Thursday, March 20, 2008

This Just In: Global Warming Scaremongers Admit Climate is Cooling

...and further admit that the climate is cyclical. Story here.
But they still want to destroy the economy to cut down on CO2.

Posted by Victoria Taft, 11am - 3pm KPAM 860 at 11:07

66 comments:

  1. Did you even read the article?

    The name of the article is: "Despite another cold winter in Oregon, global warming hasn't gone away, experts say.

    The subtitle is "Temperatures over the long term suggest the planet is continuing to get hotter, not cooler."

    Paragraph two says: "Maybe for the time being, scientists say, but probably not over the longer term. One or even two years isn't nearly enough time to indicate a climate trend, researchers say."

    Paragraph seven says: "But Northwest climate scientists say it's a matter of short-term versus long-term perspective. The cool winter doesn't mean there's no warming trend, they say."

    Paragraph one from page two: " ... the past three months do seem unusually cool, within the perspective of the past 10 years."

    ... and so on. I'm not going to quote every single piece of the article that refutes the point you are trying to make.

    Re-read the article.
    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.
    ReplyDelete
  4. The Zero - The Propagonian - The FISHWRAPPER what a worthless waste of Paper.

    Drive your OIL BASED 4-Wheeled Combustion engine based Vehicle folks. Stay out of Government Transportation.

    A new chapter to the Lefts Religion.

    Ps: There is no Global Warming-Cooling, Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
    ReplyDelete
  5. Then I would recommend a remedial* reading course, as the entire story states the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you're claiming.

    In video-game parlance, Victoria, you got pwned.

    (*a definition of "remedial", for Klatu to learn: tending or intended to rectify or improve)
    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh and if its to COOL for ya out there, Do what one of the Lefts Favorite Failures as President Jima Carter once said
    PUT A SWEATER ON or PUT A COAT ON.
    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.
    ReplyDelete
  8. Victoria, this is a La Nina year. It has to to with ocean upwelling near the equator that efects ocean currents which create Pacific Trade winds which create weather.
    This change in the normal pattern of air pressure reduces the trade winds, causing the equatorial counter current that flows west to east to accumulate warm water along the Peruvian and Ecuadorian coasts. This causes the thermocline to drop in the eastern Pacific Ocean, and the cold upwelling to stop along the coast of Peru.
    This is all part of the El Niño Southern Oscillation. The cooling effects that result from it can temporarily off set the overall warming that is due to increased
    CO2 emmisions from fossil fuel burning and tropical deforestation.

    The Atmospheric greenhouse effect is a normal process that involves the infrared absorbing gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone.

    But because it is a greenhouse gas, elevated CO2 levels will increase global mean temperature. Based on an extensive review of the scientific literature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".
    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh, good! I was sort of hoping this sorta thing would come up again, just so I could take up the gauntlet being thrown down. To address this story, I wish to quote a certain controversial conservative commentator:
    "Warming trends prove global warming. Cooling trends prove global warming. This is the philosophy of a madman."

    Frankly, I'm going to have a really fun time in about 20 years since the scientific-political hysteria about climate change undergoes 20-year cycles where they switch off between global warming and global cooling. Why will I have fun in 20 years? Because I can go around smacking people over the head with all the hyterical "we're gonna melt to death" claims as I read a "new study" telling us that we're all gonna freeze to death. The absurdity of this latest part of the cycle just can't fit into words.

    Yes, Victoria might have slightly erred in what the article said but her commentary thereon was correct: it's an absurdity but just in case it's not, the government still wants to trash our economy using global warming as an excuse.
    ReplyDelete
  10. You Socialists Keep your Global Warming - Cooling Religion _ _ _ _ to yourselves. There is no Global Warming-Cooling, Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla

    Ps: Boycott The Liberal Weather Channel

    Pps: Support Operation Chaos
    ReplyDelete
  11. Keith, I highly reccomend you take one of Dr. Andrew Fountains Climatology classes at PSU. He also teaches meteorology and a great class on the Holocene. He is leading researcher of ice core data.

    Whats more, If Global warming is true and we develop clean energy resourses to mitigate it;EVERYBODY WINS.

    But... If your wrong (and solid science says you are) EVERYBODY LOSES.
    ReplyDelete
  12. I would also like to point out that Anthropogenic forcing of the greenhouse effect only began in the 20th century. That is why there is difficulty in establishing a pattern when you are looking at ice core data from more than 10,000 years, and seashell fossil data from millions of years ago. Scientists are very aware of several natural oscillations that occur. They actually factor these in when creating computer models of climate! These Computer models suggest that a doubling of the concentration of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, may raise the average global temperature between 1 and 3° Celsius.

    The atmospheric greenhouse effect causes the atmosphere to trap more heat energy at the Earth's surface and within the atmosphere by absorbing and re-emitting longwave energy. Of the longwave energy emitted back to space, 90% is intercepted and absorbed by greenhouse gases. Without the greenhouse effect the Earth's average global temperature would be -18° Celsius, rather than the present 15° Celsius. In the last few centuries, the activities of humans have directly or indirectly caused the concentration of the major greenhouse gases to increase. Scientists predict that this increase may enhance the greenhouse effect making the planet warmer. Some experts estimate that the Earth's average global temperature has already increased by 0.3 to 0.6° Celsius, since the beginning of this century, because of this enhancement. Predictions of future climates indicate that by the middle of the next century the Earth's global temperature may be 1 to 3° Celsius higher than today.
    And thats major.
    ReplyDelete
  13. But if I'm right (and significantly more solid science says I am), we're trashing our economy for no reason at all. If I'm wrong, the measures that are being reccommended will do no good while doing significant harm economically.

    The global warming thing serves the interests of the people who want clean energy and the government types that want an excuse to exercise more regulatory power. Clean energy is all well and good but only when developed due to market demand; the government's subsidy is a clever way of saying that everyone pays if the government wants something to succeed. I may think ethanol-enhanced gasoline is a crock but the government still gets to take my tax money and subsidize it; I'm forced to fund something I wouldn't want if it was free. Oh, and did you read that blurb in the opinion section a week or two ago about how fire departments need special equipment to fight a car fire that's burning on ethanol? Charming.

    The greenhouse effect is also self-sustaining and human activity causes a negigible increase. Krakatoa blew more junk into the atmopshere than we could hope to in a great many years. Ditto with Mt. St. Helens and any random increase in forest fires and volcanic activity. The data is too easily skewed by these things which are extremely hard to factor in.
    ReplyDelete
  14. What are you talking about keith. The earth is running out of oil, and we have to depend on other countries that are enemies of the state to get it. Were having wars for it, and oils prices are at an all time high, over $10.00 a barrel. Who's economy does that help?

    Development of clean energy resources is a way to reduce or end oil dependence on foreign countries and develop our own economy for once.

    Sure you will find a few hack scientists paid by the Bush administration that come up with bogus science. But the majority of the scientific community summarily dismisses it for the frauds they are.

    Again,since this is a subject that interests you I encourage you to take a class from Andrew Fountain.

    IF even IF theoretically global warming was an elaborate hoax, if we had devveloped revewable energy resources as a result, our entire economy would improve. IF I am right and we do nothing now to mitigate it we may damage the climate enough that we experience a sudden catastraughic event (think Dinosaurs).
    ReplyDelete
  15. If we know that pumping ourselves full of steroids or growth hormones, smoking cigarettes, or ingesting narcotics will sicken and eventually help to kill our bodies, we should know to stop.

    If we know that spilling oil or dumping chemicals and waste into the ocean will kill fish and destroy our oceans, we should know to stop.

    Likewise, I believe it stands to reason that if we are belching toxins and other poisonous agents into the air ... well, I don't need scientific evidence (that the Bush administration is all to willing to alter/suppress/ignore) to tell me that it isn't a good thing.

    I feel it's our duty and RESPONSIBILITY to ourselves and to future generations to minimize our impact - to minimize the damage that we do - to our air and atmosphere.

    It's really that simple.

    I absolutely think it's the prudent and forward-thinking to do, this study of what effect we have on this planet - which, I need not remind anyone, is the only one we have.
    ReplyDelete
  16. I should also add that I don't feel that making changes to our fuel, our fueling systems, and the way we research alternatives to the ones we have now will "destroy" our economy - if anything, it could actually HELP our economy, as we'll be able to manufacture and sell brand new products meant to help rather than harm.

    In a way, it's like creating a brand new market.
    ReplyDelete
  17. I meant to say oil is over $100.00 a barrel. But you all know that.
    ReplyDelete
  18. And Keith your volcanoe argument is without merit. While volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities. Heres a citable reasource: T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union)

    Gerlach notes that human-made CO2 are dwarfed the estamated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 TIMES. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). .
    ReplyDelete
  19. The economy of oil-producing states, naturally, but a majority of our oil sources are places like Canada which don't quite qualify as enemies. And OPEC knows very well that oil is only valuable if you can sell it so guess who has the biggest incentive to overproduce oil so the price will go down?

    The measures I was referring to, however, were the various schemes to lower carbon dioxide emissions or set legal ceilings for it. These goals are simply not possible without suspending many of the activities that produce carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gasses like methane) and I'll let you have a guess as to how many of the activities of a modern industrial society produce greenhouse gasses even after ramping up efficiency and installing air scrubbers and the like. The industry that produces meat, for example, is a huge producer of methane and the only way to realistically curtail THAT is an enforced vegan diet or something.

    Yanno, there's a really interesting thing about scientific consensus, jonny... consensus is unscientific. It's not a group of 5000 scietists that get together and decide on what has scientific merit... it's often one or two of them somewhere. In a system where it's possible for one out of a million professionals to know something that the other 999,999 do not, consensus is meaningless. Also, the tactic of dismissing scientists that disagree with the political consensus as bought-and-paid-for is inherantly dishonest. Pray tell... who do you think pays a state university to research something? Who pays the scientific panels the UN convenes? Who pays the scientists that Greenpeace like to cite for their purposes? If you wander around following the money, you can discredit a scientist without any scientific basis whatsoever just because you don't like who pays him. If I wanted to use your tactic, jonny, I would dismiss almost every scientist in this consensus of yours as a stooge of Greenpeace or the government or the UN. Fortunately for this debate, I think that tactic is clearly stupid, not to mention logically flawed.

    I think with you I might be running into one of my inherant internal conflicts... I believe that the general goal of many of these global-warming hysterics is to use scientific progress as a means to improve the society at large i.e. renewable energy, ultra-efficient internal combustion engines, renewable synthetic alternatives to petroleum, etc. However, I deplore their tactics which I regard as dishonest and founded on dodgy science. And there is always the fact that the only entity with the power to enforce all of these measures is the government which means yet another agency being paid for by tax dollars with the inherant power to minutely regulate how we live our lives.

    Incidentally, that's why I think that alleging that Bush administration scientists are unreliable is logically untenable... the government would benefit from a finding of global warming because it would give the central government increased power over the economy and the lives of the people. The government benefits from the belief in global warming as does the UN (which gains power because global warming is a global problem and requires a global solution) and practically every environmentalist group in existence who'd gain unprecendented authority to tell everyone how we should live to avoid the incoming catastrophe of global warming. Can you see why I'm so suspicious of this entire hue and cry? The end result is that the government and the UN and every environmentalist organization with a website gains power over me as a person and I really really don't take well to that concept.
    ReplyDelete
  20. See, iknowhowtospell, we're on the same page on this issue! As a general matter, I want to see every smokestack with a scrubber bolted to it, every fume-emitting power plant replaced by increasingly efficient and energy-rich nuclear fission (and hoping for nuclear fusion in the future which is the Holy Grail of energy production), every internal combustion engine engineered to death so it can cross the US on 20 gallons of gas (believe it or not, I've see a car that purports to be capable of this)... the entire drill. I'd be overjoyed if we progressed to a point at which the only pollution visited on our environment is of the type that it is literally impossible to prevent. On points of this nature, we are in total mind-meld.

    Our difference, I think, is in how we percieve the problem and what we're willing to accept to achieve a solution. I am unwilling to accept virtually totalitarian control over every aspect of my life to achieve this state of environmental harmony and I think that far too many people in the global warming hysteria crowd would accept any price, no matter how terrible, to prevent the catastrophe they've convinced themselves is coming. I remain very skeptical for the reasons I stated above to jonny but also because I've stumbled across a considerable enough collection of scientific facts that they make me very doubtful that anthropogentic global warming is anywhere close to being a scientifically sound concept.

    As an aside, I agree with you about the fuel. I encourage you, however, to look closely at the Pentagon's work on this issue. I realize that's a bizarre idea but the Pentagon is projecting that they can use more environmentally-friendly fuels, derived from coal, to shave about $3 billion off their fuel bill by 2011. (Check this link; it's just the tip of the iceberg, however: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123026906 ) This synthetic fuel runs around $45 a barrel so you can see why the military is happy about it... they save around $55 a barrel by switching to these new fuels. What if some president helpfully suggested that someone capitalize on what the Air Force is cooking up and see if it can't be used to replace conventional gasoline? The possibilities are enticing, especially since the US has some of the world's largest deposits of coal. Whatcha think, iknowhowtospell?
    ReplyDelete
  21. Uh, just so you know, jonny, a name, a year, and an orgnization isn't a cited source. That gives me something to type into Google with the hope that I'll find what you're referring to but you failed to cite an actual source for your claim. Useful thing to remember if you write a research paper one day.

    Incidentally, I found the website you quoted. Said website is distinguished by a total lack of citation which means they're essentially claiming that T.M. Gerlach said such a thing but they chose not to quote him or point to the article in which he said it. Further research on Google has turned up 4 references to this statement but none of them contain a citation which gives it the feel of a popular rumor. I find this lack of citation to be an interesting omission... care to address it?
    ReplyDelete
  22. YOur kidding yourself, Keith. Your believeing the hype of sean hannity, Bill Oreilly and Rush Limbaugh. Additionaly, those hack scientists have all been discredited. Most often their research is flawed because they were paid to do it that way. Iknow how it works. ANd yes, I would not trust greenpeace scientists anymore than them if thats all it were. But Iam talking about Independant Researchers and Acedemics. And yes, in the scientific community consensus does matter. I'm sorry but your not galaleo. Your like one of those people who doesn't even recognize global warming.

    You said you go to PSU. I DARE you to take one of Andrew Founains classes next quarter. Once you research and understand the mechanics of the climate it will be a lot clearer to you. Theres just to much you don't know to have a competent argument on this. It really gets complex.

    The other thing you fail to address is that the worlds oil supply is running out.

    From CNN: Oil production levels will hit their maximum soon after 2010 with gas supplies peaking not long afterwards, the Swedish geologists say. At that point prices for petrol and other fuels will reach disastrous levels. Earlier studies have predicted oil supplies will not start falling until 2050".

    So if were going to run out of oil doen't it make good economic sense to develop sustainable resouce technology NOW?
    ReplyDelete
  23. And you seem to be one of those people who see what they believe and don't bother to see if it's true. See? "I'm right, you're stupid" type statements are easy to throw around.

    Well, jonny, I'd take your challenge but for a somewhat inconvinient fact. First, I'd have to shell out about $300 to take a course that you claim will prove your viewpoint to me but otherwise doesn't benefit me whatsoever. Second, I graduate this term with my Bachelor of Science in history and to go back to PSU instead of going out into the world and getting a job and a career just to take up your infantile dare would be stupid of me. You can claim until you're blue in the fact that you're smarter than me and I can't possibly have a competant opinion on this issue because I didn't take a class you like but those claims don't bolster your argument or credibility. I'm sorry; try again later.

    The answer to your question is "no," jonny. You can wait until later to tell me what I've won.
    ReplyDelete
  24. jonny said: those hack scientists have all been discredited.

    Klatu said: Hardly jonny

    Jonny said:From CNN

    Klatu said: The Clinton News Network.
    Discredited a Long time ago
    ReplyDelete
  25. Keith, I am not trying to insult your intelligence. What I am saying is that having taken those classses I can explain to you some of the complexities of the earths climate, along with the atmospheric effect and climate forcing. Therefore, yes, I am much more knowlegable on the issue. (Even though I am a terrable speller)
    But, since having made my case here by using accredited scientific facts doesn't convince you (Einstein himself couldn't do it) I am encouraging you to educate yourself and then draw your own conclusion based on scientific facts and evidence. Truly anyone can see your just believing what you want to hear. You know, many republicans would side with me hear. Your position is based on your unwillingness to learn (no offense).

    And if you like I will find you a better citation regarding the volcanos. Trust me it won't be difficult for me. Ive got several books on the issue and I remember some scholarly article from JSTOR that I looked at. Maybe something for you to link to. But it will have to wait because its late and I'm getting up early for the Obama rally tomorrow. Cheers
    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.
    ReplyDelete
  27. One more thing to consider;

    We do not get the majority of our oil from Canada. We have foreign oil dependance primarily on middle eastern countries. Even if you discount oil wars and price gouging: What benefit does it have for our countries economy?
    ReplyDelete
  28. Look under the "Here it is: Final Fool Bracket" blog entry for my reply to your original version of that post, jonny. But since you expanded on your original, allow me to add an addendum to my response.

    The sarcastic little snipes you added in just make you sound like an ass. You tossed in a couple facts (although you sourced none of them) and certainly know how to talk as if you understand the issue but you've made no attempt to demonstrate that your arguments are valid by use of citation. Thus, I conclude that you're blowing hot air, seemingly for the purpose of being able to tell me that "you're stupid, I'm right." Your claim to have numerous books to cite in addition to an unnamed article on JSTOR was a charming touch. I'm not impressed.

    As an aside, I do indeed have some firepower to make use of in this situation but until you cite a source in proof of your pontification, I feel no obligation to back myself up.

    I'm honestly surprised at you, jonny... you've got a clever fellow like iknowhowtospell to use as an example of a polite and reasonable representative of your position but don't seem willing to follow his example. As you might have noticed, even when he considers me wrong, he has yet to call me "unwilling to learn" or imply that I'm stupid or uneducated. I fully expect that if and when I make a stupid remark, he'll tell me that I'm am idiot but until I make said stupid remark, he seems willing to be mature. Go and do thou likewise, grasshopper.
    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.
    ReplyDelete
  30. "We do not get the majority of our oil from Canada. We have foreign oil dependance primarily on middle eastern countries."

    Hey jonny, here's a balance sheet of where we get our oil imports from as of December 07 taken from the Energy Information Administration web site: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/
    petroleum/data_publications/company
    _level_imports/current/import.html

    Wouldja look at that! Look at the country at the top of the import list! I think that's CANADA! And look, there's 3 countries in the Middle East out of the 15 top sources of US imports. So what's that about Canada not being the top source and us getting most of our oil from the Middle East? Thank you for your contribution, jonny, but you're not as brilliant as you think you are... finding those numbers took me 2 seconds.
    ReplyDelete
  31. I love it when people say that were running out of oil.. I am all for flex fuel vehicles that can burn gas, ethanol and Methanol fuels... But...

    Then you read these kinds of articles below.

    __________________________________
    "Massive Oil Deposit Could Increase U.S. Reserve
    Next Energy News ^ | 2-13-08

    America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America’s Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC’s short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.

    In the next 30 days the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) will release a new report giving an accurate resource assessment of the Bakken Oil Formation that covers North Dakota and portions of South Dakota and Montana With new horizontal drilling technology it is believed that from 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil are held in this 200,000 square mile reserve that was initially discovered in 1951. The USGS did an initial study back in 1999 that estimated 400 billion recoverable barrels were present but with prices bottoming out at $10 a barrel back then the report was dismissed because of the higher cost of horizontal drilling techniques that would be needed, estimated at $20-$40 a barrel.

    It was not until 2007, when EOG Resources of Texas started a frenzy when they drilled a single well in Parshal N.D. that is expected to yield 700,000 barrels of oil that real excitement and money started to flow in North Dakota. Marathon Oil is investing $1.5 billion and drilling 300 new wells in what is expected to be one of the greatest booms in Oil discovery since Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938.

    The US imported about 14 million barrels of Oil per day in 2007 , which means US consumers sent about $340 Billion Dollars over seas building palaces in Dubai and propping up unfriendly regimes around the World, if 200 billion barrels of oil at $90 a barrel are recovered in the high plains the added wealth to the US economy would be $18 Trillion Dollars which would go a long way in stabilizing the US trade deficit and could cut the cost of oil in half in the long run."
    ReplyDelete
  32. So CO2 is the villian that is causing 'global warming' (never mind that CO2 is [b]essential to all life on Earth[/b]). Atmospheric concentrations are at 100 year highs. Yet the 4 major tracking stations (Hadley's, NASA's GISS, UAH, & RSS) have reported that last year the Earth cooled over 0.6 degrees C.

    That fact alone questions the basic concept of CO2 caused 'global warming'.

    Link --

    http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by the author.
    ReplyDelete
  34. This comment has been removed by the author.
    ReplyDelete
  35. Keith

    You want me to CITE my statements. Give me a break. I couldn't nake this stuff up and blogging to you is not the same as wrighting a research paper. The scientific evidence I have given is true. I know it because I have studied it, and written reearch papers on it.

    My Professor is a leading researcher in the field. BUT alas it IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to educate yourself. Until then you don't even have enough of an idea of how the global climate functions to form a scientifically based opinion. Your statements reflect that youve heard a few things, that, sound to me like their right out of sean hannity's or rush limbaughs platbook. They are certainly not grounded in science!

    But anyway I could drop sources all day and it won't change your opinion. You will continue to claim that its all one big elaborate hoax, or that you know more than the vast majority of scientists from around the world.

    But here is a source for the volcano information I promised:
    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72

    Objection: One decent-sized volcanic eruption puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than a decade of human emissions. It's ridiculous to think reducing human CO2 emissions will have any effect.

    Answer: Not only is this false, it couldn't possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2 records would be full of spikes -- one for each eruption. Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.

    I suppose next week you'll be defending holocaust denial. (Maybe not, but its just as rediculous)
    ReplyDelete
  36. This comment has been removed by the author.
    ReplyDelete
  37. One more thing. You are sidestepping the issue. Are you trying to say that we don't have oil dependence on the middle east? Then explain why oil is over $100.00 per barrel!

    FURTHERMORE, oil dependence is oil dependence even when we get it from Canada.
    The question was HOW DOES FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE HELP OUR ECONOMY?

    FYI: Barack Obama pointed out this morning that raising gas milage requirements on new cars to 40mpg would save the same amount of oil that we import from the Persian Gulf in one year! What's so Horrible about that keith?
    ReplyDelete
  38. One more thing. You are sidestepping the issue. Are you trying to say that we don't have oil dependence on the middle east? Then explain why oil is over $100.00 per barrel!

    FURTHERMORE, oil dependence is oil dependence even when we get it from Canada.
    The question was HOW DOES FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE HELP OUR ECONOMY?

    FYI: Barack Obama pointed out this morning that raising gas milage requirements on new cars to 40mpg would save the same amount of oil that we import from the Persian Gulf in one year! What's so Horrible about that keith?
    ReplyDelete
  39. Nice trick, jonny. I bash you over the head with proof that you're ignorant and you quickly change the subject to a strawman. As I clearly proved with the Department of Energy's report on how much oil we import from the Middle East as opposed to other places, we are NOT dependent on Middle East oil. Because you are clearly too blind to glean facts from a source, I'll throw a couple numbers at you. In December 2007, we imported 7.083 million barrels of oil per day from places other than the Middle East. In the same time period, we imported 2.211 million barrels of oil per day from the Middle East. This means in December 2007, we got 23.79% of our oil imports from the Middle East and 76.21% from other places (among the 15 largest sources, by the way; this number goes down if you count every single place oil is imported from). We're dependent on a place that supplies less than a quarter of our oil imports? This is why I don't regard you as worthy of my time and attention... not only do you throw "Holocaust denier" at me, you are clearly ignorant of information I can acquire with Google in less than a minute. That speaks very ill of you, jonny.
    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by the author.
    ReplyDelete
  41. Keith, I would have viewed your link but its a dead link.

    You are right I didn't check to see which foreign country imports the most to the United States. Why? Because it doesn't matter in regard to the question I asked you. The one you refuse to answer. But to make you happy I found some recent stats. Tell me if they are not similar to the ones you found. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/oiltrade.html

    1. Canada - 19.3%
    2. Saudi Arabia - 14%
    3. Mexico - 13.5%
    4. Venezuela - 12.5%
    5. Nigeria - 12.1%
    6. Iraq - 5%

    Hmmmm... What can we garner from this? First of all these figures purport that the U.S. imports %76 of our oil. A clear majority.

    Next it gets real interesting. While the U.S. Imports 19% of our oil from Canada, from the Middle East the U.S. inports what??? 19%!!!
    Or to be incredibly precise Canada imports 0.3% (less than half of one percent) more oil than the Middle East.

    But you have gone to great pains to disregard the question.

    Lets review the facts:
    1. The United states is dependent on foreign oil.

    2. The United States Imports Oil from Canada.

    3.The United Sates imports oil fom the Middle East.

    4. The United Sates is dependent on oil from the Canada.

    The United States is dependent on oil from the Middle east.

    5. The United States has a tenuous relationship with Arab Nations.


    So I will ask you once again to clarify your position. Exactly how does the United States dependence on foreign oil help our economy?

    How about national security?
    ReplyDelete
  42. If you recall, I already explained that I'm not going to give you the time of day until you retract the comparison of me to a Holocaust denier because I don't feel like accepting your claims without citation. Incidentally, the link in question isn't dead. But anyhow, since you keep changing your argument, I'm also planning to wait until you find one that you're willing to stick with.
    ReplyDelete
  43. So I read your final comment on "the final fool" blog.

    I'll respond here: This isn't quantum physics! Everything I have said on the blog is basic information. Your asking me to source things like the explanation of the greenhouse effect! This is most all stuff even "your" scientists agree with. I don't think even they take the volcano theory seriously. I really do think Sean Hannity came up with that one. I'm not kidding. You might consider a better argument.

    As science goes, its the equivalent of asking me to source where I ever heard Abraham Lincoln was the 5th president! ( Oh you sayy he was a republican, but can you prove it..) (see I did not say holocaust this time, -happier I hope)
    I mean one quick web search on global warming, Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, and the greenhouse effect and you will find everything I have told you. Periodically I will source something if I have to go back and look for an answer I don't already know, but thats it. Its a fucking blog.

    If you want to refute it, you should be able to do so on your own merit because you know what your talking about.

    So I am still waiting for your answer to the questions you've been avoiding.

    So then, If you want prove your point, then answer the question.
    ReplyDelete
  44. I'm asking you to source things like the claim about CO2 causing a mean increase in global temperature. I'm asking you to source things like the volcano thing (pointing to a blog where something is mentioned and letting someone wander around until they find the scientific source 2 websites away doesn't count as "sourcing"). I'm asking you to source things like your claim that anthropogenic causes only started forcing temperature increases in the 20th century. These aren't "commonly accepted" assertions nor are they true just because you declare it to be so. Yes, you proved the volcano thing but only because I decided to click on links until I found your proof; you didn't provide it yourself.

    You're missing the point, jonny. It's not my job to wander around the web until I prove your claims. I have no need to refute something that you feel no need to prove is something more than a rumor you found somewhere and believe just because you generally believe in anthropogenic global warming. I'm still waiting for you to prove that you have a scientific leg to stand on before I bother to pull out my sources to refute you; until you have that scientific leg, there's nothing to refute. I'm also still waiting for the retraction of the Holocaust denier comparison.
    ReplyDelete
  45. I'm still waiting for your answer?

    Whats wrong? Stumped aren'tcha.
    ReplyDelete
  46. You have my conditions for an answer, stated at least 3-4 times, jonny. When those conditions are met, you get your answer. Until then, however, I'm not going to use up part of my alotted 24 hours of the day meticulously citing sources for someone who refuses to do the same.
    ReplyDelete
  47. I will go ahead and source them:

    CO2 causing a mean increase in global temperature:
    A New perspective on Recent Global Warming. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society p.1019

    http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/74/6/pdf/i1520-0477-74-6-1007.pdf

    Dr. Vic Camp. Geological Sciences
    San Diego State University.
    Geological Sciences
    San Diego State University
    email: vcamp@geology.sdsu.edu
    phone: 619-594-7170
    "THE INFLUENCE OF VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS ON
    THE OZONE, GREENHOUSE, AND HAZE EFFECTS"
    http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

    and...
    Science 13 April 2001:
    Vol. 292. no. 5515, pp. 267 - 270
    DOI: 10.1126/science.1058154
    Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System

    A quote: "The estimated increase of observed global ocean heat content (over the depth range from 0 to 3000 meters) between the 1950s and 1990s is at least one order of magnitude larger than the increase in heat content of any other component. Simulation results using an atmosphere-ocean general circulation model that includes estimates of the radiative effects of observed temporal variations in greenhouse gases, sulfate aerosols, solar irradiance, and volcanic aerosols over the past century agree with our observation-based estimate of the increase in ocean heat content. The results we present suggest that the observed increase in ocean heat content may largely be due to the increase of anthropogenic gases in Earth's atmosphere." http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;292/5515/267



    Anthropogenic climate forcing as a response to elevated CO2:

    NASA; Goddard Institute for Space studies. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

    and

    US Climate Change Science Program / US Global Change Research Program, Suite 250, 1717 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20006. Tel: +1 202 223 6262. Fax: +1 202 223 3065. Email: information@usgcrp.gov. Web: www.usgcrp.gov. Webmaster: WebMaster@usgcrp.gov
    http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/991118FO.html

    a quote from that one:
    "Global climate of the 20th century has warmed by 0.7-0.8�C.
    Natural (unforced) climate variability cannot explain the magnitude of the observed warming over the 20th century.
    Solar irradiance variations are large enough to shape, but not dominate, the observed warming.
    The extended warming period between 1910-1940 can be explained by natural variability plus added greenhouse gases. It can also be explained by added greenhouse gases plus increased solar irradiance.
    Added greenhouse gases provide, by far, the most plausible hypothesis for explaining the warming of the 20th century."


    Nature, 392, pp.779-787.Global Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries
    Mann, Michael E., Raymond S. Bradley, and Malcolm K. Hughes. 1998.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann1998/frames.htm



    Isn’t the evidence clear that we are currently experiencing an unprecedented level of temperature increase and that has risen in line with CO2, which is generated by record population levels and demands for energy. Given lack of other evidence that is causing this effect and given common sense, I would presume that it isn’t hard to surmise that if we continue to live as we do and for the world population to continue growing as it is now, we WILL run out of resources, assuming our own wastes don’t kill us first. If we want to avoid doing that, we better address these issues now, or as many of them as we believe we can.
    ReplyDelete
  48. Very good, jonny! After having your arm twisted repeatedly, you're willing to prove that you're not blowing hot air. Would that I didn't have to keep demanding it before you provided it...

    The evidence is clear that anthropogentic CO2 is having some effect on the environment. But as a gent pointed out in the opinion section of today's Oregonian, the two factors of solar radiance and natural CO2 are largely ignored when considering global warming. Said gent also helpfully pointed out that the ice caps of both Mars and Earth are following identical patterns of melting and reforming, hinting at the fact that the icecaps of a planet without humans are acting in the same way as the icecaps of a planet with humans.
    (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html).

    That aside, your assertion about us eventually running out of resources and into trouble is correct but only because it's a statement along the lines of "the mountain will eventually be eroded into sand." A book called "The Population Bomb" was written in the 80's claiming that we were all doomed by 2000; Paul Gerlich's assertions have proved hilariously wrong. Forgive me for skepticism about "we're doomed" rhetoric when it's never panned out no matter how often it's repeated.

    Anyhow, when I have sufficient time to collect my firepower, I'll post it... my sources are hard copy in this instance and I can't rapidly Google and paste them.

    As an aside, I found this site interesting, jonny, and want your analysis of it:
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
    It takes part of its conclusions from here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUM9T/$File/ghg_gwp.pdf ...which includes this quote:
    "Water Vapor (H2O). Overall, the most abundant and dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor. Water vapor is neither long-lived nor well mixed in the atmosphere, varying spatially from 0 to 2 percent (IPCC 1996). In addition, atmospheric water can exist in several physical states including gaseous, liquid, and solid. Human activities are not believed to directly affect the average global concentration of water vapor; however, the radiative forcing produced by the increased concentrations of other greenhouse
    gases may indirectly affect the hydrologic cycle. A warmer atmosphere has an increased water
    holding capacity; yet, increased concentrations of water vapor affects the formation of clouds,
    which can both absorb and reflect solar and terrestrial radiation. Aircraft contrails, which
    consist of water vapor and other aircraft emittants, are similar to clouds in their radiative forcing effects (IPCC 1999)."
    ReplyDelete
  49. Keith, go back and read the links. Even when Solar effects are factored in, It turns out that anthropogenic forcing is causing most of the warming.

    By the way Keith I have been twisting your arms for days to give me an answer.

    The problem for you is that you are stumped. Its called losing the argument, Kieth
    ReplyDelete
  50. STUMPED? By you? Oh, don't make me laugh. If you spend days on end stubbornly refusing to cite any sources for your claims, you've got alot of chutzpuh pretending that the burden of proof was on me all along. Go enjoy your little fantasy world, jonny... if it was an honest debater like iknowhowtospell, it'd be worth the time and effort to assemble all my citations but you can't even be honest about events that have happened within the last couple days. I'm done feeding your inflated sense of your own superiority on this issue; believe what you will.
    ReplyDelete
  51. This comment has been removed by the author.
    ReplyDelete
  52. Are you kidding?

    Nice try getting around it but i've had you all along on this. I ve been waiting and waiting for you to defend your position. And guess what? You haven't done it.

    The only thing you came up with was your volcano theory, which I've already proven wrong (and sourced it from a reliable a source). Then you try to make a weak claim that global warming is caused by solar effects and not anthropogenic carbon releases, which was already addressed and proven wrong in one of the journal articles I sent you.
    Rather than give any evidence to support your claim, your main point all along is that I must be wrong and that I need to prove my sources. And I took the time to look up reliable sources just for you. So if you SAY your not stumped then answer the questions, Keith. Quite frankly your a bit of a pain in the butt. Talking to you is just like talking to Klatu, only with bigger words. You obviously can not justify your position.
    ReplyDelete
  53. Keep believing that, jonny. So does your invisible pink unicorn like Gala or Granny Smith apples? I wouldn't want to offend her delicate tastes.

    Ah, but the difference between me and Klatu is that I recognize when I'm talking to someone who can't be reasoned with and operates from a position of profond intellectual dishonesty; he doesn't even know what those words mean.
    ReplyDelete
  54. The problem with you is you are arrogant. Even when you are presented with the facts, you still grasp on to your baseless point of view. You can't even defend your position, as seen here.

    You just believe your thing because somebody told you it once, and thats what you want to believe. Your a lemming.
    ReplyDelete
  55. jonny, you can't incite me to treat you as an honest debater by making baseless accusations. You still haven't retracted the Holocaust denier comparison.

    And just what is a lemming, jonny? I really want to hear you explain it because I might be able to have a laugh at your expense.
    ReplyDelete
  56. Sorry keith you lost the argument. You haven't given one iota of evidence to support your position.
    And when cornered with facts, as you were with the oil question, you just dodge the question. I'm calling you on it. LEMMING, LOL!!

    Right now I am imagining you blindly jumping off a cliff as you follow your heroes Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly.
    Get a life.
    ReplyDelete
  57. And you had to be arm-twisted to come clean. If you were iknowhowtospell and I regarded you as an honest debater, I'd crank out the sources. But I don't so I won't.

    See, I knew that if I let you keep talking, you'd expose ignorance. The conception that lemmings follow each other off cliffs in a mass suicide is a popular myth. (http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp) Try a more intelligent analogy. Also try finding out who I listen to on the radio because only one of the people you mentioned are ones I listen to. Sorry, thanks for playing.
    ReplyDelete
  59. Hey, don't diss duct tape! You can fix just about everything with it! Even ice shelves... you just need a few hundred miles of it. ;) I'm curious, though... how is what happened to the ice shelf distinct from the shearing that is typical of glaciers?

    By the by, iknowhowtospell... sorry I occassionally use your name as a bludgeon. But who else would I use as a more sober debater from the other side of the spectrum?
    ReplyDelete
  60. You got "Owned", Keith. Better luck next time.
    ReplyDelete
  61. You got "0wned", jonny. Better luck next time. See? I can say it too!
    ReplyDelete
  62. This comment has been removed by the author.
    ReplyDelete
  63. Keith, your embarrasing upirself. The answer is because its an ice shelf about seven times the size of Manhattan and its collapse puts an even greater portion of glacial ice at risk.

    "While icebergs naturally break away from the mainland, collapses like this are unusual but are happening more frequently in recent decades...

    Scientists say it's a sign of worsening global warming. Such occurrences are "more indicative of a tipping point or trigger in the climate system," said Sarah Das, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.

    "These are things that are not re-forming," Das said. "So once they're gone, they're gone."
    ReplyDelete
  64. The debate about weather global warming was occuring ended a long time ago. I'm sorry you weren't on that train but that's your problem.
    Its really not about who speaks last. The content speaks for itself. You can not defend your position. You said you, would come back when you found some "firepower". And I even gave you many chances to do so. Time to accept your defeat keith.
    Or chortle on like an idiot, I don't care.
    ReplyDelete
  65. I hope you realize that you're not "iknowhowtospell", jonny. I'll wait for iknowhowtospell to answer since you seemed unable to.

    When I'm defeated, I'll accept it. But someone declaring that I'm defeated because, in their opinion, they've won doesn't constitute defeat.
    ReplyDelete
  66. Actually the answer was in the article, itself. If you would have even bothered to read it.

    To help your disposition, I thought I'd leave you with some reading material.
    .................................................................
    Acceleration of global warming
    due to carbon-cycle feedbacks
    in a coupled climatemodel
    Peter M. Cox*, Richard A. Betts*, Chris D. Jones*, Steven A. Spall*
    & Ian J. Totterdell²
    * Hadley Centre, The Met Of®ce, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 2SY, UK
    ² Southampton Oceanography Centre, European Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH,
    UK
    ...................................
    The continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of
    carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic emissions is predicted to
    lead to signifcant changes in climate1. About half of the current
    emissions are being absorbed by the ocean and by land
    ecosystems2, but this absorption is sensitive to climate3,4 as well
    as to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations5, creating a
    feedback loop. General circulation models have generally
    excluded the feedback between climate and the biosphere, using
    static vegetation distributions and CO2 concentrations from
    simple carbon-cycle models that do not include climate change6.
    Here we present results from a fully coupled, three-dimensional
    carbon±climate model, indicating that carbon-cycle feedbacks
    could signi®cantly accelerate climate change over the twenty-®rst
    century. We ®nd that under a `business as usual' scenario, the
    terrestrial biosphere acts as an overall carbon sink until about
    2050, but turns into a source thereafter. By 2100, the ocean uptake
    rate of 5Gt Cyr-1 is balanced by the terrestrial carbon source, and
    atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 250 p.p.m.v. higher in our
    fully coupled simulation than in uncoupled carbon models2,
    resulting in a global-mean warming of 5.5 K, as compared to 4K
    without the carbon-cycle feedback.
    The general circulation model (GCM) that we used is based on
    the third Hadley Centre coupled ocean±atmosphere model,
    HadCM37, which we have coupled to an ocean carbon-cycle
    model (HadOCC) and a dynamic global vegetation model (TRIFFID).
    The atmospheric physics and dynamics of our GCM are
    identical to those used in HadCM3, but the additional computational
    expense of including an interactive carbon cycle made it
    necessary to reduce the ocean resolution to 2.58 ´ 3.758, necessitating
    the use of ¯ux adjustments in the ocean component to counteract
    climate drift. HadOCC accounts for the atmosphere±ocean
    exchange of CO2, and the transfer of CO2 to depth through both the
    solubility pump and the biological pump8. TRIFFID models the
    state of the biosphere in terms of the soil carbon, and the structure
    and coverage of ®ve functional types of plant within each model
    gridbox (broadleaf tree, needleleaf tree, C3 grass, C4 grass and
    shrub). Further details on HadOCC and TRIFFID are given in
    Methods.
    The coupled climate/carbon-cycle model was brought to equilibrium
    with a `pre-industrial' atmospheric CO2 concentration of
    290 p.p.m.v., starting from an observed landcover data set9. The
    resulting state was stable, with negligible net land±atmosphere and ocean±atmosphere carbon ¯uxes in the long-term mean, and no
    discernible drift in atmospheric CO2 concentration. This simulation
    produces the locations of the main land biomes, and estimates of
    ocean carbon (38,100 Gt C), vegetation carbon (493 Gt C), soil
    carbon (1,180 Gt C) and terrestrial net primary productivity
    (60 Gt Cyr-1) that are within the range of other estimates2,10±12.
    Ocean primary productivity is also compatible with results derived
    from remote sensing13,14, producing a global-mean total of
    53 Gt Cyr-1, and realistic seasonal and latitudinal variations15.
    The simulated carbon cycle displays signi®cant interannual
    variability, which is driven by the model-generated El NinÄo/Southern
    Oscillation (ENSO). A realistic response to internal climate
    variability is an important prerequisite for any carbon-cycle model
    to be used in climate change predictions. Fluctuations in annualmean
    atmospheric CO2 are correlated with the phase of ENSO, as
    indicated by the Nino3 index (Fig. 1). During El NinÄo conditions
    (positive Nino3), the model simulates an increase in atmospheric
    CO2; this increase results from the terrestrial biosphere acting as a
    large source (especially in Amazonia16), which is only partially offset
    by a reduced outgassing from the tropical Paci®c Ocean. The
    opposite is true during the La NinÄa phase. The overall sensitivity
    of the modelled carbon cycle to ENSO variability is consistent with
    the observational record17, demonstrating that the coupled system
    responds realistically to climate anomalies.
    Transient simulations were carried out for 1860±2100, using CO2
    emissions as given by the IS92a scenario18. Other greenhouse gases
    were also prescribed from IS92a, but the radiative effects of sulphate
    aerosols were omitted. Three separate runs were completed to
    isolate the effect of climate/carbon-cycle feedbacks; an experiment
    with prescribed IS92a CO2 and ®xed vegetation (that is, a `standard'
    GCM climate change simulation), an experiment with interactive
    CO2 and dynamic vegetation but no direct effects of CO2 on climate
    (akin to `of¯ine' carbon-cycle projections that neglect climate
    change6), and a fully coupled climate/carbon-cycle simulation.
    Figure 2 shows results from the fully coupled run. From 1860 to
    2000, the simulated stores of carbon in the ocean and on land
    increase by about 100 Gt C and 75 Gt C, respectively. However, the
    atmospheric CO2 is 15±20 p.p.m.v. too high by the present day
    (corresponding to a timing error of about 10 years). Possible reasons
    for this include an overestimate of the prescribed net land-use
    emissions and the absence of other important climate forcing
    factors. The modelled global mean temperature increase from
    1860 to 2000 is about 1.4 K (Fig. 3b), which is higher than
    observed19, probably due to the absence of cooling from anthropogenic
    aerosols20. Of¯ine tests suggest that such a relative warming
    can suppress the terrestrial carbon sink by enhancing soil and plant
    respiration11. Nevertheless, the rate of increase of CO2 from 1950 to
    2000 closely follows the recent observational record, which implies
    that the airborne fraction is being well simulated over this period.
    For the 20 years centred on 1985, the mean land and ocean uptake of
    carbon are 1.5 and 1.6 Gt yr-1, respectively (compare best estimates
    for the 1980s of 1.8 6 1.8 and 2.0 6 0.8 Gt yr-1)2. The model
    therefore captures the most important characteristics of the present-
    day carbon cycle.
    The simulated atmospheric CO2 diverges much more rapidly
    from the standard IS92a concentration scenario in the future. First,
    vegetation carbon in South America begins to decline, as a drying
    and warming of Amazonia initiates loss of forest (Fig. 4a). This is
    driven purely by climate change, as can be seen by comparing the
    fully coupled run (red lines) to the run without global warming
    (blue lines). The effects of anthropogenic deforestation on landcover
    are neglected in both cases. A second critical point is reached
    at about 2050, when the land biosphere as a whole switches from
    being a weak sink for CO2 to being a strong source (Fig. 2). The
    reduction in terrestrial carbon from around 2050 onward is associated
    with awidespread climate-driven loss of soil carbon (Fig. 4b).
    An increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 alone tends to
    increase the rate of photosynthesis and thus terrestrial carbon
    storage, provided that other resources are not limiting4. However,
    plant maintenance and soil respiration rates both increase with
    temperature. As a consequence, climate warming (the indirect effect
    of a CO2 increase) tends to reduce terrestrial carbon storage11,
    especially in the warmer regions where an increase in temperature is
    not bene®cial for photosynthesis. At low CO2 concentrations the
    direct effect of CO2 dominates, and both vegetation and soil carbon
    increase with atmospheric CO2. But as CO2 increases further,
    terrestrial carbon begins to decrease, because the direct effect of
    CO2 on photosynthesis saturates but the speci®c soil respiration rate
    continues to increase with temperature. The transition between
    these two regimes occurs abruptly at around 2050 in this experiment
    (Fig. 4b). The carbon stored on land decreases by about 170 Gt C
    from 2000 to 2100, accelerating the rate of atmospheric CO2
    increase over this period.
    The ocean takes up about 400 Gt C over the same period, but at a
    rate which is asymptotically approaching 5Gt Cyr-1 by 2100. This
    reduced ef®ciency of oceanic uptake is partly a consequence of the
    nonlinear dependence of the partial pressure of dissolved CO2 on
    the total ocean carbon concentration, but may also have contributions
    from climate change3. Although the thermohaline circulation
    of the ocean weakens21 by about 25% from 2000 to 2100, this is
    much less of a reduction than seen in some previous simulations22,
    and the corresponding effect on ocean carbon uptake is less
    signi®cant. In our experiment, increased thermal strati®cation
    due to warming of the sea surface suppresses upwelling, which
    reduces nutrient availability and lowers primary production by
    about 5%. However, ocean-only tests suggest a small effect of
    climate change on oceanic carbon uptake, as this reduction in the
    biological pump is compensated by reduced upwelling of deep
    waters which have high concentrations of total carbon.
    By 2100 the modelled CO2 concentration is about 980 p.p.m.v. in
    the coupled experiment, which is more than 250 p.p.m.v. higher
    than the standard IS92a scenario or that simulated in the `of¯ine'
    experiment (Fig. 3a). As a result, the global-mean land temperatures
    increase from 1860 to 2100 by about 8K, rather than the 5.5 Kof the
    standard scenario (Fig. 3b).
    These numerical experiments demonstrate the potential importance
    of climate/carbon-cycle feedbacks, but the magnitude of these
    in the real Earth system is still highly uncertain. Terrestrial carbon
    models differ in their responses to climate change11,12, owing to gaps
    in basic understanding of processes. For example, the potential
    conversion of the global terrestrial carbon sink to a source is
    critically dependent upon the long-term sensitivity of soil respiration
    to global warming, which is still a subject of debate23. The
    experiments presented here exclude the potentially large direct
    human in¯uences on terrestrial carbon uptake through changes in
    landcover and land management. Local effects, such as the possible
    climate-driven loss of the Amazon rainforest, rest upon uncertain
    aspects of regional climate change, and may be `short-circuited' by
    direct human deforestation. A full assessment of the uncertainties
    must await further coupled experiments utilizing alternative representations
    of processes and including a more complete set of naturaland anthropogenic forcing factors (for example, land-use change,
    forest ®res, sulphate aerosol concentrations and nitrogen deposition).
    However, our results indicate that it will be essential to
    accurately represent previously neglected carbon-cycle feedbacks
    if we are to successfully predict climate change over the next 100
    years. M
    Methods
    Ocean carbon-cycle model
    The inorganic component of HadOCC has been extensively tested as part of the Ocean
    Carbon Cycle Intercomparison Project; it was found to reproduce tracer distributions to
    an accuracy consistent with other ocean GCMs24. The biological component treats four
    additional ocean fields: nutrient, phytoplankton, zooplankton and detritus8. The phytoplankton
    population changes as a result of the balance between growth, which is
    controlled by light level and the local concentration of nutrient, and mortality, which is
    mostly as a result of grazing by zooplankton. Detritus, which is formed by zooplankton
    excretion and by phyto- and zooplankton mortality, sinks at a ®xed rate and slowly
    remineralizes to reform nutrient and dissolved inorganic carbon. Thus both nutrient and
    carbon are absorbed by phytoplankton near the ocean surface, pass up the food chain to
    zooplankton, and are eventually remineralized from detritus in the deeper ocean. The
    model also includes the formation of calcium carbonate and its dissolution at depth
    (below the lysocline).
    Terrestrial carbon-cycle model
    TRIFFID (top-down representation of interactive foliage and ¯ora including dynamics)
    has been used of¯ine in a comparison of dynamic global vegetation models11. Carbon
    ¯uxes for each vegetation type are calculated every 30 minutes as a function of climate and
    atmospheric CO2 concentration, from a coupled photosynthesis/stomatal-conductance
    scheme25,26, which utilizes existing models of leaf-level photosynthesis in C3 and C4
    plants27,28. The accumulated ¯uxes are used to update the vegetation and soil carbon every
    10 days. The natural landcover evolves dynamically based on competition between the
    vegetation types, which is modelled using a Lotka±Volterra approach and a tree±shrub±
    grass dominance hierarchy. We also prescribe some agricultural regions, in which grasslands
    are assumed to be dominant. Carbon lost from the vegetation as a result of local
    litterfall or large-scale disturbance is transferred into a soil carbon pool, where it is broken
    down by microorganisms that return CO2 to the atmosphere. The soil respiration rate is
    assumed to double for every 10 Kof warming29, and is also dependent on the soil moisture
    content30. Changes in the biophysical properties of the land surface5, as well as changes in
    terrestrial carbon, feed back onto the atmosphere.
    Received 6 January; accepted 26 September 2000.
    1. Houghton, J. T. et al. (eds) Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge Univ.
    Press, Cambridge, 1996).
    2. Schimel, D. et al. in Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change Ch. 2 (eds Houghton, J. T. et
    al.) 65±131 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1995).
    3. Sarmiento, J., Hughes, T., Stouffer, R. & Manabe, S. Simulated response of the ocean carbon cycle to
    anthropogenic climate warming. Nature 393, 245±249 (1998).
    4. Cao, M. & Woodward, F. I. Dynamic responses of terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycling to global
    climate change. Nature 393, 249±252 (1998).
    5. Betts, R. A., Cox, P. M., Lee, S. E. & Woodward, F. I. Contrasting physiological and structural
    vegetation feedbacks in climate change simulations. Nature 387, 796±799 (1997).
    6. Enting, I., Wigley, T. & Heimann, M. Future Emissions and Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide; Key
    Ocean/Atmosphere/Land Analyses (Technical Paper 31, Division of Atmospheric Research, CSIRO,
    Melbourne, 1994).
    7. Gordon, C. et al. The simulation of SST, sea ice extents and ocean heat transports in a version of the
    Hadley Centre coupled model without ¯ux adjustments. Clim. Dyn. 16, 147±168 (2000).
    8. Palmer, J. R.& Totterdell, I. J. Production and export in a global ocean ecosystem model. Deep-Sea Res.
    (in the press).
    9. Wilson, M. F. & Henderson-Sellers, A. A global archive of land cover and soils data for use in general
    circulation climate models. J. Clim. 5, 119±143 (1985).
    10. Zinke, P. J., Stangenberger, A. G., Post, W. M., Emanuel, W. R. & Olson, J. S. Worldwide Organic Soil
    Carbon and Nitrogen Data (NDP-018, Carbon Dioxide Information Center, Oak Ridge National
    Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1986).
    11. Cramer, W. et al. Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and function to CO2 and climate
    change: results from six dynamic global vegetation models. Glob. Change Biol. (in the press).
    12. VEMAP Members. Vegetation/ecosystem modelling and analysis project: comparing biogeography
    and biogeochemistry models in a continental-scale study of terrestrial responses to climate change
    and CO2 doubling. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 9, 407±437 (1995).
    13. Longhurst, A., Sathyendranath, S., Platt, T. & Caverhill, C. An estimate of global primary production
    in the ocean from satellite radiometer data. J. Plank. Res. 17, 1245±1271 (1995).
    14. Field, C., Behrenfeld, M., Randerson, J. & Falkowski, P. Primary production of the biosphere:
    integrating terrestrial and oceanic components. Science 281, 237±240 (1998).
    15. Antoine, D., Andre, J.-M. &Morel, A. Oceanic primary production 2. Estimation at global scale from
    satellite (Coastal Zone Color Scanner) chlorophyll. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 10, 57±69 (1996).
    16. Tian, H. et al. Effects of interannual climate variability on carbon storage in Amazonian ecosystems.
    Nature 396, 664±667 (1998).
    17. Keeling, C. D., Whorf, T., Whalen, M. & der Plicht, J. V. Interannual extremes in the rate of rise of
    atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1980. Nature 375, 666±670 (1995).
    18. Houghton, J. T., Callander, B. A. & Varney, S. K. (eds) Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report
    to the IPCC Scienti®c Assessment (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1992).19. Nicholls, N. et al. in Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change Ch. 3 (eds Houghton, J. T. et
    al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1996).
    20. Mitchell, J. F. B., Johns, T. C., Gregory, J. M. & Tett, S. F. B. Climate response to increasing levels of
    greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. Nature 376, 501±504 (1995).
    21. Wood, R. A., Keen, A. B., Mitchell, J. F. B. & Gregory, J. M. Changing spatial structure of the
    thermohaline circulation in response to atmospheric CO2 forcing in a climate model. Nature 399,
    572±575 (1999).
    22. Sarmiento, J. & Quere, C. L. Oceanic carbon dioxide uptake in a model of century-scale global
    warming. Nature 274, 1346±1350 (1996).
    23. Giardina, C. & Ryan, M. Evidence that decomposition rates of organic carbon in mineral soil do not
    vary with temperature. Nature 404, 858±861 (2000).
    24. Orr, J. C. in Ocean Storage of Carbon Dioxide, Workshop 3: International Links and Concerns (ed.
    Ormerod, W.) 33±52 (IEA R&D Programme, CRE Group Ltd, Cheltenham, UK, 1996).
    25. Cox, P. M.,Huntingford, C. & Harding, R. J. A canopy conductance and photosynthesis model for use
    in a GCM land surface scheme. J. Hydrol. 212±213, 79±94 (1998).
    26. Cox, P. M. et al. The impact of new land surface physics on theGCMsimulation of climate and climate
    sensitivity. Clim. Dyn. 15, 183±203 (1999).
    27. Collatz, G. J., Ball, J. T., Grivet, C. & Berry, J. A. Physiological and environmental regulation of
    stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration: a model that includes a laminar boundary
    layer. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 54, 107±136 (1991).
    28. Collatz, G. J., Ribas-Carbo, M. & Berry, J. A. A coupled photosynthesis-stomatal conductance model
    for leaves of C4 plants. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 19, 519±538 (1992).
    29. Raich, J. & Schlesinger, W. The global carbon dioxide ¯ux in soil respiration and its relationship to
    vegetation and climate. Tellus B 44, 81±99 (1992).
    30. McGuire, A. et al. Interactions between carbon and nitrogen dynamics in estimating net primary
    productivity for potential vegetation in North America. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 6, 101±124 (1992).
    Acknowledgements
    We thank J. Mitchell and G. Jenkins for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.
    This work was supported by the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the
    Regions.
    Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to P.M.C.
    (e-mail: pmcox@meto.gov.uk).
    .................................................................
    Offset of the potential carbon sink
    from boreal forestation by
    decreases in surface albedo
    Richard A. Betts
    Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, The Met Of®ce, Bracknell,
    Berkshire RG12 2SY, UK
    .............................................................................................................................................
    Carbon uptake by forestation is one method proposed1 to reduce
    net carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and so limit the
    radiative forcing of climate change2. But the overall impact of
    forestation on climate will also depend on other effects associated
    with the creation of new forests. In particular, the albedo of a
    forested landscape is generally lower than that of cultivated land,
    especially when snow is lying3±9, and decreasing albedo exerts a
    positive radiative forcing on climate. Here I simulate the radiative
    forcings associated with changes in surface albedo as a result of
    forestation in temperate and boreal forest areas, and translate
    these forcings into equivalent changes in local carbon stock for
    comparison with estimated carbon sequestration potentials10±12. I
    suggest that in many boreal forest areas, the positive forcing
    induced by decreases in albedo can offset the negative forcing that
    is expected from carbon sequestration. Some high-latitude forestation
    activities may therefore increase climate change, rather
    than mitigating it as intended.
    Perturbations to the balance between radiation absorbed and
    emitted by the Earth (`radiative forcing') can result from changes in
    atmospheric chemistry and planetary albedo. A positive `greenhouse'
    forcing results from increased atmospheric CO2 absorbing
    and re-emitting more of the infrared radiation emitted by the
    surface13; forestation may help to mitigate this by slowing the rise...
    Title: THIS IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. By: Johnston, Donald J., Canadian Business, 00083100, 3/17/2008, Vol. 81, Issue 4
    Database: Academic Search PremierTHIS IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY
    CAN THE WORLD TACKLE GLOBAL WARMING WITHOUT CRIPPLING GROWTH? YES, AND CANADA CAN LEAD THE WAY

    John Maynard Keynes advised us to "study the present in light of the past for the purposes of the future." During my time at the OECD, I frequently invoked that wisdom and encouraged others to do the same. The result? By and large, looking at various economies and challenges across the globe, the future looked optimistic. There was one notable exception: global warming, along with its partner, climate change.

    The recent UN conference in Bali has not changed that dismal outlook for the future of the planet. Political leaders have agreed to open negotiations with a view to establishing deep cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases, in particular CO,. There are no targets, but does it matter? Even if there were, they would not be achieved by declarations of intent. And it is discouraging--indeed, unacceptable--that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is unlikely to be part of the followup to the Kyoto Protocol, according to UN officials.

    As I write this commentary, the Canada-Alberta Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage has just released its long-awaited report, entitled Canada's Fossil Energy Future. In it, the joint federal-provincial panel recommended a public investment of $2 billion to move the concept of CCS forward in concrete ways. I am heartened by this recommendation--because carbon capture and sequestration is essential if we are going to slow down global warming and avoid the catastrophic consequences predicted by much of the world's scientific community.

    Is it not time to follow Keynes's advice so as not to be lulled into a false sense of security about the future, as the world was immediately post-Kyoto 10 years ago? What lessons have we learned from the Kyoto experience?

    Look at the record, the past. We are now 15 years beyond the 1992 UN Rio Earth Summit, which told the world that GHG emissions were a serious challenge for the sustainable development of planet earth. Then we moved through difficult negotiations to the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which required developed countries to reduce GHG emissions below levels specified for each of them--approximately 5% below 1990 levels for developed economies by 2012.

    Now look at Canada. According to UN statistics, in 2005 Canada's CO2 emissions had increased by 54.2% above 1990 levels as against the target of a 5% reduction. (This represents a combination of emissions and deforestation.) So much for targets and commitments.

    What does this tell us? Are we doomed to failure in the future as we have been in the past? Targets are of little importance if our leaders happily sign on to them just to be seen as politically correct, knowing they will not be achieved.

    The Canadian government has set an ambitious target of reducing 2006 emissions levels by 60%, with a 2050 timetable. Recognizing that emissions are probably increasing substantially each year and have yet to peak, this target will demand herculean efforts and still not bring us to the levels the scientific consensus recommends--namely, a 50% to 80% reduction below 1990.

    During a discussion on the environment in the early 1980s, when I was a cabinet minister, Pierre Trudeau asked: "Does the future have a constituency?" I replied that I hoped so, but I have since become reconciled to the reality that it does not when faced with other political imperatives--namely economic growth and job creation. Few well-intentioned non-governmental organizations that promote environmental protection concern themselves with the social and economic trade-offs politicians must deal with. I have sympathy for the challenge the government faces. But there is a way forward.

    These objectives need not be in conflict. They should be aligned to illustrate how a reduction in CO2 emissions, through CCS or other technologies, can in fact contribute to growth and job creation.

    We were not successful in eliminating the apparent conflict post-Kyoto. Could it be different post-Bali? I believe so, but first the public in all countries must recognize there is no magic bullet in renewable energies, conservation and efficiency, or, in the near term, even nuclear. They each have their place, but the "inconvenient truth" is that the global electrical base load looking out to about 2050 will be met primarily by burning fossil fuels--natural gas, oil and coal, which generate massive amounts of CO2 emissions.

    Because CO2, unlike other GHGs, remains in the atmosphere for up to 100 years, simply stabilizing emissions does not solve the problem. (GHGs like CO2 have short atmospheric lifespans.) To explain the dilemma with which we are faced, some scientists use the analogy of a bathtub with a very large faucet and a much smaller drain. In short, the faucet inflow has to be adjusted to the drainage outflow. That is why Bali called for deep reductions in CO2 emissions--and that means by at least 50% below 1990 levels by 2050. Some scientists believe the reductions must be as much as 80%.

    This is a staggering challenge if CO2 in the atmosphere is not to exceed 450 parts per million. A large body of scientific expertise argues CO2 concentrations above that could see a rise in global temperature beyond 2°C. Above that threshold, the argument goes, we would witness dramatic, irreversible effects on the biosphere.

    While there is a consensus in the scientific community supporting these views and the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there are dissenters, such as Bjørn Lomborg, the Danish author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. He is not alone. But whether Lomborg and those who support him are right or wrong, the broad-based scientific view of climatologists that we are on the fast track to catastrophe surely necessitates applying the "precautionary principle." That means we must take the measures recommended to slow down global warming and climate change.

    Given policy failures to date, global warming and climate change are probably inevitable.

    I am not suggesting that we should not try to maximize emission reductions, but post-Bali negotiations over the next two years must set realistic objectives for developed and developing countries. We must at minimum seek to move climate change from the fast track it is on to a much slower one, in order to permit the world to adapt.

    If we are to break the cycle of failures following Kyoto, global political leaders need a new script that breaks with the vapid declarations of intention to "tackle the challenge." They need a script backed by action. There must be concrete solutions aligning political imperatives such as growth and jobs with environmental protection. This is not new territory. For years at the OECD and elsewhere, economists wrote of "decoupling" economic growth from environmental degradation. In other words, environmental health and economic growth were not only compatible, but more growth and jobs could flow from the right set of policies to protect and enhance the environment.

    Moving from the theoretical to practical design and implementation of such policies is what must now happen. We need bold new approaches recognizing that fossil fuels will remain the dominant energy source for as long as 50 years. What should they be? There must be a combination of actions to control GHG emissions achieved primarily through carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), reforestation, energy conservation and efficiency, a focus on renewable energy, especially solar, plus a huge investment in nuclear fission technology and new plants with ultimately (perhaps) fusion in our future.

    The recent report of the National Round table on the Environment and the Economy suggests that a carbon tax is the way to go. The government at this point has rejected that approach. But the real issue is, what combination of "sticks and carrots" will introduce CCS in a significant way?

    I am uncertain of the effect of carbon taxes, because they will be weighed against the cost of introducing CCS. If the latter is calculated to be higher for a particular industry, then the tax will be paid, pushing the increased costs onto consumers. International competition then comes into play, as do exchange rates, which might in some countries keep domestic producers competitive despite a carbon tax not imposed on the competition in other countries.

    My political nose tells me that carrots represent the preferred route to the introduction of CCS. Accelerated depreciation and other tax measures might do the trick. They would be nondiscriminatory, available to all industries whether or not foreign-controlled. The Alberta-Canada task forces recommendation, that federal and provincial governments invest $2 billion over the next seven years in CCS projects, is a step in the right direction.

    In any case, how to get Canadian GHG emissions reduced as suggested is a tall order and each approach will be contested by numerous groups of NGOs and individuals. I learned from my experience at the OECD that there are devoted advocates of many different forms of renewable energy who would like to stop the burning of fossil fuels, eliminate nuclear and replace our energy needs with wind, solar photovoltaics, geothermal, conservation and perhaps other sources of renewable energy. But these laudable objectives are not realistic alternatives to meet the near- or even medium-term energy needs of our civilization.

    In the long term, it may well be that renewable energy will play a dominant role. In particular, we are already beginning to see the emergence of technologies able to capture higher and higher percentages of solar energy. It could become competitive with conventional sources of electrical energy, but it will take much time and investment. There are many advocates for wind power--but again, think of its limitations (apart from the fact that the wind does not always blow). A Canadian study on wind energy in the early 2000s concluded that powering the City of Toronto would take about 40,000 one-megawatt wind generators--enough to cover an area three times the size of Prince Edward Island. In brief, there are no credible numbers suggesting renewable energy sources could meet the global base load demand out to 2050. That base load today is approximately 18,197 terawatt-hours, and will likely double by 2030.

    Perhaps, prompted by creative communication strategies and strong international alliances, a majority of citizens will support realistic alternatives--namely, a combination of energy sources but, above all, measures to shut down CO2 emissions from the use of fossil fuels without unduly curbing their use. The latter is simply not an option for most countries.

    Think of that challenge in terms of today's world, where fossil fuels--principally coal, which is abundant in the fastest-growing regions (namely China and India)-- generate about two-thirds of global electricity.

    So when we speak of developing low-carbon economies in the near and medium term, it is futile to think there will be a meaningful reduction in the use of fossil fuels. We must focus on preventing emissions of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. This is possible through the widespread commercial deployment of CCS.

    (Since transportation is a large source of CO2 emissions, a logical step would be to put all rail and road transport on electricity, with road transport batteries charged from stationary fossil-fuel-fired generating stations equipped with CCS capacity. Rail is easily accommodated, as France has proven for many years with the best high-speed train system in the world. In the United States, electricity generation accounts for 38% of CO2 emissions, but transportation contributes 32%.)

    Had much of the world not abandoned nuclear energy for at least a generation, we might have broken fossil fuel dependency, as trance has done. Hopefully, nuclear fission (perhaps fusion) or another non-carbon-emitting technology will provide the energy needs of the world later in this century. But it will be too late to stabilize CO, concentrations at or below the 450 ppm level. Only carbon capture and sequestration can do that.

    Do we have the time and resources to bring CCS to the forefront? To retrofit stationary sources of CO2 emissions with CCS technology? To ensure new plants emitting CO2 are so equipped? To establish regulatory standards for the application of the technology? To ensure public opinion is well informed of the importance of CCS and its beneficial impact?

    Edward Rubin of Carnegie Mellon, an expert on CCS and a lead writer on the subject in the latest special report of the IPCC, advises that there are examples where "integration of CO2 capture, transport and geological sequestration has been demonstrated in several industrial applications, but not yet at an electric power plant." In fact, EnCana is using the technology in a limited way in Weyburn, Sask., where CO2 is injected to enable secondary oil recovery. And injection technology is used in the United States, where enormous amounts of fluids of different kinds--municipal wastewater in Florida, for instance--are disposed of through subterranean injection.

    While that is good news concerning the state of the technology, it will not be easily implemented. In a recent presentation at an International Risk Governance Council/Swiss Re conference on CCS, Rubin outlined a series of barriers to the deployment of CCS technology, including high costs, the absence of any large-scale coal-based power plants to demonstrate the technology, and the lack of any rigorous assessment of regional storage capacity in the U.S. What are the appropriate geological formations and where are they? Will there be the same debate as on the deposit of nuclear waste?

    Apart from these technical, economic and environmental issues, Rubin cited institutional barriers: no current requirement in the U.S. or Canada for large CO2 reductions; no regulatory framework for large-scale sequestration; no adequate GHG accounting and inventory procedures; a host of legal issues, including liability and property rights. Finally, as in the case of nuclear, there must be widespread public acceptance.

    In September 2007, a workshop in Banff dealt precisely with this issue. The conclusions were not heartening. There is a low level of public perception, and not necessarily any connection in the minds of many between CCS and climate change. Also, the public wants to know about the comparative costs between CCS and other carbon-reducing technologies. In late 2006, a European survey suggested that CCS was not considered necessary by the public in France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

    WHAT CONCLUSIONS are to be drawn from the welter of conflicting views and speculation, some scientific, some not, with which we are beset?

    First, despite some dissenting views, there is overwhelming support behind the IPCC findings that human activity is largely responsible for global warming because of increasing GHG emissions, notably CO2 from fossil fuels.

    Second, fossil fuels will remain the major source of electrical generation around the globe for many years.

    Third, while we cannot substantially reduce the use of fossil fuels, we can develop and deploy CCS technology, which will very substantially reduce the emission of GHG and hopefully stabilize atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at a level that will mitigate rapid temperature increases.

    Fourth, doing so will be very costly and will require the resolution of many technical, economic, environmental and legal issues, as well as significant international co-operation and public/private partnerships. If widely deployed, however, CCS could provide breathing room while other non-CO2-emitting sources of energy are developed. The Canada-Alberta report is a significant first step in addressing these issues, especially since the U.S. Department of Energy's CCS project, FutureGen, has been put on hold.

    Fifth, renewable energy (especially solar), conservation and efficiency should be developed as broadly and as quickly as possible, supported by much public and private R&D, while recognizing that within the 2050 time frame they will not supply the base load energy needs of the planet.

    Sixth, there must be a major investment in nuclear energy, especially in the new IV generation reactors whose safety features should reduce public opposition to the technology. France has proven that nuclear can meet base load energy needs without GHG emissions.

    Seventh, adaptation policies to accommodate evident consequences of rising global temperatures and climate change should be on the agenda of all countries, especially those vulnerable to rising sea levels.

    Eighth, strong messages from our political leadership of the importance of acting urgently to implement CCS supported by credible cost-benefit analysis of the kind presented by Nicholas Stern in his report to the U.K. government. We must illustrate the incredible economic, ecological and social costs of inaction as Stern did.

    Ninth, we must carefully assess the impact of some approaches that, while well intentioned, run into the "law of unintended consequences." For example, a recent report in New Scientist magazine detailed the incredible volumes of CO2 released by draining peat bogs in Sumatra. Ironically, locals are draining the bogs to plant acacia for paper and palm oil trees to make biofuels to help reduce Europe's CO2 emissions. "The fact that European countries can meet their Kyoto protocol obligations by sponsoring activities that have helped turn Indonesia, of which the giant island Sumatra is a part, into the world's third largest emitter of greenhouse gases," wrote author Fred Pearce, "is a savage indictment of the perverse incentives created by the protocol."

    WHAT ROLE for Canada?

    As one of the biggest offenders in CO2 per capita emissions and a country rich in science and engineering expertise of. the kind required, I see an important opportunity for Canada to tackle these issues on a urgent basis. Apart from the global economic opportunities for industry, Canada could regain any international credibility it might have lost due to its sub-optimal performance since Kyoto and its negative image at Bali.

    Given the global imperative of meeting this challenge, Canada should take the lead in putting together an international public-private consortium, with contributions from many governments. Canada is well positioned to lead the world in scaling up CCS technology. All the challenges raised by Rubin--technical, environmental, financial and regulatory--should be taken on by Canadians with strong co-operation among levels of government and industry. The results would be made available to the world.

    If not Canada, who?

    When we hear the rumblings of a distant, approaching thunderstorm, we know to take cover. That option is not available with climate change. We are all exposed. We have known this now for many years, and we have failed to act. Putting our heads in the sand and ignoring the signs of an impending global disaster is unconscionable. Our children, grandchildren and future generations deserve better.

    I wish I could have replied to Pierre Trudeau that, yes, on the health of the environment, the future does have a constituency. To our current political leadership, I say, let us prove that it does.


    • For more on how carbon capture works, see www.canadianbusiness.com/carbon

    PHOTO (COLOR)

    PHOTO (COLOR)

    ~~~~~~~~

    By Donald J. Johnston


    Johnston is former secretary general of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; counsel, Heenan Blaikie; chairman, the International Risk Governance Council, Geneva.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)