As Aaron Wildavsky, professor of political science at Berkeley, has quipped, "global warming'' is the mother of all environmental scares. Wildavsky's view is worth quoting. "Warming (and warming alone), through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the environmentalist's dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population's eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally.'' In many ways Wildavsky's observation does not go far enough. The point is that carbon dioxide is vitally central to industry, transportation, modern life, and life in general. It has been joked that carbon dioxide controls would permit us to inhale as much as we wish; only exhaling would be controlled. The remarkable centrality of carbon dioxide means that dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas--some legitimate, some less so: energy efficiency, reduced dependence on Middle Eastern oil, dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), international competition, governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power.
India and the Global Warming Debate
Guys keep repeating same thing..........flowers in Dec, melting glaciers and storms. Yes it is warm. But question is "Is it man-made" Read Gerard please.
Shyamd..........whatever rsingh writes (always) there is proof behind it. Read more about CO2 and we will talk. Plants fix more C in C-rich atmosphere. It has been proved. And please no more quoting of BBC.
Shyamd..........whatever rsingh writes (always) there is proof behind it. Read more about CO2 and we will talk. Plants fix more C in C-rich atmosphere. It has been proved. And please no more quoting of BBC.
For those who didn't please have a look at the second graph in the second article - it is illuminating.
The unfortunate aspect if the global warming tamasha is that attention gets diverted from real issues like unbreathable air in urban areas, pollution of water resources due to industrial activity, poisoning of food chain by pesticides etc. All these are very local context specific issues which can be solved by local initiative. But we know the type of people who love to f*rt on global forums.
Shyamd - a request - I think this thread should be renamed "Specific Environmental Issues in India" and bandwidth not be wasted on the global red herring.
Global Warming is not a red-herring. The reality is that global temperatures have risen, and have risen at a faster rate in the last 10 years than in probably 50,000 years. The consensus of global scientists is that 90-99% of this increase is attributable to increases in CO2, CH4 and other GHG. It is understood that solar phenomena have an impact, but the degree of this impact is estimated to be minimal in the context of GHG. However, solar phenomena are not be underestimated, as our understanding is somehwat limited of the 11-year sunspot cycle, ~100 year Gleissberg Cycle, the ~500 year Suess Cycle, and the ~1000 year Bond Cycle
The question, really, is whether or to what extent GHG (a) cause Global Warming and (b) are anthropogenic in origin.
Unfortunately, the kinetic aspects of global warming (rate of change) in an exponentially changing system, in the context of thermodynamic equilibrium, are fed by a positive feedback loop. The analogy of a positive feedback is to pregnancy - the contractions are going to get worse, before they get better (i.e., after the baby is born).
Warming melts glaciers and ice, this increases water in the oceans. Ocean water warms, the warming water expands due to the lowering of density,and simultaneously, the warmer water holds less CO2. This increases CO2 and H2O in teh atmosphere, which further increases warming, which will melt more water and increase the temperature of the oceans.
There is no doubt that there is a correlation between GHG and anthropogenic activity. The question is whether there is a causation, and to what degree between this increase in GHG and global temperatures. We know that there were fears of "global cooling" in the 1960s and early 1970s. We know that the Pinatubo eruption caused "cooling" for another 3 years due to the particulate matter emitted. We also know that sulfate aerosols that are anthropogenic in nature can cause cooling - so perhaps we fight CO2 with SO4. Also, as can be seen from the commentary on melting glaciers, factors that cause warming can trigger CO2 levels to rise, and unless we have a high degree of accuracy in measurement, we will mistake the direction of the causation arrow.
Finally, please do not be taken in by the "water vapor" as the largest GHG canard. Water Vapor is a GHG and is the largest constitutent GHG in the atmosphere, however, WV does not force global warming as much as it trails it. The "half life" of WV is measured in days, compared to decades for CO2, and years for CH4.
The question, really, is whether or to what extent GHG (a) cause Global Warming and (b) are anthropogenic in origin.
Unfortunately, the kinetic aspects of global warming (rate of change) in an exponentially changing system, in the context of thermodynamic equilibrium, are fed by a positive feedback loop. The analogy of a positive feedback is to pregnancy - the contractions are going to get worse, before they get better (i.e., after the baby is born).
Warming melts glaciers and ice, this increases water in the oceans. Ocean water warms, the warming water expands due to the lowering of density,and simultaneously, the warmer water holds less CO2. This increases CO2 and H2O in teh atmosphere, which further increases warming, which will melt more water and increase the temperature of the oceans.
There is no doubt that there is a correlation between GHG and anthropogenic activity. The question is whether there is a causation, and to what degree between this increase in GHG and global temperatures. We know that there were fears of "global cooling" in the 1960s and early 1970s. We know that the Pinatubo eruption caused "cooling" for another 3 years due to the particulate matter emitted. We also know that sulfate aerosols that are anthropogenic in nature can cause cooling - so perhaps we fight CO2 with SO4. Also, as can be seen from the commentary on melting glaciers, factors that cause warming can trigger CO2 levels to rise, and unless we have a high degree of accuracy in measurement, we will mistake the direction of the causation arrow.
Finally, please do not be taken in by the "water vapor" as the largest GHG canard. Water Vapor is a GHG and is the largest constitutent GHG in the atmosphere, however, WV does not force global warming as much as it trails it. The "half life" of WV is measured in days, compared to decades for CO2, and years for CH4.
Perhaps I could have phrased my point better. Global warming may be a reality but we are far from determining whether it is man-made. There appears to be no definitive evidence that it is. So while the scientists can be left in peace to study the problem policymakers should not base their decisions on unproven claims. Far better to concentrate on issues that cause real inconvenience - such as urban particle pollution for which the solutions are known and only require some political will.
Added later: On the other if we are discussing global warming as a tool for psy-ops then this thread should go into the strategic issues section.
Added later: On the other if we are discussing global warming as a tool for psy-ops then this thread should go into the strategic issues section.
SKM: It is merely the broad consensus of scientists that elevate hypothesis to theory. There will never be complete consensus.
The reality with regard to Global Warming is that there is a broad consensus that (a) Global Warming Exists; (b) that Global Warming is *caused* by GHG; and (c) these GHG are anthropogenic in nature. This is what the AR4 details.
Nevertheless, science allows sceptics and scepticism, as long as they hang their hats on data. Since the first report in 1991, the research data has provided more ammunition to (a), (b) and (c) than to cosmic rays or any of the other hypothesis being floated by others.
The real question is whether the free market can respond fast enough in the face of a positive feed back loop, and if it can't whether governments need to get involved.
The reality with regard to Global Warming is that there is a broad consensus that (a) Global Warming Exists; (b) that Global Warming is *caused* by GHG; and (c) these GHG are anthropogenic in nature. This is what the AR4 details.
Nevertheless, science allows sceptics and scepticism, as long as they hang their hats on data. Since the first report in 1991, the research data has provided more ammunition to (a), (b) and (c) than to cosmic rays or any of the other hypothesis being floated by others.
The real question is whether the free market can respond fast enough in the face of a positive feed back loop, and if it can't whether governments need to get involved.
Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.
Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.
I'm sorry but in your very first post you already presupposed that global warming is the result of human actions. You say here you are not scaremongering and that the reasons for global warming are subject to debate but then you proceed to make all sorts of suggestions as to what others have said can be done about it. You cant look for solutions without first knowing the reasons. The whole thing seems to be a way for environmentalists (and perhaps people with other agenda as well) to get any and all of their agenda accepted under the pretext of Global warming.shyamd wrote:I think the reasons of why global warming is occuring will always be subject to debate, so the best thing to do as Bade said, is to focus on what India should do, and how india is going to react to Global warming, which is occuring.
As I said earlier this is not to say that there are genuine environmental issues. But they are all context specific. Global Warming is the first step towards an overarching philosophy of fear that effectively translates "HUMANS: Be afraid, be very, very afraid , for all that you do on this planet affects the "fragile ecosystem". One slight misstep and you could all kill yourselves."
If we don't understand it then the only justification to take positive action is prejudice and predetermined agenda.
NWDA wants Rs 241 cr for 11th Five Year Plan
India working out moves to address climate changeTIMES NEWS NETWORK[ FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 09, 2007 03:00:24 PM]
NEW DELHI: National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has requested an outlay of Rs 241 crore for 11th Five Year Plan. NWDA is set up under the Ministry of Water Resources in 1982 for carrying out various technical studies to establish the feasibility of the proposals of NPP and to give concrete shape to it.
Based on various studies conducted, NWDA has identified 30 links (16 under Peninsular Component and 14 under Himalayan Component) for preparation of Feasibility Report (FRs). Out of these, FRs of 14 links under Peninsular Component and 2 links (Indian Portion) under Himalayan Component has already been completed.
A Memorandum of Understanding for preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR) of one of the link in Peninsular Component namely Ken-Betwa link was signed among the Central Government and State Governments of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh on 25th August, 2005.
Subsequently, the Central Government entrusted the preparation of the DPR of the aforesaid link to NWDA, which is planned to be completed by June, 2008. The States of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh have also agreed in principle for taking up DPR of Parbati-Kalisindh-Chambal link though a formal MoU is yet to be signed in this regard by the States. The implementation of NPP proposals are dependent on the cooperation and consensus among the concerned States.
The Ministry of Water Resources (erstwhile Ministry of Irrigation) and Central Water Commission formulated a National Perspective Plan (NPP) for Water Resources Development in 1980 envisaging inter-basin transfer of water from surplus basins to deficit basins/areas which comprises of two components, namely, Himayalan River Development Component and Peninsular Rivers Development Component.
NEHA KOHLI
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 09, 2007 02:58:02 AM]
NEW DELHI: At a time when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is about to complete synthesis report on climate change worldwide, India seems to be working out ways to assess pitfalls of the phenomenon.
The ministry of earth sciences is formulating a plan to involve scientists from all over India in a concerted effort to address the issue. Taking cue from the IPCC, Teri has already tied up with the British government for downscaling results on the economic and environmental impacts of climate change in India.
And there are grim experiences elsewhere. According to the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), Kenya’s gross domestic product fell by 16% in just three years due to excessive drought, while Mozambique’s GDP declined 23% due to floods.
IPCC warned that global warming would impact India in many ways because of its long coastline and low latitudes. Drought, low precipitation, high temperatures and melting of glaciers are expected to be rampant. WMO has also said that Himalayan glaciers are among those already severely impacted by warming.
Agriculture would be the most vulnerable to climate change, said IPCC chairman RK Pachauri, adding that more research is required. IPCC cautioned last Friday that 11 of the last 12 years rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature.
The country’s R&D programmes may also see some focus on climate change studies. This was conveyed by T Ramasami, secretary, department of science and technology. He said that the ministry has sought a five-times increase for funding R&D in the 11th five-year plan. The ministry is working on a proposal to set up an institute of environmental technologies.
Such an institute could come up with techniques to mitigate adverse climate changes. IPCC has hinted at cheaper methods to mitigate such climate changes, details of which could be released by the third working group in November. The ministry also proposes to work with the seven-year research and development framework programme of the British government that would include work on climate change-related research.
this is a timely forum - my deep respects to those who started this and those who contribute to this
GHE is not a tamasha and if sea levels rise mumbai will get flooded big time and its not a laughing matter
who caused it and why is not the issue, it is happening and we should take it seriously (if not for us then for our children's future)
this issue is directly related to indian economy and defense and i am glad indians are raising the issue here (even though some want to dismiss it, their contributions are welcome)
GHE and pollution provide positive feedback to each other (each contributing to the rise of the other)
one main cause of pollution in indian cities is the three-wheeler rickshaw
- the air cooled engine spews smoke
- the rickshaw adds to traffick chaos and delays thus adding to pollution caused by heavy vehicles
- indian roads need major overhaul to reduce traffic chaos and indian rickshaws need to be either LNG or electric powered
another major factor is aviation the high altitude emmissions of planes are somehow more directly related to the effects of pollution and this is when indian and chinese aviation market is growing ever more rapidly
it would be prudent for indian airline companies to plan for it and demand more greener engines and sub systems
GHE is not a tamasha and if sea levels rise mumbai will get flooded big time and its not a laughing matter
who caused it and why is not the issue, it is happening and we should take it seriously (if not for us then for our children's future)
this issue is directly related to indian economy and defense and i am glad indians are raising the issue here (even though some want to dismiss it, their contributions are welcome)
GHE and pollution provide positive feedback to each other (each contributing to the rise of the other)
one main cause of pollution in indian cities is the three-wheeler rickshaw
- the air cooled engine spews smoke
- the rickshaw adds to traffick chaos and delays thus adding to pollution caused by heavy vehicles
- indian roads need major overhaul to reduce traffic chaos and indian rickshaws need to be either LNG or electric powered
another major factor is aviation the high altitude emmissions of planes are somehow more directly related to the effects of pollution and this is when indian and chinese aviation market is growing ever more rapidly
it would be prudent for indian airline companies to plan for it and demand more greener engines and sub systems
-
Bade
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 7212
- Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
- Location: badenberg in US administered part of America
Cloud chambers have been known to exist for more than 50 yrs, so what is the guy claiming in the second link that Gerard posted that he discovered something new. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamberAfter long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.
In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.
http://drudgereport.com/flash.htm
posted in full because link is temporary
President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity
Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.
In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:
Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•
A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•
Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•
A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.
• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•
A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•
Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•
A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•
Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•
A: ...I am right...•
Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•
A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•
Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•
A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.
posted in full because link is temporary
President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity
Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.
In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:
Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•
A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•
Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•
A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.
• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•
A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•
Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•
A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•
Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•
A: ...I am right...•
Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•
A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•
Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•
A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.
Experts question theory on global warming
Believe it or not. There are only about a dozen scientists working on 9,575 glaciers in India under the aegis of the Geological Society of India. Is the available data enough to believe that the glaciers are retreating due to global warming?
Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.
He feels that the research on Indian glaciers is negligible. Nothing but the remote sensing data forms the basis of these alarmists observations and not on the spot research.
Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.
It is simple. The issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalised by a few individuals, the septuagenarian Raina claimed. Throwing a gauntlet to the alarmist, he said the issue should be debated threadbare before drawing a conclusion.
However, Dr RK Pachouri, Chairman, Inter-Governmental Panel of Climatic Change said it’s recently released fourth assessment report has recorded increased glacier retreat since the 1980s.
This he said was due to the fact that the carbon dioxide radioactive forcing has increased by 20 per cent particularly after 1995. And also that 11 of the last 12 years were among the warmest 12 years recorded so far.
Surprisingly, Raina, who has been associated with the research and data collection in over 25 glaciers in India and abroad, debunked the theory that Gangotri glacier is retreating alarmingly.
Maintaining that the glaciers are undergoing natural changes, witnessed periodically, he said recent studies in the Gangotri and Zanskar areas (Drung- Drung, Kagriz glaciers) have not shown any evidence of major retreat.
"Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions," Raina, a trained mountaineer and skiing expert said. He rued that not much is being done by the Government to create a bank of trained geologists for an in-depth study of glaciers.
-
Bade
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 7212
- Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
- Location: badenberg in US administered part of America
Ocean 'dead zones' spell disaster as wind patterns change
As scientists reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco Friday, unprecedented changes to ocean currents are having a devastating effect on finely balanced marine ecosystems all over the globe. Similar upheavals have been recorded in other parts of the world, particularly off South America and Africa.
'Wild fluctuations in the intensity of ocean upwellings are wreaking havoc with ecosystems,' added Lubchenco. 'We're seeing extreme distortions on both sides of the norm. This is a system that is out of kilter. It's fluctuating rapidly.'
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/internati ... 5000c.html
I think the debate about whether global warming is taking place and whether it is anthropogenic is reaching a concesus in the scientific community. Obviously there are other stakeholders including the oil-lords of E-M who have vested interests in refuting global warming, and who are trying no stone unturned in making the picture murky. It only ups the ante for the scientific community to collect more evidence and keep proving their case.The world's leading climate scientists, in their most powerful language ever used on the issue, said global warming has started and is "very likely" manmade, in a new report obtained Friday by The Associated Press.
The report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- a group of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments -- said global warming will continue for hundreds of years, no matter how much humans control their pollution.
Human-caused warming and sea-level rise "would continue for centuries" because the process has already started, "even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized," said the 20-page report.
The report represents the most authoritative science on the issue.
-
joshvajohn
- BRFite
- Posts: 1516
- Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27
Policy for Disaster Information Management...
I am sorry if I deviate little bit from the main point of Global warming! There is need for Disaster information management in place in addition to disaster management agencies. Information before, during and after disaster has to be shared in time and networked. Unfortunately it is not therein place. We have free tvs and radios but the people in seashore need simple information that there is going to be a problem. My suggestion is to network those loud speakers in the temples, mosques and churches into a prewarning and postinformative system that would enable people to receive warnings. This is one example of how to use local community communication network to provide information about disaster, rescue and mitigation in time. I think the government is interested mainly in setting up Early Warning System but how to take this message to the people is not yet concept wise and practically developed. With the help of Swaminathan's project or with the help of UNESCO's communication project such a disaster information management programme can be developed.
Josh, i agree one hundred percent. There is an urgent need for public communication system in disaster prone areas, something common people who do not have access to TVs and radio can use. Using non-governmental sources such as loud speakers in temples, mosques etc. is a good idea, but is likely to pose maintenance and enforcement related issues. Government can set up its own communication system that can be tested on a periodic basis. In fact, if I remember correctly Bombay Municial Commission used to maintain such system for Mumbai and its suburbs. I do not know if it is still functional, and if such system exists in the disaster prone areas. Such system can then be connected to a Tsunami early-warning system or an extreme weather forewarning system. I won't be surprised if such plans are already in place or afoot.
mangroves to the rescue.. all coastlines should be kept free of civilization (except for fun and entertainment), .. one of swaminathan's recepie.
afforestation helps tropical countries better than cold regions. hence, we have to double up on that effort.** (this is proven by recent studies.. perhaps ask for unkil's donation or its public money for this, since it is going to benefit them indirectly).
Indian two and three wheelers should come under similar stricter emission standards as for the 4 wheelers.
coal burning companies should be given free technology for containing the carbons frozen under deep seas. this technology is the best way to freeze carbon beneath sea.. helps us use coal~.. but, it may also add up to future, problems if the tech does not sound sound.
more nuclear, wind and solar power~ and make one of it (by choice) mandatory for all homes. provide cheaper solutions.
only future inventions can save global warming from increasing automobile industry that is seeking gas. encourage battery driven and hybrid technologies flourish.
afforestation helps tropical countries better than cold regions. hence, we have to double up on that effort.** (this is proven by recent studies.. perhaps ask for unkil's donation or its public money for this, since it is going to benefit them indirectly).
Indian two and three wheelers should come under similar stricter emission standards as for the 4 wheelers.
coal burning companies should be given free technology for containing the carbons frozen under deep seas. this technology is the best way to freeze carbon beneath sea.. helps us use coal~.. but, it may also add up to future, problems if the tech does not sound sound.
more nuclear, wind and solar power~ and make one of it (by choice) mandatory for all homes. provide cheaper solutions.
only future inventions can save global warming from increasing automobile industry that is seeking gas. encourage battery driven and hybrid technologies flourish.
This is about CFC's and the hole in the ozone layer, which is sort of related to Global Warming:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/22/ ... s/cool.php
India and China are fast becoming the biggest offenders.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/22/ ... s/cool.php
India and China are fast becoming the biggest offenders.
The developed world wants to load us with the responsibility for clean up, or rope us in to exert "moral pressure" on the biggest culprit the US. David Miliband UK Enviornment Secretary has the best solution. Check his article in news week out:
Kyoto Can Be Made to Work 'Leapfrog' economies can bypass traditional industrialization. India, for ex ample, leads the developing world in low-carbon wind power. By David Miliband Newsweek International
Feb. 12, 2007 issue - Climate
Feb. 12, 2007 issue - The European Commission proposes unilateral cuts of 20 percent in European emissions from 1990 levels. The U.S. Senate is considering four similar bills. The British government will soon present a landmark Climate Change Bill mandating CO2 emission reductions of 60 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. All this is welcome. But the biggest issue has yet to be confronted: how to forge an equitable global compact that sustains the development aspirations of poorer countries and contributes to the battle against climate change.
...But by 2020, total emissions from developing countries, led by India and China, will be greater than emissions from the industrialized world. ...developing countries will suffer the most from climate chamnge. They therefore have a strong incentive to seek development that protects the natural environment. I call this "leapfrog economics."
For the poorer countries in the world, development is, rightly, nonnegotiable. But there's a critical choice. Will that development be high-carbon or low-carbon? A leapfrog economy will embrace the latter without passing through decades of traditional, high-carbon industrialization.
Today we have a great new advantage in promoting such green technologies. That's because, when it comes to the trade-off between environment and development, finance may not be the problem it traditionally has been. Here is why.
When developed countries take on emissions-reduction commitments, they can either reduce their own emissions, or pay for low-carbon energy investments in the developing world. Under the Kyoto Protocol, for instance, the European Emissions Trading Scheme allocates emissions allowances to companies operating in the EU. They are allowed to trade those allowances and, subject to an overall limit, purchase credits from emission- reduction projects around the world.
This has created a lively international market in carbon finance. Already there are some $3 billion in established global carbon-trading funds. By the end of the decade this market is projected to be $40 billion annually. Obviously, the larger the carbon-reduction commitments that industrial nations take on, the greater this figure will be. If all industrialized countries took on emissions-reduction commitments of 60 to 80 percent, according to the U.N., and if they purchased half of their reductions in the developing world, and if the carbon price were at least $10 per ton, then the global financial flows would be of the order of $100 billion per year.
This sort of money could help bridge the gap between high- and low-carbon development. It could help fund the extra cost from carbon capture and storage technology that reduce emissions from coal-fired power stations by 85 percent. It could make the difference for governments choosing between "cheaper" fossil-fuel power plants and more expensive hydroelectric projects. It could help make solar power a reality.
Miliband is a British Labour Party M.P. and secretary of State for Environment.
© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.
Kyoto Can Be Made to Work 'Leapfrog' economies can bypass traditional industrialization. India, for ex ample, leads the developing world in low-carbon wind power. By David Miliband Newsweek International
Feb. 12, 2007 issue - Climate
Feb. 12, 2007 issue - The European Commission proposes unilateral cuts of 20 percent in European emissions from 1990 levels. The U.S. Senate is considering four similar bills. The British government will soon present a landmark Climate Change Bill mandating CO2 emission reductions of 60 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. All this is welcome. But the biggest issue has yet to be confronted: how to forge an equitable global compact that sustains the development aspirations of poorer countries and contributes to the battle against climate change.
...But by 2020, total emissions from developing countries, led by India and China, will be greater than emissions from the industrialized world. ...developing countries will suffer the most from climate chamnge. They therefore have a strong incentive to seek development that protects the natural environment. I call this "leapfrog economics."
For the poorer countries in the world, development is, rightly, nonnegotiable. But there's a critical choice. Will that development be high-carbon or low-carbon? A leapfrog economy will embrace the latter without passing through decades of traditional, high-carbon industrialization.
Today we have a great new advantage in promoting such green technologies. That's because, when it comes to the trade-off between environment and development, finance may not be the problem it traditionally has been. Here is why.
When developed countries take on emissions-reduction commitments, they can either reduce their own emissions, or pay for low-carbon energy investments in the developing world. Under the Kyoto Protocol, for instance, the European Emissions Trading Scheme allocates emissions allowances to companies operating in the EU. They are allowed to trade those allowances and, subject to an overall limit, purchase credits from emission- reduction projects around the world.
This has created a lively international market in carbon finance. Already there are some $3 billion in established global carbon-trading funds. By the end of the decade this market is projected to be $40 billion annually. Obviously, the larger the carbon-reduction commitments that industrial nations take on, the greater this figure will be. If all industrialized countries took on emissions-reduction commitments of 60 to 80 percent, according to the U.N., and if they purchased half of their reductions in the developing world, and if the carbon price were at least $10 per ton, then the global financial flows would be of the order of $100 billion per year.
This sort of money could help bridge the gap between high- and low-carbon development. It could help fund the extra cost from carbon capture and storage technology that reduce emissions from coal-fired power stations by 85 percent. It could make the difference for governments choosing between "cheaper" fossil-fuel power plants and more expensive hydroelectric projects. It could help make solar power a reality.
Miliband is a British Labour Party M.P. and secretary of State for Environment.
© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.
The developed world wants to load us with the responsibility for clean up, or rope us in to exert "moral pressure" on the biggest culprit the US. David Miliband UK Enviornment Secretary has the best solution. Check his article in news week out:
Kyoto Can Be Made to Work 'Leapfrog' economies can bypass traditional industrialization. India, for ex ample, leads the developing world in low-carbon wind power. By David Miliband Newsweek International
Feb. 12, 2007 issue - Climate
Feb. 12, 2007 issue - The European Commission proposes unilateral cuts of 20 percent in European emissions from 1990 levels. The U.S. Senate is considering four similar bills. The British government will soon present a landmark Climate Change Bill mandating CO2 emission reductions of 60 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. All this is welcome. But the biggest issue has yet to be confronted: how to forge an equitable global compact that sustains the development aspirations of poorer countries and contributes to the battle against climate change.
...But by 2020, total emissions from developing countries, led by India and China, will be greater than emissions from the industrialized world. ...developing countries will suffer the most from climate chamnge. They therefore have a strong incentive to seek development that protects the natural environment. I call this "leapfrog economics."
For the poorer countries in the world, development is, rightly, nonnegotiable. But there's a critical choice. Will that development be high-carbon or low-carbon? A leapfrog economy will embrace the latter without passing through decades of traditional, high-carbon industrialization.
Today we have a great new advantage in promoting such green technologies. That's because, when it comes to the trade-off between environment and development, finance may not be the problem it traditionally has been. Here is why.
When developed countries take on emissions-reduction commitments, they can either reduce their own emissions, or pay for low-carbon energy investments in the developing world. Under the Kyoto Protocol, for instance, the European Emissions Trading Scheme allocates emissions allowances to companies operating in the EU. They are allowed to trade those allowances and, subject to an overall limit, purchase credits from emission- reduction projects around the world.
This has created a lively international market in carbon finance. Already there are some $3 billion in established global carbon-trading funds. By the end of the decade this market is projected to be $40 billion annually. Obviously, the larger the carbon-reduction commitments that industrial nations take on, the greater this figure will be. If all industrialized countries took on emissions-reduction commitments of 60 to 80 percent, according to the U.N., and if they purchased half of their reductions in the developing world, and if the carbon price were at least $10 per ton, then the global financial flows would be of the order of $100 billion per year.
This sort of money could help bridge the gap between high- and low-carbon development. It could help fund the extra cost from carbon capture and storage technology that reduce emissions from coal-fired power stations by 85 percent. It could make the difference for governments choosing between "cheaper" fossil-fuel power plants and more expensive hydroelectric projects. It could help make solar power a reality.
Miliband is a British Labour Party M.P. and secretary of State for Environment.
© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.
Kyoto Can Be Made to Work 'Leapfrog' economies can bypass traditional industrialization. India, for ex ample, leads the developing world in low-carbon wind power. By David Miliband Newsweek International
Feb. 12, 2007 issue - Climate
Feb. 12, 2007 issue - The European Commission proposes unilateral cuts of 20 percent in European emissions from 1990 levels. The U.S. Senate is considering four similar bills. The British government will soon present a landmark Climate Change Bill mandating CO2 emission reductions of 60 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. All this is welcome. But the biggest issue has yet to be confronted: how to forge an equitable global compact that sustains the development aspirations of poorer countries and contributes to the battle against climate change.
...But by 2020, total emissions from developing countries, led by India and China, will be greater than emissions from the industrialized world. ...developing countries will suffer the most from climate chamnge. They therefore have a strong incentive to seek development that protects the natural environment. I call this "leapfrog economics."
For the poorer countries in the world, development is, rightly, nonnegotiable. But there's a critical choice. Will that development be high-carbon or low-carbon? A leapfrog economy will embrace the latter without passing through decades of traditional, high-carbon industrialization.
Today we have a great new advantage in promoting such green technologies. That's because, when it comes to the trade-off between environment and development, finance may not be the problem it traditionally has been. Here is why.
When developed countries take on emissions-reduction commitments, they can either reduce their own emissions, or pay for low-carbon energy investments in the developing world. Under the Kyoto Protocol, for instance, the European Emissions Trading Scheme allocates emissions allowances to companies operating in the EU. They are allowed to trade those allowances and, subject to an overall limit, purchase credits from emission- reduction projects around the world.
This has created a lively international market in carbon finance. Already there are some $3 billion in established global carbon-trading funds. By the end of the decade this market is projected to be $40 billion annually. Obviously, the larger the carbon-reduction commitments that industrial nations take on, the greater this figure will be. If all industrialized countries took on emissions-reduction commitments of 60 to 80 percent, according to the U.N., and if they purchased half of their reductions in the developing world, and if the carbon price were at least $10 per ton, then the global financial flows would be of the order of $100 billion per year.
This sort of money could help bridge the gap between high- and low-carbon development. It could help fund the extra cost from carbon capture and storage technology that reduce emissions from coal-fired power stations by 85 percent. It could make the difference for governments choosing between "cheaper" fossil-fuel power plants and more expensive hydroelectric projects. It could help make solar power a reality.
Miliband is a British Labour Party M.P. and secretary of State for Environment.
© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.
Harvesting the Low Carbon Cornucopia: How the Eurpoean Union Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS) is Spurring Innovation and Scoring Results
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/doc ... ucopia.pdf
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/doc ... ucopia.pdf
IPCC REPORT ON SHORTAGE OF WATER IN INDIA
[quote] 15:59 IST
The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Metrological Organisation (WMO) has released only one part of the report i.e. that of the Working Group I of the IPCC titled “Climate Change 2007- The Physical Science Basisâ€
[quote] 15:59 IST
The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Metrological Organisation (WMO) has released only one part of the report i.e. that of the Working Group I of the IPCC titled “Climate Change 2007- The Physical Science Basisâ€
Scientists investigate impact of climate change on India's monsoon season
Scientists at the University of Liverpool are investigating the anticipated effects of climate change on India's monsoon season and the impact that alterations in India's water cycle will have on the country's people, agriculture and wildlife.
According to a press release by EurekAlert, scientists at the University of Liverpool are investigating the anticipated effects of climate change on India's monsoon season and the impact that alterations in India's water cycle will have on the country's people, agriculture and wildlife.
Changes to India's annual monsoon are expected to result in severe droughts and intense flooding in parts of India. Scientists predict that by the end of the century the country will experience a 3 to 5°C temperature increase and a 20% rise in all summer monsoon rainfall.
As part of the UK-India Education and Research Initiative (UKIERI), Liverpool and Indian scientists have been awarded £150,000 to develop key research methodologies and scientific monitoring procedures in collaboration to investigate how alterations in water resources may affect human health, agriculture, forests and wildlife.
Climate change studies undertaken so far reveal that action is essential in order to prevent long term damage to India's water cycle. The livelihood of a vast population in India depends on agriculture, forestry, wetlands and fisheries and land use in these areas is strongly influenced by water-based ecosystems that depend on monsoon rains.
Changes to the water cycle may also cause an increase in water borne diseases such as cholera and hepatitis, as well as diseases carried by insects such as malaria.
Scientists, based at the University of Liverpool's Institute for Sustainable Water Integrated Management and Ecosystem Research (SWIMMER) and the School of Biological Sciences, are working in one of the largest river basins in India, the Godavari Basin in Andhra Pradesh, which displays a diversity of ecosystems and provides a good water model for other regions of India.
The scientific approaches developed will be used to support local agencies in managing water resources more effectively.
Professor Ed Malby, Director of SWIMMER, said: "To maximise expertise and knowledge in this area it is important that UK and Indian scientists meet and exchange ideas and research.
Throughout this year we are holding workshops in India with the five project partners to showcase work conducted so far and to develop detailed activities to achieve the project's aims. We are also developing Decision Support Frameworks (DSF) – computer based models by which scientists and policy makers can compare different climate change scenarios with alternative water and land management strategies. These frameworks will help Indian authorities with strategic decisions related to water management."
Help wanted
Does anyone know if Indian companies are agressively taking advantage of emisisons trading schemes including availi of funds under it? Where can I find this info? Can someone help?
-
Raju
Govt constitutes a task force on climate change
Chetan Chauhan
New Delhi, March 25, 2007
India’s international commitments on climate change will not see any change even though the government has started the process to recommend domestic policy measures to mitigate global warming impact in the country.
Secretary Environment and Forest Dr Pradipto Ghosh told HT that a national task force has been constituted to recommend domestic policy changes to mitigate the impact of climate change. The task force shows India’s concern to increasing global clamour over fasting heating of the earth leading to massive climate changes all over the world.
Ghosh, however, added that India would not change its stand at the December meeting to discuss future of Kyoto Protocol after 2012 ( what is special about 2012, anyone ?)seeking further reduction of Green House Gases (GHG). Under the protocol, there is no obligation on India to reduce its GHG even though the international environmental groups are advocating GHG reduction targets for India and China after 2012, when the present Kyoto Protocol ends.
At the domestic level, India is gearing to cope with possible impacts of climate change. “The national task force would come up with specific policy recommendations in the area of agriculture, industry and livelihood issues,â€
Chetan Chauhan
New Delhi, March 25, 2007
India’s international commitments on climate change will not see any change even though the government has started the process to recommend domestic policy measures to mitigate global warming impact in the country.
Secretary Environment and Forest Dr Pradipto Ghosh told HT that a national task force has been constituted to recommend domestic policy changes to mitigate the impact of climate change. The task force shows India’s concern to increasing global clamour over fasting heating of the earth leading to massive climate changes all over the world.
Ghosh, however, added that India would not change its stand at the December meeting to discuss future of Kyoto Protocol after 2012 ( what is special about 2012, anyone ?)seeking further reduction of Green House Gases (GHG). Under the protocol, there is no obligation on India to reduce its GHG even though the international environmental groups are advocating GHG reduction targets for India and China after 2012, when the present Kyoto Protocol ends.
At the domestic level, India is gearing to cope with possible impacts of climate change. “The national task force would come up with specific policy recommendations in the area of agriculture, industry and livelihood issues,â€
Raju - 2012 is the end of the first commitment period (2008-2012). By this period developed countries have to cut their GHG emissions by 5% below their 1990 levels.
Potential benefits of global warming
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070324/ap_ ... ic_bonanza
Potential benefits of global warming
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070324/ap_ ... ic_bonanza
IMO It would be interesting to see a detailed cost-benefit analysis on a global scale. There is always talk about costs of global warming due to loss of biodiversity, loss of coastal land and displacement of population, spread of infectious diseases and so on. Some of the benefits are access to hitherto frozen land, lower heating bills in northern US and EU etc. Do the costs outweigh benefits?Barren and uninhabited, Hans Island is very hard to find on a map. Yet these days the Frisbee-shaped rock in the Arctic is much in demand — so much so that Canada and Denmark have both staked their claim to it with flags and warships.
The reason: an international race for oil, fish, diamonds and shipping routes, accelerated by the impact of global warming on Earth's frozen north.
The latest report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the ice cap is warming faster than the rest of the planet and ice is receding, partly due to greenhouse gases. It's a catastrophic scenario for the Arctic ecosystem, for polar bears and other wildlife, and for Inuit populations whose ancient cultures depend on frozen waters.
But some see a lucrative silver lining of riches waiting to be snatched from the deep, and the prospect of timesaving sea lanes that could transform the shipping industry the way the Suez Canal did in the 19th century.
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the Arctic has as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas. Russia reportedly sees the potential of minerals in its slice of the Arctic sector approaching $2 trillion.
All this has pushed governments and businesses into a scramble for sovereignty over these suddenly priceless seas.
Regardless of climate change, oil and gas exploration in the Arctic is moving full speed ahead. State-controlled Norwegian oil company Statoil ASA plans to start tapping gas from its offshore Snoehvit field in December, the first in the Barents Sea. It uses advanced equipment on the ocean floor, remote-controlled from the Norwegian oil boom town of Hammerfest through a 90-mile undersea cable.
Alan Murray, an analyst with the consulting firm Wood Mackenzie, said most petroleum companies are now focusing research and exploration on the far north. Russia is developing the vast Shkotman natural gas field off its Arctic coast, and Norwegians hope their advanced technology will find a place there.
"Oil will bring a big geopolitical focus. It is a driving force in the Arctic," said Arvid Jensen, a consultant in Hammerfest who advises companies that hope to hitch their economic wagons to the northern rush.
It could open the North Pole region to easy navigation for five months a year, according to the latest Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, an intergovernmental group. That could cut sailing time from Germany to Alaska by 60 percent, going through Russia's Arctic instead of the Panama Canal.
Or the Northwest Passage could open through the channels of Canada's Arctic islands and shorten the voyage from Europe to the Far East. And that's where Hans Island, at the entrance to the Northwest Passage, starts to matter.
The half-square-mile rock, just one-seventh the size of New York's Central Park, is wedged between Canada's Ellesmere Island and Danish-ruled Greenland, and for more than 20 years has been a subject of unusually bitter exchanges between the two NATO allies.
In 1984, Denmark's minister for Greenland affairs, Tom Hoeyem, caused a stir when he flew in on a chartered helicopter, raised a Danish flag on the island, buried a bottle of brandy at the base of the flagpole and left a note saying: "Welcome to the Danish island."
The dispute erupted again two years ago when Canadian Defense Minister Bill Graham set foot on the rock while Canadian troops hoisted the Maple Leaf flag.
Denmark sent a letter of protest to Ottawa, while Canadians and Danes took out competing Google ads, each proclaiming sovereignty over the rock 680 miles south of the North Pole.
Some Canadians even called for a boycott of Danish pastries.
Although both countries have repeatedly sent warships to the island to make their presence felt, there's no risk of a shooting war — both sides are resolved to settle the problem peacefully. But the prospect of a warmer planet opening up the icy waters has helped push the issue up the agenda.
"We all realize that because of global warming it will suddenly be an area that will become more accessible," said Peter Taksoe-Jensen, head of the Danish Foreign Ministry's legal department.
Shortcuts through Arctic waters are no longer the stuff of science fiction.
In August 2005, the Akademik Fyodorov of Russia was the first ship to reach the North Pole without icebreaker help. The Norwegian shipyard Aker Yards is building innovative vessels that sail forward in clear waters, and then turn around to plow with their sterns through heavier ice.
Global warming is also bringing an unexpected bonus to American transportation company OmniTrax Inc., which a decade ago bought the small underutilized Northwest Passage port of Churchill, Manitoba, for a token fee of 10 Canadian dollars (about dollars.
The company, which is private, won't say how much money it is making in Churchill, but it was estimated to have moved more than 500,000 tons of grain through the port in 2007.
Managing director Michael Ogborn said climate change was not something the company thought about in 1997.
"But over the last 10 years we saw a lengthening of the season, which appears to be related to global warming," Ogborn said. "We see the trend continuing."
Just a few years ago, reports said it would take 100 years for the ice to melt, but recent studies say it could happen in 10-15 years, and the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark and Norway have been rushing to stake their claims in the Arctic.
Norway and Russia have issues in the Barents Sea; the U.S. and Russia in Beaufort Sea; the U.S. and Canada over rights to the Northwest Passage; and even Alaska and Canada's Yukon province over their offshore boundary.
Canada, Russia and Denmark are seeking to claim waters all the way up to the North Pole, saying the seabed is part of their continental shelf under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Norway wants to extend its claims on the same basis, although not all the way to the pole.
Canada says the Northwest Passage is its territory, a claim the United States hotly disputes, insisting the waters are neutral. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged to put military icebreakers in the frigid waters "to assert our sovereignty and take action to protect our territorial integrity."
Politics aside, there are environmental concerns. Apart from the risk of oil spills, more vessels could carry alien organisms into the Northwest Passage, posing a risk to indigenous life forms.
The Arctic melt has also been intensifying competition over dwindling fishing stocks.
Fish stocks essential to some regions appear to be moving to colder waters, and thus into another country's fishing grounds. Russian and Norwegian fishermen already report catching salmon much farther north than is normal.
"It is potentially very dramatic for fish stocks. They could move toward the North Pole, which would make sovereignty very unclear," said Dag Vongraven, an environmental expert at the Norwegian Polar Institute.
Russia contests Norway's claims to fish-rich waters around the Arctic Svalbard Islands, and has even sent warships there to underscore its discontent with the Norwegian Coast Guard boarding Russian trawlers there.
"Even though they say it is about fish, it is really about oil," said Jensen, the consultant in Hammerfest.
In 2004, Russian President Vladimir Putin called the sovereignty issue "a serious, competitive battle" that "will unfold more and more fiercely."
With all the squabbling over ownership, Tristan Pearce, a research associate at the University of Guelph's Global Environmental Change Group in Canada, reminded Arctic nations of who got there first: indigenous peoples like the Inuits and the Sami.
"Everybody is talking about the potential for minerals, diamonds, oil and gas, but we mustn't forget that people live there, all the way across the Arctic," he said. "They've always been there and they have a major role to play."
-
Raju
watch out between 2010-12
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006 ... arning.htmSolar Storm Warning
03.10.2006
March 10, 2006: It's official: Solar minimum has arrived. Sunspots have all but vanished. Solar flares are nonexistent. The sun is utterly quiet.
Like the quiet before a storm.
This week researchers announced that a storm is coming--the most intense solar maximum in fifty years. The prediction comes from a team led by Mausumi Dikpati of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one," she says. If correct, the years ahead could produce a burst of solar activity second only to the historic Solar Max of 1958.
see captionThat was a solar maximum. The Space Age was just beginning: Sputnik was launched in Oct. 1957 and Explorer 1 (the first US satellite) in Jan. 1958. In 1958 you couldn't tell that a solar storm was underway by looking at the bars on your cell phone; cell phones didn't exist. Even so, people knew something big was happening when Northern Lights were sighted three times in Mexico. A similar maximum now would be noticed by its effect on cell phones, GPS, weather satellites and many other modern technologies.
Right: Intense auroras over Fairbanks, Alaska, in 1958. [More]
Dikpati's prediction is unprecedented. In nearly-two centuries since the 11-year sunspot cycle was discovered, scientists have struggled to predict the size of future maxima—and failed. Solar maxima can be intense, as in 1958, or barely detectable, as in 1805, obeying no obvious pattern.
The key to the mystery, Dikpati realized years ago, is a conveyor belt on the sun.
We have something similar here on Earth—the Great Ocean Conveyor Belt, popularized in the sci-fi movie The Day After Tomorrow. It is a network of currents that carry water and heat from ocean to ocean--see the diagram below. In the movie, the Conveyor Belt stopped and threw the world's weather into chaos.
see caption
Above: Earth's "Great Ocean Conveyor Belt." [More]
The sun's conveyor belt is a current, not of water, but of electrically-conducting gas. It flows in a loop from the sun's equator to the poles and back again. Just as the Great Ocean Conveyor Belt controls weather on Earth, this solar conveyor belt controls weather on the sun. Specifically, it controls the sunspot cycle.
Solar physicist David Hathaway of the National Space Science & Technology Center (NSSTC) explains: "First, remember what sunspots are--tangled knots of magnetism generated by the sun's inner dynamo. A typical sunspot exists for just a few weeks. Then it decays, leaving behind a 'corpse' of weak magnetic fields."
Enter the conveyor belt.
see caption"The top of the conveyor belt skims the surface of the sun, sweeping up the magnetic fields of old, dead sunspots. The 'corpses' are dragged down at the poles to a depth of 200,000 km where the sun's magnetic dynamo can amplify them. Once the corpses (magnetic knots) are reincarnated (amplified), they become buoyant and float back to the surface." Presto—new sunspots!
Right: The sun's "great conveyor belt." [Larger image]
All this happens with massive slowness. "It takes about 40 years for the belt to complete one loop," says Hathaway. The speed varies "anywhere from a 50-year pace (slow) to a 30-year pace (fast)."
When the belt is turning "fast," it means that lots of magnetic fields are being swept up, and that a future sunspot cycle is going to be intense. This is a basis for forecasting: "The belt was turning fast in 1986-1996," says Hathaway. "Old magnetic fields swept up then should re-appear as big sunspots in 2010-2011."
Like most experts in the field, Hathaway has confidence in the conveyor belt model and agrees with Dikpati that the next solar maximum should be a doozy. But he disagrees with one point. Dikpati's forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011.
"History shows that big sunspot cycles 'ramp up' faster than small ones," he says. "I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011."
Who's right? Time will tell. Either way, a storm is coming.
-
Raju
Huge solar storms could zap Earth, scientists warn
Next sunspot cycle may disrupt power, communications
Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer
Tuesday, March 7, 2006
Next sunspot cycle may disrupt power, communications
Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer
Tuesday, March 7, 2006
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... HJJL91.DTLWhen the solar cycle reaches its peak in 2012, it will hurl at Earth mammoth solar storms with intense radiation and clouds of high-speed subatomic particles millions of miles across, the scientists said.
A storm of that magnitude could short-circuit a world increasingly dependent on giant utilities and satellite communications networks. Such a storm in 1989 caused power grids to collapse, causing a five-hour blackout in Quebec.
Monday's forecast was announced by scientists from agencies including NASA and the National Science Foundation, based on research centered at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.
There is disagreement on exactly when the new cycle will begin -- one key researcher predicted the cycle will start in late 2007 or early 2008, and another said it could begin either late this year or in early 2007. But they did agree that the most severe storms won't begin popping on the solar surface for several years, but when they do, they'll be huge.
.......
The scientists are confident of their forecast for 2012 because they've successfully used a new computer model to "forecast" the past. That is, they used records of old solar cycles to figure out how the sun should have behaved during eight past cycles, as far back as the early 20th century. They "forecast" the sun's past behavior -- "hindcasting," they call it -- "with more than 98 percent accuracy" the scientists said.
........
Air travelers could be affected, too. Since the end of the Cold War, to avoid headwinds, airlines have increasingly flown subpolar routes to get between the United States and other Northern Hemisphere continents quickly and cheaply. But during solar storms, they must avoid the poles and fly more southerly routes.
They do so partly in order to avoid having their radio communications disrupted over dangerous polar terrain and partly to avoid exposing passengers -- especially pregnant women -- to the increased radiation, said solar-storm expert Joseph Kunches, chief of the forecast and analysis branch of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Space Environment Center in Boulder, Colo.
The northern and northeastern portions of North America are historically more vulnerable to system outages caused by solar storms than California and most of the Western states, said Gregg Fishman, spokesman for the California Independent System Operator. That's possibly because among other things, he said, there's a higher iron and mineral content in the North and Northeast that conducts the ground current more easily and allows for more of an impact during solar storms.
xpost my own post from Nukkad thread
Leaving the above reason aside... I have this strong "feeling" that weather patterns in India have changed significantly over the last 500-600 years. During ancient times much of India was covered with huge forests (remember Dandaka-Aranya). Human settlement has removed these huge forested areas changing the weather patterns significantly. I find it hard to beleive that an advanced civilization like ours did not invest in significant irrigation works (whereas the Chinese did) and I posit this was for a good reason... that is Rainfall in India was not dependent on the monsoons as we find today but more like coastal equatorial africa today ie it was Convective (check wiki for how convective rainfall works) in nature. It rained pretty much around the year.
The implications of this are huge... India was a far cooler place than it is today. We know from experience that animals from colder regions are largers than animals from hot climates (very easily explained by heat transfer fundamentals). The temple representations of people are indicators that we were not always SDRE and were more T(F/D)TA than today.
I posit (since BR is ahead of the curve) that in the absence of external cooling, animals in hot areas spend a significant amount of energy consumed to maintain body temperature by cooling (thats why even elephants in India are SDRE compared to African ones since they on average may live in a colder clime). However in colder areas this energy expenditure is avoided since the body naturally tries to heat itself and in any case heating is more energy efficient than cooling (standard thermodynamics!!).
Therefore if we want to improve the conditions in India somehow we have to reduce the average temperature of our surroundings to below body temperature (preferably to about 25 C on average)... This will enable not just humans in India to improve living conditions but also animals and not to mention it will improve farm productivity since even plants perform poorly if the temperatures are too high.
I would love to hear a little more discussion on the weather patterns hypothesis I have put forth since I beleive in this perhaps this recognition could start a new revolution that will in say 50 years change what India can acheive and show the world a new paradigm of how to interact and control our environment to benefit the most (humans and animals)
-
Bade
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 7212
- Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
- Location: badenberg in US administered part of America
cshankar,Bhushan, R.; Dutta, K.; Somayajulu,
B.L.K. (Physical Research
Laboratory; Earth Science Division.
Navarangapura, Ahmedabad 380
009, India). Concentrations and
burial fluxes of organic and
inorganic carbon on the eastern
margins of the Arabian Sea. Mar.
Geol. 178. 2001. 95-113.
Maybe this one may lead to something. Could not locate an article which I had in mind for what you asked.
India's coastal areas vulnerable to global warming: report
London, March. 28 (AP): A global study has identified India's low-lying coastal areas among other Asian nations vulnerable to global warming and sea-level rise. India along with Bangladesh, China, Vietnam and Indonesia are countries with five largest population living in threatened coastal areas, the study in the journal Environment and Urbanization said.
It has identified the world's low-lying coastal areas that are vulnerable to global warming and sea-level rise, and urged major global cities from New York to Tokyo to wake up to the risk of being swamped by flooding and intense storms if nothing is done.
Of the more than 180 countries with populations in the low-elevation coastal zone, about 70 percent have urban areas of more than 5 million people that extend into it, including Mumbai, Tokyo, New York, Shanghai, Jakarta and Dhaka. Asia is particularly vulnerable and in general poorer nations are most at risk, the peer-reviewed scientific study.
In all, 634 million people live within such areas - defined as less than 10 meters (33 feet) above sea level - and that number is growing, said the study released today.
It does not say exactly what should be done, but it warns that it won't be cheap and it may involve moving lots of people and building protective engineering structures. And, it adds, countries should consider halting or reducing population growth there.
"Migration away from the zone at risk will be necessary but costly and hard to implement, so coastal settlements will also need to be modified to protect residents," said study co-author Gordon McGranahan of the International Institute for Environment and Development in London.
Sea level rise and area covered
Note that Europe stand to loose more then "howtheydaretobedeveloped" countries. Except.......BD.
Note that Europe stand to loose more then "howtheydaretobedeveloped" countries. Except.......BD.
Poor Nations to Bear Brunt as World Warms
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/scien ... ref=slogin
Sydney climate change blackout a success
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1136
Global warming could bring hunger, melt Himalayas
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detay ... ink=107157
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/scien ... ref=slogin
Sydney climate change blackout a success
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1136
Global warming could bring hunger, melt Himalayas
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detay ... ink=107157
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Global politics shift as experts say warming is setting in
Russia and China were among countries that opposed inclusion of the mitigation scenarios supported so strongly by Europe. He said the United States had asked that statements about ice sheets be removed but that the "Americans were helpful much more than they were harmful."
Schneider was strongly critical of the Chinese, who he said marshaled technical arguments that had upset other scientists, including Cynthia Rosenzweig of the NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who made a formal, written protest to Pachauri early on Friday, adding drama to the final hours of the weeklong meeting.
China, which is expected to overtake the United States as the world's largest greenhouse gas polluter this decade, had been disputing how much confidence to ascribe to evidence that natural systems were responding to climate change, said Schneider. The Chinese "wouldn't relent, and after the protest all the lead authors and most of the delegations broke into applause," he said.
"I've never seen anything like it - that's how angry people were," he said.