Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?

[nathanm]

Well, if people keep making progress like this and we keep weaning ourselves off of GHG emitting sources of energy, it will just be a temporary disruption.

http://vimeo.com/19661805

[Gaspar]

WHEW! Dodged that bullet.

Now can we focus on a giant laser to shoot meteorites?

[nathanm]

WHEW! Dodged that bullet.

I wouldn't say that. We're looking at enough sea level rise to significantly increase surge damage from hurricanes just in the next 20-30 years. That we may have learned enough from some ancient civilizations to prevent desertification doesn't mean the problem is completely solved.

[Gaspar]

I wouldn't say that. We're looking at enough sea level rise to significantly increase surge damage from hurricanes just in the next 20-30 years. That we may have learned enough from some ancient civilizations to prevent desertification doesn't mean the problem is completely solved.

Meteorite is going to make a big ol splash though. 

I guess an investment in sea-front property is a bad idea either way!

Just joking with ya. Give it a while.  The hobgoblin of the left is a bit amorphous right now, but soon it will re-materialize just in time to fit its purpose. 

[Conan71]

That would be bad news for my favorite island considering it's high point is 28 feet MSL.

[nathanm]

The hobgoblin of the left is a bit amorphous right now

Only to those who disregard climate science. Thankfully, it's not really controversial in most of the rest of the world.

[erfalf]

Only to those who disregard climate science. Thankfully, it's not really controversial in most of the rest of the world.

By the rest of the world do you mean Europe? Why don't you ask people in South America, Africa & Asia how they feel about it?

[Gaspar]

By the rest of the world do you mean Europe? Why don't you ask people in South America, Africa & Asia how they feel about it?

[nathanm]

By the rest of the world do you mean Europe? Why don't you ask people in South America, Africa & Asia how they feel about it?

Based on signatories to the Kyoto Protocols, I'd say that they responded quite resoundingly in favor of science.

[Hoss]

Based on signatories to the Kyoto Protocols, I'd say that they responded quite resoundingly in favor of science.

Damn the statistics...

[nathanm]

Damn the statistics...

Forget statistics. Damn the facts.

[erfalf]

Forget statistics. Damn the facts.

The facts being virtually every country save the U.S. has signed the protocol. Let extrapolate the "facts" then.

Canada has pulled out after signing. The United State currently has no intent to sign. The rest of the world has signed. That must mean that the rest of the world believes in AGW, and those of us in North America don't.

That's ridiculous, but no more than showing me a graph to prove that the entire population outside of North America in on board with this.

[AquaMan]

Don't for a minute believe that politics cannot win in a face to face battle with facts. One word...Inhofe.

[Red Arrow]

Based on signatories to the Kyoto Protocols, I'd say that they responded quite resoundingly in favor of science.

And economics.  I remember that not all the countries had to meet the same environmental standards.

I would be willing to sign a treaty that required everyone else to sell their present car to buy a car that got 50 mpg and has wimpy performance as long as I got to keep my Camaro, Mustang, Ferrari, Masaratti......   I left out Corvette since a friend at work has one and says that it actually gets 30 mpg or more on the highway as long as he keeps the speed under about 85 or 90.

[nathanm]

And economics.  I remember that not all the countries had to meet the same environmental standards.

Since when has technological innovation been a bad thing for the economy? And, uh, yes, the GHG reduction targets are different for each country, as they should be. We weren't all spewing the same amount of GHGs in 1997, nor do we now. It would make no sense to have African countries commit to reductions in GHG emissions when they're emitting far less than their fair share to begin with. I believe in their case, it's a "don't increase your GHG emissions beyond x."

Moreover, it's not even as if the developed countries have to shut down more polluting industries or anything like that. They have the option of buying credits from countries that are meeting the standard with room to spare or installing carbon sequestration equipment at the point of emission or even doing something like planting forests to decrease the net carbon release of a given country.

If you've been watching Fox News, you won't know any of this and will instead have been told that it's oh so unfair that we don't keep getting to emit more than twice the GHGs per capita that most Eurozone countries do and almost 5 times what even the Chinese do. Canada and the US are by far the largest GHG emitters on a per capita basis. Ironically, we still would get to emit more than our fair share, just not as much as we do now. Yet still people complain.