Study: Greenhouse gases must be cut 70% to prevent global warming catastrophe
source: http://www.examiner.com/x-2928-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2009m4d14-New-study-greenhouse-g...
-
-
- JanforGore
- added this
-
- groups:
- Community, Green, Earth and Science, Science
-
- tags:
- News, Green, Earth and Science, Science, 7 more
-
-
liviu
-
run for your lives "global warming" is coming!!
Clearly nwo propaganda!
please
- 3 years ago
-
liviu
-
-
Mikeysfake1
-
Check this website out if your convinced that global warming is real. It has some facts that are hard to argue with.
- 3 years ago
-
Mikeysfake1
-
-
mcwally
-
Mikeysfake1:
Thanks for the link...great post..should offer some more light on the subject...
- 3 years ago
-
mcwally
-
-
galwayman
-
we must all respond to this now! to the guy that said"its not true"you are deluded! the evidence is right in front of your eyes that global warming is a fact you just refuse to see! bet you own a huge SUV,and don't spend 1 second a day thinking about how selfish you are! Big business and industry must be forced to use cleaner fuels by law as must every person on this planet or the human race will die!
- 3 years ago
-
galwayman
-
-
Mikeysfake1
-
galwayman:
actually I drive 10 hummers and I leave them running all night to charge my cell phone. Only joking. Global warming hasn't been proven to be happening. Al Gore's film has been so heavily criticized it's not even funny. He won't even talk about it. The scientific community concluded there's not enough evidence to say and I hear that Global cooling is a more likely scenario.
- 3 years ago
-
Mikeysfake1
-
-
mcwally
-
The plane is updating and changing its program..ready to move on..
We are only a part of that symbiotic live and so also will change and update as we are doing now...
How it will play out is not to do with us trying to change and control the climate really..because the planet has its own AMOEBİC creatures that eat up pollution otherwise the whole world would be filled with fumes everyday..but instead these processes occur mostly without our knowing..but then that is to do with the Unseen worlds..which usually freak people out because they cant see it..
The greater benefits of not allowing the rainforests to be cut down would help..but in the end the planet is working as she should ...not talking about changing ..doing it..daily. - 3 years ago
-
mcwally
-
-
Mikeysfake1
-
That's just not true.
- 3 years ago
-
Mikeysfake1
-
-
scabbio
-
The Earth is an organism. It will do what it needs to do in order to attain equilibrium. We can become that equilibrium by planting trees and cleaning up industrial mess.
The real story here is story of a hoax perpetrated by every industrialist from Rockefeller to Steve Jobs. Every 'green' story you read is really telling you: using the planet gets you in trouble. Helping the planet gets you life. Stop wasting time arguing and see our linked heritage: our world. Who cares where to place blame... industry, people, materials, processes.. if your mother were doing heroin, would you criticise her or would you help her? - 3 years ago
-
scabbio
-
-
artisticjenn
-
Pollution is real and that is something we need to change... Global warming? Nah, Earth has been cycling for millions of years without anything to do with us.
- 3 years ago
-
artisticjenn
-
-
neonbunny
-
The Earth IS going to clense itself but man has definatley contributed to the World getting warmer. The only downside is that when the Earth clenses itself, we're part of the clean up.
- 3 years ago
-
neonbunny
-
-
JanforGore
-
PROVE IT. Oh boy, I bet you won't be back now.
But actually, I was just kidding you. I'll let you off the hook because I know you have nothing else but to drop the same hit and run one line BS with no back up like they all do. And anyway, that debate is SO OVER. So please, go back to your self absorbed life with the knowledge that you don't have to do anything to care for this planet, because you "believe" that every catastrophe is the Earth cleansing itself by actually ADDING toxicity to itself. I sure don't want to be the one to burst the bubble of ignorance you live in.
- 3 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
smallgod
-
JanforGore:
Sorry, I live in a passive solar eco house and grow my own vegetables and fruits, but you wouldn't guess that now would you because you only see "black and white".
You prove it with the articles you post. You said it yourself - cap and trade will allow corporations (the major polluters) to continue polluting while the carbon tax will affect everyone. Also, I posted an article that appeared today in the NYTimes concerning how scientists "just now realize" that black soot from poor third world countries is really now one of the biggest contributors to global warming.
Please. You say it plain as day on the one hand, then you turn around and tell people to prove something extrapolated from your own argument.
- 3 years ago
-
smallgod
-
-
smallgod
-
JanforGore:
http://current.com/items/89971200/the_carbon_tax_a_moral_issue.htm
Sorry...I thought this was coming from this article. The point still stands.
- 3 years ago
-
smallgod
-
-
wrldwndrer
-
JanforGore:
You don't have to prove what just is....
- 3 years ago
-
wrldwndrer
-
-
wrldwndrer
-
The Earth is going to cleanse itself. Man didn't make the globe warmer....
- 3 years ago
-
wrldwndrer
-
-
smallgod
-
wrldwndrer:
thank you...
- 3 years ago
-
smallgod
-
-
artisticjenn
-
wrldwndrer:
Yes, thank you :)
- 3 years ago
-
artisticjenn
-
-
747nomad
-
The planet is warming up that we know. It's already in the tea leaves that the poler ice and glaciers are going to melt at a faster rate. I sit here and try to think what can be done, I read some articals that had some radical ideas like putting giant foal shades in space. The probe with coming up with a plain is who picks up the bill? We as a nation have greatly reduced are pollution out put and other countries are increasing theres. Who's idea plays out and who pays two tuff questions.
- 3 years ago
-
747nomad
-
-
JanforGore
-
From the article:
The study shows that if carbon dioxide, which today makes up about 380 parts per million of the atmosphere, were held to 450 ppm, global temperatures would increase by 0.6 degrees Celsius (about 1 degree Fahrenheit) above current readings by the end of the century. Greenhouse gas emissions would have to be cut 70 percent from current levels in order to end the century at 450 ppm.
But temperatures would rise by almost four times that amount, to 2.2 degrees C (4 degrees F) above current readings, if emissions are allowed to continue on their present course, according to the study. The unchecked increase would melt at least three quarters of summertime Arctic ice, raise the sea level by almost nine inches, worsen weather extremes and disrupt populations of fish, sea birds, and marine mammals, according to the study.
Scientists generally accept that warming of 1 degree Celsius is the threshold for dangerous climate change, but 86 percent of climate-change experts surveyed in today's Guardian UK doubt that political efforts will be able to keep the earth from warming by 2 degrees C in this century.
Average global temperatures have warmed by close to 1 degree Celsius since the pre-industrial era. Much of the warming is due to human-produced emissions of greenhouse gases, predominantly carbon dioxide, according to NCAR and many scientists. This heat-trapping gas occurred at about 284 parts per million during the pre-industrial era.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act Thursday to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant, which empowers the government to begin restricting its emission. The Obama Adminstration favors a market-based cap-and-trade effort to dissuade industry from emitting carbon dioxide. The White House approved an EPA endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and EPA administrator Lisa Jackson is expected to sign that document Thursday, opening a 60-day public comment period before the gases can be regulated as a pollutant, the New York Times reported.
____________________________
Come on, here we have scientists all over the world confirming that we must decrease GHG emissions by at least 70 % (and I believe it must be done by 2020 at the very latest) and we are still waiting to regulate CO2 as a pollutant? Isn't it obvious the damage it is doing? Didn't the USSC already rule it was? Why do we constantly have to have diversions and roadblocks put in the way of real action? Sixty days for a comment period, then more time wasted as they wait for December and continue to argue in Congress, not even knowing if anything will actually come of it that is drastic enough to make any difference in the next decade. Meanwhile, we will continue spewing out 70 million tons of Co2 a day and that doesn't even address the amount of CO2 lost to deforestation. I've said it before and will say it again, politicizing this has made it seem insignifcant. Big mistake. - 3 years ago
-
JanforGore
