2005 has almost hotter global temperature averages than 1998, which is the hottest year ever on record. The signs are so out there and I would say to a large extent irrefutable. People who question whether the weather systems are really 'destabilising' most obviously have their heads in the sand , I am led to believe. Here's an article from our local newspaper on extreme weather that is happening globally. Perhaps these ideas will persuade you to get this into discussion and get your representatives to pressurise governments (especially the US and Australia) to do WAY MORE STUFF THAN THEYRE CURRENTLY DOING , to reduce our most obvious fingerprint on this planet. Come on, we're not a virus, we don't take over this planet and remove all life from it ?! http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/12/16/1134703607512.html
Actually, we have been pressing our government to withdraw from Kyoto, seeing the lack of science it has shown lately, and the abnormally cool two years in a row we had (2004 and 2005 -I am speaking about Argentina that has been cooling since 1987, but this is getting cold down here and we would like some more warmth). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But they wouldn't listen to us, they are eager to cash some more dough from suckers in European countries selling "emission credits"... You see, money grabbing is not just something industries or oil companies do. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not sure where you're saying that Kyoto had a lack of science drawn to it. For all the nations to initially have agreed to the Kyoto pact meant that there was a HELLUVA lot of science to it. It's only since the U.S. and George W. jnr. decided to withdrawal that the doubtful side of the arguments have been given their say... Place all the propaganda you have there in the US on top of that and you actually get the impression that fuel guzzling SUV's and coal powered plants are not a major problem... Don't worry too much about Argentina mate, worry about the global mean... Just because there is cold weather in one place does not mean that's a necessarily good thing. I think the problem is that the weather systems are CHANGING dramatically, and in which ways they are changing is uncertain. So for example, the huge number of hurricanes that occurred over this last year in the US is due to INCREASED ocean temperatures and thus most of the rain that normally got scattered over the amazon now occurs in flooding over the SE US. That extra hurricane activity has created a NEW weather profile, and this in turn effects many other sources. So some places might become colder due to different weather circulation systems which has been affected by higher average temperatures due to the amonuts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And frankly, it looks like people in the U.S. don't give a shit! Let's not get into the debate of money grubbing here, that's everywhere and just reflects the humans selfish desire for power.... For one, if I was selling emission credits I would be quite happy to know that I am contributing to the GOOD of the planet and I would be feeling no guilt. I use green electricty, which means all of my electricity comes from renewable resources .... I feel good about that. I am not a smoke stacker like 99% of the population.. Good then.
This is a newspaper article and does not state what the records are or who keeps them - what records? Anyways, having said that and done, don't think that I'm taking offense at your posting, as I am guilty of often citing scientists who report directly to Reuters and CNN myself - and see nothing wrong with doing this! The article states: "Will Steffen, director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University, said temperatures had risen sharply in the past few decades due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions: "The last time the Earth was this warm was about 5000 or 6000 years ago." Why would the temperatures have been warmer 5-6000 years ago, when were just out of a glacier period 10,000 years ago? They also state that "2005 and 1998 were vying to be the hottest years on record," However, now, the normal 3-7 year cyclic heating from El Nino warming cannot be attributed to this 2005 warming, as it did in 1998. There is no El Nino now. This adds credence to the cause: Global Warming!
So because Argentina is cooling, that meants global warming is a myth? By the way the call it GLOBAL Warming for a reason. I wouldn't worry anyway, since America has made it clear they will never cut emissions, unless the reduction in green house gases can be replaced by renewables.
The incentive level to make renewable energy is just about null if there is not a push in that direction, so I doubt any great advances will be happening in the U.S. before Bush's term is completed... Much easier to sit where you are than to sell a few parts, refine your model, and go take a walk in the dark..... p.s. interesting read in your blogspace there Kenny.. Interesting.
Another interesting thing is that Russia has signed Kyoto, the remaining country that pulled the pact into power. What if Russia now invents modes of transport that are much lighter on fuel and less polluting ? There would be plenty of incentive there to create low polluting power plants as well. What's America, the biggest polluter going to do ? They will simply steal this technology and ride their wave.... What a shame it would be to see this happen when by all means Russia deserves all the respect and kindness and wealth.....
Random jounralist ramblings I guess.. I take some of that at face value.. I would imagine Will Steffen did some research and found that the last time temperatures where this warm according to whatever projects he was involved in found that to be true... Maybe run a Will Steffen google search Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thats the thing, cutting emissions doesn't mean economical ruin. Britain cut emissions 15 percent between 1990-2002, while boosting its economy 36%.
“Global” means “everywhere” in the world, isn’t it? Then, Most of South America is cooling; Greenland have been cooling for the past 50 years; Antarctica has cooled for the past 35 years; many places in the world have cooled slightly; other parts have warmed slightly; the United States has warmed since 1900 an average of 0.169º C. So, it is not global, it is regional. 32 states in the continental USA have warmed by +0.503º C, while 16 states have cooled by -0.334º C, giving a total warming of 0.169º C –not much warming in my humble opinion. (Read it: Ghostbusting Temperatures Of course, “Warmers” have invented the Ideal Undefeatable Hypothesis: if it warms somewhere, if it cools somewhere; if it rains a lot, if it is dry, it there are hurricanes, if there are not, if it snows in Miami, or Somalia, or the Arab emirates; if there are terrible and unprecedented blizzards in the US northeast; or unprecedented freezing temperature in Spain; then blame it on Global Warming. You can’t lose the bet. Anything that happens, it is caused by warming. Next time make you ice cubes for your sodas in your kitchen oven… But hypotheses and theories must be proved, contrasted against real world observations. And there is not a single evidence that points to an abnormal, or “dramatic” or “catastrophic” warming, either local, regional or global. In any case, the slight warming observed has been highly beneficial for mankind, as increase in crop yield in my country Argentina: There is a recently published study by Magrin, G.O., Travasso, M.I. and Rodriguez, G.R. 2005. "Changes in climate and crop production during the 20th century in Argentina." Climatic Change 72: 229-249, stating : “…technological improvements account for most of the observed changes in crop yields during the second part of the 20th century, which totaled 110% for maize, 56% for wheat and 102% for sunflower”, Magrin et al. report that “… due to changes in climate between the periods 1950-70 and 1970-99, yields increased by 38% in soybean, 18% in maize, 13% in wheat, and 12% in sunflower. Twentieth-century climate change, which is claimed by climate alarmists to have been unprecedented over the past two millennia and is often described by them as one of the greatest threats ever to be faced by humanity, has definitely not been a problem for agriculture in Argentina. In fact, it has helped it. The only “consensus” among the scientific community is “We know nothing about how climate systems work.” So we cannot say if we’ll warm or if we will cool in the next 25 years. As the three last winters have set record colds everywhere in the world, we might be seeing signals of the next Little ice Age. Climate changes, yes, it has always done so and it will always change in the future. There is no such thing as a stable climate. You ought to know that.
Precisely, in fact it means a better lifestyle for everyone, as new jobs will be created in the process... The difference between Britain's pollution and the US is quite great though -- think of the cheap fuel prices you get in the U.S. People in the U.S. NEED cheap fuel to get around to service their massive economy..... I don't understand the decisions if you look at it in this light: if every nation on earth was doing something about it, then one nation 'falling behind' isn't going to mean much is it..
Why such a fuss about Kyoto? Why they want it to be implemented and complied by everyone? You already know that Kyoto Treaty will not reduce a bit CO2 emission as Kyoto is about “emission credit trading” and not CO2 emissions reduction. Countries will keep emitting more than they were emitting before. They have been doing so since 1997 –not a single Kyoto signatory has complied with its target! Spain is 40% above its target, also Greece: the UK is about 18% more, Germany, Denmark, Italy, etc, are all above their commitments. And you really think they are going to reduce now 60% of their oil consumption and energy generation --when they didn't care doodle squat about CO2 increases? Hype-ocrazy is the name of the game. What CO2 reductions are you people talking about? Emission credit trading will move money from one country to another while keeping CO2 emission growing and growing. The trading will benefit bankers that move the money from one country to another, and organizations that specialize in trading counseling. Kyoto is about business not about climate control. For even if ALL countries of the world would STOP emitting CO2 the reduction in temperature by 2050 would be a mere 0.02º C, something that most thermometers cannot measure! And may I ask, if Kyoto was such a beauty, why Clinton didn’t send it to the Senate for ratification? –he let three years go by without doing nothing else than playing around in the “Oral Room”. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Marsoups: Don't misunderstand me. I thought I made that absolutely clear in my post. Will Steffen is the director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University. He is a reputable and respectable scientist and hence I absolutely agree with the post, and definitely with the conclusions! Are you suggesting otherwise? Something I do not know about him? Edufer: We can only keep hoping, praying, and trying. The latest rounds have put tremendous pressure on the U.S. to follow the aggreements, still, they did not. Change does not happen overnight, but to stop trying is to give up hope and is a prelude to disaster. I believe that through constant effort, we will all join in.
Edufer: You state: "even if ALL countries of the world would STOP emitting CO2 the reduction in temperature by 2050 would be a mere 0.02º C." Do you have a source on this? CO2 is only one of the five major Greenhouse Gases that we are producing that contribute to Global Warming. The others are methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, and chlorofluorocarbons. The excess methane and nitrous oxide are mainly being produced artificialy through automobile emmisions. Chlorofluorocarbons are produced from aersol spray cans. Other Greenhouse gases that are Global Warming and gases causing the depletion of the Ozone layer are: Name, Chemical fotmula, concentration in ppt (parts per trilion), and percentage%: Tetrafluromethane Carbon tetrafluoride (CF4) 80ppt-40ppt, 0.003 Hexafluoroethane (C2F6) 3 ppt, 0.001 Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) 4.2ppt-4.2ppt, 0.002 HFC-23 Trifluoromethane (CHF3) 14ppt, 0.002 HFC-134a 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (C2H2F4) 7.5ppt, 0.001 HFC-152a 1,1-Difluoroethane (C2H4F2) 0.5ppt-0.5ppt, 0.000 CFC-11 Trichlorofluoromethane (CFCl3) 268ppt, 0.07 CFC-12 Dichlorodifluoromethane (CF2Cl2) 533ppt, 0.17 CFC-13 Chlorotrifluoromethane (CClF3) 4ppt, 0.001 CFC-113 1,1,1-trichlorotrifluoroethane (C2F3Cl3) 84ppt, 0.03 CFC-114 1,2-dichlorotetrafluoroethane (C2F4Cl2) 15ppt, 0.005 CFC-115 Chloropentafluoroethane (C2F5Cl) 7ppt 7ppt 0.001 Tetrachloromethane Carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) 102ppt, 0.01 1,1,1-trichloroethane Methyl chloroform (CH3CCl3) 69ppt, 0.004 HCFC-141b 1,1-Dichloro-1-Fluoroethane (C2H3FCl2) 10ppt, 0.001 HCFC-142b 1-Chloro-1,1-Difluoroethane (C2H3F2Cl) 11ppt, 0.002 Halon-1211 Bromochlorodifluoromethane (CClF2Br) 3.8ppt, 0.001 Halon-1301 Bromotrifluoromethane (CF3Br) 2.5ppt, 0.001
Gotta love that knee-jerk demonization of America. Sorry bucco, we're not the main problem here, we have a net deficit of global CO2. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/96_99/19406.html http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s69.htm Which means that the U.S. is cleaning up pollution from the rest of the world. Wa, wa, wa, waaaa... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ~Raithere (edited to change references, I found a better one than I originally used)
The United States is the worst and most wasteful polluting country on Earth. What both these articles are saying is that we MAY be reabsorbing more C02 now because we have stopped cutting down all our forests and have been actively implemented replanting programs, BUT, while at the same time producing MORE CO2, nitrogen deposition through fertilizers, and other Greenhouse Gases. Read the articles and concentrate on the details, especially the last lines re-posted below: "this may be enhanced by human-induced nitrogen deposition - a diluted form of acid rain - and increasing CO2 levels, which can act as fertilizers for plants." We have increased the reabsorbtion of C02 by reforestation, and have decreased the output of CO2 by eliminating massive burning of forests to be used for agriculture as they are now still doing in Brazil, Indonesia, China, and Siberia; but C02 is only a small part of the Greenhouse Gas total. Some say CO2 has only increased since 1850 by 14%, others say 30%. "Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, buT is a Greenhouse Gas because it traps in solar radiation. CO2 occurs naturally and accounts for 2 to 4 percent of the greenhouse effect [water vapor is responsible for about 40%]. But since the industrial revolution [~1850], CO2 concentrations have increased by about 30% and have increased the temperature of the Earth by 1 degree Fahrenheit. The United States is the largest consumer of oil, using 20.4 million barrels per day. 40% of U.S. C02 emissions stem from the burning of fossil fuels for the purpose of electricity generation. 20% of U.S carbon dioxide emissions comes from the burning of gasoline in internal-combustion engines of cars. 13% of U.S carbon dioxide emissions comes from trucks used mostly for commercial purposes. Buildings structure account for about 12% of carbon dioxide emmissions. Methane: Methane is more than 20 times as effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. US Emissions Inventory 2004 Levels of atmospheric methane have risen 145% in the last 100 years. Nitrous oxide: Man-made sources of nitrous oxide include nylon and nitric acid production, the use of fertilisers in agriculture, cars with catalytic converters and the burning of organic matter." http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_cse.htm "CO2 emissions from fuel burning, responsible for about 87 percent of global warming, have increased by about 27 percent since the industrial revolution." Source: U.S. Energy Intelligence Agency, International Energy Agency, Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. www.gdrc.org/uem/waste/waste-gases.html However, beyond any doubt, Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) and Perfluorocarbons (PFC) are the worsT Greengouse Gases and the United States produces the most by far: "Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) were developed as an alternative to ozone-eating chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), the coolant, cleaning, and propellant gases were blacklisted internationally in 1987. Because they do not possess chlorine, HFCs do not directly destroy ozone in the earth's atmosphere. They do, however, contribute to global warming. Principle uses: refrigeration; as agents used to blow foams or insulation; solvents or cleaning agents, especially in semi-conductor manufacturing. Global warming potential: 4,000 to 10,000 times that of CO2. Perfluorocarbons (PFC) are replacement gases for CFCs but result also as a by-product of aluminium smelting. PFCs also used as a purging agent for semi-conductor manufacture and small amounts are produced during uranium enrichment processes. Global warming potential: 6,000 to 10,000 that of CO2." Source: U.S. Energy Intelligence Agency, International Energy Agency, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.gdrc.org/uem/waste/waste-gases.html "The results suggest the presence of a carbon sink, which occurs when carbon dioxide absorbed by plants as they grow exceeds carbon dioxide released by dead material as it decays. The method does not identify the causes, there are a number of possible mechanisms that could be responsible for the sink. Forest regrowth in areas where generations of pioneers leveled trees to create farmland almost certainly plays an important role. Millions of acres east of the Mississippi have returned to forest. Forest regrowth, and carbon absorption, in North America may be enhanced by some side effects of industrialization. The researchers stress that all of these mechanisms are temporary. It is thus inevitable that this sink will eventually stop absorbing carbon dioxide at these levels. They also stressed that the findings are subject to confirmation. "Our sampling density and frequency were inadequate for estimating the ecosystem uptake of carbon dioxide over other areas of the world," Dr. Takahashi said....Other studies of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere show that global sinks vary by almost a factor of five from year to year and may also vary in location.The results in this paper may not be representative of periods outside 1988 to 1992, they added." http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/96_99/19406.html "In an article appearing in the Oct. 16 issue of Science magazine, scientists from NOAA, Princeton University, and Columbia University say that they have tentatively identified that "sink" as being mostly North America, at least during the period studied, from 1988-1992. The researchers are not sure what is causing this decline of carbon dioxide. But they theorize that it is partly due to the regrowth of plants and vegetation on abandoned farmland and previously logged forests in North America, and may be enhanced by human-induced nitrogen deposition - a diluted form of acid rain - and increasing CO2 levels, which can act as fertilizers for plants. However, the actual cause remains unknown. The researchers do believe that plants and soils are a major factor in CO2 absorption and will continue to exert considerable influence on atmospheric carbon dioxide in the future." http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s69.htm Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Carbon Intensity by Region, 2001-2025 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Concentrations and Anthropogenic Emissions of Carbon Dioxide 1750 to Present Source: National Energy Information Center (NEIC), Energy Information Administration http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
:bugeye: Back to square one again. The global warming fallacies against the sceptics. The magic spell of the multiple refuted hockey stick will probably last another generation. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Longer, if the current kids still have to learn that piece of junk by heart. So Hansen and Jones think that 2005 is going to be the second warmest when compiling the available surface data. But South America is not and neither is the United States: http://www.ecoearth.info/articles/reader.asp?linkid=49592 Now it could be that it's colder in the America's it could also be that the USA is the best measured large area by many orders of magnitude and it's also the only place left with about half of the data coming from (near) rural stations. Unfortunately no-one is allowed to peek in the kitchens where this global temperature is cooked to see how they deal with Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects. Of course there have been studies telling that UHI is non-existing and if it exists it's more dan compensated for. Or are the global thermometers measuring the growth of the cities that they are placed in? See for yourself, the temperature history of Tokyo compared to it's nearest rural stations: UHI non existent? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Note also that those rural stations are closed now (as about all the other rural stations worldwide outside the USA) and have stopped moderating the increasing numbers on the thermometers of Tokyo and the other cities.
Andre: According to your graph, the Linear (Tokyo) monitoring has increased 3 degrees Celcius (55.5-60 degrees Fahrenheit), from 1880 to the present: that's a tremendous amount! And the Kawachugiko scale has increased at the same rate. The Katsura only slightly increased and only the Ajuri shows an extremely slight decline - almost a negligible decline. You posted a graph that adds proof to Global Warming. Raithere: "we have a net deficit of global CO2." How so? You posted: "As an air mass travels from west to east, it should receive carbon dioxide and the East Coast concentration of CO2 should be higher than on the West Coast. "But observations tell us otherwise. The mean atmospheric CO2 concentration on the East Coast has been observed to be lower than that over the Pacific coast. This means that more CO2 is taken up by land ecosystems over the United States than is released by industrial activities." Of course our own land features will obsorb some of our own C02 when air currents are from East to West, but they are not always in that direction. Further, industrialization is not just confined to the East coast. Further, this is irrelevant to the total C02 that we put out that exists the United States and contributes to the world increase. Oceans absorb C02 to but does this mean that it's not a problem? You say that "we have a net increase." With the massive world-wide deforestation going on, where are the plants that are going to use this net increase to transform it back into 02? There is no net decrease (deficit) worldwide!
Valich: All those gases are not present in Earths atmosphere to be significant as greenhouse gases. According to you there are only FIVE greenhouse gases –so what would you call WATER VAPOR? And what percent of heat retention capability would you give to each of your gases? (This will be fun). Have you ever read the papers? Aerosol sprays cans containing CFC were banned in 1978. Do you remember the Montreal Protocol? And in the long list of CFC gases you provided, you would not find a single one that reached the stratosphere at heights where there are photons with the energy enough to dissociate CFCs. Go back to your drawing board. :m: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
