Global Warming

Lala asked:


Can you lot give me some pointers or facts that prove and disproove the theory of Global Warming?
Links would be cool too, cheers!

Thankyou!

Website content

Claire asked:


If there is one image that, it seen daily, will motivate you to help end global warming, what would it be? Think simply: in terms of what could be used, for example, on a logo.
I’m doing a research project on this, and I truly appreciate your help.

Create a video blog…instantly.

Mikhail Utin asked:


One and a half hours is my usual commute time to my current work place. It takes forty-five miles to get there. During winter storm it takes much, much longer… I certainly have enough time to listen to the Boston Public Radio (WBUR station), and my thoughts usually start with “WHY are we all sitting here?”, slowly moving, wasting fuel, and finally contributing our share to the Global Warming… Good Morning (or Good Night) America on Wheels!

WBUR is not for the weak of heart. Domestic topics range from how big is a golden parachute for a CEO who failed to manage a bank or corporation (usually an eight digit number), to sliding dollar and looming recession … All symptoms, all the information that could drive us crazy and push us out of our driver seats… Yet, I listen to my favorite radio station with great pride that we are still driving and going to our jobs to keep America moving …

Our destination is clearly articulated. The verdict for all of us is “guilty”; we are guilty of not spending enough or not saving enough and, it seems as if no matter what we do “We are doomed!”. But my Russian common sense forged in trenches of communism and hardened by capitalism is refusing to give up. There is a proverb from my old days “Saving life of a drowning man is the business of that drowning man!” Since I cannot separate myself from the rest of us sliding in to recession, I find myself thinking how to stop that. I have enough time; say a couple of weeks to find a solution. Otherwise, this contract with the bank will be the last of what I could get from this economy. Well, unemployment is still guaranteed, but it will not cover all my recent acquisitions and multiplying loans (Note: nobody can blame me for not spending enough to keep our economy running; I am a patriot after all!).

I am a deeply technical person. I am thinking in technical terms, and always trying to crunch through the numbers. How many of us are commuting every day? In fact, an overwhelming majority of people between 20 and 60 years old do, roughly a half of US population of 300 million. The analysis [1] gives us a number of 220 million. What is the average commute? It is approximately 16 miles one way. Expecting 20 miles per gallon, we consume about 300 million gallons of gasoline for the nation’s one working day commute. It takes up nearly 75% of the total US gasoline consumption according to at least two sources [2, 3]. These numbers represent quite rough estimate, and relate to gasoline only (there are also kerosene and diesel fuels), but we do not need exact numbers. It answers the question of who consumes most of the gasoline. We do! And we do that by commuting. Subsequently, commuting is a source of increasing fuel demand and pricing, air pollution, traffic creation, cause of political instabilities and intrigues around the world, etc. This list can go on and on for quite some time.

So what if we stay at home and work remotely (telecommute)… First question is how many people are doing that, and for how many days per week? Google search for “telecommuting in US 2006″ brings up pretty diverse information. The estimate ranges from 12 millions full time in 2006 (5.4% of working population) to more realistic 2% full time and 9% part time [5]. I observe the latter number of 2% in the bank department that I’m working for.

Well, we are not making much progress in telecommuting field. Good old UK was doing much better back in 2002 with telecommuting rate of 7.4% [6]. Another question is what is the percentage of workers who can telecommute without negatively impacting the business process? I did not try Google to find an answer to such a sophisticated question. What I see from my personal experience of IT professional, at least 50% of office work can be done at home. At my consulting job, I see some of my colleagues once in two weeks, if I walk by. Otherwise, I do my work glued to my computer monitor, exchanging information via email and internal chat system. We do remote conferencing and project management. I do it in the same way as many of you do every day.

I would like to set the following goal “Everybody who can stay at home and do his or her job remotely should do that!” As we transition more and more toward “service” economy, we have a chance to eventually move everybody out of the main office, or at least 90% of us sitting in a computerized cage and laying golden eggs by processing information.

Both government and business establishment generally agree that telecommuting is a good thing. That is all. The mutual agreement is that a good thing is good. Nothing more, nothing less. There hasn’t been a real concerted push toward telecommuting. Not even close.

Here is my proposal on how to move things forward. As all of my proposals, it is real, and it is doable. First of all, we need a technology to support telecommuting. The most of it is already in place. Internet infrastructure (many thanks to Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore) is available across most of the US. Computers are really inexpensive (about $600 for a telecommuting-ready system). There is IPSec VPN, and even better SSL VPN to connect to the main office. We might need an integrated solution out-of-the-box, which would be easy to install as in “VPN plug-and-play”. However, I would like to stress that we already have all the necessary ingredients to get started.

Secondary, we need to encourage all the US businesses to implement telecommuting as a solution as soon as possible. Here is the trick. I am proposing for US Congress to pass a legislation requiring all employers to pay for their employees commuting fuel expenses. That is it - an average of $1,200 per employee per year. I name it “Commuter Reimbursement” (CR).

Logically, why should WE pay for our commute in the first place? Commute is often not an important consideration when businesses choose their location. There is neither government nor business supported program for decreasing commute, thus saving OUR money. They simply do not have a strong incentive to care. We, commuters, do, and Global Warming and air pollution is a big concern as well.

I am not buying an argument that $1,200 will be an unbearable burden to US businesses. The credit is on the order of annual salary raise. Median income per US household member [7] is about $27,000, thus CR represents only 4.4% of it. After all, according to David C. Johnston “Free Lunch” [8], US corporate management owes us the salary rise since mid 70s, so please, be kind and give it us once in 30 years, thus indicating your participation in our mutual struggle with the rising fuel cost and inflation, Global Warming, pollution, you name it.

There is a good indication that CR will work. We all know how business management likes to save pennies (moving the bounty to golden parachutes), this price tag will work very well to encourage progress; I mean moving to real telecommuting with the goal of getting 30% or more of the US workforce working remotely.

How do we implement CR? I can think of several ways, but let’s leave it to the US Congress to figure it out. I got an idea, and they need to do their share as well. Hopefully, they will not invent a way to make it completely useless, so we don’t end up paying our employers for our commute!

How long would it take to implement? Considering that almost everybody is winning (see below), I would optimistically expect CR Law passing within one year. Thus, at the end of the second year we can expect a moderate reduction in commuting at 30%, with the year average of 15%. The price for the oil will drop possibly returning to $30 per barrel. The gasoline price will return gradually to $1.50 per a gallon (average for this year of $2,25). Thus, average CR for the second year will be around $750. For the third year we can expect it dropping even more to approximately $400, given that number of commuters stays the same. However, we should expect it to be slowly decreasing. As you see here, there is market self-regulation - initial CR of $1,200 should be dropping, and CR and the price of the telecommuting installation will regulate the number of telecommuters. This is a normal market regulation when we have enough resources, not the extreme we have now when any speculation fuels the market and drives price up continuously.

Let’s see who will be the winners. Of course, we, commuters, will win as well as all the people in the US and around the world. Businesses will make CR money back very soon (decreasing office leasing expenses), or significantly decrease the payment. I would expect at least 30% reduction in traffic (no traffic jams any more), and 30% less total US consumption of gasoline. That would be out real contribution to solving the Global Warming problem.

All the US population will win saving money, and our economy will bloom again.

US global interests will also be a big winner. Hugo Chaves (small but continuing headache) will lose as Venezuela cannot survive with less than $60 per a barrel, and outgoing Russia’s President Mr. Putin will lose a lot of his power as well. Putin has been busy helping Russia flex muscles against the West in the last few years, mostly by leveraging increasing Russia’s oil revenues. No more this sly Russian former spy and dictator will have funds to develop new missiles and nuclear submarines. Russia economic success of last few years had been squarely based on high oil price. If it drops, Russia’s government ambitions of Great Resurrected Russia will deflate as quickly as they did during USSR collapse.

Who else will loose? Of course, oil companies which were too slow to embrace alternative energy. Global Islamic terrorist network will suffer money shortage, as Middle East tycoons loose a substantial part of oil revenues. Somehow, I don’t think our nation will shed too many tears for them.

Does US Government have enough guts to move forward with my telecommuting incentive plan (i.e. legislating a $1,200 “Commute Reimbursement” plan)? Possibly not, if we are just talking about out commute problems and Global Warming; but it might change to “yes” considering that this plan can resolve its political problems as well.

Some people would say that the proposed solution is a temporarily one. Yes, but we need it now, we need to start cutting out fuel consumption now, otherwise WBUR and all the economy doomsday experts are going to say “See, we told you, the recession is coming…And you did nothing to stop it…”.

Self-advertising: Does my idea intrigue you? I have a few more. Interested parties, please feel free to contact me mutin@rubos.com.

References:

1. Gary Langer. Poll: Traffic in the United States. Feb. 13, 2005. ABC News.

2. Clean Cities Program Saved US One Day’s Gas Consumption in 2006. Environment News Services. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2007/2007-10-01-097.asp

3. How much gasoline does the United States consume in one year? http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question417.htm

4. Earn well, leave cheap. May 22, 2006. Les Christie, CNNMoney.com.

Website content

James William Smith asked:


There can be no dispute that the ice over the Arctic is melting pretty fast. Satellite pictures clearly show the extent of the decrease in Arctic ice during the last several years. In fact, observations from instruments on the ground, balloons, and satellites indicate that the Arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the planet.

Last year’s seasonal ice shrinkage set records, reaching a September minimum of 2.6 million square miles, some 23 percent smaller than the previous record, set in 2005. If it sets another record this year, it would mark the fifth season of record declines since 1998.

In fact, preliminary data in June 2008 from University of Colorado researcher Sheldon Drobot does show that the vast expanse of ice at the top of the world is some 55,800 square miles smaller than it was on the same date last year.

The proponents of man-made global warming now point to the melting Arctic sea ice as proof that the planet is in immediate dire peril. Their climate models show that the Arctic sea ice is melting nearly three times faster than global warming computer models had previously projected.

Of course, melting Arctic Sea ice linked to the warming of the planet seems like an easy public relations correlation to make. Ice melts when temperatures rise. Arctic temperatures are rising fast apparently due to man-made global warming. The faster the ice melts, the faster the impact on the planet. So, everyone needs to spend more money and change behavior to eliminate CO2 gas to save the planet.

It all seems so logical until you think about it for awhile and do some research. Then, it really begins to not make much sense. Ultimately, I find that when things don’t make sense then they are usually not true. Here is what bothers me about melting Arctic sea ice caused by man-made global warming from an increase in CO2 gas.

First, no study has ever directly linked the increase in global temperatures of the last several decades with melting Arctic ice. There is no scientific evidence of a direct connection, only media hype. In fact, with the climate projection models predicting only one third of the Arctic ice melt that is actually occurring, then maybe another reason outside of global warming is really at work.

Next, there has been a record melt in Arctic ice each year since 1999. However, the average global temperature has not increased and has actually started to decrease in the last few years while that Arctic ice has been melting at an increased pace. Ice melting faster when the planet’s actual average temperature is going lower? Doesn’t seem to make much sense, does it?

Now, consider that in 2008 ice between Canada and southwestern Greenland reached its highest level in 15 years according to Denmark’s Meteorological Institute. The Institute used satellite images to track the southward expansion of the ice.

In fact, on a global basis, NOAA had this to say about world sea ice in April 2008. “Global sea ice reached levels that were “unprecedented” for the month of April in over 25 years. Levels are the third highest (for April) since the commencement of records in 1979, exceeded only by levels in 1979 and 1982.”

So, if global warming is creating melting Arctic ice, then why is ice not melting everywhere? In fact, the world had more global sea ice in April 2008, than it had for over the last twenty five years. Again, if it doesn’t seem to make much sense, it probably is not true.

So, the actual reason for melting Arctic ice may well have nothing to do with global warming. There have been several recent studies and discoveries in the Arctic that would suggest as much.

Recently, a team of scientists led by Dr. Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts got a first-ever glimpse of the ocean floor (13,000 feet) beneath the Arctic pack ice. Indeed, they were astonished with what they saw.

Massive volcanoes had risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea. The eruptions took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain chain snaking eleven hundred miles from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia.

Remember, that the record Arctic sea ice melt began in 1999 the same year as these volcanic eruptions began on the ocean floor. The truth is if you overlay the area of melting Arctic sea ice over the area of these massive volcanic eruptions on the ocean floor, a compelling circumstantial case can be made that volcanic eruptions may indeed be the cause of Arctic ice melt.

Other studies also indicate that global warming may not be the cause of melting Arctic sea ice. Last year, a team led by Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in Pasadena, Calif., studied trends in Arctic perennial ice cover by combining data from NASA’s Quick Scatterometer (QuikScat) satellite with a computing model based on observations of sea ice drift.

The conclusion of the NASA team was as follows: “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic”. So, in effect, polar wind patterns changed and blew the sea ice further south to warmer waters leading to the record Arctic ice melt.

The fact is that there is so much that is unknown about how our climate changes over many thousands of years of time. This lack of knowledge makes it very easy for environmental alarmists to use melting Arctic ice and blame it on global warming due to a man-made increase in CO2 gas.

The point is that the cause of all that melting Arctic sea ice may have many different explanations. Indeed, melting Arctic Sea ice may well turn out to be just more misguided man-made global warming hype.



Kansieo.com

first lady asked:


I have to write a speech about the cons of global warming and not sure which approach to take. I am cofused if the enviromental or health concerns are cons. What standpoint would you take on the cons?
My professor assigned part of the class pros and the other half cons. That is why i am so confused on what the cons could be in reference to there are not any pros.

Caffeinated Content

Diana Trimble asked:


It’s not just the planet that’s hotting up, it’s the whole debate about global warming. Especially now that we can see and feel its effects every day. Yet you’ve probably noticed that when it comes to taking action, the focus always seems to be on what each of us can do personally. We the people must use energy-saving light bulbs, fly less, recycle, use green energy, take our appliances off standby, and so on. But perhaps, like me, these entreaties leave you feeling a bit ripped off. Perhaps you, too, are wondering what part business, industry and governments have to play? It’s certainly true that there are things individual citizens can and must do, but surely really significant reductions ultimately depend on tough, international legislative action. After all, if personal responsibility were all that has ever been necessary to solve problems, why were political systems and governments invented in the first place? Once we’ve taken individual action, is that it? Or is there more to be done? What really seems to be needed is a way of acting collectively to ensure that governments around the world start co-operating to solve global warming instead of talking more hot air while the planet burns.

In his film, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore rightly points out that collective action depends on political will, but this, he says, is in short supply. Right again! The reasons for its scarcity, he suggests, are that it’s simply not in the short-term interests of the main polluting nations and their industries to take substantive action. So far so good, but the cartoon image he uses to hammer his point home is an unfortunate one: a pair of scales with gold bars on one side and the entire planet on the other. Gore uses this to demonstrate the absurdity of those who see economic prosperity and a healthy planet as an either/or choice: after all, what value could gold bars have if there’s no habitable planet in which to enjoy them? It’s plainly ridiculous, and so too, suggests Gore, is the reluctance of some to give up the gold bars.

But rather than ridicule those who fear for their short-term interests, shouldn’t we be trying to look at what may be their perfectly legitimate point, and trying to understand the forces that keep it relevant? Gore may have faced the inconvenient truth of global warming, but he is yet to face a second inconvenient truth: that stiff action on the part of the rich countries WILL have adverse economic effects, at least in the short term. And if global warming is dealt with in isolation, those costs WILL fall heaviest on the USA and on other big polluters. To deny the barrier to action that these short-term costs and disincentives represent, as Gore seems to, is to fall into the same trap as those who deny global warming itself.

I laughed along with everyone else when I saw the gold vs earth cartoon, but making fun of those who are wary of economic backlash is hardly likely to elicit the consensus Gore seeks. It also seems like a cheap shot when you keep in mind that had Gore actually become President in 2000, he would inescapably have joined the ranks of those he’s poking fun at. The president of the U.S. has only four years before facing another election, so Gore’s popularity and tenure in office would have been directly influenced by his corporate funders and their support for short-term gains to the US economy.

Today, there may only be few people who still cling to denying global warming. But knowledge and acceptance can’t effect change by themselves. What is urgently needed is a means to unlock the short-term barriers and disincentives that prevent decisive collective action - nationally and internationally. Make no mistake: in today’s globalised and largely borderless world, capital and jobs generally move to wherever in the world environmental and social costs are lowest and profits therefore highest. Any government moving first to significantly increase environmental costs or regulations in a bid to reduce emissions would definitely see investment and jobs moving elsewhere, thus making the nation uncompetitive. That’s why nothing changes except the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere just keeps on rising. Prime Minister Tony Blair at least seemed to recognise these realities when he pointed out that “The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge”.[i]

Unlike Gore, Blair clearly recognises this second inconvenient truth and he should not be blamed for stating it. But his statement only holds true IF nations fail to act together. This is the barrier that keeps the gold bars firmly on one side of the scales. However, if all nations co-operated, the necessary regulations could be implemented without any nation fearing capital or employment flight because there would be no low-cost haven for them to run to. Corporations, too, would have nothing to fear because all corporations would be subject to the same additional costs, so maintaining their relative competitiveness and their relative profitability. Think about that for a minute.

But there is a further problem: the biggest polluter, the USA, would have the biggest adjustment cost, so it has the least incentive to sign up to any cooperative agreement. This is why the Kyoto Protocol is not supported by the USA and Australia, another big polluter. It is also why the provisions of the Kyoto agreement are so mild and relatively ineffectual. Because if the nations supporting Kyoto agreed to tougher, more significant curbs, the costs involved would make them uncompetitive with nations, such as the USA and Australia, who refuse to participate.

The net result is a recipe for missed targets and an intergovernmental dead-lock of a kind which raises the third, final and most important inconvenient truth; this time one that concerns not so much governments or businesses but each of us as individual citizens. It’s a truth which all citizens around the world must urgently take on board: that we can no longer abdicate responsibility for taking collective action to politicians and governments alone. If free-riding governments are to be compelled to co-operate, then it must be citizens who force them to do so. We have no choice but to take the initiative, and stop assuming that politicians are in the driving seat of the global economy. It’s time to grab hold of the steering wheel and find a way of driving our politicians and governments toward co-operation. What’s needed is a method of achieving cooperation which removes the barriers and objections, takes away the fears of being uncompetitive, and replaces those fears with an enthusiasm for shared problem-solving.

When Al Gore became fully aware of the dangers of global warming, he travelled far and wide to gain a deeper understanding of the science and its real-world effects, and justifiably so (although I do hope he planted plenty of trees to personally offset his carbon emissions). But Gore and the rest of us have so far failed to embark on another, far more urgent line of enquiry. If we genuinely wish to solve global warming and other global problems, we need to gain a deeper understanding of the barriers to collective government action under globalisation. For the deeper truth is that global warming and many other global “problems” are not the real problems at all. They are merely symptoms, albeit terrifying ones, of our failure as a global human society to co-operate. Until we understand the dynamics of co-operation and how to achieve it, and what we as citizens can do to unblock the barriers to it, international inaction, missed targets and deepening chaos will continue and global warming may well destroy human civilisation.

The Simultaneous Policy, a global citizen’s initiative, claims to have begun this vital journey and to offer a plausible and effective way that citizens can use their right to vote in a new way that drives the politicians of all parties and nations to collectively implement the measures we so desperately need. It seems that political representatives would find it a welcome relief to be freed from the restrictions that keep them beholden to big business interests and confined to wholly inadequate policies dictated by the need to keep their nations “internationally competitive”. This is reflected in the fact that already politicians from opposing sides of the spectrum - nationally and internationally - are pledging their support for the Simultaneous Policy as a result of voter pressure and/or enlightened social responsibility. Check it out for yourself at www.simpol.org - as Noam Chomsky commented, “Can it work? It’s certainly worth a serious try!”



Kansieo.com