Global Warming? WHAT global warming?

[BlueEagle]

Two questions come to mind. How could they possibly measure sea ice in the first place, and how long have they been doing so for comparitive purposes?
They have these marvelous things called "satellites" that take photographs of every square inch of planet earth on a constant basis. This, combined with visual observation by research vessels, gives one a pretty good clue whether there is any sea ice in the arctic ocean or not.

[MrZuLu]

Oh yeah, we've had far fewer hurricanes/tropical storms this year!don't worry... it's just getting a late start

[tribute1969]

I see lots of "globes" warmed up here in Tennessee every day .....:xolicon42: :xolicon42:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20322498/

[YYY]

BOY. I'm relieved!! Terry has convinced me that humans have no responsibility in this situation and that we should just continue with business as usual. Waters will rise, climate conditions will drastically alter, flooding, famine, disasters and extinctions will occur yet I feel no guilt and will continue to exploit as much of the natural earth's resourses as possible for my own personal gain and will support all organizations that do the same.

I mean, Come on now. Why should I waste my time trying to effect environmental change. It's not my fault.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Yes.2]

:eyewobble

[Terry Shea]

They have these marvelous things called "satellites" that take photographs of every square inch of planet earth on a constant basis. This, combined with visual observation by research vessels, gives one a pretty good clue whether there is any sea ice in the arctic ocean or not.Satellites can only cover a specific area for a specific period of time and don't really give a 3-dimensional view. And certainly there aren't many satellites that are tasked to perform such operations. Research vessels could only cover an even much smaller area. But I don't doubt that there is less sea ice since apparently the earth (and the oceans even more so) has been warming for about 3 decades...but all that means is that we have less sea ice than we did 3 decades ago. You have to look at the bigger picture. How much sea ice is there compared to 40 years ago, 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, etc.

Therein lies the problem. The first satellite (Sputnik) was only launched 50 years ago and it was certainly many years after Sputnik that the first satellite that could perform such a task was launched. So for comparitive purposes we're getting nothing from the satellites. They're just reaffirming what we already know; there's been a warming trend for about 30 years. We also know that there was a 30 year cooling period before this time, but we don't have any satellite images from this period (or prior periods). It would seem logical that during the 1940's, when temps were comparable to today, there was a like amount of sea ice which began to build during the 30 year cooling period until the mid 1970's and then began to melt.

Furthermore:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175B568A-802A-23AD-4C69-9BDD978FB3CD

6) Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels of University of Virginia and the Virginia State climatologist wrote the scenario promoted by former Vice President Al Gore and others showing Greenland’s ice melting and raising sea levels by 20 feet is not supported anywhere in scientific literature, not even by the United Nations. “Where is the support for this claim? Certainly not in the recent [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] Policymakers Summary from the United Nations. Under the [IPCC’s] medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore’s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent,” Michaels wrote in a February 23, 2007 article. (LINK (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjI4NTc0YWMzNTA3ZjRmYmJiMDRjNmI5MGEwZTFhM2E=)) “According to satellite data published in [the journal] Science in November 2005,” Michaels wrote, “Greenland was shedding ice at 0.4 percent per century.” “Nowhere in the traditionally [peer-reviewed] refereed scientific literature do we find any support for Gore’s [Greenland melt] hypothesis,” Michaels concluded.

7) Geologist Morten Hald, an Arctic expert at of the University of Tromso in Norway has also questioned the reliability of computer models predicting a melting Arctic. "The main problem is that these models are often based on relatively new climate data. The thermometer has only been in existence for 150 years and information on temperature which is 150 years old does not capture the large natural changes,” Hald, who is participating with a Norwegian national team in Arctic climate research, said in a May 18, 2007 article. (LINK (http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/umwelt_naturschutz/bericht-84482.html)) The article continued, “Professor Hald believes the models which are utilized to make prognoses about the future climate changes consider paleoclimate only to a minor degree.” “Studies of warm periods in the past, like during the Stone Ages can provide valuable knowledge to understand and tackle the warmer climate in the future,” Hald explained.

9) Physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the former director of both University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center who has twice been named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists," told a Congressional hearing in 2006 that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than “science fiction.” "All the papers since (the advent of satellites) show warming. That's what I call 'instant climatology.' I'm trying to tell young scientists, 'You can't study climatology unless you look at a much longer time period.'” (LINK (http://www.adn.com/life/story/8756517p-8658008c.html))

10) Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack of the University of Pennsylvania rejected fears of a catastrophic 20 foot sea level rise. “At the present rate of sea-level rise it’s going to take 3,500 years to get up there (to a rise of 20 feet) So if for some reason this warming process that melts ice is cutting loose and accelerating, sea level doesn’t know it. And sea level, we think, is the best indicator of global warming," Giegengack said according to a February 2007 article in Philadelphia Magazine. (LINK (http://www.phillymag.com/articles/science_al_gore_is_a_greenhouse_gasbag))

11) In addition, current climate fears tends to ignore the fact that the Vikings arrived in Greenland around 1000 A.D. and found it to be habitable settlement that they farmed for hundreds of years. A 2003 Harvard University study found (LINK (http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/Archive/200304/CUL20030408a.html)) the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period from about 800 to 1300 A.D. without modern SUV’s or man-made CO2 emissions. The Vikings abandoned Greenland when the Little Ice Age took hold.

12) Another problem for predictions of catastrophic sea level rise due to polar ice melt is Antarctica is not cooperating with the man-made catastrophic global warming models. “A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models,” reads the February 15, 2007 press release announcing the findings of David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. (See: Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions LINK (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php))
"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,” Bromwich explained. The release explains that Bromwich’s research team found “no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.”

[Terry Shea]

BOY. I'm relieved!! Terry has convinced me that humans have no responsibility in this situation and that we should just continue with business as usual. Waters will rise, climate conditions will drastically alter, flooding, famine, disasters and extinctions will occur yet I feel no guilt and will continue to exploit as much of the natural earth's resourses as possible for my own personal gain and will support all organizations that do the same.

I mean, Come on now. Why should I waste my time trying to effect environmental change. It's not my fault.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Once again, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that increased levels of CO2 or anything else manmade contributes to global warming. Sea levels are not rising by any appreciable amount. Famines and disasters have been on par with other periods of time, and extinctions are on the decline with many species actually making a comeback.

I'm all for cleaning up the environment. I'm all for conservation. But it isn't that simple and CO2 levels have not been proven to have any effect on temp whatsoever. Even if we decrease our emissions here in the western world, there are many progressing nations and 3rd world countries that will more than offset our fewer CO2 emissions. What are you going to do, not allow people from China to purchase automobiles as they are just starting to do now, or fly jets? How are you going to control them and forbid them from doing so? Nuke them into submission?

And as I already stated, it's a moot point because increased CO2 levels do not cause the earths temp to rise. If it did, the earth would be much warmer now than it was 1000 years ago when CO2 levels were low. But temps are not higher now than they were 1000 years ago (or during many much warmer periods) because CO2 levels have nothing to do with temperature.

[Terry Shea]

More from the US Senate trip to Greenland and recent scientific studies. Note: These are real documented studies, conducted by real scientists with links that can be checked, not some unnamed, undated, undefined study citing unnamed sources that Newsweek and other leftist publications are infamous for:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175B568A-802A-23AD-4C69-9BDD978FB3CD

Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt
Posted By Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov (Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov) – 9:39 AM ET
Ilulissat, Greenland – The July 27-29 2007 U.S. Senate trip to Greenland to investigate fears of a glacier meltdown revealed an Arctic land where current climatic conditions are neither alarming nor linked to a rise in man-made carbon dioxide emissions, according to many of the latest peer-reviewed scientific findings. Recent research has found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955.
A recent study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. One 2005 study found Greenland gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations. In addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland’s ice completely melting and a subsequent catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific studies. These studies suggest that the biggest perceived threat to Greenland’s glaciers may be contained in unproven computer models predicting a future catastrophic melt.
As a representative of Environment & Public Works Committee Ranking Member, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), I made the trek to the Arctic Circle with the Senate delegation (LINK (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3429160)) to the land the Vikings once farmed during the Medieval Warm Period.
Senators and their staff viewed majestic giant glaciers and icebergs in the Kangia Ice Fjord and in Disko Bay via helicopter, boat and on foot, during the three day 24 hours of daylight trip which began in the Arctic city of Kangerlussuaq, Greenland.
In an informational handout, participants of the Senate trip to Greenland were shown a depiction of coastal flooding that illustrated what would happen if most of the ice on Greenland was to melt and sea levels rose nearly 20 feet. The handout on Greenland was written by UN scientist Dr. Richard B. Alley, who is also a professor of Geosciences at Penn State University and traveled with the Senate delegation. Dr. Alley noted that the illustration of coastal flooding was not a forecast or a prediction, but merely an illustration of what could happen.
Dr. Alley’s handout stated in part, “We don’t think Greenland could melt completely in less than many centuries, but it might get warm enough this century to start complete melting.”
During the trip, a Danish scientist and Danish government officials appealed to the U.S. government to act now to address global warming and used the prospect of Greenland melt fears as a wake up call for such action. But the very latest research reveals massive Greenland melt fears are not sustainable. According to a survey of some of the latest peer-reviewed scientific reports, current Greenland temperatures are neither alarming nor linked to a rise in man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
Sampling of Recent Scientific Studies:
1) A 2006 study by Danish researchers from Aarhus University found that “Greenland’s glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming.” (LINK (http://www.spacedaily.com/2006/060821152543.jn8x3o1k.html)) Glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde explained that the study was “the most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements of Greenland’s glaciers, according to an August 21, 2006 article in Agence France-Presse. “Seventy percent of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880’s,” Yde explained. [EPW Blog note: 80% of man-made CO2 emissions occurred after 1940. (LINK (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/avery042507.htm)) ] Niels Tvis Knudsen of Aarhus University co-authored the paper.
2) A 2006 study by a team of scientists led by Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences found the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005, suggesting carbon dioxide ‘could not be the cause’ of warming. (LINK (http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html))
“We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods (1920-1930 and 1995-2005) are of similar magnitude, however the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005,” the abstract of the study read.
The peer-reviewed study, which was published in the June 13, 2006 Geophysical Research Letters, found that after a warm 2003 on the southeastern coast of Greenland, “the years 2004 and 2005 were closer to normal being well below temperatures reached in the 1930’s and 1940’s.” The study further continued, “Almost all post-1955 temperature averages at Greenland stations are lower (colder climate) than the (1881-1955) temperature average.”
In addition, the Chylek led study explained, “Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920-1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for a period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within natural variability of Greenland climate. A general increase in solar activity [Scafetta and West, 2006] since 1990’s can be a contributing factor as well as the sea surface temperature changes of tropical ocean [Hoerling et al., 2001].”
“To summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.” The co-authors of the study were M.K. Dubey of Los Alamos National Laboratory and G. Lesins, Dalhousie University in Canada.
3) An October 2005 study in the journal Science found Greenland’s higher elevation interior ice sheet growing while lower elevations ice is thinning. According to a November 8, 2005 article in European Research, “An international team of climatologists and oceanographers, led by the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center (NERSC) in Norway, estimates that Greenland’s interior ice sheet has grown, on average, 6cm per year in areas above 1 500m between 1992 and 2003.” Lead author, Ola M. Johannessen of NERSC “says the sheet growth is due to increased snowfall brought about by variability in regional atmospheric circulation, or the so-called North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO),” according to the article. (LINK (http://ec.europa.eu/research/headlines/news/article_05_11_08_en.html)) & (LINK (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1115356v1) to Journal Science)
4) A February 8, 2007 peer-reviewed paper published in Science found two of Greenland’s largest glaciers have “suddenly slowed, bringing the rate of melting last year down to near the previous rate,” according to the New York Times blog (2-8-07). (LINK (http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/greenlands-glaciers-take-a-breather)) The report found that the Kangerdlugssuaq glacier’s “average thinning over the glacier during the summer of 2006 declined to near zero, with some apparent thickening in areas on the main trunk.” (LINK) University of Washington’s Applied Physics Laboratory researcher Ian Howat, the lead author of the report, explained “Greenland was about as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s, and many of the glaciers were smaller than they are now.” “However, it does suggest that large variations in ice sheet dynamics can occur from natural climate variability,” Howat, also a researcher with the University of Colorado’s National Snow and Ice Data Center, explained. “Special care must be taken in how these and other mass-loss estimates are evaluated, particularly when extrapolating into the future because short-term spikes could yield erroneous long term trends,” Howat cautioned.
5) A July 6, 2007 study published in the journal Science about Greenland by an international team of scientists found DNA “evidence that suggests the frozen shield covering the immense island survived the Earth’s last period of global warming,” according to a Boston Globe article. (6-6-07) (LINK (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/06/greenland_ice_yields_hope_on_climate)) According to the article, the study indicates “Greenland’s ice may be less susceptible to the massive meltdown predicted by computer models of climate change, the main author (Eske Willerslev, professor of evolutionary biology at University of Copenhagen) said in an interview. “This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming. They may withstand rising temperatures,” Willerslev said. The article explained, “The discovery of organic matter in ice dating from half –a-million years ago offers evidence that the Greenland ice sheet remained frozen even during the Earth’s last ‘interglacial period’ – some 120,000 years ago – when average temperatures were 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than they are now.” Willerslev addressed scary computer model predictions of a massive Greenland melt. “[The study] suggests a problem with [computer] models” that predict melting ice from Greenland could drown cities and destroy civilizations, Willerslev said. The study found “Greenland really was green, before Ice Age glaciers enshrouded vast swaths of the Northern Hemisphere…somewhere between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago,” according to the article.

8) Polar expert Ivan Frolov, the head of Russia’s Science and Research Institute of Arctic and Antarctic Regions, said atmospheric temperature would have to much higher to make continental glaciers melt. “Many hundred years or 20-30 degree temperature rise would have made glaciers melt,” Frolov said in a December 14, 2006 Russian news article. (LINK (http://www.russia-ic.com/news/show/3129)) Frolov noted that currently Greenland’s and Antarctic glaciers have the tendency to grow. The article explained, “Frolov says cooling and warming periods are common for our planet – temperature fluctuations amounted to 10-12 degrees. However, such fluctuations haven’t caused glaciers to melt. Thus, we shouldn’t be afraid they melt today.”

[BlueEagle]

GEEEZ, Terry, calm down! Are you being paid by EXXON or something? If you dont believe in global warming thats your right but all this propaganda is not changing anybody's mind. SCIENTIFIC FACTS i.e. measurements can be ignored if you choose to -especially if you have a financial stake in their implications, but can't be refuted.
Anyway, I'm done here- believe what you want.

[YYY]

I'm all for cleaning up the environment. I'm all for conservation.

But Y? Y is conservation neccesary. Y is cleaning up the environment neccesary? If pollution isn't causing a problem then Y should it matter. Please explain

[Yes.2]

:popcorn:

[Terry Shea]

GEEEZ, Terry, calm down! Are you being paid by EXXON or something? If you dont believe in global warming thats your right but all this propaganda is not changing anybody's mind. SCIENTIFIC FACTS i.e. measurements can be ignored if you choose to -especially if you have a financial stake in their implications, but can't be refuted.
Anyway, I'm done here- believe what you want.Excuse me, but I'm the one citing factual data here. It's your side that is touting the propaganda. If you have some actual factual data to share then please, by all means share it.

[Terry Shea]

But Y? Y is conservation neccesary. Y is cleaning up the environment neccesary? If pollution isn't causing a problem then Y should it matter. Please explain
I never said pollution wasn't a problem and you know it very well. I've made that more than abundantly clear! Now quit trying to confuse the issue. Perceived manmade global warming and pollution are 2 entirely different matters. The 2 most common greenhouse gasses are water vapor and carbon dioxide and neither one is a pollutant! W/o carbon dioxide there would be no plant life and w/o water vapor there would be no life period.

[Terry Shea]

Wow! I just read the very first post to this thread. How can you people be so gullible?

Using high tech monitoring devices, including satellite images, scientists have reconstructed a major climate event that occurred on August 13, 2005. That afternoon the forty-one square mile Ayles Ice Shelf broke free of Canada's Ellesmere Island. It now floats free, an ice island off northeastern Canada.

Satellite images and earthquake monitoring devices recorded the event. Nobody lives in the area so it was only digital evidence that existed. Now scientists have visited the newly formed ice island. Its position will be closely watched.

Only five Canadian ice shelves remain connected to land. And measurements show they are 90% smaller than they were a century ago.

At the recent Geophysical Union conference, one report said most Arctic ice will be gone by 2040. Don't buy any real estate near sea level.

Nobody sees any hypocrisy in these statements? And apparently you all failed to see (or deliberately ignored) the obvious. First off, since earthquake monitoring devices are cited, I think it would be logical to assume that there was an earthquake or other seismic activity in the area which no doubt helped if not outright caused the ice shelf to break away.

And how can the 2 underlined and italicized statements co-exist? If no one lives in the area and they rely on satellite images to observe what's going on then how do they know these ice shelves are 90% smaller than they were a century ago when satellites didn't exist?

It's also stated that only 5 Canadian ice shelves remain connected to land, but it doesn't give any other data to compare it to. How many were there previously? More to the point, who cares if an ice shelf is connected to land or not? Who cares if you have 5 large ice shelves connected to land or hundreds of smaller ice floes floating in the water?

And one report actually stated that most Arctic ice will be gone by 2040, eh? How many stated otherwise?

People, you really have to start thinking for yourselves and questioning things instead of falling hook, line and sinker for all this garbage we're being force fed.

[mmmYes]

Islands emerge as Arctic ice shrinks to record low

NY ALESUND, Norway (Reuters) - Previously unknown islands are appearing as Arctic summer sea ice shrinks to record lows, raising questions about whether global warming is outpacing U.N. projections, experts said.

Polar bears and seals have also suffered this year on the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard because the sea ice they rely on for hunts melted far earlier than normal.

"Reductions of snow and ice are happening at an alarming rate," Norwegian Environment Minister Helen Bjoernoy said at a seminar of 40 scientists and politicians that began late on Monday in Ny Alesund, 1,200 km (750 miles) from the North Pole.

"This acceleration may be faster than predicted" by the U.N. climate panel this year, she told reporters at the August 20-22 seminar. Ny Alesund calls itself the world's most northerly permanent settlement, and is a base for Arctic research.

The U.N. panel of 2,500 scientists said in February that summer sea ice could almost vanish in the Arctic towards the end of this century. It said warming in the past 50 years was "very likely" the result of greenhouse gases caused by fossil fuel use.

"There may well be an ice-free Arctic by the middle of the century," Christopher Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, told the seminar, accusing the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of underestimating the melt.

The thaw of glaciers that stretch out to sea around Svalbard has revealed several islands that are not on any maps.

"Islands are appearing just over the fjord here" as glaciers recede, said Kim Holmen, research Director at the Norwegian Polar Institute, gesturing out across the bay. "We're already seeing adverse effects on polar bears and other species."

UNCLAIMED

"I know of two islands that appeared in the north of Svalbard this summer.

They haven't been claimed yet," said Rune Bergstrom, environmental expert with the Norwegian governor's office on Svalbard.

He said he had seen one of the islands, roughly the size of a basketball court. Islands have also appeared in recent years off Greenland and Canada.

**********************************

read more "propaganda" here
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070820/ts_nm/climate_ice_dc

[Altres]

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/10/22/mucci_narrowweb__300x369,2.jpg (http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/index.php?id=82)

Click image to find out why Terry is deluded.

[Terry Shea]

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/10/22/mucci_narrowweb__300x369,2.jpg (http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/index.php?id=82)

Click image to find out why Terry is deluded.
Balderdash! They're taking temps from hand-picked selected years and projecting the recent cyclical warming trend (which is simply a natural response to the previous cooling period) out over a much longer period of time. It's the same mistake they made in the '70's when they predicted we were on the verge of an ice age! You can't take one cyclical pattern and project it out. You don't know when the cycle is going to end and the "mistake" (I'll call it that even though I'm certain most of these rogue "scientists" are intentionally doing it to mislead the public) they're making is in assuming that the cycle won't end. Once again, we've had several much warmer periods on earth than we have now and the CO2 levels were much lower than they are today.

Now watch in 30 years or so the temp will moderate and scientists will be claiming that increased CO2 levels cause global moderation, which will no doubt be more devastating than global cooling or global warming!:beerchugr:

Just in case you missed item #11 from the post above:

11) In addition, current climate fears tends to ignore the fact that the Vikings arrived in Greenland around 1000 A.D. and found it to be habitable settlement that they farmed for hundreds of years. A 2003 Harvard University study found (LINK (http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/Archive/200304/CUL20030408a.html)) the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period from about 800 to 1300 A.D. without modern SUV’s or man-made CO2 emissions. The Vikings abandoned Greenland when the Little Ice Age took hold.

How about that. We had global warming for a 500 year period and it wasn't caused by anything manmade. Put that in your pipe and smoke it...oh wait, better not. That could cause global warming!

[Altres]

I love the word balderdash, it is like emptying one's dirty little sack of muck to chuck before mother Earth climaxed. The universe is female, which is why of course it eludes the science of men. Mankind just peaked, I'm off for a smoke. :D

Brian

[mmmYes]

Just because global warming wasn't caused by anything manmade 500 years ago doesn't mean it isn't now.

Climate change is caused by many things.

Anyone who still thinks that that we humans aren't affecting the climate is really...well...I just can't say.

[Terry Shea]

Islands emerge as Arctic ice shrinks to record low

NY ALESUND, Norway (Reuters) - Previously unknown islands are appearing as Arctic summer sea ice shrinks to record lows, raising questions about whether global warming is outpacing U.N. projections, experts said.

Polar bears and seals have also suffered this year on the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard because the sea ice they rely on for hunts melted far earlier than normal.

"Reductions of snow and ice are happening at an alarming rate," Norwegian Environment Minister Helen Bjoernoy said at a seminar of 40 scientists and politicians that began late on Monday in Ny Alesund, 1,200 km (750 miles) from the North Pole.

"This acceleration may be faster than predicted" by the U.N. climate panel this year, she told reporters at the August 20-22 seminar. Ny Alesund calls itself the world's most northerly permanent settlement, and is a base for Arctic research.

The U.N. panel of 2,500 scientists said in February that summer sea ice could almost vanish in the Arctic towards the end of this century. It said warming in the past 50 years was "very likely" the result of greenhouse gases caused by fossil fuel use.

"There may well be an ice-free Arctic by the middle of the century," Christopher Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, told the seminar, accusing the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of underestimating the melt.

The thaw of glaciers that stretch out to sea around Svalbard has revealed several islands that are not on any maps.

"Islands are appearing just over the fjord here" as glaciers recede, said Kim Holmen, research Director at the Norwegian Polar Institute, gesturing out across the bay. "We're already seeing adverse effects on polar bears and other species."

UNCLAIMED

"I know of two islands that appeared in the north of Svalbard this summer.

They haven't been claimed yet," said Rune Bergstrom, environmental expert with the Norwegian governor's office on Svalbard.

He said he had seen one of the islands, roughly the size of a basketball court. Islands have also appeared in recent years off Greenland and Canada.

**********************************

read more "propaganda" here
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070820/ts_nm/climate_ice_dc

So the ice melted and instead of the sea level increasing and swallowing up islands, more islands appeared, eh? How about that! How much you want to bet they find signs of life and/or former civiliziations on some of these islands?

[Terry Shea]

I love the word balderdash, it is like emptying one's dirty little sack of muck to chuck before mother Earth climaxed. The universe is female, which is why of course it eludes the science of men. Mankind just peaked, I'm off for a smoke. :D

Brian
Don't do it! You'll cause global warming!

Seriously though, at least you presented some documetation. I applaud you for that.

[Terry Shea]

Just because global warming wasn't caused by anything manmade 500 years ago doesn't mean it isn't now.

Climate change is caused by many things.

Anyone who still thinks that that we humans aren't affecting the climate is really...well...I just can't say.
Uh, I didn't say 500 years ago...I said it lasted for 500 years. You're right...climate change is caused by many things...many things that we have absolutely no control over. And there is no proof whatsoever that increased CO2 levels cause the temp to rise. 30 years ago scientists were saying that increased CO2 levels cause global cooling.

Now, what if it were proven that higher CO2 levels caused the temp to rise, but for some unexplained reason the temp on earth suddenly dropped 30 degrees for an extended period of time? Should we do everything we could to manufacture more CO2 or freeze to death?

[Altres]

It's all about tipping points. When do things go into flux?

Do you have insurance, Terry? But you still wear a seat-belt? You have alarm systems at home and work? You try to mimimise the risk of a potential hazard being fully realised into a tragedy?

This is an attempt at global protection, not an insurance policy.

"You can analyse the past, but you have to design the future."
"We may need to solve problems not by removing the cause but by designing the way forward even if the cause remains in place."
Edward De Bono

Let's evolve with the planet, not fight it into oblivion.

Brian

[MrZuLu]

I have presented website after website from sites such as NOAA (http://www.noaa.gov/) NCAR (http://www.ucar.edu/) NCDC (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html) and you have disputed every friggin one Terry!

You called me a GDMFing Libral... I have not insulted you. I have laugh at you and with you but I have not called you anything but Terry

I am a card carrying Republican for crying out loud!

What differs from you and me is fact that I look at the Cherry trees blooming 3 weeks before the bees even wake up. I see oak trees that are changing color already and shrivelling up because Of heat and lack of rain. I see a friggin Glaciers on my local mountains that are VANISHING.

I had a favorite place I "used" to hike to to get fresh glacier water... I don't go there anymore. Why?

THE FRIGGIN GLACIER IS GONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You tell me to wake up?

YOU wake up!
:sephiroth

[YYY]

Terry, for argument sake...Even if our contribution to global warming is relatively small and we don't try to instill a different mentality around the world through greener technology and methods that conserve energy, what's going to happen when the rest of the developing world developes. A change need to happen starting yesterday in order to move away from the primative 20th century. Living cleaner and greener is simply common sense for the future. And if Gore's and most scientist's information and fear tactics trouble you then so be it. The changes they recommend can only help the planet and life on this planet.

[Sheerah]

Satellite images and earthquake monitoring devices recorded the event. Nobody lives in the area so it was only digital evidence that existed.

And measurements show they are 90% smaller than they were a century ago.

And how can the 2 underlined and italicized statements co-exist? If no one lives in the area and they rely on satellite images to observe what's going on then how do they know these ice shelves are 90% smaller than they were a century ago when satellites didn't exist?



It's called Science, Terry. No one was around when the Earth was being formed, yet through Science, we can estimate the age of the Earth. There is some type of reflector on the moon that was place there during the first moon walk. A laser beam gets sent up to the moon, is reflected off of this device, and the amount of time that it takes for the laser to come back to its origination point is measured. It is through these measurements that Scientists have been able to determine that the moon is moving further and further away from Earth. And yet, no one lives on the moon.

[Terry Shea]

It's called Science, Terry. No one was around when the Earth was being formed, yet through Science, we can estimate the age of the Earth. There is some type of reflector on the moon that was place there during the first moon walk. A laser beam gets sent up to the moon, is reflected off of this device, and the amount of time that it takes for the laser to come back to its origination point is measured. It is through these measurements that Scientists have been able to determine that the moon is moving further and further away from Earth. And yet, no one lives on the moon.Well that's very interesting Sheila, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Nice attempt at sidestepping the issue though. Once again:

Satellite images and earthquake monitoring devices recorded the event. Nobody lives in the area so it was only digital evidence that existed.

And measurements show they are 90% smaller than they were a century ago.

The second statement clearly contradicts the 1st statement. If they only have satellites and digital evidence to rely on now, they certainly didn't have such devices in place 100 years ago so that they areas could be compared. They didn't place reflectors in the area and beam lasers off from them either. I suppose they could have put reflectors in place, but that would have been stupid since lasers didn't exist. You also sidestepped the issue with the earthquake monitoring devices. Was there an earthquake or not?

But at least you actually seem convinced that we did indeed go to the moon. I had you pegged as one of the conspiracy theorists who think the moon missions were an elaborate Hollywood prank. I wouldn't have been surprised if you had been a member of the Flat Earth Society either.:beerchugr:

[Terry Shea]

I have presented website after website from sites such as NOAA (http://www.noaa.gov/) NCAR (http://www.ucar.edu/) NCDC (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html) and you have disputed every friggin one Terry!

You called me a GDMFing Libral... I have not insulted you. I have laugh at you and with you but I have not called you anything but Terry

I am a card carrying Republican for crying out loud!

What differs from you and me is fact that I look at the Cherry trees blooming 3 weeks before the bees even wake up. I see oak trees that are changing color already and shrivelling up because Of heat and lack of rain. I see a friggin Glaciers on my local mountains that are VANISHING.

I had a favorite place I "used" to hike to to get fresh glacier water... I don't go there anymore. Why?

THE FRIGGIN GLACIER IS GONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You tell me to wake up?

YOU wake up!
:sephirothI called you a liberal? Where? And being a republican does not make one a conservative. In fact probably better than 90% of the Republicans in office are not conservative in any way, shape or form, including (and especially) our president.

But back to the point, I'm going to keep disputing bogus evidence no matter where it comes from. I don't recall seeing you using any of those above sources as a reference, but I joined this thread late and haven't viewed most of it, so I may have missed it. That being said, the NOAA is about the most biased, unreliable source imaginable. They present very few facts and the few facts they do present use hand-picked, selected years and ignore the big picture.

Sorry about your glacier disappearing. Maybe if you and your neighbors quit driving it will reappear.

[Terry Shea]

Terry, for argument sake...Even if our contribution to global warming is relatively small and we don't try to instill a different mentality around the world through greener technology and methods that conserve energy, what's going to happen when the rest of the developing world developes. A change need to happen starting yesterday in order to move away from the primative 20th century. Living cleaner and greener is simply common sense for the future. And if Gore's and most scientist's information and fear tactics trouble you then so be it. The changes they recommend can only help the planet and life on this planet.
We are living cleaner and greener. I have no idea why you refer to the 20th centruy as primitive though. Al Gore is getting filthy rich preaching his lies and playing on people's fears. He's much more powerful (and richer) in his position right now than he ever would have been had he become president. And he's the biggest hypocrite on the face of the earth. He doesn't believe in global warming himself. he can't. It's been well documented that nearly everything out of his mouth concerning global warming are nothing but lies he made up.

He'll tell you to quit driving and quit flying in jets, but is he going to do the same? Not a chance! His home uses more electricity than many small cities do. He claims that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere cause the earths temp to rise when he knows full well that it's the other way around. Higher temps cause higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The man is nothing but a lying pig! He wants you to be poor and live like a caveman while he gets filthy rich living the life of George Jetson!

[Frosted Sun]

There problem solved. Next debate. BTW where is the link that Al Gore uses more electricity in his home than a small city? And the one about NOAA also, and we are living greener and cleaner....and ....

I think data bases must have ran out of space to store it all,,,... this could go on forever.

[kirk]

Terry Shea, meet Terry Chea!-:appl[1]:

Bush Must Release Global Warming Reports
By TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer
1 hour ago

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge ordered the Bush administration to issue two scientific reports on global warming, siding with environmentalists who sued the White House for failing to produce the documents.

U.S. District Court Judge Saundra Armstrong ruled Tuesday that the Bush administration had violated a 1990 law when it failed to meet deadlines for an updated U.S. climate change research plan and impact assessment.

Armstrong set a March 1 deadline for the administration to issue the research plan, which is meant to guide federal research on climate change. Federal law calls for an updated plan every three years, she said. The last one was issued in 2003.

The judge set a May 31 deadline to produce a national assessment containing the most recent scientific data on global warming and its projected effects on the country's environment, economy and public health. The government is required to complete a national assessment every four years, the judge ruled.

The last one was issued by the Clinton administration in 2000.

The administration had claimed that it had discretion over how and when it produced the reports _ an argument the judge rejected Tuesday.

"The defendants are wrong," Armstrong wrote in the 38-page ruling. "Congress has conferred no discretion upon the defendants as to when they will issue revised Research Plans and National Assessments."

The plaintiffs _ the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace _ said the ruling was a rebuke to an administration that has systematically denied and suppressed information on global warming.

"It's a huge victory holding the administration accountable for its attempts to suppress science," said Kassie Siegel, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs that filed suit in Oakland federal court in November.

K

[yesyadda]

Belching moose (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070822/sc_afp/sciencenorwayclimate)

[BlueEagle]

Who'd have thought, huh, Gar? Sneaky meeses! And don't get us started on COWS! You want methane, just drive by Harris Ranch on I-5. ;)

[sissywoods]

So..
who's ready to pull the plug and get off the grid?

*extremist ducks and runs from thread

[kirk]

90% of the Republicans in office are not conservative in any way, shape or form, including (and especially) our president.

Well, "Amen" to that!!

I'm going to keep disputing bogus evidence no matter where it comes from.

Good deal Terry! Plain and simple, you're being duped
by Exxon, and other large-scale polluters that're
spending billions in a tobacco lobby style disinformantion campaign.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

It's really very simple.
Carbon emissions (mostly from coal-fueled
electricity generating plants, not cars, jets..or moose farts)
produce a haze that slows the planet's reflection (Albedo)
of the suns rays, the heat builds, much like a greenhouse.

If that's over your head, sit in a greehouse for a
few hours in the direct sun...or hang out in L.A.
on an August day.
The principle becomes apparent very quickly.

Sadly, like everything else in America, the problem
has now been politicized, the usual, very predictable
sides are drawn through the..I use the term loosely,
"news media".

kirk

[podo]

Good deal Terry! Plain and simple, you're being duped
by Exxon, and other large-scale polluters that're
spending billions in a tobacco lobby style disinformantion campaign.



kirk

A friend of a friend of mine (truely) recently visited from England. He works for one of the large tobacco firms. During dinner conversation, he stated that there was no real proof that cigarretts cause lung cancer.

After the deathly silence, my mate simply said "Nigel, we are not going anywhere near that conversation............Hows your mother ?? ""

[pedro skychaser]

A friend of a friend of mine (truely) recently visited from England. He works for one of the large tobacco firms. During dinner conversation, he stated that there was no real proof that cigarretts cause lung cancer.

After the deathly silence, my mate simply said "Nigel, we are not going anywhere near that conversation............Hows your mother ?? ""

hhahaha podoffsky---like that ad on TV,when the guy,at the BBQ, says he works for a bank......................deathly silence.

then he says "oh, but its st.george!"


and everyone relaxes.........:beerchugr:

[podo]

hhahaha podoffsky---like that ad on TV,when the guy,at the BBQ, says he works for a bank......................deathly science.

then he says "oh, but its st.george!"


and everyone relaxes.........:beerchugr:

Having worked for one of the "other" major banks, and now working for "that major telecommunications company" I can relate to the experience !.. My response ? "They keep paying me, so I keep turning up"

[pianozach]

No doubt: Climate change is real

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2007/08/27/2003376044

Typhoon Sepat was the third typhoon to strike the nation within two weeks. It caused incessant heavy rains all over the country. But in the rest of the world, there have been even more serious natural disasters and meteorological phenomena this year. . . . .

. . . . In last month and this month, South Asia saw continuous heavy rain for more than 20 days. . . . .

. . . . This May and June, the UK saw the heaviest rain in 200 years. . . . .

. . . . aanxi. A 100-year-record amount of rain fell in Chongqing. And it has been raining incessantly in North Korea where floods have caused many losses. . . . .

. . . . In the end of last month, temperatures in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Greece rose above 40oC. . . . .

. . . . The US Midwest has seen a very hot summer, and in the middle of this month temperatures in many areas were above 37oC for days at a time. . . . .

. . . . the UN's World Meteorological Organization (WMO) point out that in the first half of this year, there was a higher number of unusual meteorological phenomena than in the past, and the average temperatures in January and April had broken all past records. . . . .

[podo]

No doubt: Climate change is real

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2007/08/27/2003376044

Typhoon Sepat was the third typhoon to strike the nation within two weeks. It caused incessant heavy rains all over the country. But in the rest of the world, there have been even more serious natural disasters and meteorological phenomena this year. . . . .

. . . . In last month and this month, South Asia saw continuous heavy rain for more than 20 days. . . . .

. . . . This May and June, the UK saw the heaviest rain in 200 years. . . . .

. . . . aanxi. A 100-year-record amount of rain fell in Chongqing. And it has been raining incessantly in North Korea where floods have caused many losses. . . . .

. . . . In the end of last month, temperatures in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Greece rose above 40oC. . . . .

. . . . The US Midwest has seen a very hot summer, and in the middle of this month temperatures in many areas were above 37oC for days at a time. . . . .

. . . . the UN's World Meteorological Organization (WMO) point out that in the first half of this year, there was a higher number of unusual meteorological phenomena than in the past, and the average temperatures in January and April had broken all past records. . . . .

It could be argued that none of that justifies the arguement that its because of mans impact. It could all just be natural.

Trouble is,,, natural changes occur over hundreds, if not thousands of years. To the point where it would probably not be noticed.. Natural events do not happen over decades. Thats where the "not our fault" arguement falls to the ground

[Yes.2]

So..
who's ready to pull the plug and get off the grid?

*extremist ducks and runs from thread

A good way to start is by embracing LED lightbulb technology which in the USA are only available on ebay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Lot-of-8X-110V-24-LED-Warm-White-Screw-Base-Light-Bulb_W0QQitemZ220142335120QQihZ012QQcategoryZ20706 QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[Yes.2]

This type of LED bulb works on any 110 volt existing screw in medium house base. Beautiful bright Warm White, It is perfect to help you not feel guilty about leaving an accent light on all night. Run it for twelve hours a day for a whole year at a cost of about 80 cents. This LED light bulb should last about 10 years, and works well with a dimmer switch.http://img.inkfrog.com/click_enlarge1.php?image=LS18.jpg&username=1Som_Bidsome&aid=67502432http://img.inkfrog.com/click_enlarge1.php?image=LS18.jpg&username=1Som_Bidsome&aid=67502432

[pianozach]

A good way to start is by embracing LED lightbulb technology which in the USA are only available on ebay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Lot-of-8X-110V-24-LED-Warm-White-Screw-Base-Light-Bulb_W0QQitemZ220142335120QQihZ012QQcategoryZ20706 QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

This type of LED bulb works on any 110 volt existing screw in medium house base. Beautiful bright Warm White, It is perfect to help you not feel guilty about leaving an accent light on all night. Run it for twelve hours a day for a whole year at a cost of about 80 cents. This LED light bulb should last about 10 years, and works well with a dimmer switch.http://img.inkfrog.com/click_enlarge1.php?image=LS18.jpg&username=1Som_Bidsome&aid=67502432http://img.inkfrog.com/click_enlarge1.php?image=LS18.jpg&username=1Som_Bidsome&aid=67502432

http://img.inkfrog.com/pix/1Som_Bidsome/LS18.jpg

Anyone have any clue as to why this technology isn't easily available? What's up with that?

[BlueEagle]

Oh just WAIT til the chinese start making 'em! :rolleyes:

[sissywoods]

They've come up with the multi-function LED crank flashlights. I just like having to use a little human power and not creating battery waste. We got a couple which are great to have for emergency situations like hurricanes.

Now they just need to come up with a crank camping stove, crank fridge, crank fan, crank generator..

:lol:

[Altres]

I've had crank phone calls.

Brian

[MrZuLu]

my neighbors smoke crank...

why is beyond me...

[yesyadda]

I've smoked crank. It was.

[yesyadda]

P. S. - Just Say No To Drugs!

[Sheerah]

Agreement Reached on Greenhouse Gas Curb
By WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writer


VIENNA, Austria - Negotiators from 158 countries reached basic agreement Friday on rough targets aimed at getting some of the world's biggest polluters to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

A weeklong U.N. climate conference concluded that industrialized countries should strive to cut emissions by 25 percent to 40 percent of their 1990 levels by 2020. Experts said that target would serve as a loose guide for a major international climate summit to be held in December in Bali, Indonesia.

"We have reached broad agreement on the main issues," said Leon Charles, a negotiator from Grenada who helped oversee the Vienna talks.

Delegates worked into Friday evening to overcome resistance from several countries _ including Canada, Japan and Russia _ that had held up negotiations because they preferred a more open approach rather than setting emissions targets.

The 2020 targets are not binding, but they were seen as an important signal that industrialized nations are serious about slashing the amount of carbon dioxide and other dangerous gases to try to avert the most catastrophic consequences of global warming.

Friday's agreement sought to ease concerns that the emissions target might be too ambitious for some nations, noting that efforts to cut back on airborne pollutants are "determined by national circumstances and evolve over time."

But it made clear that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced to "very low levels" to guard against potentially deadly flooding, drought and other fallout.

"Hence the urgency to address climate change," the agreement said.

The Bali conference will try to forge a new global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions after 2012, when the 1997 Kyoto Protocol expires. The Kyoto accord requires 35 industrial nations to cut their emissions 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Environmental groups stressed that developed countries need to take urgent measures to keep Earth's temperature from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit _ a limit scientists contend is critical to prevent catastrophic flooding and other deadly weather patterns.

"They need to be guided by the potential calamity," said Angela Anderson, vice president for climate programs at the Washington-based National Environmental Trust.

Failing to cut emissions by at least 30 percent of 1990 levels by 2020 "would condemn millions to disease, water shortages and misery in the developing world," said Red Constantino, an official with Greenpeace International.

European Union officials had pressed hard for the 2020 targets. The EU already has pledged to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other harmful gases by 20 percent by that year, and by another 10 percent if other industrialized nations join in.

Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate official, said some developing countries _ including small island nations most vulnerable to climate change as polar ice caps melt and sea levels rise _ were pressing industrialized nations for even deeper emissions cuts.

Their negotiators, he said, were acting out of a sense of urgency and a fear that "they won't have a country to represent" if climate change is not slowed.

[MrZuLu]

The Northwest Passage: in dispute, and navigable

Summer's record melt of Arctic sea ice causes 'unprecedented' opening of route
RANDY BOSWELL, CanWest News Service

Published: Wednesday, August 29
One week after Canada and the United States agreed to disagree over the ownership of the Northwest Passage, this summer's record melt of Arctic sea ice has unlocked the fabled polar shipping route more completely than ever before, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Centre announced.

"It's open," Mark Serreze, a senior scientist with the research institute based in Boulder, Colo., said in an interview yesterday. "It's unprecedented. Theoretically, you could take a ship from Tokyo through the Northwest Passage to Boston. Not an easy sail, not a Sunday cruise, but it has started to happen."

Describing the phenomenon as clear proof that global climate change in under way, the centre says on its website that "analysts at the Canadian Ice Service and the U.S. National Ice Centre confirm that the passage is almost completely clear and that the region is more open than it has ever been since the advent of routine monitoring in 1972."

Environment Canada scientist Lionel Hache, senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says a navigable route across the country's Arctic archipelago has opened a few times since 1998. This year, he notes, "you could go through the Northwest Passage with a sailing boat without any problems, without seeing any ice."

And what particularly concerns scientists is that the thawing of Arctic ice typically continues until mid-September, virtually ensuring next summer's melt season will begin with a much-reduced base of what used to be called "permanent" ice.

More... (http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=8df15e06-e40d-42da-b42e-61c0d0713260&k=35335)

[pianozach]

current US highs:

http://image.weather.com/images/maps/current/curtemps_600x405.jpg

It's Gonna Be Another Hot Day . . .

[BlueEagle]

Yeah it's been hot- it's summer- you kinda expect that. I'm more concerned about the flooding rain in Texas, the midwest and the UK while other parts of the US have draught and raging wildfires. This is not good. If we're seeing changing long-term weather patterns, then it's a good sign the climate is changing and not for the better.

[pianozach]

Yeah it's been hot- it's summer- you kinda expect that. I'm more concerned about the flooding rain in Texas, the midwest and the UK while other parts of the US have draught and raging wildfires. This is not good. If we're seeing changing long-term weather patterns, then it's a good sign the climate is changing and not for the better.

Yes you do expect summer to be hotter than winter. But it's the more frequent and longer heat waves that are part of the cause of the flooding and deluges, like the ones that have rolling across the midwest up into Wisconsin.

The heat is also responsible for South Korea suddenly becoming sub-tropical.

. . . there's now a hurricane, bearing down on Central America with 165-mph winds. It's already the second storm this hurricane season to reach this magnitude.

Typhoon Sepat was the third typhoon to strike the Taiwan within two weeks.

On Prince Edward Island, there are eight rivers that are dying, as the heavy rains followed by intense heat kills and starts rotting the vegetation, creating anoxic conditions that in turn are killing the fish.

Soaring temperatures across the globe mean whole stretches of the Rio Grande and Colorado rivers are drying out each year with the water sometimes not even reaching the sea.

The coastline of Bangladesh has had to be redrawn as more land is lost to the ocean through heavier monsoons and rising sea levels.

[pianozach]

But wait, there's more . . . .

Lake Chad in Africa and the Aral Sea in Central Asia, once the world's fourth largest lake, have shrunk by 95 per cent and 75 per cent respectively since the 1960s, while the Dead Sea is 82 feet lower than it was just half a century ago.

Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa has lost more than 80 per cent of its ice cap in the last 100 years.

More than a billion people do not have access to sufficient fresh water to meet basic needs. An alarming increase in temperature is expected near the poles and in parts of the Amazon, which could wipe out the rainforest.

China, now the most heavily populated country in the world with more than 1.3 billion people, a fifth of the world's population is facing an increasingly dry climate and appetite for water to support its growing population, which means the mouth of the Yellow River has changed shape. There are even fears of water running out before the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

In the beginning of June, the Arabian Sea saw the formation of Gonu -- a tropical cyclone of almost legendary proportions. Its highest 10-minute average wind speed was 240kph, a wind force of 17 on the Beaufort scale. Gonu made landfall in Oman on June 5, becoming the strongest tropical cyclone on record to make landfall on the Arabian Peninsula.

[pianozach]

But hold on there buckaroo, there's still more . . . .

For the past two months South Asia saw continuous heavy rain for more than 20 days. After this disaster, famine and contagious diseases threatened the north of India, Bangladesh and Nepal.

This May and June, the UK saw the heaviest rain in 200 years. THIS summer appears to be the UK’s wettest since modern rainfall records began in 1914.

last month, temperatures in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Greece rose above 40°C (40°C = 104°F!).

Temperatures in Japan have been as high as 40.9°C, causing train rails to bend out of shape.

Australia's worst drought in a thousand years has gone into its ninth continuous year.

[pianozach]

You didn't really think that was all did you . . . . . ?

Official reports of the UN's World Meteorological Organization (WMO) point out that in the first half of this year, there was a higher number of unusual meteorological phenomena than in the past, and the average temperatures in January and April had broken all past records.

How about this?:

Devastating Forest Fires in South Africa "Worst Ever"

The raging fires that in recent weeks devastated vast swathes of the country's plantations and forests have been called "forestry's own 9 /11".

Sawmillers, land owners and lumber analysts say that the fires, which destroyed timber plantations in parts of the Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and, most notably, areas around Sabie and Graskop, the main timber-growing areas of Mpumalanga, were the worst conflagrations in the industry's history - "and the fire season is not over yet".

[pianozach]

Meanwhile, back in San Antonio, Texas, through Aug. 24, the weather service says, the city has seen 43.9 inches of rain, the rainiest eight months on record.

[pianozach]

Here's a short news report from ABC News that sums it all up quickly . . . .

New York City tornado only a blip on the weird weather radar
Story by ABC News
1:31 p.m. Thursday, August 9, 2007


Massive storms. Biblical floods. Scorching heat. We thought we'd seen it all.

Until a tornado touched down in a New York City borough.

"What are you talking about -- a tornado. We ain't in Kansas!" one Brooklyn resident said.

And, investigators from the National Weather Service were in just as much disbelief.

The roof was lifted off of an old building.

It was an EF-2 tornado. That means it packed winds between 111 to 135 mph.

This 100-year rarity is just one of a laundry list of extreme weather events around America and the world this year: from Asia -- where tropical storms are adding to new rainfall records -- to England's wettest three-month period ever, to the Arabian peninsula's first-ever tropical cyclone.

In America, the South is melting from extreme heat. Parts of Texas have ten times the normal rainfall just for July. And dozens of wildfires scorched the bone-dry West.

As the extreme weather piles up, more scientists are sounding the alarm.

"We've only seen the beginning part of the impact of global warming, and I think people on the street are starting to feel it with more intense heat waves and more intense weather," said Brenda Ekwurzel with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

http://www.49abcnews.com/news/2007/aug/09/new_york_city_tornado_only_blip_weird_weather_rada/


Watch the 2 minute ABC news report video here: http://www.49abcnews.com/news/2007/aug/09/new_york_city_tornado_only_blip_weird_weather_rada/



.

[pianozach]

Another nice overview . . . .

the daily green

Weird Weather Watch
List Of Weird Weather Extremes

The World Meteorological Association Is Tallying Climate-Related Devastation

The United Nations’ World Meteorological Association is cataloging extreme weather events and linking them to global warming. A report yesterday drew the connection between deadly heat, wildfire and flooding this year to the ongoing increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is leading to temperature extremes that spawn extreme weather. (For more on the U.N. statement, click here.)

Here’s a rundown of the extreme weather events the U.N. World Meteorological Association has cataloged in recent months:

Monsoon Frequency Doubles
The Indian summer monsoon season’s first half saw twice as many monsoon depressions as normal, leading to catastrophic flooding across South Asia, 500 deaths, the displacement of 10 million people, and the destruction of vast acreage of farmland and property.

First Ever Arabian Cyclone
Cyclone Gonu was the first documented cyclone in the Arabian Sea. It hit Oman and Iran in early June, killing 50 and affecting 20,000 others.

Intense Flooding In China
Heavy rains from June 6-10 affected 13.5 million Chinese citizens, and killed 120 in flooding and landslides.

Unprecedented Rain In England
England and Wales saw the wettest May-to-July period ever recorded in more than two centuries of weather record keeping. Intense one-day bursts in June and July caused extensive flooding, killed nine and caused an estimated $6 billion in damages.

Wet And Dry Extremes In Germany
In April, Germany recorded its driest April on record. A month later, Germany saw nearly two times as much rain as is typical, and recorded its wettest May since record keeping began more than a century ago.

Deadly European Storms
January saw torrential rains and ferocious winds across Europe, leading to the death of 47 and electricity outages affecting thousands.

Mozambique Flooding
February floods in Mozambique, the worst in six years, killed 30 and led to the evacuations of 120,000.

Nile River Overflows
Heavy and early rainfall in Sudan since the end of June has caused the Nile River and others to swell, and the flooding has damaged thousands of homes.

Islands Inundated
Huge wave swells, up to 14 feet in height, swamped 68 islands and 16 atolls in the Maldives in May.

Uruguay Flooding
Uruguay had its worst floods since 1959 in May, affecting 110,000 people and severely damaging crops and buildings.

Double Heat Wave
Southern Europe was blasted by two heat waves in June and July, breaking a series of temperature records, and spawning dozens of wildfires. Bulgaria recorded a new high temperature of 113 degrees, and other areas sweltered in 104+ degree heat.

Record Moscow Heat
In May, a heat wave in western and central Russia broke temperature records, including a 91 degree mark in Moscow that broke a 116-year-old record.

Record April Warmth
Across Europe, April ranked in many countries as the warmest ever recorded.


http://www.thedailygreen.com/2007/08/08/list-of-weird-weather-extremes/4917/


I think that I'd also add the January cherry blossoms, the super-charged storms, and the snowless ski slopes to these odd and off-season weather events.

[Yes.2]

Watch this.HAARP (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnRPZOUVhJ4)

This is real stuff. I use to live next to a fat old bald computer genius that had government tys to raytheon and TI....And he told me about this when I was real young back in the late 80s...He wrote all the software drivers for their custom linux basses software hardware iterfaces. He'd been to Haarp....Many times. Had some very interesting pictures and charts. Told me not to worry about nuclear war. He said haarps the real monster.

He was vary vary vary worried about this thing/place/project called Haarp....

[Yes.2]

Look up! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFW7kvLU9ws)

[pianozach]

I first heard about the Chem trail issue a few years ago from the Art Bell show - scary, ain't it?

Likewise with the subject of HAARP.

And don't forget our underwater sonar experiments that are have considerable impact on the hydroshpere, including the unusual beaching of whales.

As we continue in our baby steps in understanding and coping with the results of our impact on our environment, there will eventually be some spotlights focused on these issues as well.

[sissywoods]

Questions I've been asking myself lately about Global Warming..
Do you think it's too late?
Is society too passive about the environment?
What will the environment be like in 10 years (based on my theory of the domino/exponentional possibility of changes)

I think there's this mentality that people look out their front doors and think 'well, the trees are still producing, my grass is still growing. Oh, it's just a hotter summer this year.' Or 'they know what they're doing and they'll fix it (government, society, whoever you want to label as 'them').

thanks for listening to me rattle on.

[pianozach]

Questions I've been asking myself lately about Global Warming..
Do you think it's too late?
Is society too passive about the environment?
What will the environment be like in 10 years (based on my theory of the domino/exponentional possibility of changes)

I think there's this mentality that people look out their front doors and think 'well, the trees are still producing, my grass is still growing. Oh, it's just a hotter summer this year.' Or 'they know what they're doing and they'll fix it (government, society, whoever you want to label as 'them').

thanks for listening to me rattle on.

Too late? We'll see.
Society passive? Many are. Some are not.

Right now I'm a little peaved that there's another anti-Global Warming Theory article out on a hyper-conservative website - it sounds so "reasonable" - comparing Global warming to the Piltdown Man Hoax in the early 1900's. It trots out the names of "scientists" and quotes, such as,

"As Dr. David Wojick recently noted, “In short, there is no evidence for human-induced global warming in the U.S. temperature record.”"

and

""Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson."

and

"paleoclimate scientist, Bob Carter, noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that "global warming has stopped""

These kind of tactics (blanket statements by unknown scientific "experts" with no corrorating evidence or citations) are surprisingly effective. People that already think, for whatever reasons, that Global Warming is a hoax, feel vindicated by what is an opinion peice. Those that have made up their minds that Global Warming is a very real current phenomenon will rightly dismiss the sloppy logic in this piece of propaganda.

But it's those folks that are sitting on the fence that are given the false impression that Global Warming may be, perhaps, a hoax, and may delay their badly needed actions to help deal with it.

You're right - there is a large segment of society that has been convinced that Global Warming is a hoax thrust upon a "gullible" public by bunch of "liberal Chicken Littles".

Some people just cannot imagine that corporate America is engaged in some for-profit conspiracy and lying to them about the existence of Climate Change on a global level, and at the same think that there IS a conspiracy created by the United Nations Environmental Program (straight from the article! http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=9489_0_1_0_M ) to fool us all.

Take a look through all of the posts in this thread - the evidence supporting Global Warming is overwhelming......

[Terry Shea]

Terry Shea, meet Terry Chea!-:appl[1]:

Bush Must Release Global Warming Reports
By TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer
1 hour ago

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge ordered the Bush administration to issue two scientific reports on global warming, siding with environmentalists who sued the White House for failing to produce the documents.

Who's attempting to run the government here? The White House or some power hungry judge?

U.S. District Court Judge Saundra Armstrong ruled Tuesday that the Bush administration had violated a 1990 law when it failed to meet deadlines for an updated U.S. climate change research plan and impact assessment.

Really? Specifically, which law was violated?

Armstrong set a March 1 deadline for the administration to issue the research plan, which is meant to guide federal research on climate change. Federal law calls for an updated plan every three years, she said. The last one was issued in 2003.

Really? Specifically, which law is this?

The judge set a May 31 deadline to produce a national assessment containing the most recent scientific data on global warming and its projected effects on the country's environment, economy and public health. The government is required to complete a national assessment every four years, the judge ruled.

Once again, the judge is attemtping to legislate law from the bench and usurp power away from The Whitehouse.

The last one was issued by the Clinton administration in 2000.

The administration had claimed that it had discretion over how and when it produced the reports _ an argument the judge rejected Tuesday.

"The defendants are wrong," Armstrong wrote in the 38-page ruling. "Congress has conferred no discretion upon the defendants as to when they will issue revised Research Plans and National Assessments."

Oh, Congress hasn't set a timetable, but some power hungry judge has, eh? Nice!

The plaintiffs _ the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace _ said the ruling was a rebuke to an administration that has systematically denied and suppressed information on global warming.


"It's a huge victory holding the administration accountable for its attempts to suppress science," said Kassie Siegel, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs that filed suit in Oakland federal court in November.

Suppressed? You can't suppress what isn't there. There isn't one shred of evidence that man has had anything to do with global warming. A vast majority of scientists, and meteorologists in particular, don't believe global warming is man-made (see below).

K
This from AMS certified meteorologist James Spann:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf

"I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can't find them."

And this from retired tv meteorologist Dan Webster:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070213/FREE/70213008/1010

"Mr. Webster observed that in his dealings with meteorologists nationwide, "about 95%" share his skepticism about global warming."

What about the UN IPCC report that listed a plethora of scientists as supporting the man-made global warming theory? Well, it seems they deliberately edited out any dissenting scientist but still listed them as participants, giving the illusion that every scientist listed supported the nonsensical claims of man-made global warming. Lying and deception are nothing new to the IPCC.

...the IPCC’s conclusion was politically driven and they deliberately censored any dissenting scientists while still listing them as participants.

The IPCC has a history of publishing misleading reports. For example, in a 1996 report, it edited out these two statements, according to Fred Singer, founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.
“None of the studies cited has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases,” and “No study to date had positively attributed all or part of the climate changes … to man-made causes.”


http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2007-03-30/opinions/great-global-warming-swindle/

And as for the Associated Press, they too have severe credibility problems. I just stumbled across this:

http://freeworldsurvey.blogspot.com/2007/08/another-global-warming-hoax-exposed.html

[yesyadda]

Cartographers are having to redraw maps (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070906/sc_livescience/climatechangeredrawsworldmaps).

[kirk]

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

Sad, Terry that you've swallowed this so deeply.

Even George admits the problem...!
Is he wrong too?

"We recognize our responsibility and will meet it -- at home, in our hemisphere, and in the world. My Cabinet-level working group on climate change is recommending a number of initial steps, and will continue to work on additional ideas. The working group proposes the United States help lead the way by advancing the science on climate change, advancing the technology to monitor and reduce greenhouse gases, and creating partnerships within our hemisphere and beyond to monitor and measure and mitigate emissions."

Wake up and smell the catfood....or drink the Kool-Aid.

k

[Terry Shea]

There problem solved. Next debate. BTW where is the link that Al Gore uses more electricity in his home than a small city? And the one about NOAA also, and we are living greener and cleaner....and ....

I think data bases must have ran out of space to store it all,,,... this could go on forever.

http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,05340.cfm
"While the CEI video pokes fun at Mr. Gore's profligate consumption of the world's petroleum resources, we don't begrudge his lifestyle that requires using as much energy as a small village in America or a medium-sized town in Africa,” Ebell explained. “The mobility that jet fuel and gasoline provide is a good thing and the benefits of abundant energy should be available to all people, not just the elite. CEI calls on Mr. Gore to stop preaching against the petroleum products he uses so lavishly and instead join us in promoting access to energy," Ebell concluded.

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

...and that's not even taking into consideration the massive amount of fuel he wastes jetting all over the world.

As for the NOAA, it's a governmental agency, specifically it's part of the Dept of Commerce. It's a political organization. Need I say more?

As for living greener, just use a little common sense and logic. We've drastically cut carbon monoxide emissions due to catalytic convertors and other pollution control devices on cars. There may be more CO2 in the air now, but CO2 is not a pollutant! In fact, plant life relies on CO2, so a higher CO2 content in the atmosphere leads to a greener earth.

[BlueEagle]

Interesting article, Gary. Not only those changes in topography mentioned, but retreating (melting) glaciers have changed the coastline of Greenland and Ellismere island in the arctic and exposed miles of previously buried ground in Patagonia. But hey- who needs facts when you have the opinions of tv weathermen, huh? ;)

[pianozach]

http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,05340.cfm
[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]"While the CEI video pokes fun at Mr. Gore's profligate consumption of the world's petroleum resources,

. . . . .


As for living greener, just use a little common sense and logic. We've drastically cut carbon monoxide emissions due to catalytic convertors and other pollution control devices on cars. There may be more CO2 in the air now, but CO2 is not a pollutant! In fact, plant life relies on CO2, so a higher CO2 content in the atmosphere leads to a greener earth.

Terry, the whole "Al Gore is a energy waster" subject has been debunked - The consumption figures are concocted, he runs his business out of his home, complete with employees, and he's been constantly making changes to make his own footprint smaller.

And we've been over the CO2 issue before, as well. Yes, we are all well aware that CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. You're still missing the point that too much of it causes problems. It's the balance of gasses in the atmosphere.

Look, Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; it traps heat radiation that is attempting to escape from Earth.

So, yes you're correct about it being a natural component of the atmosphere and needed by plants in order to carry out photosynthesis.

And no one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic.

You see, if the present amount of carbon dioxide taken out of the atmosphere every year by plants and was almost perfectly balanced by amount of carbon dioxide put back into the atmosphere by respiration and decay, then everything would be just fine.

Well, guess what? Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases, with a minor contribution from deforestation).

There is no scientific debate on this point.

Of course, CO2 isn't the [I]only greenhouse gas that we should be worried about . . . . For instance, methane, another greenhouse gas, can come from landfills, animal waste, the melting of permafrost and fossil fuel burning. And CFC's are also considered a greenhouse gas, although their levels are no longer rising, as we no longer use them in air conditioners and refriderators.

[pianozach]

Here's another effect of Global Warming: Increased allergies.

Higher carbon dioxide levels and warmer temperatures associated with global warming prod plants to bloom earlier and produce more pollen. With more allergens produced earlier, allergy season can last longer.

Of course, general exposure to pollution ultimately leaves people more vulnerable to the airborne allergens they breathe in in the first place.

[Terry Shea]

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

Sad, Terry that you've swallowed this so deeply.

Even George admits the problem...!
Is he wrong too?

"We recognize our responsibility and will meet it -- at home, in our hemisphere, and in the world. My Cabinet-level working group on climate change is recommending a number of initial steps, and will continue to work on additional ideas. The working group proposes the United States help lead the way by advancing the science on climate change, advancing the technology to monitor and reduce greenhouse gases, and creating partnerships within our hemisphere and beyond to monitor and measure and mitigate emissions."

Wake up and smell the catfood....or drink the Kool-Aid.

k
Ho ho ho! Old, unreliable information (Jan.3, 2007), essentially the same thing Newsweek printed last month...and got blasted for...by one of their own editors!

Here's what Newsweek editor Robert Samuelson said about the Newsweek article in reference to ExxonMobil's input:


"Against these real-world pressures, NEWSWEEK's "denial machine" is a peripheral and highly contrived story. NEWSWEEK implied, for example, that ExxonMobil used a think tank to pay academics to criticize global-warming science. Actually, this accusation was long ago discredited, and NEWSWEEK shouldn't have lent it respectability. (The company says it knew nothing of the global-warming grant, which involved issues of climate modeling. And its 2006 contribution to the think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, was small: $240,000 out of a $28 million budget.)"

Furthermore:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7

Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, but the Magazine chose instead to focus on how skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades.

"In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one," Carter wrote on June 18, 2007.

Meteorologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, called the Newsweek article part of a "coordinated assault" on skeptics.
"[Newsweek] alleges that a few scientists were offered $10,000 (!) by Big Oil to research and publish evidence against the theory of manmade global warming. Of course, the vast majority of mainstream climate researchers receive between $100,000 to $200,000 from the federal government to do the same, but in support of manmade global warming," Spencer wrote in an August 15, 2007 blog post.



And comparing ExxonMobil's input to tobacco industries lying about tobacco products causing lung cancer is just plain a downright invalid comparison! They've made the statement but they offer no supporting evidence for such a claim. They never connected the dots! Here's what Noel Sheppard had to say about similar statements in the Newsweek article:



"How utterly disgraceful. So, scientists all around the world who have devoted their lives and their careers to studying and writing about climate and related issues who don't feel man can or is impacting such are akin to folks who misled the public about the potential dangers of cigarette smoking.

How disgusting. Frankly, these "journalists" should be asked by every skeptical scientist on the planet for an immediate apology."

But it's even worse than Mr. Sheppard stated here. Not only are they making an outrageous and unfounded accusation and comparison, but they're making the assumption that manmade global warming is an indisputable fact, when in fact there is not one shred of evidence that man has caused any global warming whatsoever!

Your link further claims that ExxonMobil "raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence". What kind of popycock is that? There is no such "indisputable scientific evidence", and if there are doubts they certainly should be raised and ExxonMobil, or any other person or organization has every right to raise them!

Your so called scientific report offers nothing scientific on the matter, resorts to slandering techniques, makes bogus, unfounded, undocumented and illogical comparisons and attempts to take away the oppositions right to free speech! Pathetic!

[Terry Shea]

Terry, the whole "Al Gore is a energy waster" subject has been debunked - The consumption figures are concocted, he runs his business out of his home, complete with employees, and he's been constantly making changes to make his own footprint smaller.

And we've been over the CO2 issue before, as well. Yes, we are all well aware that CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. You're still missing the point that too much of it causes problems. It's the balance of gasses in the atmosphere.

Look, Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; it traps heat radiation that is attempting to escape from Earth.

So, yes you're correct about it being a natural component of the atmosphere and needed by plants in order to carry out photosynthesis.

And no one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic.

You see, if the present amount of carbon dioxide taken out of the atmosphere every year by plants and was almost perfectly balanced by amount of carbon dioxide put back into the atmosphere by respiration and decay, then everything would be just fine.

Well, guess what? Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases, with a minor contribution from deforestation).

There is no scientific debate on this point.

Of course, CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas that we should be worried about . . . . For instance, methane, another greenhouse gas, can come from landfills, animal waste, the melting of permafrost and fossil fuel burning. And CFC's are also considered a greenhouse gas, although their levels are no longer rising, as we no longer use them in air conditioners and refriderators.Well once again you haven't offered any supporting documentaion. I have. Here's some more. "Balance" isn't balance just because you say it is. You aren't the balance god.

Our atmosphere is made up of 78% nitrogen and 21% Oxygen. The remaining 1% of our atmosphere is comprised of so-called "greenhouse gasses". Water vapor constitutes about 95% of these gasses, and 99.99% of water vapor is of natural origin.

CO2 is the next most abundant "greenhouse gas", but it accounts for only about 3.6% of all greenhouse gasses. Of this 3.6%, almost 97% of it occurs naturally, meaning that only about 3% of this small concentration is manmade.

So what does this all mean? It means that manmade CO2 emissions contribute about 0.117% of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, and all manmade greenhouse gases contribute a whopping 0.28% of the total! It means that even if an increase in greenhouse gasses were solely responsible for the temperature increasing about 1 degree in the last 150 years (which certainly has not been establsihed and never could be), human activities could only be responsible for about 1/400th of that 1 degree, which is rather amazing when you think about it since we've had a population increase of at least 400% since 1850!

So what does it really mean? It means the Manmade Global Warming Alarmist Thugs are creating much adieu about nothing! It means driving cars and flying jets doesn't amount to diddly squat, and reducing such activities won't amount to diddly squat! It means if you really want to send the earth back into an ice age (Al Gore probably has wet dreams about such a scenario) you need to get rid of a significant portion of the water vapor.

The following link was used as a source for much of this blog:

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

I'll leave you with this quote from Dr. S. Fred Singer:

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

[Terry Shea]

Here's another effect of Global Warming: Increased allergies.

Higher carbon dioxide levels and warmer temperatures associated with global warming prod plants to bloom earlier and produce more pollen. With more allergens produced earlier, allergy season can last longer.

Of course, general exposure to pollution ultimately leaves people more vulnerable to the airborne allergens they breathe in in the first place.Well I guess we should go back to leaded gas, DDT and other pollutants and kill off all these nasty plants and trees that cause allergens then.:beerchugr: You seem to be desperately reaching with that statement. That's a side-effect of a greener planet. Yup, having a greener planet means more weeds too! Oh, the horrors.

Interestingly, I'm am allergy sufferer and I've had far fewer problems the last few years. And last year I had several bad asthma attacks. This year, not a one.

[Terry Shea]

Terry, the whole "Al Gore is a energy waster" subject has been debunked - The consumption figures are concocted, he runs his business out of his home, complete with employees, and he's been constantly making changes to make his own footprint smaller.

This is just blatantly false! Al Gore is a well documeted energy waster! The energy figures are not concocted. He even admitted to being an energy waster...that's why he came up with the idea for carbon credits...so he could continue to waste energy. He sugested the carbon credits so he could simply pay more for his excessive energy use, since he can afford to do so. He may have cut his energy use in the last year or so, but as of 2006 his energy useage was still increasing...and he's still jetting all over the world!

[YYY]

GORE is GOD!!! and you are going to HELL! Terry.
I stopped fartin last year after seeing Gore's film but here's one just for you. flflflflflfllll

Take that from an agnostic tree hugger

BTW Love your enthusiasm, hate your relentless determination to convert the converted

[podo]

This is just blatantly false! Al Gore is a well documeted energy waster! The energy figures are not concocted. He even admitted to being an energy waster...that's why he came up with the idea for carbon credits...so he could continue to waste energy. He sugested the carbon credits so he could simply pay more for his excessive energy use, since he can afford to do so. He may have cut his energy use in the last year or so, but as of 2006 his energy useage was still increasing...and he's still jetting all over the world!

:dog:

[podo]

With son of shrub in Sydney this week for OPEC,,,,sorry,, APEC, its been determined that with the numerous planes, cars, helecopters etc required by him for 6 days, has the same carbon footprint as 2000 cars for a whole year.

Why someone needs to bring his own cars to to another country Im not quite sure.. We do have cars here, and even some bulletproof ones too Im sure.

Then there is his own cook.. We know how to cook ribs here you know

[pedro skychaser]

With son of shrub in Sydney this week for OPEC,,,,sorry,, APEC, its been determined that with the numerous planes, cars, helecopters etc required by him for 6 days, has the same carbon footprint as 2000 cars for a whole year.

Why someone needs to bring his own cars to to another country Im not quite sure.. We do have cars here, and even some bulletproof ones too Im sure.

Then there is his own cook.. We know how to cook ribs here you know

now,now podoffsky the cars+chefs+helicopters came over in planes....
"car-pooling"!!!!...high5!!!!!:xolicon42:

the OPEC slip was deliciously freudian,no???? that boy's got oil on the brain...

cook ribs,maybe(?)...definately a char-grilled tasmanian salmon with a vinaigrette of bok choy,barrosa valley chardonnay+pine nuts...but i suppose dubya is a ribs+taters guy...:headset:

[Terry Shea]

With son of shrub in Sydney this week for OPEC,,,,sorry,, APEC, its been determined that with the numerous planes, cars, helecopters etc required by him for 6 days, has the same carbon footprint as 2000 cars for a whole year.

Why someone needs to bring his own cars to to another country Im not quite sure.. We do have cars here, and even some bulletproof ones too Im sure.

Then there is his own cook.. We know how to cook ribs here you knowIt's all about security and the Secret Service isn't about to trust any other country with security measures. It's the same for every president and I believe Bush is one of the least travelled presidents in recent times.

Uh, are those Kangaroo or Koala ribs?:beerchugr:

[Terry Shea]

GORE is GOD!!! and you are going to HELL! Terry.
I stopped fartin last year after seeing Gore's film but here's one just for you. flflflflflfllll

Take that from an agnostic tree hugger

BTW Love your enthusiasm, hate your relentless determination to convert the convertedYeah, but Gore still farts everytime he opens his mouth. And I'm not going to Hell (you're the one who just claimed to be agnostic) although I do live within about 100 miles of it:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v375/TerryShea/mqmapgend.gif

You should like it there. Lots of fresh water, few roads and not an airport or a coal mine in sight.
:beerchugr:

[pianozach]

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.


Terry, it's interesting how you can slam Gore for his supposed high energy consumption, then, in an instant, turn around and cite information that claims that "driving cars and flying jets doesn't amount to diddly squat, and reducing such activities won't amount to diddly squat!"

And I'm amazed that you can conveniently ignore the quantity of news that contradicts your opinions on Global Warming Theory.

Stories such as . . .

National parks hit by global warming
Independent, UK - 18 hours ago
Meanwhile, sea levels are rising around the low-lying Florida Keys and global warming is killing off the nation's trees.

Global warming threatens nation's public lands San Francisco Chronicle

Polar bears could face extinction by 2050, study finds 680 News

Study: Two-thirds of polar bears threatened
Baltimore Sun, United States - 18 hours ago
But global warming is causing a loss of sea ice. Models used by the team of scientists, from the USGS, other American and Canadian agencies, academia and the private sector, projected a 42 percent loss of "optimal polar bear habit from the Polar Basin ...

Unusual Weather Sparks Brush Fires
abc7.com, CA - Sep 3, 2007
The other issue is the wild weather that is expected to continue. It is causing a lot of headaches and that's because of the lightning that comes with the thunder heads could spark more fires and that means more trouble for firefighters.

Unusual Weather Patterns Prompt Ideas on Climate Change
Chosun Ilbo, South Korea - Aug 20, 2007
Many people were caught in a sudden rain shower in Seoul's Jongno district around 10 am Monday. At the same time there were also downpours of 0.5 to 4 mm in Seodaemun-gu, Dongdaemun-gu and Jungrang-gu.

And this is just a sample of all the news on the subject that's come up on the Google News Page today.

Many of us have come up with loads of evidence and citations, contrary to your assertion that we don't. Review the thread and you'll see.

However, it's pretty evident that your mind is made up. You have decided the whole thing is a hoax.

But the evidence supporting the theory that the Earth is undergoing a climate change is already being seen. And it will continue even if we all start trying to do something about it - the trend will be slow and difficult to turn around.

Time will pass and the evidence will continue to pile up. Hopefully you will recognize it as it's happening: Coral bleaching & disintegration, floods, more intense hurricanes, heat waves, increasing power outages, wildfires, sea level rise, the spread of infectious diseases, increase in allergens, loss of Arctic sea ice, weather-related damage, disappearing beaches, damage & loss of ecosystems, profound changes in the world's food production, thawing permafrost & tundra, disappearing glaciers, water shortages, more droughts, increasing ocean storms and coastal erosion, disappearing plankton, increased acidity of ocean waters, and countless other examples.

[Terry Shea]

Terry, it's interesting how you can slam Gore for his supposed high energy consumption, then, in an instant, turn around and cite information that claims that "driving cars and flying jets doesn't amount to diddly squat, and reducing such activities won't amount to diddly squat!"

And I'm amazed that you can conveniently ignore the quantity of news that contradicts your opinions on Global Warming Theory.

Stories such as . . .

National parks hit by global warming
Independent, UK - 18 hours ago
Meanwhile, sea levels are rising around the low-lying Florida Keys and global warming is killing off the nation's trees.

Global warming threatens nation's public lands San Francisco Chronicle

Polar bears could face extinction by 2050, study finds 680 News

Study: Two-thirds of polar bears threatened
Baltimore Sun, United States - 18 hours ago
But global warming is causing a loss of sea ice. Models used by the team of scientists, from the USGS, other American and Canadian agencies, academia and the private sector, projected a 42 percent loss of "optimal polar bear habit from the Polar Basin ...

Unusual Weather Sparks Brush Fires
abc7.com, CA - Sep 3, 2007
The other issue is the wild weather that is expected to continue. It is causing a lot of headaches and that's because of the lightning that comes with the thunder heads could spark more fires and that means more trouble for firefighters.

Unusual Weather Patterns Prompt Ideas on Climate Change
Chosun Ilbo, South Korea - Aug 20, 2007
Many people were caught in a sudden rain shower in Seoul's Jongno district around 10 am Monday. At the same time there were also downpours of 0.5 to 4 mm in Seodaemun-gu, Dongdaemun-gu and Jungrang-gu.

And this is just a sample of all the news on the subject that's come up on the Google News Page today.

Many of us have come up with loads of evidence and citations, contrary to your assertion that we don't. Review the thread and you'll see.

However, it's pretty evident that your mind is made up. You have decided the whole thing is a hoax.

But the evidence supporting the theory that the Earth is undergoing a climate change is already being seen. And it will continue even if we all start trying to do something about it - the trend will be slow and difficult to turn around.

Time will pass and the evidence will continue to pile up. Hopefully you will recognize it as it's happening: Coral bleaching & disintegration, floods, more intense hurricanes, heat waves, increasing power outages, wildfires, sea level rise, the spread of infectious diseases, increase in allergens, loss of Arctic sea ice, weather-related damage, disappearing beaches, damage & loss of ecosystems, profound changes in the world's food production, thawing permafrost & tundra, disappearing glaciers, water shortages, more droughts, increasing ocean storms and coastal erosion, disappearing plankton, increased acidity of ocean waters, and countless other examples.Show me one shred of evidence that man has caused any of this. There isn't any. CO2 in the atmosphere (or other greenhouse gasses) does not cause global warming. In fact 30 years ago the scientific community stated that the exact opposite was true; that greenhouse gasses were causing global cooling and that we were on the verge of an ice age! When this natural cycle turned into a natural warming trend the scientific community had to cover its tracks and claim that greenhouse gasses cause global warming, not cooling. The earth's temp has seemed to moderate or even cool since 1998, so next they will no doubt claim that greenhouse gasses cause global temperature moderation, or claim that it causes cooling, followed by warming, followed by moderation or cooling once again.

Polar bears are not in any danger! If an ice sheet breaks away from the mainland they are very good swimmers. I believe I already addressed this. The story was totally fabricated by AP.

And please refrain from misquoting me and/or taking my comments out of context! The statement you quoted is a partial statement that when taken out of context and edited in with partial statements from another post gives a totally different picture than what I really stated. You did that deliberately! Are you so desperate to shut me up that you'll resort such dishonest, pathetic tactics? Here's the significant parts of the post you left out:

Our atmosphere is made up of 78% nitrogen and 21% Oxygen. The remaining 1% of our atmosphere is comprised of so-called "greenhouse gasses". Water vapor constitutes about 95% of these gasses, and 99.99% of water vapor is of natural origin.

CO2 is the next most abundant "greenhouse gas", but it accounts for only about 3.6% of all greenhouse gasses. Of this 3.6%, almost 97% of it occurs naturally, meaning that only about 3% of this small concentration is manmade.

So what does this all mean? It means that manmade CO2 emissions contribute about 0.117% of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, and all manmade greenhouse gases contribute a whopping 0.28% of the total! It means that even if an increase in greenhouse gasses were solely responsible for the temperature increasing about 1 degree in the last 150 years (which certainly has not been establsihed and never could be), human activities could only be responsible for about 1/400th of that 1 degree, which is rather amazing when you think about it since we've had a population increase of at least 400% since 1850!

So what does it really mean? It means the Manmade Global Warming Alarmist Thugs are creating much adieu about nothing! It means driving cars and flying jets doesn't amount to diddly squat, and reducing such activities won't amount to diddly squat! It means if you really want to send the earth back into an ice age (Al Gore probably has wet dreams about such a scenario) you need to get rid of a significant portion of the water vapor.

Way to just lift part of a quote to give the wrong impression! And as for Al Gore wasting energy, that's been well establsihed! That doesn't mean he's contributing to global warming, it merely means that he's a hypocrite, but if you combine his hypocrisy with the lies he's deliberately told about the cause and effect between global warming and CO2 content, it's clear that he can't possibly believe in something he has to fabricate "facts" for and violates his own suggestions on a daily basis. Obviously he doesn't believe that global warming is manmade but knows that he can get rich and become powerful by preaching outrageous lies about it.

[Terry Shea]

Polar Bears populations are thriving!

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=143012005

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:peqUFcpqlfwJ:www.ipa.org.au/files/58-2-MAROHASY.pdf+Polar+Bear+population+for+the+last+10 0+years&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

http://freeworldsurvey.blogspot.com/2007/08/another-global-warming-hoax-exposed.html

[MrZuLu]

I sure hope you are right, Terry.

I pray the current climate change trend is totally contrived by the Associated Press, NOAA, IPCC and United States Geological Survey(USGS) You have proven they are completely misinformed and full of sheet!

God I hope you are the best informed Scientist at YesFans.com.

Honest, I am not kidding. I want your Grandchildren and their children to be happy and healthy.

I have been proved wrong by your undaunted Science and impeccable references. I shall not fence with you any longer as your information eclipses my own.

Thank you Terry. I will continue to read your reports!
:appl[1]:

[YYY]

Om-D-dom-D-dom-D Save us thy Gore from the evils of a planet on the attack. Like King Kong we atacked it and now it's paying us back. Oh save us thy Goreth to be better stewards of the Earthith. I promise never to readith from the book of Shea. Om-D-dom-D-dom-D

As the great Goreth once said. "He shall knoweth when he is deep in snoweth"

[Enoch]

I know that the argument really lies with the question of whether man is responsible and if climate change is only a recent occurance or has it always existed. The other question is whether or not our present climate is currently blessed with the "best" award. Who says ours i the best?

p.s. there's also great climate change happening on Mars presently. Is it bad? Where does it come from? The sun? OMG! No. It must be man's fault! It's that Rover, isn't it? We sent it up there to belch CO2 into Mars' atmosphere just so that boneheads like me could argue in favor of natural causes! That must be it. Yah.

[Enoch]

p.s. I can't wait for us rich people to pay for Gore's "carbon Credit's" so that all the poor people will be forced to make all the actual changes necessarry to reverse the problem..Huge land grab coming

[YYY]

Om-D-dom-D-dom-D

Save us thy Gore from the evils of a planet on the attack.
Like King Kong we atacked it and now it's paying us back.
Oh save us thy Goreth to be better stewards of the Earthith.
I promise from the book of Shea I shall never readith .

Om-D-dom-D-dom-D

As the great poet Goreth once said.

"He shall knoweth when he is deep in snoweth"

[pianozach]

Show me one shred of evidence that man has caused any of this. There isn't any. CO2 in the atmosphere (or other greenhouse gasses) does not cause global warming. In fact 30 years ago the scientific community stated that the exact opposite was true; that greenhouse gasses were causing global cooling and that we were on the verge of an ice age! When this natural cycle turned into a natural warming trend the scientific community had to cover its tracks and claim that greenhouse gasses cause global warming, not cooling.

We've shown you plenty of evidence. You ignore it.

The 1975 Newsweek article that heralded the advent of "Global Cooling" was an ill informed piece that was run before the scientists concerned about it were ever confident about the theory. In fact, very few ever were. It was a theory that they were looking into, and they were never ready to commit to it. The premature Newsweek article cause a Global Cooling scare that was unnecessary.

And simply because a few scientist were wrong back in 1975, this is not proof that they are wrong today.

[pianozach]

And please refrain from misquoting me and/or taking my comments out of context! The statement you quoted is a partial statement that when taken out of context and edited in with partial statements from another post gives a totally different picture than what I really stated. You did that deliberately! Are you so desperate to shut me up that you'll resort such dishonest, pathetic tactics? Here's the significant parts of the post you left out:


Terry, Terry, Terry. Of course I quoted a partial statement of yours. You do it too. We all do.

It's so that we can address one portion of a longer post and point out quickly which portion of the longer post we are addressing.

I don't have the time or inclination to address every single item of your post - I'm sure that you would assert that every part of your posts are significant. If not, next time you should point to the part of your post that's "significant" and let us know that that's the part of your post we should comment on, not the other insignificant parts of your post.

Your debating tactic of simply saying I'm trying to shut you up is an unbased attack on YOUR part. I'm not trying to "shut you up." I'm trying to have a discussion with you, an action that probably has many other YesFans shaking their heads in disbelief that I choose to try.

[pianozach]

. . . if you really want to send the earth back into an ice age (Al Gore probably has wet dreams about such a scenario) you need to get rid of a significant portion of the water vapor.[/B]

Way to just lift part of a quote to give the wrong impression! And as for Al Gore wasting energy, that's been well establsihed! That doesn't mean he's contributing to global warming, it merely means that he's a hypocrite, but if you combine his hypocrisy with the lies he's deliberately told about the cause and effect between global warming and CO2 content, it's clear that he can't possibly believe in something he has to fabricate "facts" for and violates his own suggestions on a daily basis. Obviously he doesn't believe that global warming is manmade but knows that he can get rich and become powerful by preaching outrageous lies about it.

Even if Gore were an energy waster, it does not mean that he's wrong about Global warming.

But, yes, we get it Terry: You hate Al Gore.

BTW, he doesn't need to get rich. He is rich.

[Terry Shea]

I sure hope you are right, Terry.

I pray the current climate change trend is totally contrived by the Associated Press, NOAA, IPCC and United States Geological Survey(USGS) You have proven they are completely misinformed and full of sheet!

God I hope you are the best informed Scientist at YesFans.com.

Honest, I am not kidding. I want your Grandchildren and their children to be happy and healthy.

I have been proved wrong by your undaunted Science and impeccable references. I shall not fence with you any longer as your information eclipses my own.

Thank you Terry. I will continue to read your reports!
:appl[1]:No, I'm not a scientist and I don't believe that anyone else posting here is either. I'm certainly capable of doing a little research though and I can certainly use information and a little logic to decide for myself what's what.

Here's what we know for sure:

There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 in the atmosphere and/or other greenhouse gasses cause or contribute to global warming. If you have such factual documentation then please do share it. A theory has been proposed as such, but there is absolutely no factual evidence to back it up. 30 years ago the same theory was proposed except it stated that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere caused global cooling.

It has been passed off as a "fact" for politcal reasons and has been funded to the tune of 10's of billions of dollars to prepetuate the lies of Al Gore and others. These manmade global warming fanatics often resort to threats, villification and intimidation to silence all opposition.

An overwhelming majority of tv meteorologists do not support this hair-brained theory. The UN censored all dissenting opinions on their IPCC report but listed them as contributors to the report to give the illusion that all scientists listed support the theory of manmade global warming, which is certainly not the case.

This is a brief summation. I've already covered this material and much, much more. Basically there is absolutely no scientific an/or logical reason to believe that global warming is manmade. And I think anyone who believes such nonsense is gooing to look pretty silly in the next 20 years or so when we go through yet another natural climate change cycle.

[Terry Shea]

We've shown you plenty of evidence. You ignore it.

The 1975 Newsweek article that heralded the advent of "Global Cooling" was an ill informed piece that was run before the scientists concerned about it were ever confident about the theory. In fact, very few ever were. It was a theory that they were looking into, and they were never ready to commit to it. The premature Newsweek article cause a Global Cooling scare that was unnecessary.

And simply because a few scientist were wrong back in 1975, this is not proof that they are wrong today.Wrong! That was the accepted theory of the time, and speaking of Time, they ran a similar article the previous year, 1974. Why was that the accepted theory? Because we werre going through a cooling period and it had to be due to something other than natural causes now, didn't it? It's been well established that nature has absolutely nothing to do with the climate, right?:drummer: Why wasn't this theory well known? Because information (and more to the point, disinformation) didn't flow as smoothly as it does today, and the theory wasn't politically driven and funded by 10's of billions of dollars.

And very few scientists actually believe global warming is manmade today, but when these few get thrown 10's of billions of dollars at them they'll say whatever the people throwing them the money want them to say.

But you are right about one thing. There is no proof that the manmade global warming alarmists today are wrong, just as their was no proof that the global cooling alarmists were wrong 30 years ago. In fact there is still no proof that they were wrong. That which is unproveable can neither be proven nor disproven.

[Terry Shea]

Terry, Terry, Terry. Of course I quoted a partial statement of yours. You do it too. We all do.

It's so that we can address one portion of a longer post and point out quickly which portion of the longer post we are addressing.

I don't have the time or inclination to address every single item of your post - I'm sure that you would assert that every part of your posts are significant. If not, next time you should point to the part of your post that's "significant" and let us know that that's the part of your post we should comment on, not the other insignificant parts of your post.

Your debating tactic of simply saying I'm trying to shut you up is an unbased attack on YOUR part. I'm not trying to "shut you up." I'm trying to have a discussion with you, an action that probably has many other YesFans shaking their heads in disbelief that I choose to try.That isn't why you took a partial quote out of context! You did it to deliberately try to make it sound as if I were contradicting myself, when if you view the entire post, I clearly was not! You clearly took a partial statement out of context and mixed it with another post for no other reason than to make me look like a hypocrite, knowing full well that I was not in any way, shape or form being a hypocrite. How pathetic can you get?

[Terry Shea]

Even if Gore were an energy waster, it does not mean that he's wrong about Global warming.

But, yes, we get it Terry: You hate Al Gore.

BTW, he doesn't need to get rich. He is rich.Nor does it mean he's right about global warming, and if he's right about global warming why does he need to lie about it and live a lifestyle that would only cause more warming?

I don't hate Al Gore. I hate liars, deceivers and hypocrisy.

Al Gore was fairly rich before, but check this out:

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/11149

Former Vice President Al Gore has built a Green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms. And the US portion is headed up by a former Gore staffer and fund raiser who previously ran afoul of both the FEC and the DOJ, before Janet Reno jumped in and shut down an investigation during the Clinton years.
Think Katie, Charlie, or Brian will be all over this tonight? Regardless, that was just the tip of the questionably melting iceberg as reported by Bill Hobbs (http://billhobbs.com/2007/02/more_on_gore.html) in Nashville, Tennessee:
[H]ow Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management (http://www.generationim.com/):
Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe...
Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.




Add in his $175,000-250,000 fees for making a speech or public appearance and he's doing rather nicely. But it's not so much about the money-it's more about the power he derives and the little people he can manipulate with his lies.

[Yes.2]

p.s. I can't wait for us rich people to pay for Gore's "carbon Credit's" so that all the poor people will be forced to make all the actual changes necessarry to reverse the problem..Huge land grab coming


Yulp. You know it.

[Buglunch]

Transferring carbon "credits" won't work and should be banned; we have to reduce at the source plus the cute little 3rd world
projects that keep rich wasters' guilt at bay often never happen.
Getting somebody overseas "not to pollute" while we keep doing it is dishonest and lets crappy companies not change.

More proof of too-fast climate change:
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/07-08/sep08.html

-3rd and 4th audio articles.

[podo]

I wonder why all 21 world leaders signed a document at the Sydney APEC conference stating that they will aim to meet "aspirational tagetes to reduce greenhouse gases"

The document itself is completly useless of course, but it seems even bush is on the climate change bandwagon. Of course, bush would never get anything wrong, so there is the proof !

[YYY]

I don't hate Al Gore. I hate liars, deceivers and hypocrisy.




Then why don't you spend all this wasted energy complaining about BUSH! (no pun intented "wasted energy"...hee hee...get it! He's killed more people because of lies, deceits and hypocrisy.

And I still say is that this argument is silly regardless if Gore is wrong about the 10% effect humans may or may not have on the climate. Global Warming is happening nevertheless. And we and our children are going to have to make adjustments with or without Terry or Al. And change within our greedy consumptive mentality can only HELP us to be better conservationist.

I wish BUSH had lied that we should go to "Peace". Then maybe we'd have it! Then I wouldn't be pissed at him at all for lying. Instead he lied and now almost 4000 soldiers DIED, thousands crippled for LIFE and 10's of thousand Iraqis are crippled & DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yeh yeh Hypocrites...Hey get excited about something more worthwhile and let me turnoff a few lightbulbs. How is turning my bulbs and saving energy hurting anyone. No but let our actual stupid leader KILL THOUSANDS...That's OK.

Yes I've changed the subject. because it's BUllSHt.

[pianozach]

Contrary to TerryShea's claims that the Polar Bears are doing just fine, here's an article from the NYTimes that quotes the US Dept of the Interior as asserting that 2/3's of the polar bear population will be gone by the year 2050 - disappearing entirely from Alaska.

Make sure you look at the last sentence in the article . . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/science/earth/08polar.html?em&ex=1189483200&en=42d971c103c46def&ei=5087%0A

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif

Warming Is Seen as Wiping Out Most Polar Bears

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/09/08/us/bear600.jpg

A polar bear on the Beaufort coast of Alaska. Federal scientists say Alaska could lose all its polar bears if summer sea ice shrinks.


By JOHN M. BRODER and ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: September 8, 2007

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 — Two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will disappear by 2050, even under moderate projections for shrinking summer sea ice caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, government scientists reported on Friday.

The finding is part of a yearlong review of the effects of climate and ice changes on polar bears to help determine whether they should be protected under the Endangered Species Act. Scientists estimate the current polar bear population at 22,000.

The report, which the United States Geological Survey released here, offers stark prospects for polar bears as the world grows warmer.

The scientists concluded that, while the bears were not likely to be driven to extinction, they would be largely relegated to the Arctic archipelago of Canada and spots off the northern Greenland coast, where summer sea ice tends to persist even in warm summers like this one, a shrinking that could be enough to reduce the bear population by two-thirds.

The bears would disappear entirely from Alaska, the study said.

“As the sea ice goes, so goes the polar bear,” said Steven Amstrup, lead biologist for the survey team.

The report was released as President Bush was in Australia meeting with Asian leaders to try to agree on a strategy to address global warming. Mr. Bush will be host to major industrial nations in Washington this month to discuss the framework for a treaty on climate change.

The United Nations plans to devote its general assembly in the fall to global warming.

A spokeswoman for the White House declined to comment on the report, saying it was part of decision making at the Interior Department, parent of the survey.

In the report, the team said, “Sea ice conditions would have to be substantially better than even the most conservative computer simulations of warming and sea ice” to avoid the anticipated drop in bear population.

In a conference call with reporters, the scientists also said the momentum to a warmer world with less Arctic sea ice — and fewer bears — would be largely unavoidable at least for decades, no matter what happened with emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.

“Despite any mitigation of greenhouse gases, we’re going to see the same amount of energy in the system for 20, 30 or 40 years,” said Mark Myers, the survey director. “We would not expect to see any significant change in polar conditions regardless of mitigation.”

In other words, even in the unlikely event that all the major economies were to agree to rapid and drastic reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, the floating Arctic ice cap will continue to shrink at a rapid pace for the next 50 years, wiping out much of the bears’ habitat.

The report makes no recommendation on listing the bears as a threatened species or taking any action to slow ice cap damage. Such decisions are up to another Interior Department agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, which enforces the Endangered Species Act. That decision is due in January, officials have said. The wildlife agency had to make a determination on the status of a threatened species because of a suit by environmental groups like Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

In some places, the bears have adapted to eating a wide range of food like snow geese and garbage. But the survey team said their fate was 84 percent linked to the extent of sea ice.

Separate studies of trends in Arctic sea ice by academic and government teams have solidified a picture of shrinking area in summers for decades to come.

A fresh analysis by scientists of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to be published Saturday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, says sea-ice coverage of the Arctic Ocean will decline by more than 40 percent before the summer of 2050, compared with the average ice extent from 1979 to 1999.

This summer the ice retreated much farther and faster than in any year since satellite tracking began in 1979, several Arctic research groups said.

John H. Broder reported from Washington, and Andrew C. Revkin from New York.

[pianozach]

I don't hate Al Gore. I hate liars, deceivers and hypocrisy.



You've pretty much called Mr. Gore a liar and a hypocrite. You've inferred that he's deceiving us all to amass some sort of power.

You've stated that you hate liars and hypocrites. And deceivers.

So . . . when you are continually trying to present information that you feel is relevent, including this tidbit . . .

Yeah, but Gore still farts everytime he opens his mouth.

. . . it seems that you want us all to subscribe to your extremely poor opinion of him, yes?

. . . . I was simply pointing out your rabid disdain of Mr. Gore.

It sounds like you hate him to me.

[podo]

The "Sydney Declaration" on climate change, recently signed by all 21 leaders at the recent APEC summit, is very nicely summed up by the group of letters in todays Sydney Morning Herald.

""Aspirational decisiveness

When the security of a few dignitaries is "threatened" by the public, the response is immediate and overwhelming. When the future of the planet is threatened, these same politicians "aspire" to do something by 2030.




My sitting federal Liberal member now has my long-term, in-principle, non-binding, aspirational framework vote.



"We hereby declare that we will do bugger-all about anything at any time." I believe these are the exact words of the Sydney Declaration.



Any difference between an APEC aspirational commitment and my new year's resolutions?



Wouldn't it be nice if Australian workers could get non-binding aspirational targets incorporated into their workplace agreements?


http://www.smh.com.au/letters/?page=6

[pedro skychaser]

i take it podoffsky that you are not an "aspirational federationist"???

oh the big picture, the thrilling agenda of the tories...

[Terry Shea]

Then why don't you spend all this wasted energy complaining about BUSH! (no pun intented "wasted energy"...hee hee...get it! He's killed more people because of lies, deceits and hypocrisy.

And I still say is that this argument is silly regardless if Gore is wrong about the 10% effect humans may or may not have on the climate. Global Warming is happening nevertheless. And we and our children are going to have to make adjustments with or without Terry or Al. And change within our greedy consumptive mentality can only HELP us to be better conservationist.

I wish BUSH had lied that we should go to "Peace". Then maybe we'd have it! Then I wouldn't be pissed at him at all for lying. Instead he lied and now almost 4000 soldiers DIED, thousands crippled for LIFE and 10's of thousand Iraqis are crippled & DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yeh yeh Hypocrites...Hey get excited about something more worthwhile and let me turnoff a few lightbulbs. How is turning my bulbs and saving energy hurting anyone. No but let our actual stupid leader KILL THOUSANDS...That's OK.

Yes I've changed the subject. because it's BUllSHt.Well for one thing, this isn't the politics forum and this argument and subject matter has absolutely nothing to do with Bush! I'll agree that conservation makes sense, but it would have no effect on global warming.

Nice try at derailing the thread!

[Terry Shea]

Contrary to TerryShea's claims that the Polar Bears are doing just fine, here's an article from the NYTimes that quotes the US Dept of the Interior as asserting that 2/3's of the polar bear population will be gone by the year 2050 - disappearing entirely from Alaska.

Make sure you look at the last sentence in the article . . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/science/earth/08polar.html?em&ex=1189483200&en=42d971c103c46def&ei=5087%0A

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif

Warming Is Seen as Wiping Out Most Polar Bears

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/09/08/us/bear600.jpg

A polar bear on the Beaufort coast of Alaska. Federal scientists say Alaska could lose all its polar bears if summer sea ice shrinks.


By JOHN M. BRODER and ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: September 8, 2007

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 — Two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will disappear by 2050, even under moderate projections for shrinking summer sea ice caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, government scientists reported on Friday.

The finding is part of a yearlong review of the effects of climate and ice changes on polar bears to help determine whether they should be protected under the Endangered Species Act. Scientists estimate the current polar bear population at 22,000.

The report, which the United States Geological Survey released here, offers stark prospects for polar bears as the world grows warmer.

The scientists concluded that, while the bears were not likely to be driven to extinction, they would be largely relegated to the Arctic archipelago of Canada and spots off the northern Greenland coast, where summer sea ice tends to persist even in warm summers like this one, a shrinking that could be enough to reduce the bear population by two-thirds.

The bears would disappear entirely from Alaska, the study said.

“As the sea ice goes, so goes the polar bear,” said Steven Amstrup, lead biologist for the survey team.

The report was released as President Bush was in Australia meeting with Asian leaders to try to agree on a strategy to address global warming. Mr. Bush will be host to major industrial nations in Washington this month to discuss the framework for a treaty on climate change.

The United Nations plans to devote its general assembly in the fall to global warming.

A spokeswoman for the White House declined to comment on the report, saying it was part of decision making at the Interior Department, parent of the survey.

In the report, the team said, “Sea ice conditions would have to be substantially better than even the most conservative computer simulations of warming and sea ice” to avoid the anticipated drop in bear population.

In a conference call with reporters, the scientists also said the momentum to a warmer world with less Arctic sea ice — and fewer bears — would be largely unavoidable at least for decades, no matter what happened with emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.

“Despite any mitigation of greenhouse gases, we’re going to see the same amount of energy in the system for 20, 30 or 40 years,” said Mark Myers, the survey director. “We would not expect to see any significant change in polar conditions regardless of mitigation.”

In other words, even in the unlikely event that all the major economies were to agree to rapid and drastic reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, the floating Arctic ice cap will continue to shrink at a rapid pace for the next 50 years, wiping out much of the bears’ habitat.

The report makes no recommendation on listing the bears as a threatened species or taking any action to slow ice cap damage. Such decisions are up to another Interior Department agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, which enforces the Endangered Species Act. That decision is due in January, officials have said. The wildlife agency had to make a determination on the status of a threatened species because of a suit by environmental groups like Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

In some places, the bears have adapted to eating a wide range of food like snow geese and garbage. But the survey team said their fate was 84 percent linked to the extent of sea ice.

Separate studies of trends in Arctic sea ice by academic and government teams have solidified a picture of shrinking area in summers for decades to come.

A fresh analysis by scientists of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to be published Saturday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, says sea-ice coverage of the Arctic Ocean will decline by more than 40 percent before the summer of 2050, compared with the average ice extent from 1979 to 1999.

This summer the ice retreated much farther and faster than in any year since satellite tracking began in 1979, several Arctic research groups said.

John H. Broder reported from Washington, and Andrew C. Revkin from New York.
Well ignoring for a minute the New York Times credibility problems, let's take a look at a few items in the article:

In a conference call with reporters, the scientists also said the momentum to a warmer world with less Arctic sea ice — and fewer bears — would be largely unavoidable at least for decades, no matter what happened with emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.
“Despite any mitigation of greenhouse gases, we’re going to see the same amount of energy in the system for 20, 30 or 40 years,” said Mark Myers, the survey director. “We would not expect to see any significant change in polar conditions regardless of mitigation.”

So assuming that greenhouse gasses do contribute to global warming, which has not been establsihed, reducing CO2 or other GGs significantly would have no effect, so what's the point?




Now, let's look at that last statement:



This summer the ice retreated much farther and faster than in any year since satellite tracking began in 1979, several Arctic research groups said.



Satellites didn't begin tracking Arctic ice until 1979, eh? Right about the time the recent warming cycle began, eh? How about that. That's pretty darn convenient, isn't it? They have no satellite data before this time to compare it. What else could they possibly conclude?




And therein lies the problem with this entire analysis and line of thinking. Scientists know that there are warming and cooling cycles but are ignoring the cyclical factor and assuming (most likely because they're being paid handsomely for these assumptions) that warming is just going to continue at the present pace for at least the next 50 years and probably for all of eternity! That's insane! There's been a clear pattern for at least the last few centuries of cooling trends and warming trends and the cycles typically last 30-40 years, meaning we should be at about the end of the warming cycle (much to my chagrin).


Polar bears will move if they have to. It's not like they have to sell their condos and property before they move on, or have to worry about putting their kids in a different school district or having to learn the language of a new country! They'll survive even if they have to move from Alaska, though I seriously doubt that's gonna happen. If it does, so be it. We can't do anything about it and we haven't done anything to cause global warming.

[Terry Shea]

You've pretty much called Mr. Gore a liar and a hypocrite. You've inferred that he's deceiving us all to amass some sort of power.

You've stated that you hate liars and hypocrites. And deceivers.

So . . . when you are continually trying to present information that you feel is relevent, including this tidbit . . .



. . . it seems that you want us all to subscribe to your extremely poor opinion of him, yes?

. . . . I was simply pointing out your rabid disdain of Mr. Gore.

It sounds like you hate him to me.Okay, why would anyone support such a hypcritical liar? Yeah, I don't know why anyone would hold him in high esteem or listen to anything he has to say. What's your point?

[Wild Westie]

IMHO. This thread should be moved to the poli section.

[pianozach]

IMHO. This thread should be moved to the poli section.

I started the thread to help disseminate info on global warming.

It was probably only a matter of time before the subject became political, just like it is in the non-virtual world.

There are those that in here that would like to twist the facts, and attack those that deliver them, because they believe it is some sort of conspiracy to make some people rich at the expense of their own comfortable lives.

Naturally, since a democratic ex-Vice President has taken up the cause of Global Warming, he has become both a rallying point for those that support the theory and a target for those that do not.

Also, as stories are posted chronicling the events that surround the debate itself, we can expect that the points of view will reflect the debate.

The Theory of Global Climate Change has become nothing more than a political football to some.

[pianozach]

Well ignoring for a minute the New York Times credibility problems, let's take a look at a few items in the article:

In a conference call with reporters, the scientists also said the momentum to a warmer world with less Arctic sea ice — and fewer bears — would be largely unavoidable at least for decades, no matter what happened with emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.
“Despite any mitigation of greenhouse gases, we’re going to see the same amount of energy in the system for 20, 30 or 40 years,” said Mark Myers, the survey director. “We would not expect to see any significant change in polar conditions regardless of mitigation.”

So assuming that greenhouse gasses do contribute to global warming, which has not been establsihed, reducing CO2 or other GGs significantly would have no effect, so what's the point?





Polar bears will move if they have to. It's not like they have to sell their condos and property before they move on, or have to worry about putting their kids in a different school district or having to learn the language of a new country! They'll survive even if they have to move from Alaska, though I seriously doubt that's gonna happen. If it does, so be it. We can't do anything about it and we haven't done anything to cause global warming.

Terry, you're missing the point. Again.

If it takes 30 to 40 years to turn it around by having us trying to conserve and whatnot, it beats having it never turn around because we complacently sat around ignoring and belittling the evidence that changes are already happening.

Here's an analogy: The Titanic cannot stop on a dime. The lookout sees the iceberg dead ahead and immediately notifies Captain Terry Shea. Captain Shea, knowing that the lookout isn't the most dependable guy in the world, figures the iceberg is just a figment of the lookout's imagination . . . .perhaps it's a ploy to make the Captain look bad by having him stop dead in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Just think of the fuel that would be wasted getting the ship back up to full speed.

Besides that, even if the iceberg is real, it's not his fault nor the fault of any of the crew or passengers, is it?

In spite of his resistance to the notion that the iceberg is a threat to the ship, Captain Shea quickly calculates in his head that the ship cannot possibly come to a full stop in time anyway, and orders that the ship continue "full steam ahead."

Captain Shea is of the opinion that the ship is unsinkable.

And now that he thinks about it, even if the ship is damaged, the passengers can simply be moved to the undamaged portions of the ship!

Ah, well, if we hit an iceberg, "so be it."

"We can't do anything about it and we haven't done anything to cause the iceberg."

[pianozach]

http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/14/2032472.htm?section=justin

http://abc.net.au/news/img/2007/header_logo.png

http://www.javno.com/slike/slike_3/r2/g2007/m09/x113149649530133404.jpg

Sinking Tuvalu pleads for global warming action

September 13, 2007

The tiny Pacific island state of Tuvalu has urged the rest of the world to do more to combat global warming before it sinks beneath the ocean.

The group of atolls and reefs, home to about 10,000 people, is barely two metres on average above sea level.

One study has predicted that at the current rate the ocean is rising, Tuvalu could disappear in the next 30 to 50 years.

Tuvalu Deputy Prime Minister Tavau Teii is calling for urgent action.

"The alternative is to turn ourselves into fish and live under water," he said.

"All countries must make an effort to reduce their emissions before it is too late for countries like Tuvalu."

Mr Teii says his Government has received indications from New Zealand that it is prepared to take in people from the islands. About 2,000 of Tuvalu's population already live in New Zealand.

But Australia, the other major economy in the region, has only given vague commitments.

"Australia was very reluctant to make a commitment even though they have been approached in a diplomatic way," he said.

Mr Teii says the country one of the most vulnerable in the world to man-made climate change.



http://www.norgeonline.info/bilde-reise/images/reise-small/tuvalu-bilde-6-reise.jpg

Dangers increasing

He has reeled off a list of threats to the country, one of whose few export earnings comes from its internet country suffix, which it can sell to anyone wanting their website site to end with .tv.

Coral reefs are being damaged by the warming ocean, and this threatens fish stocks - the main source of protein for the population.

The sea is increasingly invading underground fresh water supplies, creating problems for farmers, while drought constantly threatens to limit drinking water.

Annual spring tides appear to be getting higher each year, eroding the coastline. As the coral reefs die, that protection goes and the risk only increases.

http://www.norgeonline.info/bilde-reise/images/reise-small/tuvalu-bilde-4-reise.jpg

Mr Teii says the mounting ferocity of cyclones from a warmer ocean also brings greater risks, noting another island state in the area was buffeted by waves three years ago that crashed over its 30-metre cliffs.

"We'll try and maintain our own way of living on the island as long as we can," he said.

"If the time comes we should leave the islands, there is no other choice but to leave."

- Reuters

[pianozach]

Africa: Continent Faces 'Worst Effects From Global Warming'
AllAfrica.com, Washington - 9 hours ago
Despite it having contributed least to global warming, it was likely to suffer most from climate change, says Mr Enos Esikuri, an environmental specialist with the World Bank.

Global warming impact like "nuclear war" - report
Reuters South Africa, South Africa - Sep 12, 2007
The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) security think-tank said global warming would hit crop yields and water availability everywhere, causing great human suffering and leading to regional strife.


Global Warming and Agriculture
AllAfrica.com, Washington - 4 hours ago
World agriculture faces a serious decline within this century due to global warming unless emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are substantially reduced from their rising path, and developing countries will suffer much steeper ...

[pianozach]

http://www.ludingtondailynews.com/news.php?story_id=37496

http://www.ludingtondailynews.com/images/new-logo.gif

Fruit trees don’t lie: Grower notices warming

JOE BOOMGAARD - DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

PERE MARQUETTE TWP. — Local farmer Art Lister says his fruit trees don’t lie. The story they’ve been telling him, especially in the last 10 years, is that Mason County is getting warmer.
“We’ve seen in the last five to 10 years a trend toward earlier blooms and harvest dates,” Lister said.

Cherries, pears, apples and peaches are all maturing earlier than traditional dates, in many cases by as much as two weeks.

http://pic3.picturetrail.com/VOL19/1338926/6778983/93967442.jpg

Why should we care? That anecdotal evidence of global warming has serious consequences for growers and consumers.

“We used to pick peaches until the 22nd of September, but we were done by the 2nd,” Lister said last week. “Pears were two weeks early this year, and they were a week early last year. We used to pick our first Macintosh apples by Sept. 15, and we just picked some this week.”

Tart cherries bloomed about two weeks ahead of schedule this year, he said, and were thus ready earlier, about 60 days after bloom.

“We’ve seen it; there have been some significant changes,” he said.

Researchers from Michigan State University have been studying the impact of climate variability and change on agriculture and tourism in what they’ve called the Pileus Project. They say what Lister’s observed is evidence of global warming or what others call global climate change. In this case, that warming or change has been tracked on a local level.

Specifically, the project has studied tart cherry production across the Great Lakes region, growers in the Hart area included. Oceana County ranks among the top tart cherry producers in the state with approximately 8,000 acres devoted to tart cherry orchards; Mason County produces cherries on approximately 1,770 acres, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The project has led to the development of several interactive models to simulate the effects of a range of climate change scenarios on factors important to fruit growers.

According to Julie Winkler, co-director of the Pileus Project (http://www.pileus.msu.edu) and a researcher and professor in the MSU department of geography, the global climate change models are showing higher temperatures earlier in the year which can lead to different, accelerated stages of bud development for tart cherry blossoms.

“The growing stages should start coming earlier,” Winkler said. Once the temperature gets about 39 degrees and above, fruit farmers can expect bud growth. However, earlier bloom dates also mean an increased susceptibility for frost damage.

“That’s what we’ve experienced so far,” Lister said. “You wonder if it’s just a natural fluke, but I think there’s some validity to this. We see it — we’ve seen significant changes.”

As an example, Lister said the early bloom occurred almost all at once for many of his fruit trees, meaning that it concentrated the harvest seasons for the several apple varieties he grows. That influx all at once can be difficult for the farm and the fruit processors to keep up with, he said.

A longer season could also mean more pests for Lister and other growers to contend with. Lister said he fully expects he’ll have to treat for a third generation of the apple-loving codling moths this year. A warmer climate could also mean new pests will migrate north.

According to Lister, Mason County has a rather cool climate compared with other areas in the Lower Peninsula. Unlike the Leelanau Peninsula area about 100 miles to the north, Mason County’s growing season is just too short to grow grapes as well as they grow other places in the state, he said.

But if the growing season continues to extend, Lister said Mason County might be able to grow Granny Smith apples or other varieties that require more heat throughout the season. A change in climate might also make conditions better suited for farming other crops, but scientists can’t say for sure what those crops will be because while they have a good idea how the temperature may change, they still can’t say for certain.

That uncertainty scientists and farmers face in this global situation is part of the model in the Pileus Project.

“Uncertainty is a part of decision making,” Winkler said. “Good decisions are made when people understand the range of uncertainty.”

However, Lister doesn’t know if local climate change is something he can anticipate when he plants an orchard.

“You plant trees for the long term and you stay with a product mix,” Lister said. “You hope the situation is a minor glitch, but if it isn’t, you may not have time to react.

“When the talk about global warming started, everyone hoped it was just like the scare over the year 2000 when we were worried about computers crashing. But this may be the real deal. It’s going to be a wild ride. And if it’s accelerating as fast as they think it could, it’s going to happen fast. … Whether you agree or disagree, when you see things happen, you wonder if it’s just an aberration. But the science backs it up.”

[Terry Shea]

I started the thread to help disseminate info on global warming.

It was probably only a matter of time before the subject became political, just like it is in the non-virtual world.

It's become political, because political figures such as Al Gore have made it political with with their lies and nonsense.

There are those that in here that would like to twist the facts, and attack those that deliver them, because they believe it is some sort of conspiracy to make some people rich at the expense of their own comfortable lives.

There are no facts to support that any global warming is manmade, and Al Gore is the one who deliberately made up facts and lied about the cause-effect relationship between CO2 levels and temperature change, and he is getting rich off from his lies and hypocrisy!

Naturally, since a democratic ex-Vice President has taken up the cause of Global Warming, he has become both a rallying point for those that support the theory and a target for those that do not.

That's why it's become a political matter...

Also, as stories are posted chronicling the events that surround the debate itself, we can expect that the points of view will reflect the debate.

The Theory of Global Climate Change has become nothing more than a political football to some.

That's because when somebody lies and tries to deceive the masses, bullies the opposition and bribes scientists to support a nonsensical theory, we aren't going to stand for it.Bold.

[Terry Shea]

Terry, you're missing the point. Again.

If it takes 30 to 40 years to turn it around by having us trying to conserve and whatnot, it beats having it never turn around because we complacently sat around ignoring and belittling the evidence that changes are already happening.

Here's an analogy: The Titanic cannot stop on a dime. The lookout sees the iceberg dead ahead and immediately notifies Captain Terry Shea. Captain Shea, knowing that the lookout isn't the most dependable guy in the world, figures the iceberg is just a figment of the lookout's imagination . . . .perhaps it's a ploy to make the Captain look bad by having him stop dead in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Just think of the fuel that would be wasted getting the ship back up to full speed.

Besides that, even if the iceberg is real, it's not his fault nor the fault of any of the crew or passengers, is it?

In spite of his resistance to the notion that the iceberg is a threat to the ship, Captain Shea quickly calculates in his head that the ship cannot possibly come to a full stop in time anyway, and orders that the ship continue "full steam ahead."

Captain Shea is of the opinion that the ship is unsinkable.

And now that he thinks about it, even if the ship is damaged, the passengers can simply be moved to the undamaged portions of the ship!

Ah, well, if we hit an iceberg, "so be it."

"We can't do anything about it and we haven't done anything to cause the iceberg."
Sorry, but you're the one missing the point! You keep posting story after story about how global warming is affecting this and that, but we all know that the earth is getting warmer. So what's your point? It's been getting warmer since the last ice age 20,000 years ago! You can't link any of it to manmade causes! There's a stupid theory that's been proposed suggesting that global warming is manmade, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support such garbage, just a lot of hype and money being thrown at it.

It was a knee-jerk response among the scientific community when the earth started warming after they had earlier proposed that greenhouse gasses caused global cooling. That's the problem with the scientific community as a whole. They have to try to explain everything as a cause-effect relationship and place blame, especially when it's a subject they have little knowledge of or control over, such as the weather and its beahvior. It got cold for 30 years so global cooling had to be manmade according to the scientific community. It warmed up and now according to the scientific community we're causing it, despite there being no factual evidence to support such a hair-brained theory! They just can't fathom that anything is due to natural causes and constantly invent theories and then re-invent theories to try to explain things. But now we're living in an information age where any lie with enough money behind it can be established worldwide as being a fact! Where is the factual evidence? Where is the smoking gun? There is none!

Islands have been disappearing for thousands of years. Other land masses have appeared. Floods are no new phenomenon, in fact sea shells have been found on some of the highest mountaintops. Glaciers said to have been there forever dissapear only to reveal lost civilizations. Volcanoes, earthquakes and other natural disasters have occured thoughout history. We've caused none of it and we can control none of it. The earth and weather are constantly in a state of flux. Get used to it!

I'm not the captain of the Titanic, but you're akin to Chicken Little crying "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The sky is not falling. What you see is the money falling from the sky to all those who support the manmade global warming lie.

[kirk]

Now, Exxon...There's some folks you can trust...!

(Al gore didn't make up Global Warming. That's moronic).

From MSNBC-
Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics
Oil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases

Global warming of Exxon's heart?
Jan. 11: The oil giant is pulling its money from an anti-global warming think tank, saying the issue has evolved. "On the Money's" Scott Cohn reports.
CNBC

NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims — moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases.

Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.

Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon, the world’s biggest publicly traded company, said its position on climate change has been “widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is.”

Wake up and smell the catfood.

K

[kirk]

Exxon spends millions to cast doubt on warming
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington and Stephen Castle in Brussels
Published: 07 December 2006
The world's largest energy company is still spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund European organisations that seek to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on global warming and undermine support for legislation to curb emission of greenhouse gases.

Data collated by a Brussels-based watchdog reveals that ExxonMobil has put money into projects that criticise the Kyoto treaty and question the findings of scientific groups. Environmental campaigners say Texas-based Exxon is trying to influence opinion-makers in Brussels because Europe - rather than the US - is the driving force for action on climate change.

"ExxonMobil invests significant amounts in letting think-tanks, seemingly respectable sources, sow doubts about the need for EU governments to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," said Olivier Hoedeman, of the Corporate Europe Observatory. "Covert funding for climate sceptics is deeply hypocritical because ExxonMobil spends major sums on advertising to present itself as an environmentally responsible company."

It has long been known that the oil giant, which in 2005 recorded an all-time record for quarterly income, has spent millions of dollars to fund climate sceptics. Exactly how much is unknown but some estimates suggest $19m (£9.7m) since 1998.

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2054654.ece

You and yours have been sucked in Terry, by groups that fear
an environmentally-minded President.

K

[podo]

I'm not the captain of the Titanic, but you're akin to Chicken Little crying "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The sky is not falling. What you see is the money falling from the sky to all those who support the manmade global warming lie.

Yes Terry, you really are the captain of the Titanic.. Full steam ahead, the lookout is simply a liar. There are not icebergs this far south, and even if there was, its not our fault and this ship is unsinkable.

Just remember, there isnt enough lifeboats, and the captain goes down with the ship

[podo]

That's the problem with the scientific community as a whole. They have to try to explain everything as a cause-effect relationship and place blame,

I think you will find thats called the "scientific method" Perhaps you have heard of it.

Something gets hot.. (effect)

why ? (cause)

because.. (blame)

Its not the problem with the scientific community,, its what they do. I guess you know more than they do

[Altres]

http://i17.tinypic.com/6cgk1td.jpg


It's Ok, it was just a natural thing for me to fall into this hole.

[Altres]

http://i4.tinypic.com/6cziddj.jpg

"Humans are making no imapct, I was destined to get my head caught"

[Sheerah]

While I do agree with Terry that the Earth has its own natural cycles, I am reluctant to say that man has no or little effect on the conditions of the Earth and its health. That would be statiscally impossible, from my point of view.

There are nearly 7 billion people roaming around on this planet. Most of whom are belching filth into the atmosphere, many of whom are destroying the Earth's ecosystems through pollution and careless over development. The land is raped every single day. To think that by destroying the Earth's natural cooling systems, i.e. forrests, trees, healthy oceans, clean air, etc., would have no effect on the climate is ludicrous.

[inside_out]

http://i4.tinypic.com/6cziddj.jpg

"Humans are making no imapct, I was destined to get my head caught"

How do you know it was not? Destiny as you describe it is here is superiority driven. The next time you are on wheels Altres you may need to pull over and take your wheels with you and when you do consider this picture that you provided here as some sort of example for 'the rest of the world to live'. Stop pretending that you are exempt.

[podo]

While I do agree with Terry that the Earth has its own natural cycles, I am reluctant to say that man has no or little effect on the conditions of the Earth and its health. That would be statiscally impossible, from my point of view.

There are nearly 7 billion people roaming around on this planet. Most of whom are belching filth into the atmosphere, many of whom are destroying the Earth's ecosystems through pollution and careless over development. The land is raped every single day. To think that by destroying the Earth's natural cooling systems, i.e. forrests, trees, healthy oceans, clean air, etc., would have no effect on the climate is ludicrous.

Excellant post.

There is no disputing the fact that the planet moves through changes in the environment all the time. Its also true that these changes can have huge impacts and incure enourmous changes to the environment as a whole. Ice ages come and go, sea levels rise and fall. Species die out, species are discovered.

The issue is, why has there been such a dramatic increase in environmental change over such a short period of time ? The changes above normally happen over hundreds or thousands of years....not decades.

7 billion people (far too many for the planet to support) all driving around spewing crap into the air, and at the same time shutting down the very systems that clean the atmosphere. Its ludicrious to think that isnt going to have an effect

[inside_out]

Excellant post.

There is no disputing the fact that the planet moves through changes in the environment all the time. Its also true that these changes can have huge impacts and incure enourmous changes to the environment as a whole. Ice ages come and go, sea levels rise and fall. Species die out, species are discovered.

The issue is, why has there been such a dramatic increase in environmental change over such a short period of time ? The changes above normally happen over hundreds or thousands of years....not decades.

7 billion people (far too many for the planet to support) all driving around spewing crap into the air, and at the same time shutting down the very systems that clean the atmosphere. Its ludicrious to think that isnt going to have an effect

There is no issue, it just is. Speaking of spewing crap, I think I just found some here.

[Altres]

How do you know it was not? Destiny as you describe it is here is superiority driven. The next time you are on wheels Altres you may need to pull over and take your wheels with you and when you do consider this picture that you provided here as some sort of example for 'the rest of the world to live'. Stop pretending that you are exempt.
I'm not, I'm saying we make huge impact, me included. I cycle however, I do not own a car. My wheels are powered by me. I take them with me, they don't take me.

Brian

[inside_out]

I'm not, I'm saying we make huge impact, me included. I cycle however, I do not own a car. My wheels are powered by me. I take them with me, they don't take me.

Brian\\

You are not walking everywhere I can assure you. By the way no one here "owns a car" they just pretend that the do. Unlike your world down under where you are exempt all the time.

[Altres]

\\

You are not walking everywhere I can assure you. By the way no one here "owns a car" they just pretend that the do. Unlike your world down under where you are exempt all the time.
Down under? I live in Scotland!

Brian

[Altres]

http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/s/images/symbol_eyck_arnolph_mirror_lg.jpg

[inside_out]

Down under? I live in Scotland!

Brian

Thats what I mean. If you define yourself by living somewhere other than the rest of us who live here than ---- you. Stop being that way. Please, if you will?

[Altres]

You mean, just exist two dimensionally, as you do yourself?

Brian

[pedro skychaser]

SCOTLAND....down under on our maps!!!!...we're singing "on top of the world" here...ahhahaha yeah ,local koori tribe, the cadigal people have 6 seasons (based on nature,flowering plants,bush tucker,and vast cycles of fire+ice....(ice-ages) when sydney was inland 30 kilometers from today...

thats the perspective you get for having the world's oldest continual culture...60,000 years +counting....


in wim wenders "where the green ants dream"...our european culture was described as only a blip in time...

btw i too, do not own a car but bicycle...soon to enjoy cooks river trip with similar enthusiasts here @ TOP OF THE WORLD!!!

[Roan's Lady]

I think this calls for an objective view of "down under".

[inside_out]

If you are going to post these things and act as if you are not included and pretend otherwise, please don't. I don't need another reason to be what you want me to be, I am. I have no desire to give that to another, do you?

[inside_out]

SCOTLAND....down under on our maps!!!!...we're singing "on top of the world" here...ahhahaha yeah ,local koori tribe, the cadigal people have 6 seasons (based on nature,flowering plants,bush tucker,and vast cycles of fire+ice....(ice-ages) when sydney was inland 30 kilometers from today...

thats the perspective you get for having the world's oldest continual culture...60,000 years +counting....


in wim wenders "where the green ants dream"...our european culture was described as only a blip in time...

btw i too, do not own a car but bicycle...soon to enjoy cooks river trip with similar enthusiasts here @ TOP OF THE WORLD!!!

If you are living in the World thats the where you need to be.
I couldn't give a ---- about you and your enthusiast there. Trust me there is no connection.

[Roan's Lady]

Oh Dear...

[Altres]

If you are going to post these things and act as if you are not included and pretend otherwise, please don't. I don't need another reason to be what you want me to be, I am. I have no desire to give that to another, do you?
Another oblique and generally unsatisfying post. What has happened, Inside Out? There was a time when you were fresh and mildly insightful. Now you are vitriolic and obstreperous.

I hope life improves.

Brian

[MrZuLu]

\\

You are not walking everywhere I can assure you. By the way no one here "owns a car" they just pretend that the do. Unlike your world down under where you are exempt all the time.you are a real piece of work...

Of course he doesn't walk everywhere...

He just told you that!

Brian(Altres) rides a bicycle.. certainly you know what a BICYCLE is?

It is not acrimoniously spelt CAR or BUS...

Here is what Merriam/Webster seems to think a BICYCLE is;

a vehicle with two wheels tandem, handlebars for steering, a saddle seat, and pedals by which it is propelled.

In case you don't understand what pedals are... they are used by HUMAN feet to POWER said BICYCLE...


sheeeesh

buy them books, send them to school and what do they do...

EAT THE PAGES!

[pianozach]

Sorry, but you're the one missing the point! You keep posting story after story about how global warming is affecting this and that, but we all know that the earth is getting warmer. So what's your point? It's been getting warmer since the last ice age 20,000 years ago! You can't link any of it to manmade causes! There's a stupid theory that's been proposed suggesting that global warming is manmade, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support such garbage, just a lot of hype and money being thrown at it.

It was a knee-jerk response among the scientific community when the earth started warming after they had earlier proposed that greenhouse gasses caused global cooling. That's the problem with the scientific community as a whole. They have to try to explain everything as a cause-effect relationship and place blame, especially when it's a subject they have little knowledge of or control over, such as the weather and its beahvior. It got cold for 30 years so global cooling had to be manmade according to the scientific community. It warmed up and now according to the scientific community we're causing it, despite there being no factual evidence to support such a hair-brained theory! They just can't fathom that anything is due to natural causes and constantly invent theories and then re-invent theories to try to explain things. But now we're living in an information age where any lie with enough money behind it can be established worldwide as being a fact! Where is the factual evidence? Where is the smoking gun? There is none!

Islands have been disappearing for thousands of years. Other land masses have appeared. Floods are no new phenomenon, in fact sea shells have been found on some of the highest mountaintops. Glaciers said to have been there forever dissapear only to reveal lost civilizations. Volcanoes, earthquakes and other natural disasters have occured thoughout history. We've caused none of it and we can control none of it. The earth and weather are constantly in a state of flux. Get used to it!

I'm not the captain of the Titanic, but you're akin to Chicken Little crying "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The sky is not falling. What you see is the money falling from the sky to all those who support the manmade global warming lie.

Terry, you're mistaken. About many things.

If there's a problem with scientists, it certainly isn't that they're a bunch of "knee-jerk" reactionaries.

You're confusing natural 100,000 global cycles with a sudden and blindingly quick change in climate.

Al Gore didn't invent Global Warming. True, he's not perfect. I don't know who is. But, like many of the rest of us, he's still trying to get up to speed on conservation. But he's trying, and he's far ahead of the curve.

And you're ignoring the evidence. You're ignoring the "smoking gun."

BTW, as the earth's atmosphere warms up globally, local areas will have varying consequences . . . lakes will dry up while other areas will have increased rainfall and hurricanes, deserts will spread while other locales will actually end up cooler.

And did you see the article I posted from the Luddington Times? There's even evidence that hits close to your home.

You keep posting story after story about how global warming is affecting this and that, but we all know that the earth is getting warmer. So what's your point?

My point is that the earth is getting warmer, as even you have pointed out.

And that the changes are happening at a breakneck pace.

And that we should all be concerned.

And informed.

And prepared. Prepared for the consequences of unchecked global warming. And prepared to have the courage to try to mitigate the causes, whether it be natural or man-made.

[Altres]

Warming 'opens Northwest Passage' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6995999.stm) (click for full story)


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44118000/gif/_44118243_arctic_203_passage.gif

The most direct shipping route from Europe to Asia is fully clear of ice for the first time since records began, the European Space Agency (Esa) says.

Historically, the Northwest Passage linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans has been ice-bound through the year. But the agency says ice cover has been steadily shrinking, and this summer's reduction has made the route navigable. The findings, based on satellite images, raised concerns about the speed of global warming.

[pianozach]

.
.
.
.Speaking of smoking guns . . . .
.
.
.Warming 'opens Northwest Passage' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6995999.stm) (click for full story)


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44118000/gif/_44118243_arctic_203_passage.gif

The most direct shipping route from Europe to Asia is fully clear of ice for the first time since records began, the European Space Agency (Esa) says.

Historically, the Northwest Passage linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans has been ice-bound through the year. But the agency says ice cover has been steadily shrinking, and this summer's reduction has made the route navigable. The findings, based on satellite images, raised concerns about the speed of global warming.

Bang.

[pianozach]

http://uktv.co.uk/gardens/news/aid/593477

http://uktv.co.uk/images/layout/uktv/logo_uktv.gif

Nature 'confused' by weather

Britain seems to be going through both Spring and Autumn seasons.

If you have noticed some things going awry in your garden, you are not alone.

Flora and fauna have been so thrown by this year's unusual weather that Britain may be experiencing both spring and autumn simultaneously, according to reports.

Anna Guthrie of the Wildlife Trust said that British weather is normally characterised by distinctly split seasons, but explained that this year the weather has been both warm and also very wet.

The unprecedented weather has led to autumn arriving early in many parts of the country, with trees shedding their leaves ahead of schedule.

Meanwhile some bluebells and crocuses, which customarily flower in April, have already reared their heads.

Ms Guthrie told the Metro: "We saw signs of autumn in August when it normally kicks in about September. Fungi was well advanced with lots of autumn species around.

"But, at the same time, there have been bluebells flowering in Radnorshire in Wales, which shows how much the warm weather has confused nature."

She advised gardeners to freeze apples so that they can be de-frosted in winter and fed to birds.

This news story was first published on 18th September 2007.
© 2007 Adfero Ltd.

[inside_out]

SCOTLAND....down under on our maps!!!!...we're singing "on top of the world" here...ahhahaha yeah ,local koori tribe, the cadigal people have 6 seasons (based on nature,flowering plants,bush tucker,and vast cycles of fire+ice....(ice-ages) when sydney was inland 30 kilometers from today...

thats the perspective you get for having the world's oldest continual culture...60,000 years +counting....


in wim wenders "where the green ants dream"...our european culture was described as only a blip in time...

btw i too, do not own a car but bicycle...soon to enjoy cooks river trip with similar enthusiasts here @ TOP OF THE WORLD!!!

There is no TOP OF THE WORLD. The connection is therefor extended from thought to imagination.

[Terry Shea]

btw i too, do not own a car but bicycle...soon to enjoy cooks river trip with similar enthusiasts here @ TOP OF THE WORLD!!!Do you exhale?:drummer:

[Altres]

Ice withdrawal 'shatters record' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7006640.stm)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/sci_nat_enl_1190383515/img/laun.jpg (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/sci_nat_enl_1190383515/html/1.stm)

Scientists will be looking now to see how well the ice recovers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/inline_dashed_line.gif
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/icons/open_icon.gifMore details (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/sci_nat_enl_1190383515/html/1.stm)

Arctic sea ice shrank to the smallest area on record this year, US scientists have confirmed.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) said the minimum extent of 4.13 million sq km (1.59 million sq miles) was reached on 16 September.

The figure shatters all previous satellite surveys, including the previous record low of 5.32 million sq km measured in 2005. Earlier this month, it was reported that the Northwest Passage was open. The fabled Arctic shipping route from the Atlantic to the Pacific is normally ice-bound at some location throughout the year; but this year, ships have been able to complete an unimpeded navigation.

--------------------------------------------------

Top of the World!

[Terry Shea]

http://uktv.co.uk/gardens/news/aid/593477

http://uktv.co.uk/images/layout/uktv/logo_uktv.gif

Nature 'confused' by weather

Britain seems to be going through both Spring and Autumn seasons.

If you have noticed some things going awry in your garden, you are not alone.

Flora and fauna have been so thrown by this year's unusual weather that Britain may be experiencing both spring and autumn simultaneously, according to reports.

Anna Guthrie of the Wildlife Trust said that British weather is normally characterised by distinctly split seasons, but explained that this year the weather has been both warm and also very wet.

The unprecedented weather has led to autumn arriving early in many parts of the country, with trees shedding their leaves ahead of schedule.

Meanwhile some bluebells and crocuses, which customarily flower in April, have already reared their heads.

Ms Guthrie told the Metro: "We saw signs of autumn in August when it normally kicks in about September. Fungi was well advanced with lots of autumn species around.

"But, at the same time, there have been bluebells flowering in Radnorshire in Wales, which shows how much the warm weather has confused nature."

She advised gardeners to freeze apples so that they can be de-frosted in winter and fed to birds.

This news story was first published on 18th September 2007.
© 2007 Adfero Ltd.And your point is...?
Check this out:

http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/history/1816.htm

Sorry, but strange weather patterns are nothing new and everything you've posted pales in comparison to ages of the past when CO2 levels were much less than they are now.

[Terry Shea]

Warming 'opens Northwest Passage' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6995999.stm) (click for full story)


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44118000/gif/_44118243_arctic_203_passage.gif

The most direct shipping route from Europe to Asia is fully clear of ice for the first time since records began, the European Space Agency (Esa) says.

Historically, the Northwest Passage linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans has been ice-bound through the year. But the agency says ice cover has been steadily shrinking, and this summer's reduction has made the route navigable. The findings, based on satellite images, raised concerns about the speed of global warming. And that's bad news?:headset:

[Altres]

http://www.gifmania.co.uk/water/bubbles/040817_bubulles.gifhttp://www.gifmania.co.uk/water/bubbles/040817_bubulles.gifhttp://www.gifmania.co.uk/water/bubbles/040817_bubulles.gifhttp://www.gifmania.co.uk/water/bubbles/040817_bubulles.gif

[Enoch]

Excellant post.

The issue is, why has there been such a dramatic increase in environmental change over such a short period of time ? The changes above normally happen over hundreds or thousands of years....not decades.

Wrong. Not always. To date, no one has explained to me how the parrrallel warming going on on Mars is occuring. Does man also populate Mars? Coincidence you say? What does Mars and Earth have in common that could affect both so quickly and profoundly?

Hint: It's big, round, orange and hot.

[MrZuLu]

Whew!

Finally!

We have solved this issue!!!

No further discussion is necessary nor warranted.

We are free to move about the Planet unchecked.

Enjoy the warmth!

[Enoch]

You're may be trying to be sarcastic, but you are coincidentally correct.

[inside_out]

Wrong. Not always. To date, no one has explained to me how the parrrallel warming going on on Mars is occuring. Does man also populate Mars? Coincidence you say? What does Mars and Earth have in common that could affect both so quickly and profoundly?

Hint: It's big, round, orange and hot.

I think that the answer might be the Sun. The one that we care about when we need it? Would it be that one?

[inside_out]

Remember everything is backwards when it comes to humans.

[MrZuLu]

Wrong. Not always. To date, no one has explained to me how the parrrallel warming going on on Mars is occuring. Does man also populate Mars? Coincidence you say? What does Mars and Earth have in common that could affect both so quickly and profoundly?

Hint: It's big, round, orange and hot.no sarcasim!

I am done with this topic

You are mistaken, however.

Our Sun is YELLOW!

Unless of course, you live in a city that is so polluted the Sun appears Orange...

Or you live on another planet!

[Altres]

Mars warming may be due to increased dust storm activity, causing the poles to darken and absob more heat.

Why would we rest easy because of this? If the guy next to me was suffering from a fever, and was told it was a virus, I'd still go see the doctor about what was causing mine. Could be anything. Doesn't necesseraly mean we both got sneezed on by the same person. I could have blood poisoning. This isn't really a "fingers crossed" sort of thing really, is it?

Brian

[Altres]

Remember everything is backwards when it comes to humans.
I notice you typed this forwards.

[inside_out]

I notice you typed this forwards.

Of course you noticed that because you have created no other choice for yourself.

[BrianD]

Whether or not carbon emissions are a significant factor in global warming, whether or not it is part of some type of 'natural' cycle is largely irrelevant.

The evidence that the globe has warmed up over the last century is overwhelming. On current trends - and no one can accurately predict the future - it appears that things are likely to get hotter rather than stabilise or get colder.

So the real question is about whether we NEED to do anything about it. Some might argue that the world is a better place with more heat - and there is some evidence that in various corners of the globe conditions for life are improving.

But it seems again that the balance of considered opinion of the long term effects of global warming of whatever the cause is that there is going to be a major challenge for life to continue as we currently know it in a persistently warmer world with sea level changes, alterations to rainfall and weather patterns and the effects on agriculture.

So if the answer to the question do we NEED to do anything about it is Yes - and I belive that it is - we are then reliant on looking at what we could possibly do to minimise the warming - and that then comes back to carbon emissions. Because even if carbon emissions are not the main cause, they are one of the few modifiable factors that humans have to ameliorate what is happening.

We can't do much if its primarily a natural cycle or from the sun.

[MrZuLu]

Ah Brian...

I love ya, man...

prepare to be bashed and ridiculed.
(not by me of course. I have been squashed into submission. I am applying for a loan to get a big block SUV next week!)

The main bone of contention here, which is evident as you read through this thread is such that, none of this CO2 emission warming is proved.

It is claimed by some here that nothing man can do will affect the planet. That mankind is such an insignificant growth on the surface of Earth that we are unable to spew enough emissions of ANY sort to cause ANY change whatsoever.

Therefore trying to curtail any further emissions is a fruitless endeavour; we are being told we are just throwing money at something we have no control over and that this is a TOTAL politically driven HOAX!http://yesfans.com/images/icons/cool2.gif

[kirk]

Yeah, let's compare ourselves to an for all purposes dead planet
where life, or at least the necessary components once lived.

What happened to Mars is part of a natural cycle, so why fight it ?

I can't debate with an intellect that can't understand the trapping of the suns rays reflections cause a heating process.
It's called "albedo" guys, the reflection factor of a planetary body.
Slow the reflection, the sun's rays are slowed, the surface heats.
Deet Dee Dee.
This is Physical Science, nothing "political" about it, so wake up your Bud Lite guzzling, Marlboro smoking (unless times are tough, then it's Dorals or whatever) Fox News watching, Gay Marriage bashing, women's right to choose denying, Muslim hating minds, and have an original thought once in awhile.

K

[podo]

Whether or not carbon emissions are a significant factor in global warming, whether or not it is part of some type of 'natural' cycle is largely irrelevant.

The evidence that the globe has warmed up over the last century is overwhelming. On current trends - and no one can accurately predict the future - it appears that things are likely to get hotter rather than stabilise or get colder.

So the real question is about whether we NEED to do anything about it. Some might argue that the world is a better place with more heat - and there is some evidence that in various corners of the globe conditions for life are improving.

But it seems again that the balance of considered opinion of the long term effects of global warming of whatever the cause is that there is going to be a major challenge for life to continue as we currently know it in a persistently warmer world with sea level changes, alterations to rainfall and weather patterns and the effects on agriculture.

So if the answer to the question do we NEED to do anything about it is Yes - and I belive that it is - we are then reliant on looking at what we could possibly do to minimise the warming - and that then comes back to carbon emissions. Because even if carbon emissions are not the main cause, they are one of the few modifiable factors that humans have to ameliorate what is happening.

We can't do much if its primarily a natural cycle or from the sun.

Brian,, again, as always.. your post is spot on.

Perhaps man has nothing to do with global warming, but thats no excuse to not try to do something about it. If its a wasted effort,, at least we tried (rather just ignore the problem, and hope it will go away)... I think some dead guy said that

[Terry Shea]

Wrong. Not always. To date, no one has explained to me how the parrrallel warming going on on Mars is occuring. Does man also populate Mars? Coincidence you say? What does Mars and Earth have in common that could affect both so quickly and profoundly?

Hint: It's big, round, orange and hot.
Must be that land rover we put on Mars is causing it to heat up!:drummer:

[Terry Shea]

no sarcasim!

I am done with this topic

You are mistaken, however.

Our Sun is YELLOW!

Unless of course, you live in a city that is so polluted the Sun appears Orange...

Or you live on another planet!Well if you want to get technical, the actual color of the Sun is white. It may look yellow if you stare at it when it's high in the sky (not a good idea), but at the Heart Of The Sunrise, or sunset, (when viewed by most people) it certainly appears orange due to refraction and atmospheric conditions and it has nothing to do with pollution. It appears that way in remote, unpolluted areas too.

[Terry Shea]

Whether or not carbon emissions are a significant factor in global warming, whether or not it is part of some type of 'natural' cycle is largely irrelevant.

The evidence that the globe has warmed up over the last century is overwhelming. On current trends - and no one can accurately predict the future - it appears that things are likely to get hotter rather than stabilise or get colder.

So the real question is about whether we NEED to do anything about it. Some might argue that the world is a better place with more heat - and there is some evidence that in various corners of the globe conditions for life are improving.

But it seems again that the balance of considered opinion of the long term effects of global warming of whatever the cause is that there is going to be a major challenge for life to continue as we currently know it in a persistently warmer world with sea level changes, alterations to rainfall and weather patterns and the effects on agriculture.

So if the answer to the question do we NEED to do anything about it is Yes - and I belive that it is - we are then reliant on looking at what we could possibly do to minimise the warming - and that then comes back to carbon emissions. Because even if carbon emissions are not the main cause, they are one of the few modifiable factors that humans have to ameliorate what is happening.

We can't do much if its primarily a natural cycle or from the sun.Wrong. Carbon emissions or other "greenhouse gasses" have absolutely no effect on temps and/or weather whatsoever. Despite all they hype, banter and all-out lies being told by the manmade global warming propagandists, there is absolutely not a shred of evidence to support such a ridiculous theory. When it was cold for a spell they tried to push the manmade global cooling theory on us. We get a warm spell and now it's the manmade global warming theory.

And it hasn't just been getting warmer for 100 years. It's been getting warmer overall for 20,000 years. There have been both cooling and warming cycles during this 20,000 year period, but the overall trend has been that the earth is growing warmer-much warmer than it was 20,000 years ago, and it's had nothing to do with cars, jets, CO2 or other greenhouse gasses. The world has been growing naturally warmer for 20,000 years. We had a brief 30 year cooling cylce and when the warming trend resumed a bunch of politically driven nazi-types decided they could make a lot of money and control people by duping and brain-washing a lot of weak-minded individuals into believing their nonsense!

[Mind Driver]

Just in case any of you haven't noticed, automakers all over the world are stumbling all over themselves trying to get the best hybrid vehicle marketed. They are appearing at car shows all over the world.

The European automakers are doing a nice job with reducing emmissions while keeping horsepower - marketing to the car enthusiasts.

[Terry Shea]

Yeah, let's compare ourselves to an for all purposes dead planet
where life, or at least the necessary components once lived.

What happened to Mars is part of a natural cycle, so why fight it ?

I can't debate with an intellect that can't understand the trapping of the suns rays reflections cause a heating process.
It's called "albedo" guys, the reflection factor of a planetary body.
Slow the reflection, the sun's rays are slowed, the surface heats.
Deet Dee Dee.
This is Physical Science, nothing "political" about it, so wake up your Bud Lite guzzling, Marlboro smoking (unless times are tough, then it's Dorals or whatever) Fox News watching, Gay Marriage bashing, women's right to choose denying, Muslim hating minds, and have an original thought once in awhile.

KWas that stereotyped message an original thought?

[Terry Shea]

Yeah, let's compare ourselves to an for all purposes dead planet
where life, or at least the necessary components once lived.

What happened to Mars is part of a natural cycle, so why fight it ?

I can't debate with an intellect that can't understand the trapping of the suns rays reflections cause a heating process.
It's called "albedo" guys, the reflection factor of a planetary body.
Slow the reflection, the sun's rays are slowed, the surface heats.
Deet Dee Dee.
This is Physical Science, nothing "political" about it, so wake up your Bud Lite guzzling, Marlboro smoking (unless times are tough, then it's Dorals or whatever) Fox News watching, Gay Marriage bashing, women's right to choose denying, Muslim hating minds, and have an original thought once in awhile.

KSorry, but there is absolutely no evidence that there was ever any life on Mars. As for your scientific analysis, it's about as flawed as could possibly be, just like your analysis of your opposition in your last paragraph. We know that water vapor traps heat, but there is no evidence that other "greenhouse gasses" such as CO2 trap heat, and really no reason to believe that they would. It makes no sense to believe that CO2 traps heat any more than oxygen or nitrogen do, both of which are thousands of times more abundant in our atmosphere than is CO2.

[Sheerah]

Must be that land rover we put on Mars is causing it to heat up!:drummer:

LOL! That's funny!

[Sheerah]

Just in case any of you haven't noticed, automakers all over the world are stumbling all over themselves trying to get the best hybrid vehicle marketed. They are appearing at car shows all over the world.

The European automakers are doing a nice job with reducing emmissions while keeping horsepower - marketing to the car enthusiasts.

Which is a good thing!
Lord knows, our dependency on oil has been a scurge on the planet and on human civility.

[MrZuLu]

Whether or not carbon emissions are a significant factor in global warming, whether or not it is part of some type of 'natural' cycle is largely irrelevant.

The evidence that the globe has warmed up over the last century is overwhelming. On current trends - and no one can accurately predict the future - it appears that things are likely to get hotter rather than stabilise or get colder.

So the real question is about whether we NEED to do anything about it. Some might argue that the world is a better place with more heat - and there is some evidence that in various corners of the globe conditions for life are improving.

But it seems again that the balance of considered opinion of the long term effects of global warming of whatever the cause is that there is going to be a major challenge for life to continue as we currently know it in a persistently warmer world with sea level changes, alterations to rainfall and weather patterns and the effects on agriculture.

So if the answer to the question do we NEED to do anything about it is Yes - and I belive that it is - we are then reliant on looking at what we could possibly do to minimise the warming - and that then comes back to carbon emissions. Because even if carbon emissions are not the main cause, they are one of the few modifiable factors that humans have to ameliorate what is happening.

We can't do much if its primarily a natural cycle or from the sun.

Wrong. Carbon emissions or other "greenhouse gasses" have absolutely no effect on temps and/or weather whatsoever. Despite all they hype, banter and all-out lies being told by the manmade global warming propagandists, there is absolutely not a shred of evidence to support such a ridiculous theory. When it was cold for a spell they tried to push the manmade global cooling theory on us. We get a warm spell and now it's the manmade global warming theory.

And it hasn't just been getting warmer for 100 years. It's been getting warmer overall for 20,000 years. There have been both cooling and warming cycles during this 20,000 year period, but the overall trend has been that the earth is growing warmer-much warmer than it was 20,000 years ago, and it's had nothing to do with cars, jets, CO2 or other greenhouse gasses. The world has been growing naturally warmer for 20,000 years. We had a brief 30 year cooling cylce and when the warming trend resumed a bunch of politically driven nazi-types decided they could make a lot of money and control people by duping and brain-washing a lot of weak-minded individuals into believing their nonsense!See, BrianD! What did I tell you?

Everything we know is wrong.http://yesfans.com/images/icons/pat.gif

Now bend over and take your licks like the rest of us uneducated, weak-minded individuals!

:Wow:

[Terry Shea]

See, BrianD! What did I tell you?

Everything we know is wrong.http://yesfans.com/images/icons/pat.gif

Now bend over and take your licks like the rest of us uneducated, weak-minded individuals!

:Wow:
Nah, just learn from it and quit being weak-minded and gullible.:headset:

[kirk]

Was that stereotyped message an original thought?

And which of those things don't the boys down at the bowlin' elley do?
I'm from central rural Indiana originally, so save it.

K

[Mind Driver]

Must be that land rover we put on Mars is causing it to heat up!:drummer:

No. The Land Rover is known to be one of the least dependable vehicles on the road today. I'll bet the one on Mars is broken down on the side of a Martian road, with no mechanic in sight to fix it.

[kirk]

Sorry, but there is absolutely no evidence that there was ever any life on Mars. [QUOTE]As for your scientific analysis, it's about as flawed as could possibly be,

Not that you know your ass from a hole in the ground about science,
let alone hyperphysics, but i'll attempt to educate you-
From the Georgia State Physics Dept.-
full article here- http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/albedo.html

Albedo
The term albedo (Latin for white) is commonly used to applied to the overall average reflection coefficient of an object. For example, the albedo of the Earth is 0.39 (Kaufmann) and this affects the equilibrium temperature of the Earth. The greenhouse effect, by trapping infrared radiation, can lower the albedo of the earth and cause global warming.

The albedo of an object will determine its visual brightness when viewed with reflected light. For example, the planets are viewed by reflected sunlight and their brightness depends upon the amount of light received from the sun and their albedo. Mercury receives the maximum amount of sunlight, but its albedo is only 0.1 so it is not as bright as it would be with a higher albedo.

K

[MrZuLu]

MD, I believe Terry was referring to the "battery" powered Mars Rovers

I fixed your hyperlink, Kirk...

We don't need any MORE misinformation
http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/...pt/albedo.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/albedo.html)

[kirk]

Once again, Mr.Zulu pulls Capt. Kirk's bacon out...Thanks Michael.

He's probably just going to do the typical "What sun? what reflected
rays? I can't see any reflected rays, show me the reflected rays"
anyway, but it's worth a shot.

I suppose we have to consider that the "flat earth" theory was
prevelent just a few centuries ago, the "religious" conservatives of
that day were imprisoning anyone that disputed it for heresy.
(sigh...'twas every thus..they've always been a pain in the ass).

K

[Buglunch]

Earth for hundreds of millions of years was in dynamic equilibrium, thrown off occasionally by catastrophic events and sun cycles and such, returning to (new) equilibrium on its own somtimes using many species to extinction.

Man is the only critter that's been cheating by burning petroleum and eradicating enormous forested areas
chasing profit and breeding far too much.

We get to choose whether we control
ourselves FAST or nature smacks us down HARD and we lose millions to resource wars and privation and disease trying to maintain everybody
on wasteful upper-middle-class SUVing around. Damn us all forever if
we take a lot of other species down unnecessarily.

We did a good thing banning CFCs in late 70s but HCFC replacements have
been shown far more damaging longterm and will be banned 10 years
early now. Too few things like this are being done.
Reject profiteer/war leaders who tell us we can keep on gouging the earth for fast commercial gain. We know who they are.

[BrianD]

See, BrianD! What did I tell you?

Everything we know is wrong.http://yesfans.com/images/icons/pat.gif

Now bend over and take your licks like the rest of us uneducated, weak-minded individuals!

:Wow:

As the saying goes Michael, 'One swallow doth not a summer make' - so the odd recalcitrant view is inconsequential in the big picture.

[Terry Shea]

The greenhouse effect, by trapping infrared radiation, can lower the albedo of the earth and cause global warming.

Can? What part of can don't you understand? "Can" does not mean "does". I know what the theory states and the theory is stupid and has no scientific or factual basis. All this site has done is to restate the theory in more technical terms, but they haven't given any scientific evidence to support their preposterous theory.

Obviously water vapor can raise temps, just like glass does. Both mediums are capable of magnifying sunlight, creating more heat, and creating a visible, although transparent, barrier to trap that heat. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are invisible. They do not magnify sunlight and they do not trap heat. There is absolutely no reason to believe that they do, because they don't and there is absolutely no evidence that states that they do! Nitrogen and Oxygen comprise 99% of our atmosphere. Why aren't they considered "greenhouse gasses"? Because the team of mad scientists didn't want to include them! It would make their theory look bad to include them because the amount of nitrogen and oxygen cannot be controlled! It's all about control!

So start using your brains and thinking for yourselves instead of allowing these mad scientists to control your mind and do your thinking for you. That's what they're attempting to do.

[Terry Shea]

And which of those things don't the boys down at the bowlin' elley do?
I'm from central rural Indiana originally, so save it.

KSo you're saying that everyone from rural Indiana is exactly alike and think alike, people from Michigan are exactly like these rural Indianers and think alike, and bowlers are all exactly alike and think alike, eh? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you rationalize your stereotyping?

[inside_out]

Can? What part of can don't you understand? "Can" does not mean "does". I know what the theory states and the theory is stupid and has no scientific or factual basis. All this site has done is to restate the theory in more technical terms, but they haven't given any scientific evidence to support their preposterous theory.

Obviously water vapor can raise temps, just like glass does. Both mediums are capable of magnifying sunlight, creating more heat, and creating a visible, although transparent, barrier to trap that heat. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are invisible. They do not magnify sunlight and they do not trap heat. There is absolutely no reason to believe that they do, because they don't and there is absolutely no evidence that states that they do! Nitrogen and Oxygen comprise 99% of our atmosphere. Why aren't they considered "greenhouse gasses"? Because the team of mad scientists didn't want to include them! It would make their theory look bad to include them because the amount of nitrogen and oxygen cannot be controlled! It's all about control!

So start using your brains and thinking for yourselves instead of allowing these mad scientists to control your mind and do your thinking for you. That's what they're attempting to do.

Much more than attempting, they have a captive audience of intellectuals/scientist at hand to run with it.

[inside_out]

And which of those things don't the boys down at the bowlin' elley do?
I'm from central rural Indiana originally, so save it.

K

Ah, that's cute. I'm from nowhere and everywhere. Isn't all of Indiana rural?

[podo]

Wrong. Carbon emissions or other "greenhouse gasses" have absolutely no effect on temps and/or weather whatsoever. Despite all they hype, banter and all-out lies being told by the manmade global warming propagandists, there is absolutely not a shred of evidence to support such a ridiculous theory. When it was cold for a spell they tried to push the manmade global cooling theory on us. We get a warm spell and now it's the manmade global warming theory.

And it hasn't just been getting warmer for 100 years. It's been getting warmer overall for 20,000 years. There have been both cooling and warming cycles during this 20,000 year period, but the overall trend has been that the earth is growing warmer-much warmer than it was 20,000 years ago, and it's had nothing to do with cars, jets, CO2 or other greenhouse gasses. The world has been growing naturally warmer for 20,000 years. We had a brief 30 year cooling cylce and when the warming trend resumed a bunch of politically driven nazi-types decided they could make a lot of money and control people by duping and brain-washing a lot of weak-minded individuals into believing their nonsense!

Your a very brave man taking on the good, measured, articulate, educated Mr BrianD.

Especially with the usual "hype, banter and all-out lies being told by the manmade global warming propagandists "" type of dummyspit responses

[podo]

So start using your brains and thinking for yourselves instead of allowing these mad scientists to control your mind and do your thinking for you. That's what they're attempting to do.

That just leaves me speechless..

Creditbility................out the window

[inside_out]

That just leaves me speechless..

Creditbility................out the window

I'm standing at the window and there is nothing coming or going.

[inside_out]

That just leaves me speechless..

Creditbility................out the window

You may want to consider your sense of smell, since you are speechless.

[kirk]

Sunshine, in the form of ultra-violet radiation, passes through the ozone layer on its way to the planet's surface. When it hits the ground it is converted to infra-red radiation and reflected back into the atmosphere, and from there into space.
Greenhouse gases trap the infra-red radiation and reflect it back towards earth, heating the planet up. Glass performs a similar function in a greenhouse.

Greenhouse gases include :

water vapor
carbon dioxide
methane
nitrous oxidechlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
The concentration of most of these gases in the atmosphere has increased by 25% since industrialisation began.

K

[kirk]

Ah, that's cute. I'm from nowhere and everywhere. Isn't all of Indiana rural?

The part I'm from is! The tallest structure in the town is the
Farm Bureau grain elevators.

There's a little bit of variety, but compared to the rest of the world,
basically not much. Some drive F-100s, some 250's...Camel Filters
instead of Marlboros...then there's a few drunkards and sinners compared with all the God-fear'n folk...There's a law on the town books
that there can't be more bars than churches.

K

[Enoch]

We did a good thing banning CFCs in late 70s but HCFC replacements have
been shown far more damaging longterm and will be banned 10 years
early now. Too few things like this are being done.
Reject profiteer/war leaders who tell us we can keep on gouging the earth for fast commercial gain. We know who they are.

Most of the time, anything man does to "fix" our natural surroundings (whether it's wolves in Yellowstone, rent control, or banning DDT [which has resulted in millions of deaths in Africa due to malaria which could be easily contolled with imposible to find DDT]) ends up making things worse. Find a way to stop volcanic activity and we may get somewhere!

[yesyadda]

Lord knows, our dependency on oil has been a scurge on the planet and on human civility.

It IS nasty worthless stuff! ;)

CLOTHING/TEXTILES

Ballet tights nylon cord women's polyester blouses
beads pajamas women's polyester pants
bracelets pantyhose nylon zippers
plastic hangers permanent press clothing dresses
purses flip flops earrings
ribbons fake fur windbreakers
sandals garment bags shoe laces
rain coats iron-on patches sneakers
sweaters men's nylon undershirts sofa pillow material
men's polyester shirts men's polyester slacks tote bags
umbrellas

OFFICE

Ball point pens diskettes thermometer
Ink computers typewriter ribbon/cartridges
business card holders copiers waste baskets
calculators printer ribbon cartridges microfilm
carbon paper protractor name tags
correction fluid ring binder
erasers rulers
letter divider scotch tape
magic markers telephone

SPORTS/HOBBIES/GAMES

Back packs fishing lures air mattresses Polaroid camera
beach balls fishing poles hang gliders vinyl cases
cameras footballs glue containers puzzles
darts Frisbees golf ball/bags shotgun shell casing
ear plugs knitting needles waterproof jackets stadium cushion
earphones yarn kites tennis racquet
fabric dye decoys lifejacket nylon strings
face protectors volley balls model cars plastic water gun
fishing bobbers soccer balls oil paints parachutes
fishing cylume
light stick earphones playing cards photographs
monofilament fishing lines diving boards poker chips goggles
roller-skate wheels whistles guitar strings picks
rafts ice chests tents sleeping bags
pole vaulting poles motorcycle helmets skis rubber cement
plastic flower pots water skis hot tub covers sails
snorkels monkey bars photo albums wet suits
flippers tennis balls boats insulated boots

INFANT/CHILDREN

Acrylic toys baby oil laundry basket waterproof pants
baby aspirin bath soap mittens pacifiers
baby blanket bibs rattles double-knit shirts
baby bottles disposable diapers baby shoes teething ring
nipples dolls stuffed animals baby lotion


MEDICAL

Allergy medication cotton-tipped swabs inhalator liquid Pepto-Bismol
aspirin first aid cream lancet for blood testing pill case
band aids first aid kits latex gloves prescription bottle
burn lotion glycerin mosquito spray rubbing alcohol
chap stick heart valve replacement nasal decongestant surgical tape
syringes Vaseline antiseptics hearing aids
anesthetics artificial limbs eye glasses antihistamines
cortisone vaporizers Bactine oxygen masks
stethoscope prescription glasses

HEALTH & BEAUTY

cologne hair brushes lipstick permanent wave curlers
perfume hair color mascara petroleum jelly
comb foam rubber curlers denture adhesives shampoo
contact lens/case hair spray hand lotion shaving foam
cough syrup hearing aids hair dryers shoe inserts
dentures Keri body lotion face masks skin cleanser
deodorants laxatives moisturizing cream soap holder
disposable razors leather conditioner mouth wash sun glasses
facial toner lens cleanser nail polish sunscreen
tooth brushes toothpaste tubes vitamins synthetic wigs
bubble bath soap capsules

KITCHEN/HOUSEHOLD

vinegar bottles egg carton meat trays trash bags
bread box freezer containers melamine dishware tumblers
cake decorations jars microwave divided dishes utensils
candles freezer bags milk jugs vacuum bottles
coasters gelatin molds nylon spatulas wax paper
coffee pots ice cream scoops oven bags mops
drinking cups ice trays plastic containers fabric softener
detergent liter bottles plastic table service drain stoppers
dish drainer lunch boxes pudding molds sponges
dish scrubber brush baggies drinking straws Styrofoam
paper cup dispenser measuring cups Teflon coated pans table cloths
refrigerator shelves

FURNISHINGS

Carpet padding naugahyde Venetian blinds TV cabinets
extension cords picture frames flocked wallpaper shower doors
Formica refrigerator lining vinyl-coated wallpaper curtains
kitchen carpet shag carpet welcome mats fan blades
lamps shower curtain patio furniture swings
linoleum upholstery material rugs

BUILDING/HOME MAINTENANCE

caulking material light switch plates plunger faucet washer
clothesline measuring tape polyurethane stain water pipe
electric saw paint brush propane bottles wood floor cleaner/wax
vinyl electrical tape plastic pipe shingles (asphalt) light panels
garden hose plastic wood spackling paste awnings
glazing compound Plexiglas spray paint enamel
epoxy paint artificial turf folding doors floor wax
glue house paint paint rollers toilet seats
water pipes putty solvents roofing material
plywood adhesive sockets propane

AUTOMOBILE

Anti-freeze flat tire fix street paving (asphalt) car battery case
coolant motor oil tires loud speakers
bearing grease sports car bodies traffic cones car enamel
brake fluid dash boards windshield wipers visors
car sound insulation oil filters car seats convertible tops
fan belts gasoline

MISCELLANEOUS

Ash trays dog food dishes tool boxes cd's
balloons dog leash tape recorders synthetic rubber
bubble gum dog toys flashlights nylon rope
bungee strap fertilizer flight bags disposable lighters
cassette player flea collars flutes lighter fluid
cigarette case electric blankets tool racks name tags
cigarette filters ammonia insecticides newspaper tubes
calibrated container insect repellent food preservatives phonograph records
crayons ice buckets dyes pillows
credit cards flashlights fly swatter plastic cup holder
dice movie film k-resin plastic tie
polyethylene polypropylene rain bonnets luggage
video cassettes charcoal lighter rayon safety glasses
safety gloves safety hats shoe polish signs
cassette tapes toys watch bands waterproof boots
shopping bags bed spreads traffic cones check books covers
tobacco pouches clothes hangers flea collars flavors
masking tape safety flares flags signs
butane

[podo]

So when the oil dries up ???

There is always wood I guess..


Not burning oil is not just about not polluting the atmosphere, its about trying to make it last so we can keep making all the stuff listed above

[yesyadda]

Making most all of that stuff does in itself pollute. Aye, there's the rub. I do have faith in human ingenuity, and new technological discoveries are on the horizon. We will reverse the trend.

I have a question- what if we some day reached zero net pollution? And what if the climate still reared it's ugly head? Would we then be in the business of trying to purposefully effect climate change to accomidate our lifestyles?

[podo]

I have a question- what if we some day reached zero net pollution? And what if the climate still reared it's ugly head? Would we then be in the business of trying to purposefully effect climate change to accomidate our lifestyles?

If reached zeor pollution then we have reached one of the pinicles of our kind. A true wonder

If the climate was still "rearing its ugly head" then we could quite rightly sit back and say "---- happens, and its certainly just a natural cycle"

If we then tried to change it for our own benifit, then we would once again slip to the depths of our kind.

When we realise that we need to work with the environment, instead of against it, then all will be well.. As the localKoori's say "we dont own this land, nature has kindly lent it to us"

[Sheerah]

It IS nasty worthless stuff! ;)

CLOTHING/TEXTILES

Ballet tights nylon cord women's polyester blouses
beads pajamas women's polyester pants
bracelets pantyhose nylon zippers
plastic hangers permanent press clothing dresses
purses flip flops earrings
ribbons fake fur windbreakers
sandals garment bags shoe laces
rain coats iron-on patches sneakers
sweaters men's nylon undershirts sofa pillow material
men's polyester shirts men's polyester slacks tote bags
umbrellas

OFFICE

Ball point pens diskettes thermometer
Ink computers typewriter ribbon/cartridges
business card holders copiers waste baskets
calculators printer ribbon cartridges microfilm
carbon paper protractor name tags
correction fluid ring binder
erasers rulers
letter divider scotch tape
magic markers telephone

SPORTS/HOBBIES/GAMES

Back packs fishing lures air mattresses Polaroid camera
beach balls fishing poles hang gliders vinyl cases
cameras footballs glue containers puzzles
darts Frisbees golf ball/bags shotgun shell casing
ear plugs knitting needles waterproof jackets stadium cushion
earphones yarn kites tennis racquet
fabric dye decoys lifejacket nylon strings
face protectors volley balls model cars plastic water gun
fishing bobbers soccer balls oil paints parachutes
fishing cylume
light stick earphones playing cards photographs
monofilament fishing lines diving boards poker chips goggles
roller-skate wheels whistles guitar strings picks
rafts ice chests tents sleeping bags
pole vaulting poles motorcycle helmets skis rubber cement
plastic flower pots water skis hot tub covers sails
snorkels monkey bars photo albums wet suits
flippers tennis balls boats insulated boots

INFANT/CHILDREN

Acrylic toys baby oil laundry basket waterproof pants
baby aspirin bath soap mittens pacifiers
baby blanket bibs rattles double-knit shirts
baby bottles disposable diapers baby shoes teething ring
nipples dolls stuffed animals baby lotion


MEDICAL

Allergy medication cotton-tipped swabs inhalator liquid Pepto-Bismol
aspirin first aid cream lancet for blood testing pill case
band aids first aid kits latex gloves prescription bottle
burn lotion glycerin mosquito spray rubbing alcohol
chap stick heart valve replacement nasal decongestant surgical tape
syringes Vaseline antiseptics hearing aids
anesthetics artificial limbs eye glasses antihistamines
cortisone vaporizers Bactine oxygen masks
stethoscope prescription glasses

HEALTH & BEAUTY

cologne hair brushes lipstick permanent wave curlers
perfume hair color mascara petroleum jelly
comb foam rubber curlers denture adhesives shampoo
contact lens/case hair spray hand lotion shaving foam
cough syrup hearing aids hair dryers shoe inserts
dentures Keri body lotion face masks skin cleanser
deodorants laxatives moisturizing cream soap holder
disposable razors leather conditioner mouth wash sun glasses
facial toner lens cleanser nail polish sunscreen
tooth brushes toothpaste tubes vitamins synthetic wigs
bubble bath soap capsules

KITCHEN/HOUSEHOLD

vinegar bottles egg carton meat trays trash bags
bread box freezer containers melamine dishware tumblers
cake decorations jars microwave divided dishes utensils
candles freezer bags milk jugs vacuum bottles
coasters gelatin molds nylon spatulas wax paper
coffee pots ice cream scoops oven bags mops
drinking cups ice trays plastic containers fabric softener
detergent liter bottles plastic table service drain stoppers
dish drainer lunch boxes pudding molds sponges
dish scrubber brush baggies drinking straws Styrofoam
paper cup dispenser measuring cups Teflon coated pans table cloths
refrigerator shelves

FURNISHINGS

Carpet padding naugahyde Venetian blinds TV cabinets
extension cords picture frames flocked wallpaper shower doors
Formica refrigerator lining vinyl-coated wallpaper curtains
kitchen carpet shag carpet welcome mats fan blades
lamps shower curtain patio furniture swings
linoleum upholstery material rugs

BUILDING/HOME MAINTENANCE

caulking material light switch plates plunger faucet washer
clothesline measuring tape polyurethane stain water pipe
electric saw paint brush propane bottles wood floor cleaner/wax
vinyl electrical tape plastic pipe shingles (asphalt) light panels
garden hose plastic wood spackling paste awnings
glazing compound Plexiglas spray paint enamel
epoxy paint artificial turf folding doors floor wax
glue house paint paint rollers toilet seats
water pipes putty solvents roofing material
plywood adhesive sockets propane

AUTOMOBILE

Anti-freeze flat tire fix street paving (asphalt) car battery case
coolant motor oil tires loud speakers
bearing grease sports car bodies traffic cones car enamel
brake fluid dash boards windshield wipers visors
car sound insulation oil filters car seats convertible tops
fan belts gasoline

MISCELLANEOUS

Ash trays dog food dishes tool boxes cd's
balloons dog leash tape recorders synthetic rubber
bubble gum dog toys flashlights nylon rope
bungee strap fertilizer flight bags disposable lighters
cassette player flea collars flutes lighter fluid
cigarette case electric blankets tool racks name tags
cigarette filters ammonia insecticides newspaper tubes
calibrated container insect repellent food preservatives phonograph records
crayons ice buckets dyes pillows
credit cards flashlights fly swatter plastic cup holder
dice movie film k-resin plastic tie
polyethylene polypropylene rain bonnets luggage
video cassettes charcoal lighter rayon safety glasses
safety gloves safety hats shoe polish signs
cassette tapes toys watch bands waterproof boots
shopping bags bed spreads traffic cones check books covers
tobacco pouches clothes hangers flea collars flavors
masking tape safety flares flags signs
butane

You know, this post reminds me of all the waste that we generate. Remember when CDs came in those humongus (sp?) tall plastic containers?

The other day I was eating a yogurt. The container was all plastic. I thought to myself, whatever happened to those wax coated cardboard containers that Danon yogurt used to come in? We, as humans, could do a lot worse than to return to basics.

[yesyadda]

If the climate was still "rearing its ugly head" then we could quite rightly sit back and say "---- happens, and its certainly just a natural cycle"

Some statements that I've read on this site lead me to belive that as long as humans inhabit the earth, there can be no "natural cycles".

[Altres]

Man causing climate change - poll (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7010522.stm)


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44135000/jpg/_44135319_dryreservoir_ap203b.jpg
Climate change is causing erratic weather around the world

Large majorities in many countries now believe human activity is causing global warming, a BBC World Service poll suggests.


A sizable majority of people agreed that major steps needed to be taken soon to address global warming.

More than 22,000 people were surveyed in 21 countries and the results show a great deal of agreement on the issue.
The survey is published a day after 150 countries met at the United Nations to discuss climate change.

An average of 79% of respondents to the BBC survey agreed that "human activity, including industry and transportation, is a significant cause of climate change".

Nine out of 10 people said action was necessary, with two-thirds of people going further, saying "it is necessary to take major steps starting very soon".

In none of the countries did a majority say no action was necessary to combat climate change.

The survey was conducted by the polling firm Globescan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes (Pipa) at the University of Maryland in the US.

Globescan President Doug Miller said growing awareness of global warming had awoken people's self-interest.

"The impacts of erratic weather on their property, on their person, on their country is tangible and real to people across the world."

He said "the strength of the findings makes it difficult to imagine a more supportive public opinion environment for national leaders to commit to climate action".

'No time'

The survey found widespread support (73% of respondents) for an international agreement to limit emissions of greenhouse gases that would include developing countries.

In return, developing countries would get financial and technological assistance from richer nations.

Only in Egypt, Nigeria and Italy did more people take the position that developing countries should not be expected to limit emissions.

A majority in some of the key developing countries favour limiting emissions in less wealthy countries, including China (68%), Brazil (63%) and Indonesia (54%).

On Monday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the highest-level UN gathering on climate change that "the time for doubt has passed".

Mr Ban is hoping to inject a sense of urgency to the political negotiations on global warming that are due to be held in Indonesia in December.

"If we do not act now, the impact of climate change will be devastating," he said.

Representatives from about 150 countries, including 80 heads of state or government, were at the meeting, held on the eve of the UN General Assembly.

However, US President George W Bush was not present.

Instead, he is hosting a meeting of 16 "major emitter" countries in Washington on Thursday and Friday.

There has been a string of scientific reports in recent months that have pointed to humanity's central role in causing climate change

Just days ago, US scientists confirmed that more Arctic sea ice melted this year than ever before.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44135000/gif/_44135679_climate_poll_2_416.gif

[pedro skychaser]

the science is in people, the stern report commissioned by the UK government..stern is an economist not a tree-hugger...

the darling-murray system is in crisis..most of the citrus trees,grape vines have been cut to their stumps to survive the drought(not productive now for 5 years)...in 1980 i studied environmental science,as part of a design degree...even then the warning signs were there,add the sudden/growing industrialisation of both india+china,burning coal to generate power (uranium mining+power station building is still incredibly polluting)...when denmark have been wind-powered for 2 decades+germany is fazing out nuclear for solar energy...stable affluent societies that are leading the way...though china successfully tackling over population in their country...

interesting times ,no???

[BrianD]

Can? What part of can don't you understand? "Can" does not mean "does". I know what the theory states and the theory is stupid and has no scientific or factual basis. All this site has done is to restate the theory in more technical terms, but they haven't given any scientific evidence to support their preposterous theory.

Obviously water vapor can raise temps, just like glass does. Both mediums are capable of magnifying sunlight, creating more heat, and creating a visible, although transparent, barrier to trap that heat. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are invisible. They do not magnify sunlight and they do not trap heat. There is absolutely no reason to believe that they do, because they don't and there is absolutely no evidence that states that they do! Nitrogen and Oxygen comprise 99% of our atmosphere. Why aren't they considered "greenhouse gasses"? Because the team of mad scientists didn't want to include them! It would make their theory look bad to include them because the amount of nitrogen and oxygen cannot be controlled! It's all about control!

So start using your brains and thinking for yourselves instead of allowing these mad scientists to control your mind and do your thinking for you. That's what they're attempting to do.

I admire your chutzpah - you are a bit like the black knight in the Monty Python and the Holy Grail film - fighting to the last without arms, legs.....credibility....but still fighting...and without a shred of factual evidence to support your point view. Amazing really what blind faith can do.

[allpurechance]

There are so many sides to the coin. It must be an ancient coin.

lol

We could do everything in our power to curb the effect humans have on the environment, and then the rogue comet could hit, extinguishing us all in a matter of hours.

Yet, is it not our duty to do what we can regardless?

[podo]

There are so many sides to the coin. It must be an ancient coin.

lol

We could do everything in our power to curb the effect humans have on the environment, and then the rogue comet could hit, extinguishing us all in a matter of hours.

Yet, is it not our duty to do what we can regardless?

Absolutly

Cheers mate

[podo]

You know, this post reminds me of all the waste that we generate. Remember when CDs came in those humongus (sp?) tall plastic containers?

The other day I was eating a yogurt. The container was all plastic. I thought to myself, whatever happened to those wax coated cardboard containers that Danon yogurt used to come in? We, as humans, could do a lot worse than to return to basics.

I dont know of Danon yogurt, but I understand your point.

Far too much packaging for everything

[podo]

I admire your chutzpah - you are a bit like the black knight in the Monty Python and the Holy Grail film - fighting to the last without arms, legs.....credibility....but still fighting...and without a shred of factual evidence to support your point view. Amazing really what blind faith can do.

Its just a flesh wound, Ive had worse

[podo]

the science is in people, the stern report commissioned by the UK government..stern is an economist not a tree-hugger...



Correct Pedro

How can it be that an economist comes out with a report stating that manmade climate change is real, and we then have people saying that manmade climate change is just a money grab... That in itself doesnt make sense

[pianozach]

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer



There was less sea ice in the Arctic on Friday than ever before on record, and the melting is continuing, the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported.


"Today is a historic day," said Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist at the center. "This is the least sea ice we've ever seen in the satellite record and we have another month left to go in the melt season this year."

:Wow:

More... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070818/ap_on_sc/low_ice&printer=1;_ylt=AjM.2Np8eMjrTpkYUp6XpcpK2ocA)

All in all it was just another brick in the wall . . .

[Altres]

Record 22C temperatures in Arctic heatwave (http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article3021309.ece)
By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Published: 03 October 2007

Parts of the Arctic have experienced an unprecedented heatwave this summer, with one research station in the Canadian High Arctic recording temperatures above 20C, about 15C higher than the long-term average. The high temperatures were accompanied by a dramatic melting of Arctic sea ice in September to the lowest levels ever recorded, a further indication of how sensitive this region of the world is to global warming. Scientists from Queen's University in Ontario watched with amazement as their thermometers touched 22C during their July field expedition at the High Arctic camp on Melville Island, usually one of the coldest places in North America.

"This was exceptional for a place where the normal average temperatures are about 5C. This year we frequently recorded daytime temperatures of between 10C and 15C and on some days it went as high as 22C," said Scott Lamoureux, a professor of geography at Queen's.

"Even temperatures of 15C are higher than we'd expect and yet we recorded them for between 10 and 12 days during July. We won't know the August and September recordings until next year when we go back there but it appears the region has continued to be warm through the summer."

The high temperatures on the island caused catastrophic mudslides as the permafrost on hillsides melted, Professor Lamoureux said. "The landscape was being torn to pieces, literally before our eyes."

Other parts of the Arctic also experienced higher-than-normal temperatures, which indicate that the wider polar region may have experienced its hottest summer on record, according to Walt Meir of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.

"It's been warm, with temperatures about 3C or 4C above normal for June, July and August, particularly to the north of Siberia where the temperatures have reached between 4C and 5C above average," Dr Meir said.

Unusually clear skies over the Arctic this summer have caused temperatures to rise. More sunlight has exacerbated the loss of sea ice, which fell to a record low of 4.28 million square kilometres (1.65 million square miles), some 39 per cent below the long-term average for the period 1979 to 2000. Dr Meir said: "While the decline of the ice started out fairly slowly in spring and early summer, it accelerated rapidly in July. By mid-August, we had already shattered all previous records for ice extent."

An international team of scientists on board the Polar Stern, a research ship operated by the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany, also felt the effects of an exceptionally warm Arctic summer. The scientists had anticipated that large areas of the Arctic would be covered by ice with a thickness of about two metres, but found that it had thinned to just one metre.

Instead of breaking through thicker ice at an expected speed of between 1 and 2 knots, the Polar Stern managed to cruise at 6 knots through thin ice and sometimes open water.

"We are in the midst of a phase of dramatic change in the Arctic," said Ursula Schauer, the chief scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute, who was on board the Polar Stern expedition. "The ice cover of the North Polar Sea is dwindling, the ocean and the atmosphere are becoming steadily warmer, the ocean currents are changing," she said.

One scientist came back from the North Pole and reported that it was raining there, said David Carlson, the director of International Polar Year, the effort to highlight the climate issues of the Arctic and Antarctic. "It makes you wonder whether anyone has ever reported rain at the North Pole before."
Another team of scientists monitoring the movements of Ayles Ice Island off northern Canada reported that it had broken in two far earlier than expected, a further indication of warmer temperatures. And this summer, for the first time, an American sailing boat managed to traverse the North-west Passage from Nova Scotia to Alaska, a voyage usually made by icebreakers. Never before has a sail-powered vessel managed to get straight through the usually ice-blocked sea passage.

Inhabitants of the region are also noticing a significant change as a result of warmer summers, according to Shari Gearheard, a research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre. "People who live in the region are noticing changes in sea ice. The earlier break-up and later freeze-up affect when and where people can go hunting, as well as safety for travel," she said.

Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, said: "We may see an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer within our lifetimes. The implications... are disturbing."

The North-west Passage: an ominous sign

The idea of a North-west Passage was born in 1493, when Pope Alexander VI divided the discovered world between Spain and Portugal, blocking England, France and Holland from a sea route to Asia. As it became clear a passage across Europe was impossible, the ambitious plan was hatched to seek out a route through north-western waters, and nations sent out explorers. When, in the 18th century, James Cook reported that Antarctic icebergs produced fresh water, the view that northern waters were not impossibly frozen was encouraged. In 1776 Cook himself was dispatched by the Admiralty with an Act promising a £20,000 prize, but he failed to push through a route north of Canada. His attempt preceded several British expeditions including a famous Victorian one by Sir John Franklin in 1845. Finally, in 1906 Roald Amundsen led the first trip across the passage to Alaska, and since then a number of fortified ships have followed. On 21 August this year, the North-west Passage was opened to ships not armed with icebreakers for the first time since records began.

[Frosted Sun]

Impact Of Arctic Heat Wave Stuns Climate Change Researchers

Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/) — Unprecedented warm temperatures in the High Arctic this past summer were so extreme that researchers with a Queen’s University-led climate change project have begun revising their forecasts.
“Everything has changed dramatically in the watershed we observed,” reports Geography professor Scott Lamoureux, the leader of an International Polar Year project announced yesterday in Nunavut by Indian and Northern Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl. “It’s something we’d envisioned for the future – but to see it happening now is quite remarkable.”
MORE
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070926155626.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070926155626.htm)


World View of Global Warming
Glaciers and Glacial Warming, Receding Glaciers

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/Portage1914.jpghttp://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/PortageReshoot.jpg


MORE:
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html (http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html)

[podo]

On Wednesday, Sydney recorded the hottest October day on record, and it was only the 3rd day of the month

[Senor Mono]

On Wednesday, Sydney recorded the hottest October day on record, and it was only the 3rd day of the month

and.......Al Gore invented the internet!

[inside_out]

and.......Al Gore invented the internet!

Is he serious on that 3rd day of the month thing or am I just that naive?

[Frosted Sun]

sounds like a long summer ahead for you mate.

[Canonsong]

No No.. Al Gore invented man made global warming....

OK OK..... he,,,, ExaaaaaaaGerrrrrrrrated-....

200 years ago people were worried about What 2 do with all that horse manure.... they never envision the solutions

[inside_out]

sounds like a long summer ahead for you mate.

I cannot put my stuff away fast enough, because I know what will happen when you blow and for how long, you rotten bastard you. I can just hear my heat sources churning in response to your whiff. I know your power, and I defend myself.

[podo]

and.......Al Gore invented the internet!

And that relates ... how ??

[podo]

Is he serious on that 3rd day of the month thing or am I just that naive?

Your naive

Wednesday was the 3rd day of October, and its only going to get hotter as we head for summer..................or didnt you realise that we have summer in December ?

[Frosted Sun]

I cannot put my stuff away fast enough, because I know what will happen when you blow and for how long, you rotten bastard you. I can just hear my heat sources churning in response to your whiff. I know your power, and I defend myself.

seems you would have understood the post was for PODO, hello!

long hot summer ahead, ...mate ,,, and he is in Sydney. get it? LOL

[inside_out]

And that relates ... how ??

It doesn't relate, that's the point. Matter is derived from mind, not mind from matter.

[inside_out]

seems you would have understood the post was for PODO, hello!

long hot summer ahead, ...mate ,,, and he is in Sydney. get it? LOL

I get it so well that it makes me ill. No worries from here or there.

[Frosted Sun]

I get it so well that it makes me ill. No worries from here or there.

i am not here to make anyone ill.

[inside_out]

i am not here to make anyone ill.

i know you're not and it shows and it feels very comforting in the process of your existence.

[SoLrSaYlR]

INSIDE OUT, please tell me what youre smoking. I have GOT to get me some.

[pianozach]

Record 22C temperatures in Arctic heatwave (http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article3021309.ece)
By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Published: 03 October 2007

Parts of the Arctic have experienced an unprecedented heatwave this summer, with one research station in the Canadian High Arctic recording temperatures above 20C, about 15C higher than the long-term average. The high temperatures were accompanied by a dramatic melting of Arctic sea ice in September to the lowest levels ever recorded, a further indication of how sensitive this region of the world is to global warming. Scientists from Queen's University in Ontario watched with amazement as their thermometers touched 22C during their July field expedition at the High Arctic camp on Melville Island, usually one of the coldest places in North America.

"This was exceptional for a place where the normal average temperatures are about 5C. This year we frequently recorded daytime temperatures of between 10C and 15C and on some days it went as high as 22C," said Scott Lamoureux, a professor of geography at Queen's.



What's even more remarkable than the ice caps melting is the inevitable right wing attempts to downplay and deny it.

I just ran across an article on Newbusters: Exposing and Combatting the Liberal Media Bias that attempts to shift the blame away from Global Warming to "Unusual Winds". It decries that the mainstream media has glossed over the winds as a cause of the loss of ice.

In fact, it even goes further in its attempt to belittle the massive changes:

In fact, when you add up the total square kilometers of ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic, it is only five percent below normal.

Yep. Five percent.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/05/unusual-winds-caused-arctic-ice-melts-not-global-warming


First of all: Hello-o-o-o . . . "Unusual Winds" are another example of the effects of how Global Warming manifests.

Second of all: Five percent is monumentally massive.

The article goes on to conclude that not only is the ice loss not anything to be concerned about, but that there is MORE ice in Antarctica now. It arrives at this conclusion by quoting a certain Anthony Watts. It does not delve into how Mr. Watts arrived at his conclusion that flies in the face of scientific evidence, nor does it list his credentials.

A quick Google reveals that he's a meteorologist at Northern California's KPAY-AM 1290, a "FoxNews radio" station (and formerly at Northern California's KHSL-TV CBS 12), and has been "interviewed" by Hannity on FoxNews.

I'm continually amazed, not only at the denial . . .

http://www.parida.com/img1/head-in-sand.jpg

. . . but also at the vitriolic attempts to belittle the evidence and messengers.

The logic trains of these naysayers are so easily derailed that it's astounding that they cannot see the flaws in their own arguments.

For instance, the headline of the article alone should be a dead tip-off:

Unusual Winds Caused Arctic Ice Melts, Not Global Warming
By Noel Sheppard | October 5, 2007 - 10:36 ET

Noel's bio tag reads: Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters

If the "Arctic Ice Melts" are being caused by "Unusual Winds" and not Global Warming, then how about a little insight into what make these particular wind "Unusual", and just how "Unusual" they are?

Even more important, how about going one little step further in their investigative process and try to explain why there are "Unusual Winds" in the first place?

[Terry Shea]

Your naive

Wednesday was the 3rd day of October, and its only going to get hotter as we head for summer..................or didnt you realise that we have summer in December ?Sorry, but the weather doesn't work that way. One hot day early in the month does not necessarilly mean the whole month is going to be hot and/or that it will just keep on getting hotter.. It will no doubt cool off sometime this month. Oh gee, look what I found:

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/local/local.jsp?obs=94891&fcast=94912&img=radar&rad=057
Sydney Recent Days

history » (http://www.weatherzone.com.au/station.jsp?lt=site&lc=66062&list=ds)


Wed
Oct 3 Thu
Oct 4 Fri
Oct 5 maximum 34.8°C 22.7°C 24°C minimum 13.8°C 16.3°C 12.9°C
Sydney Forecast

more detail » (javascript:void(0))


summary Sat
Oct 6 Sun
Oct 7 Mon
Oct 8 Tue
Oct 9 Wed
Oct 10 Thu
Oct 11 Fri
Oct 12 http://www.weatherzone.com.au/images/icons/fcast_30/windy.gif
Windy http://www.weatherzone.com.au/images/icons/fcast_30/mostly_cloudy.gif
Mostly cloudy http://www.weatherzone.com.au/images/icons/fcast_30/showers.gif
Showers http://www.weatherzone.com.au/images/icons/fcast_30/possible_shower.gif
Possible shower http://www.weatherzone.com.au/images/icons/fcast_30/mostly_sunny.gif
Mostly sunny http://www.weatherzone.com.au/images/icons/fcast_30/possible_shower.gif
Possible shower http://www.weatherzone.com.au/images/icons/fcast_30/possible_shower.gif
Possible shower maximum 31°C 24°C 23°C 21°C 23°C 23°C 23°C minimum 15°C 16°C 14°C 14°C 12°C 15°C 15°C

Looks like it's already cooling considerably.

[Terry Shea]

Okay everyone...stop breathing! Stop breathing now! You're all exhaling CO2 and it's causing global warming. Don't ever breathe again...it's killing us all. Don't drive a car anywhere! Don't fly in jet airplanes! Don't use any electricity! Don't use any heat or air conditioning! Don't ever do anything again! Just sit there in your cave and be content. If you get bored, bow and pray to your master Gore. Seek his guidance. Just make sure you do so silently so as not to breathe and exhale CO2! The Gore will be well pleased! Do this and lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere and allow us to reenter another ice age! This will very much please your lord and master Gore. So be it. So it shall be written...so it shall be done.

[Frosted Sun]

Okay everyone...stop breathing! Stop breathing now! You're all exhaling CO2 and it's causing global warming. Don't ever breathe again...it's killing us all. Don't drive a car anywhere! Don't fly in jet airplanes! Don't use any electricity! Don't use any heat or air conditioning! Don't ever do anything again! Just sit there in your cave and be content. If you get bored, bow and pray to your master Gore. Seek his guidance. Just make sure you do so silently so as not to breathe and exhale CO2! The Gore will be well pleased! Do this and lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere and allow us to reenter another ice age! This will very much please your lord and master Gore. So be it. So it shall be written...so it shall be done.

You finally found the answer. You go ahead,... lead by example and stop breathing first.

[pedro skychaser]

Sorry, but the weather doesn't work that way. One hot day early in the month does not necessarilly mean the whole month is going to be hot and/or that it will just keep on getting hotter.. It will no doubt cool off sometime this month. Oh gee, look what I found:

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/local/local.jsp?obs=94891&fcast=94912&img=radar&rad=057
Sydney Recent Days

history » (http://www.weatherzone.com.au/station.jsp?lt=site&lc=66062&list=ds)


Wed
Oct 3 Thu
Oct 4 Fri
Oct 5 maximum 34.8°C 22.7°C 24°C minimum 13.8°C 16.3°C 12.9°C
Sydney Forecast

more detail » (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0))


summary Sat
Oct 6 Sun
Oct 7 Mon
Oct 8 Tue
Oct 9 Wed
Oct 10 Thu
Oct 11 Fri
Oct 12 http://www.weatherzone.com.au/images/icons/fcast_30/windy.gif
Windy http://www.weatherzone.com.au/images/icons/fcast_30/mostly_cloudy.gif
Mostly cloudy http://www.weatherzone.com.au/images/icons/fcast_30/showers.gif
Showers http://www.weatherzone.com.au/images/icons/fcast_30/possible_shower.gif
Possible shower http://www.weatherzone.com.au/images/icons/fcast_30/mostly_sunny.gif
Mostly sunny http://www.weatherzone.com.au/images/icons/fcast_30/possible_shower.gif
Possible shower http://www.weatherzone.com.au/images/icons/fcast_30/possible_shower.gif
Possible shower maximum 31°C 24°C 23°C 21°C 23°C 23°C 23°C minimum 15°C 16°C 14°C 14°C 12°C 15°C 15°C

Looks like it's already cooling considerably.


heh tel---know what the 25th rocktober will be like??? -we're got big beer garden corroboree planned....oh we gotta see stars...:headset:

[podo]

Okay everyone...stop breathing! Stop breathing now! You're all exhaling CO2 and it's causing global warming. Don't ever breathe again...it's killing us all. Don't drive a car anywhere! Don't fly in jet airplanes! Don't use any electricity! Don't use any heat or air conditioning! Don't ever do anything again! Just sit there in your cave and be content. If you get bored, bow and pray to your master Gore. Seek his guidance. Just make sure you do so silently so as not to breathe and exhale CO2! The Gore will be well pleased! Do this and lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere and allow us to reenter another ice age! This will very much please your lord and master Gore. So be it. So it shall be written...so it shall be done.

Terry,,,,,, your an idiot


no


your a f$%cking idiot

[Enoch]

Even more important, how about going one little step further in their investigative process and try to explain why there are "Unusual Winds" in the first place?
'Father' of climatology dismisses global warming as 'hooey': 'There is a lot of money to be made in this'... (http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613)

Survey: Fewer than half of scientists endorse man-made global warming... (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966)

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny (http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article)

CNN meteorologist: Gore's film is 'fictional'... (http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/cnn-meteorologist-definitely-some-inaccuracies-gore-film.html)

UK SCHOOLS MUST WARN OF GORE CLIMATE FILM BIAS... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=485336&in_page_id=1811)

Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on recordhttp://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383 (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383)
My earlier column (http://www.dailytech.com/New+Scandal+Erupts+over+NOAA+Climate+Data/article8347.htm) this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org (http://www.climateaudit.org/). While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000. These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.
McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1868) and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh. NASA has now silently released corrected figures (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt), and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary (http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html) of the events. The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge. Then again -- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.

Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’ (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece)

Climate scientist says global warming stopped in 1998... (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html)

This ones great!: Temps measured by NOAA weather stations possibly compromised due to faulty placement... (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_513013.html)

The BBC has failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff. Coverage of single-issue political causes, such as climate change and poverty, can be biased - and is particularly critical of Live 8 coverage, which it says amounted to endorsement. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml)

[Mind Driver]

I would answer with a insightful response, but I am using electricity. I've got to turn off my computer to conserve...........

[pianozach]

Even more important, how about going one little step further in their investigative process and try to explain why there are "Unusual Winds" in the first place?

'Father' of climatology dismisses global warming as 'hooey': 'There is a lot of money to be made in this'... (http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613)

Survey: Fewer than half of scientists endorse man-made global warming... (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966)

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny (http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article)

CNN meteorologist: Gore's film is 'fictional'... (http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/cnn-meteorologist-definitely-some-inaccuracies-gore-film.html)

UK SCHOOLS MUST WARN OF GORE CLIMATE FILM BIAS... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=485336&in_page_id=1811)

Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on recordhttp://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383 (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383)
My earlier column (http://www.dailytech.com/New+Scandal+Erupts+over+NOAA+Climate+Data/article8347.htm) this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org (http://www.climateaudit.org/). While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000. These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.
McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1868) and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh. NASA has now silently released corrected figures (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt), and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary (http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html) of the events. The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge. Then again -- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.

Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’ (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece)

Climate scientist says global warming stopped in 1998... (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html)

This ones great!: Temps measured by NOAA weather stations possibly compromised due to faulty placement... (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_513013.html)

The BBC has failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff. Coverage of single-issue political causes, such as climate change and poverty, can be biased - and is particularly critical of Live 8 coverage, which it says amounted to endorsement. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml)

That is not a good answer to the question, unless you feel that links to examples of head-in-the-sand naysayers is what is causing the unusual winds . . .

BTW - As already mentioned, Anthony Watts is a FoxNews tool, and is attempting to ride climate change denialism to a healthy profit for his private business. I don't know if anyone's paying him off, but much of his "evidence" is manipulated and not well supported (but he's got lots of charts!). Look, he's a climatology hack, and is an unreliable source of global warming information.

That said, I do appreciate his attempts to question the veracity of claims regarding global warming. This is the only way that all facts can be laid on the table. Both sides should have their claims questioned.

Anthony, as a high tech gadgetry weatherman, has rightly questioned the locations of weather recording devices. His claims should not be ignored - they should be considered and addressed by the scientific community.

But, while we’re on the subject: Most of these denialist claims are so musty at this point that they’re growing mold.

As far as the 'Hottest Year’ Data Meltdown is concerned, NASA has indeed now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as recordbreaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. "Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events."

As you so aptly quoted, "the effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought)."

And that's it.

Except that the Denialists went nuts accusing NASA of perpetrating a fraud on the American people. Scientific eminence Rush Limbaugh declared the story “more evidence, ladies and gentlemen, that this whole global warming thing is a scientific hoax.”

But, in reality, the whole story has turned out to be pretty much bunk.

You see, what the denialists are ignoring this time is that NASA never claimed 1998 was the hottest year in the U.S. 1998 was always a statistical tie with 1934, and it still is.

Moreover, the bigger picture hasn’t changed at all. Globally, we are still experiencing the hottest weather on record, and the minor changes to the U.S. temperature record doesn’t change the IPCC conclusions one whit.

The partisan furor over global warming is just damned weird.

Is it that we're so programmed to see things as us vs. them, or black and white, good and evil? Must everything now be politicized? It's just plain silly.

[pianozach]

Okay everyone...stop breathing! Stop breathing now! You're all exhaling CO2 and it's causing global warming. Don't ever breathe again...it's killing us all. Don't drive a car anywhere! Don't fly in jet airplanes! Don't use any electricity! Don't use any heat or air conditioning! Don't ever do anything again! Just sit there in your cave and be content. If you get bored, bow and pray to your master Gore. Seek his guidance. Just make sure you do so silently so as not to breathe and exhale CO2! The Gore will be well pleased! Do this and lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere and allow us to reenter another ice age! This will very much please your lord and master Gore. So be it. So it shall be written...so it shall be done.

Terry, from wence doth this anger wellspring?

Now you're just exagerating and hallucinating. No one is bowing and praying to Gore. He is not anyone's "master".

And no one is suggesting that we all stop using electricity or to stop driving or flying, or to stop breathing, or to move into caves for that matter.

It's silly to even claim that Mr. Gore wants an ice age.

And you even blow your own argument out of the water when you claim that reducing CO2 could cause an ice age. The corrollary this statement is that increased CO2 could cause Global Warming. (If >CO2 = ice age, then <CO2 = global warming) Isn't this exactly what you're trying to deny?

You've every right to disagree with the claims of others. But it's just downright juvenile to exagerate those claims to make your own view sound reasonable.

If your opinion is valid, it would be valid without misrepresenting the opinions of those with whom you disagree.

[pianozach]

Terry,,,,,, your an idiot


no


your a f$%cking idiot

:lol:

[Mind Driver]

I don't believe in global warming.

Now, I'm going outside to enjoy the record high temps in October in Chicagoland.

[Terry Shea]

Terry,,,,,, your an idiot


no


your a f$%cking idiotNice scientific analysis there! Good argument. I'n glad to see you haven't resorted to insulting and/or using profanity against the opposition to hide your lack of any intelligent thought on the matter.

BTW. When calling someone else an idiot it would help your argument if you didn't spell like an idiot. It should read:

you're an idiot

not

your an idiot


Someone who believes everything Pinocchio spews out his mouth calling someone else an idiot...That's a classic!:beerchugr:

[Terry Shea]

Terry, from wence doth this anger wellspring?

Now you're just exagerating and hallucinating. No one is bowing and praying to Gore. He is not anyone's "master".

And no one is suggesting that we all stop using electricity or to stop driving or flying, or to stop breathing, or to move into caves for that matter.

It's silly to even claim that Mr. Gore wants an ice age.

And you even blow your own argument out of the water when you claim that reducing CO2 could cause an ice age. The corrollary this statement is that increased CO2 could cause Global Warming. (If >CO2 = ice age, then <CO2 = global warming) Isn't this exactly what you're trying to deny?

You've every right to disagree with the claims of others. But it's just downright juvenile to exagerate those claims to make your own view sound reasonable.

If your opinion is valid, it would be valid without misrepresenting the opinions of those with whom you disagree.Well excuse me for employing humor, sarcasm and hyperbole into this serious life and death discussion! If I say 10 Hail Gore's will I be forgiven?:drummer:

[Terry Shea]

I would answer with a insightful response, but I am using electricity. I've got to turn off my computer to conserve...........Might as well, everyone on your side of the argument has apparently already turned off their brains.:beerchugr:

[Terry Shea]

I don't believe in global warming.

Now, I'm going outside to enjoy the record high temps in October in Chicagoland.Yeah, isn't it too bad we haven't had a blizzard yet here in the midwest? We probably won't even have any snow this winter. What are we gonna do w/o 2 feet of snow to shovel? And we'd better start thinking about the children too! How cruel to make them go to school every day with no chance of there ever being a snow day? How are they going to be able to handle that? We'll have to put them all on Ritalin and Prozak..oh wait...most of them already are.

[Terry Shea]

:lol:
Is that kool-aid you're drinking?

[Terry Shea]

The article goes on to conclude that not only is the ice loss not anything to be concerned about, but that there is MORE ice in Antarctica now. It arrives at this conclusion by quoting a certain Anthony Watts. It does not delve into how Mr. Watts arrived at his conclusion that flies in the face of scientific evidence, nor does it list his credentials.

A quick Google reveals that he's a meteorologist at Northern California's KPAY-AM 1290, a "FoxNews radio" station (and formerly at Northern California's KHSL-TV CBS 12), and has been "interviewed" by Hannity on FoxNews.


Sorry, but he isn't the only one saying this:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/news050516-10.html

East Antarctica puts on weight

Increased snowfall could slow sea-level rise.



Increased snowfall over a large area of Antarctica is thickening the ice sheet and slowing the rise in sea level caused by melting ice.


http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/

Antarctic Ice: A Global Warming Snow Job? (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/)

Filed under: Polar (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-changes/polar/), Antarctic (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-changes/polar/antarctic/), Glaciers/Sea Ice (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-changes/glaciers/), Sea Level Rise (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-changes/sea-level-rise/) —
Climate scientists have long suspected that warming the oceans around a very cold continent is likely to dramatically increase snowfall. Consider Antarctica. It’s plenty chilly, dozens of degrees below freezing, and it’s surrounded by water. The warmer the water, the greater the evaporation from its surface, and, obviously, the more moisture it contributes to the local atmosphere.
So, when this moisture gets swirled up by a common cyclone, do you think it’s going to fall as rain in Antarctica?
A recent study, no shocker to real climatologists (but perhaps to climate doomsayers), demonstrates this simple physics. It appears in the latest SciencExpress, and it shows that the vast majority of the Antarctic landmass is rapidly gaining ice and snow cover.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/polarregions.html

Over the past half-century, there has been a marked warming trend (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/593.htm) http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/epafiles_misc_exitepadisc.gif (http://www.epa.gov/epahome/exitepa.htm) in the Antarctic Peninsula. According to NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2004/2004100617707.html), much of the rest of Antarctica has cooled during the last 30 years resulting from ozone depletion and other factors, but that this trend is likely to reverse. Surface waters of the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica have warmed and become less saline, and precipitation in this region has increased (IPCC, 2001 (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/polarregions.html#ref)).
Antarctica has experienced significant retreat and collapse of ice shelves (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/593.htm) http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/epafiles_misc_exitepadisc.gif (http://www.epa.gov/epahome/exitepa.htm), which has been the result of regional warming. The loss of these ice shelves has few direct impacts on sea level and global climate. Because the ice shelves were floating, their melting does not directly add to sea level rise. They usually are replaced by sea-ice cover, so overall albedo (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#Albedo) (reflectivity) changes very little (IPCC, 2001 (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/polarregions.html#ref)).
Satellite observations show no significant change in Antarctic sea-ice extent (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/593.htm) http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/epafiles_misc_exitepadisc.gif (http://www.epa.gov/epahome/exitepa.htm) over the 1973-1996 period. Analysis of whaling records and modeling studies, however, indicate that Antarctic sea ice retreated south by 2.8 degrees of latitude between the mid-1950s and the early 1970s (IPCC, 2001 (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/polarregions.html#ref)).
As climate change continues, most of the land-based Antarctic ice sheet is likely to actually thicken as a result of increased precipitation. There is a small risk, however, that the West Antarctic ice sheet will retreat in coming centuries. This is because the West Antarctic ice sheet is moored in an oceanic basin, where slippery mud covers the basin floor. This unique setting makes the ice sheet potentially unstable.

[Terry Shea]

Here's an interesting read:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html

Two Sides to Global Warming

Is it proven fact, or just conventional wisdom?
Ronald Bailey (http://www.reason.com/staff/show/133.html) | November 10, 2004



excerpt:



Once a particular notion becomes conventional wisdom, evidence and stories confirming that conventional wisdom are easily accepted and published—and reported in the media. Those that contradict the prevailing views have a much harder time getting a hearing. Either global warming has hardened into conventional wisdom in the climatological community, or mounting scientific evidence shows that humanity is in fact warming the world at a dangerous pace.

Which is it and how can one tell?

To show how hard answering that question can be, let's take a little closer look at the two reports mentioned above. The Arctic Council report is based on the observations and deliberations of 300 scientists from eight countries and six groups of indigenous people over the past four years. They find that the Arctic region is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world. They further find that the sea ice that covers the Arctic Ocean is thinning, and could almost disappear in the summer months by 2100.

But University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist John Christy (http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html), a climate expert on whom I have relied for years, makes some interesting observations about the Arctic Council's report. "If you look at the long term records, the Arctic has been as warm or warmer than it is today," says Christy. He cites temperature data from the Hadley Centre in the UK showing that from 70 degrees north latitude to the pole, the warmest years on record in the Arctic were 1937 and 1938. This area is just slightly above the Arctic Circle (http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/basics/arctic_definition.html).

Furthermore, those same records show that the Arctic warmed twice as fast between 1917 and 1937 as it has in the past 20 years. After 1940, the Arctic saw a big cool-down and climatologists noted sea ice expanding in the northern Atlantic. Christy argues that what he calls the Great Climate Shift occurred in the late 1970s and caused another sudden warming in the Arctic. Since the late 1970s there has not been much additional warming in the region at all. In fact, on page 23, the Arctic Council Assessment offers very similar data for Arctic temperature trends from 60 degrees north latitude—the area that includes most of Alaska and essentially all of Greenland, most of Norway and Sweden, and the bulk of Russia.

[Terry Shea]

Unusual Winds Caused Arctic Ice Melts, Not Global Warming
By Noel Sheppard | October 5, 2007 - 10:36 ET

Noel's bio tag reads: Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters

If the "Arctic Ice Melts" are being caused by "Unusual Winds" and not Global Warming, then how about a little insight into what make these particular wind "Unusual", and just how "Unusual" they are?

Even more important, how about going one little step further in their investigative process and try to explain why there are "Unusual Winds" in the first place?Are you serious? Do you actually expect someone to be able to explain why winds are "unusual"...someone who obviously had nothing to do with the implementaion of such winds but can certainly observe the phenomenon? Can you explain to me why the composition of all the planets are different? I'm sure you had nothing to do with it, but I'm also quite certain that you've noticed that each planet is vastly different or "unusal" from each of the other planets. Some are big, some are small, some are gaseous, some are solid rocks, some have rings while other don't, some have many moons, some have none, some rotate one way and some rotate in the opposite direction or not at all. I'm sure you've observed most if not all of these factors so please explain it to me.

That being said, "unusual winds" can apparently cause global, or at least regional, cooling, although the writer of the article below seems a little confused about the cause-effect relationship:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070123_reversed_wind.html

Serious Climate Change: Winds Blew in Reverse During Last Ice Age

By Andrea Thompson (http://www.livescience.com/php/contactus/author.php?r=at), LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 23 January 2007 [/URL]


In one of the most stark illustrations of how a [URL="http://www.livescience.com/environment/070123_ap_global_warming.html"]changing climate (http://www.livescience.com/php/mailtofriend.php?url=http%3A//www.livescience.com/environment/070123_reversed_wind.html&title=Serious%20Climate%20Change%3A%20Winds%20Blew %20in%20Reverse%20During%20Last%20Ice%20Age&u=/environment/070123_reversed_wind.html) can have regional effects, scientists have learned that winds (http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/weather_science.html) over North America have done a complete 180 since the time of the last Ice Age (http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050330_earth_tilt.html) several thousand years ago.


Winter blizzards (http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/060130_snow_scale.html) and spring thunderstorms (http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/051013_stronger_storms.html) today are usually fueled by moisture-laden winds blowing in from the West Coast.


“In this study, we found evidence that during the last glacial period, about 14,000 to 36,000 years ago, the prevailing wind in this zone was easterly, and marine moisture came predominantly from the East Coast,” said lead study author Xiahong Feng of Dartmouth College.”
The findings were detailed today in the online edition of the journal Geology.


Changing climate

These changes in wind direction (http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/060720_wind_greatplains.html) were the result of global climate change (http://www.livescience.com/globalwarming/), which can alter circulation patterns in the atmosphere, Feng explained. Changes in wind patterns can in turn cause changes in temperature (http://www.livescience.com/weather/) and precipitation (http://www.livescience.com/weather/) patterns, which are the measurements typically used to study past climates (http://www.livescience.com/climate/)."

That last paragraph seems to contradict itself as to the cause-effect relationship, but no matter. The point is there does seem to be a relationship between wind patterns and climate for a region and global climate change is no new phenomenon. We've been through periods of severe ice ages where most of North America (and 20-33% of the earth as a whole) was covered by ice and glaciers followed by warming periods where most of the ice and glaciers melted. Once again, these changes in climate patterns had absolutely nothing to do with cavemen tooling around town in their SUVs ar jetsetting across the globe. We lost the vast majority of our ice cover and glaciers long before modern industrialization and increased CO2 levels. To return to such an icy period would have catastrophic implications.

[Terry Shea]

What's even more remarkable than the ice caps melting is the inevitable right wing attempts to downplay and deny it.

Oh, that's rich! Actually it's the left wing that seems to be denying that polar ice has been melting and that the earth has been warming for thousands of years. It's the left wing that keeps trying to pass global warming off as being a recent phenomenon. It's the left wing that tries to attribute most if not all of global warming to increased CO2 levels and greenhouse gasses. It's the left wing who refuses to even consider any other explantion. It's the left wing who uses bullying tactics to try to silence the opposition. It's the left wing who spends billions of dollars trying to promote the concept of manmade global warming. It's leftists such as Al Gore who are getting filthy rich by brainwashing people into believing manmade global warming is a real threat and enticing them to buy carbon offsets from the company that he owns!

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’
By Noel Sheppard | October 9, 2007 - 00:55 ET

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods.

It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning, wouldn't you agree?

For those that haven't been following this case, a British truck driver filed a lawsuit to prevent the airing of Gore's alarmist detritus in England's public schools.

According to the website of the political party the plaintiff, Stewart Dimmock, belongs to (ecstatic emphasis added throughout, h/t Marc Morano):

AdvertisementIn order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?

-The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

-The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

-The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

-The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

-The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

-The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

-The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

-The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

-The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

-The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

For Full Article:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

[Sheerah]

That's so cute!
TRUE and Terry get their news from the same website: NewsBusters.

Here is a description of NewsBusters' mission (taken from their website). They sound very, very unbiased and scientific indeed!

About NewsBusters.org
Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

In August of 2005, with the guidance of Matthew Sheffield and Greg Sheffield, the creators of RatherBiased.com, the MRC launched the NewsBusters blog to provide immediate exposure of liberal media bias, insightful analysis, constructive criticism and timely corrections to news media reporting.

Taking advantage of the MRC's thorough and ongoing tracking of liberal media bias, including a wealth of documentation and an archive of newscast video dating back 18 years, we aim to have NewsBusters play a leading role in blog media criticism by becoming the clearinghouse for all evidence of liberal media bias by joining to this formidable information store the contributions of already-established netizens as well as those who want to join in the web revolution.

Contacting Us
We have many departments here at NB, please use our Contact Form to reach the correct person.

Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's mission is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. The MRC was founded on October 1, 1987 by a group of young, determined conservatives headed by L. Brent Bozell III who set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that this bias exists, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. NewsBusters.org is a project of the MRC's News Analysis Division, led since 1987 by Brent Baker, the MRC's Steven P.J. Wood Senior Fellow and Vice President for Research and Publications. The division produces daily, weekly and special reports that document and counter liberal bias from television network news shows and major print publications. Tim Graham serves as Director of Media Analysis and Rich Noyes is the Director of Research.
The MRC's other Web projects

Media Research Center, "the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias."

TimesWatch, a site dedicated to "documenting and exposing the liberal political agenda of the New York Times."

Business & Media Institute, "advancing the culture of free enterprise in the media."

CNSNews.com, the CyberCast News Service, where you get "The Right news. Right now."

Culture and Media Institute, "advancing truth and virtue in the public square."

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

So no comment on the court in England? Just attack the messenger?

[Sheerah]

So no comment on the court in England? Just attack the messenger?

Hi Garry! :wavey:

I'm not attacking the messenger, I'm commenting on the bias of the website from which you get your information.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Hi Garry! :wavey:

I'm not attacking the messenger, I'm commenting on the bias of the website from which you get your information.

Hi Sheila!

I understand that you do not like the website reporting this but what do you think about the findings of the Court in the UK?

[Terry Shea]

That's so cute!
TRUE and Terry get their news from the same website: NewsBusters.

Here is a description of NewsBusters' mission (taken from their website). They sound very, very unbiased and scientific indeed!

About NewsBusters.org
Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

In August of 2005, with the guidance of Matthew Sheffield and Greg Sheffield, the creators of RatherBiased.com, the MRC launched the NewsBusters blog to provide immediate exposure of liberal media bias, insightful analysis, constructive criticism and timely corrections to news media reporting.

Taking advantage of the MRC's thorough and ongoing tracking of liberal media bias, including a wealth of documentation and an archive of newscast video dating back 18 years, we aim to have NewsBusters play a leading role in blog media criticism by becoming the clearinghouse for all evidence of liberal media bias by joining to this formidable information store the contributions of already-established netizens as well as those who want to join in the web revolution.

Contacting Us
We have many departments here at NB, please use our Contact Form to reach the correct person.

Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's mission is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. The MRC was founded on October 1, 1987 by a group of young, determined conservatives headed by L. Brent Bozell III who set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that this bias exists, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. NewsBusters.org is a project of the MRC's News Analysis Division, led since 1987 by Brent Baker, the MRC's Steven P.J. Wood Senior Fellow and Vice President for Research and Publications. The division produces daily, weekly and special reports that document and counter liberal bias from television network news shows and major print publications. Tim Graham serves as Director of Media Analysis and Rich Noyes is the Director of Research.
The MRC's other Web projects

Media Research Center, "the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias."

TimesWatch, a site dedicated to "documenting and exposing the liberal political agenda of the New York Times."

Business & Media Institute, "advancing the culture of free enterprise in the media."

CNSNews.com, the CyberCast News Service, where you get "The Right news. Right now."

Culture and Media Institute, "advancing truth and virtue in the public square."Uh, Sheila I've used a multitude of sources but I don't believe Newsbusters was one of them. Perhaps I did, but after a quick check I can't find any such post. I believe the post you must be referring to was in response to Pianozach who used Newsbusters as a source.

But more to the point, why would you be against an organization that dedicates itself to fighting bias and exposing fraud?

Oh that's right...because you're a liberal!:beerchugr:

[Sheerah]

Hi Sheila!

I understand that you do not like the website reporting this but what do you think about the findings of the Court in the UK?

I'll tell you what - I'll let you know after I read it.
You know how I hate reading long posts.

[Sheerah]

But more to the point, why would you be against an organization that dedicates itself to fighting bias and exposing fraud?

Oh that's right...because you're a liberal!:beerchugr:

Actually, I am moderately liberal. I have a few fairly conservative views that might actually surprise you.

I think that most media is biased. But it's biased on both the liberal and conservative sides. It's up to the public to consider the source and to derive their own conclusions, instead of allowing the media to fleece us.

If there were such a thing as "the liberal media" there would be no Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al. If there were such a thing as "the liberal media" we would see our boys being shipped home from Iraq in flagged draped coffins, we would hear about the unconstitutionality of The Military Commissions Act, et al, instead of having to scour the internet trying to find even one media article on the thing.

If NewsBusters had said that they were trying to find the truth in "media" verses "the liberal media" (as they have that mantra painted all over their website) I would be much less guarded about their opinions.