IT'S NOW OR NEVER
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Lying about your Elo: (like SBD, TK, TheMaster, etc)
Next: The Mark of the Beast and Implanted Microchip Technology
From: usenet on 12 Aug 2010 05:39 It's now or never By Gwynne Dyer Op-Ed The Pioneer Thursday, August 12, 2010 Soon, emission cuts alone won't stop global warming It may seem premature to talk about last-ditch measures to deal with runaway climate change, but Mr Ben Lieberman has it right. Mr Lieberman, an energy expert at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington think-tank, responded to the news that the US Senate will not pass any climate legislation this year by saying: "It's pretty clear that no post-Kyoto treaty is in the making -- certainly not in Cancun, and may be not ever." The Cancun meeting next December is where the optimists hoped to untangle the mess left by last December's abortive climate summit in Copenhagen and create a new treaty to replace the Kyoto accord, which expires in 2012. It was always a slim hope, but the US Senate has decisively crushed it. Big Coal and Big Oil win again. The US Senate is one of the more corrupt legislative bodies in the Western world, so this comes as little surprise. Few senators take direct bribes for personal use, but very many believe that they will not win re-election unless they accept cash donations from special interests like the fossil fuel industries. Taking the cash obliges them to vote in defence of those interests. Pity about the public interest. As Senate majority leader Harry Reid put it: "We know that we don't have the votes." The Democrats control 59 out of a 100 seats in the Senate, but some of their more vulnerable members have been picked off by the fossil fuel lobby, so there will be no serious climate legislation in the US before the mid-term Congressional elections in November. And it's not going to get better after November, on current forecasts. The likelihood that the Democrats will emerge from the November Congressional elections with a bigger majority in the Senate is approximately zero. The probability is that the balance will tilt the other way, perhaps a little, perhaps a lot. Either way, that means that there will be no climate legislation in the US until after the next Congressional election in November, 2012. Maybe President Barack Obama will be back in office in early 2013 with a bigger majority in the Senate, but that's the earliest that we can hope for any legal US commitment to cut its emissions -- and it's far from sure even then. Until the US makes that commitment, you maybe sure that none of the rapidly growing economies like China, India and Brazil will make it either. So the climate goes runaway. Not right away, of course. We won't actually reach the point of no return (plus two degrees Celsius higher average global temperature) until the late 2020s or the early 2030s. But we will be committed to that outcome much sooner, because with every year that passes, the cuts that we would need to make to hold the temperature below that level become deeper. Eventually, in practice, they become impossible to achieve. Before the current recession, global emissions of greenhouse gases were growing at almost three per cent per year, and they will certainly return to that level when the recession ends. To come in under plus two degrees Celsius of warming, we need to be reducing global emissions by at least two per cent by 2012: A total cut of around five per cent each year, assuming that economies grow at the same rate as before. That would be hard to do, but not impossible. However, as the years pass and the emissions continue to grow, it gets harder and harder to turn the juggernaut around in time. On the most optimistic timetable, there might be US climate legislation in 2013, and a global climate deal in 2014, and we really start reducing emissions by 2015. By then, we would need to be cutting emissions by five or six per cent a year, instead of growing them at three per cent a year, if we still want to come in under plus two degrees Celsius. That's impossible. No economy can change the sources of its energy at the rate of eight or nine per cent a year. So we are going to blow right through the point of no return. Plus two degrees Celsius is the point of no return (and every Government has recognised it as such) because after that the additional warmth triggers natural processes that speed the warming. The permafrost melts and emits enormous amounts of greenhouse gases. The warming oceans lose their ability to absorb carbon dioxide. After that, just cutting human emissions won't stop the warming. Runaway. The only way to avert that disaster that currently offers any hope is geo-engineering: Direct intervention to hold the actual global temperature increase below two degrees Celsius, no matter what happens in the short term to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are various suggestions on the table. Maybe we could create a kind of sunscreen in the stratosphere by putting some sulphur dioxide gas up there. Maybe we could thicken up the clouds over the ocean so they reflect more sunlight. Maybe, maybe, maybe. But nobody has done serious field trials of these techniques, and it's high time that they started. We are probably going to need them. Welcome to the last ditch. - Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist. http://dailypioneer.com/275593/It%E2%80%99s-now-or-never.html More at: http://www.dailypioneer.com Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi Om Shanti o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read, considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number. o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article. FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Since newsgroup posts are being removed by forgery by one or more net terrorists, this post may be reposted several times.
From: Ringer on 12 Aug 2010 07:56 "Catoni" <catoni52(a)sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:c4b17c97-a398-48fe-abaa-e9df7dce1d51(a)z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... On Aug 12, 6:05 am, use...(a)mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote: > In article > <31c5f3e1-0be7-4e03-befe-d2f284c31...(a)i13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > Catoni <caton...(a)sympatico.ca> posted: In any case... welcome to alt.global-warming... Going by the mantra, I take it that you are Hindu or Buddhist....both very fascinating religions/philosophies. I took a course in Eastern Philosophy while I was in university as well as studied it on my own for some time also, and enjoyed it very much. Still read about Hinduism and Buddhism today now and again. Not so much Jainism, Sikhism, Shinto, or the rest anymore... it's just to much to study.. what with all my other interests... Welcome... Catoni I see you make decisions based on spiritual beliefs rather then facts or evidence, i.e., I think global warming is a leftist socialist plane that all scientists around the world are in on.
From: Catoni on 12 Aug 2010 09:19 On Aug 12, 7:56 am, "Ringer" <byo...(a)peoplestel.net> wrote: > "Catoni" <caton...(a)sympatico.ca> wrote in message > > news:c4b17c97-a398-48fe-abaa-e9df7dce1d51(a)z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 12, 6:05 am, use...(a)mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. > > Jai Maharaj) wrote: > > In article > > <31c5f3e1-0be7-4e03-befe-d2f284c31...(a)i13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > Catoni <caton...(a)sympatico.ca> posted: > > In any case... welcome to alt.global-warming... Going by the mantra, > I take it that you are Hindu or Buddhist....both very fascinating > religions/philosophies. I took a course in Eastern Philosophy while I > was in university as well as studied it on my own for some time also, > and enjoyed it very much. Still read about Hinduism and Buddhism today > now and again. Not so much Jainism, Sikhism, Shinto, or the rest > anymore... it's just to much to study.. what with all my other > interests... > > Welcome... > > Catoni > I see you make decisions based on spiritual beliefs rather then facts or > evidence, i.e., I think global warming is a leftist socialist plane that all > scientists around the world are in on. See ? ? You're wrong again.... If you "see" that I make decisions that way...then I would advise you to get your eyes checked... Do you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself ? ? Actually I don't think Global Warming is a leftist socialist plot... although the AGW movement is certainly full of leftists/ socialists/ eco-extremists/ former (and active) communists/ left wing Gaia Goddess worshipping pagans..... and even some extreme far right wing fascist AGW nuts.. (because they like huge government too) The AGW Alarmist movement is a really mixed bag of various believers.... in short... a whole lot of people that like to see government grow more and more powerful....and want individual freedom and personal responsibility to disappear... That the movement is full of such people is common knowledge.... You see very few freedom loving Libertarians in the movement.. if any. The number of people ion the AGW movement that believe in small, limited government and individual freedom must be less then 10%... perhaps less than 5%. And they would only be involved because they have been brainwashed to thing the warming is all our fault... and we all must pay and more legislation and more power for government is the only way... I don't deny that the Earth has warmed since the end of the LIA.... But I believe that warming is 99.8% natural... and spending billions and billions of dollars of people's hard earned taxes... (Western people's taxes for the most part) and it won't have any effect in stopping the warming...is a vast huge waste of money.... .... except for the scientists and eco groups and politicians that get to pocket that money.....they won't think it was a waste... At the most.... all the billions that have been paid.. and will be paid between now and about the year 2100 all it will do will be to maybe slow down the high temperatures for an extra five years... so what we would have had in temperature by 2100... we will not get until 2005. All the money spent on this from 1975... until 2100........ (just think of the hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars by then)... to delay temperature for, at the most, about five years further down the road... ..... instead.... you could have used all that money over those years,,, and wiped out world poverty... and many diseases..... And leftists say that they care............ maybe they just don't think....... It's all just so much sick political bullshit....
From: harald on 12 Aug 2010 09:36 On Aug 12, 11:39 am, use...(a)mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote: > It's now or never > > By Gwynne Dyer > Op-Ed > The Pioneer > Thursday, August 12, 2010 > > Soon, emission cuts alone won't stop global warming > > It may seem premature to talk about last-ditch measures to deal with > runaway climate change, but Mr Ben Lieberman has it right. Mr > Lieberman, an energy expert at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington > think-tank, responded to the news that the US Senate will not pass > any climate legislation this year by saying: "It's pretty clear that > no post-Kyoto treaty is in the making -- certainly not in Cancun, and > may be not ever." > > The Cancun meeting next December is where the optimists hoped to > untangle the mess left by last December's abortive climate summit in > Copenhagen and create a new treaty to replace the Kyoto accord, which > expires in 2012. It was always a slim hope, but the US Senate has > decisively crushed it. Big Coal and Big Oil win again. [snip politics] > Not right away, of course. We won't actually reach the point of no > return (plus two degrees Celsius higher average global temperature) > until the late 2020s or the early 2030s. But we will be committed to > that outcome much sooner, because with every year that passes, the > cuts that we would need to make to hold the temperature below that > level become deeper. Eventually, in practice, they become impossible > to achieve. Sounds plausible. Where do you present the data to back up those claims? > Before the current recession, global emissions of greenhouse gases > were growing at almost three per cent per year, and they will > certainly return to that level when the recession ends. To come in > under plus two degrees Celsius of warming, we need to be reducing > global emissions by at least two per cent by 2012: A total cut of > around five per cent each year, assuming that economies grow at the > same rate as before. Very interesting! Please show your simulation and explain your assumptions. > That would be hard to do, but not impossible. However, as the years > pass and the emissions continue to grow, it gets harder and harder to > turn the juggernaut around in time. On the most optimistic timetable, > there might be US climate legislation in 2013, and a global climate > deal in 2014, and we really start reducing emissions by 2015. > > By then, we would need to be cutting emissions by five or six per > cent a year, instead of growing them at three per cent a year, if we > still want to come in under plus two degrees Celsius. That's > impossible. No economy can change the sources of its energy at the > rate of eight or nine per cent a year. So we are going to blow right > through the point of no return. > > Plus two degrees Celsius is the point of no return (and every > Government has recognised it as such) because after that the > additional warmth triggers natural processes that speed the warming. I also read that somewhere... but I have also seen counter opinions - please give a reliable reference! We have of course this meta-reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming But I did not find your assertion about the 2C. > The permafrost melts and emits enormous amounts of greenhouse gases. > The warming oceans lose their ability to absorb carbon dioxide. After > that, just cutting human emissions won't stop the warming. Runaway. > > The only way to avert that disaster that currently offers any hope is > geo-engineering: Direct intervention to hold the actual global > temperature increase below two degrees Celsius, no matter what > happens in the short term to the concentration of greenhouse gases in > the atmosphere. > > There are various suggestions on the table. Maybe we could create a > kind of sunscreen in the stratosphere by putting some sulphur dioxide > gas up there. Maybe we could thicken up the clouds over the ocean so > they reflect more sunlight. Maybe, maybe, maybe. But nobody has done > serious field trials of these techniques, and it's high time that > they started. We are probably going to need them. > > Welcome to the last ditch. > > - Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist. > > http://dailypioneer.com/275593/It%E2%80%99s-now-or-never.html > > More at:http://www.dailypioneer.com So you didn't write that - and there are NO references. Thus? Harald > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi > Om Shanti >
From: Catoni on 12 Aug 2010 09:44
Ringer posted: > " Catoni > I see you make decisions based on spiritual beliefs rather then facts or > evidence, i.e., I think global warming is a leftist socialist plane that all > scientists around the world are in on." Reply: See ? ? You're wrong again, resorting to ad hominem... If you "see" that I make decisions that way...then I would advise you to get your eyes checked... Don't you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself ? ? Actually I don't think Global Warming is a leftist socialist plot... although the AGW movement is certainly full of leftists/ socialists/ eco-extremists/ former (and active) communists/ left wing Gaia Goddess worshipping pagans..... and even some extreme far right wing fascist AGW nuts.. (because they like huge government too) The AGW Alarmist movement is a really mixed bag of various believers.... in short... a whole lot of people that like to see government grow more and more powerful....and want individual freedom and personal responsibility to disappear... perhaps they feel that only government can "look after everyone." Perhaps their heart is in the right place.. to "take care of the poor people from the cradle to the grave," even if it means that we might have a society like out of Orwell's "1984". At least everyone will betaken care of. Individual freedom...... liberty.... personal responsibility... such archaic concepts ... is that what you believe? That the movement is full of such people is common knowledge.... You see very few freedom loving Libertarians in the movement.. if any. The number of people in the AGW movement that believe in small, limited government and individual freedom must be less then 10%... probably less than 5%. And they would only be involved because they have been brainwashed to think the warming is all our fault... and we all must pay and more legislation and more power for government is the only way... Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa ! ! ! LOL I don't deny that the Earth has warmed since the end of the LIA.... But I believe that warming is 99.8% natural... and spending billions and billions of dollars of people's hard earned taxes... (Western people's taxes for the most part) and it won't have any effect in stopping the warming...is a vast huge waste of money.... .... except for the scientists and eco groups and politicians that get to pocket that money.....they won't think it was a waste... At the most.... all the billions that have been paid.. and will be paid between now and about the year 2100 all it will do will be to maybe slow down the high temperatures for an extra five years... so what we would have had in temperature by 2100... we will not get until 2005. All the money spent on this from 1975... until 2100........ (just think of the hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars by then)... to delay temperature for, at the most, about five years further down the road... ..... instead.... you could have used all that money over those years,,, and wiped out world poverty... and many diseases..... And leftists say that they care............ maybe they just don't think....... Ergo, it's all just so much sick political bullshit.... |