Global Warming Over!!!

ELKCHSR

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
13,765
Location
Montana
Global Warming Emissions in Biggest Decade Drop
Fri Dec 20,11:19 AM ET Add Science - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Tom Doggett

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming (news - web sites) fell by 1.2 percent last year, the largest decrease in a decade, due in part to slow economic growth and a milder winter, the government said on Friday.



Last year's decline was in sharp contrast to the average 1.3 percent annual growth rate in U.S. emissions from 1990 to 2000 and was twice the level of the only other drop since 1990 -- a 0.6 percent decline in 1991 -- according to a report from the Energy Information Administration.


Still, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2001 were 11.9 percent higher than in 1990, the EIA said.


The Energy Department's analytical arm said U.S. greenhouse gas emissions last year, including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, totaled 1,883 million metric tons, down from 1,907 million metric tons the year before.


The EIA said the decline in emissions could be attributed to several factors:


-- A reduction in U.S. economic growth from 3.8 percent in 2000 to 0.3 percent in 2001.


-- A 4.4 percent drop in manufacturing output that lowered industrial emissions.


-- Warmer winter weather that decreased the demand for heating fuels.


-- A drop in electricity demand and coal-fired power generation that reduced emissions from electricity generation.


Emissions of carbon dioxide, which account for 84 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, decreased by 1.1 percent in 2001 to 1,579 million metric tons, the EIA said.


President Bush (news - web sites) withdrew the United States last year from the international Kyoto treaty that seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions among industrialized countries, fearing that the treaty's requirements would hurt the U.S. economy.


Instead, the Bush administration said it wants to conduct years of further research on the causes of global warming and in the meantime will promote voluntary efforts among U.S. industries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.


The European Union (news - web sites) and Japan, which have adopted the Kyoto treaty, have criticized the Bush administration for not doing more to cut U.S. emissions. The United States is the world's biggest energy consumer and also its largest emissions producer.


There is increasing interest in promoting U.S. forests and agricultural lands as absorbers of carbon emissions.


The EIA said U.S. forests absorb about 246 million metric tons of carbon annually, equal to 15.6 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.


There has been a reversal of the extensive deforestation of the United States that occurred in the late 19th and early 20 centuries. Since then, millions of acres of formerly cultivated land have been abandoned and returned to forest, absorbing carbon on a large scale, the EIA said.
 
It's getting better, but we've not cured it yet. The carbon sequestration of forests is something that is being intensively studied and shows great promise. I think it'll only strengthen the conservation movement, which IMO is great!!!
 
I'm kinda guessing a different scenario..
Bush this last year told the Greenies to stuff it on this subject by not going along with the Kyoto agreement. Also the $$$ from the U.S.is now going to dry up, it just amazes me that all of a sudden the problem is now being solved, when just not early last year the green side was touting that we would not even see the end to this disaster this has all created in no less than some 50-100 years down the road..LOL...Taking that long for all the bad things to get into the air..We can all side any way we want...The bottom line is the money is drying up, so is the crisis.... Same as the spotted owl and many other things, I wonder what drum they will "invent" next to beat in order to save the "Fragile" planet...ROFLMAO!!!!
tongue.gif
tongue.gif
tongue.gif
If one just sits back and looks at this picture as a whole, they will clearly see what I see, a big joke on the suckers that really buy into this nonsence..HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
 
"Carbon sequestration." Now THERE's a ten-dollar phrase if ever there were one.
tongue.gif
Wasn't Sequest a show on TV about a submarine?
wink.gif
 
I hope your right! There is no way to now know what the effects will be in 50yrs. Yeah, so our emissions are less than previously, but what about the compound effects of the previous 100yrs? The article does not say or give any information that the temperature is dropping, but that some of the causative factors are decreasing. I look at the article that things are getting better, but their not fixed. Carbon cycling is not something that can be reversed or changed rapidly. Just because there are fewer emissions doesn't mean that we've seen the worst of the effects. Ecological/environmental inertia is very hard to predict because often you can only have the information to predict it after it's happened.

Bush told the 'greenies' to stuff it because that is his cash cow!

The problem with Global Warming and the Spotted Owl thing is at the time that decisions were made the cause/effects of the system were not understood. We are learning more and things are getting better which I see as a plus, but we aren't out of the 'woods' yet.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If one just sits back and looks at this picture as a whole <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, one must keep in mind a holistic view for perspective, but too large a scale can also 'hide' many things. For instance, look at a satellite image of the much of central MT. Things look green and healthy, but once you 'zoom-in' the focus you'll notice that much of the 'healthy' picture from far away is composed of dyer's woad, thistles, and other non-native plants which greatly reduce the health of the landscape.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The problem with Global Warming and the Spotted Owl thing is at the time that decisions were made the cause/effects of the system were not understood. We are learning more and things are getting better, which I see as a plus, but we aren't out of the 'woods' yet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first sentence say's most of it all on all of these subjects. These things are not understood, so instead of learning and finding out the answers first, there is a lot of drum beating and misery caused to those that are in the perceived direct path of those that wield the power at the moment. They don't find the answers first; they just jump in with the medias help and start swinging a double bitted ax mowing down all those in their shortsighted way. This is what sours every one that is affected; it is also called "Junk Science". This is the crap that turns most of us off from the real scientists that eventually come up with the truth, usually it isn't any thing near what was spewed by these rabble-rousers, and by this time no one wants to listen to the true scientists.....


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes, one must keep in mind a holistic view for perspective, but too large a scale can also 'hide' many things. For instance, look at a satellite image of the much of central MT. Things look green and healthy, but once you 'zoom-in' the focus you'll notice that much of the 'healthy' picture from far away is composed of dyer's woad, thistles, and other non-native plants which greatly reduce the health of the landscape. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First off, I wouldn't even begin to know where to find a satellite image of what you are talking about, I would gladly look it up and see for myself, secondly, Montana is in a major drought cycle, along with a lot of the rest of the U.S. You notice I used the word cycle, this cycle has been documented to happen every so often, some times in the past it has been shown to be way worse than what we are facing right now thru tree rings, core samples of glaciers, and core samples taken at the bottom of lakes and the ocean. I have watched the true scientists document this on some of the discovery channel type shows, I have also seen how some of the "other" scientist show their point of view with the global warming stuff, but when put into the picture as a whole, that is all it is-is theory, not really any thing more...Now I would really appreciate the fact that you could show the link you are looking at, I also know that non-native species are a big problem, that is some thing that any one with a little training can see. That is another issue altogether and not really one that we can do much about in most instances. I know that the FS and the state has been able to wipe out knapweed in the Bighole Valley...But this has taken every ones concerted effort, including the "Dreaded Ranchers" to all help with. This is some thing that I have seen with my own eyes, but to get rid of some other weeds, like tumbleweed for example, would probably be impossible. Some of these noxious weeds cover so much ground and can carry so many seeds that blow on the wind, that I believe we are stuck with them and have to just learn to deal with them as well as possible...Kind of like trying to remove dandelions from the U.S. They are everywhere, in the high mountains to the rocks next to the ocean coasts.
biggrin.gif
 
Regardless of the philosophy you choose, I don't think many will argue that some changes needed to be made. Whether we've made enough changes is eternally debatable, but we couldn't keep going like we were. Maybe "global warming" is all a big hoax and maybe we weren't ever going to boil in our shoes, but nevertheless some positive changes were made. IMO, as 1_p would say.
biggrin.gif
 
The statement about bias, is that no human and therefore no research is purely objective. Sometimes management issues have to be made with the data that is known, if it's not complete...well, hindsight is 20/20. I've posted the link in the past, but dg said that he couldn't access it. So for anyone who wants it, email me and I'll email you a copy in PDF format.

As you said, the data that supports the cycle theory is the same that supports global warming. Here's another analogy that may fit better with global warming. The article posted that the US's emissions, which have been shown to contribute to global warming, are lower. Now, if a person is to lower their consumption of cigarettes from 3 packs a day, to two packs a day will that person get cancer? No one knows, but which would you bet on, cancer or no cancer?

Yes, dg IMO!
 
This planet is absolutely huge, and most of it is covered with water, It is just really hard to believe if one has been traveled across a large portion of it as I have that man would have as much effect on the weather as a lot of people would like us to think...Most people have never even been out of their own country, let alone to the four corners of the earth, and I have only been over a quarter of it. Now it makes perfect sense when you look at the planet as a whole and see how big it really is the fact that we have season cycles and they aren’t theory, it has been shown in tree rings, glacier core samples and sedimentary deposits in the bottom of the ocean...
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
 
Yes, climates do cycle. But, humans have a large impact on those cycles, as also can be shown by the ice cores. Carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere has risen greatly since the Industrial Revolution. Just coincidence?
 
PEAX Trekking Poles

Forum statistics

Threads
111,048
Messages
1,944,966
Members
34,990
Latest member
hotdeals
Back
Top