8 top industrialized countries acknowledge that global warming is a problem

[#juan]

One would think that this would put an end to all the nonsensical moaning that global warming is somehow a scam that we should ignore, but I doubt it.


The Group of Eight industrialized nations on Tuesday endorsed halving global emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 in a declaration praised by the Canadian government.
Environmentalists, however, expressed concerns that the statement does not mention a global baseline year for tracking greenhouse gas emission cuts or lay out any international midterm goals, except to mention a need for individual countries to develop their own plans.
But Prime Minister Stephen Harper said getting the stamp of approval for long-term carbon cuts from two previous holdouts — the United States and Russia — signals a major breakthrough.
"This is the first time either of those countries have conceded the necessity of having a long-term, mandatory goal for reduction," he said in an interview from northern Japan.
"There's also now a firm recognition of all countries that to make these objectives effective, even in the long term, we have got to have mandatory participation by all major economies, by all major emitters."
Leaders of the Group of Eight countries — Canada, U.S., Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Russia — gathered Tuesday for the second day of a three-day summit in Toyako, a resort town on the northern island of Hokkaido.
"We haven't solved the world's problems here but we've taken big steps forward," federal Environment Minister John Baird told CBC Newsworld Tuesday in an interview from Japan.
Consensus achieved: Baird

The agreement marks "substantial progress" since last year's summit in Heiligendamm, Germany, Baird said.
At that time, G8 leaders agreed to "consider seriously" decisions by the European Union, Japan and Canada to at least halve emissions by 2050 in setting goals for cuts in greenhouse gases.
Baird said that leaders of the eight industrialized nations also agreed to "ambitious" short-term targets for 2020.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/07/08/g8-cnd.html

 

[#juan]

The eight most advanced, industrialized, countries in the world are telling us that global warming is real and making commitments to lower emissions. That the U.S. and Russia are finally onside is good news.

 

[L Gilbert]

Well, I don't think it's a scam. Ice in general is disappearing and oceans are heating up. But I can't see how a bunch of politicians saying they will do something about it is definitive word that it is true.

 

[Praxius]

Nothing I saw in what you quoted or posted shows that any leaders of the G8 countries referenced "Global Warming" in their explinations, so how the hell does this put an end to the debate?

We all know the environment isn't what it used to be, and we all know we pollute.... they are trying to reach goals in reducing those things, but there was no explination in reference to Global Warming being the reason.

Climate Change, sorry to say, is still relevant and Global Warming is still in question.

Keep on truck'n, you'll get there eventually.

 

[L Gilbert]

Yup, and proper science will keep plugging away at it until it is definitvely answered.

 

[#juan]

Well, I don't think it's a scam. Ice in general is disappearing and oceans are heating up. But I can't see how a bunch of politicians saying they will do something about it is definitive word that it is true.

Well, there's the thing isn't it. If the ice is disappearing, the oceans are warming up, it follows that the air is warming up. If the leaders of the eight most advanced countries in the world are saying, on the advice of their technical people, that we have to do something about it, maybe we should all do some serious thinking about it.

 

[darkbeaver]

Yup, and proper science will keep plugging away at it until it is definitvely answered.

The "proper science" will kiss the asses of the bankers like they have since they were first allowed to play with gunpowder. The only allowable definitive answers must be cost effective and must be profitable. Global warming is natural and cyclical so are showers from heaven. clunk splat ka-boom sizzle sizzle The planet is getting hot from the inside and not only from the atmospheric load.

 

[#juan]

Climate Change, sorry to say, is still relevant and Global Warming is still in question.

Global warming is not in question. What is in question in some quarters, is how much man is contributing to that global warming. I don't happen to think we can dump 7 or 8 trillion tons of CO2, along with other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere without some serious penalty. Since scientists have determined that the penalty is increased global temperatures, and that we have already experienced increased temperatures, what else do we need to get us off our collective asses and do something about it? If not for us, then for our kids.....and their kids.

 

[L Gilbert]

The "proper science" will kiss the asses of the bankers like they have since they were first allowed to play with gunpowder. The only allowable definitive answers must be cost effective and must be profitable. Global warming is natural and cyclical so are showers from heaven. clunk splat ka-boom sizzle sizzle The planet is getting hot from the inside and not only from the atmospheric load.

I said proper science, not the greedy science. Please read before you spew.
What you said about the planet heating up from the inside is only theoretical as yet. The simple fact is we don't KNOW much yet. Which is what I said. So what we have so far, is simply opinion. Nothing has been proven one way or the other.

 

[L Gilbert]

Global warming is not in question. What is in question in some quarters, is how much man is contributing to that global warming. I don't happen to think we can dump 7 or 8 trillion tons of CO2, along with other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere without some serious penalty. Since scientists have determined that the penalty is increased global temperatures, and that we have already experienced increased temperatures, what else do we need to get us off our collective asses and do something about it? If not for us, then for our kids.....and their kids.

So far, we haven't been able to do much of ANYTHING that hasn't had an impact on the planet. Why should pumping carbons into the atmospehere be any different? (rhetorical).
Some people are doing things to reduce their impact. Others refuse and yet others don't give a crap.

 

[darkbeaver]

I said proper science, not the greedy science. Please read before you spew.
What you said about the planet heating up from the inside is only theoretical as yet. The simple fact is we don't KNOW much yet. Which is what I said. So what we have so far, is simply opinion. Nothing has been proven one way or the other.

There is only science. What does proper mean to you? Who determines what is presented as proper. Spewing first is more fun.:smile:

 

[#juan]

So far, we haven't been able to do much of ANYTHING that hasn't had an impact on the planet. Why should pumping carbons into the atmosphere be any different? (rhetorical).
Some people are doing things to reduce their impact. Others refuse and yet others don't give a crap.

There are approximately 600 million cars in the world, each pumping it's tons of carbon into the air. At any given time there are thousands of airliners pumping thousands of tons of CO2 into the air, along with the industrial waste from factories and foundries. Together, they are an impressive souce of greenhouse gas. How long do we expect to keep on doing what we are doing? Maybe we should all buy a canary...:roll:

 

[darkbeaver]

Global warming is not in question. What is in question in some quarters, is how much man is contributing to that global warming. I don't happen to think we can dump 7 or 8 trillion tons of CO2, along with other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere without some serious penalty. Since scientists have determined that the penalty is increased global temperatures, and that we have already experienced increased temperatures, what else do we need to get us off our collective asses and do something about it? If not for us, then for our kids.....and their kids.

Our kids can't do anything about it nor can our grandchildern same as us, the tipping point was reached and the further release of CO2 is inevitable, as and if I understand it. How does the seven or eight trillion tons of human released CO2 compare to a volcanic event or an asteroid impact or a comet strike, or anyone of a dozen other natural CO2 releaseing event. I think I'll look it up. This G8 bunch has been agreeing on miles of stuff that doesn't get done for years. They're perenially full of ****.

 

[#juan]

Our kids can't do anything about it nor can our grandchildern same as us, the tipping point was reached and the further release of CO2 is inevitable, as and if I understand it. How does the seven or eight trillion tons of human released CO2 compare to a volcanic event or an asteroid impact or a comet strike, or anyone of a dozen other natural CO2 releaseing event. I think I'll look it up. This G8 bunch has been agreeing on miles of stuff that doesn't get done for years. They're perenially full of ****.

For your information db, and I have looked it up, a volcanic event is tiny compared to 600 million cars as far as CO2 emissions are concerned. I don't know that an asteroid, or a comet would give off much in the way of greenhouse gasses. Depends, I suppose, on what the asteroid or comet was made of.

 

[cortex]

The cyclic variation in mean earth temperature is caused by the variation in the amount of solar energy reaching us. The rise in co2 is caused by the increase in temperature of the oceans as a concequence of this--which release dissolved co2 into the atmosphere. This is why the measured rise in temperature of the earth always appears to precede the rise in co2 levels--in retrospective analysis--as it takes awhile for any increase in solar energy to result in an increase in ocean temperature while surface temperature responds immediately. Human contribution to co2 levels is insignificant in comparison to this. Co2 is only a minor
green house gas anyway--water vapour is by far the largest contributor to green house gases.
The human contribution does have a far greater effect not on temperature but on biomass. the ttal biomass of the planet--the mass of living matter if you will is most dependant on one factor--
co2 concentration. Co2 concentration is the bottle neck. So even the minor contribution of co2 by humans will go into creating more life on the planet--algea and forests--etc --any chlorophyll based lifeform.
This is our symbolic sacrifice to mother nature, By driving to the local 711 to pick up a paperclip or
a can of pepsi we actually help create more life on this most precious of planets.
As for all those coastal cities that will soon be vast underwater waterparks--dont blame the cars blame the sun. Anyway we know ists coming so start packing. What is the problem here?

 

[#juan]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]Accelerated rise in sea levels blamed on global warming

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Friday, 25 November 2005

Sea levels are rising twice as fast as they were 150 years ago and man-made greenhouse emissions are the prime cause, a study by scientists in America has found.


Tide lines worldwide are rising by about 2 millimetres a year, compared to 1 millimetre a year in 1850, said Kenneth Miller, professor of geology at Rutgers University in New Jersey.
The rate at which sea levels are rising is probably greater than at any time for thousands of years, suggesting that greenhouse emissions are accelerating climate change, he said.
"Without reliable information on how sea levels had changed before we had our new measures, we couldn't be sure the current rate wasn't happening all along," said Professor Miller. "Now with solid historical data, we know it is definitely a recent phenomenon."
The study was based on analysing the sediment of five core samples drilled to a depth of 500 metres off the New Jersey coast between Cape May and Sandy Hook. Analysing fossils, variations in radioactive isotopes and other chemical elements allowed scientists to make accurate estimates of sea levels at different times over the past 100 million years. This is the most reliable and comprehensive record of sea levels for this period of time, and is better than previous core samples drilled for commercial purposes, Professor Miller said.
The analysis, in the journal Science, showed there was a steady rise of about one millimetre a year in sea levels from 5,000 years ago until about 200 years ago. Recent measurements from tidal gauges and satellites show that the rate of increase in sea levels has doubled since 1850, he said.
"The main thing that's changed since the 19th century and the beginning of the modern observation has been the widespread increase in fossil fuel use and more greenhouse gases," the professor said. "Our record therefore provides a new and reliable baseline to use in addressing global warming."
Much of the rise in sea levels over the past century has been due to the thermal expansion of the oceans caused by rising sea temperatures because water increases slightly in volume when warmed. Melt water from mountain glaciers and the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland could cause a further dramatic increase in sea levels that would be big enough to inundate most of the worlds' coastal cities, including those on tidal rivers such as London.
A separate study published in Science has found further evidence to show that greenhouse gasses are at their highest levels in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Scientists analysed tiny air bubbles trapped in ice cores drilled into the Antarctic ice sheet, which can reveal the composition of the atmosphere going back more than 650,000 years, said Ed Brook, professor of geosciences at Oregon State University.
"The levels of primary greenhouse gases such as methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide are up dramatically since the industrial revolution, at a speed and magnitude that the Earth has not seen in hundreds of thousands of years," he said.
Ice cores drilled from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are providing a valuable source of information on the rate of climate change. "We predict, for instance, that rising levels of greenhouse gases will warm our climate. There's evidence that this is happening right now, and it would be interesting to find out if the same thing has happened in the distant past," Professor Brook said.

 

[lone wolf]

No ... it's not a scam. Global warming is quite real. It is a natural earth cycle. It's the claim that if we pay tributes to the powerful and go back to freezing in caves that it will stop that is the scam. If, by some extremely miniscule chance, they happened to mess up the cycles, what will THAT cause?