http://www.petitionproject.org/
Scientists against Man-made global warming. So much for consensus, Al.
Printable View
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Scientists against Man-made global warming. So much for consensus, Al.
when I started this thread, a long time ago, honestly, who could ever have imagined how many would sign on the stupid line....
Wow.
And the beat goes on. I wont bore with the recent numbers, like the warmest 1st 1st qtr globally on record, or the tornadoes......
Hang in there doubters. Im sure youll be vindicated soon....
So numbers and stuff, huh. Snow in multiple states in May, two slower than average hurricane seasons, the earth not warming for the past several years. I am doubting that man made global warming that Big Al is touting is all its cracked up to be. The numbers are there that show this as a economy scam on a global level.
Tornadoes are a fact of life in the midwest as are hurricanes in the gulf states and snow in the mountains.
there won't be any vindication as long as warmists are using tornadoes as proof. :icon_roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
in fact, i don't expect any vindication in my lifetime. warmists have hedged their bets sufficiently to carry on their cause for many years to come no matter what happens. if the current warming trend continues, it's runaway greenhouse effect. if it gives way to a cooling trend, we've changed weather patterns enough to force the earth into a new ice age. you guys can't lose. this will go down as the chicken little generation.
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007Report Released on December 20, 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...eReport#report
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a "consensus" of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. "I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority."
The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.
Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.
Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts
"Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."
BALI, Indonesia - The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."
The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, sent an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN's so-called "solutions."
"Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems," the letter signed by the scientists read. The December 13 letter was released to the public late Thursday. (LINK)
The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists"; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
"It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables," the scientists wrote.
"In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ‘settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," the open letter added.
The scientists' letter continued: "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions."
"The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts," the letter added.
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
Dec. 13, 2007
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg...2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.
The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.
The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.
Yours faithfully,
Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia
William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg
Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany
Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal
Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.
Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta
R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma
Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia
Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario
David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,' Australia
William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden
Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA
Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis
Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia
Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand
Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007
William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands
Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand
William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia
Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany
John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand
Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.
Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph
John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia
Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand
Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University
Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia
Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia
David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University
Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University
Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics,
Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences
Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force
R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.
Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA
S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service
L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden
Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia
Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia
Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia
Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia
A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
hmmm....My response to Altadawg:Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
http://www.globalwarminghype.com/blo...y080325-143126
Dear AltaDawg,
Global warming is a controversial subject and highly complex. In fact, it is so complex that most adults do not understand it either. Even scientists, professors, and teachers have different opinions regarding global warming. Many people believe that global warming is a crisis that will someday destroy mankind. Some people do not even believe that global warming exists. After all, this year was one of the coldest winters in decades. And the hottest year on record was back in 1998, ten years ago. But I believe that the truth lies somewhere between these two extreme opinions.
You may have heard that there is a “consensus” among the scientific community that global warming is caused by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide(CO2) being released into our atmosphere by burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gasoline. CO2 is referred to as a “greenhouse gas.” Greenhouse gasses are an important part of our atmosphere. They form a protective “lid” on our planet that keeps the warmth from escaping into space. Without greenhouse gasses, the Earth would be too cold to support life as we know it. Though it is true that burning fossil fuels has caused a significant increase in carbon dioxide levels during the last 150 years, there is little or no evidence that this increase in CO2 has caused the Earth’s temperature to rise. Humans have been burning fossil fuels in significant amounts for about 150 years. CO2 levels in our atmosphere have been rising steadily during that same period. However, from the 1940’s through the 1970’s, the average temperature did not rise. It dropped. In fact, there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature, but it is different than what is described in the movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” By drilling deep into the polar ice caps, scientists can unlock samples of the Earth’s atmosphere that were trapped thousands of years ago. After examining these ancient samples of our air and comparing the data to global temperatures gathered from tree rings, coral reefs, and other fossil records, scientists have discovered that CO2 has historically not driven temperatures up. Quite the opposite is true. Rising temperatures occurred at many times over the last 650,000 years and each time CO2 levels rose 600-800 years AFTER the temperature increased. So it appears that the temperature goes up first, and the CO2 levels follow, not the other way around. Until recently, the reason for this was not understood. Some scientists now believe they may have found the answer. We know that the oceans on our planet absorb carbon dioxide from our atmosphere when the water is colder, and then release it back into the air when the water warms up. The Earth’s oceans are so large that it takes several hundred years for them to warm a few degrees. When they finally warm, they release CO2 back into the atmosphere. This is why some scientists believe that CO2 levels rise several hundred years after the temperature increases. One thing is certain, higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere have never caused the Earth’s temperature to rise in the past. However, that does not mean that CO2 levels will not affect temperatures in the future. More study is needed.
Besides carbon dioxide, there are other “greenhouse gasses.” Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Fortunately, there is much less of it in our atmosphere. But humans are also producing methane in large amounts, mostly by raising livestock such as cattle for food. But the most important greenhouse gas of all is water vapor. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas. It is responsible for the overwhelming majority of the “greenhouse effect” on Planet Earth. Humans have no affect on water vapor.
The Earth’s temperature is constantly rising and falling. There are many times during Earth’s history when the global temperature was warmer than it is today. There are many factors that occur in nature which cause the temperature to rise (and fall). The least of these is humans. Changes in the sun (solar cycles) affect the temperature on all the planets in our solar system, including Earth. Temperatures on Mars and the other planets have also been rising over the last several decades. Obviously, humans are not causing the temperatures on other planets to rise.
Cosmic rays from other solar systems in our galaxy affect the formation of clouds on planet Earth. These changes in cloud cover also affect the global temperature on the Earth. There are many other natural causes of climate change. The truth is that no one completely understands all the forces of nature that affect our climate. We are learning more about climate change every day, but we still have a lot to learn.
The Planet Is Fine
In your letter you asked “When will the world be completely covered in water?” The answer is NEVER. It’s true that the oceans are rising just as they have done many times in the past between ice ages. They rise 3 to 4 inches every century. This is a natural occurring cycle that been going on for millions of years. You may have seen pictures on TV or in movies of glaciers breaking apart and falling into the sea. This is also a natural process called glacier calving. This does not necessarily mean that the glacier is melting. Calving is what happens when a glacier grows so big that it can no longer support its own weight. It gets so heavy that portions of it break off and fall into the sea.
It is important to understand that even if all the ice in the Arctic Ocean melted tomorrow, the world’s oceans would not even rise one single inch. The reason for this is simple. When water freezes and becomes ice, it expands and takes up more room (volume). If you put a bottle of water your freezer, the bottle will break when the water freezes. When ice that is already in the ocean melts, the part that was above the surface only displaces the part that was frozen under the water so the water level doesn’t change. To demonstrate this, put an ice cube in a glass of water and fill it to the brim with water. When the ice cube melts, does the water in the glass overflow? The answer is no. Only the melting of land-based ice can cause the sea levels to rise.
Some scientists point to the Greenland Ice Sheet as evidence of global warming. The Greenland Ice sheet is different from the ice in the Arctic Ocean because it sits on top of land. Some scientists say that if the Greenland Ice Sheet melts, it will raise the Earth’s sea level by 20 feet. This is unlikely to happen any time soon, but there is evidence that Greenland was not always completely covered with ice. When the Vikings settled in Greenland, about a thousand years ago, the climate was much warmer than it is today. Though Greenland was not entirely green at the time, the southern part was very green in the late summer months and the average temperature was not as cold as it is today. A Viking named Erik The Red settled there and named it Greenland because he thought more people would interested in visiting there if it had an appealing name.
It is also important to understand that the ice at the South Pole is land-based ice. The ice that covers Antarctica is many times larger than the ice covering Greenland. But you might be surprised to learn that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is actually growing, not shrinking.
When I was in high school back in the 1970’s my science teacher brought in an article from Newsweek Magazine called “The Cooling World.” I have included a copy of it for you to read. Since the Earth had been going through a period of cooling for 30 years, some scientists believed that we were heading for another Ice Age. They feared that much of the land used to grow crops would be frozen and that many people would starve. Of course this turned out not to be true, but Newsweek sold a lot of magazines that week.
Remember the story of Chicken Little? As long as humans have been around, there have been people predicting the end of the world. Not one of them has ever been right. Obviously, we’re all still here so don’t worry, the planet is fine. I am including a great book for your project called “The Sky’s Not Falling” by Holly Fretwell. Please read it and share it with your parents, friends and teachers. It is the best global warming book available for children your age.
The Polar Bears Are NOT Dying
You may have been told that polar bears are in danger because of global warming. This is simply not true. Back in the 1960’s (when I was in the 6th grade) polar bears were in serious trouble. It was estimated that there were less than 5,000 polar bears left. Now there are over 25,000. That’s an increase of 500%!
You may have been told that polar bears are in danger because of global warming. This is simply not true. Back in the 1950’s polar bears were in serious trouble. It was estimated that there were less than 5,000 polar bears left. Now there are 25,000. That’s an increase of 500%!
The reason the polar bears are fine now is because humans stopped hunting them. It’s as simple as that. No matter how many pictures you see, no matter how many stories you hear, global warming is NOT killing the polar bears. When you see movies of polar bears swimming in the open ocean they are not drowning. They are excellent swimmers and have been documented to swim for 60 miles in open water.
Is Global Warming Our Fault?
In your letter you asked “How can we stop global warming?” That’s a great question. I’m not sure we can. We humans aren’t even sure that we’re causing it. Perhaps a better question would be “Should we even try to stop it?” Throughout man’s history, more people have been killed by cold climates than by warm climates. The climate is going to change no matter what we do. Sometimes it’s going to be warming, and sometimes it’s going to be cooling. I believe we should try to be as prepared for climate changes as best we can, whether the climate gets warmer, or colder. One undeniable (and inconvenient for some) truth is that even if we got rid of all the cars on the planet, we wouldn’t make a significant difference in the global temperature of Planet Earth.
You asked if air pollution is part of the problem. Air pollution is NOT part of the global warming problem. Pollution is a separate issue. They are two different things. No one wants to breathe dirty air. But carbon dioxide is not pollution; at least it wasn’t until a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. Pollution from burning fossil fuels including carbon monoxide(CO), ozone, sulfur dioxide(SO2), nitrogen dioxide(NO2) and others are what make that icky yellow haze that we call smog. These gasses and particles are harmful to humans when we breathe them. But carbon dioxide(CO2) is an important natural part of our atmosphere. Just as we humans need oxygen(O2) to breath, plants need carbon dioxide. All green plants take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. No carbon dioxide, no plants. And since plants give us the oxygen that we humans need to breath, no plants no humans.
Solar, Wind, and other Renewal Energies
Solar Cars – “Why are they making them so expensive?” They answer to this one is simple. Where does the price of a solar car come from? Who decides how much the car will cost? The price of a solar car is determined by how much somebody is willing to pay for it (the buyer). Right now, solar cars and other alternative energy-powered cars are more expensive because less people want them. This is called “supply and demand.” If more people wanted to buy them, then more people would want to build them. As more companies begin to build them they will have to compete with other companies to get your business. This would eventually drive the cost of these new cars down until everyone can afford them. And it appears that this will happen soon. The price of oil is now at record levels, over $110.00 per barrel. When the price of oil and gasoline becomes too expensive, people will be forced to use different kinds of energy to power their cars and heat their homes. As more and more people become interested in solar and wind power, these technologies will continue to improve and become more efficient. We’re getting close, but we’re not quite there yet.
Conclusion
Once again, I would like to thank you for taking the time to write to me. I have never been asked to write to a 6th grader before. I hope this material finds you in time to complete your project and I hope you find it useful. I don’t have any posters to send you but I am including a sticker and the book “The Sky’s Not Falling” which I strongly recommend that you read. Please keep asking questions. Without questions there can be no answers.
Wow. You need to give yourself and saltynotadawg a break. You're signatures on that stupid line are pretty accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
How would you plot the trend since 2000? Flat? Since 2005? Down?Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opini...204-17218.html
tornadoes are on "THE LIST",so obviously GW is responsibleQuote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/showt...466#post605466
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
You'll hear that arctic ice cover is going down:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...rrent.area.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...rrent.anom.jpg
but you don't hear that Antartica is consistent and growing in the last couple of years:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...area.south.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...anom.south.jpg
Minority report. Sen. Inhofe just playing with himself again.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
Oops. Global warming <> tornadoes:Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...809824,00.html
Scientists: Why So Many Tornadoes?
Tuesday, May. 27, 2008 By AP/SETH BORENSTEIN
But like someone who has lost all his worldly possessions to a whirlwind, meteorologists cannot explain exactly why this is happening.
"There are active years and we don't particularly understand why," said research meteorologist Harold Brooks at the National Severe Storms Lab in Norman, Okla.
Global warming cannot really explain what is happening, Carbin said. While higher temperatures could increase the number of thunderstorms, which are needed to trigger tornadoes, they also would tend to push the storm systems too far north to form some twisters, he said.
La Nina, the cooling of parts of the Central Pacific that is the flip side El Nino, was a factor in the increased activity earlier this year — especially in February, a record month for tornado activity — but it can't explain what is happening now, according to Carbin.
Carbin explained the most recent tornadoes with just one word: "May." May is typically the busiest tornado month of the year.
Dammital, we need to have Congress impose a tax on May or at least put a tornado cap and trade system in place. Al Gore should also kick off another $300MM ad campaign.
This could be the icing on the cake.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0528140255.htm
Food price inflation is just the beginning. But don't worry, be happy.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/n...-1n28food.html
The biggest "stretch" in this hypothesis is the rather far out assumption that the earth was TOTALLY covered with ice during a cold interval. There is no geologic evidense to support such an assumption, but this outrageous assumption was probably required to support the rest of the "theory".Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Supposedly, the oceans were frozen solid one mile thick on the surface. Of course, at that time there was only one continent. Not sure if the Earth was 100% covered in ice but even 95% would be a lot. It's was a case of runaway global cooling and supposedly happened several times during Earth's history. As you are aware, runaway global warming is not possible here on Earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
"Snowball" Earth is generally accepted by scientists who study that sort of thing. As the ice sheets expand, more solar radiation is reflected back into space cooling the planet even more. Since the main continent is along the equator, ocean currents that regulated the climate were not effective in transferring heat from the equator up to the polars.
Why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
The greenhouse effect is halted when water vapor is in equilibrium with ice or liquid water.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
this is great news! so what are you and altadawg so worried about?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I have the feeling you really need to get your blood pressure checked... How long you been storing your quack facts, BTW?Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
I feel sorry for you. I dont say that to many people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
The "key" word is *runaway*. CO2 forcing is gradual which means the greenhouse effect is operative.
how many times on this very thread have we been warned about runaway greenhouse effect? anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Blood pressure ia excellent, probably better than your bcause I'm not worried that the sky is falling.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
"storing quack facts"?....look at the dates the articles are posted. Are you really that dense? My guess is that you never read anything that goes against your beliefs (and if you do, you immediately dismiss it as being "quack"m even though you have no scientific basis to do so).Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
I neither need nor desire pity from you, you uneducated nimrod chicken little. The one who deserves pity here is you, because you have no idea what you're talking about in reference to this subject. Your contributions to this thread have been (A) you started it with a post about Bill "the science guy"/global warming (on Larry King no less) and (B) an occasional post along the lines of "you guys are wrong", "just wait and see". At least saltycat attempts to back up what he is sayiong with some type of data.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
I'd much rather have my "head in the sand" and have a pretty good idea about what I'm talking about vs. my liberal head up my liberal arse, like you.
basically, Germony, one of the original signers of Kyoto, is having problems placing taxes on auto exhaust emissions...
German minister says car tax plan looks doomed
Wed May 28, 2008 3:18pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssC...35955520080528
BERLIN, May 28 (Reuters) - Members of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition remain "miles apart" on a plan to link car taxes to emissions and are unlikely to introduce the change in 2009 as planned, Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee said.
Merkel came under criticism for backtracking on her environmental aims when the government announced last week that approval of the plan to change car tax rules to take exhaust emissions into account would be delayed.
She insisted over the weekend that the "Kfz" tax change, part of a climate protection package agreed by the coalition last year, was not dead despite differences in her government.
But Tiefensee, in an interview with Die Welt newspaper, suggested the plan was doomed and blamed Economy Minister Michael Glos for a "surprising reversal" on the issue.
"The chances of getting the Kfz tax in place from Jan. 1, 2009 are next to nil," Tiefensee told the newspaper in an article to be published in its Thursday edition. "We are miles apart in the coalition on this project."
Tiefensee, a member of the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD), said Glos and his party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), appeared reluctant to back the plan ahead of elections in their home state of Bavaria later this year.
May 29, 2008, 6:30 a.m.
Sacrifices to the Climate Gods
Beware Lieberman-Warner.
By Roy Spencer
http://article.nationalreview.com/pr...WVmNTc0MDMyYTU=
It is well-established that the ancient Mayan, Aztec, Incan, and Toltec peoples offered human sacrifices, probably in the belief that such rituals would placate the gods who were in charge of nature; for instance, to help bring life-giving rains to their crops.
Although we shudder at the thought of such barbaric practices, I believe that we have unwittingly reinstituted human sacrifice in modern times. But while the list of justifications has grown immensely, our new rituals are still performed in the name of avoiding the wrath of the gods of nature.
Our environmental protection practices have already caused the deaths of millions of people, mainly in poor African countries. By far the most humans — mostly women and children — have been sacrificed in the mistaken belief that the use of any amount of the pesticide DDT would harm the environment. As a result, the preventable disease malaria has continued to decimate Africa.
Only recently has this genocide disguised as environmentalism been partly reversed through the reinstituted practice of twice-yearly DDT treatments of the entryways to homes. While most environmentalists continue to insist that there is no connection between international bans on DDT and human deaths, such protestations really are like denying that the Holocaust ever happened.
Now, the Senate is preparing to debate the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which aims to limit carbon-dioxide emissions in the belief that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is disrupting the Earth’s climate and ecosystems.
Since we now have the scientific method, we rely on computer models to predict these future catastrophes rather than on our fears and prejudices. While this gives the illusion of modern objective precision, the truth is that all we have done is enlisted one of our modern idols — the computer — to justify what we want to believe anyway. And that fundamental belief is that anything mankind does to nature is inherently evil.
To be sure, the scientific method can help us understand the physical world… something the ancients could not do. But global-warming theory, unfortunately, is out of the realm of being a legitimate, testable scientific hypothesis.
For instance, to be a valid scientific hypothesis, there should be some kind of climate behavior observable in nature that would be inconsistent with the theory that mankind is responsible for global warming. But instead, everything we observe has now become consistent with the theory. Floods and droughts. Too much snow and too little snow. More hurricanes and fewer hurricanes. It is sometimes pointed out that a theory that explains everything really explains nothing.
Similarly, there is no experiment we can carry out in the laboratory to test the theory. Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and yes we are adding more of it to the atmosphere. But since weather processes create and control over 90 percent of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect through their continuous adjustments to water vapor and cloud amounts, it is not at all obvious that more CO2 will cause substantial warming. Indeed, it could well be that one of the functions of weather is to maintain a relatively constant greenhouse effect, no matter how much carbon dioxide is present.
Alarmists like Al Gore will use pseudo-scientific justifications and comparisons in their attempt to make a connection between carbon dioxide and global warming. Even though CO2 is necessary for life on Earth, the alarmists insist on calling it a pollutant, referring to our atmosphere as an “open sewer.”
For instance, Gore likes to point out that Venus has far more CO2 in its atmosphere than the Earth does, and its surface is hot enough to melt lead. Therefore, more CO2 causes warming. But we also know that the Martian atmosphere has 15 times as much CO2 as our own atmosphere, and its surface temperature averages about 70 deg. F below zero. So you see, in science a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Why do we love to believe that mankind is a plague upon the Earth? We view anything and everything that happens in nature, no matter how barbaric, bloody, or destructive, as good. Indeed, the word “natural” has no negative connotation at all.
If a volcano like Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines dumps millions of tons of sulfur into the stratosphere, cooling the Earth for two or three years, this is simply Mother Nature at work. If humans did it, we would call it an environmental catastrophe.
And now we are teaching our children to perform their own acts of worship, again hoping to placate the gods of the natural world. Substituting compact fluorescent light bulbs for incandescent ones, and turning the light off when they leave the room, makes them feel good about themselves and their relationship to nature. These rituals being taught in the public schools will help define their still-developing worldviews and religious beliefs.
Lieberman-Warner will, in effect, punish the use of energy by making it more expensive. Yet, energy is necessary for all human activities. We are already causing a food crisis around the world by converting food, such as corn, into liquid fuels for transportation. Now, with the Climate Security Act, we will also be causing additional turmoil at home as the poor struggle to survive in a world where only the middle class and wealthy can afford to live relatively comfortably.
We will, in effect, be sacrificing even more humans at the altar of radical environmentalism in the vain hope that the gods in charge of weather and climate will look favorably upon us, and not destroy us.
— Dr. Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He is author of the new book, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor.
Dogter, that's good. I couldn't has said it better myself!:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
Carbon Chastity
The First Commandment of the Church of the Environment
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 30, 2008; Page A13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052903266.html
I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2into the atmosphere but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.
Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems -- from ocean currents to cloud formation -- that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.
Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. "The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."
If you doubt the arrogance, you haven't seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over. Consider: If Newton's laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming -- infinitely more untested, complex and speculative -- is a closed issue.
But declaring it closed has its rewards. It not only dismisses skeptics as the running dogs of reaction, i.e., of Exxon, Cheney and now Klaus. By fiat, it also hugely re-empowers the intellectual left.
For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class -- social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies -- arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).
Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher's England to Deng's China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.
Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but -- even better -- in the name of Earth itself.
Environmentalists are Gaia's priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.) And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment -- carbon chastity -- they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.
Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.
There's no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.
So what does the global warming agnostic propose as an alternative? First, more research -- untainted and reliable -- to determine (a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate, and (b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate.
Second, reduce our carbon footprint in the interim by doing the doable, rather than the economically ruinous and socially destructive. The most obvious step is a major move to nuclear power, which to the atmosphere is the cleanest of the clean.
But your would-be masters have foreseen this contingency. The Church of the Environment promulgates secondary dogmas as well. One of these is a strict nuclear taboo.
Rather convenient, is it not? Take this major coal-substituting fix off the table, and we will be rationing all the more. Guess who does the rationing.
Seven EU states seek overhaul of CO2 rules
Tue May 27, 2008 9:15am EDT
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Seven eastern European Union countries led by Hungary are calling for an overhaul of the bloc's efforts to curb carbon dioxide so as to take account of their historical reductions before they joined the EU.
The 27-member bloc has set ambitious targets to cut CO2 emissions by one fifth by 2020 compared to 1990 levels.
That overall target has been split between countries according to their emissions and economic strength in the baseline year of 2005, the first year the EU had verified data for all its members.
However, CO2 emissions dropped significantly in eastern Europe between 1990 and 2005 due to economic weakness after the collapse of communism -- and it is this reduction in CO2 that the seven want taken into account.
"By 2005 a significant part of the 20 percent target -- namely 7.9 percent -- has already been realized," said a proposal drafted by Hungary ahead of next week's meeting of environment ministers in Luxembourg.
"In the opinion of Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia these early reduction efforts should be duly recognized and rewarded in the effort sharing and/or ETS proposal," added the proposal, obtained by Reuters.
A government source for one of the seven countries emphasized that negotiations were still under way with other member states, with the aim of reaching an agreement well before the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009.
(Reporting by Pete Harrison; Editing by Dale Hudson)
Billions wasted on UN climate programme
Energy firms routinely abusing carbon offset fund, US studies claim
<LI class=byline>John Vidal, environment editor <LI class=publication>The Guardian, <LI class=date>Monday May 26 2008
Billions of pounds are being wasted in paying industries in developing countries to reduce climate change emissions, according to two analyses of the UN's carbon offsetting programme.
Leading academics and watchdog groups allege that the UN's main offset fund is being routinely abused by chemical, wind, gas and hydro companies who are claiming emission reduction credits for projects that should not qualify. The result is that no genuine pollution cuts are being made, undermining assurances by the UK government and others that carbon markets are dramatically reducing greenhouse gases, the researchers say.
The criticism centres on the UN's clean development mechanism (CDM), an international system established by the Kyoto process that allows rich countries to meet emissions targets by funding clean energy projects in developing nations.
Credits from the project are being bought by European companies and governments who are unable to meet their carbon reduction targets.
The market for CDM credits is growing fast. At present it is worth nearly $20bn a year, but this is expected to grow to over $100bn within four years. More than 1,000 projects have so far been approved, and 2,000 more are making their way through the process.
A working paper from two senior Stanford University academics examined more than 3,000 projects applying for or already granted up to $10bn of credits from the UN's CDM funds over the next four years, and concluded that the majority should not be considered for assistance. "They would be built anyway," says David Victor, law professor at the Californian university. "It looks like between one and two thirds of all the total CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts."
Governments consider that CDM is vital to reducing global emissions under the terms of the Kyoto treaty. To earn credits under the mechanism, emission reductions must be in addition to those that would have taken place without the project. But critics argue this "additionality" is impossible to prove and open to abuse. The Stanford paper, by Victor and his colleague Michael Wara, found that nearly every new hydro, wind and natural gas-fired plant expected to be built in China in the next four years is applying for CDM credits, even though it is Chinese policy to encourage these industries.
"Traders are finding ways of gaining credits that they would never have had before. You will never know accurately, but rich countries are clearly overpaying by a massive amount," said Victor.
A separate study published this week by US watchdog group International Rivers argues that nearly three quarters of all registered CDM projects were complete at the time of approval, suggesting that CDM money was not needed to finance them.
"It would seem clear that a project that is already built cannot need extra income in order to be built," said Patrick McCully, director of the thinktank in California. "Judging additionality has turned out to be unknowable and unworkable. It can never be proved definitively that if a developer or factory owner did not get offset income they would not build their project."
Yesterday a spokesman for the CDM in Bonn said the fund was significantly cutting emissions and providing incentives for companies to employ clean technologies: "There is a responsible level of scrutiny. The process is in continual reform. All the projects are vetted independently and are then certified by third parties. There are many checks and balances and we can show how all projects are vetted."
The UK government last night defended the CDM. "We completely reject any assertions that [it] is fundamentally flawed," a spokeswoman said. "We've worked consistently for and seen improvement in CDM processes over the past few years of its operation. We believe the CDM is essentially transparent and robust, though we will continue to press for the environmental integrity of projects."
G8 summit emission cut target likely "aspirational"
Sun May 25, 2008 7:07pm IST
By Linda Sieg and Chisa Fujioka
KOBE, Japan (Reuters) - The Group of Eight rich nations will likely agree to an "aspirational" target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 but shun mid-term goals at a July summit, the top U.N. climate official said on Sunday.
Ministers and representatives from the G8 and major emerging countries gathered this weekend in Japan to try to build momentum for U.N.-led climate change talks, but remained at odds over who should do what when, and how much.
"Given the stage that we are in the negotiations, it's going to be quite difficult to get an outcome of the G8 summit that is really strong," Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, told reporters after talks among environment ministers from the G8 and major emerging countries.
"For example, it's clear now that the consensus is for an aspirational goal for 2050 rather than a firm goal," he said. "I do not believe that it will be possible at the G8 summit to agree a range of reductions for 2020 for industrialised countries."
About 190 nations have agreed to negotiate by the end of 2009 a successor treaty to the Kyoto pact, which binds 37 advanced nations to cut emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.
But with wide gaps within the G8 and between rich and poorer nations over how to share the burden for fighting the climate change that is causing droughts, rising sea levels and more severe storms, some saw slim chance of a breakthrough in July.
"I think it is difficult. We have not enough time," Mexican Environment Minister Juan Rafael Elvira Quesada told reporters.
"But climate change is not waiting for any of us."
Jos Delbeke, EU deputy director-general for environment, said ministers were likely to call for an "aspirational" target of halving global emissions by 2050 in a chairman's summary to be issued on Monday. "It is quite likely that on long-term targets we will see a clear message," he told reporters.
MID-TERM AMBITIONS
But big emerging countries like China urged the G8 to take the lead by setting ambitious mid-term targets before asking developing countries to make commitments of their own.
"I think the most important issue for us that we think will unlock the process to reach an agreement by the end of 2009 is the issue of mid-term targets by 2020 of between 25-40 percent below 1990 for all developed countries," South African Environment Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk told Reuters.
"Countries that haven't committed themselves ... the United States especially, should now commit themselves," he said.
G8 leaders agreed last year to consider seriously a goal to halve global emissions by 2050, a proposal favoured by Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Japan and Canada.
Developing countries are putting priority on growth and balking at targets, and complaining that the United States, which with China is a top emitter, is not doing enough.
The European Union has said the bloc aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels, but the United States says only that it will halt the growth of its emissions by 2025 and expectations are low for bold U.S. moves until a new president takes office next January.
Advanced countries also disagree on the base-year for mid-century reduction targets, leading some to suggest the quest for long-term targets be shelved for now.
"Our view is that since we cannot reach an agreement on the long-term, we can put it aside and focus on the mid-term goal, which is to identify what should be done by 2020, so we can take actions in time," Xie Zhenhua, China's vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, told reporters.
Participants stressed the need for funds and technology transfers to help developing countries adapt to climate change and limit their emissions, but some said much of the money would come from the private sector rather than from governments.
The U.N's de Boer said "hundreds of billions of dollars a year" would be needed over the longer term.
(Additional reporting by Risa Maeda and Kentaro Hamada)
ZERO.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Dogtor, all of those recent posts of yours are "chicken-little" like in nature, n'est-pas? Better to spend money on saving the planet than on frozen pizza, corn-dogs, or 5,000 sq. ft McMansions.
Chicken little?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Guaranteed - the costs for 80% reductions in CO2 emissions (as prescribed by Kyoto, Kobe, Lieberman, etc.) are REAL and will be in the trillions
Speculation - that the Global warming trend from 1950-2001 (or is it Climate Change this month?) due to burning of fossil fuels . The temperature trend has been flat since then. 2007 was pretty cool actually.
BTW, it's "n'est-ce pas"Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...9;est-ce%20pas
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/n'est-ce_pas
http://www.yourdictionary.com/n-est-ce-pas
WTF? corn dogs? Youy must be an LSU fan.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
If US money is to be spent on "saving the planet" for CO2 emissions, it is better spent on (A) reducing our dependance on oil and (B) remediation/removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Surely you've seen the models and how the various reductions in CO2 emiisions have very lttle near term effect on reducing atmospheric CO2.
Errrr, what about the 400 scientists? Oh wait, their quacks, lunatics, being paid by oil companies, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
You mean nobody buys corn-dogs in Ruston?????????????????????Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
Glad you agree that we need to reduce our use of oil and remove CO2 from the atmosphere. :)
Thanks for the correction on my Francais. Or whatever it's called theses days.
Nothing speculative about the cause of the current global warming....it's from the burning of fossil fuels. Stay tuned, new developments are on their way.
Wrong. don't agree with this at all/ However, if we must do something because of the current political situation associated with 0gasp0 climate change. The most expeditious way to do it is to remove the C)2 directly rather than waiting around for more nuclear power plants to be built and a replacement for the ICE.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
It's speculation, manily driven by the dogma/drama of the "greens".Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
And I'm very tuned to it...just seeing nothing new. from the alarmists.
Why are you freaking out about being outed as a non-Louisiana Tech person?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Johnny = Tech
Tyler = Tech
Guisslapp = Tech
Mildawg = Tech
Altadawg = Tech
randerizer = Tech
Dawgfan 71227 = Tech
daybreaker2 = Tech
dawg80 = Tech
abomina gorilla = Tech
duckbillplatty = Tech
me = Tech
etc., etc, etc.
You = no association whatsoever with Tech other than to come onto a Louisiana Tech sports message board to promote your agenda and belittle real Tech fans
Notice the difference?
ROFLMAO, you're a troll .. I think that you and Spinoza are two low-life, no life douchebags whose only joys in life are trying to convince the world of your self-perceived intellgence and that you get off on going onto a message board and spilling your schtick in an attempt to stir up conversation you can't find otherwise in your pitiful lives. On most other sports message boards, you would have been banned s a long time ago. The only reason you're still around here and not on some other board is because your pathetic self hasn;t been run out of here.
Seriously, you need to get a life....somewhere else. There are plenty of educated, articulate, intelligent, respectful non-NeoCon Tech supporters on this board that can represent your opinion, albeit they'll be engaging in discussions elsewhere on the board.
Thanks for your opinion. But you do sound a bit Marxist to me.
You = no association whatsoever with Tech other than to come onto a Louisiana Tech sports message board to promote your agenda and belittle real Tech fansQuote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
ROFLMAO, you're a troll .. I think that you and Spinoza are two low-life, no life douchebags whose only joys in life are trying to convince the world of your self-perceived intelligence and that you get off on going onto a message board and spilling your schtick in an attempt to stir up conversation you can't find otherwise in your pitiful lives. On most other sports message boards, you would have been banned s a long time ago. The only reason you're still around here and not on some other board is because your pathetic self hasn’t been run out of here.
Seriously, you need to get a life....somewhere else. There are plenty of educated, articulate, intelligent, respectful non-NeoCon Tech supporters on this board that can represent your opinion, albeit they'll be engaging in discussions elsewhere on the board
an interesting interview with a global warming agnostic:
Analyzing Global-warming Science
By: William F. Jasper
February 18, 2008
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7009#SlideFrame_1
some excerpts. Hit the link for the full interview and the associated graphs
Interview of Dr. Arthur Robinson by William F. Jasper
Dr. Arthur Robinson is a professor of chemistry and is cofounder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which was created in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects applicable to increasing the quality, quantity, and length of human life. As part of his work, he edits the newsletter Access to Energy.
Dr. Robinson, in collaboration with other scientists, was one of the early critics of doomsday global-warming theories. He has authored articles and created video presentations demonstrating that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming is wrong, showing that the hypothesis is not supported by the observable evidence. To come to this conclusion, Professor Robinson and his colleagues brought together the findings of hundreds of peer-reviewed studies about all aspects of the global-warming hypothesis.
THE NEW AMERICAN: Flip on any channel, open any newspaper or magazine, and it’s clear we are being bombarded with the message that the Earth is warming. Is there any merit to this claim?
Dr. Arthur Robinson: Yes, but the temperature is only going up 0.5° C per century. Moreover, this increase is not being caused by human activity.
TNA: Those who blame mankind for causing global warming would respond to that point by saying that the Earth is the warmest it’s been in 400 years, and that’s significant.
Dr. Robinson: They’re right, but they only show you the data from the last 400 years. If the data for a longer time interval is considered, temperatures today are seen to be not especially warm. The current temperature is about average for the past 3,000 years. It was much warmer during the Medieval Climate Optimum 1,000 years ago (see Figure 1). The climate, as we know from historical records, was just fine during that warm period. In fact, it was a little better. So, yes, it is the warmest in 400 years.
Moreover, the temperature, which is going up very slowly, is correlated with the sun’s activity, not hydrocarbon use (see Figure 3).
TNA: Those same people would say that science has spoken, that CO2 is the cause. What do you say?
Dr. Robinson: Gore, et al., tell us that CO2 is a pollutant, and that humans have caused this terrible problem. But actually the atmosphere contains lots of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide, water, and oxygen are required for life. Without these substances in the atmosphere, life would not be possible.
TNA: Al Gore also says that the UN’s IPCC has spoken, and the debate is over, because there is a consensus. What do you say to that?
Dr. Robinson: Right now the UN claims that they have about 2,500 people involved in this and about 600 scientists seriously involved. This is what Al Gore would point to today.
We have more than 22,000 scientist signers of our global-warming petition who’ve looked at the issue and concluded essentially the opposite of these United Nations people. This says nothing about the science. Science does not depend on polling. Just because we have 22,000, and the UN may have 600, does not matter. The only thing our petition demonstrates is that there is no consensus among scientists in support of the UN claims.
Scientific questions are never settled in this way. Science is about natural truth. The truth doesn’t require any advocate. It stands by itself.
In science, a scientist may discover the truth about something. Then he develops a hypothesis, and the hypothesis is tested by various means. So long as the hypothesis passes experimental tests, it becomes stronger and is further relied upon — unless it fails an experimental test. If it is a very fine hypothesis with wide utility, it may spread throughout the entire scientific community and become part of the basis of scientific knowledge. The process by which this is done is not what is important. The truth is important. Scientific truth is not determined by polling or by convening meetings.
TNA: But when looking at the pronouncements of the United Nations — IPCC and the media, the average viewer would be led to believe that they’ve figured global warming out.
Dr. Robinson: Climate science is a very primitive science. The atmosphere is a complicated system, somewhat similar to human biochemistry. We know some things, but we don’t know most of the needed facts. As you know, climatologists have trouble predicting the weather a week or two in advance. They surely cannot predict climate many years in the future.
There are some very fine scientists, like Richard Lindzen at MIT, who work on the details of climate theory and attempt to understand the atmosphere in detail. They are inching forward toward the eventual solution of this very complex system. Today, this system can only be evaluated empirically because it is not yet understood.
We can show that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming is false, however, because we have enough empirical data to falsify this hypothesis. Human-caused global warming is a hypothesis that has failed so many experimental tests that it is clearly without merit.
TNA: To the average person, those IPCC reports look very authoritative, very intimidating. It looks to us like a battle between two sides of experts. How do we know whom to believe?
Dr. Robinson: First, just because the UN has spent an enormous amount of money to convene meetings of 600 mostly self-interested people — many of whom are receiving research grants and other perks for participating — to try to determine something that isn’t knowable with current data and techniques, and produce a report, proves nothing.
Moreover, many of these 600 disagree with the conclusions that the UN-IPCC advertises. The scientists are never allowed to approve or disapprove the final report, and many of the comments that they submit for publication in the report are rejected by UN bureaucrats.
First, the report that is initially released to the public by the UN-IPCC is an executive summary put together by a handful of people including bureaucrats, politicians, UN operatives, and a few scientists. They issue a summary report with UN propaganda in it. They then go back to the reports of the 600 scientists and insert sentences into those reports so that they will conform to the summary.
At no time in this process do the 600 ever vote approval or disapproval of their own report or of the summary report. So this report is not even approved by the people who are claimed to have authored it. This is a fraudulent process.
TNA: Don’t they use the same set of data as you do?
Dr. Robinson: Yes, for the most part. Except that they often unethically omit that part of the data that does not agree with their hypothesis. They pick the parts of the data that favor their conclusion and discard the rest.
If you play with the data, you can falsify with it. So the UN is picking parts of the data. We are considering it all.
TNA: Scientists who are not intimidated to speak out about this are typically charged by the enviros as being paid by the oil companies.
Dr. Robinson: Well, we’ve never been fortunate enough to receive any money from them, and I mean in any way, personally, professionally in our laboratory, or anything. We have never received a dime from anybody who has a specific economic interest in this issue. However, UN power to control and ration world energy — the real goal of their activities — would have a terrible, negative impact on the lives of all Americans. In that sense, all of our supporters have an economic interest.
TNA: Al Gore also makes a big deal about glacier recession.
Dr. Robinson: But he only shows the data for the limited time intervals that seem to support his claims. Here is the world glacier curve (see Figure 2) based on an average of all the world’s glaciers for which there are good records. Some glaciers are actually increasing, but on average the glaciers are decreasing — toward the more normal lengths that are typical of long-term average world temperatures. This curve is offset by 20 years because there is about a 20-year lag between the temperature increase and the shortening of the glaciers.
So the temperature increase reflected in the glacier lengths begins in about 1800. The glaciers have been shortening for 200 years. They started shortening a century before significant amounts of CO2 were produced by human activity. Notice also that the shortening is linear. Hydrocarbon use increased six-fold and the glacier melting rate did not change at all.
The glaciers started shortening long before we were using significant amounts of hydrocarbons, and, when we increased our use by six-fold, the shortening rate did not change. Therefore, human hydrocarbon use is evidently not the cause of glacier shortening or the mild natural temperature increase that is causing that shortening.
TNA: So what is causing the Earth to warm?
Dr. Robinson: A good clue is contained in data showing arctic air temperature vs. solar activity (see Figure 3). There is a good correlation. Surface temperature vs. solar activity data also correlates well (see Figure 4).
TNA: What about Gore’s demonstration in his movie, with those very large graphs, that CO2 tracks right along with temperature and is, therefore, the cause of that warming?
Dr. Robinson: In those curves, the temperature goes up before the CO2 and goes down before the CO2. The CO2 lags the temperature. And the reason it does is that the CO2 rise is caused by the temperature rise rather than vice versa. As temperatures rise, carbon dioxide is released from the oceans, just as the carbon dioxide is released from soft drinks when their temperature rises. Gore shows the curves with poor resolution, so that this cannot be seen by the viewer. His film is filled with dozens of other deliberate errors and misrepresentations.
My favorite is the part where Gore says that “the scientists who specialize in global warming have computer models that long ago predicted this range of temperature increase.” He then displays a graph of their alleged “predictions” and the claimed actual temperatures.
This graph is bogus in several ways, but the most striking is that the computer-predicted curve begins in 1938 — before either Al Gore or the computer had been invented. Unless Al Gore invented the computer before he was born, and didn’t show it to anybody but climate modelers until after WWII, this is impossible, because there were no computers in 1938!
TNA: Speaking of computers, allowing the UN to take over the world’s energy would have a big effect on our higher standard of living, would it not?
Dr. Robinson: An estimated nine percent of the energy of the United States is now used to power computers and the Internet. This technology cannot exist without energy. Automobiles require energy. You cannot warm your home without energy.
If the UN controls, rations, and taxes energy, they will have the power to determine whether you can run a wood stove, whether you can run an automobile, or can use any of the technology that makes our modern life possible.
When you say this to people, their eyes glaze over. They don’t believe it’s going to happen.
The power to tax and ration energy is the power to control the world — to have life and death control over every human being on the planet. No government should ever have this power. The United Nations-IPCC process is not about the climate or saving the environment. It is about power and money — lots of it.
Should Gore and the UN succeed, the effect will not only be diminished prosperity in the United States. In underdeveloped countries, billions of people are lifting themselves from poverty by means of hydrocarbon energy. If their energy supplies are rationed and taxed, they will slip backwards into poverty, misery, and death. This fits the population control agenda of the United Nations.
If the misuse and falsification of the scientific method that drives the human-caused global-warming mania succeeds, it will cause the greatest acts of human genocide the world has ever known. It must be stopped.
Warmists in Frantic Effort to Save their Failing Theory
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...ailing_theory/
The global warmers are becoming increasingly desperate to prop up their failing prophesy in every way possible. Behaving just as Leon Festinger predicted in When Prophecies Fail. As the earth shows no net warming in a decade and cooling into its 7th year, as new models suggest cooling may continue because of natural ocean cycles, as the sun stays quiet now 12 years since the last solar minimum, usually a signal of cooling, as more and more peer review calls into question the importance of CO2 and of the the accuracy of the models and the entire greenhouse theory because of the failure of fingerprinting, the alarmists begin a frantic effort to save their failing theory. You see so many have won the lottery and want to ensure the annuity checks keep coming.
As we indicated in an earlier blog, they are now busy reinventing old data. The Hadley Center has repeatedly refused to release lists of the stations used in compiling their global data sets or in their papers claiming the data shows no urban adjustment is needed. NASA and NOAA continually revises old data and makes gross assumptions that always result in more warming. The old reliable radiosonde weather balloon data gets challenged because it (and the satellite derived data) do not show the warming the models and theory predict for the high tropical atmophere. A legitimate scientist would trust the data and assume the models are in error (as models so often are) but to these agenda driven alarmists, the models must be right and the data wrong. But because they can’t challenge the satellite data which has been quality assured and passed the sniff test, they go after the weather balloon data. They use some of the same unsound tricks that get more warming in the global data and revise the old balloon data to get better agreement with the models. See the ludicrous adusted data (RAOB 1.4 in black) in the diagram below.
See larger image here
They don’t stop there. They try a left end run by using winds as a proxy for temperatures to show the warming not shown by the balloon temperature measurements was really there (see May 26 Warm Winds Comfort Climate Models). In the same Natural Geoscience Journal issue, coincidentally, Peter Thorne of Britain Met Office Hadley Centre in a commentary wrote “The new study “provides ... long-awaited experimental verification of model predictions.” All these efforts were “fast-tracked” through the Journal of Climate and Nature in record time to show the complicity of the AMS and Nature in the whole scam.
Then there is that mid-century cold period, well-documented in many cold and snow records that were set in the 1960s into the 1970s but a thorn in the side of the alarmists as when combined with the apparent current cooling might imply cyclical behavior which would be hard to explain away without considering natural factors. So the solution - again find fault with the data. NASA and NOAA make adjustments to their “adjustments” to minimize the cooling then and now. Now they suddenly discover in a paper in the latest Nature that the ocean temperature measurement techniques did not change at once but gradually (something well known for years) and making that slower correction for the ocean changes results in at least part of the mid-century cold period become an artifact. This now will allow models to tweak back on the aerosol “fudge factor” adjustment they had to use to explain the cooling (since they downplay the sun and don’t handle ocean cycles well). Diminishing the cyclical look will allow them to argue this current cooling is a brief anomaly not totally inconsistent with their models, at least for a while longer. Unfortunately it may be a long enough period to allow congress and the new President to do something stupid. No on further reflection, that would be nothing unusual, I should have said REALLY stupid.
The Deniers: Our spotless sun
Posted: May 31, 2008, 3:07 AM by NP Editor
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...tless-sun.aspx
With the debate focused on a warming Earth, the icy consequences of a cooler future have not been considered
By Lawrence Solomon
You probably haven’t heard much of Solar Cycle 24, the current cycle that our sun has entered, and I hope you don’t. If Solar Cycle 24 becomes a household term, your lifestyle could be taking a dramatic turn for the worse. That of your children and their children could fare worse still, say some scientists, because Solar Cycle 24 could mark a time of profound long-term change in the climate. As put by geophysicist Philip Chapman, a former NASA astronaut-scientist and former president of the National Space Society, “It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age.”
The sun, of late, is remarkably free of eruptions: It has lost its spots. By this point in the solar cycle, sunspots would ordinarily have been present in goodly numbers. Today’s spotlessness — what alarms Dr. Chapman and others — may be an anomaly of some kind, and the sun may soon revert to form. But if it doesn’t – and with each passing day, the speculation in the scientific community grows that it will not – we could be entering a new epoch that few would welcome.
Sunspots have been well documented throughout human history, starting in the fourth century BC, with written descriptions by Gan De, a Chinese astronomer. In 1128, an English monk, John of Worcester, was the first person known to have drawn sunspots, and after the telescope’s arrival in the early 1600s, observations and drawings became commonplace, including by such luminaries as Galileo Galilei. Then, to the astonishment of astronomers, they saw the sunspots diminish and die out altogether.
This was the case during the Little Ice Age, a period starting in the 15th or 16th century and lasting centuries, says NASA’s Goddard Space Centre, which links the absence of sunspots to the cold that then descended on Earth. During the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, a time known as the Maunder Minimum (named after English astronomer Edward Maunder), astronomers saw only about 50 sunspots over a 30-year period, less than one half of 1% of the sunspots that would normally have been expected. Other Minimums — times of low sunspot activity — also corresponded to times of unusual cold.
The consequences of the Little Ice Age, because they occurred in relatively recent times, have come down to us through literature and the arts as well as from historians and scientists, government and business records. When Shakespeare wrote of “lawn as white as driven snow,” he had first-hand experience – Europe was bitterly cold in his day, a sharp contrast to the very warm weather that preceded his birth. During the Little Ice Age, the River Thames froze over, the Dutch developed the ice skate and the great artists of the day learned to love a new genre: the winter landscape.
In what had been a warm Europe , adaptations were not all happy: Growing seasons in England and Continental Europe generally became short and unreliable, which led to shortages and famine. These hardships were nothing compared to the more northerly countries: Glaciers advanced rapidly in Greenland, Iceland, Scandinavia and North America, making vast tracts of land uninhabitable. The Arctic pack ice extended so far south that several reports describe Eskimos landing their kayaks in Scotland. Finland’s population fell by one-third, Iceland’s by half, the Viking colonies in Greenland were abandoned altogether, as were many Inuit communities. The cold in North America spread so far south that, in the winter of 1780, New York Harbor froze, enabling people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island.
In the same way that the Earth shivered when sunspots disappeared, the Earth warmed when sunspot activity became pronounced. The warm period about 1000 years ago known as the Medieval Warm Period — a time of bounty in which grapes grew in England and Greenland was colonized — also was a time of high sunspot activity, called the Medieval Maximum. Since 1900, Earth has experienced what astronomers call “the Modern Maximum” — the 20th century has again been a time of high sunspot activity.
But the 1900s are gone, along with the high temperatures that accompanied them. The last 10 years have seen no increase in temperatures — they reached a plateau and then remained there — and the last year saw a precipitous decline. How much lower and for how long the temperatures will fall, if at all, no one yet knows — the science is far from settled on what drives climate.
But many are watching the sun for answers, and for good reason. Several renowned scientists have been predicting for some time that the world could enter a period of cooling right around now, with consequences that could be dire. “The next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do,” believes Dr. Chapman. “There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the U.S. and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.”
We are now at the beginning of Solar Cycle 24, so named because it is the 24th consecutive cycle that astronomers have listed, starting with the first cycle that began in March, 1755, and ended in June, 1766. Each cycle lasts an average of approximately 11 years; each is marked by sunspots that first erupt in the mid latitudes of the sun, and then, over the course of the 11 years, erupt progressively toward the sun’s equator; each is marked by a change in the polarity of the sun’s hemispheres; each changes the temperature on Earth in ways that humans don’t fully understand, but cannot in all honesty deny.
Carbon's Power Brokers
By George F. Will
Sunday, June 1, 2008; Page B07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...053002521.html
An unprecedentedly radical government grab for control of the American economy will be debated this week when the Senate considers saving the planet by means of a cap-and-trade system to ration carbon emissions. The plan is co-authored (with John Warner) by Joe Lieberman, an ardent supporter of John McCain, who supports Lieberman's legislation and recently spoke about "the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring."
Speaking of endless troubles, "cap-and-trade" comes cloaked in reassuring rhetoric about the government merely creating a market, but government actually would create a scarcity so that government could sell what it had made scarce. The Wall Street Journal underestimates cap-and-trade's perniciousness when it says the scheme would create a new right ("allowances") to produce carbon dioxide and would put a price on the right. Actually, because freedom is the silence of the law, that right has always existed in the absence of prohibitions. With cap-and-trade, government would create a right for itself-- an extraordinarily lucrative right to ration Americans' exercise of their traditional rights.
Businesses with unused emission allowances could sell their surpluses to businesses that exceed their allowances. The more expensive and constraining the allowances, the more money government would gain.
If carbon emissions are the planetary menace that the political class suddenly says they are, why not a straightforward tax on fossil fuels based on each fuel's carbon content? This would have none of the enormous administrative costs of the baroque cap-and-trade regime. And a carbon tax would avoid the uncertainties inseparable from cap-and-trade's government allocation of emission permits sector by sector, industry by industry. So a carbon tax would be a clear and candid incentive to adopt energy-saving and carbon-minimizing technologies. That is the problem.
A carbon tax would be too clear and candid for political comfort. It would clearly be what cap-and-trade deviously is, a tax, but one with a known cost. Therefore, taxpayers would demand a commensurate reduction of other taxes. Cap-and-trade -- government auctioning permits for businesses to continue to do business -- is a huge tax hidden in a bureaucratic labyrinth of opaque permit transactions.
The proper price of permits for carbon emissions should reflect the future warming costs of current emissions. That is bound to be a guess based on computer models built on guesses. Lieberman guesses that the market value of all permits would be "about $7 trillion by 2050." Will that staggering sum pay for a $7 trillion reduction of other taxes? Not exactly.
It would go to a Climate Change Credit Corporation, which Lieberman calls "a private-public entity" that, operating outside the budget process, would invest "in many things." This would be industrial policy, a.k.a. socialism, on a grand scale -- government picking winners and losers, all of whom will have powerful incentives to invest in lobbyists to influence government's thousands of new wealth-allocating decisions.
Lieberman's legislation also would create a Carbon Market Efficiency Board empowered to "provide allowances and alter demands" in response to "an impact that is much more onerous" than expected. And Lieberman says that if a foreign company selling a product in America "enjoys a price advantage over an American competitor" because the American firm has had to comply with the cap-and-trade regime, "we will impose a fee" on the foreign company "to equalize the price." Protectionism-masquerading-as-environmentalism will thicken the unsavory entanglement of commercial life and political life.
McCain, who supports Lieberman's unprecedented expansion of government's regulatory reach, is the scourge of all lobbyists (other than those employed by his campaign). But cap-and-trade would be a bonanza for K Street, the lobbyists' habitat, because it would vastly deepen and broaden the upside benefits and downside risks that the government's choices mean for businesses.
McCain, the political hygienist, is eager to reduce the amount of money in politics. But cap-and-trade, by hugely increasing the amount of politics in the allocation of money, would guarantee a surge of money into politics.
Regarding McCain's "central facts," the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, which helped establish the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- co-winner, with Al Gore, of the Nobel Peace Prize -- says global temperatures have not risen in a decade. So Congress might be arriving late at the save-the-planet party. Better late than never? No. When government, ever eager to expand its grip on the governed and their wealth, manufactures hysteria as an excuse for doing so, then: better never.
Once again, Salty, you are big on "sensational" propaganda but can only come up with vague generalizations that you can't back up.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I'm a scientist, and have an in depth background in geological matters. I don't accept any thing called "Snowball" Earth and as I stated before, I know of no reputable data that even suggests that the entire oceans ( or even 95% as you weasel word) was totally covered with ice, particularly one mile thick. I'm sure you can go dig up some tripe from some ultra leftist or super "environmentalist" blog that will say what you posted. That doesn't make it real!!!!!
"What they missed--and which far too few people miss--is that currently, left-leaning people are actually right-leaning, and *don't know it*.
The supposedly 'left-leaning' people of today, i.e., the Greens, environmentalists, organic farmers, 'Fair Trade' advocates, etc.
But, they're actually right-leaning. They want more government, more bureaucracy, more regulation. They oppose free trade.
All in the name of what's 'good and holy', but *they* get to define what's 'good and holy'. Which is the classical definition of elitism.
When elitists of this stripe claim to be left-leaning, but actually lean to the right, it's easily recognized as classical fascism."
Bill, when do you think Earth was formed and what was that process?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
The New American is a John Birch Society publication.
http://www.jbs.org/node/2132
US must act to halt global warming in order to save the Great Lakes.
http://media-newswire.com/release_1067417.html
The Climate Security Act?: Reject the ignorami
Sunday, June 1, 2008
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_570242.html
If there indeed is a second Great Depression to come, this will be the government measure that guarantees it arrives with a devastating gut punch.
The U.S. Senate returns to session this week and will take up something deceptively labeled "America's Climate Security Act of 2008." It's a bill designed to combat man-made global warming.
But anybody with a brain should be able to understand that the only thing this bill would "secure" would be our national demise.
Not only is it one of those sadly classic bureaucratic "solutions" in search of a problem, it is a sad exercise in the ecocratic ignorami pushing command economics in the name of free markets
As Pat Toomey, the former Pennsylvania congressman who heads The Club for Growth, notes, "Americans can look forward to fewer jobs, lower income levels, rising electricity prices and higher fuel bills."
If that's not attractive enough, how about the real kicker of "America's Climate Security Act of 2008"? It will do virtually nothing about the greenhouse gases it supposedly is designed to reduce.
Thankfully, this proposal is not a slam-dunk in the Senate. It's not yet "filibuster-proof." That could change, however, if the ignorami rush the bandwagon.
But this bill has nothing to do with aiding the climate. It has everything to do with the government gaining ever more control of an economy that it, in large part, already is responsible for damping. America's security depends on its rejection.
I concur with the most widely accepted theory in this area which is basically this: It was formed around 4.5 to 4.7 billion years ago by the coalescing of many particles that were revolving around what is now our sun.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Somewhere and sometime back there when some ancient stars died and exploded (the "Big Bang") they spewed out a collection of all of our known elements. Gravitational forces caused these elements to separate and collect into gigantic rotating discs. In the one we wound up in, the heavier elements collapsed to form our sun and other matter kept coalescing into larger and larger "rocks" (for want of a better description) and then these rocks kept colliding and forming bigger rocks which became the smaller innermost planets in our Solar System of which Earth is one. About 50 million years after the Earth formed and stabiized an orbit, It was hit in a violent collision by another very large body and the collosion flung off enough material to coalese and form our moon. This event is also believed to be the one that caused earth to tilt on its axis. So the most accepted theory is that the moon is derived from earth but its unique formation happened about 50 miilion years after earth.
At first Earth was probably just a ball of molten lava. Over the eons it kept getting hit by fairly large comets containing large amount of water (ice) and this water kept collecting and helping to moderate the temperature and help form our crust. All of this was going on at about 4.2 billion years ago.
The earliest known fossils date back to about 3 billion years ago. However, some scientists feel that some types of amino acids could have been there as far back as 3.8 to 4 billion years ago. As you know these are the building blocks of life.
Obvioously there is a lot of speculative theory in this hypothesis, but astrophysicists continue to come up with evidence that the major timelines and formation theories are reasonable.
I believe the stuff I've written here but the one nagging question I've always had (which was recently so well put by Ben Stein) is this:
What was there before the Big Bang?
If the Big Bang created time, then there is no before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
Time as it relates to eternity? Heard the no time theory once when a pastor was giving his thoughts on Revelation discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
If the Big Bang created time, time could still extend in the positive direction to infinity unless it is terminated by a collapsing of the Universe (like a reverse Big Bang).Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
How is time defined beyond this solar system?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I am sure we would define it based on our measurement standards (which are based on the significant characteristics of things that occur on our planet).Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
perhaps you mean beyond our universe? if you believe the big bang, like most scientists, then there is nothing we can know scientifically outside the universe. without matter, there is no space; and without space, there is no time.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
then again, if you believe saltydawg, there are an infinite number of infinite universes. so time outside our universe would be defined by a completely different dimension that we cannot observe. of course, it's the "cannot observe" part that makes such theories more religion than science.
ArkBob, the difference is that science attempts to explain the physical processes that create the universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
so do myths and folklore. the difference is that science concentrates on what can be observed or logically derived from what is observed.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
What he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Selective Precaution
How does the third world insure itself against Lieberman-Warner?
By Lawrence Solomon
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...mI3NTBkM2Y4OGI=
Senators Joseph Lieberman (I., Conn.) and John Warner (R., Va.) base their proposed Climate Security Act legislation on two fundamental premises: That there is a scientific consensus on global warming and that, even if the scientists are wrong and the global-warming risk never materializes, we will at least have aided the environment.
Both premises are wrong. Not just wrong. The premises could well have it exactly backwards.
First, consider the alleged scientific consensus. Nearby you’ll find the cover page from the 2006 press announcement from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body coordinating the worldwide effort to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. The cover page offers this impressive claim:2500 SCIENTIFIC EXPERT REVIEWERSImpressive, isn’t it? You may be even more impressed if you see the accompanying press materials. And you can forgive the press for being impressed, too, at the intellects assembled to establish that global warming is real and manmade. After all, 2,500 expert scientists can’t be wrong.
800 CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS AND
450 LEAD AUTHORS FROM
130 COUNTRIES
6 YEARS WORK
1 REPORT
2007
That figure of 2,500 scientists received saturation media exposure, and then it was amplified by environmental groups, bloggers, and others. A Google search of “IPCC” and “2500” produces almost 250,000 results, the vast majority of them references to the scientific consensus. Senators Lieberman and Warner can be forgiven for believing, as the press did, in the existence of a consensus.
But what did those 2,500 scientists actually endorse? To find out, I contacted the Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and asked for the names of the 2,500. I planned to canvas them to determine their precise views. The answer that came back from the Secretariat informed me that the names were not public, so I would not be able to survey them, and that the scientists were merely reviewers. The 2,500 had not endorsed the conclusions of the report and, in fact, the IPCC had not claimed that they did. Journalists had jumped to the conclusion that the scientists the IPCC had touted were endorsers and the IPCC never saw fit to correct the record.
There is no consensus of 2,500 scientist-endorsers. Moreover, many of those 2,500 reviewers turned thumbs down on the studies that they reviewed — I know this from my own interviews with them, conducted in the course of writing a book about scientists who dispute the conventional wisdom on climate change.
From my interviews, it also became clear to me that, if a consensus exists, it exists on the other side. For instance Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, a former peer reviewer for the IPCC’s work on the spread of malaria and other diseases due to warming says, “I know of no major scientist with any long record in this field who agrees with the pronouncements of the alarmists at the IPCC.” Other scientists also told me that, in their particular discipline, the IPCC’s position was the outlier, far from the mainstream.
Machine to clean up greenhouse gas is breakthrough in war on global warming, say scientists
Last updated at 2:53 PM on 31st May 2008
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...cientists.html
Scientists say they have invented a machine that can suck carbon dioxide out of the air – potentially creating a vital weapon in the war against global warming.
The blueprint for the CO2 'scrubber' raises the prospect of a generation of machines which would help reduce the billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere by the use of fossil fuels.
The team of US scientists now plans to build a prototype which would capture one tonne of CO2 from the air every day.
The devices – each nearly the size of a shipping container - would have to be produced in their millions to soak up human carbon emissions.
The idea is bound to be controversial, with environmentalists seeing so-called technological solutions to global warming as undermining attempts to promote greener lifestyles and industries.
But physicist Klaus Lackner, who led the U.S. team behind the invention, said the CO2 scrubber offered more hope than current efforts to cut carbon emissions by reducing fossil fuel use.
I'd rather have a technology that allows us to use fossil fuels without destroying the planet, because people are going to use them anyway,' he said.
Where have you guys been??? Had your head in the sand??? The global warming problem is solved. No more beach fires in California...BINGO!!! No more global warming.
Nanosolar Price Barrier Breakthrough Makes Solar Electricity Cheaper Than Coal
Saturday, June 07, 2008 by: David Gutierrez
http://www.naturalnews.com/023389.html
(NaturalNews) A new combination of nano and solar technology has made it possible for solar electric generation to be cheaper than burning coal. Nanosolar, Inc. has developed a way to produce a type of ink that absorbs solar radiation and converts into electric current. Photovoltaic (PV) sheets are produced by a machine similar to a printing press, which rolls out the PV ink onto sheets approximately the width of aluminum foil. These PV sheets can be produced at a rate of hundreds of feet per minute.
"It's 100 times thinner than existing solar panels, and we can deposit the semiconductors 100 times faster," said Nanosolar's cofounder and chief executive officer, R. Martin Roscheisen. "It's a combination that drives down costs dramatically."
Because of their light weight and flexibility, the PV sheets (dubbed PowerSheets) are much more versatile than current PV panels, which must be mounted on sturdy surfaces like roofs or the ground. In addition, because there is no silicon used in the production of the sheets, they cost only 30 cents per watt of power produced.
Traditional PV cells cost approximately $3 per watt, while burning coal costs about $1 per watt.
"This is the first time that we can actually drop the cost of solar electricity down to a level that would be competitive with grid electricity in most industrialized nations," said Nanosolar co-founder Brian Sager.
Nanosolar is ramping up production of its PowerSheets at factories in San Jose, California, and Berlin, and expects to have them commercially available before the end of the year. The buzz around the PowerSheets is so strong that the company already has a three to five year backorder, and the company has raised more than $150 million from venture capitalists, including Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
"Solar panels have not been very popular to the American people because they've been too expensive. That's what we're changing now," Roscheisen said.
talk about a waste of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
now THIS sounds promising.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
i want to do some more research to see how durable these things are. if they have a reasonable life, we need to start roofing houses with them, insetting them in the roofs and hoods of cars, etc.
makes a lot more sense than cap and tradeQuote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
DOGEVIL, very positive articles, keep it up.
not to me. spending billions of (taxpayer) dollars to suck plant food out of the atmosphere doesn't make sense. and producing the energy required to run these machines will create more REAL pollution like ozone, soot, and SOx.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
so you're saying you know how these will work?
not a clue, but i'm sure they take a lot of energy. and the energy will probably be produced by burning fossil fuels.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
maybe. maybe notQuote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
by John Coleman
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../19842304.html
You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.
The future of our civilization lies in the balance.
That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance.
With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.
Here is my rebuttal.
There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.
Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call "Interglacial periods". For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.
Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?
The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.
Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.
Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.
The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.
All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.
Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.
Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.
The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.
May I stop here for a few historical notes? First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. And, that is the rub. Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is.
Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.
So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.
So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth? That is the most amazing part of the story.
To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From YK2 to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis.
So who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express. That is one crowded bus.
I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com.
Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over.
In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet.
The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win. The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.
I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.
The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.
So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.
So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.
I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it.
If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.
My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth.
Has Global Warming Research Misinterpreted Cloud Behavior?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0611184722.htm
ScienceDaily (Jun. 12, 2008) — Climate experts agree that the seriousness of manmade global warming depends greatly upon how clouds in the climate system respond to the small warming tendency from the extra carbon dioxide mankind produces.
When researchers observe natural changes in clouds and temperature, they have traditionally assumed that the temperature change caused the clouds to change, and not the other way around. To the extent that the cloud changes actually cause temperature change, this can ultimately lead to overestimates of how sensitive Earth's climate is to our greenhouse gas emissions.
"Our paper is an important step toward validating a gut instinct that many meteorologists like myself have had over the years," said Spencer, "that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes, rather than destabilizing processes -- that is, negative feedback rather than positive feedback."
The paper doesn't disprove the theory that global warming is manmade.
Instead, it offers an alternative explanation for what we see in the climate system which has the potential for greatly reducing estimates of mankind's impact on Earth's climate.
"Our work has convinced me that cause and effect really do matter. If we get the causation wrong, it can greatly impact our interpretation of what nature has been trying to tell us. Unfortunately, in the process it also makes the whole global warming problem much more difficult to figure out."
"Unfortunately, in the process it also makes the whole global warming problem much more difficult to figure out."Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
Gee whiz, do you feel lucky or what?:D
Global Warming as Mass Neurosis
July 1, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1214...googlenews_wsj
GLOBAL VIEW
By BRET STEPHENS
Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited. Now it's time for political scientists, theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in.
What, discredited? Thousands of scientists insist otherwise, none more noisily than NASA's Jim Hansen, who first banged the gong with his June 23, 1988, congressional testimony (delivered with all the modesty of "99% confidence").
But mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world's oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years, never mind that "80% to 90% of global warming involves heating up ocean waters," according to a report by NPR's Richard Harris.
The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years. At least as of February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere's coldest in decades. In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse resumes in 2020.
This last item is, of course, a forecast, not an empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn't evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science.
So let's stop fussing about the interpretation of ice core samples from the South Pole and temperature readings in the troposphere. The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I see three mutually compatible explanations.
The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore – population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations – and global warming provides a justification. One wonders what the left would make of a scientific "consensus" warning that some looming environmental crisis could only be averted if every college-educated woman bore six children: Thumbs to "patriarchal" science; curtains to the species.
A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." That's Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen.
And surely it is in keeping with this essentially religious outlook that the "solutions" chiefly offered to global warming involve radical changes to personal behavior, all of them with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent: drive less, buy less, walk lightly upon the earth and so on. A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of sexual abstinence.
Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?
As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.
In "The Varieties of Religious Experience," William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, "morbid-minded" religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion.
Shows the weakness of your thinking that you have to rely on a Wall Street Journal commentator to present really stupid and incorrect analysis. Manhatten will be under water before the WSJ accepts that AGW is for real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVw1PANUcdg
I hate Al Gore soooooo much.
Where's Altadawg?? Hurricane off the coast of africa headed our way.
I've been keeping an eye on this thread for just that reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by TECH88
BTW - Isn't it funny that one of the longest running threads in this forum was started by someone talking about a Bill Nye interview? The only thread I could find that had a bigger response was started about boobies.
Isnt' there some irony in there some where?Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Why wasn't Manhattan under water during earlier warming periods?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I suggest you learn something about Archimedes Principle!
You mean, other *recent* warming periods? Sea levels go up another 20 feet and you will see Manhatten under water.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
There is no evidence man-made CO2 causes climate change
Tech Track - Dr Kelvin Kemm
Published: 4 Jul 08 - 0:00
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/page.php?rep_id=175
During 2008, have we seen many stories in the newspapers about 2007 being particularly warm as a result of global warming?
During 2006, the doomsters were predicting that 2007 would be the hottest year on record, so why have we seen no reports about this?
The answer is simple – 2007 turned out to be the coolest year for 30 years. It is also the case that there has been no global warming since 1998. In fact, since 1998, there has been steady cooling.
Even more dramatic is the fact that the most recent computer model predictions indicate that there will be no more global warming for the next ten years. But the doomsters say that, after this ten-year period, global warming will come back with a vengeance. Why?
Certainly, mankind's production of carbon dioxide (CO2) has continued to increase since 1998 and will continue to increase, particularly since countries such as China and India say that their economic growth comes first, so they do not intend worrying too much about CO2 production.
I have repeatedly pointed out that there is little or no link between CO2 production by mankind and a rise in global temperature. In fact, indications are that it is the opposite – an increased temperature causes more CO2 to be ejected into the atmosphere.
Pennsylvania passes Global warming legislation.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2...-07-03-093.asp
Pennsylvania Assembly Passes First Global Warming Law
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania, July 3, 2008 (ENS) - Global warming legislation will be enacted for the first time in Pennsylvania when Governor Ed Rendell signs the Pennsylvania Climate Change Act as he is expected to do. The measure was overwhelmingly approved today by both houses of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.
A coal-rich state, Pennsylvania emits one percent of the world’s greenhouse gases responsible for global warming, more than the emissions of 105 developing countries combined.
While Pennsylvania is a big contributor to global warming, the legislation passed today creates opportunities for the state to be part of the solution.
The measure will require Pennsylvania to conduct an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and set up a registry for business and industry where they can track their emissions and get credit for pollution reductions.
The bill provides for an stakeholder advisory group for the state Department of Environmental Protection and requires the DEP to develop a state plan to reduce emissions.
"This will be a good planning tool for Pennsylvania to help with coordination of the various measures the state has implemented and those it should implement to combat climate change in the future," said state Representative Greg Vitali, a Democrat from Delaware County who introduced the measure in the House.
Will it go to zero like the recent article said? Nope.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...rrent.area.jpg
Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice has gone up!!!!1! Global Cooling! Evrybody put onj a jacket!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...area.south.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weathe...ing/index.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/sto...5265092&page=1
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25419299/
any mention of increasing ice in the Southern Hemisphere? Nope.
NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
November 13, 2007
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131
PASADENA, Calif. – A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.
The team, led by James Morison of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory, Seattle, used data from an Earth-observing satellite and from deep-sea pressure gauges to monitor Arctic Ocean circulation from 2002 to 2006.
Reporting in Geophysical Research Letters, the authors attribute the reversal to a weakened Arctic Oscillation, a major atmospheric circulation pattern in the northern hemisphere. The weakening reduced the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, decreasing its weight and changing its circulation.
"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.
NASA's explanation for last year's melt. Did you see his in the MSM?
NASA Examines Arctic Sea Ice Changes Leading to Record Low in 2007
10.01.07
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...-20071001.html
PASADENA, Calif. - A new NASA-led study found a 23-percent loss in the extent of the Arctic's thick, year-round sea ice cover during the past two winters. This drastic reduction of perennial winter sea ice is the primary cause of this summer's fastest-ever sea ice retreat on record and subsequent smallest-ever extent of total Arctic coverage.
Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.
IPCC Estimates of Sea Level Rise are Unreliable.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Most of the drastic statements about sea level rise (such as those from the admittedly un-scientific Salty) are formulated in terms of Global Average Sea Level. There is no such thing. Any numbers purporting to be such are simply garbage that has no meaning. LOCAL relative sea level change is all that matters for coastal planning. The LOCAL relative change is extremely variable worldwide and depends far more on local tectonic uplift or subsidence than on melting ice or freezing water. There simply is no global average for these parameters.
For instance, the Maldives, allegedly the most endangered group of low lying islands, would already have disappeared according to Al Gore and James Hansen. ------- You do remember James Hansen, the foot in mouth NASA guy who has publicly gone on record as saying “it’s OK to doctor the data if you want to make a strong case.”
Contrary to IPCC predictions, both satellite altimetry and tide gauge records have shown no sea level rise in the Maldives. In fact, the real data shows that the Local relative sea level there has FALLEN by 30 cm in the last 30 years.
It’s interesting that each successive IPCC report significantly reduces the rate of sea level rise it is “predicting”. Reverend Al took his famous “20 foot” number from the first report. BTW it was stated as equivalent to 20 ft. per century. That has come down steadily in the succeeding reports and in the latest one it is now projected by the IPCC as about 18 CENTIMETERS per century. Some IPCCers have said they pretty much had to do this as the situation in the Maldives was clearly making the previous “estimates” look bad.
Of course, nobody knows what the sea level will be in one hundred years. They are just predictions.
"Sea levels during several previous interglacials were about 3 to as much as 20 meters higher than current sea level."
I suppose your quotes on this statement indicate you got it from your single book you seem to depend on.
Actually the preponderance of data, particularly proxy geological data, indicate that sea level has risen about 120 meters since the last Glacial Maximum around 18,000 years ago. (Fairbanks, 1989). Coral data also show roughly the same uniform rate of rise during more recent past centuries. (Toscano and Macintyre, 2003). More recent tide gauge data also show a uniform rate of rise ( about 1.8 millimeters per year) during the past century.(Trupin and Wahr, 1990 and Douglas, 2001)
Since we know this rate has stayed relatively constant during both warming and cooling periods this indicates that the dramatic increases predicted by Reverend Al and the IPCC are pure BS.
No, it was from the USGS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
If Earth's climate continues to warm, then the volume of present-day ice sheets will decrease. Melting of the current Greenland ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 6.5 meters; melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 8 meters (table 1). The West Antarctic ice sheet is especially vulnerable, because much of it is grounded below sea level. Small changes in global sea level or a rise in ocean temperatures could cause a breakup of the two buttressing ice shelves (Ronne/Filchner and Ross). The resulting surge of the West Antarctic ice sheet would lead to a rapid rise in global sea level.
Reduction of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets similar to past reductions would cause sea level to rise 10 or more meters. A sea-level rise of 10 meters would flood about 25 percent of the U.S. population, with the major impact being mostly on the people and infrastructures in the Gulf and East Coast States (fig. 3).
Those numbers were in the earlier IPCC report.
Regardless, it's still BS. Note the part where your cut and paste states that one of the Antarctic ice sheets is particularly vulernable because most of it is below sea level. Please explain how ice that is already below sea level would raise sea level if it melts.
Further, much of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is already in the sea. That means that much of it is being held up by bouyant forces. Again, do you understand Archimedes Principle?
I think I understand the Archimedes Principle but just to be safe maybe you better explain it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
As far as the ice that "is below sea level" raising the sea level, please note that that ice is not currently displacing any ocean water even though it is below sea level.
Are you saying that the United States Geological Service is wrong and your are correct?
Are you saying that scientists that work for the government and make less money are more likely to be correct than scientists that have been successful working in private industries where there is more competition?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Albert Einstein worked for the Patent Office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Bill Pup is not a climate scientist. He is a retired Petroleum Reservoir Engineer.
So your choice is not valid.
For the Swiss Patent Office. And it sort of illustrates my point, anyway. People look for government jobs when they cannot find private employment. Einstein worked for the Swiss Patent Office BECAUSE he couldn't get a job elsewhere. Government jobs are for experience. Those that make careers in government jobs generally do it because they aren't cut out for the competition of private industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
It more a question of office politics, discrimination, and job security than job competency. Plenty of people work in private industry who are aren't that sharp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I always though that Big Al worked for the Patent Office because it gave him plenty of time to daydream.
Germany leads the way!
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news08...ws7.3.08a.html
Germany Begins Storage of CO2 in Deep Salt Water Rock Cavern
Germany inaugurated Europe's first underground carbon dioxide storage site on Monday, the country's national geoscience institute said.
The site at Ketzin, outside Berlin, is part of a European project dubbed CO2SINK which aims to test whether capturing and storing carbon dioxide in subterranean rock is a viable way of fighting global warming, the GFZ centre in Potsdam said.
It will pump up 60,000 tons of the greenhouse gas into porous, salt water-filled rock at depths of more than 600 metres (656 yards) over the next two years, the centre said.
The first injection of gas below the surface took place later on Monday.
Reinhard Huettl, the science director of the institute, said storing carbon dioxide underground could slow down global warming and thereby buy scientists extra time to develop alternative energy sources.
"The storage of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is an option to win time in the development and introduction of carbon dioxide-reduced energy technology," he said.
Huettl said the site will become a "unique worldwide laboratory" to study the success of the world's main global warming gas.