http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUM9T/$File/ghg_gwp.pdf
Nice discussion re most aspects. Since CH4 may be 50 times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas it seems termite management might be useful. Kirk --- Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Rick > > >Dear DB, > > > >I liked your response. Partly, I suppose, because > it accords with > >my own thoughts. There is no doubt at this point > that global > >warming is occurring even among some republicans. > > There's no doubt even among some republicans or it's > occurring even > among some republicans? The first, cause to rejoice > (though that's > been the case for awhile I think), if the second, > depending who they > are, if they're becoming prone to spontaneous > combustion should we > shed tears or consider them as an alternative energy > source? (Sorry!) > > >What drives it it the question. There are no > shortage of non man > >made effects that could raise the global > temperature. Methane > >produced by termite colonies world wide is more > abundant than any > >man made green house gas. > > And it plays an important and complex role in the > climate andd the > upper atmosphere. > > The main problem with this sort of argument though, > apart from the > now-massive body of science that debunks it, is that > the termites > have not been working more and more overtime for the > last 200 years > to account for the rising temperatures. The lead > contender for that, > by a whole bunch of lengths, is CO2 produced by us. > > >It seems apparent to me that what ever the cause > the effect is not > >stoppable at this point. There is just no time > left to turn the > >battleship before it hits the pier. > > How do you know that? A very premature conclusion, > with little to > support it that I know of. Again, at the Kyoto > Protocol celebrations > in Kyoto on Wednesday the speakers were talking of > the need for > 60-80% CO2 cuts, and these people were mostly being > placatory, not > provocative. Such figures have been making it into > print more and > more in the last couple of years. It was common > parlance at the > Climate Change conference in Nairobi in 1992, among > those people I'd > guess that 60-80% would now be seen as very > conservative. > > So we (or some of us at least) blew it on precaution > in favour of > sheer greed, so now let's just accept that and give > up trying to curb > the damage we've done when we've hardly even begun? > Is that what > you're saying? Sod that. (Pardon me.) We're able to > expend much > greater efforts, resources and expertise on > mitigation than anything > that's been done so far. Mitigation is a major plank > of the Kyoto > Protocol which now comes into force. I really don't > mean to be > insulting, but I have to say that you sound a bit > like former > Commissioner of the US Patent Office Charles H. > Duell, who said in > 1899 that "Everything that can be invented has been > invented." This > is perhaps the greatest challenge humanity has > faced, we're ingenious > little monkeys, I don't think you should gong us out > before we're > even in the ring. > > >Would we not be better off at this point figuring > out how to live in > >a warmer world than trying to stop a flood with a > tea cup? > > Say you were already there so there wasn't a > transport problem, how > would you go about living on Venus? You and six > billion others, plus > the whole biosphere? Do you think that would less of > a technological > challenge than mitigating global warming at this > stage on Earth? > > >The Kyoto protocol has considerable economic > consequences. > > Global warming has even more considerable economic > consequences. The > insurance industry calculated that global warming > cost US$60 billion > in 2003, going up fast. > > >Is this the best use of the worlds resources to > solve the problem? > > Do you know of a better one? Nobody closely involved > with the Kyoto > Protocol sees it as a final document, nor as > perfect, just as a first > step - it enables further steps. That's absolutely > true - things are > possible this week that were not possible last week. > You'd need to > assess all this very closely, and for some time to > come, before you > could safely draw conclusions as to whether or not > it's the best use > of the world's resources to solve the problem. The > point is that it's > the ONLY such use of the world's resources, it has > international > acceptance and force and it is happening now. What > would you prefer? > Another 13 years of talking about it? As it is, if > better uses of > resources emerge than are now envisaged, as no doubt > they will, it's > within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol that > they'll be > implemented. > > >Would it not be better to determine the likely > consequences of > >warming and figure out how best to deal with them? > > That's included in the Kyoto Protocol. Maybe you > should go and study it. > > http://i-newswire.com/pr6144.html > i-Newswire.com - Press Release And News Distribution > - WORLDWIDE > CELEBRATIONS TO MARK KYOTO PROTOCOL'S ENTRY INTO > FORCE 16 FEBRUARY > > "The Kyoto Protocol's entry into force means that > from 16 February > 2005... the Protocol's Adaptation Fund, established > in 2001, can > become operational to assist developing countries to > cope with the > negative effects of climate change." > [more] > > The industrialised nations are expected to "take the > lead" in these > efforts (rather than leaving the 3rd World countries > to it). No > country will be immune, but it's already apparent > that the 3rd World > countries, who've contributed to it the least, will > be the hardest > hit and the least equipped to cope with it. > > http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html > Kyoto Protocol > KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK > CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE > > Best wishes > > Keith > > > >Rick > > > > > > > >DB wrote: > > > >>Just thought I'd throw in my two cents worth on > this subject. After > >>careful study of the evidence, any non-Republican > would conclude > >>that global warming is real. It matters not > whether it is man made > >>or a natural occurence. Just as when the house is > burning down you > >>must first put out the fire. Then you can figure > out === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
