Global Warming vs. Terrorism

3C increase would bring fires, floods and famine. Climate prediction most comprehensive so far.

More than half of the world's major forests will be lost if global temperatures rise by an average of 3C or more by the end of the century, it was claimed yesterday. The prediction comes from the most comprehensive analysis yet of the potential effects of human-made global warming.

Extreme floods, forest fires and droughts will also become more common over the next 200 years as global temperatures rise owing to climate change, according to Marko Scholze of Bristol University. Dr Scholze took 52 simulations of the world's climate over the next century, based on 16 different climate models, grouping the results according to varying amounts of global warming they predicted by 2100: less than 2C on average, 2C-3C and more than 3C. He then used the simulations to work out how the world's plants would be affected over the next few hundred years. The results were published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Alan O'Neill, science director for the National Centre for Earth Observation, said: "Some work in this area has been done before looking at the meteorological forecasts for climate change and feeding those into vegetation models ... this is a much more comprehensive study."

He added that Dr Scholze's results would give climate scientists the most accurate scientific projection yet of the future effects of global warming.

Dr Scholze said the effects of a 2C category were inevitable. This is the temperature rise that will happen, on average, even if the world immediately stopped emitting greenhouse gases. This scenario predicts that Europe, Asia, Canada, central America and Amazonia could lose up to 30% of its forests.

A rise of 2C-3C will mean less fresh water available in parts of west Africa, central America, southern Europe and the eastern US, raising the probability of drought in these areas. In contrast, the tropical parts of Africa and South America will be at greater risk of flooding as trees are lost. Dr Scholze says a global temperature rise of more than 3C will mean even less fresh water. Loss of forest in Amazonia and Europe, Asia, Canada and central America could reach 60%.

A 3C warming could also present a yet more dangerous scenario where the temperatures induce plants to become net producers of carbon dioxide. "As temperatures go up, plants like it better and they start to grow more vigorously and start to take up more carbon dioxide from the air," Dr O'Neill said. "But there comes a point where the take-up is saturated for a given vegetation cover, then the ecosystem starts to respire more than it's taking up."

Dr Scholze's work shows that this so-called "tipping point" could arrive by the middle of this century. His scenarios echo research from the UK's Hadley Centre, a world leader in climate change modelling. In a report published last year called Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, scientists at the centre predicted that a 3C rise in average temperatures would cause a worldwide drop in cereal crops of between 20m and 400m tonnes, put 400 million more people at risk of hunger, and put up to 3 billion people at risk of flooding and without access to fresh water supplies.

In May, David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, warned that the world's temperature would rise by 3C, causing catastrophic damage around the world, unless governments took urgent action to reduce carbon emissions.

Dr Scholze said his work could help to define the concept of dangerous climate change for policymakers. "Dangerous is very objective. We tried to define a dangerous level and see what the risks are," he said. In his definition, climate change becomes dangerous when an event - such as extreme flooding or heatwaves - that only happened once every 100 years becomes one that happens every 10 years.

He added that a rise of 3C was not inevitable. "We can't just do what we do at the moment, what we call business as usual. We have a few decades - we have to do something before 2040."

Burning Issue

At the rate we are burning fossil fuels, global temperatures could easily increase by more than the 3C rise that Marko Scholze's research warns could increase flooding, forest fires and droughts. A 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said an increase of between 1.4 and 5.8C by 2100 would be caused if current carbon emissions continue.

Global sea levels would rise by between 0.09 and 0.88 metres as a result. Scientists at the UK Climate Impacts Programme predict that a 3C rise or above would reduce rain on the south coast to half of current levels, by more than 40% across the rest of England and 30% in Scotland.

Sea levels could be 70cm higher in the south and there would be a 17-fold increase in flooding on the east coast. London could face a £25bn clean-up bill after a storm surge that would overwhelm the Thames barrier.

Does that mean that hatred is the same thing as conjecture?

Like those folks at British Petroleum who failed to maintain the Alaska pipeline? Economic and environmental expertise in spades!

No, you do not have to. We have seen Posner evidence from you time and time and time and time and time again. But, since you are totally incapable of adapting, you will post it again and again and again and again.

How about self-control? Why not propose conservation? Those are things sorely needed.

Parados says Congress should have made a law about the Kyoto Protocol instead of just issuing a Sense of the Senate?

What would the law have said?

The Senate of the United States will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol because?

What a crock!!!!

Now, Parados, I know you have not even approached the five questions I repeated. Now I will replicate the sixth-----

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point # 6


Are the computer models good enough to incorporate all of the millions of pieces of data that needs to be fed into the models? How do we know?

Yes, Mr.Parados, How do we know that the computers are up to the job? This is no ordinary prediction but one involving the climate of the world in the future!

**********************************************************

You are the self-proclaimed expert on Global Warming, which is what this thread is about and you refuse to answer basic questions,Parados. Why?

I have asked you EIGHT questions and you really answered none of them directly. I have asked you SIX of those questions again.

Try-Parados-try!!!

Username- I think you missed my post in which I asked you questions which were critical in clearing up your misunderstanding.

Again--

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Username wrote:

The question was whether George Bush's energy policy was unduly influenced by energy companies, in particular Exxon Mobil. The article cited government papers released under the FOI act which seem to make it clear that it is.

Point # 1- This is a thread about Global Warming, but I will humor you.

Point # 2-- You are hallucinating. I never saw or read anything which said that George W. Bush's energy policy was UNDULY influenced by energy companies, in particular Exxon Mobil. I never saw any government papers released under the FOI act which SEEM to make it clear that it is.

Point # 3--Post the evidence you allude to, please or go back to Global Warming.

Point # 4---President Bill Clinton, when challenged because the head of Chinese Intelligence contributed to his campaign fund-

I DONT BELIEVE ANY ONE CAN SHOW THAT I CHANGED ANY LEGISLATION BECAUSE OF A POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION.

************************************************************* I know of NO FOI evidence to which you refer. I read the New York Times daily and have not read any FOI evidence relating to what you say.

If you don't have a link to what you allege, give it a rest!


BESIDES, THIS IS NOT A THREAD ABOUT OIL COMPANIES.

Okie-You write persuasively- Maybe you can help me get an idea across to Plain Ol Me. You know, Okie, the poster with the Cow,sunglasses and straw hat avatar, that one.

How can I let her know that since I set up the case for the failure of the Global Warming Hysterics by quoting Scientific Studies and GIVING LINKS TO THOSE STUDIES, that I cannot be bothered with a barnyard screed which gives names and numbers but no links?

Okie, you know how it is, I am sure. I NEVER respond to anyone in any Scientific dispute which does not give links. Why, how can I be sure that the person did not INVENT what they posted?

See if you can help me, Okie!!!

BernardR wrote



When it is pointed out that the Senate never voted against ratification, they only voted on a "sense of the Senate" resolution, Bernard ignores the facts and says my statement was a crock. I think you need to deal with your factual errors Bernard. You stated the Senate voted against ratification. That is factually incorrect. You even admitted it was a "Sense of the Senate" resolution but never corrected your ratification statement.

Your errors in fact are piling up BernardR. Your failure to correct those errors points to your making them intentionally. What do we call intentional errors of fact? Ah, yes. That's right..



Falsus in omnia.

Bernard wrote..


Yet when asked for a source for those numbers Bernard never gave a source. I think we can be reasonably sure you invented those numbers, can't we Bernard. Just like you invent most of what you post.

Falsus in omnia again Bernard.

I gave up on plainoldme, Bernard. She does not even understand the free market, let alone science. Her statements appear as disconnected observations of unrelated phenomena out of the blue most of the time.

She once stated that corporations basically push stuff off onto all of us that we don't want and there is little competition. Her evidence was that pringles are crap and that nobody would buy them unless they were essentially forced to because thats the only choice they have, or some such language. I am not quoting her exactly, but that is the summary of it. And if she were in charge, she would outlaw them. She does not seem to like capitalism.

No discussion of global warmers would be complete without bringing in the factor of capitalism. Capitalism is the real rub, Bernard, because global warming would not be occurring without evil corporations and capitalism according to them. And haven't you read about how much China is accomplishing in regard to CO2 emissions, according to the communists and socialists on this forum? One poster bragged on China, and how they were building huge hydroelectric projects and how wise they were. I responded by saying the tree huggers stopped any more of that here long time ago, and the Sierra Club has proposed taking out Lake Powell, at which time the poster responded by saying how damaging dams were. That left me scratching my head. What do these people want? Do they know? They are all complaints, but no solutions. And when you boil it all down, they apparently just don't like the country, corporations, or free enterprise / capitalism.

Anyway, sorry to explain the tangential issues here, but basically I have given up on plainoldme because she cannot seem to understand the most basic of principles in a debate. I would not waste alot of your time trying.

Of course, okie, free market would entail not interfering in the business of the corporations. Thus, no tax incentives for oil drilling companies, as you once proposed earlier on.

I'm sure if the free market does work, we should let it work with no tax incentives and of course no tax hikes.

That would solve the Global Warming problem through free markets.

Tax incentives for oil companies are not much different than tax incentives for any business. Drilling for oil is an expense of doing business, and therefore deserves to be a legitimate deduction as part of doing business. Depleting an oil reservoir and using depletion allowances in the tax code is no different than Walmart deducting the amount of inventory they've sold. Inventory in the store is an asset, that when sold off, the value is deducted.

Yes, I contend that the free market is the best arbitor of the most efficient and therefore potentially the least polluting method of production. Example, recycled products, when some recycled products are artificially propped up by a government tax policy, a closer look reveals that more energy is consumed in recycling some products than producing from raw material. The free market should have been left to govern the situation. To do so otherwise results in a waste of energy.

Another example I can cite is I know of a case where Wichita, Kansas could not find a suitable place nearby for their garbage or landfill, because of environmentalists, so for years a private company hauled garbage to Oklahoma to dump their garbage. Several large trucks ran this route daily, often twice per day, several large trucks I repeat. Now, consider the fuel, wear and tear on highways, the accidents and loss of life that happened. This went on for years, and I think is still going on to an extent. This is only one place where this has occurred, and I have no idea how widespread this practice is, but this is a good example of how environmentalists and artificial, bad regulations have caused a monumental waste of energy because of their silly little vendettas, like don't do anything in my backyard.

As the price of gasoline rises, free enterprise will find the next most efficient method of powering our transportation system. Let the free market work. I realize some regulation is necessary, but I think the free market can be the best arbitor of about 75% of the problem at least. Government intervention should be as minimal as possible. The balance, if it goes too far toward government intervention, will end up being much more inefficient. Some of the most polluted places on the planet occurred in failed dictatorships and communist systems.

okie -- When you learn to write consistently grammatical sentences, you may criticize me. When you learn to structure a logical argument, you may reject what I write. Try to remember how many contributors have said the same thing to you.

I made A's in English and Grammar, plainoldme, but this forum is not like writing a formal report. Some rambling sentences should be allowed. I will try to do better, teacher.

If that is true -- and I do not believe it -- then you prove my point that teaching was far worse in the earlier part of the century.

The problem isn't your rambling. It is subject and verb agreement and more.

And many people have pointed this out to you.

plainoldme, seriously, do you want people to start pointing out your writing errors here? It could become embarrassing for you. You have illustrated little expertise in science, and you claim English to be your expertise, but what if that assertion is also debunked? If you wish to chastise people here for not using perfect writing principles, you may need to check your own first.

Please, if you think in any way that you are threatening or correcting me, you are sadly mistaken. I have listened patiently to you and yours attempt to insult me and it is laughable. Try to point out errors, but, is beyond your ability.

I see we are back to false arguments again okie. Environmentalists kill people because they don't allow landfills near them.



Fuel, yes.

Wear and tear on the highways? Not really that much as a percentage of traffic.

Accidents? Perhaps, but how many trucks did have accidents? Some trucking companies can go years without accidents. Did you ever consider that drivers can drive without accidents? Your argument is getting pretty slim here. Why does the long distance travel change the accident likelihood? Most accidents occur on city streets. I doubt these trucks are driving from Wichita to Oklahoma on city streets.

Loss of life? That is really over the top. Do you have evidence of anyone losing their life from one of those trucks? I am sure if a trucking company had a record of 2 people killed in a time period of even a few years it would be big news.

Indeed, I could do the math if I cared to waste the time. I know someone personally that worked for the company driving these trucks and he knows what the usage was and how many trucks ran the route every day for how many years. I am sure it is in the tens of thousand of gallons of diesel, if not hundreds of thousands, maybe more.


The roads run by these trucks have suffered. I would need to do research to know, but having talked to highway engineers, they can confirm for you the beating that heavy trucks make on otherwise sparsely driven highways, which some of these are.



I know of one personally just recently, Parados, where a driver working for the subject company was killed when the truck rolled on a curve after the load likely shifted unexpectedly. He was an expert driver, but something odd happened with the load. The highway is narrow and not built for lots of truck traffic daily. I have not researched accidents involved by the company, but I would guess it likely that there were more than just the one I happen to know about because it happened just recently. So you owe me an apology, Parados, my argument is not false.

To haul garbage 100 miles one way because of the stupid objections and convoluted scenarios caused by environmentalists is outrageous in my opinion. The geology of the area around Wichita is not much different than the area of the landfill in Oklahoma, so there would be no difference in hazard between one are or the other. The issue boiled down to the people in Kansas, said not in my backyard, but the people in Oklahoma welcomed the commerce. Such scenarios are idiocy, all brought on by the tree huggers and their actions in the courts.