Disagreements over the Science Behind Global Climate Change

[Chris]

OK, so in the 4th IPCC report, we have some projected regional impact examples as a result of global warming. Here they are again and I've re-organized them best I could, in terms of water availability, coastal environment, tropical environment and species and biodiversity. While you read through, think about our current way of life in the DR, and how we should adapt to mitigate against these climatic impacts. In terms of hurricanes, the feeling currently is that there will actually be fewer hurricanes, but more intense.

Water Availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation will become increasingly scarce. Small islands are expected to have insufficient water to meet demand during low-rainfall periods.

The Coastal Environment - as a result of sea level rise, we will have to deal with storm surge and erosion which will threaten infrastructure and settlements that support the livelihood of island communities. Beaches will erode and coral bleaching will affect local resources such as fishing. Of course, dead coral does not act as barrier reef.

The Tropical Environment - higher temperatures will increase the chances of invasion by non-native species. It seems that tropical forest is under threat of being replaced by savanna or semi-arid-land type vegetation. Productivity of some important crops is projected to decrease and livestock productivity to decline, with adverse consequences for food security. Although in temperate zones, soybean yields are projected to increase. The number of people at risk of hunger is projected to increase.

Species and Biodiversity - There is a risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many areas of tropical Latin America

So, the question is what do you think about these climate change impacts? Are you thinking of making any changes? What could those changes be?

[bob saunders]

Yep dig a deeper well, live away from the ocean. While it is true that we are going through a climate change, we are always going through a climate change. The conclusions that you draw from your readings have been refuted by many well known scientists and climatologists that say it just ain't so. For me, I have a little streak of Missouri mule in me. I'm not convinced that our climate changes are man-made. I agree that we pollute far too much and haven't done nearly enough about it. The health of our air and water is certainly something we should all be concerned about.

Understanding Climate Change: The Natural Resources Stewardship Project reconsiders the Kyoto Protocol (Kyoto Accord) and Canada's environmental policy.

[A.Hidalgo]

The link will take you to an article dealing with The National Resource Stewardship Project. After reading some articles about anthropomorphic global warming deniers, you need to follow the money trail and you will find that their institutions and organizations are funded by industries who prefer the status quo.

The best argument those who oppose the adoption of an aggressive technological investment in reducing carbon dioxide emissions can make is: "Let's wait another 10 years." But as my grandfather used to say, "Why put off till tomorrow what you can do today?" The positive economic effects that would follow from such an investment - millions of newly created jobs and the possibility of discovering auxiliary technologies (like we did when we went to the moon) certainly outweigh the negative ones.

Don Trella '08: It's time we stopped debating global warming - Opinions

[bob saunders]

And as you said there is a lot of money to be made of research and green technology-who do you think sponsors the sierra club...etc. Perhaps companies investing in green technology.

[A.Hidalgo]

Originally Posted by bob saunders

And as you said there is a lot of money to be made of research and green technology-who do you think sponsors the sierra club...etc. Perhaps companies investing in green technology.

I would rather like companies investing in green technology to help clean up the pollution rather than adding to it, don't you think.

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by A.Hidalgo

I would rather like companies investing in green technology to help clean up the pollution rather than adding to it, don't you think.

Of course. Nobody wants pollution.

I take it you didn't read the article on Algore I linked. Makes it clear what his definition of "green" is.

You guys still haven't answered my two questions:

-What % of atmospheric CO2 is man responsible for?

~and~

-What's the difference between opening a can of warm and cold Coke?

[bonao99]

What % of atmospheric CO2 is man responsible for?

~ 4.0 %

[cobraboy]

This just in:

telegraph.com.uk

Christopher Booker's Notebook
By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 1:48am GMT 25/11/2007

We are set on a course of 'planet saving' madness

The scare over global warming, and our politicians' response to it, is becoming ever more bizarre. On the one hand we have the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change coming up with yet another of its notoriously politicised reports, hyping up the scare by claiming that world surface temperatures have been higher in 11 of the past 12 years (1995-2006) than ever previously recorded.

This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as was previously claimed, but 1934.

More: Here...

(Care to 'splain me, Chris?)

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by bonao99

What % of atmospheric CO2 is man responsible for?

~ 4.0 %

Thanks. The number I have is 3.207%, but 4% is close enough for gubmint work.

So man is responsible for less than 4% of ALL ghg (including methane, nitrous oxide, etc.) in the atmosphere.

Next question: what is the primary ghg, making up 95% of it?

[Chris]

Oh yes .. to the Brits in our community .. Is the UK Telegraph not a notorious rumor mongering piece of utter $&!¡? Generally I mean? Sleaze personified? I may be forgetting my UK newspapers but help out with this US fellow that is quoting from British Papers .. he does not know the 'class distinctions' in Britian's newspaper hierarchy.