

Some western governments, say the scientists, have been reluctant to set up permanent monitoring stations. "Of all the G8 nations, the UK does the least," says Nisbet, who runs the only permanent monitoring point in England, from his lab near Egham, on the south-western fringes of London. The longest-running CO2 monitoring point on British soil, in the Shetland Islands, was run by Australia till 2001 and is now funded by Germany. France runs a network of monitors on its remote island territories round the world, but the UK government refuses pleas for it to do likewise on territories such as Ascension Island or South Georgia in the remote South Atlantic, or the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean. The European Union recently shut down its pioneering programme of measuring atmospheric methane across the continent. "Ironically, the best monitoring is done by the US and Australia, which are both in denial over Kyoto," Nisbet says.

The GAW scientists say that a global greenhouse gas monitoring network should provide open access to the information it collects. Only then, they say, will it be possible to do independent calculations to discover who is emitting what, and test which countries are complying with Kyoto and making accurate claims about their emissions. Until such a network is in place, it will be all too easy for nations such as the UK to talk green while acting dirty.

Sins of Omission?
The most alarming failure of greenhouse gas emissions reporting is thought to have occurred in China, the world's second largest emitter. In the late 1990s, when its economy was growing by 10 per cent a year, the Chinese government reported a dramatic fall in CO2 emissions to the UN climate change convention. It declared that, after a long period of steep increases, emissions had fallen from 911 million tonnes of carbon a year in 1996 to 757 million tonnes in 2000, a drop of 17 per cent.

China said the fall in emissions was achieved by burning less coal, an assessment it based on a decline in coal production. Some analysts praised the country for using coal more efficiently, but that picture was called into doubt when declared coal production and emissions estimates resumed their fast rise. Estimates for 2004 put China's CO2 emissions above 1200 million tonnes.

Most analysts now conclude that the drop in emissions was entirely illusory. It coincided with major changes in the organisation of the Chinese coal industry, which replaced state targets with a market system. "Emissions figures before 1996 were inflated because mine officials had production targets to meet, and declared they had met them when they had not," one analyst told New Scientist. By 2000, this effect had gone, and "subsequent figures for CO2 emissions are probably more accurate as a result." While the Chinese government may not have intentionally misled the international community over its emissions at the time, the incident reveals how easy it could be to fiddle official figures.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... t-air.html
Click to expand...
 
Blackouts as US temperatures soar

Hundreds of thousands of people in different parts of the US continue to be affected by power outages as temperatures soar to record highs.
In California, where temperatures reached 50C (122F), the heat may have killed up to eight people.

The power grid was unable to cope with the increased demand for electricity, leading to widespread cuts.

In California, Missouri and New York thousands are still without power after high temperatures and storms last week.

Early Monday, firefighters battled a soaring blaze in the Cleveland Nations Forest near San Diego and hundreds of homes were evacuated.

In the dark

As some 100,000 power customers in California faced further blackouts, authorities in the state investigated up to eight possible heat-related deaths, including a nursing home patient.

Meanwhile, about 230,000 homes and businesses in St Louis, Missouri were still without power.

New York utility workers managed to restore electricity to 22, 000 customers, many of whom had spent the week without power.

Record heat

More than 20 heat-related deaths were reported last week across the United States.

While temperatures have since cooled in some parts of the country, California is bracing itself for more hot weather this week.

Forecasters predicted on Monday high temperatures in central and Northern California of up to 44C (111F).

They say high temperatures will continue until at least mid-week, prompting fears that there may be more power outages as people return to work after the weekend.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5209276.stm
Click to expand...

On the radio I heard that power lines in NY had melted, and thunderstorms were making it difficult to effect repairs.



Does Bush believe in Global Warming yet....?
 
Does Bush believe in Global Warming yet....?
Click to expand...

I think a more acurate question would be,

Does Bush Understand what Global Warming is yet....?
 
New and improved methods to screw up our enviroment are being created at an ever increasing speed...

*sigh*


New pathway to pollution in Arctic

ONE of the bonuses of global warming is the potential for new shipping routes to open up through the Arctic as ice retreats, shortening journeys by many thousands of miles. There is a downside, however. New northern passages could significantly boost levels of low-lying ozone as ship exhausts pump pollutants into the pristine environment.

Climate models indicate that the northern passages - the north-east coast of Siberia, northern Alaska and around the Canadian archipelago - may be open to shipping during the summer months from around 2050 onwards. Claire Granier, from the University of Pierre and Marie Curie in Paris, France, and her colleagues calculated the likely ozone emissions associated with such a scenario, assuming that the routes would be accessible for six months of the year.

Emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide from ships could triple ozone levels, making them comparable to those in industrialised regions today (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2006GL026180).

"The Arctic is a very sensitive region and these very high ozone levels are likely to have a serious impact on plant life," says Ulrike Niemeier, a co-author from the Max Plank Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... rctic.html
Click to expand...
 
Very conservative writers/web sites/and so on

I've just been googling for "climate change," and discovered some very conservative writers and web sites that, in essence, state that the idea of global warming is part of the liberal agenda (the agenda to do what exactly isn't mentioned).

These writers and web sites seem to have only one idea to promote:

DO NOTHING.

Fortunately, by putting their arguments in writing, they lose some of the audience they are trying to reach (screenfuls of dense text just aren't appealing).

The problems of warming and the solutions need someone who can present the facts clearly (Al Gore, maybe) and with emotional depth (not Al Gore, unfortunately); someone who can get across the message that "DO NOTHING" isn't going to work now or ever.

Also, on the rather bizarre side is today's news reporting Clinton and Blair speaking about global warming (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/5237356.stm), and a Blair-Schwarzenegger pact concerning global warming (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-climate02aug02,0,256462.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail).

And, there's the idea to put sulphur into the atmosphere to slow global warming (http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?id=56058&CFID=5842971&CFTOKEN=12733148)

I'm not reassured by any of this. Thoughts?
 
rynner said:
...

But at my age I may not live long enough to see real disaster scenarios develop. Bad luck for me if I do, because the old, sick and weak will be the first casualties in a civilization melt-down... :(
Click to expand...
Just make sure that you all have the relevant documents, medicines and money in a small, transparent, air tight, plastic bag. ;)
 
rynner wrote:
If I was living in London...
Click to expand...

I do mate! But I'm not worried. A 6.5m sea level rise would mean us (at 10m) having a lovely river-side view :lol:

*Baz walks away muttering, "must dig a sump"*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top