Yet another climate change thread

[Tannin]

Tired of seeing bad news about climate change? Well, here is another one, it is now official: in Australia, last year (2005) was the hottest year ever recorded, and the rate of increase has gone up too.

 

[jtr1962]

I'm not tired of seeing climate change threads, but I'm tired of government officials who pretend that it's all junk science. It seems that maybe the changes aren't getting the attention they deserve because they seem to be affecting the southern hemisphere a lot more than the northern one. Very convenient and easy for someone in the US to just point to climatological data for the US and say maybe it's a little warmer, but this warming trend might just be part of some larger natural cycle, if in fact it exists at all. Of course, using data from Australia you find that not only is the planet warming, but at a frightening rate. And I seem to remember something about shrinking polar ice caps as well.

I don't get it. I know I've discussed it already, but there are myriad great reasons for getting off fossil fuels without even bringing global warming into the picture. We could jump start brand new alternative energy industries, maybe even the holy grail of power generation, fusion. If in the process we help slow global warming than it's just the icing on the cake. I guess the powers that be are too beholden to big oil to see anything different than the status quo.

BTW, happy 2006 Tannin and everyone else! Might as well celebrate each new year to the fullest. The way things are looking for the planet there might not be too many of them left.

 

[Tannin]

Thankyou for those kind wishes, JTR, and I'll take this opportunity to extend my own to you, and to the entire SF community.

Back to the topic: Severe lack of detail here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1541414.htm I'll post more comprehensive details later on when they reach the web, as opposed to only being available on radio. Meanwhile, notice the disgusting spin: the parliamentary secretary for the environment, quoted in the story, is a member of the very same government that has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, or to act in any meaningful way on carbon emissions, and is currently engaging in a mad scramble to make matters as much worse as possible by increasing the population! A complete scumbag.

Back to the science. The scary thing about this particular statistic is that, overall, it has been a very typical year - i.e., decent rainfall not too far off average, a fair amount of cloudy (i.e., cooler) weather, and so on. In other words, this wasn't a hot, dry drought year that broke all records, it was a mild, benign, average sort of year and it still broke all records. God help us when we get the next hot, dry year.

 

[Handruin]

Does anyone have data on the cleanliness of US automobile emissions compared to other nations? I can find US specifics, but nothing that compares. I'm not arguing quantity of fuel consumed by the US, or even if it's right to continue consuming fossil fuels at the rate we do. I've read that California emissions are some of the toughest around. Is it possible the US has tougher emission standards than other nations, and in turn it reduces some of the affect compared to other nations who may consume less fossil fuel, yet pollute more? I realize that doesn't address the fact that the US consumes more, and in turn is less efficient with the extra large vehicles.

 

[mubs]

After creating new threads on topics like this several times, I've given up. Most people don't care, and like our great leader (hint: his name rhymes with tush), think global warming is junk science. With the flurry of hurricanes, especially Katrina and Rita, I think they're beginning to think that maybe, just maybe, there's a glimmer of truth to that GW(B) shit (pun intended).

What constantly amazes me is that pols in general and Repubs in particular are so willing to f*** their own descendents when it comes to issues like this and the ones jtr bashes his head about.

Thanks for making me aware of this, Tannin.

 

[time]

In Australia, we are indeed fortunate that News Corp (aka Fox aka Rupert Murdoch) owns nearly all of the newspapers. That way, we get accurate, truthful headlines like this:

A HEATWAVE in the nation's southeast was a regular new year event and could not be linked to global warming, senior weather experts said yesterday.

The article contains these gems to back up the angle:

Former director of the Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre Bill Kininmonth said the temperature spike in Sydney on Sunday to 44.2C was "just one of those sorts of things we have" every summer. "... it was not unprecedented"

Sydney weather consultant Don White said heatwaves were becoming less frequent and anybody who believed the heatwave was linked to global warming should "go back and look at the records", which would show hotter days in the past.

But then there's this:

National Climate Centre climatologist Blair Trewin said that while no single event could be linked to global warming, the heatwave was "part of an overall warming trend in which the risk of certain events is changed".
...
Dr Trewin warned that 44C-plus days in Sydney, which had happened only twice in 140 years of records, could become a one-in-10-year event.
...
World Meteorological Organisation records show that since the start of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen by between 0.6C and 0.7C.

This was buried in the middle as the journalist hunted down every alternative source he could find to try to support his angle and refute the solitary reputable source.

One year ago in a non-Murdoch newspaper, Bill Kininmonth popped up in this excellent article that makes a connection with ExxonMobil!

He also rates a mention on Source Watch, with these attributed statements:

"Greenhouse gases emit more radiation than they absorb and their direct impact is to cool the atmosphere."

A subsequent letter went further, appealing to Einstein's laws of nuclear physics (only applicable to nuclear reactions) to explain his bizarre theories: "The laws of physics . . . allow for energy to be transformed between different modes. Remember Einstein and E = MC2?"

 

[jtr1962]

Is it possible the US has tougher emission standards than other nations, and in turn it reduces some of the affect compared to other nations who may consume less fossil fuel, yet pollute more?

Not a chance, Doug. The basic combustion cycle from which an engine derives power produces CO2 in direct proportion to the amount of fuel consumed. The other emissions which the US controls are byproducts of the basic combustion cycle, which if perfectly "clean" would only produce CO2 and water, unless of course you're burning pure hydrogen in which case you end up with only water. However, as we all know, CO2 is what we're primarily concerned about as far as global warming goes, so the US produces by far the most CO2 per capita. On the plus side, the amount of vegetation does absorb a significant amount of the CO2 produced, but we're still a net producer of CO2. And this isn't even getting into the other emissions. Yes, we've reduced a lot of them, but enough still remain to cause hundreds of thousands of cancer deaths each year, millions of cases of asthma, acid rain, etc. BTW, the SUVs which are so popular in the US are subject to far less stringent mileage and efficiency standards than cars, so on balance US emissions really aren't that much cleaner than those in Third World countries, plus there's a whole lot more of them.

Yes, as mubs so eloquently puts it, this is one of the issues I fruitlessly bash my head about. Maybe when health care costs start to absorb a third of the GNP we might take vehicle emissions more seriously.

 

[CougTek]

And the fossil fuel in many EU countries is a lot cleaner than in most States (except California). The amount of sulfur particles in diesel is lower in places like Germany than it is in most States.

I know that where I live, diesel will become to be cleaner next year, but right now, the law restricting the sulfur into fossil fuel isn't applied yet.

 

[i]

Coincidentally, via an extended route stemming from a Slashdot article about "The Most Dangerous Ideas", I have just read a short article by Paul Davies (I'd never heard of him before) from Sydney, Australia. I found I agreed with most of his thoughts on global warming. First concise quote:

Campaigners for cutting greenhouse emissions try to scare us by proclaiming that a warmer world is a worse world. My dangerous idea is that it probably won't be.

To some extent I agree with that. Things will be hard for a time, but so what. As a whole, human societies used to deal with hardships much greater than they do now in the 21st century. I have faith that human societies, again as a whole, will adapt to whatever is in store for us with respect to global warming.

But what I agree with most of all is his last paragraph:

The idea of giving up the global warming struggle is dangerous because it shouldn't have come to this. Mankind does have the resources and the technology to cut greenhouse gas emission. What we lack is the political will. People pay lip service to environmental responsibility, but they are rarely prepared to put their money where their mouth is. Global warming may turn out to be not so bad after all, but many other acts of environmental vandalism are manifestly reckless: the depletion of the ozone layer, the destruction of rain forests, the pollution of the oceans. Giving up on global warming will set an ugly precedent.

 

[CityK]

If there is a god, I have no idea why it made us the stewards of the earth ... we're like the worse custodians ever.

Anyways, its not so much the western world the worries me (although we're big fat lazy slobs who and whom have "leaders" who couldn't affect a policy if it required them to look beyond the tip of their noise), its the effects that are going to come from the rest of the world as it increaingly becomes more modernized, industrialized and embracing of the consumer crazed ideology driving contemporay economies.

 

[CityK]

we're like the worse custodians ever.

let alone the tenents from hell.

 

[CougTek]

Global warming won't be that bad? We are in January and we are on the verge of having another hurricane (Zeta tropical storm has good chances to reach hurricane status). Global warming is quickly weakening the Golf Stream (Atlantic current bringing warm water to Europe) and EU countries have record snowfall storms. Arctic ice is about to vanish. Australia and the redneck States of America are burning.

But...it's not that bad?

 

[LOST6200]

How hot will it get ebentually, maybve 60°C in the summers?

 

[P5-133XL]

As long as the US policy makers are in total denial, I don't see how the global climate trends are going to change. I understand why they are in total denial: The staggering costs involved in switching to a self-sustaining non-fossile fuel ecconomy. The best scenario that I've seen is where fossile fuels price themselves out of the market and with the supply/demand curves I've seen that very well may occur in the next 20 years or so. Now that does not change coal usage (The supply should be enough for the forseeable future) or the possiblity that a shale-oil alternative might become cost effective.

The World needs less people! We are operating like bacteria in a closed petrie dish -- Unlimited exponential growth till the food is all eaten and everything dies. I feel sorry for the children and the world we are leaving them.

 

[Tannin]

The World needs less people! We are operating like bacteria in a closed petrie dish -- Unlimited exponential growth till the food is all eaten and everything dies. I feel sorry for the children and the world we are leaving them.

Well spoken, Mark. This is the real issue.

 

[sechs]

I'm not tired of seeing climate change threads, but I'm tired of government officials who pretend that it's all junk science. It seems that maybe the changes aren't getting the attention they deserve because they seem to be affecting the southern hemisphere a lot more than the northern one.

Wait until the melting polar ice cap freshens water so much that the gulf stream stops. Then the North Atlantic will become a very *cold* place.

That's the tricky thing about this global climate change.... not everyone is getting hotter and drier....

 

[Bozo]

The US has it's enviremental problems, but what worries me is China. This country is becomming an indusrial powerhouse with virtually no envirnmental controls at all. The governmant there is more concerned with industrial might and to hell with the envirnment.


Bozo :mrgrn:

 

[i]

Just like Britain during the Industrial Revolution. And the United States.

China will figure it out. They're already under increasing pressure from their citizens over environmental degradation. Things like massive releases of benzene into water supplies that 100 million people rely on tend to do that, especially when the country tells itself that it's for the working class, by the working class.

 

[CityK]

Nonesense. Just look at Russia and former Eastern block countries. They didn't figure it out, and still haven't figured it out.

Unless there are well defined property rights, and citizens have effective avenues of private recourse, then you can pretty much bet nohing much will get done for environmental concerns. A communist government does not have your's, your neighbour's, or any other peasant workers best interests in mind.

 

[i]

You cannot compare "Russia and the former Eastern block countries" to China.

But maybe the phrasing of my last paragraph mislead you. There were a lot more thoughts in there than I wrote down. Sorry about that. I have a progression of 5 thoughts here:

1. I am not trying to say that being a socialist state is going to guarantee anything. Actually I'd say that the government as it exists today in China is not going to survive. But it's going to try to survive as long as it can. And in order do that, it's going to have to make an increasing number of at least token efforts at listening to its citizens.

2. I don't believe those efforts will be sufficient.

3. Which is the primary reason why I believe their government as it operates today is doomed. I don't think they're going to be able to keep up with the demands of an increasingly educated, and increasingly affluent citizenry. I see their government as becoming an old, rusty antique, trying to manage the control of something faster, sleeker, and newer than an SR-71 Blackbird. And that something is the people of China.

(And no, I'm not arrogant enough to think that they're going to wind up with a Texas cowboy democracy as a replacement. It will be a uniquely Chinese solution.)

4. I realize that China has often been a conglomerate of territories, but viewed as a whole, we're talking about one of the most successful regions on the planet here. How many years of relatively uninterrupted civilization has it had? Oh that's right ... about 5000.

I know this isn't exactly what Bozo said, but to me, what he wrote was parallel to saying that you don't have faith that China can pull itself into the 21st century without causing the Earth to suffer some kind of environmental implosion. Am I right in saying that's an alternate and fair way of interpretting what he wrote?

I'm sorry, but ... do I really need to mention the 5000 years of successful culture, history, and civilization again? I truly believe that, barring a nasty flu outbreak, within 30 years China is going to become the first and only megapower on this planet. Anything -- environmental degradation or otherwise -- that threatens that destiny is going to get absolutely steamrolled by about 1.5 billion people with the weight of 5000 years of self-confidence and proven resourcefulness and resilience behind them.

Can I write that sentence one more time in a 72 point font with a BLINK tag enabled?

China. Yeesh. I can't believe you're worried about China.

For torvald's sake ... look at Africa and South America for starters. Do you really want to tell me that you view the environmental aspects of China's future as more "globally worrisome" than the future environmental aspects of Africa and South America?

5. While they're finding the path to their role of megapower, the boat we all share with China is going to rock a little. But they are going to fully realize that they risk drowning themselves if they don't act carefully. Give them some credit, folks. Their history and current direction demands it.

So, yes, China will figure it out.



And now a postscript:


And you people say it's the Republican-types with a short-term view of the world.

Why are so many of you so pessimistic, and so quick to ignore the incredible successes humans have achieved? And why do I have to so quickly qualify that statement every freaking time by adding that it's obvious that we still have a long way to go. Why can't people, for freaking once, acknowledge how damn lucky we all are that we've made it this far, and for freaking once, have some faith in our collective human society that we're going to keep moving ahead? Is some pride and optimism in the efforts of our countless ancestors too much to ask for? What the hell do you think they lived and worked for, sometimes under horrible conditions? For you to just throw your hands up in the air and say that they, and all of those alive today, and in the future, are nothing more than a bunch of environmentally destructive failures?

Anyone who believes that is ten times more depressed than I am, and frankly, that makes me feel ten thousand times better about my lot in life.

 

[i]

Oh, and Bozo ... I'm sorry if I singled you out. I didn't expect to wind up writing this much, or as passionately, but as it turns out I've heard others express concerns about China's environmental future, and I really believe those concerns are misplaced. Maybe you and they will turn out to be right (hope not). But this is the first time I've sat down to write about this sort of issue in about ... hmm ... maybe 7 or 8 years.

I miss my geography undergrad days.

 

[Tannin]

Newer than an SR-71 Blackbird? That's easy!