Global Warming? WHAT global warming?

[pianozach]

Proof? What proof?

http://news.com.com/2061-11204_3-6146317.html

CNetNews.com

Now we know: Canada melt down
December 29, 2006
Science Blog

http://images.livescience.com/images/061004_ice_border_01.jpg

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.



Oh, that proof!

I looked around to see if there was a thread to monitor stories that could be considered evidence of Global Warming.

Surprisingly, I couldn't find a thread for it.

Given the warnings and consequences of such an event, it seems fitting that it reside in the Natural Disasters Thread.

There is so much evidence, such as changed migratory patterns, warming temperatures, increased carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, extreme weather conditions such as more frequent and more intense hurricanes, disappearing glaciers, melting Arctic Sea and Antarctic Sea ice, Greenland's Ice Sheet Melting, the increase in tropical diseases Spreading, and oceans Warming with coral bleaching & disintegration.

It may be too much to keep track of it all in one thread.

[MrZuLu]

this is post 2 of a thread I started a year ago Jan 19 I believe most of it pertains!

so...

we have global warming :thinking:

is it natural or artificial?

Present day thinking, for the most part, says today's warming trend is due to human use of natural gas and fossil fuels; therefore, the current warming is artificial.

I say the warming trend is due to the 74% increase in volcanic activity since 1975.

Four big ones, too...

remember?

Mt Aetna
Mt Pinatubo
Mt St Helen
Montserrat

According to USGS and NOAA these four volcanoes alone put 4 times the greenhouse gasses and hydrocarbon areosols into the atmosphere than all of human intervention since the Industrial Revolution in London in the 1800's combined. Would someone with more education than I please explain this?

I was looking at a desk globe a bit ago.
:thinking:
I wonder if anyone has noticed that the four above mentioned eruptions come very close to quartering the planet. Could it be that Grand Mother Earth might be doing some housekeeping, got cold and turned up the heat?

Look how efficeint a massive earthquake/tsunami is as a scouring tool and cleaning agent.

Are we natural or artificial?

Ever notice the worst disasters happen were Human attrition is at it's worst?
Could this be Grand Mother Earth's population control?:thinking:
More housekeeping?

300,000+ in the Indian Ocean Basin on a single day. Huge human population. USGS offered a Tsunami Warning system for the Indian Ocean Basin but the people of that Area could not afford it and USGS could not either.

60,000+ Pakistani Earthquake
75,000+ Turkey
3,000+ in Kobe(not poor tho)
New Orleans just so happens to be one of the poorest cities in the US
There are many many more as any reasonably intelligent person is well aware

Bangledesh Floods kill thousands each year.
The Three Rivers Basin in China.

Is it possible the American Indians and the Inuit of North America are right?
This has happened before and it will happen again?

But wait...if what Man has done is unnatural...


Does this mean that Humankind is artificial?
here is the entire thread for some interesting reading!
http://yesfans.com/showthread.php?t=26163

[yesyadda]

and here's a cut/paste of my post to that thread:

Is the earth getting wetter? I think there's as much water on earth as ever, it's just formed and transformed differently.

I believe the climate is warming because we are entering a period of magnetic reversal of the earth's poles. Scientists bored into volcanic magma, retrieving a record of polar shifts dating back thousands of years. During the time leading up to a polar reversal, there was climatic warming. This theory makes the most sense to me.

[MrZuLu]

http://artisanenvirongrp.com/Global_Banner.JPG (http://global-warming.accuweather.com/)
Click the pic for accuweather.com 's (http://global-warming.accuweather.com/) take on Global Warming

[BlueEagle]

Good catch, Gary. These dovetail rather nicely with my "space ark" thread. The (magnetic)Polar reversal event would cause disasterous weather and planetary climatic changes. Some researchers think we are overdue and it can happen (heehee) over a very short timespan.
It's also true that volcanoes do more damage to the atmosphere than man does, but does that mean we should just continue shoveling CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere?

[MrZuLu]

Good catch, Gary. These dovetail rather nicely with my "space ark" thread. The (magnetic)Polar reversal event would cause disasterous weather and planetary climatic changes. Some researchers think we are overdue and it can happen (heehee) over a very short timespan.
It's also true that volcanoes do more damage to the atmosphere than man does, but does that mean we should just continue shoveling CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere?
no...

just out of curiosity what are we doing to stop it?

The State Of Washington contributes to pollution less than most states, in that we have no coal fired powerplants. All Hydroelectric and Nuke.

Personally, I change all blown lightbulbs with those energy efficient ones. I got rid of my V8 gas guzzler and opted for a small efficient 4 banger and I support all transformation to Green products and recycling!http://yesfans.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[The Whale]

all I know is that its almost January and there was a fly in my house today? Thats weird.

[Yes.2]

Are flys this time of year weird? Hmmmmm I have been seeing a lot of flys around the house lately...There's a bunch of horses right across the street from me though.

Did ya'll hear/read about that giant piece of glasher that broke off from canada ~? It's all over the news today.

[MrZuLu]

all I know is that its almost January and there was a fly in my house today? Thats weird.
considering your location that is odd indeed!
:lol:

[MrZuLu]

Are flys this time of year weird? Hmmmmm I have been seeing a lot of flys around the house lately...There's a bunch of horses right across the street from me though.

Did ya'll hear/read about that giant piece of glasher that broke off from canada ~? It's all over the news today.
actually what broke off wasn't really a glacier but part of the permanent ice shelf...

Scary huh...

It's like when the Larsen shelf on Antartica broke off. It was the size of Rhode Island!

[Yes.2]

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/1/1_4_110.gifAaoh man, I don't even want to think about it.

[pianozach]

Did ya'll hear/read about that giant piece of glasher that broke off from canada ~? It's all over the news today.

Uh, yep. See post #1. :shrug: Yes, the ice shelf breaking off is a pretty good indicator of warming, yes?

Thanks, Mr. Zulu for the links - the one for the Independent updates daily, so the overview from December 29, 2006 you linked to will disappear of that page soon.

One problem with discussing Global Warming is it tends to become political, with people focusing on whether or not it's a chicken little thing, or whether or not it's a natural thing.

It seems to me that it's very real indeed

I think the issue here is that, whether we're responsible for it or not, we need to make some plans. We need to know what to do. We have no instructions that came with the planet, so should we even try to minimize it's effects?

We need to be able to predict how severe the effects will be, and the consequences. If we can't stop it, we need to prepare for it.

Here's a surprising step in the right direction:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2108212.ece

http://www.independent.co.uk/template/ver/gfx//new_indy_logo3.gif

Bush embraces the endangered polar bear - and accepts the dangers of global warming

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 28 December 2006

In a landmark decision, the Bush administration has concluded that global warming is endangering the existence of the polar bear - an admission that could force the US government to act to curb the emission of greenhouse gases.

In a sharp reversal from its previous position, the Department of the Interior (DOI) has decided one of nature's most iconic creatures should be listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because "the polar bears' habitat may literally be melting".

The decision potentially has huge implications that go beyond the survival of the polar bear: the ESA of 1973 not only requires the government to come up with a recovery plan for the bears but also prevents it from " enacting, funding, or authorising [actions which] adversely modify the animal's critical habitats".

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said that while the administration recognised the role of greenhouse gases in climate change, "the proposal to list the species as threatened cites the threat of receding sea ice does not include a scientific analysis of the causes of climate change. That analysis is beyond the scope of the ESA review process".

Asked directly whether the government was not now required to act to curb emissions, he replied: "We don't have the expertise to make this analysis." He also said studies had concluded oil and gas exploration in the Arctic was not a threat to the bears - a claim contested by some enviromentalists.

But last night campaigners insisted the decision provided the bears with new, legally enforceable protection and opened the way for widespread legal action to force the Bush administration to limit emission of carbon dioxide and other warming gases.

"I think this is a watershed decision," said Kassie Siegel of the Centre for Biological Diversity, one of three groups that petitioned the DOI to act. "Even the Bush administration can no longer deny the science... There definitely is a new source of liability. For large emitters of greenhouse gases, if they do not consider the impact of those emissions on polar bears there is a provision for us and others to sue."

Andrew Wetzler of the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), added: [B]"Global warming is the single biggest threat to polar bears survival, and this will require the government to address the impacts on the polar bear." It has long been known that global warming was threatening the existence of polar bears, the world's largest bear whose total population is estimated at 22,000, located in Canada, the US, Greenland, Russia and Norway. The Swiss-based World Conservation Union has estimated the bear's numbers will plunge by 30 per cent over the next 45 years as a result of melting sea ice. In Canada's Hudson Bay area, numbers fell by an estimated 22 per cent per cent between 1997 and 2004.

Last year the Independent on Sunday reported anecdotal testimony from indigenous Inuit from Alaska and Canada who told how thinning ice and longer summers were resulting in fewer polar bears - some of which were drowning at sea as they were trapped on melting floes.

John Keogak, 47, an Inuvialuit hunter from Canada's North-West Territories, said: "The polar bear is part of our culture. They use the ice as a hunting ground for the seals. If there is no ice there is no way the bears will be able to catch the seals... here is an earlier break-up of ice, a later freeze-up. Now it's more rapid. Something is happening."

Science has supported such claims, revealing how in the Arctic, where temperatures are rising much more than elsewhere in the world, ice is decreasing in size every year. Earlier this month researchers from the Colorado-based National Centre for Atmospheric Research suggested summer ice may disappear entirely by 2040 - 40 years earlier than previous estimates.

The report's author Marika Holland, said: "We have already witnessed major losses in sea ice, but our research suggests that the decrease over the next few decades could be far more dramatic. As the ice retreats, the ocean transports more heat to the Arctic and the open water absorbs more sunlight, further accelerating the rate of warming."

Though the US is responsible for 25 per cent of the world's carbon emissions, the Bush administration has resolutely refused to enforce limits or else enter legally-binding international agreements to tackle climate change, saying such a move would damage the economy. Last month lawyers from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) argued before the Supreme Court that the science on climate change was uncertain. They further argued that the agency was not empowered to act to curb emissions.

Kert Davies, a climate campaigner with Greenpeace, said: "The United States has failed to lead the world in tackling global warming. With under five percent of the world's people, we generate more than 20 percent of the global warming pollution. We must start cutting greenhouse gas emissions or the polar bear will be pushed to the brink of extinction within our lifetime. "

Under the terms of the ESA, the public has 90 days to comment on the DOI proposal. "Our goal ultimately is to combine the best science available with the power of working hand-in-hand with states, tribes, foreign countries, industry, and other partners to minimise the threats to polar bears and conserve this great icon of the Arctic for future generations," said Mr Kempthorne.



I got to see Al Gore's movie ("An Inconvenient Truth") a few months ago, and a major subject of the movie was a remarkably large portion of Antarctica breaking off.

He also mentioned:

The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.

Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level.

The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.

At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles.

If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences:

Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year.
Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.
Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense.
Droughts and wildfires will occur more often.
The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.
More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.

[pianozach]

Scary huh...

It's like when the Larsen shelf on Antartica broke off. It was the size of Rhode Island!

Yeah, THAT's the shelf the movie was referring to. Photos and everything.

[pianozach]

There's more daily . . . .

They pour in from every part of the world . . .

From NASA . . .

http://news.sawf.org/Lifestyle/31603.aspx

NASA scientist warns global warming will be irreversible after 10 years

London, Jan 3: A NASA scientist has warned that pollution has increased to such an extent, that unless drastic cuts are made within the next decade, it will become difficult for mankind to reverse the effects of global warming.

Jim Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, said the situation could come to such a pass that the Arctic would be left with no ice at all. In other words, huge rise in sea levels and extinction of many species, he said.

"Half the people in the world live within 15 miles of a coastline. A large fraction of the major cities are on coastlines. Once you get the process started and well on the way, it's impossible to prevent it. That's why we need to address the issue before it gets out of control. We just cannot burn all the fossil fuels in the ground,” The Mirror quoted him as saying. . . . . (more)

From Ireland

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0102/breaking57.htm

Floods show global warming - Greens
Elaine Edwards

Severe flooding in the west of Ireland in recent days clearly shows the early effects of global warning on the climate, the city's mayor, a Green Party councillor, has said.

--snip--

With sea levels predicted to rise at least six metres in our lifetimes unless the world seriously deals with the threats posed by carbon emissions, we need to start planning for a watery future.
-Niall Ó Brolcháin, Green Party

From Great Britain

http://www.mercopress.com/vernoticia.do?id=9557&formato=HTML

El Niño and global warming could make 2007 the “hottest year”

http://img.wapuy.com/l/www.mercopress.com/images/news/R/1/w/800/effects.lg.jpg

A British climate expert said 2007 could be the hottest year ever recorded because of a combination of global warming and El Nino.

Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia said the year could be warmer than the previous record-holder, 1998, The Independent reported.

El Nino makes the world warmer and we already have a warming trend that is increasing global temperatures by one- to two-tenths of a degrees Celsius per decade, he said. Together, they should make 2007 warmer than last year and it may even make the next 12 months the warmest year on record.


From Australia

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006022319

Global Warming Affecting Down Under

January 3, 2007 3:45 a.m. EST

Sally Grover - All Headline News Contributor

Sydney, Australia (AHN) - Climatologists are reporting that Australia is suffering the effects of global warming faster than any other country in the world.

The world's driest inhabited country has had a peculiar few weeks of weather that has seen bush fires ravish vast amounts of land, floods affect formally drought stricken towns and mountain snow on Christmas Day.

Bureau of Meteorology senior climatologist, Neil Plummer, said, "Most scientists agree this is part of an enhanced Greenhouse effect."

While temperatures and rain fall are only marginally above average, they are still rising faster than in other areas of the globe.

Plummer continued, "Temperatures are actually rising a little bit faster over Australia compared to the global average, and we know that of Australia's 20 hottest years, 15 have occurred since 1980."

Despite a healthy looking rainfall chart, Plummer adds that it did not fall in the right areas. The driest areas are the populated ones, such as New South Wales south east, which had little rainfall.

He said, "Rain fell, but just not in the most populated areas. Most Australians would certainly have seen 2006 as a dry year."

[wolfhound]

This is a no-brainer. It's clear there is global warming... and it's clear our pollution is adding to it. For our own sakes, we should, individually, as a nation, and globally, do everything feasible to reduce the amount of pollution we humans emit. Public policy should be aggressive.

[mmmYes]

Hi Zach

I post global warming stories in the "In The News" sections from time to time.

This does seem like a better place for them.

Here's one:

Himalaya's glaciers receding 30-50 ft./yr ... faster than in any other part of the world

By Janaki Kremmer | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

NEW DELHI – Billions of people in China and the Indian subcontinent rely on South Asia's Himalayan glaciers - the world's largest store of fresh water outside the polar ice caps. The massive ice floes feed seven of the world's greatest Asian rivers in one of the world's most densely populated regions.

Yet as global climate change slowly melts glaciers from Africa to the Andes, scientists say the glaciers in the Himalayas are retreating at a rate of about 33 to 49 feet each year - faster than in any other part of the world.

In the Himalayas, the Gangotri Glacier, one of India's largest, is entitled to an even more dubious distinction. Recent studies reveal that the Gangotri, which forms a mass of ice about 18 miles long, is retreating at a rate of more than 100 feet a year.

But according to government officials and environmental groups like Greenpeace, very little has been done in the way of a rigorous scientific study. Scientists are monitoring glacial melting on only a handful of the 7,000 glaciers that cover the Indian Himalayas.

And at such a rapid retreat, a gradual increase in droughts, flash floods, and landslides are not the only issue to worry about, say environmentalists. Justwhen power companies are planning more energy sources to power India's growing economy, a rising level of sediment in regional rivers is creating havoc for many grids

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0103/p07s02-sten.html (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0103/p07s02-sten.html)

[Sheerah]

and here's a cut/paste of my post to that thread:

Is the earth getting wetter? I think there's as much water on earth as ever, it's just formed and transformed differently.

I believe the climate is warming because we are entering a period of magnetic reversal of the earth's poles. Scientists bored into volcanic magma, retrieving a record of polar shifts dating back thousands of years. During the time leading up to a polar reversal, there was climatic warming. This theory makes the most sense to me.

That is very true, Gary. But what they could also tell from these extracted layers of rock millions of years old, was that during the times of the Earth's hottest temperatures, the carbon dioxide levels were also way higher. There is no disputing that we humans are creating higher CO2 levels than ever before. Therefore, we are directly contributing to the warming of the Earth.

[Sheerah]

This is a no-brainer. It's clear there is global warming... and it's clear our pollution is adding to it. For our own sakes, we should, individually, as a nation, and globally, do everything feasible to reduce the amount of pollution we humans emit. Public policy should be aggressive.

It couldn't hurt, could it?

[zoran]

I just wanna be a positive:

[zoran]

I don't know what I need to do to make a bigger picture:homer:
Help me.:beerchugr:

[yesyadda]

LOL! That's hilarious, zoran!

[TNyesfan]

I believe I read that the earth is entering a period of more circular rather than elliptical orbits around the sun. That's also adding to the problem.

Gee, I'd like to see some glaciers in Iceland before they're all gone.

[Timmo]

I'd like to get back to Palau before the entire lagoon is bleached and dies.

[Altres]

2007 to be 'warmest on record' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6228765.stm)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42411000/jpg/_42411107_sunbathers203getty.jpg
Last year was the warmest on record in the UK, Met Office figures show

The world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007, the UK's Met Office has forecast.

An extended warming period, resulting from an El Nino weather event in the Pacific Ocean, is likely to push up global temperatures, experts predict.
They say there is a 60% chance that the average surface temperature will match or exceed the current record from 1998.

The forecasters also revealed that 2006 saw the highest average temperature in the UK since records began in 1914.

The global surface temperature is projected to be 0.54C (0.97F) above the long-term average of 14C (57C), beating the current record of 0.52C (0.94F), which was set in 1998.

The annual projection was compiled by the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, in conjunction with the University of East Anglia.

El Nino effect

Chris Folland, head of the Hadley Centre's climate variability research, said the forecast was primarily based on two factors.

The first was greenhouse gas emissions from human activity, he said.
"This is a statistical method; it is a number that represents the heating of the atmosphere.

"Greenhouse gases cause heating, while aerosols cause cooling," Professor Folland told BBC News.

"The other factor which allows us to make a forecast that whether one year is significantly different from the next is the effect of the El Nino."

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifhttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42410000/jpg/_42410987_elnino203nasa.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/inline_dashed_line.gif

Guide to El Nino and La Nina (http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/el_nino_events.shtml)


El Nino events are marked by the arrival of unusually warm waters off the north-eastern coast of South America, and are described as the largest influence on the year-to-year variability of the Earth's climate.

This year's potential to be a record breaker is linked to a moderate strength El Nino already established in the Pacific Ocean.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said that it was expected to continue into the first quarter of this year, which would have a knock-on effect.

"There is a big lag between the El Nino and the warming of global temperatures - it takes about four months or perhaps a bit longer," Prof Folland explained.

"We have two methods of forecasting the effect of the El Nino. One is a statistical method based on two patterns of sea surface temperatures in the El Nino region, and the other is a complex mathematical model."

He that the forecast is then fine-tuned by looking back over data from the previous 50 years.

"We have actually run this forecast three times, updating it every month... and it is completely stable."

The 60% probability that 2007 would set a new record meant that it "was more likely than not", he concluded.

The Hadley Centre has been issuing the annual forecast for the past seven years and says it has just a 0.06C margin of error.

In December, the WMO released provisional data on the global average surface temperature for 2006. It estimated that last year was 0.42C (0.75F) above the 1961-1990 average, making it the sixth warmest on record.

However, the UK experienced the warmest year on record in 2006, according to Met Office figures released alongside the global forecast. The meteorologists said the mean temperature for the year was 9.7C (49.5F), 1.1C (2F) above the long-term average, based on the period between 1971-2000.

[Imperatrix]

ExxonMobil cultivates global warming doubt:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070103/ts_nm/environment_exxonmobil_dc_1

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent
Wed Jan 3, 3:32 PM ET



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Energy giant ExxonMobil borrowed tactics from the tobacco industry to raise doubt about climate change, spending $16 million on groups that question global warming, a science watchdog group said on Wednesday.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists said at a telephone news conference releasing the report.

An ExxonMobil spokesman did not respond immediately to calls for comment.

The union, a nonprofit group based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, said ExxonMobil, the world's biggest publicly traded corporation, had succeeded in parlaying a relatively modest investment into unwarranted public doubt on findings that have been overwhelmingly endorsed by mainstream science.

ExxonMobil did this by using the same methods used for decades by the U.S. tobacco industry, the report said, including:

-- raising doubts about even the most undisputed science;

-- funding a variety of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform;

-- recruiting a number of vocal climate change contrarians;

-- portraying its opposition to action as a quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest;

-- using its access to the Bush administration to shape federal communications and policies on global warming.

TOBACCO TACTICS

U.S. tobacco companies used these tactics for decades to hide the hazards of smoking, and were found liable in federal court last year for violating racketeering laws.

Global warming has been blamed for stronger hurricanes, more wildfires and worse droughts. While there have been cycles of warming and cooling throughout Earth's history, the last 30 years have seen a steep warming trend which most scientists say is due to emission of so-called greenhouse gases by the burning of fossil fuels in vehicles, factories and power plants.

ExxonMobil has funded legitimate scientific studies on climate change, the watchdog report said, but noted it has also spent approximately $16 million between 1998 and 2005 on 43 organizations that have cast doubt on the reality of human-caused global warming.

The report said these have ranged from $30,000 for the group Africa Fighting Malaria, which argues on its Web site against urgent action on climate change, to $1.6 million to the American Enterprise Institute, a pro-business think tank in Washington.

James McCarthy, professor of biological oceanography and director of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, noted a 2005 statement issued by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and 10 science academies from other countries, affirming that "climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."

"This report reveals for the first time the degree to which efforts to exaggerate uncertainty in climate science produce non scientific reports designed to cast doubt on published scientific climate studies have been orchestrated by ExxonMobil," McCarthy said at the news conference.

[The Whale]

why do people keep spreading these lies about global worming? I'm sure liveing in Upstate newyork (1 1/2) hours away from Cananda and haveing flys and misqietos in your house in January is perfectly normal!

[MrZuLu]

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/ (http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/)http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/firebg32.jpg
Locations documented since April 1999. Site updated July 2005

World View of Global Warming is funded by donations and grants. If you would like to contribute, please click HERE (http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/warmingmap.html#W).

Gary Braasch, Photographer (http://www.braaschphotography.com/) PO Box 1465 Portland, OR 97207 USA USA Phone: 503.699.6666 Cell: 503.860.1228

[yesyadda]

Might consumers bear any responsibility?

[MrZuLu]

I highly recommend seeing

"an inconvienient truth" by Al Gore...

That Tom Brokaw expose` is Tame comparatively.

Fortunately where I live electricity is all Hydro-electric or Nuclear...

no coal emmissions at all ~ 0.

[MrZuLu]

Fer sher and also energy (electric) producers who are in love with cheap coal, the auto manufacturers who only seem to want to produce low-milage bo-hemoths. Now too the Chinese want in on the party.
It will take a large sacrafice by all if we want to turn this around. We may not be able to stop it but we can at least slow it a bit, eh?I believe we already passed the tipping point...
the Chinese are opening a coalfire plant a week right now...

[Sheerah]

Might consumers bear any responsibility?

Hell yeah, absolutlely!
I think about people buying those super huge SUVs, like the Ford Expeditions, et al, to drive around the flatlands with their 3 kids. To me, that's just a big F.U!

I think that many corporations are trying to become more green, and I give them credit for it. I think that the only way to get ahead of this thing is to find a way to have consumers, corporations and governments working in concert.

[Roan's Lady]

I highly recommend seeing

"an inconvienient truth" by Al Gore...



I saw it a few weeks ago. Some political posturing aside (bad to mix politics and science, but I suppose it's unavoidable), I found it informative.
It's 71 degrees at this time in central New Jersey. People are saying "Oh, how nice to have such warm weather!" "Are you enjoying the weather?" No. I am not enjoying the weather. I'm pretty troubled by the weather.

[Sheerah]

I saw it a few weeks ago. Some political posturing aside (bad to mix politics and science, but I suppose it's unavoidable), I found it informative.


I really wish he hadn't put that stuff about the election in the movie. The movie had some very hard science in it that people need to pay attention to. And that little tidbit will negate the message for some.

[Sheerah]

Can you say "BOYCOTT CHINESE-MADE CRAP"?

Can you say U.S. Corporations stop outsourcing?

[Judge Judy]

It's 71 degrees at this time in central New Jersey. People are saying "Oh, how nice to have such warm weather!" "Are you enjoying the weather?" No. I am not enjoying the weather. I'm pretty troubled by the weather.

WORD.

It's 70 degrees here in New York City today. It's bears clarifying that you and I both live in the "northeast," a word which provides the origin of the term "nor'easter," which refers to a cataclysmic, don't-go-outdoors, three-feet-of-snow weather condition that closes down airports.

This is not normal. It's JANUARY.

[gt76yesman]

I just wanna be a positive:
LOL. I can't wait until 2020!

[Sheerah]

If I ever needed global warming, it'll be for the next two weeks while I am without a heater.

[Yes2Yes]

It hit 70 degrees in NYC. It's so weird seeing people wearing short sleeves in January. I was one of them!

[True Believer]

Although most of New South Wales is still in drought conditions, they were forecasting a long, hot summer here. Well, I think we've only had a couple of hot days, lots of rain (not much falling in the catchment area, of course) and plenty of cool days around 21-23C.

Still waiting for summer to really arrive.

[pianozach]

The funny thing about the problem of global warming is that it results in more "hot" in many places, yet more cold in others.

Same with rainfall: Some areas will start getting more, while others get less.

And lest anyone think that the debate is over, and just about everyone has acknowledged that global warming is a reality at least, here's an article from Jan 10, 2007:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=119166

Edmunds.com. Where smart car buyers shop.

Inside Line

Chrysler Reeling From Global-Warming Comment Fallout

Date posted: 01-10-2007

DETROIT — Chrysler's chief economist, Van Jolissaint, called European global warming policies "quasi-hysterical" and compared European attitudes toward global warming to children's-book character Chicken Little, according to a BBC News story published today.

Chrysler Group issued a strongly worded response saying the remarks were "misinterpreted" and "misleading" and demanded a retraction from the BBC.

Jolissaint reportedly also told attendees at the Society of Automotive Analysts breakfast meeting that global warming is "a far-off risk whose magnitude [is] uncertain," according to the BBC story.

The story was headlined, "Chrysler questions climate change." The BBC story said most in the audience "seemed to nod in agreement" and particularly noted the lack of rebuttal from the chief economists of General Motors and Ford, who were appearing on a panel at the breakfast with Jolissaint.

The BBC concluded that the remarks "illustrate the yawning gap between mainstream opinion on climate change among the educated elites of Europe and America."

Chrysler Group's media site published a response from communications vice president Jason Vines that includes the official DaimlerChrysler policy statement on global warming, which reads, in part: "We share the concern expressed by many, that global climate could affect future generations" but added, "The science remains uncertain." It also says, "We expect to be a leader in developing and introducing advanced technologies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

What this means to you: Not only is the world's temperature apparently rising, but so is the temperature of the worldwide discussion on what to do about it — or even the argument over whether it's a real problem.

global warming is "a far-off risk whose magnitude [is] uncertain" ???

Now there's an opinion for ya . . .

[Sheerah]

I work with a man who was born and raised in Canada. He's in his 50's. He said that when they were kids, they would play hockey on the canal infront of his house. He said that canal hasn't frozen enough to hold weight in 30 years.

[MrZuLu]

WORD.

It's 70 degrees here in New York City today. It's bears clarifying that you and I both live in the "northeast," a word which provides the origin of the term "nor'easter," which refers to a cataclysmic, don't-go-outdoors, three-feet-of-snow weather condition that closes down airports.

This is not normal. It's JANUARY.
the otherside of this abnormal weather cycle is evident around here...

Since Nov 1, 2006 from Seattle north has seen 29+inches of precipitation. A normal year precip is 36"... 75% already!

now here is the crazy part... in a normal year we will average two snow storms 2-6" per storm ,the rest in rain...

So far this winter we have had two storms with a total of 27".

Mt Baker ski area about 30 miles from me has the deepest groomed snow on the planet at 155 - 168"!!!
http://www.mtbaker.us/snowreport/index.html

[podo]

Mt Baker ski area about 30 miles from me has the deepest groomed snow on the planet at 155 - 168"!!!
http://www.mtbaker.us/snowreport/index.html


Im on my way over !

[podo]

Drought and fire could ruin Murray's future

First a bit of background
The Snowy Mountains in southern NSW (Australia) is the location of our highest mountain. Its also the start of the Murray River, which forms the border between NSW and Victoria. It also runs into South Australia and provides the city of Adelaide (amongst others) with its drinking water.

The Snowys is also the home of the Snowy Mountains Hydro Electric scheme. Basically the melting snow used to simply run down the Snowy River and into the ocean in Victoria. The Snowy scheme diverts most of that water into the Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers and heads it west. It also generats a truckload of electricity on the way

"The CSIRO reported this week that climate change could all but wipe out snow falls by 2050. The resulting loss of run-off from melting snow would seriously reduce water levels in the Snowy and Murrumbidgee rivers.""

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/drought-and-fire-could-ruin-murrays-future/2007/01/11/1168105115855.html

[pianozach]

Here's a nice article from the NYTimes that does a pretty good job of recapping many of the main evidenciary points about global warming:

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif

January 14, 2007
The Basics
Connecting the Global Warming Dots

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

If thought of as a painting, the scientific picture of a growing and potentially calamitous human influence on the climate has moved from being abstract a century ago to impressionistic 30 years ago to pointillist today.

The impact of a buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is now largely undisputed. Almost everyone in the field says the consequences can essentially be reduced to a formula: More CO2 = warmer world = less ice = higher seas. (Throw in a lot of climate shifts and acidifying oceans for good measure.)

But the prognosis — and the proof that people are driving much of the warming — still lacks the sharpness and detail of a modern-day photograph, which makes it hard to get people to change their behavior.

Indeed, the closer one gets to a particular pixel, be it hurricane strength, or the rate at which seas could rise, the harder it is to be precise. So what is the basis for the ever-stronger scientific agreement on the planet’s warming even in the face of blurry details?

As in a pointillist painting, the meaning emerges from the broadest view, from the “balance of evidence,” as the scientific case is described in the periodic reports issued by an enormous international network of experts: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, www.ipcc.ch. The main findings of the panel’s fourth assessment since 1990 will be released in Paris on Feb. 2.

In the panel’s last report, issued in 2001, and in more recent studies reviewed for the coming report, various trends provide clues that human activity, rather than natural phenomena, probably caused most of the recent warming. A number of trends have been identified:

¶The global average minimum nighttime temperature has risen. (This is unlikely to be caused by some variability in the sun, for example, and appears linked to the greenhouse gases that hold in heat radiating from the earth’s surface, even after the sun has gone down.)

¶The stratosphere, high above the earth’s surface, has cooled, which is an expected outcome of having more heat trapped by the gases closer to the surface, in the troposphere. (Scientists say that variations in the sun’s output, for example, would instead cause similar trends in the two atmospheric layers instead of opposite ones.)

¶There has been a parallel warming trend over land and oceans. (In other words, the increase in the amount of heat-trapping asphalt cannot be the only culprit.)

“There’s no urbanization going on on the ocean,” said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

Another important finding comes from computer simulations of the climate system. While the several dozen top models remain rough approximations, they have become progressively better at replicating climate patterns, past and present.

In the models, the only way to replicate the remarkable warming, and extraordinary Arctic warming, of recent decades is to add greenhouse gases as people have been doing, Dr. Lawrimore said.

“Without the greenhouse gases,” he said, “you just don’t get what we’ve observed.”

I'm still searching for decent news regarding plans for minimizing the extent of Global Warming (- - "GW" . . . sheesh, it figures!:shrug: ) or plans on coping with it . . .

Near as I can figure there will be some very notable effects starting . . . oh, right about NOW.

[Sheerah]

I'm still searching for decent news regarding plans for minimizing the extent of Global Warming (- - "GW" . . . sheesh, it figures!:shrug: ) or plans on coping with it . . .



Don't hold your breath, Zach. As I pointed out in another thread, he's intentionally doing the opposite.

http://www.eesi.org/publications/Fact%20Sheets/acfactsheet.htm

[pianozach]

Don't hold your breath, Zach. As I pointed out in another thread, he's intentionally doing the opposite.

http://www.eesi.org/publications/Fact%20Sheets/acfactsheet.htm

Yeah, I know. I think there is pretty much NO chance that Bush will ever do the right thing.

Saw your bird post in another thread - it ought to be reiterated here as well. Bet you a moon full of burning tires that all of these things are tied into the bigger environmental picture of global warming.


In the last few weeks, some very strange phenomena have occured.

In Australia, over 500 birds have fallen from the sky, leaving the Esperance area birdless.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21035741-2,00.html

In Austin, Texas, the city was shut down due to the discovery of dozens of birds being found dead in the streets.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/08/austin.birds.ap/index.html

In New York City, a gas-like odor permeated the City.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/nyregion/08cnd-odor.html?hp&ex=1168318800&en=b688635a7be2e78d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

One thing is common in all three of the incidents: the source had never been found.

What do you make of all of this? Are there any dots that should be connected? Is this some sort of terrorist attack dry run, or an attack that went awry? Or is this just nothing, just some coincidence?

Well, at least it's not raining frogs.

Yet.

[podo]

On the news last night it was reported that metiorologist are saying that the pacific ocean El Nino is waining and that heavy rain is predicted over the next 6 months in Australia.

Whilst this is good news, as we are in severe drought and some town are out of drinking water, it has a down side.

That downside is everyone saying that global warming is a falacy "Look, its raining, there wasnt really a problem after all"


Sure, I want it to rain, but how do we stop the doubters coming out of the woodwork ?

[MrZuLu]

Sure, I want it to rain, but how do we stop the doubters coming out of the woodwork ?
when it rains too much and won't stop

[podo]

when it rains too much and won't stop

Good point

Althoug floods are common here as well

"A land of drought and flooding rains"

[Buglunch]

New Planet Earth yesterday on CBC was Ice Worlds- both poles affected by warming and animals threatened thereby- utterly gorgeous filming underscoring habitat disappearing so fast it is unprecedented. Mammals and birds cannot adjust this fast after hundreds of thousands of years of stability. Vermin might...
Attenborough changed his mind on global warming after seeing it so close up recently.

[MrZuLu]

New Planet Earth yesterday on CBC was Ice Worlds- both poles affected by warming and animals threatened thereby- utterly gorgeous filming underscoring habitat disappearing so fast it is unprecedented. Mammals and birds cannot adjust this fast after hundreds of thousands of years of stability. Vermin might...
Attenborough changed his mind on global warming after seeing it so close up recently.Yeah... I had to laugh at an interview I saw recently...

He actually blushed before admitting he was wrong

[pianozach]

On the news last night it was reported that metiorologist are saying that the pacific ocean El Nino is waining and that heavy rain is predicted over the next 6 months in Australia.

Whilst this is good news, as we are in severe drought and some town are out of drinking water, it has a down side.

That downside is everyone saying that global warming is a falacy "Look, its raining, there wasnt really a problem after all"


Sure, I want it to rain, but how do we stop the doubters coming out of the woodwork ?

"An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's movie on global warming addresses this. He spends time actually explaining the varies results of Global Warming, and how it can result in drought in some areas, while there is increased rainfall in others.

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/25.jpg

What is often unnoticed the fact that global warming causes more precipitation but more of it coming in one time big storm events because the evaporation off the ocean puts all the moisture up there when storm conditions trigger the downpour before it falls down.

looding in Asia, Mumbai, India this past July (2005): 37 inches of rain in 24 hours, by far the largest downpour that any city in India has ever received. A lot of flooding in China also. Global warming paradoxically causes not only more flooding, but also more droughts. This neighboring province right next door had a severe drought at the same time these areas were flooded. One of the reasons for this has to do with the fact that global warming not only increases precipitation world wide, but it also relocates the precipitation. Focus most of all on this part of Africa just on the edge of the Sahara. Unbelievable tragedies have been unfolding there and there are a lot reasons for it. Darfur and Niger are among those tragedies. One of the factors that has been compounding this is the lack of rainfall and the increasing drought. Lake Chad,

http://www.grida.no/climate/vitalafrica/english/graphics/14-lakechad.jpg

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Images/africa-lake-chad-environment.jpg

once one of the largest lakes in the world, has dried up over the last few decades to almost nothing. That has been complicating the other problems that they also have. The second reason why this is a paradox: Global warming creates more evaporation of the ocean that seeds the clouds, but it also sucks moisture out of the soil. Soil evaporation increases dramatically with higher temperatures.



Mr. Gore concludes his presentation with the following:

Our Only Home

http://www.space.com/images/blue_dot_010925_03.jpg

You remember that home movie of the earth spinning in space. One of those spacecraft continuing on out into the universe, when it got 4 billion miles out in space, Carl Sagan said, "Let's take another picture of the earth." See that pale blue dot. That's us. Everything that has ever happened in all of human history has happened on that pixel. All the triumphs and all the tragedies, all the wars, all the famines, all the major advances: it's our only home. And that is what is at stake: our ability to live on planet Earth, to have a future as a civilization.

I believe this is a moral issue. It is your time to see this issue. It is our time to rise again to procure our future.

See that? That is the future in which you are going to live your life.

Future generations may well have occasion to ask themselves. "What were our parents thinking? Why didn't they wake up when they had a chance?"

We have to hear that question from them, now.

[Melissa]

This all is almost too much to think about. There's an excellent possibility that we've already reached the point of no return and nothing we do can stop the catastrophe that's coming.

[Sheerah]

This all is almost too much to think about. There's an excellent possibility that we've already reached the point of no return and nothing we do can stop the catastrophe that's coming.

I don't believe that at all. There may be some harm that we can't undo, but moving forward, I strongly believe that we can reduce carbon emissions world wide.

[Sheerah]

The idiot in the office behind me, the one with the O'Reilly Factor mug, about twice a week I hear him scoffing at the fact that global warming has anything whatsoever to do with humans and their habits. One of these days I'm going to say something to him that will probably get me fired.

[Mostly Harmless]

I don't believe that at all. There may be some harm that we can't undo, but moving forward, I strongly believe that we can reduce carbon emissions world wide.

What She said!

[Melissa]

I don't believe that at all. There may be some harm that we can't undo, but moving forward, I strongly believe that we can reduce carbon emissions world wide.

My understanding is that even if we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there is a point in the not-too-distant future when it's simply too late to stop the catastrophe. There's a global tipping point past which anything we do will be for naught in terms of stopping the ice melting and the movement of temperate zones and horrific drought.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, just that we are running out of time in a hurry. The estimate I read was somewhere in the next 3 - 5 years. Having Bush in the Whitehouse in this critical time is the worst possible thing. We could and should have led the world in stopping greenhouse gas emissions.

[MrZuLu]

it's been too late!

we passed the tipping point 20 years ago...

we 'might' be able to slow it down, delay it a few decades... i doubt it though. we are going to see clear ocean across the arctic ocean in our... my lifetime

The thermohaline conveyor is already slowing and, for some reason, the greenland ice cap melting has accelerated and the northern cap is not increasing this winter like it should...

we gotta start watching unbiased world news... our media is feeding us the "company" line and killing our planet in the meantime and there is nothing happening drastic enough to stop it...
:sephiroth
prove me wrong...


...bookmark this post!

[Melissa]

it's been too late!

we passed the tipping point 20 years ago...

we 'might' be able to slow it down, delay it a few decades... i doubt it though. we are going to see clear ocean across the arctic ocean in our... my lifetime

The thermohaline conveyor is already slowing and, for some reason, the greenland ice cap melting has accelerated and the northern cap is not increasing this winter like it should...

we gotta start watching unbiased world news... our media is feeding us the "company" line and killing our planet in the meantime and there is nothing happening drastic enough to stop it...
:sephiroth
prove me wrong...


...bookmark this post!


The melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet is a runaway process - a done deal. I didn't know that it's speeding up. There is now some thought that polar bears may become extinct, and the snippet I heard on the news about it said this administration attributes the global warming that threatens polar bears to human activities.

[MrZuLu]

too little too late, i'm afraid

did you see that coast guard film clip last night on cbs news of two polar bears, a mom and yearling cub? they were swimming in open water with no ice insight. the helicopter did a 360° pan from 200 feet; no ice on any horizon. standing at sea level a 6' tall human can see 22 miles before the curvature of the earth creates horizon. at 200ft that is 73.333... miles in any direction.

the bears were swimming towards open ocean thinking ice flow. they can only swim 30-50 miles. the cub gets 30

[pianozach]

too little too late, i'm afraid

did you see that coast guard film clip last night on cbs news of two polar bears, a mom and yearling cub? they were swimming in open water with no ice insight. the helicopter did a 360° pan from 200 feet; no ice on any horizon. standing at sea level a 6' tall human can see 22 miles before the curvature of the earth creates horizon. at 200ft that is 73.333... miles in any direction.

the bears were swimming towards open ocean thinking ice flow. they can only swim 30-50 miles. the cub gets 30

So sad . . . .

[pianozach]

New islands!

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/16/1455234

http://images.slashdot.org/topics/topicscience.gif

slashdot: NEWS FOR NERDS. STUFF THAT MATTERS.

Global Warming Exposes New Islands in the Arctic

"The New York Times has a sobering article about the rapidly accelerating pace of glacial melting across the arctic, focusing on the discovery of new islands and the fact that this is occurring far faster than climate scientist's models predict. What were called Nunataks or 'lonely mountains' in Inuit, trapped in the ice, only a few years ago, are now in the open ocean by kilometers. Off of Greenland, what was known previously as peninsulas have been revealed to be islands as the ice retreats. Dennis Schmitt, a modern day explorer and discoverer of one of these new islands and fluent in Inuit, has named it Uunartoq Qeqertoq: the warming island."


Hmmm?

[MrZuLu]

So sad . . . .
it really is very sad and honestly, there not a dam thing anyone can do now short of replanting the amazon and turn exclusively to renewable organic fuels like Brazil like last year!

[wonderous76]

:Wow:

Yep, I didn't know it was that bad.......

[MrZuLu]

The Warming of Greenland
http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/15/science/01green.1.600.jpg
Jeff Shea for The New York Times
A penisula long thought to be part of Greenland's mainland turned out to be an island when a glacier retreated.

By JOHN COLLINS RUDOLF
Published: January 16, 2007

LIVERPOOL LAND, Greenland — Flying over snow-capped peaks and into a thick fog, the helicopter set down on a barren strip of rocks between two glaciers. A dozen bags of supplies, a rifle and a can of cooking gas were tossed out onto the cold ground. Then, with engines whining, the helicopter lifted off, snow and fog swirling in the rotor wash.

~snip~

The abrupt acceleration of melting in Greenland has taken climate scientists by surprise. Tidewater glaciers, which discharge ice into the oceans as they break up in the process called calving, have doubled and tripled in speed all over Greenland. Ice shelves are breaking up, and summertime “glacial earthquakes” have been detected within the ice sheet.

“The general thinking until very recently was that ice sheets don’t react very quickly to climate,” said Martin Truffer, a glaciologist at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. “But that thinking is changing right now, because we’re seeing things that people have thought are impossible.”
A study in The Journal of Climate last June observed that Greenland had become the single largest contributor to global sea-level rise.

complete article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/science/earth/16gree.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin)
(NYTimes login maybe required)

[sissywoods]

:crybby:

[The Whale]

An ice storm is blamed for 55 deaths in nine states. In Texas, a 300-mile stretch of I-10 from Fort Stockton to San Antonio is closed because of ice. In Maine wind chills are 40 below. New Hampshire's 6,288-foot Mount Washington registered a wind chill of 77 below. In California, a freeze destroyed three-quarters of the citrus crop.

all systems are a go... situations normal! Yeah right.

[Sheerah]

:crybby:

That's exactly how I feel Sissy.

[Silent_wings]

Sign the Petition

Here's your chance to help confront global warming and chart a clean energy future for America. Sign this petition asking Congress to end the billions of dollars of tax giveaways to big multinational oil companies and invest this money in clean renewable energy.

http://www.first100.org/

Can't hurt
might help

[MrZuLu]

here is another recent update last friday
~snip~
Scientists and the evidence of daily events tell us the threat of global warming is urgent. As the year began we learned that 25 square miles of the polar ice sheet has sheered off. This, just weeks after news came out that Greenland’s ice sheet is melting at the rate of about a cubic mile a week. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is now considering giving the polar bear Endangered Species Act protection because its habitat is melting away. The majority of the world’s coral reefs could be lost this century if ocean temperatures continue to rise, and cold-water fish such as salmon and trout could go extinct in many rivers and streams if temperatures continue to rise above their threshold.
complete article... (http://www.nwf.org/congressandglobalwarming/climatestewardshipact.cfm)

[Melissa]

It just keeps getting worser faster.

[pianozach]

An ice storm is blamed for 55 deaths in nine states. In Texas, a 300-mile stretch of I-10 from Fort Stockton to San Antonio is closed because of ice. In Maine wind chills are 40 below. New Hampshire's 6,288-foot Mount Washington registered a wind chill of 77 below. In California, a freeze destroyed three-quarters of the citrus crop.

all systems are a go... situations normal! Yeah right.

And it was just two weeks ago that we were having temps in the eighties here in SoCal. Cuh-ray-zee, man.

I keep an eye open for news on global warming, and for the most part just about everyone is on board at least about it's existence.

For instance, check out this headline . . .
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/iaA7y2eC9T6y86/Evangelicals-Ally-With-Scientists-in-Global-Warming-Fight.xhtml

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/images/2005/ect_toplogo_323x90.png

Evangelicals Ally With Scientists in Global Warming Fight

By John Heilprin
AP
01/18/07 7:47 AM PT

National evangelical Christian groups have aligned themselves with prominent climatologists and other scientists to demand change in public policy to avert global warming. Nobel-laureate Eric Chivian said evangelicals and scientists are not as odd a couple as they may seem. "We discovered that we were both speaking from our hearts and our minds," he said. Not all evangelicals were on board.

Saying they share a moral purpose, a group of evangelicals an scientists said Wednesday they will work together to convince the nation's leaders that global warming is real.

The Rev. Rich Cizik, public policy director for the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), and Nobel-laureate Eric Chivian, director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, were among 28 signers of a statement that demands urgent changes in values, lifestyles and public policies to avert disastrous changes in climate.

"God will judge us for destroying the Creation. Therefore, we as evangelicals have a responsibility to be even more vigilant than others," Cizik told a news conference.

"Science can be an ally in helping us understand what faith is telling us," he said. "We will not allow the Creation to be degraded, destroyed by human folly."

Prominent Names

Among the project's supporters are Edward O. Wilson, a two-time Pulitzer prize-winning scientist and author; James Hansen, a prominent NASA climatologist; and Calvin B. DeWitt, president of the Academy of Evangelical Scientists and Ethicists.




Didja notice the last sentence in the first paragraph, though?

"Not all evangelicals were on board."

In the face of incredible quantities of evidence of all kinds, there is a large minority of people who still pooh-pooh the entire notion of global warming.

[pianozach]

Speaking of folks who pooh-pooh the existence of globla warming, there's a new book out by Fred Singer (an "atmospheric physicist" at George Mason University, Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project) and Dennis Avery (a former US agriculture official whose celebrated earlier book was Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: The Environmental Triumph of High Yield Farming) titled "Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years."

Oh, you'll like this: Here's what Dr. Singer has to say about global warming: We have to ask, what is the impact of a warmer climate? It's not the warming itself that we should be concerned about. It is the impact. So we have to then ask: What is the impact on agriculture? The answer is: It's positive. It's good. What's the impact on forests of greater levels of CO2 and greater temperatures? It's good. What is the impact on water supplies? It's neutral. What is the impact on sea level? It will produce a reduction in sea-level rise. It will not raise sea levels. What is the impact on recreation? It's mixed. You get, on the one hand, perhaps less skiing; on the other hand, you get more sunshine and maybe better beach weather.

The guy's a physicist. And he thinks we'll get better beach weather. Yikes.

Of course, as you'd expect, this guy has ties to both the tobacco and oil industries. His non-profit corporation SEPP (Science & Environmental Policy Project) has recieved multiple grants from Exxon-Mobil.

Mr. Avery, on the other hand, has appeared on most of the nation's major television networks, including a program discussing the bacterial dangers of organic foods on ABC's 20/20.

Evidently, Mr. Avery is a champion of the pesticide industry, and is notorious in environmental circles for fabricating a quote designed to make organic food appear more dangerous than conventional food and attributed the quote to an expert from the US Centers for Disease Control.

It's one thing to sell out for a few bucks.

It's entirely another matter when you're selling out the world.

The sillyness will not end with these two misinformants either.

[pianozach]

If you had any doubt concerning just how hot the global warming debate is going to get, this item should convince you about the seriousness of the pending war over the value of junk science.

:gok:
http://mdvoutlook.com/archives/category/kyoto-global-warming-junk-science-etc/

http://mdvoutlook.com/header.gif

12/14/2006

Global Warming, Global Hoax

Given the “consensus” on global warming it’s nice to see a politician who is not afraid to take it on. Republican Senator, James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), is one of the heroes of the global warming skeptics. Recently when everybody in the country was focused on the Iraq Surrender Group, Senator Inhofe was holding hearings that would delight a skeptics’ heart. It’s a shame Democrats will be heading up committees now, because when Barbara Boxer takes over that committee you can bet we won’t be hearing much from the skeptics. Newsbusters has an extended take on the Inhofe hearings and the UN report. I’ll quote here a few paragraphs from Sen. Inhofe from the Newsbusters piece.

As Chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, I have given over 10 climate change speeches and held four full committee hearings examining the global warming issue since 2003. After several decades of climate hype, the UN appears to finally be conceding that previous estimates of climatic doom have been over-hyped and the science was simply not there to project these frightening ‘extreme scenarios.

Eventually, even the peddlars of climate alarmism will have to concede that the hoopla over manmade catastrophic global warming and the proposed solutions like the costly and ineffective Kyoto Protocol, will prove to be one of the history’s most misguided concerns– joining the 1970’s coming ice age fears, overpopulation and famines scares — to name just a few.

This news from the UN will not be greeted warmly by advocates of climatic doom. One can almost imagine the grieving faces of the Hollywood celebrities and environmentalists as they hear the new UN climate assessment and realize that they are way outside the ‘consensus’ on manmade global warming. With the continued scientific demise of manmade catastrophic global warming fears, the environmentalists and publicity and grant seeking scientists and many in the media, may now have to find another dubious environmental doomsday cause to scare the public and policy makers.

Priceless.


This guy's a Senator. A Republican from Oklahoma.

And he thinks that all of the gloabal warming will end up a historical "misguided concern" just like the 1970s "scares" about a coming ice age, overpopulation and famines.

This quote from the senator has no date on it, but, frankly, if he cannot see overpopulation and famine in the world today he must be spending too much time visually inspecting the inner walls of his rectum.

And I don't remember any scare about an ice age in the 70's. :shrug:

I also like his tactic of lumping environmentalists with Hollywood celebrities in hopes of propping up his flabby argument by association with what he deems a fringe/lunatic group. He's compared the EPA to the Gestapo. He's on record as saying that he had "offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists."

While some consider Inhofe to be the countries dumbest senator, the truth is that he is funded quite well by the oil and gas industry.

As if having to deal with the consequences of global warming aren't enough, we have to deal with those that are bought and sold by special interests and spout off their ignorance under a false patina of expertise.

[MrZuLu]

i can't afford a hybrid car so i have done all i personally can to help stop the warming... i wish i could do more

if there is more i can please tell me

[Sheerah]

I think that as individuals, the best we can do is conserve. This goes from how much electricity you use during the day, to burning wood and having BBQs. Essentially, the less wasteful a person is, the better it is for the environment overall.

[pianozach]

i can't afford a hybrid car so i have done all i personally can to help stop the warming... i wish i could do more

if there is more i can please tell me

I know the feeling. I'm far too economically challenged to do any more than pass on information in hopes of it reaching those who can actually influence policy.

Speaking of hybrid cars, did you see the episode of South Park where the entire town converted to Hybrid cars. It resulted in a smugness storm.

Because people aren't ready to drive hybrid cars without being smug about it. :crazy:

We've changed about half of our lite bulbs to low energy power saving versions. We turn lights off. We recycle. I donate $15/year to World Wildlife Fund. I vote for pro-environment politicians.

I've got a friend who put solar panels on the roof of his house. In the summer he creates more energy than he uses, and the electric meter runs backwards. He gets a credit on his electric bill for the extra energy he supplies. He's got a greenhouse and grows a lot of his own veggies. His house is full of homemade furniture. He's got a pickup truck and a motorcycle, but usually rides the bike.

What can we do?

Here ya go, compliments of "An Inconvenient Truth:"

http://www.paramountpictures.co.uk/aitemail/main.jpg

. . . keep your "tyres" inflated properly. Hee hee hee. Those crazy Brits and their wacky spellling!

I'll see if I can find an American version (that's a little more in focus!).

[pianozach]

The average American generates about 15,000 pounds of carbon dioxide every year from personal transportation, home energy use and from the energy used to produce all of the products and services we consume. CALCULATE YOUR PERSONAL IMPACT to see how much CO2 you produce each year. http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/carboncalculator/

JOIN THE GLOBAL WARMING VIRTUAL MARCH at www.stopglobalwarming.org.

You have the power to make a difference. Small changes to your daily routine can add up to big changes in helping to stop global warming.

Reduce your impact AT HOME http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/whatyoucando/
Replace a regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb
Move your thermostat down 2° in winter and up 2° in summer
Clean or replace filters on your furnace and air conditioner
Reduce your impact WHILE ON THE MOVE
Reduce the number of miles you drive by walking, biking, carpooling or taking mass transit wherever possible
Start a carpool with your coworkers or classmates
Keep your car tuned up
Check your tires weekly to make sure they’re properly inflated
Help bring about change LOCALLY, NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/becomeactive/

Download these 10 SIMPLE TIPS to take with you! http://www.climatecrisis.net/pdf/10things.pdf

After reducing your emissions you can do even more by going "carbon neutral." By supporting clean renewable energy, you can effectively neutralize your personal CO2 emissions. Your small investment will ensure that for every ton of carbon dioxide you are emitting, a ton of carbon dioxide will not be released into the atmosphere. Go NEUTRAL!

[MrZuLu]

al gore said to pass "an inconvienient truth" around... send me dvd-r blank and selfadressed mailer and i'll send you a copy...pm me with email addy


i have already changed all lightbulbs to those curly-q ones...

i am in market for a multifuel 4x4(small one).

i wont fly any more

I use amtrak only because they now use that new crystal clear diesel fuel that has zero gas emmissions, all emmissions are particulate and fall to the ground within 100 feet on calm day

WA has no coalfired electricity... mostly hydroelectric w/some nukes

[Sheerah]

That's an excellent website, Zach!
Thanks!

This fact surprised the hell out of me: Unplug electronics from the wall when you’re not using them
Even when turned off, things like hairdryers, cell phone chargers and televisions use energy. In fact, the energy used to keep display clocks lit and memory chips working accounts for 5 percent of total domestic energy consumption and spews 18 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year!

[MrZuLu]

my total was 4

what's yours zach?

[Sheerah]

Mine was 17.5.
I am appalled!

I know my car doesn't help, and I think my number of plane flights really blew my score.

[MrZuLu]

Mine was 17.5.
I am appalled!

I know my car doesn't help, and I think my number of plane flights really blew my score.
yeah it was the aair travel

i added in flights to new england this summer and my score shot up to 9 just one round trip


i am sticking with amtrak

[Sheerah]

yeah it was the aair travel

i added in flights to new england this summer and my score shot up to 9 just one round trip


i am sticking with amtrak

I put down 6 short flights and 4 long ones.

[MrZuLu]

I put down 6 short flights and 4 long ones.
i am gonna clear cookies and try again

[sissywoods]

Proactive.. I like it.
I did an environment project with my daughter a few months ago for her class. Have to look up some of those links, etc.
A couple of those links look familiar, Zach.
2 thumbs up

[Silent_wings]

Mine driving the Jeep was 15.3

With the new Civic it's 9.0

Cool!!!

but it would be 3.2 if I had bought the Civic hybrid

[Mostly Harmless]

I'm at 12.3 For me the killer is that I drive over 30K miles per year.

[Sheerah]

Mine driving the Jeep was 15.3

With the new Civic it's 9.0

Cool!!!

but it would be 3.2 if I had bought the Civic hybrid

Dang, that's a huge difference!

I took a walk to the store for my lunch break today. I decided that my next car will definitely be much more thrifty on gas.

[podo]

[QUOTE=sschiffman;1091386]That's an excellent website, Zach!
Thanks!

This fact surprised the hell out of me: Unplug electronics from the wall when you’re not using them
Even when turned off, things like hairdryers, cell phone chargers and televisions use energy. QUOTE]

That is correct

You know all those power packs ( I think you blokes call them wall warts) ? The thinks that convert 240 /110 volts to 12v. They are on all the time. The device they power may be turned off, but if the wall outlet is on, then power is running through the power pack.

When you turn off your DVD, or or TV with the remote, the thing is still on and is still using power. And usually not much less than when its actually running !

We have fluresent bulbs in every light we have in the house. We turn off the TV at the switch at night.
We dont have clocks running in rooms we dont need them. Our stove have a clock on it, so we turn the stove off at the wall when not using it.
We have solar hot water
We dont have air conditioning. We can manage the hot weather by manipulating the window blinds and doors in the house.
We dont flush the loo all the time. "If its yellow, let it mellow, if its brown flush it down"
We only run the washing machine when its full.
We rarely use the clothes dryer. We hang clothes on the clothes line to dry

What dont we do ? (we aint perfect ! )

We run a dish washer nearly every day, but only when its full
We use a heater in winter

Im sure there is more !

[Sheerah]

Rog, I don't understand why a TV would be on if you shut it off at the remote verses by using the power switch on the unit, itself.

[pianozach]

my total was 4

what's yours zach?

4.6 !

I don't fly much, and California scores much lower than other states. (States such as Wyoming, West Virginia, Utah, Iowa and Alaska score very high, while CA, WA, VT, OR and ID score very low.)

Our condo was built cheaply, and leaks heat like a sieve, so when it's very hot OR very cold our electric bill spikes wildly.

I used to reuse baggies (after washing them of course) but it just seems like too much work for so little savings.

An Inconvenient Truth

If you haven't seen it, you must.

[TNyesfan]

6.3
I wanted points for having cloth diapered my 3 kids.

[podo]

Rog, I don't understand why a TV would be on if you shut it off at the remote verses by using the power switch on the unit, itself.

When you turn it off at the remote, all you really do is turn the screen off. Basically you turn the video and audio off. The TV still has power running through it. That why you can turn it back on with the remote. The remote senor is still working. The power transformers are still working. There is still power going into the TV and doing things. Not as much as there is when its actually on, but still some.

When you turn it off at the switch, you turn off the power as it comes into the TV. Therefore you shut down everything.

It comes down to transformers. Transformers have a high voltage coil in them. This carries the 240 /110 voltage. This coil is wrapped around another coil which is the output, usually putting out 12 v or so. This is the bit that drives all those clocks, innards of TVs, computers etc.

Running power through the high voltage coil sets up a harmonious current in the low voltage coil. Its a bit like spinning tops. If you get a kids top spinning and you place it on the top of another one, the second one will start spinning as well. I hope this makes sence

Even with the device turned off, the high voltage is still going through the coil, and generating the low voltage current, which isnt used. You are still using electricity !

[pianozach]

Rog, I don't understand why a TV would be on if you shut it off at the remote verses by using the power switch on the unit, itself.

I'll field this one.

The TV must be on standby (that is, on) in order for it to be able to recognize that the remote is trying to send it a signal. There are also little internal things that are also found on VCRs and DVD players, such as keeping track of your future programmed recordings and having the clock ticking.

And it's not just the TV. Set-top boxes include cable boxes; video games; and various converter boxes, such as satellite decoders and digital converters, in addition to the VCRs and DVD players. Hooked to a stereo? Home Theatre?

How many remotes do you have?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4620350.stm

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/bbc_logo.gif

TV 'sleep' button stands accused

By Mark Kinver
BBC News science and nature reporter

Britons waste the equivalent of around two power stations' worth of electricity each year by leaving TV sets and other gadgets on standby"Some of these standby modes for televisions use two-thirds of the electricity that it would if it were on.

The average household has up to 12 gadgets on standby or charging.

"I think some people think that standby is a tiny red dot that has no impact at all."

The Energy Saving Trust's survey found that one-in-seven people questioned thought putting devices on standby was actually more energy-efficient than switching them on and off.

The MTP's Matthew Armishaw clears up any confusion: "That is largely a myth. There may have been some issues with very old electronic components, but it is certainly not the case with today's consumer electronic goods."


Here, I found this table . . . http://www.homeenergy.org/archive/hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/99/990510.html

I do believe that there are going to be some changes. Can you say, "Bye-bye Standby?"

[MrZuLu]

believe it or not, there are a few tv's on the market that use electricity responsibly.

energy star is a reality
http://www.energystar.gov/images/home_page/ES_logo_3.gif

i happen to know for a fact they use less energy when powered down with the remote because in the AM after being OFF all night the case is cool to the touch.

i have been watching tv so it has been on most of the day and the case is very warm

heat = energy

90% or more is shut down at the remote...


geeeez

[Sheerah]

When you turn it off at the remote, all you really do is turn the screen off. Basically you turn the video and audio off. The TV still has power running through it. That why you can turn it back on with the remote. The remote senor is still working. The power transformers are still working. There is still power going into the TV and doing things. Not as much as there is when its actually on, but still some.

When you turn it off at the switch, you turn off the power as it comes into the TV. Therefore you shut down everything.

It comes down to transformers. Transformers have a high voltage coil in them. This carries the 240 /110 voltage. This coil is wrapped around another coil which is the output, usually putting out 12 v or so. This is the bit that drives all those clocks, innards of TVs, computers etc.

Running power through the high voltage coil sets up a harmonious current in the low voltage coil. Its a bit like spinning tops. If you get a kids top spinning and you place it on the top of another one, the second one will start spinning as well. I hope this makes sence

Even with the device turned off, the high voltage is still going through the coil, and generating the low voltage current, which isnt used. You are still using electricity !

Thank you Mr. Wizard!

[Sheerah]

How many remotes do you have?



I have a remote for the TV, the DVD player and I lost the remote for the video player.

Upstairs, I just have one remote.

[podo]

Thank you Mr. Wizard!

Pleasure

But, thats about as much as I understand of it !

[pianozach]

Pleasure

But, thats about as much as I understand of it !

Good explanation. Much better than mine.

Speaking of set-top boxes, over the TV is a VCR, a DVD/VCR and a cable box.

I've got a remote for all except the TV (it was "disappeared" when my apartment building exploded), but the cable box remote is a universal.

Usually only the cable box is "forever on."

But turning the TV off "manually" only sets it to "standby;" there is no way to turn it completely "off" short of plugging it into an outlet controlled by a light switch or reaching around back and unplugging it.

We've noticed that our electric bills seem high, and the meter is always spinning even when nothing is on. Honest; we've gone through the house and made sure everything is off, including the two computers, but the meter still spins.

So what's still plugged in?

The fridge (sorry - the REfridgeRATOR! ;) )
2 alarm clocks
Microwave (with digital clock)
Oven/range (with digital clock)
TV
VCR
DVD/VCR
Cable box
2 cell phone chargers
Electric razor charger station
Scanner
3-in-1 Printer/Fax/Scanner
Modem
Router
Router remote
Computer speakers
2 computers
2 computer monitors
"Indiglo" night light
Bottled water cooler/heater/dispenser


and a fancy telephone!

Several power strips (you know, with a lighted "on" switch)

Oh yes, and, of course, the gas heater
and electric air conditioner

and a washing machine
and a dryer
and a gas water heater

and a dishwasher.

Wow. So many things permanently connected.

[podo]

.

So what's still plugged in?

Wow. So many things permanently connected.

Let me play devils advocate here

The fridge (sorry - the REfridgeRATOR! ;)
The fridge is allowed

2 alarm clocks
Both will use power all the time. Can you just use 1 ?

Microwave (with digital clock)
Bad.. Why does it need a clock ??So you can set it to start by itself ? If your not using that function, turn it off!

Oven/range (with digital clock)
See above

TV
Bad. Turn off at the switch on the unit, or better still at the wall

VCR
DVD/VCR
Cable box
Bad.. See above for TV

2 cell phone chargers
ok, but urn off at the wall when not in use

Electric razor charger station
Bad. Whats wrong with one with a cord to the wall ? If you must use the battery one, turn it off at the wall after its charged

Scanner
3-in-1 Printer/Fax/Scanner
Modem
Router
Router remote
Computer speakers
2 computers
2 computer monitors

All bad ! I would guess that nearly all of those are powered with wall power packs (wall warts). Even with the units turned off, the power packs are still drawing power

"Indiglo" night light
Bottled water cooler/heater/dispenser

ok... I guess !
and a fancy telephone!
hmmm

Several power strips (you know, with a lighted "on" switch)
hmmm. The light wouldnt be using much.

Oh yes, and, of course, the gas heater
ok

and electric air conditioner
VERY BAD !!!!! Learn how to control house heat with blinds and fans



and a washing machine
ok

and a dryer
Very bad.. use only when absolutly necessary. Buy a clothes line

and a gas water heater
ok

and a dishwasher.
bad, but use only when full

[Sheerah]

On a brighter note, I got this email today. On a high level, the bill is intended to "reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other purposes." I will say, I am impressed with how fast this Congress has been moving to get things done. Anyway, here is the letter I received:

Dear Sheila,

At 6 p.m. last night, the House of Representatives passed the bipartisan bill H.R. 6--the Clean Energy Act of 2007--by an overwhelming vote of 264-163!

This is a great first step toward making global warming a priority in Congress, and your help was essential to making it happen. Our "First 100" petition ended up with nearly 30,000 signatures, which we delivered yesterday to key members of the House, including Rep. Jim McDermott from Seattle.

McDermott held the petition up on the floor of the House just minutes before the vote and asked his fellow lawmakers to listen to the will of the people and vote YES on H.R. 6:

"...I bumped into some people from the National Wildlife Federation, and they gave me 30,000 signatures of people who want this bill to pass, people who care about the environment, people who care about global warming....The American people obviously are way ahead of us." -- Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wa.)

Thank you again for being a part of this effort. Please stay tuned to find out what you can do to further the issue of global warming and help change the forecast for wildlife.

Sincerely,

Adam Kolton
Senior Director of Congressional and Federal Affairs
National Wildlife Federation
info@first100.org

[Silent_wings]

I saw this at The Road to California Quilt show this afternoon.

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g54/silent_wings_2003/ATT00006.jpg

even little old quilters get it

[wonderous76]

I'm at 4.9. I'll have to work on getting it lower, and thanks for refreshing my memory about unplugging things. I need to cut down on my bill too! Unfortunately this house is so old and had been restored badly there are a lot of air leaks so I have to use up a lot of heat. I am glad I am only renting it till I can get my own house this spring or summer.

Anyway I am going to post some stuff at work and hopefully it will get some peoples attention.

[wonderous76]

www.thebulletin.org/ (http://www.thebulletin.org/):aaa[1]:

[pianozach]

Oh, yes, ahem, there's another danger from the use of oil as an energy source . . .

http://www.torontodailynews.com/index.php/WorldNews/2007012202oil-leak

torontodailynews.com



Oil Leak from Beached Ship Pose a Threat to People

Chemicals and pesticides from the beached ship MSC Napoli pose a threat to wildlife and people, experts warn.

Chemicals and pesticides from the beached ship MSC Napoli pose a "serious threat" to wildlife and people, experts have warned.

http://www.ecanadanow.com/images/MSC-Napoli-oil.jpg

The oil tanker, which was deliberately beached off the Devon coast in England after being battered by Thursday's storms, has already leaked 200 tonnes of oil into the sea, it has been reported.

The MSC Napoli has created an 8-kilometer (5-mile) oil slick, the U.K. coast guard said.

The boat has also lost 200 containers, two of which are described as dangerous, Tony Redding, a spokesman for the vessel's owner, Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd. in London, said today to Bloomberg phone. The ship also has 160 tons of nickel on board.

Coast guards are getting ready to pump the remaining 3,500 tonnes off the ship which may take up to one week.

Birds and fish would be affected by the oil and chemical spill, and warned that the pesticides and battery acid on board also posed a risk to wildlife. Oil-covered birds have been recovered from the sea, the statement cited the U.K.'s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds as saying.

"Such large quantities of oil could cause hazard to marine organisms, as well as sea birds. When birds are covered with oil, they tend to lose their buoyancy and thermal insulation, and may eventually unable to fly and die as a result," said Dr John Zhou, Lecturer in Environmental science at the University of Sussex, as quoted by National News (UK).

"Pesticides will definitely have major impacts on marine life, as they are supposed to kill pests, but quite often have effects on non-target organisms such as mussels and fish. Nature of the pesticides will determine the seriousness of the effect."

. . . and in a related story; some back story, some updates, and a comment on human nature . . .

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-01-22T131852Z_01_L21619736_RTRUKOC_0_UK-BRITAIN-SHIP.xml&WTmodLoc=Top+News-C1-Headline-9

Scavengers grab cargo from stricken ship
Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:19 PM GMT

By Kate Kelland

LONDON (Reuters) - Scores of people flocked to the site of a shipwreck on the southern English coast on Monday to scavenge among beached containers for cargo including a BMW motorcycle, shoes and wine, police said.

As the coastguard fought to contain the stricken ship's oil, locals scoured a debris-strewn beach for goods washed up from the MSC Napoli.

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/01/22/PH2007012200405.jpg
Beachcombers go over washed up cargo on Branscombe beach near Sidmouth, England Monday Jan. 22, 2007. Dozens of people swarmed over the pebble beach exploring the contents of containers from the stricken vessel Napoli, which is grounded about a mile out at sea.

The container ship was abandoned by its crew after being holed during storms last Thursday. It was deliberately run aground to stop it from sinking.

More than 200 people roamed the beach, littered with wooden barrels and large metal containers filled with everything from car parts to nappies.

There was at least one blue BMW motorcycle, still in its cardboard wrapping, worth some 15,000 pounds.

Police said they wouldn't stop people from taking goods from Branscombe Beach in Devon. Officers handed out leaflets explaining that they must report anything they find to the authorities.

"We're not stopping people because we've got no powers to do so," a Devon & Cornwall Police spokesman said. "The leaflets explain their responsibilities."

--snip--

The Napoli is listing at between 18 and 25 degrees and has already lost waste oil and more than 200 of its 2,400 containers into the sea.

"A sheen of oil has been sighted coming from the MSC Napoli which is suspected to come from waste oils in the flooded engine spaces," the Coastguard said in a statement.

About 200 tonnes of oil are thought to have leaked from the ship. The sheen has spread to about 8 km but is "breaking up and dissipating" and did not pose a major environmental threat, it said.

"We have two vessels on charter now to receive the oil, and pumping should start today," said Robin Middleton, the government's representative for maritime salvage.

"But this is a very viscous product," he told BBC Radio. "It's almost like a sludge, so what they have to do is heat it and remove it slowly. It could probably take the best part of a week."

The British-flagged Napoli, built in 1991, was bound from Belgium to Portugal when it was holed. Its 26 crew took to a lifeboat and were winched to safety by a helicopter.

In 2001, the same ship, then named the Normandie, ran onto a coral reef in the Strait of Malacca between Malaysia and Sumatra, heavily loaded and at full speed.

It remained stuck for several weeks before being towed away for repairs that included welding more than 3,000 tonnes of metal onto the hull.



It's odd how they rename ships after a disaster, isn't it?

The Valdez was renamed Exxon Mediterranean before it left the yard for repairs in 1990, then dubbed SeaRiver Mediterranean in 1993 when Exxon spun off its vessel operations to a subsidiary.

In May 2001, the oil tanker Condoleezza Rice renamed to Altair Voyager.

[scootwhoman]

Hello, the SS Napoli is NOT an oil tanker! It is a container ship, which, as is typical of container ships these days, had containers stacked on the deck. Several of these containers have broken loose, and some have washed up on shore. These containers were mostly filled with dry cargo, but some had nitric acid, battery acid, and other toxic substances.

The oil that has been spilled is part of the 30,000 tons of diesel oil that the ship had in tanks for running the diesel engines. It is believed that the one 200 ton tank has been breached, and is leaking.

[Sheerah]

The tide may indeed be turning. Here is an article about how big business is working in conjunction with Congress to help reduce greenhouse gasses.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/22/news/companies/climate_emissions/index.htm?postversion=2007012213

[pianozach]

The tide may indeed be turning. Here is an article about how big business is working in conjunction with Congress to help reduce greenhouse gasses.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/22/news/companies/climate_emissions/index.htm?postversion=2007012213

Good.

I think that, for the most part, they're all seeing the writing on the wall.

Well, except for the American Automobile manufacturers, it would seem . . .

http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/189480-mich.-ag-supports-automobile-manufacturers-in-californias-global-warming-case.

1/22/2007
Mich. Attorney General supports automobile manufacturers in California's global warming case
by John O'Brien

LANSING, Mich. - Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Friday that he has filed a brief in support of the six automobile manufacturers sued by former California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

Lockyer claimed automakers should pay the state damages for producing high-emission vehicles that pollute California's air. It adds that the automakers, Chrysler Motors Corp., General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor North America Inc., American Honda Motor Co. and Nissan North America Inc., could produce cleaner vehicles but have chosen to fight instead.

"If California is allowed to sue the automobile industry for billions of dollars in damages in this ill-conceived lawsuit, then other states will try to do the same thing. I will continue to fight to protect Michigan's economy and its citizens," Cox said.

Cox's "friend of the court" brief says the lawsuit should be dismissed from federal court in Oakland because it would require the court to set a limit on the amount of carbon dioxide automobiles would be allowed to emit.

"To establish a carbon dioxide limit for automobiles would require the court to balance a wide range of environmental, economic and foreign-policy concerns that are the subject of intense public debate," Cox said. "These kinds of determinations are fundamentally political questions that should be addressed by Congress and the Executive Branch, not the courts."


So what are the American Auto makers designing for the new millenium? Cars that run on hydrogen or water? Or ethanol? Solar powered?

No.

Ford has just unveiled a prototype that has a fireplace. I am not kidding!

http://english.sabah.com.tr/2007/01/15/im/DAEA692F2536174181ED23D1b.jpg

Actually, GM unveiled a prototype called the Volt, but it's not ready because the technology needed to make it a reality has not advanced enough yet. Another six years, they reckon.

It uses what they call an "E-Flex System."

The Volt can be fully charged by plugging it into a 110-volt home AC outlet for approximately six hours a day. When the lithium-ion battery is fully charged, the car can deliver 40 city miles of pure electric vehicle range. When the battery is depleted, a one-litre, three-cylinder turbocharged engine spins at a constant speed to create electricity and replenish the battery. According to Lutz, this increases the fuel economy and range.

The Volt is also designed to run on E85, a fuel blend of 85% ethanol and 15% petrol. Using E85, fuel economy of 150 mpg would translate into more than 525 miles per petroleum gallon.

That’s why we are also showing a variant of the Chevrolet Volt with a hydrogen-powered fuel cell, instead of a gasoline engine EV range-extender,” said Lauckner. “Or, you might have a diesel engine driving the generator to create electricity, using bio-diesel. Finally, an engine using 100% ethanol might be factored into the mix. The point is, all of these alternatives are possible with the E-Flex System.”



It still has a few kinks to work out.

[Altres]

Bush 'must fight climate change' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6289367.stm)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42483000/jpg/_42483113_rogers_ap203bo.jpg
Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers said it was time to take action

Chief executives of some of the largest companies in the US have urged President George W Bush to introduce measures to tackle global warming.

The executives from nine corporations said Mr Bush should support a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr Bush will address the issue in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday, but will not introduce binding rules for emissions, the White House says.

President Bush has in the past rejected mandatory controls on greenhouse gases.

The US withdrew from the Kyoto protocol in 2001.

'Desire for clarity'

"We can and must take prompt action to establish a co-ordinated, economy-wide market-driven approach to climate protection," the executives said in a letter to President Bush.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41279000/jpg/_41279902_bush2-ap203.jpg
"Ooo, hoo, eee, ee, oooh"

They have formed a group - the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) - which they intend to use to push for mandatory caps on greenhouse gases to cut them by more than 60% by 2050.

"It's time for the nation's political leaders to come together and act," Duke Energy chief executive Jim Rogers - a USCAP member - told reporters at a news conference in Washington.

Other members of the USCAP are CEOs of Alcoa, BP America, DuPont, Caterpillar, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, FPL Group and PG and E.
The pressure from big business stems from a desire for clarity, the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says.

At the moment, some states impose caps and the severity varies.
The White House said President Bush was going to make important announcement about energy efficiency and greenhouse gases. But White House press secretary Tony Snow said "binding economy-wide carbon caps" are not part of Mr Bush's approach. Mr Snow added that the president believed that industry must come up with innovations to address the issue of climate change.

[podo]

Just as a matter of interest, the company I used to work for has a sound envioronmental policy. Maybe they are making it a marketing ploy, but they are saying they are the only bank in Oz that is a member of the Equator Group. This is a group of banks from around the world who will not finance any major project that is damaging to the envioronment


http://www.westpac.com.au/internet/publish.nsf/Content/WICR+Environment

[sissywoods]

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/globalwarming/globalwarming.html
http://www.empowermentinstitute.net/lcd/
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/environmental_law/2006/07/movie_reviews_t.html
http://www.solarenergy.org/resources/energyfacts.html
http://www.newenergyeconomy.org/policies_globalwarming.php
http://www.planetsave.com/ps_mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6978&Itemid=33

for kids:
http://www.apples4theteacher.com/coloring-pages/earth-day/index.html

comedy relief/video:
http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder.php?id=1147

[pianozach]

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/globalwarming/globalwarming.html
http://www.empowermentinstitute.net/lcd/
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/environmental_law/2006/07/movie_reviews_t.html
http://www.solarenergy.org/resources/energyfacts.html
http://www.newenergyeconomy.org/policies_globalwarming.php
http://www.planetsave.com/ps_mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6978&Itemid=33

for kids:
http://www.apples4theteacher.com/coloring-pages/earth-day/index.html

comedy relief/video:
http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder.php?id=1147

Ahhh-h-h--h-h-h-h-h-h! :aaa[1]: Too many websites to see all at once!!

Actually, the Environmental Law Prof Blog has some fascinating bits of info . . .

There's a Global Warming Timeline that reads like a suspense novel. Of course, it starts 254 million years ago, but quickly comes up to the present day . . .

Here's the 1980's through 2004:

1980s

• At this time, the science of global warming consisted of a few determined scientists whose predictions about the fate of our planet were either furiously debated or widely ignored.

• The four strongest El Niños on record have all happened since 1980.


1995

• Temperatures in Chicago reach over 100 degrees and kill 739 people in five days


2002

• Larson B is the largest expanse of ice on earth, located on the eastern end of the Antarctic Peninsula. This plate of ice has been in deep freeze for the last 12,000 years. During periods of warmth, parts of the shelf have melted away, and small icebergs have splintered from its edges. But in the summer of 2002, something unprecedented happens: A chunk the size of Rhode Island falls into the sea.

• Northern China has been gripped with severe drought since 2002.

• China inhabits 21% of the Earth’s population, yet the country only has 7% of the world’s water.


2003

• More than 30,000 perish when a record-breaking heat wave grips an ill-prepared Europe

Then it gets really hairy . . .

[Wild Westie]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Human-caused global warming is here -- visible in the air, water and melting ice -- and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week.

"The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report. "The evidence ... is compelling."

Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, went even further: "This isn't a smoking gun; climate is a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles."



The first phase of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is being released in Paris next week.

This segment, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, includes "a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the climate," said co-chair Susan Solomon a senior scientist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.


Read the entire news release at http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/23/climate.report.ap/index.html

[pianozach]

But wait . . . there's more . . .

2005

• January 1: Across Southern Australia, the New Year blasts its way into the record books. In the capital of Sydney, temperatures top 113 degrees. By the end of January, the most destructive brush fires in 20 years rage throughout the country, killing nine people.


• August 29, 2005: Katrina is the strongest hurricane to ever hit the
Gulf States reaching speeds of 175 miles an hour and ravaging 100 miles of coastline. In only a few hours, the tourist town of Gulfport,Mississippiis nearly leveled by the category 4 storm. Nearly 80% of the city of New Orleans floods. Thousands are killed.

• Australia recorded the hottest year on record.

• The Amazon rainforests recorded the driest year on record.

• The worldwide record for number of hurricanes is smashed with 28 officially designated storms, including the most deadly to hit the U.S. in nearly 100 years.

• The Kyoto Protocol is ratified by more than 160 nations. It sets legally binding target dates for many industrialized countries to cut their global-warming emissions. Despite the United State’s role in drafting the treaty, the current administration has yet to sign the Kyoto treaty. Also reluctant to sign is Australia, the 14th largest producer of greenhouse gases, and the world’s largest exporter of coal.

[pianozach]

. . . and . .. .. .. .. (ta-dada-daahhhhhhhhhh_______)

2006

2006

• February: The island of Tuvalu in the South Pacific saw the highest tide they’ve ever seen at 11 feet. If the oceans continue to rise, many of these small island countries will simply vanish into the sea.

• April 16: A sandstorm blows more than 300,000 tons of sand on the capital of Beijing

• May: Canadian wildlife officials were astonished to find the first polar bear/ grizzly hybrid in the wild.


• Glacier National Park in northern MT is seeing the ice melt faster than at any time in recorded history. As the ice melts, more ground is exposed. That ground absorbs more of the sun that used to be reflected by the ice. As the ground warms up, the ice melts even faster.

• The Great Barrier Reef experiences the third bleaching event in the last eight years. Three thousand individual reefs join together to cover more than 135,000 square miles of the ocean floor. Currently, the warm temperature of the water is preventing the algae from provided the nourishment and protection the corals need. The coral is repelling the algae, resulting in a colorless, dying coral reef.

• Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere today are higher than anything we’ve seen in the past 600,000 years. Never, since human beings first walked the Earth, have carbon dioxide levels been this high. This shows that the present day climate is very unusual.

[Earl Grey]

Zach...

...listening to a Todd Rundgren bootleg, Todd totally screws-up the chord LIVE! On national radio... Apologizes, and carries on like the proverbial wayward son, and it's downright charming, dammit (I'll make you a copy).

Who is still questioning Global Warming at this point, but for the OIL MONGERS? Even George Bush is bowing to Al Gore now.

There is simply NO scientist worth his sodium, who is not tipping his hat to the fact that we are ruining our biosphere.

And we only get one biosphere.

What if Jesus doesn't come back next year?

What if God wants us to take care of the world, as it's the temple of God?

...What if those who are so inclined to hug eschatology for their own gain are the ones whom the Bible warns against? THINK people!

...Never mind me, I'm just a tree hugging hippy who reads too much.

Zach... A couple of important gigs coming-up that I have to talk with you about... I require your musical prowess Sir. :ele:

[neilius]

Results of the climate change experiment that began last year will be released this weekend on a BBC documentary.
The experiment, in order to gain unprecedented computer power, used home computers (over 250,000) across the globe and the only data released that ive read so far is that in 75 years time, the U.K will be 3c warmer.

[neilius]

Here's a website with more info:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/images/theresult/2020_full.gif

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/images/theresult/2050_full.gif

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/images/theresult/2070_full.gif

[About The Round]

Global warming: The Final Verdict


A study by the world's leading experts says global warming will happen faster and be more devastating than previously thought.

'The really chilling thing about the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report is that it is the work of several thousand climate experts who have widely differing views about how greenhouse gases will have their effect. Some think they will have a major impact, others a lesser role. Each paragraph of this report was therefore argued over and scrutinised intensely. Only points that were considered indisputable survived this process. This is a very conservative document - that's what makes it so scary,' said one senior UK climate expert.

This is a report from the first of four conventions by the IPCC.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1995472,00.html

ATR

[pianozach]

Zach...

...listening to a Todd Rundgren bootleg, Todd totally screws-up the chord LIVE! On national radio... Apologizes, and carries on like the proverbial wayward son, and it's downright charming, dammit (I'll make you a copy).

Who is still questioning Global Warming at this point, but for the OIL MONGERS? Even George Bush is bowing to Al Gore now.

There is simply NO scientist worth his sodium, who is not tipping his hat to the fact that we are ruining our biosphere.

And we only get one biosphere.

What if Jesus doesn't come back next year?

What if God wants us to take care of the world, as it's the temple of God?

...What if those who are so inclined to hug eschatology for their own gain are the ones whom the Bible warns against? THINK people!

...Never mind me, I'm just a tree hugging hippy who reads too much.

Zach... A couple of important gigs coming-up that I have to talk with you about... I require your musical prowess Sir. :ele:

Call my cell, captain. Anytime.

Hippie. Get a haircut.

"Even George Bush is bowing to Al Gore now." What a delightful picture. It's almost like being sucked into an alternate universe.

[pianozach]

So , it's ironic, isn't it? After ignoring and/or dismissing the global warming issue for six years, the Bush administration is now "concerned" about global warming (well, except for last year when he gave it lip service with his "We're addicted to foriegn oil" nod - but did anything actually change? No.):

[pianozach]

In Bush's "State of the Union" speech, (according to The Cleveland Plain Dealer) it was expected that the President would


• Set a goal that the nation's motor fuel supply include as much as 60 billion gallons of ethanol production per year - and sooner rather than later.

• Lay out proposals to cut back industrial and electric utility greenhouse emissions, primarily carbon dioxide, suspected by many climate scientists as a cause of global warming. The administration has, until now, rejected scientific claims that industrial emissions are trapping heat in the atmosphere in a "greenhouse" effect, leading to a warming of the entire planet.

• Talk about his willingness to work with Congress on conservation and other efficiency measures as well as mention other alternative energies such as wind and solar - because Congress is considering a raft of such bills.[/QUOTE]

I'm expecting that it was "All Talk, No Sincerity." The pressure's been on Bush from all corners to address Global Warming, and I suspect that he will did so grudgingly, and, even so, did a lousy job of making it sound like he's leading the fight.

He'll "work with Congress." Right. I'll believe it when I see it.

But, better late and not enough rather than later and still nothing I suppose. :appl[1]:

[pianozach]

So, Gore gets an Oscar nomination for Best Documentary (as did the Melissa Etheridge song in the movie).

Dubya addresses Global Warming in his State of the Union address.

So . . .

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2007/01/president_bushe.htm

January 23, 2007

President Bushes "Ozoned" Al Gore. And The World Is Paying The Price.

Co-written with James Boyce

It's a day of celebration and sadness for those of us who follow the global warming issue. On one hand, Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" received a well-deserved Oscar nomination. Congratulations to all involved but especially Laurie David and Lawrence Bender for their wonderful work in bring the Vice-President's presentation to the big screeen.

However, tragically, today the summary and highlights of the definitive report on global warming was leaked. This 1,600 page report will showcase once and for all, that global warming is real, we are causing it and "the future is dire."

So how is it, one might ask, that we didn't take global warming seriously earlier? Especially when we have an an advocate like Al Gore on the national stage.

It's because the right wing ozoned Al Gore. They mocked him for his concern. The called him "Ozone Man." Like pathetic schoolyard bullies, they picked fun at him, made him uncool.

Who led the charge?

In 1992, the first President Bush:

"This guy is so far out in the environmental extreme we'll be up to our necks in owls and outta work for every American."

In 2000, the second President Bush said of Al Gore

He "likes electric cars. He just doesn't like making electricity."

So when President Bush stands up and talks about global warming, think of Al Gore. He stood up fifteen, twenty years ago, and got mocked for his courage and vision.



https://www154.safesecureweb.com/humperbumper10/merchant2/graphics/00000002/p19tnlar.jpg

[pianozach]

Sometimes I'm just amazed at how we (well, not you or I, but companies, governments, corporations, etc.) can mess with the planet without doing the first bit of research into the consequences.

It was only last February that workers at a petroleum drilling site in downtown Los Angeles were shooting high pressure hot water into old wells to blast out leftover crude and caused oily sludge to ooze into basements, and out of cracks and manhole covers along their street two blocks away. South Olive Street started bulging upwards and the smell of tar purmeated the area. The mystery ooze backed off when the pumping was halted.

Now, this story from Indonesia:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/indonesia/Story/0,,1997749,00.html

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sitelogos/Guardian.gif

Drilling for gas 'caused deluge' from Java mud volcano


Ian MacKinnon, south-east Asia correspondent
Wednesday January 24, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/01/24/mud372.jpg
People rescue items from an area flooded by the eruption of a mud volcano, almost certainly triggered by exploratory drilling for gas, in Sidoarjo on the Indonesian island of Java. Photograph: Dimas Ardian/Getty Images

A mud volcano that erupted in Indonesia deluging hundreds of homes, wiping out factories and forcing thousands to flee, was almost certainly triggered by exploratory drilling for gas [by a consortium that includes the Australian company Santos - Z], researchers have discovered.

The findings of the Durham University-led team contradict Indonesia's welfare minister, Aburizal Barkie, whose family controls the PT Lapindo Brantas drilling company, which is at the centre of the environmental scandal. The minister said the eruption was caused by an earthquake two days before the noxious cocktail of gas, mud and boiling water had begun pouring out.

The flow now covers six square miles to a depth of 10 metres, and has inundated 25 factories and four villages, making it unlikely that the 11,000 inhabitants will ever return home.

Thirteen people have died because of the catastrophe. The Indonesian government has paid compensation to those who lost land and says it will also seek £221m in damages from Lapindo Brantas.

The scientists led by a mud volcano expert, Richard Davies, claimed the drilling, at a depth of 1.3 miles near Surabaya, was "very likely" the cause. Their study, to be published in next month's Geological Society of America journal, found that standard operating practices for dealing with the immense volcanic pressures had not been followed and rocks had fractured.

The first scientific study into the manmade disaster in Sidoarjo, eastern Java, by British scientists, suggests the rupture, which has been spewing a million barrels of sludge daily for 240 days, could continue for years.


It's ironic. Somewhere in these threads we were having a discussion about whether corporations were inherently evil or whether they had their employees' and neighbors' welfare at heart.

The assessment that companies are ammoral (that is, not good OR evil, merely on a mission to maximize profit.) is bolstered by stories like these.

The situation in L.A. was dealt with promptly, with property damage and injury kept to a minimum.

In Java, thirteen people died, and 11,000 were displaced, probably permanently.

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/01/24/svMUDFLOWS_wideweb__470x325,0.jpg
Heavy going: An area of at least 10 square kilometres will be uninhabitable for years and more than 11,000 people will be permanently displaced, the British report says.
Photo: Reuters

Mud erupted at the site in May, submerging villages and factories. Mud has since engulfed a toll road, a railway line and a gas pipeline.

Mr Bakrie told journalists last week that "families" that own Lapindo Brantas would provide two years' compensation and buy affected land.

And, in case you missed it in the above article, here's the scandalous part:

Countrary to scientists's findings, Indonesia's co-ordinating minister for social welfare, Aburizal Bakrie, said that the eruption was caused by an earthquake.

Mr Bakrie's family controls Lapindo Brantas Inc, which operated the gas well near Surabaya, Indonesia's second-biggest city.

[scootwhoman]

no...

just out of curiosity what are we doing to stop it?

The State Of Washington contributes to pollution less than most states, in that we have no coal fired powerplants. All Hydroelectric and Nuke.


MrZuLu,

I am sorry to disillusion you, but there is a 4 megawatt coal fired generating plant near Centralia, Washington. According to a brochure mailed by Pacific Power a couple of years ago, 45 percent of the electricity used in the Yakama area is generated by burning coal. Apparently, the Bonneville Power Administration is selling its cheap hydropower to California, as there are at least four hydroelectric dams near Yakama, where I live.

[podo]

WHy does everyone think that nuclear power is clean power ?? Its not

The uranium still has to be dug up and transported. That in itself adds to global warming. Used fuel then needs to be transported. And then the big issue..what to do with the stuff for the next 50,000 years..

In 50,000 years, humans will still be trying to deal with the stuff that was dug up and discarded by our generation.. Can you live with that thought ?? 50,000 years.

[pianozach]

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site525/2007/0128/20070128__0128-globalwarming1_400.jpg
An iceberg floats in the bay in Kulusuk, Greenland
near the arctic circle, in this Aug 16, 2005, file photo.
Scientists say that global warming has an increasing
effect on the Arctic region with glaciers shrinking,
temperatures of the arctic waters warming, and
permafrost softening and that nations must take
action against global warming. (AP file photo)

[pianozach]

Here's a positive bit o' news:

http://www.kfmb.com/stories/story.78666.html

http://www.kfmb.com/images/global/news_8_logo.gif

Washington Wakes Up to Global Warming

Last Updated:
01-28-07 at 9:12AM

NEW YORK -- Maybe it's the weird winter weather, or the newly Democratic Congress. Maybe it's the news reports about starving polar bears, or the Oscar nomination for Al Gore's global warming cri de coeur, "An Inconvenient Truth." Whatever the reason, years of resistance to the reality of climate change are suddenly melting away like the soon-to-be-history snows of Kilimanjaro.

Now even George W. Bush says it's a problem.

For years, the president and his supporters argued that not enough was known about global warming to do anything about it. But during last week's State of the Union address Bush finally referred to global warming as an established fact.

"These technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change," Bush said in proposing a series of measures to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years.

http://www.kfmb.com/story_graphics/2007/01/ap-CLIMATE_CHANGE_AN_UPDATE.0.sm.jpg

Environmentalists and scientists who study the problem say the nostrums Bush proposed Tuesday night will do little to prevent the serious environmental effects that the globe faces in coming decades.

Environmentalists favor imposing a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions tied to a market-based emissions trading system. Several of the global warming bills that have been introduced to the new Democrat-controlled Congress would do exactly that. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has proposed creating a new global warming committee to consider the legislation.

"We want the pressure on. The pressure will drive the development of new technologies," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who introduced one of the global warming bills.

Many industry leaders have come to realize that such measures may be more an opportunity than a hindrance. The day before Bush's speech the chief executives of 10 corporations, including Alcoa Inc., BP America Inc., DuPont Co., Caterpillar Inc., General Electric Co. and Duke Energy Corp., called for mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

"It must be mandatory, so there is no doubt about our actions," said Jim Rogers, chairman of Duke Energy. "The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

And a week before the State of the Union address a dozen evangelicals called action against global warming a "moral imperative" in a joint statement with scientists from the Centers for Disease Control, NASA, Harvard and other institutions.

There is still plenty of opposition to action on global warming in both the evangelical and business communities, but the tide is clearly turning.

"You're seeing a major political shift that is fairly broad-based," said Robert Watson, a scientist at the World Bank and former chairman of the United Nations scientific panel responsible for evaluating the threat of climate change.

http://netmar.com/~maat/announce/images/globwarm1.jpg

Scientists have been at the vanguard of the climate change issue for decades. As early as 1965 a scientific advisory board to President Johnson warned that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide could lead to "marked changes in climate" by 2000.

In 1988 the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Though assailed by critics as an overly alarmist organization, the panel actually represents a relatively cautious assessment of global warming because it relies on input from hundreds of scientists, including well-known skeptics and industry researchers.

Every five or six years since 1990, the IPCC has released an updated assessment of the environmental threat posed by global warming. And every time, a single memorable and increasingly alarming statement has stood out from the thousands of pages of technical discussion.

The first report noted that Earth's average temperature had risen by 0.5 to one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, a warming consistent with the global warming predictions but still within the range of natural climate variability.

"The observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability," the scientists concluded.

But by 1995 that possibility had all but vanished: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate," the second IPCC report concluded.

Six years after that: "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

Since then, scientists have accumulated abundant evidence that global warming is upon us. They have documented a dramatic retreat of the Arctic sea in recent summers, accelerated melting on the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps and the virtual collapse in mountain glaciers around the globe. They have found plants and animals well poleward of their normal ranges. They have recorded temperature records in many locations and shifts in atmospheric and oceanic circulation. Globally, the planet is the warmest it has been in thousands of years, if not more.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-01/18/xin_20010418151080026511.jpg

Emboldened by these discoveries, scientists just in the last month have issued some dire warnings. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, originally formed in response to the dangers of nuclear weapons, cited the climate change threat in moving its "doomsday clock" two minutes closer to midnight. And Britain's meteorological agency announced just three days into the year that 2007 has a 60 percent likelihood of being the warmest year on record, thanks to the combined effects of global warming and El Nino.

"You just can't explain the observed changes that we've seen in the last half of the 20th century by invoking natural causes," said Benjamin Santer, a U.S. government scientist who was involved in previous IPCC assessments.

The scientists who will gather in Paris this coming week to complete the first section of this year's IPCC report are not allowed to talk about the early drafts that have been circulating in recent months.

But there is little doubt that when the report is released on Friday it will include references to some of the specific environmental effects of global warming that have already been observed, and an even stronger statement about the imminent threat of global warming.

[podo]

US urges scientists to block out sun

""The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, which the US opposes.""

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/us-urges-scientists-to-block-out-sun/2007/01/28/1169919213362.html

[pianozach]

US urges scientists to block out sun

""The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, which the US opposes.""

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/us-urges-scientists-to-block-out-sun/2007/01/28/1169919213362.html

The first sentence of the story . . . THE US wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.



Hidden on page two of the story . . .

But Professor Stephen Schneider, a climate consultant to the US government for more than 30 years and a key figure in the panel process for more than a decade, says the world is "playing Russian roulette" with its future by responding too slowly to climate change.



Well.

". . . develop techology to block out the sun." As a "last-ditch" response.

Yikes.

I don't even know how to respond. Incredulity? Astonishment?

Yep; the good ol' USA really knows how to deal with problems anymore. [note sarcasm]

This reminds me of dealing with a medical problem in a "last ditch" way.

Let's say a patient is diagnosed with diabetes: Do you start making plans to amputate legs, or do you take measures to treat the symptoms before it gets to that point? Insulin? Weight loss? Proper diet?

[pianozach]

. . . and in an astonishing report on national ignorance . . .

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070129-0802-globalwarming-survey.html

http://www.signonsandiego.com/images/sosd_logo_main.gif

13% of Americans not heard of global warming, report says

8:02 a.m. January 29, 2007

OSLO – Thirteen percent of Americans have never heard of global warming even though their country is the world's top source of greenhouse gases, a 46-country survey showed on Monday.

The report, by ACNielsen of more than 25,000 Internet users, showed that 57 percent of people around the world considered global warming a 'very serious problem' and a further 34 percent rated it a 'serious problem'.

'It has taken extreme and life-threatening weather patterns to finally drive the message home that global warming is happening and is here to stay unless a concerted, global effort is made to reverse it,' said Patrick Dodd, the President of ACNielsen Europe.

People in Latin America were most worried while U.S. citizens were least concerned with just 42 percent rating global warming 'very serious'.

The United States emits about a quarter of all greenhouse gases, the biggest emitter ahead of China, Russia and India.

Thirteen percent of U.S. citizens said they had never heard or read anything about global warming, the survey said.

Almost all climate scientists say that temperatures are creeping higher because of heat-trapping greenhouse gases released by burning fossil fuels.

The study also found that 91 percent of people had heard about global warming and 50 percent reckoned it was caused by human activities.

A U.N. report due on Friday is set to say it is at least 90 percent probable that human activities are the main cause of warming in the past 50 years.

People in China and Brazil were most convinced of the link to human activities and Americans least convinced.

The survey said that people living in regions vulnerable to natural disasters seemed most concerned – ranging from Latin Americans worried by damage to coffee or banana crops to people in the Czech Republic whose country was hit by 2002 floods.

In Latin America, 96 percent of respondents said they had heard of global warming and 75 percent rated it 'very serious'.

Most industrial nations have signed up for the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, which imposed caps on emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from factories, power plants and vehicles.

President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of Kyoto in 2001, but said last week that climate change was a 'serious challenge'.

[BillGuitar]

This thread is too hot.
I'm gonna take it off...:winknudge

[pianozach]

Man. I hate to even mention this . . . .

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2830876

http://a.abcnews.com/images/site/full_logo_2006.gif

Global Warming May Affect Indonesia Isles

Indonesia could lose 2,000 islands by 2030 due to Global Warming environment minister says

JAKARTA, Indonesia Jan 29, 2007 (AP)— Rising sea levels because of global warming stand to inundate around 2,000 islands in Indonesia by 2030, the country's environment minister said Monday.

The assessment by Rachmat Witoelar was the government's bleakest yet of the effects of global warming on the Southeast Asian nation that is made up of some 18,000 islands, most of them unpopulated.

"It is very, very serious," he said at a media conference attended by Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the U.N. climate treaty secretariat.

Witoelar said respected scientific studies showed around 2,000 islands would be swallowed by 2030. He did not say whether the threatened islands were inhabited or not. . . . . . . . .

[About The Round]

Let's say a patient is diagnosed with diabetes: Do you start making plans to amputate legs, or do you take measures to treat the symptoms before it gets to that point? Insulin? Weight loss? Proper diet?

Why do things so halfway when you can kill them?

;-)ATR:meteo2:

[Sheerah]

Well, with only 2.5 days left in January, and no rain predicted, this will be Sacramento's dryest January on record - EVER!

[podo]

US urges scientists to block out sun

""The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, which the US opposes.""

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/us-urges-scientists-to-block-out-sun/2007/01/28/1169919213362.html

http://www.smh.com.au/letters/

This article in yesterdays paper has certainly inspired the people to write letters !

Todays first letter "

Arresting climate change goes against the American way

""The news that the United States now wishes to screen the sun as a means of halting global warming sums up beautifully the egocentric and narcissistic attitude so inherent to the US form of capitalism ("US call to block out sun", January 29).

It is passe to affirm that the US is, and has been for a century, run in the interests of US corporations. This has accelerated dramatically under George Bush. So it is logical that the general incapacity of the heedless technocrats who preside over these organisations to link their corporate decisions to their own and their children's lives as citizens, will be reflected in US Government policies.

These corporations survive, laden as they are with massive debts, only by continual growth. Thus, the logical idea for any normal person that we should stop doing what is causing the problem simply does not occur; to do so would result in that growth slowing or stopping altogether. Such a result would require them to address and resolve a fundamental failing of the system from which they derive such handsome livings: its survival depends on endless growth in a finite world.

George Bush snr made it clear when he was president that he would not let anything interfere with the profligate US way of life and the rights of US corporations to access resources anywhere to sustain those rights. Middle Eastern oil is just one example among many. That is an attitude derived directly from those who ensured his election and to whom he was answerable: the corporate elites of America. It is an attitude reflected and magnified in his son.

The focus has to be, therefore, not on a better, fairer and less exploitative use of the Earth's resources by America, but on ways to keep the endless growth engine running at full pelt, while finding a way to mitigate its disastrous effects. This attitude displays a touching, but extremely foolhardy, faith in our capacity to always come up with the magic bullet to overcome the effects of unrestrained greed and avarice.

The evidence in history of civilisations that have ignored the physical limitations of their environment is instructive. Those civilisations disappeared.

We are doing the same, only now we are doing it on a global scale and when Armageddon appears there will be nowhere left to run"

Then, further down the letters page we have the following

""A day not too far away""

""US call to block out sun" (January 29) has sent shivers down the global spine. The reason the world is in such dire straits from climate change is because we messed with nature. This proposal goes much further in humankind's interference with the natural order.


If the world does not stand up to the US now, we will all be doomed to an apocalyptic future the likes of which even Hollywood has not dreamed up.""


""Perhaps we could install a huge air-conditioning system to regulate Earth's temperature. How about a huge fan in space to gently waft away the hot air? Could we just shift the planet a few kilometres further away from the sun?

Or, how about joining worldwide efforts to reduce carbon emissions? But then, expecting the US to agree to international treaties is a bit far-fetched "

"Such a proposal is alarming but not surprising as it is consistent with the philosophy that underpins United States foreign policy.

Every turn of that policy creates an even larger monster to deal with the monster created at the previous turn.

Signing Kyoto would have been easier and much safer""

""It would seem simpler to ask everyone to petition God to turn down the thermostat than to invent an umbrella large enough to shade us sinners."

[MrZuLu]

we need to start producing gigantic ice cubes and drop them in the tropical oceans like in Al's movie...

[scootwhoman]

WHy does everyone think that nuclear power is clean power ?? Its not

The uranium still has to be dug up and transported. That in itself adds to global warming. Used fuel then needs to be transported. And then the big issue..what to do with the stuff for the next 50,000 years..

In 50,000 years, humans will still be trying to deal with the stuff that was dug up and discarded by our generation.. Can you live with that thought ?? 50,000 years.

podo,

Nuclear fission is a stop gap measure, which is far from perfect, but offers an alternative to further development of coal fired generating plants. If humans are still trying to deal with nuclear waste 50,000 years from, something will be seriously wrong. Why? Because there are several long term options for dealing with spent nuclear fuel, reactor cores, and other high level waste products.

1.) Lift the stuff off of the planet. Put it in an orbital depository. Eventually, it will be used as raw materials for building things that are impervious to radiation. The development of the Space Elevator in a couple of hundred years would make this a cheap operation. Even without the Space Elevator, advances in launch technology will make it cheap enough to get the stuff off of the planet.

2.) Burn it in a fusion 'torch'. Fusion reactions can reach temperatures where the bonds holding atoms together break down. The individual atomic particles do not retain the radioactive properties of the original material.

Either we will find ways to deal with the waste, or we will not be around to worry about it, as a result of some catastrophe. (Global warming?)

But we need to insure that some method of handling and storing high level waste is in place before committing to the construction of more fission power plants.

[podo]

podo,

Nuclear fission is a stop gap measure, which is far from perfect, but offers an alternative to further development of coal fired generating plants. If humans are still trying to deal with nuclear waste 50,000 years from, something will be seriously wrong. Why? Because there are several long term options for dealing with spent nuclear fuel, reactor cores, and other high level waste products.

1.) Lift the stuff off of the planet. Put it in an orbital depository. Eventually, it will be used as raw materials for building things that are impervious to radiation. The development of the Space Elevator in a couple of hundred years would make this a cheap operation. Even without the Space Elevator, advances in launch technology will make it cheap enough to get the stuff off of the planet.

2.) Burn it in a fusion 'torch'. Fusion reactions can reach temperatures where the bonds holding atoms together break down. The individual atomic particles do not retain the radioactive properties of the original material.

Either we will find ways to deal with the waste, or we will not be around to worry about it, as a result of some catastrophe. (Global warming?)

But we need to insure that some method of handling and storing high level waste is in place before committing to the construction of more fission power plants.

How many new nuclear plants are on the drawing board right now ?? John Howards vision for the replacement of coal burning power stations is to build 10 new nuclear plants. There is a very heated debate going on re that subject right now in Australia.

There are many alternatives to coal fired stations, to the point where nuclear shouldnt even be on the list of alternatives.

Send it into space ?? are you kidding ?? Ever heard of the space shuttle disastors ?? They do happen, sad as it is. More importantly, thats not solving the problem, its just throwing out the rubbish. Thats like saying if the earth is heating up, lets build a shade to block the sun.well no. Get rid of the input, not the output

[YesHut]

MrZuLu,

I am sorry to disillusion you, but there is a 4 megawatt coal fired generating plant near Centralia, Washington. According to a brochure mailed by Pacific Power a couple of years ago, 45 percent of the electricity used in the Yakama area is generated by burning coal. Apparently, the Bonneville Power Administration is selling its cheap hydropower to California, as there are at least four hydroelectric dams near Yakama, where I live.



Hi scootwhoman, I am wondering why you are mispelling Yakima with Yakama? My second question for you, which 4 dams are you reffering to that are close to your location?

[MrZuLu]

I was researching the Centralia Power plant and coal mining and found this
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/centralia/images/img4.jpg (http://www.power-technology.com/projects/centralia/index.html#centralia4)
what is wrong with our country...
we have so many alternatives

[MrZuLu]

WTF!!!


there is a possum outside on my porch!!!

[scootwhoman]

How many new nuclear plants are on the drawing board right now ?? John Howards vision for the replacement of coal burning power stations is to build 10 new nuclear plants. There is a very heated debate going on re that subject right now in Australia.

There are many alternatives to coal fired stations, to the point where nuclear shouldnt even be on the list of alternatives.

Send it into space ?? are you kidding ?? Ever heard of the space shuttle disastors ?? They do happen, sad as it is. More importantly, thats not solving the problem, its just throwing out the rubbish. Thats like saying if the earth is heating up, lets build a shade to block the sun.well no. Get rid of the input, not the output

Because the United States has such a huge appetite for energy, and is committed to energy distribution via a grid system, alternative energy sources such as wind and solar have been discounted as being able to supplant coal fired generating plants. Germany is currently reconsidering its decision to shut down all its fission plants by 2020, and France is planning to add more fission plants to its existing capacity.

China is currently considering a nuclear program to phase out its coal fired plants, which would result in something like 20 new fission plants.

Large scale industrial processes demand large amounts of energy. China is already moving towards using cars instead of bicycles and mass transit, which I find very disturbing, Energy is big money, and the money is not in alternative energy sources. Also, because energy is very difficult to store, the ability to meet peak demands requires several times the capacity required for 'average' demand. This is a problem that can be solved, but there is currently little interest in doing so in the U. S.

I am not advocating launching nuclear waste on space shuttles, or any launch vehicle currently in use. The time will come when space flight is very reliable, especially if a space elevator is constructed. And throwing out the rubbish is exactly what I am proposing, because the Earth is not a closed system nestled in a Petri dish. Doing our energy intensive, dirty industrial processes off planet is the only long term solution to our environmental problems, without drastically scaling back the standard of living of advanced countries, and denying developing countries higher standards of living.

The precious metals that we need exist in other places than Earth, and the energy to process them is provided by the Sun. Importing finished materials would prevent mining, as well as large amounts of energy consumption. Fusion power is likely to be available within 100 years, now that the first fusion generating plant for research purposes is being built in Europe. Bridging that 100 year gap without destroying ourselves will require conservation, alternative energy use, and some form of energy production which does not produce large amounts of carbon dioxide.

[scootwhoman]

Hi scootwhoman, I am wondering why you are mispelling Yakima with Yakama? My second question for you, which 4 dams are you reffering to that are close to your location?

About 10 years ago, it was discovered that the name Yakama had been misspelled in translations of the 1855 treaty with the Native Americans. The Native Americans immediately changed the spelling of the name from 'Yakima', which has caused many people to mis-pronounce the name as 'Yak-ee-ma'. Of course, the misspelling might have been intentional, another way of denying the aboriginal people their heritage, which was the intent of taking away their children and sending them to Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, where the children were not allowed to speak their native language, dress in native clothing, or practice native customs.

The Dalles dam, John Day dam, McNary dam, Priest Rapids dam, and Wanapum dam are all less than 100 miles from Yakama. But, nearly half the power that we consume comes from the west side of the Cascades, where there is a coal fired generating plant.

[podo]

Because the United States has such a huge appetite for energy, and is committed to energy distribution via a grid system, alternative energy sources such as wind and solar have been discounted as being able to supplant coal fired generating plants. Germany is currently reconsidering its decision to shut down all its fission plants by 2020, and France is planning to add more fission plants to its existing capacity.

China is currently considering a nuclear program to phase out its coal fired plants, which would result in something like 20 new fission plants.

Large scale industrial processes demand large amounts of energy. China is already moving towards using cars instead of bicycles and mass transit, which I find very disturbing, Energy is big money, and the money is not in alternative energy sources. Also, because energy is very difficult to store, the ability to meet peak demands requires several times the capacity required for 'average' demand. This is a problem that can be solved, but there is currently little interest in doing so in the U. S.

I am not advocating launching nuclear waste on space shuttles, or any launch vehicle currently in use. The time will come when space flight is very reliable, especially if a space elevator is constructed. And throwing out the rubbish is exactly what I am proposing, because the Earth is not a closed system nestled in a Petri dish. Doing our energy intensive, dirty industrial processes off planet is the only long term solution to our environmental problems, without drastically scaling back the standard of living of advanced countries, and denying developing countries higher standards of living.

The precious metals that we need exist in other places than Earth, and the energy to process them is provided by the Sun. Importing finished materials would prevent mining, as well as large amounts of energy consumption. Fusion power is likely to be available within 100 years, now that the first fusion generating plant for research purposes is being built in Europe. Bridging that 100 year gap without destroying ourselves will require conservation, alternative energy use, and some form of energy production which does not produce large amounts of carbon dioxide.

I didnt mean to sound like I was having a go at you, but re reading my post kinda sounded like it.

I think you hit the nail on the head in your very first sentance

"Because the United States has such a huge appetite for energy"

Its not just the United States. Any industrialised nation has a huge appetite for energy. Hence the problem

To sort out this mess, we need to be looking at the root cause, not trying to sort out the by products.

Ive always thought one of the most telling pictures Ive seen is the NASA photo of the whole world taken at night. It wasnt supposed to be about climate change, but by coincidence it is.When you look at the pic, remind yourself that all those lights are chewing up power, and by doing that, they are adding to the problem. Have a look at where the concentrations of light are, and see if your part of the problem.

Concentrations are all of Europe, the eastern side of USA and south east Asia

[About The Round]

http://www.ocean.udel.edu/windpower/ResourceMap/EarthAtNight.jpg

On the spot Rog.

ATR

[MrZuLu]

what I find disturbing about that pic is the northern polar ice cap. Almost the entire north shore of Alaska is ice free and the northwest passage is nearly clear

[YesHut]

About 10 years ago, it was discovered that the name Yakama had been misspelled in translations of the 1855 treaty with the Native Americans. The Native Americans immediately changed the spelling of the name from 'Yakima', which has caused many people to mis-pronounce the name as 'Yak-ee-ma'. Of course, the misspelling might have been intentional, another way of denying the aboriginal people their heritage, which was the intent of taking away their children and sending them to Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, where the children were not allowed to speak their native language, dress in native clothing, or practice native customs.

The Dalles dam, John Day dam, McNary dam, Priest Rapids dam, and Wanapum dam are all less than 100 miles from Yakama. But, nearly half the power that we consume comes from the west side of the Cascades, where there is a coal fired generating plant.


Hi scootwhoman, thanks for the clairification on my two questions. Yes, The Dalles, John Day, McNary, Priest Raids dams are some what close to you, in sunny Eastern Washington.

[podo]

http://www.ocean.udel.edu/windpower/ResourceMap/EarthAtNight.jpg

On the spot Rog.

ATR

Yep, thats the one ! Have a look at India as well. Maybe not so much an industrialised nation though. In that case, its more about population. Just as big a problem

[pedro skychaser]

amazing podo+ATR....just called in my son,10 yearold,sam,to gaze down @ this picture...so much energy...populations...surely we can dim this picture+cool the globe ...surely?

[pedro skychaser]

what is in between the lights?

[About The Round]

what is in between the lights?

El Ninho and some more Swedes...

ATR

[podo]

so much energy...populations...surely we can dim this picture+cool the globe ...surely?

Pedro

populations

Im of the firm beleif that population is the real core issue here. Its something Ive thought for a very long time

We have to accept the fact that we, as humans, are just part of the big picture. We are the same as the chimps, as the trees, as the fish. What happens when any of those become to large in numbers ? The local envioronment cant support them. There isnt enough food so the numbers die off. When too many trees grow in a set area, some dont make it.

Its the same with people. Too many people means more energy is required, more transport, more food, more water, more land, more more more. The earth simply cannot support an ever growing population. Sure we can improve farming technigues, and power technigues but that spiral cant go on forever. A time will come (and has done in places like africa) where the whole system fails.

Im not suggesting we go off murdering every second person, but I am suggesting that people need to understand this basic principle and practice birth control once in a while. The pope has a lot to answer for on this subject.

I could go on and talk about the ever increasing economy but thats another subject

I just think we need to be aware of the balance and not think that increasing our numbers, increasing our growing economy is a good thing. Sustainability is the answer

We have become obsessed with the idea of "more is good"

[Buglunch]

http://www.ocean.udel.edu/windpower/ResourceMap/EarthAtNight.jpg

On the spot Rog.

ATR
I remember flying from Bellingham to L.A. March of 1989 and not
believing how unbroken coastal light was......military bases, especially.
I went camping in the dark outside SLO, rubbing shoulders with prisons and army
bases.

http://www.coupland.com/fun/fun02.html

[podo]

Right-wing thinktank offering $13,000 to dispute report

""A right-wing American thinktank is offering $US10,000 ($A12,940) to scientists and economists to dispute a climate change report set to be released in Paris later today by the UN's top scientific panel.""

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/rightwing-thinktank-offering-13000-to-dispute-report/2007/02/02/1169919512852.html

[scootwhoman]

The picture of the Earth at night not only reveals the enormous waste of energy going on, but explains why so many people today have lost one of our antique heritages: the stars in the night sky. Many metropolitan areas are so polluted with light that no stars are ever visible. Even in smaller communities, light pollution can wash out Messier objects, meteors, and some stars necessary to be able to outline constellations.

One striking thing about the photograph is Japan. Even though Japan imports nearly 90 percent of its energy, it is still one of the brightest areas at night.

A great culprit in the light pollution of our night skies is the mercury vapor yard light. These are the ones with a cylindrical diffuser, and a bulb mounted vertically. Nearly half of the light that they generate goes up, illuminating nothing except the sky. Many cities have adopted street lights which minimize light pollution, keeping the output focused on the area below the lamp. But mercury vapor yard lights are still popular, even though their output spectrum is right at the edge of the human eyes ability to see. This is why these particular lights can be seen from miles away, yet still do not seem to illuminate the areas immediately around them very well. Sodium vapor lights have a spectrum much closer to the center of the human eyes sensitivity.

[Steve Mahoney]

Hi
Icebergs off the coast of my country New Zealand,Big Icebergs.
We have a problem here guys and girls.
It called Global Warming.

Steve

[pianozach]

I love the photo of the Earth at night.

Just to the left of Japan is the Korean peninsula. South Korea looks like an island because North Korea is practically lightless at night.

[pianozach]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aA4gyTIvowF8&refer=home

http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/navigation/logo.gif

Tornado Strikes Central Florida, Killing at Least 14 (Update2)
By Courtney Dentch

Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) -- A tornado spawned by a violent thunderstorm leveled parts of some Central Florida communities overnight, killing at least 14 people and cutting power to more than 40,000, government and utility officials said.

Governor Charlie Crist signed a state disaster declaration for four counties, he said in a televised news conference. The National Guard is on standby, and authorities may ask for aviation units to help search for victims, said Craig Fugate, director of Florida's Division of Emergency Management . . .

. . . The twister was spawned from a so-called supercell thunderstorm, the most violent of thunderstorms, that formed in the Gulf of Mexico yesterday, said Ben Nelson, Florida state meteorologist. . . . . .

Tornados in Florida. Is this normal?

[pianozach]

THE PARIS REPORT IS OUT.

IT'S BAD NEWS.

But we all expected that, didn't we?

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.change.report/

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.5/ceiling/cnn.int.logo.gif

Report: Humans 'very likely' cause global warming

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• Scientists release a 21-page report strongly linking humans to climate change
• Report scientist: Evidence of warming on the planet is unequivocal
• Scientists predict global temperature increases of 3.2-7.1 degrees F by 2100
• Sea levels could rise between 7 and 23 inches by the end of the century

(CNN) -- The debate is over: Global warming is here and humans are "very likely" the blame, an international group of scientists meeting in Paris, France, announced Friday.

"The evidence for warming having happened on the planet is unequivocal," said U.S. government scientist Susan Solomon, who also is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"We can see that in rising air temperatures, we can see it in changes in snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. We can see it in global sea rise. It's unequivocal," she said. (Watch scientist Susan Solomon deliver the grim news on global warming: javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/tech/2007/02/02/sots.france.global.warming.report.aptn','2007/02/16'); )

[edit - see full story at above link]

[pianozach]

. . . and, just in case you think that Bush administration is finally recognizing the need to address the issue . . . .


http://badgerherald.com/oped/2007/02/02/bush_supresses_globa.php

OPINION & EDITORIAL
Bush supresses global warming science

by Max Schlusselberg
Friday, February 2, 2007
This week, just like any other, brought more of the same mundane headlines. As usual, newspapers were consumed with the latest public outcries against the war coupled with bloody images to champion the protests. Just below the latest report of ruckus in the Middle East was the typical story of yet another Bush administration scandal. Man, was I relieved. After all, what would a day be without another tale of the Bush posse’s clandestine doings to warm my heart? For those who are smart enough to know better than to ruin their day by reading the newspaper, allow me to enlighten you on the latest Washington gossip.

In a recent survey conducted by The Union of Concerned Scientists, a scientist’s advocacy group; and the Government Accountability Project, a public interest group working to defend whistle-blowers, some 1,600 federal scientists were sent questionnaires. Despite a relatively low reply rate (about 19 percent of the 1,600 scientists surveyed responded) the findings yielded from the 308 responding scientists are still valid. Forty-six percent of those 308 scientists reported that they had been pressured to alter their findings in ways that resulted in a significant change to their scientific reports. These changes constituted the exclusion of words such as “climate change,” or any other such word that is indicative of global warming. In addition to this scientific censorship, the surveyed scientists generated accounts of several other instances in which politics reared its ugly head in the face of science.

Gosh, where to start? Primarily, I could explore the importance of addressing the international crisis of global warming. After all, this testimony of political fiddling coincides perfectly with a frightening, soon to be released, report from the International Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC for short. In their first report on environmental changes since 2001, the IPCC warns that by 2080, roughly 3 billion people will suffer water shortage, approximately 600 million will starve, and on top of all this human devastation, the environment will suffer drastic changes which will effectively destroy ecosystems as well as entire species. Although skeptics of global warming continue to argue these shifts in climate are completely natural, it is utterly impossible to ignore mankind’s influence on globally mounting carbon dioxide levels.

The first step of many in the path to stopping, or at least slowing global warming is awareness. How can the American public expect to be environmentally conscious when important facts and reports are never making it to the public eye? The term “Orwellian society” is becoming all too common in recent years where government is forcing its sinister hand into every crevice of the nation.

In a directive that was passed this week, the Bush administration decreed that the policy makers of several government agencies will now be supervised by politically appointed watch dogs. This quietly approved piece of legislation gives the Bush gang the comfort of knowing that several government policy makers, including those for the environment, and pubic health department, will have no option but to enforce the Bush agenda.

It’s demoralizing that the White House was granted this directive, especially considering what they will do with it. This legislation was not even enacted by the time the public received preliminary reports of Bush’s gagging of scientists.

Now that there is a law to qualify him, we can be sure Bush will have no qualms telling researchers what, or for that matter what not, to print.

The conflict of interest here is flagrant. For example, can we trust a man who is involved with the tobacco industry, and at the same time expect that same man to fund lung cancer research? Or for that matter, how could one who is intimately involved in the oil industry be just as concerned with environmental issues such as global warming?

Even more alarming than this single example of government controlled science is the bigger picture. The inherent conflict here is that we have a leader who is more involved in self-interest groups than he is in the interest of humanity. The leader of the free world, who we are inclined to put our faith and trust into, has been anything but trustworthy. People have a right not to be fooled by their government, and it is the loss of this right that should be worrying everyone just as much as global warming.

Max Schlusselberg (schlusselber@wisc.edu) is a freshman majoring in journalism.

[pianozach]

ORANGE SNOW

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2004868,00.html

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sitelogos/Guardian.gif

Russians get anxious feeling for orange snow



http://www.playfuls.com/bizworld/gimages/OrangeSnow02022.jpg

Luke Harding in Moscow
Friday February 2, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

There is nothing unusual about snow in the towns and endless forests of Siberia. But when locals in the small village of Pudinskoye woke up on Wednesday they immediately noticed something rather strange: the snow falling from the sky was orange.

In fact, three regions of southern Siberia — a vast area of industrial towns, pine trees and the odd bear — today reported the same mysterious phenomenon. Not only was the snow not white, it also smelt bad. Most of the snow was orange. But some of it was red and yellow as well, officials confirmed, after scrambling to the affected areas to dig up samples. And it was also oily, they discovered.

Russian officials in the Omsk region, 1,400 miles from Moscow, swiftly warned local residents not to touch the snow or feed it to their animals.

"At the present moment we cannot give explanations for the snow, which is oily to the touch and has a pronounced rotten smell. We are waiting for the results of a thorough test on samples," Omsk's environmental prosecutor, Anton German, said this morning.

Russian scientists trying to solve the mystery faced a tricky problem. The region is home to so many polluting industries it was hard to identify which one might have been responsible. Could it have been the nuclear plant in nearby Mayak? Or the metallurgy and chemicals factory in Ust-Kamenogorsk? The region is next to north Kazakhstan, a vast area of steppe used by the Soviet Union to conduct its nuclear tests. Or might the rogue snow have been caused by fuel from the space rockets launched in Kazakhstan?

Today environmental campaigners said that Russia had suffered decades of pollution — nuclear, industrial, and radioactive.

"I have to admit yellow snow is pretty unusual," said Vladimir Sliviak, the chairman of the Russian environmental group Ecodefence. "I can think of only two other cases in the last decade.

"This area of Siberia is beautiful. It's classic Russian forest. There is a lot of snow. There are a few bears and plenty of wolves as well. It's OK in terms of biodiversity."

This afternoon Russia's emergency situations ministry offered an explanation. Officials said a storm in neighbouring Kazakhstan had swept up clay and dust, dumping it on parts of the Tomsk and Omsk regions.

Not everyone was convinced. Russia's environmental watchdog said the snow contained four times higher than normal quantities of iron as well as acids and nitrates. "I don't believe this came from a storm. If we discover that it is an industrial entity that produced this pollution criminal charges will be opened," said Oleg Mitvol, the deputy head of Russia's environmental watchdog.

[pianozach]

Someone back in the thread suggested that we jetison our nuclear waste into outer space.

There was a time when the human race thought nothing of dumping our waste into the atmosphere or the ocean, thinking it, too, was big enough to never be affected.

I can't help think that making "Outer Space" the new dumping ground of choice could also have unforseen consequences down the line.

One of the people that were trying to give us warning in song, way back in 1981, was George Harrison. Very few were listening then.

Save the World
George Harrison, 1981, Somewhere in England

Weve got to save the world
Someone else may want to use it
So far weve seen
This planets rape, how weve abused it
Weve got to save the world

The Russians have the biggest share
With their long fingers everywhere
And now theyve bombs in outer space
With laser beams and atomic waste

Rain forest chopped for paper towels
One acre gone in every hour*
Our birds and wildlife all destroyed
To keep some millionaires employed

Weve got to save the whale
Greenpeace theyve tried to diffuse it
But dog food salesmen
Persist on kindly to harpoon it
Weve got to save the world

The armament consortium
Theyre selling us plutonium
Now you can make your own h-bomb
Right in the kitchen with your mom

The nuclear power that costs you more
Than anything youve known before
The half-wits answer to a need
For cancer, death, destruction, greed

Weve got to save the world
Someones children they may need it
So far weve seen
The big business of extinction bleed it
Weve got to save the world

Were at the mercy of so few
With evil hearts determined to
Reduce this planet into hell
Then find a buyer and make quick sale

To end upon a happy note
Like trying to make concrete float
Is very simple knowing that
God in your heart lives

Weve got to save the world
Someone else may want to use it
Its time you knew
How close weve come
Were gonna lose it - we gotta save, we gotta save
We gotta save the world

[podo]

Earth Hour

http://competitions.f2.com.au/enter.cgi?competition=earth_hour

[MrZuLu]

Tornados in Florida. Is this normal?
this time of year absolutely not!

My roommates mother lives 30 miles east of Lady Lake, FL.
she said she could hear it from her house!

[podo]

Big four emitters ignore call for action

"FORTY-SIX nations have called for the creation of a more powerful UN environment agency, saying the survival of humanity was at risk, but the US, China, India and Russia did not sign up.""

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/big-four-emitters-ignore-call-for-action/2007/02/04/1170523959206.html

[MrZuLu]

check this out
I live in Whatcom County
http://pse.com/insidePSE/newsCitiesGoGreen.aspx

[pianozach]

check this out
I live in Whatcom County
http://pse.com/insidePSE/newsCitiesGoGreen.aspx

Swe-e-e-e-eet!

[Melissa]

That's great. We need more. Here on olde cape cod, they're fighting the windfarm in Nantucket sound. Idiots.

[MrZuLu]

here is a bandwagon worth jumping on
http://www.dsireusa.org/


I am seriously looking into this
http://www.survivalunlimited.com/windpower/eagle1000/eagle1000.jpg (http://www.survivalunlimited.com/windpower.htm)
the $500 version is powerful enough to hook back into the grid

[MrZuLu]

I just stumbled on this article:
Disappearing world: Global warming claims tropical island

For the first time, an inhabited island has disappeared beneath rising seas. Environment Editor Geoffrey Lean reports

Published: 24 December 2006

Rising seas, caused by global warming, have for the first time washed an inhabited island off the face of the Earth. The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India's part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true.

more... (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2099971.ece)

[BlueEagle]

Oh thats just the beginning. Many of the Pacific islands and atolls barely clear the high tide line now. An ocean rise of 10 feet would wipe out much of the real estate in the south Pacific including islands like Kure and Wake where we have military installations. Get yer waders on! ;)

[Fulcrum]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070209/cm_thenation/4164477

I stopped using Exxon petrol after the Valdez incident-- but I kept on using Mobil even after the merger (the station is fairly convenient to my house). I will be rethinking that strategy.

[pianozach]

I just stumbled on this article:
Disappearing world: Global warming claims tropical island

For the first time, an inhabited island has disappeared beneath rising seas. Environment Editor Geoffrey Lean reports

Published: 24 December 2006

Rising seas, caused by global warming, have for the first time washed an inhabited island off the face of the Earth. The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India's part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true.

more... (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2099971.ece)

The more... (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2099971.ece) is really interesting too . . . .



Two-thirds of nearby populated island Ghoramara has also been permanently inundated. Dr Sugata Hazra, director of the university's School of Oceanographic Studies, says "it is only a matter of some years" before it is swallowed up too. Dr Hazra says there are now a dozen "vanishing islands" in India's part of the delta. The area's 400 tigers are also in danger.

Until now the Carteret Islands off Papua New Guinea were expected to be the first populated ones to disappear, in about eight years' time, but Lohachara has beaten them to the dubious distinction.

[pianozach]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070209/cm_thenation/4164477

I stopped using Exxon petrol after the Valdez incident-- but I kept on using Mobil even after the merger (the station is fairly convenient to my house). I will be rethinking that strategy.

Yep, this article, titled "The Rich Get Greedier", is very telling, indeed.

Right there in the second paragraph . . .

"unlike most of its competitors, ExxonMobil is avidly opposed to renewable energy and is actively working to undermine action on climate change. "

[MrZuLu]

Yep, this article, titled "The Rich Get Greedier", is very telling, indeed.

Right there in the second paragraph . . .

"unlike most of its competitors, ExxonMobil is avidly opposed to renewable energy and is actively working to undermine action on climate change. "


so just exactly how are we supposed to fight something like this?

I certainly don't have the resources

[Yes.2]

http://i9.ebayimg.com/01/i/02/17/c8/e6_1.JPG
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170078431485&ssPageName=MERC_VIC_RCRX_Pr4_PcY_BIN_IT&refitem=170072578972&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=closed_view_item&usedrule1=CrossSell_LogicX&refwidgettype=cross_promot_widget

This and about 5 grand worth of solar cells and batteries....

Between these two schemes one can power everything but AC/HEAT.....

[MrZuLu]

that is interesting but I am not and simply will not use ebay ever again...

I have had worse luck with ebay than musician's friend!

[pianozach]

so just exactly how are we supposed to fight something like this?

I certainly don't have the resources

A very reasonable question, indeed.

I think that, as people awaken to the need to embrace environmental-friendly attitudes, that awareness spreads.

One person posts the news, and it spreads to twenty or thirty other people. Some of those folks tell twenty other folks. It snowballs, and eventually it affects and influences megacorps like ExxonMobil.

Of course one cannot fight them head-on.

http://www.knowmore.org/images/thumb/4/4c/180px-17504-17698-2-kap6_2.jpg

So here's the lowdown on ExxonMobil:

Exxon Mobil is the world's second-largest oil company. They engage in oil and gas exploration, production, supply, transportation, and marketing around the world. Exxon Mobil's 45 refineries in 25 countries have a capacity of producing 6.3 million barrels per day. The company supplies refined products to 42,000 service stations in more than 100 countries that operate under the Exxon, Esso, and Mobil brands (including more than 16,000 in the US). Exxon Mobil is also a major petrochemical producer.

Criticism of President Bush's environmental policy is never far from ExxonMobil's doorstep, due to their huge campaign contributions.

During the 2000 election cycle, ExxonMobil gave $1,375,250 to political campaigns - second only to Enron among oil and gas company campaign contributions. Of this total, 89 percent went to Republican candidates. Over the last decade, ExxonMobil has consistently been a leader in corporate campaign contributions - sparing no expense to elect representatives who are sympathetic to its agenda.

http://www.knowmore.org/images/thumb/5/50/180px-George_bush.jpg

President George W. Bush (R) was the largest individual recipient of ExxonMobil campaign contributions in 2003.

President George Bush's decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil.

ExxonMobil, as we all know, or at least suspect, has an incredibly poor track record on everything from global warming to human rights violations.

We could focus on only the toxic emissions, discharges, and spills, but you probably don't have all day.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Los_Angeles_Pollution.jpg/370px-Los_Angeles_Pollution.jpg

Greetings from Los Angeles!


In general, the corporate stranglehold on the electoral process means that corporate voices are drowning out citizen voices and explains why legislation coming out of Washington often reads like it was ripped straight out of a playbook written by the Business Roundtable. It also means that any serious attempt to regulate corporations and curb corporate abuses is up against incredible odds, since politicians generally don't like to upset their biggest donors.

But that's a political issue, you say?

Well, as time marches on, it's going to be rather difficult to separate the two, as there seems to be enough greed out there to sell out the whole freakin' planet.

As global warming has passed the point of being merely theory, and into the "inevitable" realm, it's all going to be a question of whether we address it now or later (after coastlines disappear and natural disasters wipe out large populations).

[MrZuLu]

http://i9.ebayimg.com/01/i/02/17/c8/e6_1.JPG
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170078431485&ssPageName=MERC_VIC_RCRX_Pr4_PcY_BIN_IT&refitem=170072578972&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=closed_view_item&usedrule1=CrossSell_LogicX&refwidgettype=cross_promot_widget

This and about 5 grand worth of solar cells and batteries....

Between these two schemes one can power everything but AC/HEAT.....
solar PV cells are not the best option for us in Washington, at least not in my neighborhood. We have too many cloudy/overcast/hazy dayz.

[MrZuLu]

How Many Hours of Sun Your Area Gets Per Day.
Blue is the least, Dark Brick red is the most
http://www.survivalunlimited.com/solar_misc/map/solarmap.gif

[pianozach]

How Many Hours of Sun Your Area Gets Per Day.
Blue is the least, Dark Brick red is the most
http://www.survivalunlimited.com/solar_misc/map/solarmap.gif

I love the big dark red blob in southeastern California - that would be the Death Valley area - it's pretty sparsely populated.

. . . . which would make it a great place to erect massive solar panels to provide an alternative source of electricity to millions.

[YESOLA]

Hey - Just to be a pain...someone sent me this today...


PUBLIC POLICY is all about trade-offs. Economists understand this better than politicians because voters want to have their cake and eat it too, and politicians think whatever is popular must also be true.

Economists understand that if we put a chicken in every pot, it might cost us an aircraft carrier or a hospital. We can build a hospital, but it might come at the expense of a little patch of forest. We can protect a wetland, but that will make a new school more expensive.

You get it already. But let me just add that in the great scheme of trade-offs in the history of humanity, never has there been a better one than trading a tiny amount of global warming for a massive amount of global prosperity.....


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/la-oe-goldberg8feb08,0,975318.column?coll=la-util-opinion-sunday

[jfuruno]

Hey - Just to be a pain...someone sent me this today...


PUBLIC POLICY is all about trade-offs. Economists understand this better than politicians because voters want to have their cake and eat it too, and politicians think whatever is popular must also be true.

Economists understand that if we put a chicken in every pot, it might cost us an aircraft carrier or a hospital. We can build a hospital, but it might come at the expense of a little patch of forest. We can protect a wetland, but that will make a new school more expensive.

You get it already. But let me just add that in the great scheme of trade-offs in the history of humanity, never has there been a better one than trading a tiny amount of global warming for a massive amount of global prosperity.....


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/la-oe-goldberg8feb08,0,975318.column?coll=la-util-opinion-sunday

And I have yet to hear of any conclusive evidence that we have anything more than a tiny impact on global warming. What a farce! If the chicken-littles were not threatening to trash the economy over this bread and circus approach, I would find it laughable.

[Sheerah]

I love the big dark red blob in southeastern California - that would be the Death Valley area - it's pretty sparsely populated.

. . . . which would make it a great place to erect massive solar panels to provide an alternative source of electricity to millions.

That's a wonderful idea!
Have you written your Congress person about this yet?

[Sheerah]

And I have yet to hear of any conclusive evidence that we have anything more than a tiny impact on global warming. What a farce! If the chicken-littles were not threatening to trash the economy over this bread and circus approach, I would find it laughable.

Then you need to watch An Inconvenient Truth. The science about how humans are directly contributing to global warming through more carbon emissions is plainly addressed and irrefutable.

[MrZuLu]

And I have yet to hear of any conclusive evidence that we have anything more than a tiny impact on global warming. What a farce! If the chicken-littles were not threatening to trash the economy over this bread and circus approach, I would find it laughable.
anybody seen that commercial with the guy standing the path of a train... he says, "global warming won't affect me!" then, as the train closes in he moves and there is a little girl standing there as the train hits!

JF, I suggest you take a vacation this summer and go to Barrow, Alaska and tell me then that this is a chicken little farce!

Just out of curiosity, what kind of vehicle do you drive?

[Yes.2]

I love the big dark red blob in southeastern California - that would be the Death Valley area - it's pretty sparsely populated.

. . . . which would make it a great place to erect massive solar panels to provide an alternative source of electricity to millions.


Ding~Ding~Ding~HEllo!!!! :hearts::appl[1]::beerchugr:

[mmmYes]

And I have yet to hear of any conclusive evidence that we have anything more than a tiny impact on global warming. What a farce! If the chicken-littles were not threatening to trash the economy over this bread and circus approach, I would find it laughable.

Scientist's Panel Says Global Warming Real, Worsening

PARIS -- The world's leading climate scientists, in their most powerful language ever used on the issue, said global warming is "very likely" man-made, according to a new report obtained today by The Associated Press.

The report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- a group of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments -- represents the most authoritative science on the issue. It was due for official release today in Paris.

"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone," said the 20-page report.

more at the link below

http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/02/12/news/020207bcclimatechange.txt

[mmmYes]

There are things we can all do to lessen our impact.

What you can do at home:
http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/whatyoucando/

what you can do while you are on the move
http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/whatyoucando/index5.html

[jfuruno]

Then you need to watch An Inconvenient Truth. The science about how humans are directly contributing to global warming through more carbon emissions is plainly addressed and irrefutable.

June 22, 2006, 5:35 a.m.

Gorey Truths
25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore.

By Iain Murray



With An Inconvenient Truth, the companion book to former Vice President Al Gore’s global-warming movie, currently number nine in Amazon sales rank, this is a good time to point out that the book, which is a largely pictorial representation of the movie’s graphical presentation, exaggerates the evidence surrounding global warming. Ironically, the former Vice President leaves out many truths that are inconvenient for his argument. Here are just 25 of them.

1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature. The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. The book’s graph on p. 66-67 is seriously misleading. Moreover, even the historical levels of CO2 shown on the graph are disputed. Evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.

2. Kilimanjaro. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting not because of global warming but because of a local climate shift that began 100 years ago. The authors of a report in the International Journal of Climatology “develop a new concept for investigating the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, based on the physical understanding of glacier–climate interactions.” They note that, “The concept considers the peculiarities of the mountain and implies that climatological processes other than air temperature control the ice recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.”

3. Glaciers. Glaciers around the world have been receding at around the same pace for over 100 years. Research published by the National Academy of Sciences last week indicates that the Peruvian glacier on p. 53-53 probably disappeared a few thousand years ago.

4. The Medieval Warm Period. Al Gore says that the “hockey stick” graph that shows temperatures remarkably steady for the last 1,000 years has been validated, and ridicules the concept of a “medieval warm period.” That’s not the case. Last year, a team of leading paleoclimatologists said, “When matching existing temperature reconstructions…the timeseries display a reasonably coherent picture of major climatic episodes: ‘Medieval Warm Period,’ ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Recent Warming.’” They go on to conclude, “So what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger…or smaller…temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future temperature predictions.”

5. The Hottest Year. Satellite temperature measurements say that 2005 wasn't the hottest year on record — 1998 was — and that temperatures have been stable since 2001 (p.73). Here’s the satellite graph:


6. Heat Waves. The summer heat wave that struck Europe in 2003 was caused by an atmospheric pressure anomaly; it had nothing to do with global warming. As the United Nations Environment Program reported in September 2003, “This extreme wheather [sic] was caused by an anti-cyclone firmly anchored over the western European land mass holding back the rain-bearing depressions that usually enter the continent from the Atlantic ocean. This situation was exceptional in the extended length of time (over 20 days) during which it conveyed very hot dry air up from south of the Mediterranean.”

7. Record Temperatures. Record temperatures — hot and cold — are set every day around the world; that’s the nature of records. Statistically, any given place will see four record high temperatures set every year. There is evidence that daytime high temperatures are staying about the same as for the last few decades, but nighttime lows are gradually rising. Global warming might be more properly called, “Global less cooling.” (On this, see Patrick J. Michaels book, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.)

8. Hurricanes. There is no overall global trend of hurricane-force storms getting stronger that has anything to do with temperature. A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters found: “The data indicate a large increasing trend in tropical cyclone intensity and longevity for the North Atlantic basin and a considerable decreasing trend for the Northeast Pacific. All other basins showed small trends, and there has been no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity. There has been a small increase in global Category 4–5 hurricanes from the period 1986–1995 to the period 1996–2005. Most of this increase is likely due to improved observational technology. These findings indicate that other important factors govern intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones besides SSTs [sea surface temperatures].”

9. Tornadoes. Records for numbers of tornadoes are set because we can now record more of the smaller tornadoes (see, for instance, the Tornado FAQ at Weather Underground).

10. European Flooding. European flooding is not new (p. 107). Similar flooding happened in 2003. Research from Michael Mudelsee and colleagues from the University of Leipzig published in Nature (Sept. 11, 2003) looked at data reaching as far back as 1021 (for the Elbe) and 1269 (for the Oder). They concluded that there is no upward trend in the incidence of extreme flooding in this region of central Europe.

11. Shrinking Lakes. Scientists investigating the disappearance of Lake Chad (p.116) found that most of it was due to human overuse of water. “The lake’s decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population” (“Shrinking African Lake Offers Lesson on Finite Resources,” National Geographic, April 26, 2001). Lake Chad is also a very shallow lake that has shrunk considerably throughout human history.

12. Polar Bears. Polar bears are not becoming endangered. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear (sic) to be affected at present.”

13. The Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream, the ocean conveyor belt, is not at risk of shutting off in the North Atlantic (p. 150). Carl Wunsch of MIT wrote to the journal Nature in 2004 to say, “The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both”

14. Invasive Species. Gore’s worries about the effect of warming on species ignore evolution. With the new earlier caterpillar season in the Netherlands, an evolutionary advantage is given to birds that can hatch their eggs earlier than the rest. That’s how nature works. Also, “invasive species” naturally extend their range when climate changes. As for the pine beetle given as an example of invasive species, Rob Scagel, a forest microclimate specialist in British Columbia, said, “The MPB (mountain pine beetle) is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”

15. Species Loss. When it comes to species loss, the figures given on p. 163 are based on extreme guesswork, as the late Julian Simon pointed out. We have documentary evidence of only just over 1,000 extinctions since 1600 (see, for instance, Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 250).

16. Coral Reefs. Coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years. This means that they have survived through long periods with much higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations than today.

17. Malaria and other Infectious Diseases. Leading disease scientists contend that climate change plays only a minor role in the spread of emerging infectious diseases. In “Global Warming and Malaria: A Call for Accuracy” (The Lancet, June 2004), nine leading malariologists criticized models linking global warming to increased malaria spread as “misleading” and “display[ing] a lack of knowledge” of the subject.

18. Antarctic Ice. There is controversy over whether the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning or thickening. Recent scientific studies have shown a thickening in the interior at the same time as increased melting along the coastlines. Temperatures in the interior are generally decreasing. The Antarctic Peninsula, where the Larsen-B ice shelf broke up (p. 181) is not representative of what is happening in the rest of Antarctica. Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, acknowledges, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.” According to a forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate models based on anthropogenic forcing cannot explain the anomalous warming of the Antarctic Peninsula; thus, something natural is at work.

19. Greenland Climate. Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now. A recent study by Dr. Peter Chylek of the University of California, Riverside, addressed the question of whether man is directly responsible for recent warming: “An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? 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 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.” (Petr Chylek et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 13 June 2006.)

20. Sea Level Rise. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not forecast sea-level rises of “18 to 20 feet.” Rather, it says, “We project a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m. The central value gives an average rate of 2.2 to 4.4 times the rate over the 20th century...It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise are very unlikely during the 21st century.” Al Gore’s suggestions of much more are therefore extremely alarmist.

21. Population. Al Gore worries about population growth; Gore does not suggest a solution. Fertility in the developed world is stable or decreasing. The plain fact is that we are not going to reduce population back down to 2 billion or fewer in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the population in the developing world requires a significant increase in its standard of living to reduce the threats of premature and infant mortality, disease, and hunger. In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford writes, “If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change, could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To ask that question is to answer it.”

22. Energy Generation. A specific example of this is Gore’s acknowledgement that 30 percent of global CO2 emissions come from wood fires used for cooking (p. 227). If we introduced affordable, coal-fired power generation into South Asia and Africa we could reduce this considerably and save over 1.6 million lives a year. This is the sort of solution that Gore does not even consider.

23. Carbon-Emissions Trading. The European Carbon Exchange Market, touted as “effective” on p. 252, has crashed.

24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.

25. Economic Costs. Even if the study Gore cites is right (p. 280-281), the United States will still emit massive amounts of CO2 after all the measures it outlines have been realized. Getting emissions down to the paltry levels needed to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere would require, in Gore’s own words, “a wrenching transformation” of our way of life. This cannot be done easily or without significant cost. The Kyoto Protocol, which Gore enthusiastically supports, would avert less than a tenth of a degree of warming in the next fifty years and would cost up to $400 billion a year to the U.S. All of the current proposals in Congress would cost the economy significant amounts, making us all poorer, with all that that entails for human health and welfare, while doing nothing to stop global warming.

Finally, Gore quotes Winston Churchill (p. 100) — but he should read what Churchill said when he was asked what qualities a politician requires: “The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.”

—Iain Murray is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

[jfuruno]

Scientist's Panel Says Global Warming Real, Worsening

PARIS -- The world's leading climate scientists, in their most powerful language ever used on the issue, said global warming is "very likely" man-made, according to a new report obtained today by The Associated Press.

The report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- a group of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments -- represents the most authoritative science on the issue. It was due for official release today in Paris.

"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone," said the 20-page report.

more at the link below

http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/02/12/news/020207bcclimatechange.txt

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf

[mmmYes]

June 22, 2006, 5:35 a.m.

Gorey Truths
25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore.

By Iain Murray


—Iain Murray is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.


Is he a scientist?

Sorry- but I will take the word of the leading worldwide scientists over this guy.

You can just stick your head in the sand. The rest of us know better.

[mmmYes]

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf

Again, not a scientist. Did you see the disclaimer saying his views don't reflect the views of the Centers for Science and ...whatever it was?

[jfuruno]

anybody seen that commercial with the guy standing the path of a train... he says, "global warming won't affect me!" then, as the train closes in he moves and there is a little girl standing there as the train hits!

JF, I suggest you take a vacation this summer and go to Barrow, Alaska and tell me then that this is a chicken little farce!

Just out of curiosity, what kind of vehicle do you drive?

Or I could go to upstate New York right now, where they have record-breaking snow, with more on the way. Or I could step outside where it has been below freezing almost every night for three weeks, which hardly ever happens here in NC.

Your commercial speaks volumes about the hype without substance that all fear-mongers purvey.

And I have been driving the same 4cyl 36mpg car for the last ten years, so stop fishing.

[jfuruno]

Again, not a scientist. Did you see the disclaimer saying his views don't reflect the views of the Centers for Science and ...whatever it was?

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070201/NEWS/702010363/1006/NEWS

But he is.

[Sheerah]

Well John, as humans we have two choices. We can consume and waste and pollute and show no respect for the Earth whatsoever, or we can live responsibly. Obviously you havn't been to L.A. lately. The air there is visually brown. Did it get that way from humans or did it get that way due to natural cycles?

[Sheerah]

Or I could go to upstate New York right now, where they have record-breaking snow, with more on the way. Or I could step outside where it has been below freezing almost every night for three weeks, which hardly ever happens here in NC.


We finally got our first winter rain this past week. Usually it starts raining here in November. Drastic weather fluctuations are all a part of global warming.

You're a very smart guy, John. I know that once you decide to take a look at that issue, you'll be reasonable about it.

[jfuruno]

Is he a scientist?

Sorry- but I will take the word of the leading worldwide scientists over this guy.

You can just stick your head in the sand. The rest of us know better.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

And so is Svensmark. He just says things that others would rather supress.

[mmmYes]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

And so is Svensmark. He just says things that others would rather supress.

One or two guys does not make me disbelieve that global warming is happening.

Nor does a snowstorm in WINTER in upstate New York. (newsflash - they get a lot of snow up there. Especially in winter)

[jfuruno]

We finally got our first winter rain this past week. Usually it starts raining here in November. Drastic weather fluctuations are all a part of global warming.

You're a very smart guy, John. I know that once you decide to take a look at that issue, you'll be reasonable about it.

And I have. I have decided not to participate in trashing the economy, impoverishing the world, and inducing famine by listening to speculation paraded as fact. Popular and true are often two different things entirely, and I suspect that such is the case with global warming. I feel that I am being entirely reasonable by wanting absolute proof before agreeing to catastrophic consequences.

You don't need to sell me on the fact that clean systems are better than dirty ones, but if you try and tell me that the world as I know it is going to end because of traffic in L.A., then I just don't buy it.

I am all for more efficient use of fuels, and the less fuel used to achieve the same results, the better off every single person on this planet will be, but I am not about to do significant damage to the only economy that is likely to achieve those efficiencies.

[jfuruno]

One or two guys does not make me disbelieve that global warming is happening.

Nor does a snowstorm in WINTER in upstate New York. (newsflash - they get a lot of snow up there. Especially in winter)

And "consensus" does not make me believe that it is. Nor does the shout-down intimidation favored by the proponents of this theory.

[MrZuLu]

Or I could go to upstate New York right now, where they have record-breaking snow, with more on the way. Or I could step outside where it has been below freezing almost every night for three weeks, which hardly ever happens here in NC.

Your commercial speaks volumes about the hype without substance that all fear-mongers purvey.

And I have been driving the same 4cyl 36mpg car for the last ten years, so stop fishing.
you don't get it, man.

If that arctic blast last week had happened in january like it is suppose to, instead of 75 degrees for nearly 2 months, then the lakes would have frozen and there would not have been near as much lake effect snow

Lake effect snow cannot form on a FROZEN lake!

if it is so freekin cold why are the lakes NOT FROZEN??????

[jfuruno]

you don't get it, man.



I get it, I just don't buy it. Not what you're selling anyway.

[MrZuLu]

and by the way, permafrost does not form anywhere near New York State.

Barrow, Alaska is BUILT on permafrost...

[MrZuLu]

I get it, I just don't buy it. Not what you're selling anyway.
I am not selling anything....

...I am acting and preparing.



You can sit on the fence as long as you want...




...not recommended though.



Don't sit too long.
It won't hurt the economy.

I am a republican and Bush is wrong!

[MrZuLu]

I get it, I just don't buy it. Not what you're selling anyway.
I ask again...

if it is so cold why are the Great Lakes NOT FROZEN??????

[Sheerah]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

And so is Svensmark. He just says things that others would rather supress.

I read that article, and I can see the guy's point. But I'm not sure that what he says is factual. He states, "The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999." I think about a Canadian coworker who tells me that he used to skate on the river by his house every year, while he was growing up. He said the river hasn't froze over in 25 years. When I lived in Atlanta I remember reading an article about how land development in Atlanta had caused the temperatures to rise. It had to do with the cutting down of trees.

This comes from an article written in 2004:

These record-breaking readings, which come from the global series maintained by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, continue a trend of rising global temperatures. The average temperature of 14.01 degrees Celsius in the 1970s rose to 14.26 degrees in the 1980s. In the 1990s it reached 14.40 degrees. And during the first five years of this new decade, it has averaged 14.59 degrees Celsius. (See Figure 2.)

In fact, the five hottest years on record have all occurred within the last seven years. Of these five, 1998 was the warmest year on record, with an average global temperature of 14.71 degrees Celsius.

source: http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2004.htm

[podo]

Or I could go to upstate New York right now, where they have record-breaking snow, with more on the way. Or I could step outside where it has been below freezing almost every night for three weeks, which hardly ever happens here in NC.

Your commercial speaks volumes about the hype without substance that all fear-mongers purvey.

And I have been driving the same 4cyl 36mpg car for the last ten years, so stop fishing.

Mate, you debase your whole argument yourself..

"upstate New York right now, where they have record-breaking snow""

"below freezing almost every night for three weeks, which hardly ever happens here in NC.""

Note the words.....record breaking......hardly ever happens....


Global warming and climate change isnt just warming.. Its the warming of the upper atmosphere that causes changes in weather patterns. That includes cooling and extremes. It means the patterns change, not that it just gets hotter.

[podo]

And I have. I have decided not to participate in trashing the economy, impoverishing the world, and inducing famine by listening to speculation paraded as fact. .

What do you think will happen if global warming is allowed to continue ???

There wont be an economy, the world will be impoverished and famine will be rife

[MrZuLu]

Global Warming? WHAT global warming?

__________________
:beerchugr:
~

:xolicon42:

[YESOLA]

Well John, as humans we have two choices. We can consume and waste and pollute and show no respect for the Earth whatsoever, or we can live responsibly. Obviously you havn't been to L.A. lately. The air there is visually brown. Did it get that way from humans or did it get that way due to natural cycles?

Well I would suggest you do something about global plate shifting that LA smogaholics could be in more trouble from. ;) . Maybe AL should make a movie about that.

Seriously though, there is no question though that we should try to do everything that has been listed here for better air, energy conservation, and getting us to cut down on the foreign oil consumption.

Taking care of the planet is our responsibility I would agree.

But yeah the global warming gloom and doom......ah hmm yeah ...

[inside_out]

Just like everything this world has ever known it all comes to/from you. But, wait....Where else would you want it to be?

[MrZuLu]

lol... oh well


...you guys win

[pianozach]

John, Iain Murray is a purveyor of junk science.

Your long post that is basically a laundry list of global warming indicators and this nonexpert's attempt to debunk them makes for a rather lengthy and laborious rebuttal.

June 22, 2006, 5:35 a.m.

Gorey Truths
25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore.

By Iain Murray



With An Inconvenient Truth, . . . .

. . . .the former Vice President leaves out many truths that are inconvenient for his argument. Here are just 25 of them.

1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature.

2. Kilimanjaro. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting

3. Glaciers. Glaciers around the world have been receding

4. The Medieval Warm Period.

5. The Hottest Year. Satellite temperature measurements say that 2005 wasn't the hottest year on record — 1998 was —

6. Heat Waves. The summer heat wave that struck Europe in 2003

7. Record Temperatures. . . . . Global warming might be more properly called, “Global less cooling.”

8. Hurricanes.

9. Tornadoes. Records for numbers of tornadoes are set because we can now record more of the smaller tornadoes

10. European Flooding.

11. Shrinking Lakes. Scientists investigating the disappearance of Lake Chad

12. Polar Bears. Polar bears are not becoming endangered. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear (sic) to be affected at present.”

13. The Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream, the ocean conveyor belt, is not at risk of shutting off in the North Atlantic (p. 150).

14. Invasive Species. Gore’s worries about the effect of warming on species ignore evolution. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”

15. Species Loss. When it comes to species loss, the figures given on p. 163 are based on extreme guesswork,

16. Coral Reefs. Coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years.

17. Malaria and other Infectious Diseases. Leading disease scientists contend that climate change plays only a minor role in the spread of emerging infectious diseases.

18. Antarctic Ice. There is controversy over whether the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning or thickening.

19. Greenland Climate. Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now. . . . . Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade

20. Sea Level Rise. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not forecast sea-level rises of “18 to 20 feet.” Rather, it says, “We project a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m . . .

21. Population. Al Gore worries about population growth;

22. Energy Generation. A specific example of this is Gore’s acknowledgement that 30 percent of global CO2 emissions come from wood fires used for cooking. If we introduced affordable, coal-fired power generation into South Asia and Africa we could reduce this considerably and save over 1.6 million lives a year.

23. Carbon-Emissions Trading. The European Carbon Exchange Market, touted as “effective” on p. 252, has crashed.

24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.

25. Economic Costs. Even if the study Gore cites is right (p. 280-281), the United States will still emit massive amounts of CO2 after all the measures it outlines have been realized. Getting emissions down to the paltry levels needed to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere would require, in Gore’s own words, “a wrenching transformation” of our way of life. This cannot be done easily or without significant cost. The Kyoto Protocol, which Gore enthusiastically supports, would avert less than a tenth of a degree of warming in the next fifty years and would cost up to $400 billion a year to the U.S. All of the current proposals in Congress would cost the economy significant amounts, making us all poorer, with all that that entails for human health and welfare, while doing nothing to stop global warming.

Finally, Gore quotes Winston Churchill (p. 100) — but he should read what Churchill said when he was asked what qualities a politician requires: “The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.”

—Iain Murray is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Y'know, John, there's quite the movement afoot to discredit the entire concept of global warming, and Mr. Murray and the CEI seem to be part of it.

Mr Murray attempts to discredit 25 points made by Mr. Gore in his slideshow presentation. He tries to explain away each point individually, but, instead, just shoots himself in the foot by listing so many symptoms of global warming all in the same place.

Mr. Murray, while purporting to be an expert in the subject of environmental science, appears to have no formal education in the subject.

Many of his "points" are easily refutable, but just listening to him refuting the reasons for climatic events means that you have to listen to the list of events, most of which are not refuteable.

The glaciers are melting. In fact, 98 percent of the world's mountain glaciers are melting.

The snow of Kilamanjaro are melting

Glaciers around the world have been receding

Either 2005 or 1998 was the hottest year on record

A killer summer heat wave struck Europe in 2003
Lake Chad is disappearing

Malaria and other Infectious Diseases are spreading

Hurricanes? Mr Murray is dead wrong: Ocean temperatures have been rising, and so have the frequency and intensity in the number of cyclones and hurricans. The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years

Tornadoes? The frequency of tornadoes is up. Mr. Murray is mistaken. Again.

Polar Bears? Polar Bears are endangered. Federal biologists have asked that polar bears be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

Coral reefs? He attempts to pooh-pooh the notion of coral reef obliteration by stating that they've been around for 500 million years. That is not evidence that they are not endangered: It's proof that their dying off is, indeed, a very worrisome indicator of global warming.

Antarctic ice? There is no controversy regarding whether it is thinning or thickening. The evidence is incontravertable that it is thinning not only in Antarctica, but in the Arctic and Greenland and Siberia as well. Icebergs have been spotting off the coast of New Zealand!

Mr. Murray specifically mentions that he feels that Greenland's temperatures we higher in the 1920's and 30's, but fails to acknowledge that researchers from the University of Aarhus just presented the results of the most extensive study of Greenland’s glaciers ever carried out. The study shows that the recession of Greenland’s glaciers due to melting is not a recent phenomenon: the glaciers have been receding for more than 100 years.

While Mr. Murray belittles the concept that CO2 being a problem, towards the end of his little wad of drivel he points out that reducing CO2 emissions could save 1.6 million lives!

His attempt to debunk the "Scientific Consensus" issue is a laughable one, at best.

Getting emssions down will require a change in thinking on our part. Mr. Gore is right. Mr. Murray's objection to it being expensive is not a viable rebuttal, especially when he says that the cost is not going to make enough of a difference.

And finally, Mr. Murray finds a different quote from Churchill. BFD.

Lisa's right: You can keep your head in the sand on this one, but covering your ears and yelling "Na, na, na I can't he-e-e-ear you!" won't change the fact that we'll have to deal with the symptoms of global warming sooner or later.

It's just that if we do it later, the cost financially and in terms of life will be far greater.

[About The Round]

Originally Posted by jfuruno

12. Polar Bears. Polar bears are not becoming endangered. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear (sic) to be affected at present.”

I'll restrict my comments to the one regarding Ursus maritimus.

Polar bears are a potentially threatened species rather than an endangered one. A threatened species is one that could easily become endangered in the foreseeable future. The major threat to the polar bear is climate change. Other threats include pollution, poaching, and industrial disturbances. Hunting could become a threat if populations are not well managed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed that polar bears be added to the Threatened Species list under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Canada and Russia both list the polar bear as "a species of concern." In 2005, the world's leading polar bear scientists reclassified the polar bear as vulnerable on the IUCN World Conservation Union's "Red List of Threatened Species," noting that the species could become extinct due to sea ice changes.

(Bolded by ATR)

[About The Round]

13. The Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream, the ocean conveyor belt, is not at risk of shutting off in the North Atlantic (p. 150). Carl Wunsch of MIT wrote to the journal Nature in 2004 to say, “The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both”


He forgot to mention what the abrupt increase in arctic melt-down cold water can do. He also forgot to mention that seawater is very fluctual content-wise. Salinity is the keyword.
Interactive guide to the Gulf Stream :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,1656541,00.html

Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1654803,00.html


ATR

[allpurechance]

He forgot to mention what the abrupt increase in cold water can do.
Interactive guide to the Gulf Stream :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,1656541,00.html

Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1654803,00.html


ATR

An interruption in and of the Deep Ocean Conveyor is not to be trifled with.

Fools are they who would believe otherwise in any way, shape or form.

...yet fools we see and abide every day...

...and fools we ourselves may even be...

...likely are...

...for we elected them...

This business of Exxon/Mobil hiring scientists to offer a dissenting voice is nearly as, if not just as bad as, if not even worse than what the tobacco lobby is and has found themselves capable of.In their case, it's merely a death-by death issue.In the case of Exxon/Mobil it's widespread disregard for the entire planet, and all of it's inhabitants.

Yes, fools we be.

[podo]

A personal observation
In the New South Wales ski fields there is a chalet called Sponar's Chalet. Very nice it is too. It was built about 50 or 60 years ago I beleive. It was built where it is because at the time that was where the ski fields where. Not a lot of people skied in those times, but ski there they did.

These days, you know its a good season when Sponars has snow around it. The ski fields have long since moved further up the mountain.

Is it usual for snow to recede to that extent in that amount of years ?? I think not

[Imperatrix]

I have read this thread and I have a question:

Why was (from what I can tell) the only mention of eating lower on the food chain buried in a link that Lisa posted?

http://www.yesfans.com/showpost.php?p=1121545&postcount=192

Eat less meat, kids---or none at all.

We all agree that we have certainly contributed to global warming, and that we should do all we can to not add to the problem. Yes, absolutely. However, it seems many think that global warming was not on the schedule for the evolutionary process---but it is. We certainly don't have to speed it along. However, it IS going to happen, and there is nothing that any of us can do about it. Ergo, my caveat: if we attempt to employ a kind of overcompensation in our efforts to reduce our impact on global warming by taking it one step further and meddling with what nature intended (i.e. inflicting another kind of damage on the other end of the spectrum via efforts to prevent nature from going the way it must), we will suffer for it in ways we can't even imagine...and even worse than the impact we are making on the earth now.

Just my $.02...

[MrZuLu]

An interruption in and of the Deep Ocean Conveyor is not to be trifled with.

Fools are they who would believe otherwise in any way, shape or form.

...yet fools we see and abide every day...

...and fools we ourselves may even be...

...likely are...

...for we elected them

This business of Exxon/Mobil hiring scientists to offer a dissenting voice is nearly as, if not just as bad as, if not even worse than what the tobacco lobby is and has found themselves capable of.In their case, it's merely a death-by death issue.In the case of Exxon/Mobil it's widespread disregard for the entire planet, and all of it's inhabitants.

Yes, fools we be.
it's ok Frank. Only Scandanavia, Central and Northern Europe, the Northern parts of Asia and the UK will be affected if the thermal haline(Deep Ocean Conveyor) circulation slows or stops. Northeastern US might suffer a little. All the more reason to move to Washington, The Evergreen state, bro!

The US will be mostly safe. Tobacco growers are going to have a tough time of it, however. Tabacco(Nicotiana tabacum) does not do well with long term hard freeze. The entire Eastern Seaboard could easily be affected if the Conveyor does indeed stop, slow or shift somehow!

[pianozach]

I have read this thread and I have a question:

Why was (from what I can tell) the only mention of eating lower on the food chain buried in a link that Lisa posted?

http://www.yesfans.com/showpost.php?p=1121545&postcount=192

Eat less meat, kids---or none at all.

We all agree that we have certainly contributed to global warming, and that we should do all we can to not add to the problem. Yes, absolutely. However, it seems many think that global warming was not on the schedule for the evolutionary process---but it is. We certainly don't have to speed it along. However, it IS going to happen, and there is nothing that any of us can do about it. Ergo, my caveat: if we attempt to employ a kind of overcompensation in our efforts to reduce our impact on global warming by taking it one step further and meddling with what nature intended (i.e. inflicting another kind of damage on the other end of the spectrum via efforts to prevent nature from going the way it must), we will suffer for it in ways we can't even imagine...and even worse than the impact we are making on the earth now.

Just my $.02...

Your 2¢ IS WELCOME here anytime, Tas. (Hey, when I was a kid there used to be a "¢" key on typewriters - where the heck did it go? And why?)

Well, although there are many reasons to restrict our meat intake, religious, ethical, health, spiritual and moral, all somewhat debatable, I'm not convinced that homo sapiens being carnivorous is one of the causes of global warming.

Nor do I think that the entire human race converting to vegetarianism to be one of the larger solutions to combatting or coping with global warming.

I'm not trying to get on your bad side or anything, and I hope you don't take this the wrong way.

Hindis survive just fine without beef. Jews survive just fine without pork. Christians survive just fine without horse or dog.

Americans have convinced themselves that a high meat diet is natural, when, in reality, it's a cause of a great deal of health problems. Frankly, you'll get all of the protein and other things you get from meat by having it only once a week. And even that is unnecessary if you replace that with supplements and beans and nuts.

It's just that the topic of carnivorism vs. vegetarianism is not that closely linked to that of global warming. I don't think anyone is trying to bury your thoughts, or anyone else's for that matter, on that subject. It's simply a bit out of place here, unless you tie it together using the spirituality card: We and the planet are linked, united, and what we do to the planet, we do to ourselves. The Native Americans respected the earth, and felt pieces of it are not ownable because every living thing has a spirit, whether it be human, animal, tree or plant. (come to think of it, even rocks had a spirit, I think . . .) . . . They were carnivores, but used, say, their kill of a buffalo completely, wasting no part of the animal.

In the words of Tom Lehrer, "Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it depends on what you put into it."

I digress. Surprise, surprise.

But anyways, to get back on topic, I don't think that our pollution of the environment in so many ways is a natural step in the evolutionary process of the Earth's environment. It can be referred to as evolution, if you like, but "natural"? By most indicators it is not.

[Imperatrix]

Your 2¢ IS WELCOME here anytime, Tas. (Hey, when I was a kid there used to be a "¢" key on typewriters - where the heck did it go? And why?)

Well, although there are many reasons to restrict our meat intake, religious, ethical, health, spiritual and moral, all somewhat debatable, I'm not convinced that homo sapiens being carnivorous is one of the causes of global warming.

Nor do I think that the entire human race converting to vegetarianism to be one of the larger solutions to combatting or coping with global warming.

I'm not trying to get on your bad side or anything, and I hope you don't take this the wrong way.

Hindis survive just fine without beef. Jews survive just fine without pork. Christians survive just fine without horse or dog.

Americans have convinced themselves that a high meat diet is natural, when, in reality, it's a cause of a great deal of health problems. Frankly, you'll get all of the protein and other things you get from meat by having it only once a week. And even that is unnecessary if you replace that with supplements and beans and nuts.

It's just that the topic of carnivorism vs. vegetarianism is not that closely linked to that of global warming. I don't think anyone is trying to bury your thoughts, or anyone else's for that matter, on that subject. It's simply a bit out of place here, unless you tie it together using the spirituality card: We and the planet are linked, united, and what we do to the planet, we do to ourselves. The Native Americans respected the earth, and felt pieces of it are not ownable because every living thing has a spirit, whether it be human, animal, tree or plant. (come to think of it, even rocks had a spirit, I think . . .) . . . They were carnivores, but used, say, their kill of a buffalo completely, wasting no part of the animal.

In the words of Tom Lehrer, "Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it depends on what you put into it."

I digress. Surprise, surprise.

Deforestation to feed beef cattle. A heavy load of methane added to the air. This is what I mean as well.

But anyways, to get back on topic, I don't think that our pollution of the environment in so many ways is a natural step in the evolutionary process of the Earth's environment. It can be referred to as evolution, if you like, but "natural"? By most indicators it is not.

I'm sorry, Zach---you misunderstood me. Please, read this again:

We all agree that we have certainly contributed to global warming, and that we should do all we can to not add to the problem. Yes, absolutely. However, it seems many think that global warming was not on the schedule for the evolutionary process---but it is. We certainly don't have to speed it along. However, it IS going to happen, and there is nothing that any of us can do about it. Ergo, my caveat: if we attempt to employ a kind of overcompensation in our efforts to reduce our impact on global warming by taking it one step further and meddling with what nature intended (i.e. inflicting another kind of damage on the other end of the spectrum via efforts to prevent nature from going the way it must), we will suffer for it in ways we can't even imagine...and even worse than the impact we are making on the earth now.

Please let me know if what I wrote was not expressed clearly enough. I am saying yes, absolutely, let's reduce emissions and all the rest. However, I do not believe we should overcompensate and mess with what is due to happen to the earth via evolutionary change, independent of what we do to it.

[MrZuLu]

Sure am glad I don't eat Brazilian beef! I would definitely consider stopping beef consumption.

The beef I eat is locally raised, range fed Angus Beef. No corn, no chemical loaded fillers, no growth hormones. Just the grass they love on the foothills of the Cascades.

[podo]

Deforestation to feed beef cattle. A heavy load of methane added to the air. This is what I mean as well.



.

I dont think stopping eating meat is going to help. We are after all meat eaters, and as for vegetarians, thats only a personal choice. We are designed to eat meat.

However, you are close to the mark. Its not the meat eating thats the problem. Its the amount of meat we eat as a population. More people means more meat, which means more cows (a huge producer of methane gas) which means more grazing land and therefore deforestation.

Why we have huge cattle farms in Australia I have no idea, as the country is not suited for them. We would be much better off farming roo.

But the core issue here is over population. We are too many. We are not sustainable

[Imperatrix]

I dont think stopping eating meat is going to help. We are after all meat eaters, and as for vegetarians, thats only a personal choice. We are designed to eat meat.

However, you are close to the mark. Its not the meat eating thats the problem. Its the amount of meat we eat as a population. More people means more meat, which means more cows (a huge producer of methane gas) which means more grazing land and therefore deforestation.

Why we have huge cattle farms in Australia I have no idea, as the country is not suited for them. We would be much better off farming roo.

But the core issue here is over population. We are too many. We are not sustainable

But that "personal choice" can help. The more of us reduce or eliminate meat consumption, the less meat produced, the less rainforest destroyed, the less methane produced.

[MrZuLu]

soylent green perhaps?

[About The Round]

it's ok Frank. Only Scandanavia, Central and Northern Europe, the Northern parts of Asia and the UK will be affected if the thermal haline(Deep Ocean Conveyor) circulation slows or stops. Northeastern US might suffer a little. All the more reason to move to Washington, The Evergreen state, bro!

The US will be mostly safe. Tobacco growers are going to have a tough time of it, however. Tabacco(Nicotiana tabacum) does not do well with long term hard freeze. The entire Eastern Seaboard could easily be affected if the Conveyor does indeed stop, slow or shift somehow!

One singularity can affect others in a chain of events.

A colder North Atlantic will make mountain-glaciers in Northern Europe something that will change the weather (high pressure over glaciers) and so on...

ATR

[Imperatrix]

soylent green perhaps?

Nope. Seitan Tan! :D

[podo]

But that "personal choice" can help. The more of us reduce or eliminate meat consumption, the less meat produced, the less rainforest destroyed, the less methane produced.

Yes, to a point. reduce,, sure. Eliminate,, no. We, as a species, need meat. I know the vege's out there will cry foul and say they do very nicely without meat, and good on them. But, thats not how we are designed.

We need less people

You can only fit so many nuts in a jar. Try to squeese in too many, and they all get damaged

[Imperatrix]

Yes, to a point. reduce,, sure. Eliminate,, no. We, as a species, need meat. I know the vege's out there will cry foul and say they do very nicely without meat, and good on them. But, thats not how we are designed.

We need less people

You can only fit so many nuts in a jar. Try to squeese in too many, and they all get damaged


I agree we need less people, absolutely. But we can do just fine without meat, IMHO. But that's another thread... ;)

[pianozach]

EFFECTS OF OVERPOPULATION

1) More garbage (especially solid waste).
2) More air pollution from factories as they increase produc-
tion to meet demand.
3) Depletion of energy resources as the demand for energy
increases.
4) More pesticide use as agriculture increases to provide
necessary food.
5) Accelerated loss of nutrients in the soil due to poor farm-
ing practices and overuse of land.
6) Habitat destruction for wildlife through encroachment on
wilderness areas or pollution of these areas.

These are only a few of the negative consequences caused by overpopulation of the planet. Others are more subtle and are socially oriented – such as increased competition for resources between societies (or even cities within a country). Already there are debates between countries over water resources. In the United States alone, states are competing for the rights to water sources for their inhabitants. These types of problems will only increase over the years.

We can all remember the "Too Many Rats in a Cage" experiment. One too many rats causes psychological problems, "deviant" behavior, and even cannibalism.

The REAL consequences are even more acute in the "developing" parts of the world:

Famine, malnutrition
Scarce resources, such as wood for heating, cooking, and fuel
Water pollution

. . . . but worldwide, the health consequences just keep snowballing.

[podo]

I agree we need less people, absolutely. But we can do just fine without meat, IMHO. But that's another thread... ;)

We could debate about meat, but that is another thread, and right now my steak is burning to a crisp on the barby ! ;)

[podo]

EFFECTS OF OVERPOPULATION

1) More garbage (especially solid waste).
2) More air pollution from factories as they increase produc-
tion to meet demand.
3) Depletion of energy resources as the demand for energy
increases.
4) More pesticide use as agriculture increases to provide
necessary food.
5) Accelerated loss of nutrients in the soil due to poor farm-
ing practices and overuse of land.
6) Habitat destruction for wildlife through encroachment on
wilderness areas or pollution of these areas.

These are only a few of the negative consequences caused by overpopulation of the planet. Others are more subtle and are socially oriented – such as increased competition for resources between societies (or even cities within a country). Already there are debates between countries over water resources. In the United States alone, states are competing for the rights to water sources for their inhabitants. These types of problems will only increase over the years.

We can all remember the "Too Many Rats in a Cage" experiment. One too many rats causes psychological problems, "deviant" behavior, and even cannibalism.

The REAL consequences are even more acute in the "developing" parts of the world:

Famine, malnutrition
Scarce resources, such as wood for heating, cooking, and fuel
Water pollution

. . . . but worldwide, the health consequences just keep snowballing.

Bravo !

That is absolutly spot on.

[jfuruno]

What do you think will happen if global warming is allowed to continue ???

There wont be an economy, the world will be impoverished and famine will be rife

I don't dispute that the climate is dynamic. It has always been so. Things change. I do, however, dispute that man is responsible. I still have yet to see anything to prove it, and any changes we could make that will stop climate change. I am not even sure I would want to.

[MrZuLu]

I don't dispute that the climate is dynamic. It has always been so. Things change. I do, however, dispute that man is responsible. I still have yet to see anything to prove it, and any changes we could make that will stop climate change. I am not even sure I would want to.
jf, don't you find it the least bit odd that the average temps have raised significantly since the 1850's when the Industrial Revolution began in UK?

Find some sites that have pics of a few glaciers from the early 1900's and then find another site with pics of same glaciers.

Make absolutely sure neither site mentions global warming and compare the glacier sizes. Just the past 150 years.

Do the same with satellite photos of either polar cap. Especially the Canadian Northern Territories ice shelves and the Antartica ice shelves.

Of course you probably don't have time to actually research some REAL Science...

[jfuruno]

jr, don't you find it the least bit odd that the average temps have raised significantly since the 1850's when the Industrial Revolution began in UK?

Find some sites that have pics of a few glaciers from the early 1900's and then find another site with pics of same glaciers.

Make absolutely sure neither site mentions global warming and compare the glacier sizes. Just the past 150 years.

Do the same with satellite photos of either polar cap. Especially the Canadian Northern Territories ice shelves and the Antartica ice shelves.

Of course you probably don't have time to actually research some REAL Science...

Calling me jr., and putting into question my ability to perform research and critical reasoning are the hallmarks of little minds who cannot stomach any opinion but their own. I had a side bet as to how long it would take you to get down to personal mud-slinging when I failed to kow-tow to your delicate sensibilities. Thanks for the five bucks. I will try not to spend it all in one place.

[MrZuLu]

Calling me jr., and putting into question my ability to perform research and critical reasoning are the hallmarks of little minds who cannot stomach any opinion but their own. I had a side bet as to how long it would take you to get down to personal mud-slinging when I failed to kow-tow to your delicate sensibilities. Thanks for the five bucks. I will try not to spend it all in one place.
please forgive me on the use of "r" i have a cast on my left hand and unfortunately I am not proficient typing one-handed.
As you notice by the positioning on keyboard "f' is bordering the "r"
again forgive fror that... not intended to insult you, sory

As you don't appear to be looking at the big picture I stand by the research comment and if that is small mindedness then so be it...

I'll take that one in the chin...

[sissywoods]

And I have yet to hear of any conclusive evidence that we have anything more than a tiny impact on global warming.

Really wish you were right and I soooo wish I was wrong..

[podo]

I don't dispute that the climate is dynamic. It has always been so. Things change. I do, however, dispute that man is responsible. I still have yet to see anything to prove it, and any changes we could make that will stop climate change. I am not even sure I would want to.

That is the most mind boggling statement I have read for a very long time.

Go and sit behind your car when its running for just 5 minutes and see how you feel. Then count how many cars are on the road during your day. Then look at how many cars are on the road in te world at any given moment.

Have a look at the air in LA, or any other major city in the world.

What do you think that stuff is doing to the atmosphere ? Where do you think it goes. More importantly, where do you think it comes from ?

Man is not causing climat change ???? Your dreaming

[Imperatrix]

Man is not causing climat change ???? Your dreaming

Not wholly. Man [sic] AND geologic evolution are BOTH causing climatic changes. We're in the Holocene era---one of its hallmarks is not just the rise of Homo sapiens, but also includes global warming, rising sea levels, extension of deserts, and glacial melt.

It's not just us. Again, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do all we can to stop our contribution to global warming---we should---but again, it's not just us.

[podo]

Not wholly. Man [sic] AND geologic evolution are BOTH causing climatic changes. We're in the Holocene era---one of its hallmarks is not just the rise of Homo sapiens, but also includes global warming, rising sea levels, extension of deserts, and glacial melt.

It's not just us. Again, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do all we can to stop our contribution to global warming---we should---but again, it's not just us.

ok, point taken

The climate does change all the time. There is no disagreement with that. However, natural climate change takes thousands of years, to the point where species adapt naturally.

What we talk about with climate change is the stunning amount of changes occurring in a very short time frame

If we want to be perdantic, then lets call it "accelerated climate change"

[pianozach]

ok, point taken

The climate does change all the time. There is no disagreement with that. However, natural climate change takes thousands of years, to the point where species adapt naturally.

What we talk about with climate change is the stunning amount of changes occurring in a very short time frame

If we want to be perdantic, then lets call it "accelerated climate change"

Funny you should say that . . .

Part of the problem with the concept of "Global Warming" (aside from the debate on what or who is causing it, and whether it is real at all) is that many dispute it because they see signs of increased "winter," if you will.

While many parts of the world will get hotter, other parts get colder. Storms of increased frequency and intensity happen in some parts of the world while other areas experience drought.

The phrase "Accelerated Climate Change" probably is more apropos since it doesn't give the impression that everything is getting warmer.

[pianozach]

Not wholly. Man [sic] AND geologic evolution are BOTH causing climatic changes. We're in the Holocene era---one of its hallmarks is not just the rise of Homo sapiens, but also includes global warming, rising sea levels, extension of deserts, and glacial melt.

It's not just us. Again, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do all we can to stop our contribution to global warming---we should---but again, it's not just us.

And you may very well be spot on correct. "Global Warming" may be the result of various causes, man included. We know that the earth goes through climate changes - the phrase "Ice Age" certainly comes to mind.

But, today, we have to add the word "Accelerated" to the phrase "Global Warming." This is unusual. The change appears to be unnaturally fast in global terms.

The whole subject demands wholehearted unbiased study as to the extent, the causes, prevention and responses.

[jfuruno]

And you may very well be spot on correct. "Global Warming" may be the result of various causes, man included. We know that the earth goes through climate changes - the phrase "Ice Age" certainly comes to mind.

But, today, we have to add the word "Accelerated" to the phrase "Global Warming." This is unusual. The change appears to be unnaturally fast in global terms.

The whole subject demands wholehearted unbiased study as to the extent, the causes, prevention and responses.

This approach I would support. The thing I insist upon before acting is a fundamentally sound understanding of the mechanics and dynamics of what is happening, and we do not have that now. Any research environment where dissent is shouted down is unhealthy and untrustworthy. I do not believe those that use "consensus" and "denial" as terms for describing scientific methodoly are to be trusted. There is no idea so dangerous that it cannot be talked about.

While it is a military maxim that no plan survives the first moment of contact with the enemy, failure to understand the nature of the forces in play is always followed by disaster.

[Imperatrix]

ok, point taken

The climate does change all the time. There is no disagreement with that. However, natural climate change takes thousands of years, to the point where species adapt naturally.

Yes, I know this. I was merely pointing to the fact that it is fallacy to think we are the sole cause of global warming, as it is not true.

What we talk about with climate change is the stunning amount of changes occurring in a very short time frame

As you said, that should be called "accelerated climate change"...however, such a term is not a pedantic appellation, but clarification of the facts.

[Imperatrix]

And you may very well be spot on correct. "Global Warming" may be the result of various causes, man included. We know that the earth goes through climate changes - the phrase "Ice Age" certainly comes to mind.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-12/su-amr121101.php

But, today, we have to add the word "Accelerated" to the phrase "Global Warming." This is unusual. The change appears to be unnaturally fast in global terms.

:pat: Yes, I know. I KNOW. I'm frankly stymied that you or anyone here think I don't know this, when I'm clearly stating that I support BOTH sides of the issue---that geologic change is responsible for global warming as well as human interference.

[MrZuLu]

Did I or someone else say, I mean type the words...

MAN IS THE ONLY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING?

If I did, I will block the disasters and politics threads from my view because that proves, unequivocally, that I am an idiot!