NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/08/18/environment.europe.warming.reut/index.html

Think we can get some of that winter snow over here in Southern California? I'm sick of a little bit of rain every couple of days for two weeks only in the middle of Winter.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/08/18/environment.europe.warming.reut/index.html

Think we can get some of that winter snow over here in Southern California? I'm sick of a little bit of rain every couple of days for two weeks only in the middle of Winter.

So, um, when you get old enough, why don't you, um, you know...

Move.

So, um, when you get old enough, why don't you, um, you know...

Move.
easier said than done. Don't adults know that?
I got High School to finish, then college, then graduate school (hopefully), then I gotta find a job...

yeah, and think about it, who honestly is going to want to employ Colodia?!

Is this based on the assumption of rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, or just taking into account current heating trends?

It's from greenhouse gasses

The EEA findings echo those published last week by U.S. climate researchers who predicted that heat waves might become more common as global warming heats the earth and said regions already prone to heat, such as the U.S. Midwest and Europe's Mediterranean area, could suffer even more.

The concentration of carbon dioxide, one of the heat-trapping greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, in the lower atmosphere is now at its highest level for at least 420,000 years and stands 34 percent above its level before the Industrial Revolution, the EEA report said.

According to the agency's study, temperatures in Europe have risen by an average of 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 100 years and are projected to climb by a further 3.6 to 11.3 degrees this century due to the rise in greenhouse gases emissions.

This compared with a global rise in temperatures of 0.36 to 1.26 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century and a forecast of another rise of 2.52 to 10.4 degrees this century, said the report.

The researchers said glaciers in eight of Europe's nine glacial regions were at their lowest levels in terms of area and mass in 5,000 years.

They forecast that sea levels in Europe would rise at a pace more than two-to-four times faster than the rise seen in the last century -- a threat to low-lying countries such as the Netherlands, where half the population lives below sea level.

Lose cold winters by 2080? I would say we already lost them. I was still in highschool when we had our last realy cold winter. Now we have winters with 5 to 12 degrees celsius.

It's from greenhouse gasses
I know that, but my question is if the research assumes that greenhouse gas emissions could hold steady. I'm optimistic it'll decline. I've even heard that CO2 emissions could peak by 2040.

I know that, but my question is if the research assumes that greenhouse gas emissions could hold steady. I'm optimistic it'll decline. I've even heard that CO2 emissions could peak by 2040.


What I quoted from the article seems to assume that. And these are researches who are independent of each other coming to the same conclusions apparently as well.

I guess emissions might decline as we run out of oil and pursue other alternatives. Do you have a source that gives you this optimism, that the experts don't seem to know about?

I think the climate changes might have something to do with the apparent inevitable shifting of the poles.

What I quoted from the article seems to assume that. And these are researches who are independent of each other coming to the same conclusions apparently as well.

I guess emissions might decline as we run out of oil and pursue other alternatives. Do you have a source that gives you this optimism, that the experts don't seem to know about?

I think the climate changes might have something to do with the apparent inevitable shifting of the poles.
Well, I read a book about energy policy and usage. It did talk about alternatives, but it said that everyone, except oil companies and the Federal Reserve, has seem to forget about the third fossil fuel: natural gas. It's an expanding market in the US, as more LNG terminals are opening. In fact, natural gas may surpass oil as the world's primary fuel source as soon as 2025.

I hate to revisit this again !! But, even if they do peak in 2040, that is thirty-six years away. Already, we can see that the weather has changed in the last few years - winters don't seem to be as harsh, the snow comes later and goes earlier. Something needs to be done now. Greenhouse gas emissions need to be cut drastically now.
This can only be done on a global level of cooperation. Countries that have signed Kyoto should ratify and begin to implement ASAP. And of course, really that still won't be enough, but at least it might slow or slightly decrease the damage being done.

I hate to revisit this again !! But, even if they do peak in 2040, that is thirty-six years away. Already, we can see that the weather has changed in the last few years - winters don't seem to be as harsh, the snow comes later and goes earlier. Something needs to be done now. Greenhouse gas emissions need to be cut drastically now.
This can only be done on a global level of cooperation. Countries that have signed Kyoto should ratify and begin to implement ASAP. And of course, really that still won't be enough, but at least it might slow or slightly decrease the damage being done.
Relax. Carbon concentrations are currently at 375ppm, up from 325 fifty years ago. At the rate of global economic growth, that's actually less than expected. It's even less drastic than from 1750 to 1950.
Anyhow, once concentrations hit 550ppm, the weather should alter drastically. However, even if the whole world stays on oil, the threshold shouldn't be crossed until the end of this century. So I'd relax. This is beginning to balance itself out. In fact, the worst thing anyone can do is rush to change our habits, as that makes our economy unadaptable to protecting the environment.

And how do you propose do to that? How do you propose to initiate multi-billion, more likely multi-trillion, dollar upgrades across the board, on thousands of different sources, and almost EVERY AUTOMOBILE ON THE ROAD? Factories, homes, cars, you name it. How are you going to force that to change that quick? How can you fund it? How can you get developing countries to use expensive means for the sake of the environment, risking their own development? Face the facts, its not going down anytime soon, and it won't until its profitable.

And how do you propose do to that? How do you propose to initiate multi-billion, more likely multi-trillion, dollar upgrades across the board, on thousands of different sources, and almost EVERY AUTOMOBILE ON THE ROAD? Factories, homes, cars, you name it. How are you going to force that to change that quick? How can you fund it? How can you get developing countries to use expensive means for the sake of the environment, risking their own development? Face the facts, its not going down anytime soon, and it won't until its profitable.

I say one thing you can do which might be a somewhat minor change int eh beginnign is force car companies to implement the new technological alternatives now. Fine them big time for not complying.

I say one thing you can do which might be a somewhat minor change int eh beginnign is force car companies to implement the new technological alternatives now. Fine them big time for not complying.
And what administration in its right mind would go against the automobile industry...but more importantly the Saudis? By forcing car companies you not only smash their profitability in the short term, with no long term gain for them, but you turn the Saudis against you, weaken your hand in the rest of the Middle East, and lose support in Michigan, Alaska, Texas, and the entire Coal Basin.

Naive thinking, and absolutely unworkable.

Not to mention it took all of five seconds to think of those reasons, imagine what a real effort would turn up?

Relax. Carbon concentrations are currently at 375ppm, up from 325 fifty years ago. At the rate of global economic growth, that's actually less than expected. It's even less drastic than from 1750 to 1950.
Anyhow, once concentrations hit 550ppm, the weather should alter drastically. However, even if the whole world stays on oil, the threshold shouldn't be crossed until the end of this century. So I'd relax. This is beginning to balance itself out. In fact, the worst thing anyone can do is rush to change our habits, as that makes our economy unadaptable to protecting the environment.

It's hard to relax when you can see it happening around you, so you know it's true.
It's also difficult to relax when the country that produces over 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions won't ratify Kyoto and in some quarters doesn't even believe there is such a thing as global warming.

Our economy has adapted to protecting the environment very well. As consumers have become educated and more aware in environmental matters, people have realised they can't keep damaging the environment and companies (and the authorities) have had to react to this and to increased regulation to ensure they operate in a more environmentally sound manner.

And what administration in its right mind would go against the automobile industry...but more importantly the Saudis? By forcing car companies you not only smash their profitability in the short term, with no long term gain for them, but you turn the Saudis against you, weaken your hand in the rest of the Middle East, and lose support in Michigan, Alaska, Texas, and the entire Coal Basin.

Naive thinking, and absolutely unworkable.

Not to mention it took all of five seconds to think of those reasons, imagine what a real effort would turn up?

European governments have done this (although much more still could and needs to be done). For example, EU regulations mean a certain percentage of a car has to be recyable and governments have invested in better quality public transport systems. This may, of course, be because most of our politicians do not rely on the car companies to fund their electoral campaigns. So, they have a more balanced view on environmental matters. Of course, job losses are never popular - but sometimes leaders must lead.

European governments have done this (although much more still could and needs to be done). For example, EU regulations mean a certain percentage of a car has to be recyable and governments have invested in better quality public transport systems. This may, of course, be because most of our politicians do not rely on the car companies to fund their electoral campaigns. So, they have a more balanced view on environmental matters. Of course, job losses are never popular - but sometimes leaders must lead.
I haven't noticed any improvements in public transportation. Aside from the price change. It has went up. The quality still is the same.

European governments have done this (although much more still could and needs to be done). For example, EU regulations mean a certain percentage of a car has to be recyable and governments have invested in better quality public transport systems. This may, of course, be because most of our politicians do not rely on the car companies to fund their electoral campaigns. So, they have a more balanced view on environmental matters. Of course, job losses are never popular - but sometimes leaders must lead.


And noone seems to think about the fact that implementing new technologies offers new jobs.

It's hard to relax when you can see it happening around you, so you know it's true.
It's also difficult to relax when the country that produces over 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions won't ratify Kyoto and in some quarters doesn't even believe there is such a thing as global warming.

Our economy has adapted to protecting the environment very well. As consumers have become educated and more aware in environmental matters, people have realised they can't keep damaging the environment and companies (and the authorities) have had to react to this and to increased regulation to ensure they operate in a more environmentally sound manner.
It's different for small countries. It's easier to do a lot, and not damage the economy.
I want to ask you, btw, that suppose everyone on the planet got serious about reducing emissions. How would they do that? Mostly through sacrifice, by using far less power, gasoline, etc. That, however, leaves us in an economic hole, with little way out until, from there prospective, CO2 levels reach 280ppm, which may take a few thousand years. Or we can wait for such things as the coming natural gas economy, or the greater market share of wind power (12% by 2020).
BTW, you, living in Sweden, live in a far northern country. Global warming has any impacts there before the lower latitudes. Here, in upstate NY (at the 43rd parallel), we've had the coldest winter since 1958 down here. So just because you're crying chicken little doesn't mean the whole world needs to feel alarmed yet. And about the US, economic trends here will forcefully reduce our CO2 emissions very shortly. Then you have China to bitch about.

European governments have done this (although much more still could and needs to be done). For example, EU regulations mean a certain percentage of a car has to be recyable and governments have invested in better quality public transport systems. This may, of course, be because most of our politicians do not rely on the car companies to fund their electoral campaigns. So, they have a more balanced view on environmental matters. Of course, job losses are never popular - but sometimes leaders must lead.
Have you ever been to Eastern Europe? Have you ever seen the black belching industrial cities of Latvia? Estonia? Lithuania? The Czech Republic? (Hell, even staying in London for a day can lead you to find ash build-ups inside your nasal passages and ears, trust me on that) Western Europe to a degree is environmentally friendly, but they have major holes. For instance in France, the auto-industry, despite electric cars, still pumps out some of the worst cars in the world on any number of standards, from safety to fuel efficiency and otherwise.

Furthermore as most of the politicians in Europe have other lobbiest funding them, it is true, the auto industry isn't as influent, but that IS LARGELY DUE TO A WEAK AUTO-INDUSTRY IN WESTERN EUROPE. This is also completely leaving out Western Europe's nature of small nations, no single state is even the size of Texas. Further factoring in that much of the transportation your talking about is the railroad industry, its not that difficult to have that linking your cities and your suburbs when you have a small state. However in a country like the US or Russia, its not feasible in any way for public transportation to go the hundreds of miles linking economic stations.

I have yet to see the EU lead in any way such as you state, and doubt I ever will.

Furthermore as most of the politicians in Europe have other lobbiest funding them, it is true, the auto industry isn't as influent, but that IS LARGELY DUE TO A WEAK AUTO-INDUSTRY IN WESTERN EUROPE.
Weird. All big car manufacturers seem to have increased their profits. Whatever loses they made on the homefront is made up, and then some, by exports.

And noone seems to think about the fact that implementing new technologies offers new jobs.
But it loses more than it gains. High tech industries are notoriously short in job opportunities, they just don't need the man power that say...mining does. You'd lose thousands of jobs in the auto-industry, oil industry, coal industry, natural gas industry, not to mention power plants, factories, and other manufacturing jobs already slashed to pieces, so that a tiny group of high tech jobs, likely only able to be filled by extremely well trained persons, replace them. Aggregate job loss would be staggering.

And noone seems to think about the fact that implementing new technologies offers new jobs.
Well aren't you impatient. We need to work at the pace of the economy if we are to ensure best that the environment and humanity can coexist, not try to kill one another. Besides, if you read, you'll find that new jobs because of alternatives are, if not coming, here. This is my home city of Rochester, NY, one of three labs in the world where GM is conducting research on fuel cell cars.
http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInformationExternal/NewsDisplayArticle/0,1602,4833,00.html
The other thing that I like is that our struggling local giant, Eastman-Kodak, is in the process of developing digital cameras powered by tiny fuel cell batteries.

Weird. All big car manufacturers seem to have increased their profits. Whatever loses they made on the homefront is made up, and then some, by exports.
What exports? Sports cars, half of which are owned by American corporations? Volkswagon? What other major producer besides Volkswagon has their kind of broad selling range in America? No Italian companies besides the sports cars, no French ones period, no British really besides Coopers relatively minor numbers, who then are you refering to?

What exports? Sports cars, half of which are owned by American corporations? Volkswagon? What other major producer besides Volkswagon has their kind of broad selling range in America? No Italian companies besides the sports cars, no French ones period, no British really besides Coopers relatively minor numbers, who then are you refering to?
Daimler. BMW. Alright, so maybe it's just the German manufacturers.

Daimler. BMW. Alright, so maybe it's just the German manufacturers.
Note my mentioning sports cars? They are an industry unto themself, and global in a way that other types aren't. I guess the rich just get what they want eh?

yeah, and think about it, who honestly is going to want to employ Colodia?!
good point

*dons a mask*

Daimler. BMW. Alright, so maybe it's just the German manufacturers.
Yeah, Germany isn't part of Western Europe in a geographic sense, but Central Europe. I think he means car companies like Rolls-Royce and Renault, and how they are pretty much fallen giants.

Note my mentioning sports cars? They are an industry unto themself, and global in a way that other types aren't. I guess the rich just get what they want eh?
Yes. I think Porsche also increased their profits. Yeah. Must be nice to be rich. But untill I am, I will damn them to hell and back.

Yeah, Germany isn't part of Western Europe in a geographic sense, but Central Europe. I think he means car companies like Rolls-Royce and Renault, and how they are pretty much fallen giants.
Oh boy. First Britain isn't part of Europe at all, and now Germany isn't part of western Europe. Where will it end? :rolleyes:
If you talk about European cars you can't do so without Germany. Wether it lies in Western Europe or in Central Europe.

Have you ever been to Eastern Europe? Have you ever seen the black belching industrial cities of Latvia? Estonia? Lithuania? The Czech Republic? (Hell, even staying in London for a day can lead you to find ash build-ups inside your nasal passages and ears, trust me on that) Western Europe to a degree is environmentally friendly, but they have major holes. For instance in France, the auto-industry, despite electric cars, still pumps out some of the worst cars in the world on any number of standards, from safety to fuel efficiency and otherwise.

Furthermore as most of the politicians in Europe have other lobbiest funding them, it is true, the auto industry isn't as influent, but that IS LARGELY DUE TO A WEAK AUTO-INDUSTRY IN WESTERN EUROPE. This is also completely leaving out Western Europe's nature of small nations, no single state is even the size of Texas. Further factoring in that much of the transportation your talking about is the railroad industry, its not that difficult to have that linking your cities and your suburbs when you have a small state. However in a country like the US or Russia, its not feasible in any way for public transportation to go the hundreds of miles linking economic stations.

I have yet to see the EU lead in any way such as you state, and doubt I ever will.

Yes, I have lived in Tallinn for 3 months (stunning city, visit it if you haven't already!) and I've been to Riga, Prague and Warsaw also. And yes, they do have a long way to come compared to the non ex-Soviet bloc. But, they are working hard.

I would say that whether the car industry is influential or not is actually largely irrelevant in decision making here; it's more down to most western European poltical systems not allowing the level of donations (and effective policy buying) to politicians and parties by individuals or corporations in the first place.

Americans on here keep bring up the size issue. I don't see it as that relevant, as I don't imagine many Americans drive from Los Angeles to New York on a daily basis! At the end of the day, you have the same number of hours in a day, so regular commutes are going to be roughly the same. The fact is, there is a culture in USA that the car is king, illustrated by the various drive-through banks etc. People drive ludicrously short journeys without considering other options. Many centres of population (ie those with large volumes of traffic between them) are actually relatively close together, especially in the eastern part of the USA. Public transport is a very realistic option, if the authorities provided the infrastructure and made it attractive to use. However, nothing seems to be done to discourage this car dominated culture.

As for the comment regarding the French car industry, I do not know whether that is true or not. I have however read in numerous sources about the American love of large inefficient cars and SUV cars, encouraged by the very low price of petrol - making it not really worth people taking public transport.

It's different for small countries. It's easier to do a lot, and not damage the economy.
I want to ask you, btw, that suppose everyone on the planet got serious about reducing emissions. How would they do that? Mostly through sacrifice, by using far less power, gasoline, etc. That, however, leaves us in an economic hole, with little way out until, from there prospective, CO2 levels reach 280ppm, which may take a few thousand years. Or we can wait for such things as the coming natural gas economy, or the greater market share of wind power (12% by 2020).
BTW, you, living in Sweden, live in a far northern country. Global warming has any impacts there before the lower latitudes. Here, in upstate NY (at the 43rd parallel), we've had the coldest winter since 1958 down here. So just because you're crying chicken little doesn't mean the whole world needs to feel alarmed yet. And about the US, economic trends here will forcefully reduce our CO2 emissions very shortly. Then you have China to bitch about.

I for one haven't had to make any major sacrifices for the environment. Maybe it takes longer to "take the trash out" as you say because of the different types of rubbish being sorted.
I would love to wait for this coming natural gas economy, and I hope it happens very much. But it will be too late. We need to start now.
I don't really understand your point there, is it that it doesn't matter about the whole of northern Europe? We don't count because we are not American and therefore it's ok if our weather gets messed up and, say eg, half of the Dutch have to move to the upstairs of their houses because the ground floor is flooded? That's fine just so the Americans can carry on driving their SUVs the 500m to the shops.

I for one haven't had to make any major sacrifices for the environment. Maybe it takes longer to "take the trash out" as you say because of the different types of rubbish being sorted.
I would love to wait for this coming natural gas economy, and I hope it happens very much. But it will be too late. We need to start now.
I don't really understand your point there, is it that it doesn't matter about the whole of northern Europe? We don't count because we are not American and therefore it's ok if our weather gets messed up and, say eg, half of the Dutch have to move to the upstairs of their houses because the ground floor is flooded? That's fine just so the Americans can carry on driving their SUVs the 500m to the shops.
I'm saying that Northern Europe, northern Canada, and Alaska can't count because they are an extremely miniscule part of the global population. Besides, a slight climate change, like the melting of permafrost, isn't as bad for the region as, say, a war in that area. Siberia is more populated, but they actually want Siberia to warm.
And I know you're about to play the recycling card. Don't. A lot of us in the US recycle, including myself. In fact, I'm probably the biggest recycling advocate on this side of the pond.

I'm saying that Northern Europe, northern Canada, and Alaska can't count because they are an extremely miniscule part of the global population. Besides, a slight climate change, like the melting of permafrost, isn't as bad for the region as, say, a war in that area. Siberia is more populated, but they actually want Siberia to warm.
And I know you're about to play the recycling card. Don't. A lot of us in the US recycle, including myself. In fact, I'm probably the biggest recycling advocate on this side of the pond.

I am glad to hear you are recycling. Unfortunately, you are an atypical American, as the non-recycled waste per person in USA is significanlty higher than in (at least western) Europe.

USA is a miniscule part of the global population if one wants to look at it that way. I'm sure if we added up the populations of all the northern European countries being affected we would reach at least 100 million people. Many of whom will have more to worry about than having to invest in air conditioning, many parts of the Netherlands are very low lying as is, for example, London. They would suffer from serious flooding if the sea level rises.
However, it is not just northern Europeans who are being effected. For instance, much of Iberia is undergoing desertification. Also, the Sahara in north-Africa can be seen to be growing as desertification takes hold there.

I am glad to hear you are recycling. Unfortunately, you are an atypical American, as the non-recycled waste per person in USA is significanlty higher than in (at least western) Europe.

USA is a miniscule part of the global population if one wants to look at it that way. I'm sure if we added up the populations of all the northern European countries being affected we would reach at least 100 million people. Many of whom will have more to worry about than having to invest in air conditioning, many parts of the Netherlands are very low lying as is, for example, London. They would suffer from serious flooding if the sea level rises.
However, it is not just northern Europeans who are being effected. For instance, much of Iberia is undergoing desertification. Also, the Sahara in north-Africa can be seen to be growing as desertification takes hold there.
Also the floodings a while back in Central and Eastern Europe.

Also the floodings a while back in Central and Eastern Europe.

Very true.
The fact is that global warming is global warming NOT northern European warming. It's effecting the whole world.

I am glad to hear you are recycling. Unfortunately, you are an atypical American, as the non-recycled waste per person in USA is significanlty higher than in (at least western) Europe.

USA is a miniscule part of the global population if one wants to look at it that way. I'm sure if we added up the populations of all the northern European countries being affected we would reach at least 100 million people. Many of whom will have more to worry about than having to invest in air conditioning, many parts of the Netherlands are very low lying as is, for example, London. They would suffer from serious flooding if the sea level rises.
However, it is not just northern Europeans who are being effected. For instance, much of Iberia is undergoing desertification. Also, the Sahara in north-Africa can be seen to be growing as desertification takes hold there.
The desertification, especially in the Sahara, is age old. Ten thousand years ago, North Africa was covered with lakes and forests. Ever since then, it's been desertifying. If you're looking for a villain behind that, blame the Europeans. African forests were the lumber industry, and that hastened desertification. Also, the Namib desert is growing, despite being non-existent a few thousand years ago.

Very true.
The fact is that global warming is global warming NOT northern European warming. It's effecting the whole world.
But I was saying that the impact on higher latitudes is more marked, due to a fluctuation in albido.

.....Betchya it all is part of a natural planetary cycle.