The Kyoto question revisited
217279
I think that's a question that we all need to consider.  Many people are aware of our pollution problems and horrible conservation policies, but are unwilling to do anything about it, even spread awareness.  But, to answer the question, I'd give up my gas-guzzling car in a heartbeat.
148995
One might suggest reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, but this is only one aspect of the problem.  \n\nWhen carbon dioxide is released, usually from sources of combustion, other chemicals and particulates are also released.  So, curbing the release of carbon dioxide from these sources would also curb the release of these otehr chemicals and particulates.   A recent study has concluded that since we have worked at cleaning up emissions and reducing particulate releases, more sunlight is reaching the surface of the earth and actually _accelerates_ the process of global warming.\n\nHonestly, the best all of us could reasonably do is to be mindful of our energy consumption habits and try to not be wasteful in what we consume and dispose of.  In conjuction with this, look at adding foliage in areas that have been stripped of plant life.  More plants will effectively remove more carbon dioxide from the lower atmosphere.
520984
C for sure.\nMy but didn't this question get some folks hot and bothered. \nMay I point out that yes the plants are using the co2. Meanwhile, we silly homo saps are, while busily pumping hydrocarbons and co2 into the atmosphere, blithely burning down, chopping down and otherwise doing away with rain forests in South America. We are also draining swamps in Florida and filling them in to build houses, hacking down forests in Africa and other countries for the same reason.  All that means less of those nice green plants to absorb all that CO2.\nNow it is possible that we are just in a between glaciation warm spell. But even if we are, there is still the possibility of pushing that warm up over the edge into something we might not be able to survive.
547699
1.  Yes, temperatures actually have been rising - in certain places.  2.  No, it isn't too early to make predictions, as long as they are based on sound, unbiased scientific findings.  3. I believe that the warming is being driven by both people and natural causes.  We can do something about the former, but not the latter.  To what degree (no pun intended) each one is a factor is still up in the air, I think.  4.  Yes, it certainly could benefit some regions of the earth, but it would damage many populated regions tremendously.  That's why we need to try to slow down the human contribution a.s.a.p.
167109
Wow, interesting article.  Possibly one of the best-written and moth truthful ones I have seen.  It's amazing how well people have hushed up the most recent climatological results which indicate a plateau in global temperatures.\n\nAs they noted at the end of the article, I think it's time we gave up on this misguided effort to "reduce man-made CO2", and start worrying about real issues like shortages of drinking water and environmental pollution.\n\nClimate fluctuations are part of the earth cycle- and we honestly don't understand enough about they systems and their interactions to have any idea how we could possibly effect it.  But the science is in:  this happens ALL the time in earth history, and it's pretty arrogant of us to think that this time it's our fault!
105399
Exactly. A far bigger emphasis should be put on environment protection than it is getting now. Everybody and every country is only looking at their own interests while the amazing rainforests are being cut and the waters full of oil.. \nI'm from east Europe, air pollution is a big problem here too, still only few people think and talk about these. I hope they won't realise the importance of this when it will be already irreversible.
638349
The recent National Science report makes it clear that global warming is real, and humans contribute to it.\n\nThe answer to your question is to vigorously enourage people running for election to support adoption of the Kyoto Accords.\n\nYou may have to work for Democrats to do this - it won't happen otherwise.
216679
I have to believe that we are on a downward spiral. We are depleting the primeval rain forests which provide oxygen and burning fossil ie carbon fuels which produce carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, in addition to excreting sulphur which produces sulphurous and sulphuric acid. The westernised/civilised world is reluctantly taking small steps, but the 3rd world is increasing at an alarming rate.\nGlobal warming is a fact, and the result of this within this century will be frightening both in terms of sea-level rises and also hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones. Let us see what damage is caused in the Gulf of Mexico THIS year....
421593
The 'debate' is in the media only.  The data only supports human-caused Global Warming.  It has nothing to do with political party IF you actually look at the data like a scientist.\n\nCO2 is 30% higher than it has been for 650,000 years. Methane is 130% greater. These are two of the main pollutants humans put into the atmosphere in excess, and they are two of the primary greenhouse gases.\n\nLook at the 'hockeystick', which shows a dramatic warming since 1950 after a fairly stable climate for 1000 years. In fact, the 10 hottest years in recorded history have all happened since 1990, with 2005 being the hottest, and 2006 is shaping up to maybe break that record.\n(see links below)\n\nHow's that for proof of man's fault in this? There is ample proof, any real scientist will tell you that.\n\nThere has NEVER been an article doubting man's influence on global warming published in a peer-reviewed journal. A recent study of almost 1000 proved that.\n\nYes, the earth naturally heats and cools, but the rate and amount we are warming now is unprecedented in the recent geologic past. We are doing this, and we must stop it. This is not some political statement or rhetoric. This is science trying to educate a crass, ignorant public of the damage they are doing. The magnitude of temperature increase ALREADY is about 10x that of the 'little ice age' of the middle ages, and rate and amount are only going up. \n\nJust to be clear, glacial and interglacial cycles are mainly controlled by astronomical fluctuations, but we have a detailed record of the last 7 cycles, and what the climate and CO2 is doing now is way different and extreme. The rate of increase is much higher than in the past AND the value itself is much higher.\n\nHI CO2: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm\nHOCKEY STICK: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5109188.stm\nGeneral climate stuff: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897061.stm
175498
Is global warming to our benefit?  \n\nI say this because global levels of environmental Carbon(13), an isotope of Carbon(12), is used by us geologists as a way of identifying paleo-glacial maximums.  A high Carbon(13) level coincides with periods of high glaciation (i.e. ice-age).  \n\nRight now the levels of environmental Carbon(13) are at a level that should indicate the beginnings of an Ice age.  Clearly things are getting warmer, not cooler.  So the question is: is human Carbon Dioxide/Carbon Monoxide input actually holding back the impending Ice age?\n\nAlso, why do so many people think that the atmosphere should be static.  The global temperature is always increasing or decreasing.  It's never static.
559593
For a long time, people around the Earth have been spending lots and lots of money to send robotic equipment to study other planets in our Solar System.  Several have sent back such surprising results - oh, the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, and the colors of Neptune and Pluto!\n\nSome of the results also describe to us what the 'greenhouse effect" causes on other planets.  Unfortunately, when we see the results here on Earth, we presume that such a thing cannot happen here.\n\nWell, it can, and it does, and it has.\n\nFor rasons dealing largely with control of existing industrial resources, cost of investment, and just plain political power, people have made quite a campaign out of denying that global warming is taking place.  Their talk largely just adds to the hot air in the atmosphere.\n\nThe last Great Ice Age was more than 20 millenia ago.  Scientists studying that epoch say that carbon dioxide, particulates in the atmosphere, and a periodic change in the angle of the Earth's relationship to the sun all had a role to play - as perhaps did a major cycle of sunspot activity.  (That's just a guess by solar specialists but they like the idea a lot.)\n\nHowever, the physical evidence from the Great Ice Age is pretty conclusive.  Atmospheric components in ice left over from those days tell the tale.  And one of the great triggers of the last major Ice Age was particulate matter in the atmosphere - what some scientists decades ago warned would occur in a "nuclear winter" after The Bomb went off.  Everywhere.\n\nCarbon dioxide was relatively low in the atmospheric content - both during and at the end of the Great Ice Age.\n\nOne of the best arguments in favor of the effects of carbon dioxide on "global warming" is what we can tell happened to the planet when it got COLDER.  Besides various physical and naural events such as tiny alterations in the incidence of the sun's rays on the planet (that is, the angle at which they struck the atmosphere), we can track the history of stuff in the air that changed things.\n\nIn the pre-Industrial era, the only times that would happen were when NATURAL EVENTS took place - such as immense volcanic eruptions.  Those events combined with a periodic "wobble" in the Earth to create the last Little Ice Age, which affected Europe from around the time of Elizabeth I through the American Revolution.  \n\nSo it is appropriate to ask questions about the NATURAL events that might contribute now to global warming and the shrinking of ice caps.  But it is inappropriate to state that the byproducts of industrialized activities of humans, on a scale never before seen on the planet, cannot influence global weather and atmospheric conditions.\n\nYES, this is a big planet.  Yes, the forces at work are so massive they dwarf the puny efforts of humans - just ask any ship's captain, whether of a supertanker or a dinghy.  But NO, there has never before in all of history been anything equal to the cumulative effects of what humans do across the planet daily to spew heat, gases, and pollutants into the air through UNNATURAL means.  And for the cynics, let's remember that if in olden days all the dinosaurs on Earth had all farted at the same time, the methane they produced would not equal one day's worth of carbon dioxide emissions from industry today.  So leave that alone, once and for all.\n\nPart of the problem is that people think the byproducts of their actions are UNNATURAL.  In the sense that they result from human industrial functions, yes, they are not direct products of nature.  But in the sense that thse are an element of our natural world and we must see the emissions affecting that world, they ARE a part of "Nature."\n\nThe ONLY DIFFERENCE is that as a result we humans actually do own some sort of control over nature.  We can change the way that we influence natural processes.  And by the way - the various global attempts to do so wou
355372
There is not a consistent policy about global warming because no country wants to limits it own industrial capabilities to prevent pollution. The US agreed to the Kyoto Accords but now finds ways to side-step their obligation. How can any group of countries punish the US? Too many factors such as the national economies of small countries depend on the US for trade to force Washington to comply. But one thing is certain and that is that there is no agreement as to global warming even amongst the scientific community. It is being used by politicians as a gimmick to sway opinions. Before Al Gore didn't much worry about global warming but found it useful to take votes from Republicans and so there was sudden attention.Are you certain that there is indeed global warming? I realize that people have been tugging at the issue for years, but there is no substantial proof that this warming effect is not a cyclical phenomena. We have no proof about the last 50,000 years from the estimated period of the Ice Age. Counting tree rings is hardly an answer and the oldest know trees are less than 3,000 years...perhaps this situation occurs every ten thousand years. Fossils date much further back and we know that some cataclysmic event, a massive volcano or perhaps even a meteorite created so much dust that the earth was blanketed and brought about the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs. That took place about 65,000,000 years ago...just days ago, Norwegian paleontologists announced the discovery of a dinosaur 'graveyard' with the fossils of ichthyosaurs and pleisosaurs (perhaps cousins of the Loch Ness Monster) on an Island about 800 miles from the North Pole. Because both types of dinosaurs were marine (living in salt water), we then can assume they died in the water...but the 'graveyard' is now situated on a hillside some distance from the sea, but also that the water level was much higher at that time...Global Warming? Island can rise and sink because of volcanic activity but the island shows no geological suggestion that that was so. Perhaps too, this is a natural event in that as the temperature increases, so does evaporation and thusly more rain, so could it be that it is a cleansing system to remove pollutants from the atmosphere? There are many far-fetched theories and one is from Australia where scientists claim that cows are a major source of pollution. Herbivores produce methane gas as they digest grasses, fodder and such, and with the vast number of cows and other herbivores, our atmosphere is contaminated. It makes little sense as in America were vast herds of bison, and the plains of Africa still have millions of grazing animals...both past and present. The die-off of marine organisms is often linked to man-made problems...oil spills, dredging, sewage and such...i.e. the Thames River of England was so polluted years ago that no fish could exist...the environmental agency cleaned it up by stopping sewage, etc and now 10 species of fish have returned. We build dams and prevent floods and deprive vital nutrients to the sea. In Asia, DDT was introduced to protect the crops and successfully killed many species of fish and birds (most potent when used with oil as the solvent). Few people understand that a tree does many things besides provide wood, it retains soil but also transpires a substantial amount of moisture into the air...and we cut down the forests. We cover vast areas with tarmac and concrete and deaden the soil. On my last visit to Mt. Kilimanjaro, I noticed the reduction of the ice caps and glaciers but I didn't come away with any firm conviction of a drastic change. In Tibet, I visited the glacial rivers but they seemed much unchanged, and the peak of Mt. Everest seems to have the same amount of snow and ice. The only tangible proof I have found is that some of the tropical marine life in the Sea of Cortez have move further north, but that could be explained by a shifting of currents, rather than an
242819
As the Dust Bowl was caused by widespread drought in the 1930's, I doubt global warming was a factor yet. It was a natural event, but if the Midwest had still been pairie instead of farm land, it's effect may not have been as severe.
553288
Global warming is caused by greenhouse gas emmisions, like CO2 and CH4, cheifly added by humans.\n\nCO2 is 30% higher than it has been for 650,000 years. Methane is 130% greater. These are two of the main pollutants humans put into the atmosphere in excess, and they are two of the primary greenhouse gases.\n\nLook at the 'hockeystick', which shows a dramatic warming since 1950 after a fairly stable climate for 1000 years. In fact, the 10 hottest years in recorded history have all happened since 1990, with 2005 being the hottest, and 2006 is shaping up to maybe break that record.\n(see links below)\n\nHow's that for proof of man's fault in this? There is ample proof, any real scientist will tell you that.\n\nThere has NEVER been an article doubting man's influence on global warming published in a peer-reviewed journal. A recent study of almost 1000 proved that.\n\nYes, the earth naturally heats and cools, but the rate and amount we are warming now is unprecedented in the recent geologic past. We are doing this, and we must stop it. This is not some political statement or rhetoric. This is science trying to educate a crass, ignorant public of the damage they are doing. The magnitude of temperature increase ALREADY is about 10x that of the 'little ice age' of the middle ages, and rate and amount are only going up. \n\nJust to be clear, glacial and interglacial cycles are mainly controlled by astronomical fluctuations, but we have a detailed record of the last 7 cycles, and what the climate and CO2 is doing now is way different and extreme. The rate of increase is much higher than in the past AND the value itself is much higher.\n\nHI CO2: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm\nHOCKEY STICK: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5109188.stm\nGeneral climate stuff: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897061.stm
59214
first of all, u should know that the quality f air is fast deterioting. with the increase in human populatin and the decrease in tree population, the % of CO2 will increase also. since we still using hidrocarbon for cars, power plant to generate electricity, etc the air is filled with CO2. with the increase in CO2, ur earth get warmer and ice is south n North pole will melt (green house effect). remember that the ice reflect sunlight to space, meaning our earth will even get warmer. other pollutants will not affect too much to our earth.
489180
HIs movie is, for the most part, accurate.\n\nCO2 is 30% higher than it has been for 650,000 years. Methane is 130% greater. These are two of the main pollutants humans put into the atmosphere in excess, and they are two of the primary greenhouse gases.\n\nLook at the 'hockeystick', which shows a dramatic warming since 1950 after a fairly stable climate for 1000 years. In fact, the 10 hottest years in recorded history have all happened since 1990, with 2005 being the hottest.\n(see links below)\n\nHow's that for proof of man's fault in this? There is ample proof, any real scientist will tell you that.\n\nThere has NEVER been an article doubting man's influence on global warming published in a peer-reviewed journal. A recent study of almost 1000 proved that.\n\nYes, the earth naturally heats and cools, but the rate and amount we are warming now is unprecedented in the recent geologic past. We are doing this, and we must stop it. This is not some political statement or rhetoric. This is science trying to educate a crass, ignorant public of the damage they are doing. The magnitude of temperature increase ALREADY is about 10x that of the 'little ice age' of the middle ages, and rate and amount are only going up. \n\nJust to be clear, glacial and interglacial cycles are mainly controlled by astronomical fluctuations, but we have a detailed record of the last 7 cycles, and what the climate and CO2 is doing now is way different and extreme. The rate of increase is much higher than in the past AND the value itself is much higher.\n\nHI CO2: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm\nHOCKEY STICK: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5109188.stm\nGeneral climate stuff: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897061.stm
583407
Dr. Lindzen has said there were a wide variety of scientific views presented in the NAS report and "that the full report did, [express a wide variety of views] making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them."  The same is true of the all of the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change's studies on which the notion of global warming is based.\n\nClaims that scientific opinion is nearly unanimous on the subject of global warming are wrong. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine received signatures from over 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, to a document saying, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."\n\n-----------------------\n\n"Contrary to the conventional wisdom and the predictions of computer models, the Earth's climate has not warmed appreciably in the past two decades, and probably not since about 1940. The evidence is overwhelming:\n\na) Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global atmosphere since 1979. In fact, if one ignores the unusual El Nino year of 1998, one sees a cooling trend.\n\nb) Radiosonde data from balloons released regularly around the world confirm the satellite data in every respect. This fact has been confirmed in a recent report of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences [1].\n\nc) The well-controlled and reliable thermometer record of surface temperatures for the continental United States shows no appreciable warming since about 1940. [See figure] The same is true for Western Europe. These results are in sharp contrast to the GLOBAL instrumental surface record, which shows substantial warming, mainly in NW Siberia and subpolar Alaska and Canada.\n\nd) But tree-ring records for Siberia and Alaska and published ice-core records that I have examined show NO warming since 1940. In fact, many show a cooling trend.\n\nConclusion: The post-1980 global warming trend from surface thermometers is not credible. The absence of such warming would do away with the widely touted "hockey stick" graph (with its "unusual" temperature rise in the past 100 years) [see figure]; it was shown here on May 17 as purported proof that the 20th century is the warmest in 1000 years." \n--Testimony of Prof. S. Fred Singer\nPresident, The Science & Environmental Policy Project\nbefore the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Climate Change