Global Warming - General Consensus

[PubicHero]

Original Message:

SpeakUpForGood - FORUM

There is general consensus in the scientific community that global warming is mainly caused by the burning of fossil fuels, which increases the levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. The United States is the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases that cause global warming, producing 25% of worldwide emissions.

According to the EPA, the main causes of U.S. Global Warming pollution are:

Electricity Generation: 33.9%
Transportation: 26.8%
Industry: 18.8%
Agriculture: 7.6%
Residential: 7.6%
Commercial: 4.7%
What Are Greenhouse Gases?
Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and water vapor. Certain human activities, however, add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases:

Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere when fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), wood and wood products and solid waste are burned.


Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from the decomposition of organic wastes in municipal solid waste landfills, and the raising of livestock.


Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels.
Very powerful man-made greenhouse gases that are not naturally occurring include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), which are generated in a variety of industrial processes...


PublicHero


]Date: December 4th, 2006

 

[RedGreen]

If I had one dollar for every presentation on global warming that I've seen I would be a rich man. Some good, some not so good.

Of the good ones however, I'd be able to put a number of them in the category of great.

There's no doubt in my mind that we are causing the global climate to change. Climate change IS a natural process, but the rate at which we are causing the change is the problem.

The GHGs that we are adding to the atmosphere, preticularily the latter "Very powerful" ones (listed by public hero) are causing solar radiation to become trapped in the atmosphere causing warming. One molecule of some of the more complex GHGs can have four times the effect of one molecule of CO2. 'Nuff said about the technical facts, those can be found in recent literature for specifics.

Biologically the planet can not adapt fast enough to the climate change that we are forcing on it. Some skeptics say "When dinosaurs walked the earth the climate was very different, why are we panicing about this change?" Again it is the rate of change that is the problem. Based on tree ring and sediment coring samples, the rate at which the climate is changing since the industrial revolution is unprecidented in the planet's history. Adaptation to new conditions takes many generations, and takes many years for species that are long lived and have low fecundity.

Another arguement by skeptics is that we can overcome the extinction of many species by relying on technological advances (the we'll figure it out as it happens attitude). This may be true, we may be able to survive a dramatic shift in climate, but we will lose alot of species of animals and plants that are important to us. Even if we can adapt, it will be hard. We can't (as a planet) deal with hunger problems we have now. It will be far more difficult if we lose important species.

I didn't even touch upon the intrinsic value of species to us. We have a beautiful, (somewhat) healty planet right now, lets not let it get out of our control. Citizens of the world should make it perfectly clear to their governments that "RAPID climate change" is the number one issue facing this generation and that it needs to be dealt with by all nations (especially the developed, big polluters of the world).

If countries around the world cooperate on this issue and the situation improves not only will we be doing a favour to our planet and all of its inhabitants, we will also see the power of teamwork. We will finally see that when this planet works together rather than fighting against eachother amazing results can be achieved.

 

[Tonington]

Again it is the rate of change that is the problem.

Ahhh, that is indeed the problem isn't it? Some rather good news about one of the greenhouse gases, methane levels have been flat for the last 7 years. Today I found a new model, they seem to be a dime a dozen these days, anyways, this model is accurately accounting for the Southern Hemispheral winds, something missing from previous models. The shifting of these westerly winds farther south will allow the ocean to absorb more heat and carbon, effectively slowing the rate of climate change. At first this might seem to be great, but anyone who knows a thing or two about thermal expansion will realize this is not so great for those who live near the oceans. Currently, thermal expansion accounts for approximately 85% of the rising ocean levels and more heat being trapped by the southern oceans will only make things worse as far as rising ocean levels are concerned.

 

[tamarin]

We can't take the chance the current warm period is an anomaly. Many scientists have argued that warming and cooling periods occur naturally and we just happen to be in a whopper period of the former. Looking at climate change I'm most troubled by the rapid expansion of industrialization and modernization in hugely overpopulated centres like China and India. If the Industrial Revolution has helped spawn our current crisis adding these two giants to the soup isn't going to make things better. Kyoto, by refusing to effectively address this matter, deserves the ambiguous fate it's been given.

 

[RedGreen]

I agree. I have not the least idea why Kyoto excluded those countries knowing full well that they were the next to join in on the polluting party. Even if all other countries complied 100% to Kyoto, the benefits could be masked by these new polluters. I am not say at all that countries should not comply. I just think that it is unfortunate to think that even if countries make the neccessary changes to reduce GHG emissions, that we wouldn't be able to see the drastic reductions of GHG levels in the atmosphere that would be clearly visible if ALL countries lowered their emissions.

I think that there is a huge political upside to reducing emissions. Other than the U.S., most countries would be happy to see Canada (with all of its resources) being an environmental leader. Its easy for countries to say "why should we do anything about this if they aren't?". The world needs a leader for this mission and Canada is the ideal place. Lets go guys lets make it happen (directed at the government primarily but also at the general public).

 

[Tonington]

Kyoto was doomed to fail. Leaving "developing" countries out of the mix was a cop out, but it never would have even made it if they didn't make all those amendments. It's not that the ideas are flawed at all, it's the way it's put on paper that sucks.

 

[RedGreen]

The Kyoto protocol is what it is. I've read most the darn thing a few times and sure there are some parts that don't really make sense for all countries, but that's why it should be used as a guide for countries to come up with their own policies regarding GHG emissions. Instead, countries find one thing in the protocol that doesn't rub them just the right way and then they say "Oh well, we'll never meet Kyoto so lets not even try", they put the thing back on the shelves and do nothing to address the REAL problem. They say Kyoto is the problem... No, GHG emissions are the problem. Call your plan what you want, just start taking some action.

I'm looking forward to the day the Canadian government takes the good ideas from Kyoto and comes up with its own plan and makes sure it has teeth.

I really really hope (and have faith) that M. Dion and our Liberals will do just that once they get back on the right side of the house (no pun intended).

 

[Tonington]

Heres an interesting graph. It depicts the time it takes for climate responses to reach equilibrium. It's quite a long time and really makes you think about how bad things could really get.

 

[RedGreen]

I can't quite read the figure caption. Is that graph showing anthropogenic CO2 inputs (is that the CO2 emissions green line?) If so, Is that graph assuming that we will reach a CO2 emmission maximum in the next 100 years? What happens at the maxima? Do we learn how to control our emissions and then reduce them to near zero? Or do we become extinct.

Interesting graph though. I've seen similar ones and yes it does predict catastophic physical events (i.e. sea level rise). I saw another graph that predicted the number and size range of species that would persist if the rate of change trend continues. That one didn't look too promising either.

Interesting stuff. We won't be around to see any of it but its important to know so that we can see what kind of place we would be leaving behind to our future generations.

 

[Tonington]

Yup, it's anthropogenic. The graph is kinda like a slope field diagram, so whatever the [conc] of greenhouse gases is when we cut back, the curves will shift accordingly. The [conc] is left off of the left response axis because of this. The maximum is assuming that we cut back our emissions, drastically. I don't know if we become extinct, but mass migrations and societal change would be inevitable further down the line.

Speaking of extinctions, I 'd like to know what the ney-sayers think of the rapid rate of extinctions. Even if the changes are a result of ebbs/flows in climate, should we not seek to minimize our contributions? Heres a link you'll like RG, you may have seen this study allready, it's a couple weeks old.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061115090040.htm

This one is another biodiversity study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061025185158.htm

 

[gc]

Kyoto was doomed to fail. Leaving "developing" countries out of the mix was a cop out, but it never would have even made it if they didn't make all those amendments. It's not that the ideas are flawed at all, it's the way it's put on paper that sucks.

Don't those "developing" countries have much less emissions per capita than industrialized countries?

 

[Tonington]

Well China and India are considered developing nations by the UN, so... anyway they're kinda up there as far as emissions go, further along than many "developed" nations.

 

[gc]

Well China and India are considered developing nations by the UN, so... anyway they're kinda up there as far as emissions go, further along than many "developed" nations.

per capita??

Here is a site I found after a very quick search, don't know if the numbers are correct: Link

My question is, why should someone in Canada or the U.S. be entitled to emit more CO2 than someone in China?

 

[Tonington]

Per capita is one measure, an average of how your country is doing.

I agree, that we shouldn't. I don't own a car, I bike or walk. I tried to calculate my carbon emissions before but I couldn't get a reliable score becasue I don't drive a car and my appartment owner pays my electric bill, so I have no idea what my kW hours are. The point is though, if we leave off developing nations, and say every developed nation were to meet their Kyoto pledges, what happens when we reach zero, but the juggernauts with 60% of the worlds population is now where we are now, only by then their populations will be even higher...

Everyone should be reducing emissions. China has plenty of money, their human rights issue puts them ahead of everyone else as far as economic growth goes...

 

[MMMike]

per capita??

Here is a site I found after a very quick search, don't know if the numbers are correct: Link

My question is, why should someone in Canada or the U.S. be entitled to emit more CO2 than someone in China?

That is the question that the Kyoto naysayers need to answer. Yes, China will eventually have to get on board. But how can we justify doing nothing here while pointing the finger at them? We emit an order of magnitude more ghg than do the average Chinese. Kyoto demands most of high emitters such as Canada, as it should.

 

[gc]

I agree, that we shouldn't. I don't own a car, I bike or walk. I tried to calculate my carbon emissions before but I couldn't get a reliable score becasue I don't drive a car and my appartment owner pays my electric bill, so I have no idea what my kW hours are. The point is though, if we leave off developing nations, and say every developed nation were to meet their Kyoto pledges, what happens when we reach zero, but the juggernauts with 60% of the worlds population is now where we are now, only by then their populations will be even higher...

Everyone should be reducing emissions. China has plenty of money, their human rights issue puts them ahead of everyone else as far as economic growth goes...

When China and other devloping nations hit the same per capita emissions as Canada, then we can start criticizing them and insisting they reduce their emissions alongside ours. Otherwise, we are basically saying to them: I am from Canada, I am allowed to emit x many tons of greenhouse gases. You live in China, you are not as important, so you are only allowed to emit a fraction of what I emit.


MMMike, I agree.

 

[Tonington]

I don't think we're saying that, the real problem with emissions is that it will cost us money to clean up our energy needs, otherwise this wouldn't be an issue. With China and other rapidly growing nations, they have the chance to invest early, before they reach the point where we're at here in North America. Further, they could emerge as technological leaders and lead a revolution. How many new generating stations are they building, something along the lines of 10's every week?

I guess OUR government is saying that we can produce X amount without shame, but I think the majority of Canadians realize this is wrong. Perhaps I'm too optimistic about that, hopefully not.

 

[Curiosity]

This is a study way out of my range of knowledge and I have a question....

Who measures these countries? Do they each measure their own nation or is there a group of scientists who in a cooperative study measure each nation using the same devices and stats?

Is there one level playing field or are countries submitting their own data unchecked by others? Do we rely on the Kyoto Protocol only overseen by the U.N. to produce these stats? If so, I want an independent international study - apolitical or non political thank you, which does not reduce "liability" in monetary contributory format.

I make my own personal submissions to the "cause" if there is one therefore I feel I am not a contributor and am utilizing my fair share in comparison with my peer group - plus I'm not going to do a Ghandi until I see some realistic and comprehensive data.
(so there)!

 

[tamarin]

I agree. I would like to know something about the arcane art of stats and data collecting here. The target area is huge; there has to be a lot of guesstimating. And like US economic data, what's on the screen is likely constantly being revised.
Global warming has to be confronted on several levels. What really needs to be completed is a plan to effectively contain human population numbers. Wonder how far that would get at the UN! And yet, 500 years from now when all of the damage of our out-of-control numbers is apparent that will be one of the major issues mulled.
We believe in controlling the populations of all other global species. And often drastic measures have been taken. Why aren't we doing a better job with our own?

 

[Tonington]

The data I've seen comes from many sources. If you look at wikipedia they list the countries using data obtained by that countries various departments. Other sites use international resource groups and researh groups. I'm not really sure what the margin of error is in the reporting, perhaps they use a formula which considers fuel expenditures and electricity consumption, and derive the number from that.

As far as the UN goes, the scientists report their findings to the International Panel on Climate Change(IPCC). Then there are two or three phases where the beurocrats from member countries on the panel review the data. Then the scientists get a chance to review and revise the data before it goes back to the politicians who will make recomendations for policy, and then they send the reports out to the various governments around the world.