Bush Says Yes To Global Warming - Page 5

OneFootInTheGrave · June 21, 2002, 15:31

DId anyone watch that program about digging out the ice and finding out CO2 levels and tempeartures trough history?

Anyway the point is that today's level of CO2 is the highest ever, and that temperature rise is not an instant process but it takes years/ decades to catch up with CO2 levels. Once the temperature treshold is breached there is likely no way back, with forest fires, and some CO2 stored on the bottom of the ocean that gets released and makes the whole thing worse, with the final results being like 15 or more degrees celsius average temperatures which is effectivley turning most of the world upside down.

Apparently we are now in the period prior to rapid increase of temperature since woods on this planet absorb extra CO2 pretty well still. How long, that is anyones guess. But if it turns out like their reasonable prediction it will not be nice for everyone. Results - possible wars and certain economic breakdowns.
We shall see...

- Groucho - · June 21, 2002, 15:38

OFITG: Are you referring to the NOVA program on ice core research. Here is an interesting snippet from their site:

Quote:

Many scientists fear that rising levels of so-called "greenhouse gases" from the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities will cause global warming, with potentially grave consequences for human agriculture and society. One of the clearest signs that elevated levels of greenhouse gases can result in warming comes from an ice core taken near the Russian Vostok station in Antarctica. This graph tracks temperature and atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) from the present back to about 160,000 years ago. (This represents about 11,350 feet of ice accumulation.) The graph clearly shows how a rise in gases will mean a rise in global temperature (though whether rising gases trigger rising temperatures, or vice versa, remains unknown). Also note that, at about 360 parts per million, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today far exceeds levels at any time in the past 160,000 years--indeed, in the past few million years. For those worried about global warming, this is a sobering statistic.

Graph data taken from:
Barnola, J. M., D. Raynaud, Y. S. Korotkevich and C. Lorius, 1987, Vostok ice core provides 160,000-year record of atmospheric CO2, Nature, 329, 408-414.

Chappellaz, J., J.-M. Barnola, D. Raynaud, Y. S. Korotkevich and C. Lorius, 1990, Atmospheric CH4 record over the last climatic cycle revealed by the Vostok ice core, Nature, 345, 127-131.

Jouzel, J., C. Lorius, J. R. Petit, C. Genthon, N. I. Barkov, V. M. Kotlyakov and V. M. Petrov, 1987, Vostok ice core: a continuous isotope temperature record over the last climatic cycle (160,000 years), Nature, 329, 403-407.

Lorius, C., J. Jouzel, C. Ritz, L. Merlivat, N. E. Barkov and Y. S. Korotkevich, A., 1985, 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice, Nature, 316, 591-595.

Here is the graph they refer to:

Ned · June 21, 2002, 15:39

Quote:

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
DId anyone watch that program about digging out the ice and finding out CO2 levels and tempeartures trough history?

Anyway the point is that today's level of CO2 is the highest ever, and that temperature rise is not an instant process but it takes years/ decades to catch up with CO2 levels. Once the temperature treshold is breached there is likely no way back, with forest fires, and some CO2 stored on the bottom of the ocean that gets released and makes the whole thing worse, with the final results being like 15 or more degrees celsius average temperatures which is effectivley turning most of the world upside down.

Apparently we are now in the period prior to rapid increase of temperature since woods on this planet absorb extra CO2 pretty well still. How long, that is anyones guess. But if it turns out like their reasonable prediction it will not be nice for everyone. Results - possible wars and certain economic breakdowns.
We shall see...

Yes, I have seen these articles myself. However, the official government reports haven't gone so far as to predict this yet.

BTW, did you know that the world in the age of the dinosaurs was around 20 degrees C warmer, IIRC. The Earth has gradually been cooling since. Some scientiests propose that the reason for the cooling is the rise of mountain ranges caused by the collision of continents. Apparently the exposed rock absorbs great amounts of CO2 causing global cooling.

OneFootInTheGrave · June 21, 2002, 15:43

Whooo...

I guess that was it

Quite consistent it looks... well we will know if it happens to us heh

Clear Skies · June 21, 2002, 15:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Clear Skies, for the sake of this argument alone, I am assuming the correctness of the predictions. We really don't know what will happen, do we?

But as it stands, if we do nothing, the North will see a huge benefit to Global Warming, while places like India will suffer. If we act to reduce greehouse gasses, and our actions are successful, we will deny this benefit to the North while helping India.

It really depends on how one looks at this, doesn't it?

Let's take a slightly different approach for the moment. We move the clock ahead 100 years. The North is now warm, growing seasons are longer and agriculture is at 100% of 2000. India in contrast is at 50% of 2000.

Now there is a proposal by the Indian government to reduce CO2 output of America in order to change the climate so that their agricultural production doubles. But the consequences would be to halve the agriculture of the North.

Why would we choose to help India when our actions will hurt the Northern Countries?

Now, suppose you are president of Russia 100 years from now. India has asked for your support to reduce CO2 emissions to boost its agricultural production by 100%. Your scientists say that this action will reduce Russian agriculture by 50%. What do you do?

Again, I am just assuming the preditions are accurate. Some countries will actually benefit from Global Warming. Other countries will be hurt. We should understand that asking countries like Russia to support reductions in CO2 is actually asking them to harm their country for the benefit of others. Why would they do that?

The problem with the debate over Global Warming to date is the black and white nature of the debate. There is a lot more grey here than advocate on each side of the issue admit, as one should expect.

I am not talking about 100 years in the future. I am talking about now. I know that I, in all good conscience, could not stand by and do nothing while India is harmed.

You talk about denying benefit to the north by these actions. What would actually be happening is that India would be denied a detrimental effect - not a benefit to them, but they would not become worse off. In effect, if nothing is done to combat global warming, some countries will profit by it and others will become worse off. Profiting by another country's loss is, to my mind, morally indefensible.

I try to steer away from personal insults, but if you think that a country should do nothing to improve the condition of the world just because it would harm their own country...well, I guess you're just thinking like your President.

I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't stand. Global warming is a worldwide issue, not simply confined to individual countries. It's something that the world as a whole has to deal with - if 10 countries profit by doing nothing but the rest of the world suffers, that is indefensible.

Ned · June 21, 2002, 16:20

Clear Skies, Perhaps. But if this is a debate about "morality," shouldn't the debate at least include a discussion of cost/benefits?

For example, I believe a recent US Supreme Court case said it was entirely proper to weigh costs in determining the propriety of an environmental regulation. I don't know what the particular case was before the court then, but there once was a order given or sought by the US EPA that would have effectively shut LA down.

The US is being asked to cooperate with the rest of the world to reduce greenhouse gases. The cost of doing so will be high. Shouldn't the we at least take into account whether the result of these actions will harm rather than benefit the US?

The argument that the US has a duty to hurt its economy for the benefit of others is interesting, but utterly unconvincing. The argument to be convincing is that the US must act to protect its own interests.

To the extent that some benefit from Global Warming while others are hurt, we are not in fact in this together.

Clear Skies · June 22, 2002, 06:30

Selfishness. Pure and simple. Protecting your own interests while harming someone else. You do know that if global warming does occur, sea levels will rise? Swathes of your precious USA will go underwater? But is it right to help Florida stay above the sea level if it means harming the climate of Wyoming?

Ned · June 22, 2002, 13:38

Florida may be a problem. However, you simply haven't addressed the issue. The US as a whole would benefit. Why should we do anything?

If it were clear that the rest of the world would be harmed, perhaps we would have some duty to help out. However, that clearly is not the case, is it? Some will be harmed, others benefitted.

BTW, if I argue that the EU has a duty to help out in Iraq because Saddam is a threat to humanity, would the EU help? I doubt it.

If the EU can be selfish, so can the US.

chequita guevara · June 22, 2002, 13:49

We have a lot of low lying cities on the coast. I can't see how the US would benefit with significant portions of it underwater: NYC, DC, big parts of the SouthEast.

And longer growing seasons don't mean squat when your rain goes away.

Ned · June 22, 2002, 14:18

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We have a lot of low lying cities on the coast. I can't see how the US would benefit with significant portions of it underwater: NYC, DC, big parts of the SouthEast.

And longer growing seasons don't mean squat when your rain goes away.

Che, if all of the above were true, then we would have to act out of our own self-interests. However, then only hypothetical I am working from is the official US government reports. They do not paint a picture as bleak as you suggest, Che.

chequita guevara · June 22, 2002, 14:25

No, the most important thing the report said was that there's nothing we can do about it. What ever we've done for the past hundred years, we're gonna have to live with for the next hundred years. It's too late to do anything to fix it . . . as far as C02 is concerned.

Interestingly, I was reading in the Earth Island Journal that the government may actually be testing a method of dealing with global warming, i.e., adding a powder of 10 to 100 micron-sized aluminum oxide to jet fuel. This would create more persistent contrails following jets which would raise the albido of Earth and possibly lower planetary temps. The side effect is respiratory problems.