The environment thread

[southsideirish71]

Who told you that? I grew up during those decades, and I don't remember that being said. Not to say it wasn't, I just don't recall the discussion.

 

 

1974 Time Magazine Article on Global Cooling

 

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

 

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.

 

 

TIME MAGAZINE, 1974

 

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

 

TIME MAGAZINE, 2006

 

But lawmakers who still applaud themselves for recognizing global warming are hardly the same as lawmakers with the courage to reverse it, and increasingly, state and local governments are stepping forward.

 

The mayors of more than 200 cities have signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, pledging, among other things, that they will meet the Kyoto goal of reducing greenhouse emissions in their own cities to 1990 levels by 2012. Nine northeastern states have established the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative for the purpose of developing a program to cap greenhouse gasses.

Edited September 26, 2007 by southsideirish71

[Texsox]

It is rare that something is perfectly aligned with no evidence to the contrary. Two people can look at the same thing and come to two different conclusions. Things go from fuzzy to clear like twisting the rings on binoculars. And to be stuck with the first diagnose and response is wrong.

[BigSqwert]

1974 Time Magazine Article on Global Cooling

I'll still stick with the notion that science becomes more precise and accurate over time. I'll have more faith in scientific theory of today than the theories from 33 years ago. Look at the leaps and bounds in computing technology in that time span. We are able to process more information than we could have back then.

[BigSqwert]

The Bush administration fails us again. Admitting belief in crackpot global warming theory.

 

 

U.S. 'major emitter' of warming gases, Rice says

At Bush-convened summit, she insists U.S. willing to work with U.N. process

 

MSNBC News Services

Updated: 51 minutes ago

 

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insisted on Thursday that the Bush administration was serious about global warming and tried to assure skeptics that President Bush's gathering of major emitting nations would not undermine U.N. efforts.

 

But some participants and environmentalists were unconvinced, voicing concern that Washington was trying to rally support for voluntary emissions cuts rather than the mandatory reductions called for in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

 

"I want to stress that the United States takes climate change very seriously, for we are both a major economy and a major emitter," Rice said at the start of the two-day conference.

 

"Climate change is a global problem and we are contributing to it," Rice said. "Therefore, we are prepared to expand our leadership to address the challenge."

 

Outside the State Department, where the sessions were held, dozens of protesters held up anti-Bush placards that read "Bush is a criminal" and "Stop Global Warming Now."

 

Diplomatic security formed a line to stop protesters from entering the building. Nearly 50 demonstrators were arrested.

 

By most counts, the United States is the world's top emitter of greenhouse gases. But Bush, who rejected the Kyoto Protocol because it does not include developing nations, continues to resist binding targets, calling instead for voluntary approaches.

 

Rice said individual nations should set their own goals to curb climate-warming emissions, especially carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants and petroleum-fueled vehicles.

 

The challenge cannot be dealt with entirely as an environmental question, she added, but "in a way that does not starve economies of the energy that they need to grow."

 

'Devil is always in the detail'

Critics questioned whether such voluntary targets would work.

 

"We appreciate the sentiments expressed by Secretary Rice, but the devil is always in the detail," South African Environment Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk told Reuters.

 

"That is still the crux of the difference between the approach of the U.S. and the approach of the rest of the world," he said, referring to the split over voluntary and mandatory targets. "For us this meeting is obviously to determine if the U.S. is willing to change (its) approach on that issue."

 

Added Angela Anderson, vice president for climate programs at the Washington-based National Environmental Trust: "I do think this meeting is a deliberate attempt to suggest a very different framework for the new international agreement, one that's based on voluntary measures."

 

But an Indian official said U.S. official had repeatedly said they were not trying to circumvent the United Nations. "We are fairly reassured on that point now," he said. "The great thing is the U.S. is engaging on climate change."

 

Chief U.N. climate change representative Yvo de Boer told the conference he thought the discussions could contribute to the U.N. process. At a December U.N. meeting in Bali, Indonesia, representatives will consider a way to cut emissions after the Kyoto pact expires in 2012.

 

De Boer said it was crucial that industrialized countries commit themselves to an aggressive approach that would involve "going well beyond present efforts, given their historic responsibility and their economic capabilities."

 

One of the Bush administration's objections to Kyoto was that it exempted fast-growing economies like China and India while penalizing rich countries like the United States.

 

At least one study this year indicated that China is now the leading emitter of greenhouse gases, ahead of the United States.

 

A U.N. meeting on Monday drew more than 80 heads of state and government to focus on the problem of global warming. Bush skipped that meeting although he attended a working dinner hosted by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

 

Other participants at the U.S. climate meeting were the European Union, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, India, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Australia, Indonesia and South Africa.

 

British envoy's plea

European leaders, who concede that the biggest emitting nations must be part of any solution, are walking a thin line between skepticism and optimism.

 

"What would really galvanize the international efforts on climate would be a set of policies in the United States to put the United States on a fast track to building a low-carbon economy," John Ashton, Britain's climate envoy, said in a telephone interview. "We now need to stop talking about talking and start deciding about doing."

 

Haves, have-nots

The U.S.-led talks unite some countries at both ends of the economic spectrum, the haves and have-nots, that are opposed to mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases — but for different reasons. The Bush administration and a few allies worry about harm to local economies. Developing nations, for their part, do not want to give up ground toward industrializing and meeting basic human needs.

 

"For a developing country, the main task is to reduce poverty," Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of China's national development and reform commission, told a forum Wednesday sponsored by the Center for Clean Air Policy, a think tank.

 

Mexico's environment minister agreed. "We have always to bear in mind that half our population is at the poverty line," said Juan Rafael Elvira Quesada. "We are also extremely concerned about the consequences, the adverse effects of climate change."

 

They expressed a strong preference for the climate negotiations later this year in Bali, Indonesia, sponsored by the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, for which Ban's summit Monday was intended to build momentum.

 

"All these discussions should be taken within the framework of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol," Xie said.

 

But developing countries still are trying to curb their emissions while lifting the welfare of their citizens, said Sergio Serra, Brazil's envoy in charge of global warming issues.

 

"It is a myth to think the developing countries are doing nothing to address climate change," he said.

[kapkomet]

CLIMATE CHANGE is NOT (necessarily) "GLOBAL WARMING"...

[NorthSideSox72]

CLIMATE CHANGE is NOT (necessarily) "GLOBAL WARMING"...

So its Global Cooling then? 'Cause its one or the other.

 

Seriously, semantics. If you feel better calling it Climate Change instead of Global Warming, then fine. Call it that. Whatever, its there, we need to do something about it.

 

[kapkomet]

So its Global Cooling then? 'Cause its one or the other.

 

Seriously, semantics. If you feel better calling it Climate Change instead of Global Warming, then fine. Call it that. Whatever, its there, we need to do something about it.

Oh, trust me, they would have said "global warming" - they choose their words very carefully - semantics or not.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Oh, trust me, they would have said "global warming" - they choose their words very carefully - semantics or not.

Well of course - they wouldn't want to admit that they were wrong about something originally, or that some Democrats might be right. Better to give it a new title.

 

I actually prefer Climate Change anyway.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

You Texans (Kap, Texsox) should be proud. Austin is a leading city in environmentally conscious policy, as well as energy use reduction.

 

[kapkomet]

Austin is actually a really great city.

[NorthSideSox72]

Austin is actually a really great city.

I've heard that. I haven't been there yet, but most people I know who have, tell me its the best city in Texas. I've been in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, Amarillo... just not Austin yet.

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

I've heard that. I haven't been there yet, but most people I know who have, tell me its the best city in Texas. I've been in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, Amarillo... just not Austin yet.

 

Austin was home to the best brewery in America. :crying

 

[kapkomet]

El Paso is nasty.

Dallas/Fort Worth is home, so I can't bash it too bad... I like it here, but it's mighty congested.

Houston is dirty but has improved a lot even since 2000 in terms of cleanliness.

I really enjoy San Antonio - the riverwalk is a great place to hang out, if you could get rid of the tourists.

Never been to Amarillo.

Midland/Odessa is a Dallas/Fort Worth wanna be, but they will never even come close.

Lubbock is Bobby Knight country now. I've not been there but I will be the last week of December.

Austin is just cool. You're right next to the hill country, which is beautiful, especially in the spring and fall. Good night life, and not too unbearable as far as amount of people.

 

[BigSqwert]

I've heard that. I haven't been there yet, but most people I know who have, tell me its the best city in Texas. I've been in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, Amarillo... just not Austin yet.

I would definitely say it is. I haven't been to Madison WI since I was a kid but a lot of people compare the 2. I'd love to go back soon....to Austin that is.

Edited September 28, 2007 by BigSqwert

[southsider2k5]

The Texas Gulf Coast is a relatively un-developed gem as well. There are just beautiful beaches from Bolivar and Galveston all of the way down to South Padre, with spots like Sand Dollar Island and Matagorda in between.

[Balta1701]

The U.S. isn't the biggest concern/problem area for climate change, its developing countries and their new fuel needs, and their use of older technologies. Like those Chinese and Indian monsters. If they don't do anything, why should we?

George Bush was castigated by European diplomats and found himself isolated yesterday after a special conference on climate change ended without any progress.

 

European ministers, diplomats and officials attending the Washington conference were scathing, particularly in private, over Mr Bush's failure once again to commit to binding action on climate change.

 

Although the US and Britain have been at odds over the environment since the early days of the Bush administration, the gap has never been as wide as yesterday.

 

Britain and almost all other European countries, including Germany and France, want mandatory targets for reducing greenhouse emissions. Mr Bush, while talking yesterday about a "new approach" and "a historic undertaking", remains totally opposed.

 

The conference, attended by more than 20 countries, including China, India, Britain, France and Germany, broke up with the US isolated, according to non-Americans attending. One of those present said even China and India, two of the biggest polluters, accepted that the voluntary approach proposed by the US was untenable and favoured binding measures, even though they disagreed with the Europeans over how this would be achieved.

D'Oh.

 

[kapkomet]

The U.S. isn't the biggest concern/problem area for climate change, its developing countries and their new fuel needs, and their use of older technologies. Like those Chinese and Indian monsters. If they don't do anything, why should we?

D'Oh.

So with that, we will now have the Goracle as president. I think I just threw up a little.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

So with that, we will now have the Goracle as president. I think I just threw up a little.

I'd take Gore over any number of the current frontrunners in either party (Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney - definitely. Others, maybe).

 

[kapkomet]

I'd take Gore over any number of the current frontrunners in either party (Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney - definitely. Others, maybe).

Well you know, since he's really our president (because Bush isn't), he's "owed" the office.

 

[Balta1701]

Well you know, since he's really our president (because Bush isn't), he's "owed" the office.

Gotta admit...it's hard to imagine how he could have done worse.

[Balta1701]

Maybe they just decided to play nice & actually stop polluting?

The Environmental Protection Agency's pursuit of criminal cases against polluters has dropped off sharply during the Bush administration, with the number of prosecutions, new investigations and total convictions all down by more than a third, according to Justice Department and EPA data.

 

The number of civil lawsuits filed against defendants who refuse to settle environmental cases was down nearly 70 percent between fiscal years 2002 and 2006, compared with a four-year period in the late 1990s, according to those same statistics.

...

The slower pace of enforcement mirrors a decline in resources for pursuing environmental wrongdoing. The EPA now employs 172 investigators in its Criminal Investigation Division, below the minimum of 200 agents required by the 1990 Pollution Prosecution Act, signed by President George H.W. Bush.

 

The actual number of investigators available at any time is even smaller, agents said, because they sometimes are diverted to other duties, such as service on EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson's eight-person security detail.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Maybe they just decided to play nice & actually stop polluting?

 

And the reality is even worse than the low number of prosecutors and cases brought to court. A lot of the cases that did go to court were cases in which EPA prosecutors worked with the understanding that they were to roll over and present a cr@p case against the defendants. The EPA prosecutorial formula has often been to bring a case to court and then take a dive.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Well you know, since he's really our president (because Bush isn't), he's "owed" the office.

Seriously Kap... why? Why post in respone to my post? Have I ever said anything like that?

 

[kapkomet]

Seriously Kap... why? Why post in respone to my post? Have I ever said anything like that?

NSS, it wasn't directed to you personally. There are a lot of people who think that, and I didn't mean to say:

 

NSS, you think the Goracle is owed the office, so why don't you STFU?

 

You've never said that nor would you. Most of the time, you are at least level headed about discourse like this, and I didn't mean to single you out as being one of the fliptards out there.

 

There are a ton of people who think that he was "robbed" and is "owed" the office not necessarily on his own merit in 2008. As 'polarizing' as Mrs. Bill Clinton is, he would make a strong case, and if (WHEN) he gets the Nobel Prize, now all of a sudden, he has a wave to ride on.

[Texsox]

Parts of El Paso are nasty, but just north of downtown are some wonderful areas and as soon as you leave the city, great places to visit.

Dallas/Fort Worth is nice. I loved working and visiting the area.

Houston is dirty and smelly from the refineries.

I really enjoy San Antonio - the riverwalk is a great place to hang out, if you could get rid of the tourists.

Amarillo, Midland/Odessa, Lubbock is a walk back in time. West Texas in general is the old West in a lot of ways. Some embarrassing red necks and I use that term specifically, no other way to give y'all the image.

 

Kap nailed this one,

Austin is just cool. You're right next to the hill country, which is beautiful, especially in the spring and fall. Good night life, and not too unbearable as far as amount of people.

 

Lots and lots of liberals for Kap to scream at My son attends Texas State University in San Marcos, halfway between Austin and San Antonio. Hill Country is incredible. With Texas being so big, and geographically diverse the cities all have a distinct feel. But I will eventually move to the Austin area, I just have to drop 50 pounds to fit in.