Michael Crichton picks a fight with environmentalists

[Kidlicious]

Here's my two sense. We don't know how much CO2 we can pump into the atmosphere before we start ****ing the earth up for ourselves. We do know that there is a risk. The risk is unacceptable. We need to do something, and people need to stop acting like there is no risk.

Kyoto Protocal

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That directly coorelates to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Since we haven't been measuring glacier melting speed for 300 years, how would we know about that?



Need a cite for it, but... Global Warming does not mean it gets warm everywhere. In fact, it is predicted that hot places will get hotter and some cold places will get colder.



That appears to be in contradiction of reports of large Antarctic ice shelves breaking up at unprecedented speeds.



Anything on the average surface temperature?





It appears that the data quoted is relatively accurate. What's the point here?

global warming does mean it gets warmer everwhere - thats why its called global warming. are you saying that NY city has global warming, but Albany, just a couple of hours north, doesnt share in that global warming? or west point?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
global warming does mean it gets warmer everwhere - thats why its called global warming. are you saying that NY city has global warming, but Albany, just a couple of hours north, doesnt share in that global warming? or west point?

I see you have some misconceptions about global warming.

No, it doesn't mean it gets warm everywhere. It means, on the average, it gets warmer. For example, global warming is expected to shut down the North Atlantic Conveyor Belt, making the UK as cold as Scandinavia.

Don't forget, the average surface temperature of the last ice age is only five degrees lower.

[Kidlicious]

LoA,

Didn't you see The Day After Tomorrow?

[Mr. Harley]

Mad Viking, I'm basing my statments on global warming reference human history on glacial melting, as well as other sources, i.e. archeology and paleontology. It also includes things like pollen samples and oxygen isotope ratios, as well as various ice/sediment cores. If you don't know what I'm talking about, please google these first, the evidence is pretty convincing.

Two glacial examples are in Europe and Alaska. In Europe you are having glaciers recede at a rate that is exposing frozen human remains from 5200 years ago. In Alaska the receding glaciers are exposing remains that have been frozen for 12000 years, and they are racing to keep up with the rapidly receding edge of the glacier. It keeps revealing older and older remains that have been embedded in the glacier, and the paleontologists are going nuts trying to keep up.

Various core samples, etc. that include things like pollen and dust and have let them date the receding and growth of glaciers fairly accurately. They are receding at record rates, and I'm guessing you would need to go to the end of the last glacial period to maybe match this. However, as you rightly point out we don't know if this is significant on a large time scale. On the other hand (see my note on stage 2 hypertension) I will happily go for a smaller time scale, thank you very much. That's what my little girl will live in.

As I've said, the problem is we don't know the cause. If the sun if the reason, we may as well prepare for the worst, as Kyoto won't make a damn bit of difference compared to the big fusion reactor in the sky. Conversely, maybe it is like CFC's, in which case we'd better get our butts in high gear. We don't know, and funding to get the basic data is scarce.

In reply to one other poster's query, plants do indeed need CO2. They've done some studies, and some plants respond minimally to increased CO2, while others benefit tremendously. Guess what. The former includes many major crop species, and the latter many weed species.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I don't have the RECENT figures, but here is part of the trend.

http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/Articles/ChinaCuts.asp

http://www.global-warming.net/china.htm

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chinaenv.html

DOUBLE OWNAGE

Man, you should at least Google it first dumbass before trying to do macho posturing.

Don't count on it, 'dude.'

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised you'd be so stupid as to post a link to a fanatic site as 'proof' for your argument. It's sort of like a Christian fundy pointing to the bible as 'proof' for the righteousness of their cause. Pretty lame, Ted.

Here's what another site (probably from the other side)has to say.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba239.html

According to the International Energy Agency, as much as 85 percent of the projected increase in CO2 emissions will come from countries and regions exempt from the proposed treaties. By 2025 China, already the world's second biggest emitter of CO2, is expected to emit more carbon dioxide than the current combined total of the United States, Japan and Canada. Thus, while the U.S. and other developed countries would likely suffer serious economic dislocations, unilateral emissions reductions by industrialized nations would not have any material impact on global climate or on atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kidicious
LoA,

Didn't you see The Day After Tomorrow?

That doesn't help our cause I'm afraid...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

No, it doesn't mean it gets warm everywhere. It means, on the average, it gets warmer. For example, global warming is expected to shut down the North Atlantic Conveyor Belt, making the UK as cold as Scandinavia.

so why does Albany, a few hours north of NYC experience a drop in temps, while NYC has an increase, and WEst point, somewhere in between, has a drop in temp?

[chequita guevara]

If it is the sun, we can actually try and deal with it by putting reflective materials in the air, like increasing cloud cover.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
so why does Albany, a few hours north of NYC experience a drop in temps, while NYC has an increase, and WEst point, somewhere in between, has a drop in temp?

Because NYC is a big city that produces lots of heat?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised you'd be so stupid as to post a link to a fanatic site as 'proof' for your argument. It's sort of like a Christian fundy pointing to the bible as 'proof' for the righteousness of their cause. Pretty lame, Ted.

Yes, the Energy Information Administration is a fanatic site.

But considering who runs the government in Washington nowadays, yeah I could see why you would put it in the same category as the other two sites. Whether you like it or not, the numbers those "fanatic" sites are pitching aren't sourced FROM those sites. They are just reprinting them.

Source check, nice try. I gave you three. You gave me one describing the global aggregate situation that was already in an article I linked to from the EIA.

Here's what another site (probably from the other side)has to say.

I already posted an article with this info. The point is that when you look at per capita energy consumption and pollution for the average Chinese, that number is actually DECLINING. Even though the economy is BOOMING.

The whole point here is that there is a clear example of a country that is expanding economically yet can take steps to limit pollution. And if they hadn't, those CO2 estimates you posted would be 10 times the combination of the US, Japan, and Canada, and not just greater than their sum.

Yet their economy didn't tank and the sky did not fall as predicted.

Sorry.

How about that evil towelhead black gold though?

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

Osama is trying to stick an oil pipeline up your ass!!!!!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Because NYC is a big city that produces lots of heat?

so then are you saying there is no global warming?

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I see you have some misconceptions about global warming.

No, it doesn't mean it gets warm everywhere. It means, on the average, it gets warmer. For example, global warming is expected to shut down the North Atlantic Conveyor Belt, making the UK as cold as Scandinavia.

Don't forget, the average surface temperature of the last ice age is only five degrees lower.

So what's to say our artificially raised CO2 levels aren't the only thing keeping us from plunging those five tiny degrees?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Yes, the Energy Information Administration is a fanatic site.

But considering who runs the government in Washington nowadays, yeah I could see why you would put it in the same category as the other two sites. Whether you like it or not, the numbers those "fanatic" sites are pitching aren't sourced FROM those sites. They are just reprinting them.

Source check, nice try. I gave you three. You gave me one describing the global aggregate situation that was already in an article I linked to from the EIA.

No, they aren't. And there's part of your problem. From your source.

Energy Use and Carbon Emissions
Outside of Japan, energy consumption in East Asia is dominated by one sector in one country - the industrial sector in China. Overall, China's energy consumption accounts for approximately 53% of East Asia's (excluding Japan) total energy consumption. In 2001, China accounted for 9.8% of world energy consumption. By 2025, projections indicate that China will be responsible for approximately 14.2% of world energy consumption.

What you did is mistook a per something or other number with an actual decrease. I have news for you sunshine, the Earth doesn't give a **** if it is 1 billion polluting at x-10 to the 6th, or one person polluting at x.

Idiot.

[notyoueither]

With 12.7% of the world's total, China is the second largest emitter of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions after the United States. China's share of world carbon emissions is expected to increase in coming years, reaching 17.8% by 2025. Carbon mitigation strategies are focusing on technologies to reduce emissions from industrial boilers and motors. Other mitigation efforts emphasize improving Chinese vehicles' efficiency. Estimates suggest that transportation sector energy consumption could grow by nearly 7% per year as the government pledges major investments in the country's transportation infrastructure. If this growth is not accompanied by improvements in vehicular fuel-efficiency standards and a replacement of outdated technology, carbon emissions from the transportation sector will grow significantly.

Overall, total Chinese energy-related carbon emissions more than doubled since 1980, when the government began implementing energy conservation laws. One study attempting to determine the causes of this increase concluded that China's decrease in energy intensity since 1980 has not been sufficient to counterbalance the large increase in emissions due to economic and population growth. Increased energy demand has encouraged China to accelerate the development of cleaner fuels such as natural gas, coalbed methane and hydropower. Current efforts by China to offset coal consumption include the development of natural gas and coalbed methane infrastructure, increasing the number of combined heat and power plants, adding approximately 3,000 megawatts (MW) of hydropower annually, and developing renewable energy resources such as wind and photovoltaics for electricity generation.

...Coal consumption is again rising, however, after declining in the late 1990s, and China's energy intensity increased slightly in 2001. At the same time, the government has promoted a shift towards less energy intensive services and higher value-added products, as well as encouraged the import of energy intensive products.

Maybe you'd care to actually read something you link to, Ted. That would be nice.