Sooner, are you going to post these "freak" storms every time they occur? You can bet there will be plenty more to post in the future.
Printable View
Sooner, are you going to post these "freak" storms every time they occur? You can bet there will be plenty more to post in the future.
Just as you will continue to post freak hurricanes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Yep.
and neither can be proved or disproved, so it seems we are at an impass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Doing everything possible to conserve resources makes sense for so many reasons that global warming isn't even necessary as a reason to work toward freedom from dependence on fossil fuel, end all forms of resource waste and pollution and education of people worldwide to reduce population growth to zero!
that sounds like a very reasonable post, with which i agree, until you reach the very end.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubunique
Aub, the Chinese are doing some interesting research toward this goal right now. In fact, I think they use the same arguments you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubunique
How's it working?Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinDawg
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/a...hina.abortion/Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool Hand Clyde
come on guys, abortion is about personal reproductive rights, right?
Are you saying that education is the same as force? Are we educating the middle-easterners to stop slaughtering themselves in the quest to slaughter others?
Biologist says global warming could reduce Arkansas duck numbers
By DANIEL CONNOLLY
The Associated Press
LITTLE ROCK — A professor from the University of Montana had a simple message Tuesday in Arkansas: if you like hunting ducks, support international efforts to prevent global warming.
Wildlife biologist David E. Naugle said that, if global temperatures rise, duck breeding grounds in North America will dry up, greatly reducing duck populations.
He said the best way to solve the problem is to work with other countries to reduce emission of carbon dioxide.
“This is a global problem that’s going to require global solutions,” he said.
Naugle’s trip to Arkansas was paid for by the Natural State Coalition, a new group that’s dedicated to combating global warming.
Most scientists say carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuel such as coal and oil traps heat in the atmosphere, which leads to increased surface temperatures.
In Arkansas, duck hunting is both a beloved pastime and a source of income for businesses that depend on hunters’ dollars. In the eastern Arkansas town of Stuttgart, for instance, the annual Wings over the Prairie Festival draws thousands of people for a festival that includes a highly competitive series of duck calling contests.
Speaking near a park pavilion on the banks of the Arkansas River, Naugle described research he and associates published last fall in the scientific journal BioScience.
The research focused on the prairie pothole region, which includes parts of Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota as well as the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
The region, which includes large swaths of wetland, is the breeding ground for 50 to 80 percent of the ducks that migrate to Arkansas each year, he said.
A 95-year climate history of the region shows that it has become warmer on average, he said.
Researchers produced computer models that tested what would happen if average temperatures rose 3 degrees Celsius. The result: the available breeding ground for ducks would shrink dramatically. The breeding ground would shrink even further if precipitation decreased 20 percent at the same time, he said.
That would mean hunters in Arkansas would see smaller duck populations.
Last month, an aerial survey in Arkansas counted 289,589 ducks, about half as many as last year. State officials blamed the low numbers on a drought.
Naugle said the current low duck population isn’t necessarily related to global warming: it may be due to the local drought, changes in bird migration patterns, and changes in the way rice farming is conducted.
However, global warming remains important. “If we can’t produce the ducks on the breeding grounds, it’s a moot point where they go after this,” he said.
The Natural State Coalition is led by Robert McLarty and has existed for only two months. McLarty, 30, has worked as a political consultant and said he wants to create a coalition of duck hunters, bird watchers, environmental organizations and other groups to educate the public on global warming.
haven't you posted that before? what would happen to duck hunting in arkansas if "global warming" caused a new ice age?Quote:
Originally Posted by aubunique
Then Mexico becomes Sportsmans' ParadiseQuote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
New source of global warming gas found: plants
Wed Jan 11, 1:06 PM ET
LONDON (Reuters) - German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change.
The culprits are plants.
They produce about 10 to 30 percent of the annual methane found in the atmosphere, according to researchers at the Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany.
The scientists measured the amount of methane released by plants in controlled experiments. They found it increases with rising temperatures and exposure to sunlight.
"Significant methane emissions from both intact plants and detached leaves were observed ... in the laboratory and in the field," Dr Frank Keppler and his team said in a report in the journal Nature.
Methane, which is produced by city rubbish dumps, coal mining, flatulent animals, rice cultivation and peat bogs, is one of the most potent greenhouse gases in terms of its ability to trap heat.
Concentrations of the gas in the atmosphere have almost tripled in the last 150 years. About 600 million tonnes worldwide are produced annually.
The scientists said their finding is important for understanding the link between global warming and a rise in greenhouse gases.
It could also have implications for the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for developed countries to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.
Keppler and his colleagues discovered that living plants emit 10 to 100 times more methane than dead plants.
Scientists had previously thought that plants could only emit methane in the absence of oxygen.
David Lowe, of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand, said the findings are startling and controversial.
"Keppler and colleagues' finding helps to account for observations from space of incredibly large plumes of methane above tropical forests," he said in a commentary on the research.
But the study also poses questions, such as how such a potentially large source of methane could have been overlooked and how plants produced it.
"There will be a lively scramble among researchers for the answers to these and other questions," Lowe added.
If you are a duck hunter, you probably have donated money to Ducks Unlimited or one of the newer waterfowl conservation groups and you know a bit about the importance of the breeding grounds. Many other species use the same protected and enhanced wetland areas on the far northern prairies.
Waterfowl hunters of necessity must be proponents of pollution reduction and watershed protection, etc.
Squirrel and turkey hunters of necessity must be the biggest proponents of forest protection and preservation and anti-clear-cutting of hardwood forests.
It is the same as a fan of athletics who doesn't want stadia and gyms destroyed! And people who love to eat good food and drink clean water and breathe clean air have to get on the bandwagon or suffer! Conservation is for everyone!
Why are people over here so soon after a big Bulldog basketball win over Fresnek?
I bet Mick is happy to see his old team, the Broncos, beating up on New England!
BumpQuote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Tyler, just enjoy your 70 degree day.
Of course, DB meant this tounge in cheek, but it happens to be very good advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Thanks DB! I will. Actually, I am enjoying the rain today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
"And the truth shall set you free " :D
Bitter Cold in Moscow Leaves Two Dead
Record-low temperatures across Siberia
Jan 17 12:52 PM US/Eastern
http://www.breitbart.com/images/envelope.gif Email this story http://img.breitbart.com/images/ap.gif
MOSCOW
Two people died of exposure and 14 more were hospitalized in a single day as temperatures plunged in the Russian capital, city emergency medical authorities said Tuesday. Temperatures dropped from about freezing Monday afternoon to minus-28 Celsius (minus-18 Fahrenheit) overnight as a cold wave hit after inflicting record-low temperatures across Siberia.
Electricity monopoly RAO Unified Energy System of Russia said Tuesday that the sharp drop in temperature had caused no supply disruptions in Moscow. But NTV television reported that power was cut off to nearly 30 towns and villages in Ryazan region southwest of Moscow, and that there were also problems in the Volga River region of Samara.
http://www.breitbart.com/images/2006...08_preview.jpg
Chief executive Anatoly Chubais has threatened to reduce supplies to nonessential points if temperatures stay below minus-25 C (minus-13 F) for three days or more. NTV reported that in Moscow, the first items to be shut off if necessary would be electric-lit advertising billboards.
The national meteorological office RosHydroMet has forecast the current cold front to keep temperatures at or below present levels at least until Friday.
Russian media reported that police were under orders to make an exception to their usual practice of evicting homeless people from the subway, building entrances and other shelters.
The Interfax news agency reported that 107 people had died of exposure in Moscow since October.
Prosecutors opened a criminal investigation into alleged negligence by prison officials in the Russian Far East village of Takhtamygda, where the heating system broke down and the more than 800 inmates had to use makeshift wood-burning stoves to keep warm for more than a week, the ITAR-Tass news agency reported Tuesday. Investigators said prison officials had failed to obey instructions to keep a backup pump engine for the heating plant.
http://img.breitbart.com/images/g_dot.gif
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/17/D8F6ITJ08.html
According to Mayor Nagin, God is causing the hurricanes, not global warming.
Well, God and Bush are pretty tight...we know how Bush feels about black people thanks to Kanye West.:icon_winkQuote:
Originally Posted by Cool Hand Clyde
When does the madness ever stop!? LOL
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapc...eut/index.html
Invasion of the giant jellyfish
TOKYO, Japan (Reuters) -- A slimy jellyfish weighing as much as a sumo wrestler has Japan's fishing industry in the grip of its poisonous tentacles.
Vast numbers of Echizen kurage, or Nomura's jellyfish, have appeared around Japan's coast since July, clogging and ripping fishing nets and forcing fishermen to spend hours hacking them apart before bringing home their reduced catches.
Representatives of fishing communities around the country gathered in Tokyo on Thursday, hoping to thrash out solutions to a pest that has spread from the Japan Sea to the Pacific coast.
"It's a terrible problem. They're like aliens," Noriyuki Kani of the fisheries federation in Toyama, northwest of Tokyo, told Reuters ahead of the conference.
There are no official figures on the size of the problem, but Kani says the financial losses are obvious.
"If your nets are full of jellyfish, of course there is no space for fish," he said.
Cutting up and disposing of the giants can turn a three-hour fishing trip into a 10-hour marathon, while valuable fish are poisoned or crushed under the weight of the unwanted catch.
And what a catch. One Echizen kurage can be up to 2 meters (6 feet, 7 inches) in diameter and weigh up to 200 kilograms (440 pounds).
Despite their size, the invertebrates aren't toxic enough to cause serious harm to humans, but fishermen often wear goggles and protective clothing to avoid stings when dealing with them.
Much about the jellyfish, the largest variety found in the Sea of Japan, remains a mystery, according to Hitoshi Iizumi of the Seikai National Fisheries Research Institute in Niigata.
Researchers have suggested they drift to Japan on currents after reproducing in South Korean or Chinese waters, a theory that Japan wants to investigate with the other two nations.
But with relations between Japan and its nearest neighbors at a low ebb, Tokyo wants to avoid apportioning blame.
"We have a neutral stance," said Yukihiko Sakamoto of the National Fisheries Agency, which organized Thursday's conference.
'Culinary solution'
"It doesn't matter whether the jellyfish come from South Korean waters or Japanese waters. We just want to do something to minimize the damage to the fishing industry," he said.
Spikes in population have occurred in the past, notably in 1958, but consecutive outbreaks in 2002 and 2003 prompted the government to seek reasons and solutions.
Scientists have suggested global warming might be a factor.
Some fishermen have had some success in combating the intruders by introducing guide nets with larger than usual holes.
Jellyfish are simply swept through the holes by water currents, while other fish tend to notice the nets and swim alongside them, eventually being trapped in the fishing nets.
"By altering the way we fish, we have probably secured 80 to 90 percent of our normal catch," said fisherman Masatoshi Kuruma, who said he has in the past found up to 3,000 jellyfish in his nets off Nyuzenmachi in Toyama prefecture.
Officials at Thursday's conference are also set to propose a forecasting system that would allow fishermen to prepare for the next onslaught of the jumbo jellyfish.
South Korean fishermen have been suffering similar woes, but China, where giant jellyfish are a delicacy often served dried and dressed with sesame oil, does not seem to have registered the outbreak as a major problem, Japanese officials said.
Seaside communities in Japan have tried to capitalize on the menace by developing novel jellyfish dishes from tofu to ice cream, but for some reason the recipes have failed to take off.
Participants at Thursday's conference said they had experimented with feeding the jellyfish to farmed crabs and using them as fertilizer.
Scientist with an agenda will blame anything on global warming.
Coldest on record since 1927....hum....
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/19/D8F7TLHO0.html
Plus in Europe...
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/0....r0tg2976.html
Yes, those damn scientist who are paid by the oil and gas industry will try to debunk science. They look more stupid every day.
Whales swimming up the river Thames? Rare whales spotted way off course near the coast of Texas? Giant jellyfish? All of them where they aren't supposed to be= Ocean temperatures, currents are screwed up= Screwed up weather patterns= not good for us.
The discussion of global warming should be a discussion of extreme climatic events and what is causing them. Sitting here in northwest arkansas dry as a bone watching rain in the forecast go south or north or east or west, global drying would be our greatest fear about now! And, yes, we haven't had much of a winter so far!
Here it is nearly 2 a.m. and I have the old dog outback and am about to take the younger four out to run, etc.
The weather channel predicts 70 percent chance of rain, maybe a quarter inch, for today, but the radar shows two separate storms coming across Oklahoma. One appears likely to cross north of us and the other south of us. Same pattern. Is Frank Broyles causing the draught? He had the audacity to remarry only a year after his wife died and is getting hip replacement surgery "to help his golf game." Maybe he just demanded sunshine and warm days so he could golf all winter!
Last Year Was Warmest in a Century By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer 49 minutes ago
NEW YORK - Last year was the warmest in a century, nosing out 1998, a federal analysis concludes.
Researchers calculated that 2005 produced the highest annual average surface temperature worldwide since instrument recordings began in the late 1800s, said James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The result confirms a prediction the institute made in December.
In a telephone interview, Hansen said the analysis estimated temperatures in the Arctic from nearby weather stations because no direct data were available. Because of that, "we couldn't say with 100 percent certainty that it's the warmest year, but I'm reasonably confident that it was," Hansen said.
More important, he said, is that 2005 reached the warmth of 1998 without help of the "El Nino of the century" that pushed temperatures up in 1998.
Over the past 30 years, Earth has warmed a bit more than 1 degree in total, making it about the warmest it's been in 10,000 years, Hansen said. He blamed a buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
Jay Lawrimore of the federal government's National Climatic Data Center said his own center's current data suggest 2005 came in a close second to 1998, in part because of how the Arctic was factored in. But he said a forthcoming analysis "will likely show that 2005 is slightly warmer than 1998."
___
On the Net:
Goddard analysis: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005
National Climatic Data Center: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov
And before Tyler or Sooner posts an article about the record cold in Europe, Please read the following. I bet Rush and the right wing radio nut jobs have been preaching all week about how the global warming environazis have it all wrong since Europe is in a deep freeze.
Academic prescribes turbines to cool global warming
Scheme would cost every European a whopping $500
NUNATSIAQ NEWS
A researcher at the University of Alberta has come up an odd scheme to reduce the effects of global warming - one that involves 8,100 barges equipped with wind turbines pumping water to produce more Arctic ice.
Dr. Peter Flynn, who holds the Poole Chair in Management for Engineers, suggested the unusual plan as a last resort to deal with one of the strangest consequences of climate change: it could actually plunge Europe into a deep freeze.
That's because a warming climate has weakened the Gulf Stream, a current that works like a giant conveyor belt, pulling warm water from the south Atlantic into the Greenland Sea, where it cools and sinks into the deep.
This movement of warm water releases heat into the air. And that keeps the climate of countries like the UK, which is at the same latitude as Labrador, soggy and mild rather than bitterly cold.
But with the amount of Arctic sea ice shrinking, the Gulf Stream has slowed. Research conducted last summer showed the Gulf Stream had weakened by some 30 per cent.
To prevent Europe from freezing over, Flynn suggests that 8,100 barges mounted with wind turbines and water pumps could be frozen into the sea ice.
The pumps, powered by the turbines, would gush water from beneath the ice on to the surface, where it would freeze and thicken up to seven metres during the winter.
The project comes with a hefty pricetag: $50 billion. But during an appearance on the CBC science program Quirks and Quarks, Flynn reasoned that Europe's big chill could affect 100 million people, which works out to just $500 each.
"If the glaciers are at your back door or if the Thames is freezing over, $500 per person is not too large a number," he said.
He added that curbing the amount of fossil fuels being burned is the best cure for global warming, but other options may be needed.
"This would be our last choice. Our first choice would be not to put too much carbon in the atmosphere."
"We'd love to treat the root of the problem, but if the world gets into a crisis, it might be necessary to deal with the symptoms as well."
OK DB. I read it so here goes. :icon_wink
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/0....kblzdwi6.html
TYLER, global warming is about AVERAGES. The average global temperature is rising. Yes, the north and south poles are very cold during their winter periods. However, the AVERAGE cold temperatures for the North Pole are getting warmer than they were 50 years ago.
So, this blast of cold air into Eastern Europe and Russia doesn't mean that global warming is not taking place.
Salty, people like Typler KNOW about averages and GW, they just dont want to admit they are wrong.
Bump again. Gee, now we have to kill all of the plants on earth right?? :icon_winkQuote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Plants are NOT a new source of global warming gases since plants have always been on planet Earth for 100s of millions of years. What you are trying to say is that scientists have discovered that plants produce greenhouse gases as a by-product of their solar energy conversion. Gee, isn't science wonderful!! We learn new things all the time.
The reason we are having a global increase in CO2 every year is because, for the most part, we are buring fossil fuels.
Near Record 45 - 58 Degrees Below Zero today in Alaska
Special Weather Statement
Middle Tanana Valley (Alaska)
SPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENTNATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE FAIRBANKS AK544 AM AST THU JAN 26 2006AKZ222-270245-MIDDLE TANANA VALLEY-INCLUDING THE CITIES OF...FAIRBANKS...FORT WAINWRIGHT...EIELSON AFB...ESTER...NORTH POLE...MOOSE CREEK...TWO RIVERS...FOX...CHATANIKA...CHENA HOT SPRINGS...SOURDOUGH CAMP544 AM AST THU JAN 26 2006...VERY COLD TEMPERATURES WILL CONTINUE ACROSS THE INTERIORINTO NEXT WEEK...THE CURRENT COLD WAVE WILL CONTINUE INTO NEXT WEEK ACROSS THEINTERIOR WITH TEMPERATURES REMAINING BETWEEN 25 AND 50 BELOW.TEMPERATURES ACROSS THE INTERIOR HAVE FALLEN INTO THE 40S AND 50SBELOW ZERO THIS MORNING.SOME SELECTED LOW TEMPERATURES FROM THIS MORNING ARE:FAIRBANKS......46 BELOWEIELSON........44 BELOWNENANA.........51 BELOWTANANA.........49 BELOWFORT YUKON.....58 BELOWBEAVER.........58 BELOWNORTHWAY.......49 BELOWEAGLE..........52 BELOWDENALI PARK....45 BELOW$$JB
The reason I have four children is that the stork keeps coming by our house every two years or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.
Gee, I thought all along it was because most of us weren't taught how to put a condom on a bannana in H.S. in the 70's and 80's. Silly Libs!Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
i'm not sure that that would even limit the bannana's ability to reproduce. :D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
:laugh: :laugh: Kerry managed somehow. No wait, he's not the top bannana now.Quote:
Originally Posted by sik-m-boi
Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to whether climate change is progressing so rapidly that, within decades, humans may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend.
This "tipping point" scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad, because the answer could determine how drastically countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years. While scientists remain uncertain when such a point might occur, many say it is urgent that policymakers cut global carbon dioxide emissions in half over the next 50 years or risk the triggering of changes that would be irreversible.
There are three specific events that these scientists describe as especially worrisome and potentially imminent, although the time frames are a matter of dispute: widespread coral bleaching that could damage the world's fisheries within three decades; dramatic sea level rise by the end of the century that would take tens of thousands of years to reverse; and, within 200 years, a shutdown of the ocean current that moderates temperatures in northern Europe.
The debate has been intensifying because Earth is warming much faster than some researchers had predicted. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, last week confirmed that 2005 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 1998. Earth's average temperature has risen nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, he noted, and another increase of about 4 degrees over the next century would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet."
"It's not something you can adapt to," Hansen said in an interview. "We can't let it go on another 10 years like this. We've got to do something."
Princeton University geosciences and international affairs professor Michael Oppenheimer, who also advises the advocacy group Environmental Defense, said one of the greatest dangers lies in the disintegration of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets, which together hold about 20 percent of the fresh water on the planet. If either of the two sheets disintegrates, sea level could rise nearly 20 feet in the course of a couple of centuries, swamping the southern third of Florida and Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village.
While both the Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets as a whole are gaining some mass in their cold interiors because of increasing snowfall, they are losing ice along their peripheries. That indicates that scientists may have underestimated the rate of disintegration they face in the future, Oppenheimer said. Greenland's current net ice loss is equivalent to an annual 0.008 inch sea level rise.
The effects of the collapse of either ice sheet would be "huge," Oppenheimer said. "Once you lost one of these ice sheets, there's really no putting it back for thousands of years, if ever."
Last year, the British government sponsored a scientific symposium on "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change," which examined a number of possible tipping points. A book based on that conference, due to be published Tuesday, suggests that disintegration of the two ice sheets becomes more likely if average temperatures rise by more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit, a prospect "well within the range of climate change projections for this century."
The report concludes that a temperature rise of just 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit "is likely to lead to extensive coral bleaching," destroying critical fish nurseries in the Caribbean and Southeast Asia. Too-warm sea temperatures stress corals, causing them to expel symbiotic micro-algae that live in their tissues and provide them with food, and thus making the reefs appear bleached. Bleaching that lasts longer than a week can kill corals. This fall there was widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad that killed broad swaths of corals, in part because ocean temperatures were 2 degrees Fahrenheit above average monthly maximums.
Many scientists are also worried about a possible collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation, a current that brings warm surface water to northern Europe and returns cold, deep-ocean water south. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who directs Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, has run multiple computer models to determine when climate change could disrupt this "conveyor belt," which, according to one study, is already slower than it was 30 years ago. According to these simulations, there is a 50 percent chance the current will collapse within 200 years.
Some scientists, including President Bush's chief science adviser, John H. Marburger III, emphasize there is still much uncertainty about when abrupt global warming might occur.
"There's no agreement on what it is that constitutes a dangerous climate change," said Marburger, adding that the U.S. government spends $2 billion a year on researching this and other climate change questions. "We know things like this are possible, but we don't have enough information to quantify the level of risk."
This tipping point debate has stirred controversy within the administration; Hansen said senior political appointees are trying to block him from sharing his views publicly.
When Hansen posted data on the Internet in the fall suggesting that 2005 could be the warmest year on record, NASA officials ordered Hansen to withdraw the information because he had not had it screened by the administration in advance, according to a Goddard scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity. More recently, NASA officials tried to discourage a reporter from interviewing Hansen for this article and later insisted he could speak on the record only if an agency spokeswoman listened in on the conversation.
"They're trying to control what's getting out to the public," Hansen said, adding that many of his colleagues are afraid to talk about the issue. "They're not willing to say much, because they've been pressured and they're afraid they'll get into trouble."
But Mary L. Cleave, deputy associate administrator for NASA's Office of Earth Science, said the agency insists on monitoring interviews with scientists to ensure they are not misquoted.
"People could see it as a constraint," Cleave said. "As a manager, I might see it as protection."
John R. Christy, director of the Earth Science System Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said it is possible increased warming will be offset by other factors, such as increased cloudiness that would reflect more sunlight. "Whatever happens, we will adapt to it," Christy said.
Scientists who read the history of Earth's climate in ancient sediments, ice cores and fossils find clear signs that it has shifted abruptly in the past on a scale that could prove disastrous for modern society. Peter B. deMenocal, an associate professor at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, said that about 8,200 years ago, a very sudden cooling shut down the Atlantic conveyor belt. As a result, the land temperature in Greenland dropped more than 9 degrees Fahrenheit within a decade or two.
"It's not this abstract notion that happens over millions of years," deMenocal said. "The magnitude of what we're talking about greatly, greatly exceeds anything we've withstood in human history."
These kinds of concerns have spurred some governments to make major cuts in the carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming. Britain has slashed its emissions by 14 percent, compared with 1990 levels, and aims to reduce them by 60 percent by 2050. Some European countries, however, are lagging well behind their targets under the international Kyoto climate treaty.
David Warrilow, who heads science policy on climate change for Britain's Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that while the science remains unsettled, his government has decided to take a precautionary approach. He compared consuming massive amounts of fossil fuels to the strategy of the Titanic's crew, who were unable to avoid an iceberg because they were speeding across the Atlantic in hopes of breaking a record.
"We know there are icebergs out there, but at the moment we're accelerating toward the tipping point," Warrilow said in an interview. "This is silly. We should be doing the opposite, slowing down whilst we build up our knowledge base."
The Bush administration espouses a different approach. Marburger said that though everyone agrees carbon dioxide emissions should decline, the United States prefers to promote cleaner technology rather than impose mandatory greenhouse gas limits. "The U.S. is the world leader in doing something on climate change because of its actions on changing technology," he said.
Stanford University climatologist Stephen H. Schneider, who is helping oversee a major international assessment of how climate change could expose humans and the environment to new vulnerabilities, said countries respond differently to the global warming issue in part because they are affected differently by it. The small island nation of Kiribati is made up of 33 small atolls, none of which is more than 6.5 feet above the South Pacific, and it is only a matter of time before the entire country is submerged by the rising sea.
"For Kiribati, the tipping point has already occurred," Schneider said. "As far as they're concerned, it's tipped, but they have no economic clout in the world."
Good article Salty.
Here is Clinton's input. I don't agree with the Hamas thing, but his top concern should be everyone's. Yet, we still have a few ostrich's on this forum who think everything is normal. I am sure Cartek is going to say something about Clinton and a blow job.
Clinton: Climate change is the world's biggest worry
By DAN PERRY
Associated Press Writer
January 28, 2006, 2:00 PM EST
DAVOS, Switzerland -- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton told corporate chieftains and political bigwigs Saturday that climate change was the world's biggest problem _ followed by global inequality and the "apparently irreconcilable" religious and cultural differences behind terrorism.
Clinton's comments provided something a freewheeling and philosophical finale _ ahead of Sunday's formal wrap-up _ to several days of high-powered discourse on the state of the world, and the mostly admiring audience seemed to hang on his every word.
"First, I worry about climate change," Clinton said in an onstage conversation with the founder of the World Economic Forum. "It's the only thing that I believe has the power to fundamentally end the march of civilization as we know it, and make a lot of the other efforts that we're making irrelevant and impossible."
Clinton called for "a serious global effort to develop a clean energy future" to avoid the onset of another ice age.
He also said the current global system "works to aggravate rather than ameliorate inequality" between and within nations _ including in the United States, where he lamented the "growing concentration of wealth at the top," alongside stagnation for the middle classes and rising poverty.
"I don't think we've found the way to promote economic and political integration in a manner that benefits the vast majority of the people in all societies and makes them feel that they are benefited by it," he said. "Voters usually see ... issues from the prism of their own experience."
Clinton won frequent enthusiastic applause _ not a common situation at the annual gathering in the Swiss Alps _ for articulating a global vision more conciliatory and inclusive than the one many of the assembled tend to associate with U.S. politics.
People around the world "basically want to know that we're on their side, that we wish them well, that we want the best for them, that we're pulling for them," he said.
Clinton called on current world leaders to seek ways of easing the "apparently irreconcilable religious and cultural differences in the world, that are manifest most stunningly in headlines about terrorist actions but really go far beyond that."
"You really can't have a global economy or a global society or a global approach to health and other things unless there is some sense of global community."
Former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans was listening. "He's a great performer and then he's got the greatest convening power of anyone now in the world, I think, and the greatest capacity to articulate things that matter," said Evans, who now heads the International Crisis Group, a think tank.
Clinton also dispensed advice on the issues of the day.
In Iraq, he said, the United States should not "give this thing up and say it can't work," but should consider "drawing down some of our troops and reconfiguring their components, trying to increase the special forces (and) putting them in places where they're not quite as vulnerable."
Iran, he argued, must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, and neither economic sanctions nor "any other option" should be ruled out as ways of preventing this. But he warned there would be "an enormous political price to pay if the global community ... looked like they went to force before everything else has been exhausted."
Clinton also suggested the West should be more open to eventual dialogue with Hamas, the radical Palestinian group whose election victory stunned the world this week and clouded the prospects of any resolution to the conflict with Israel.
"One of the politically correct things in American politics ... is we just don't talk to some people that we don't like, particularly if they ever killed anybody in a way that we hate," he said. "I do think that if you've got enough self-confidence in who you are and what you believe in, you ought not to be scared to talk to anybody."
"You've got to find a way to at least open doors ... and I don't see how we can do it without more contact," he said. Hamas might "acquire a greater sense of responsibility, and as they do we have to be willing to act on that."
Klaus Schwab, the forum's founder and organizer, asked Clinton to advise the next U.S. president, noting that this person might either be married to Clinton or listening in the audience _ an apparent reference to Sen. John McCain, seated in the first row along with Microsoft's Bill Gates and other invitees.
"In this world full of culturally charged issues I think we should make it clear that Senator McCain and I are not married," Clinton joked as the audience burst into laughter.
The comment earned Clinton a slap on the back from the Arizona Republican, who fought a crowd to get to the former president after the event.
"Interesting talk," said the beaming possible 2008 presidential contender. "You got us both in trouble!"
Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
var st_v=1.0; var st_pg=""; var st_ci="703"; var st_di="d010"; var st_dd="st.sageanalyst.net"; var st_tai="v:1.2.1"; var st_ai=""; if (st_v==1.0) { var st_uj; var st_dn = (new Date()).getTime(); var st_rf = escape(document.referrer); st_uj = "//"+st_dd+"/"+st_dn+"/JS?ci="+st_ci+"&di="+st_di+ "&pg="+st_pg+"&rf="+st_rf+"&jv="+st_v+"&tai="+st_t ai+"&ai="+st_ai; var iXz = new Image(); iXz.src = st_uj; }[IMG]//st.sageanalyst.net/NS?ci=703&di=d010&pg=&ai=[/IMG]
I just wonder if Bush is even going to address anything about GW during his State of the Union. I bet he won't.
I don't know, he might, but he will present it in a way that gives the impression that there is not urgency to the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
he probably will. he always throws some big bones in environmentalists' direction in the sotu. usually in the form of promises to spend way too much money on something that won't do a whole lot of good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
The Democratic Way, ArkBob.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Why won't it do any good? Because GW doesn't exist or because it won't be enough to prevent it from getting worse?Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
I doubt he even brings it up. He has too many cans of worms opened right now that need to be closesd to help with his piss poor approval ratings. He may give wind to something about alternative fuel sources like he always does.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
His approval ratings are right about where they were when he was re-elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Who cares about polls anyway. Bush wouldn't be President if he were elected by polls. Polls are only another form of lying.
No they are not. About 10 points difference. The red line has crossed the blue line.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042500945.html
Old poll. Here is the lastest Rasmussen:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Quote:
Tuesday January 31, 2006--Forty-eight percent (48%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.
He is making a comeback.
Even still, I don't believe polls mean a dadgum thing.
Those polls do mean he isn't very popular right now. Of course the American populace moves these polls with their pocketbook and gas is still way too high. If gas dropped down to 1.50 in the morning, Bush's poll numbers would skyrocket.
exactly right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Ya but he and his buddies net worth would take a huge hit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
I don't think I've posted here before, but here is my $0.02:
1. We DO know with some certainty that average global temperatures have risen over the past 30 years, and with a little less certainty that they have risen over the past 100+ years. We DON'T know for sure how this stands up to millenia of history. It MAY be significant, but we can't DEMONSTRATE this with any certainty.
2. Human/technological CO2 emissions have increased at an alarming rate (exacerbating the already high, but absorbable rates due to natural/nontechnological processes). This is primarily related to the increased human consumption of fossil fuels.
3. The "solutions" touted by some very influential and passionate activists, resulting in arrangements such as the Kyoto protocols, would make very little difference in overall global greenhouse gas emissions, and would make this small change at costs that would paralyze economic growth in many areas.
4. The only real solution is to dramatically and permanently reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. But there is no quick way to do this, and it would also be expensive. However, the cost would be more recoverable than the costs associated with Kyoto-like solutions, since the result would be replacement technologies, and their associated industries. Kyoto primarily just requires industry to reduce what it is doing, with little or no incentive to find alternative energy sources (except for the virtually punitive nature of the protocol itself).
5. Unfortunately, the Republican approach seems to be to let market forces find this replacement technology for us, offering mild incentives along the way. Major, pervasive, infrastructure-level changes like these require a much slower evolution when market-driven than we can afford, based on the early data regarding the effects of our over-use of fossil fuels.
6. What we need, IMO, is a multi-national Manhattan Project-style blitz to scour the best of the alternative energy sources we have, and to develop one or two into viability. However, I know this is highly unlikely, and we will unfortunately continue to nickel and dime our way to the next fuel, and probably not before we suffer catastrophic consequences at either the geo-political or environmental level.
I can't wait to see what color dots I get for this...
i'm not alarmed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian96
i don't think that's really neccessary. a combination of nuclear and coal power plants, along with a combination of hydrogen, alcohol, and hybrid/electric vehicles would probably reduce co2 emissions more than kyoto. the power part is the one the enviro-mentalists have a problem with. they are irrationally and fanatically against nuclear power, and coal makes more co2 than some other fuels. but the money the country as a whole would save on generated power with a grid primarily supplied by coal and nuclear would allow us to afford more expensive transportation technologies. but that sort of thing requires common sense, something enviro-mentalists are short on.Quote:
6. What we need, IMO, is a multi-national Manhattan Project-style blitz to scour the best of the alternative energy sources we have, and to develop one or two into viability. However, I know this is highly unlikely, and we will unfortunately continue to nickel and dime our way to the next fuel, and probably not before we suffer catastrophic consequences at either the geo-political or environmental level.
It doesn't surprise me that ARBob isn't alarmed. I think number 6 on Brian's post is the way this should be approached.
ARBob, I hope you don't like food because the food chain is starting to fall apart.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060201/..._warming_birds
As well as mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
i LOVE food, and that claim is rediculous. and even if the food chain were falling apart, we don't rely on the natural "food chain" for our food supply. besides, wouldn't it be great to be able to grow bananas and coffee in louisiana and mississippi? of course, then the coming ice age would put a lot of farmers out of business. :icon_rollQuote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
by the way, did anybody see southpark last night ("two days before the day after tomorrow")? some of their most brilliant work yet.
Dang. Global warming is ending this week. Well, it was good while it lasted.Quote:
The current warmth is caused by the unusual position of the jet stream, the high-altitude river of air that flows west-to-east across North America. It divides warm air from cold, with colder temperatures to its north and warmer temperatures to its south.
Usually in the winter, it follows a lazy zigzag across the United States and Canada, allowing cold air into the U.S. where it dips south, Halpert said. But for the past month or so, it has instead flowed east in almost a straight line across the northern part of the country, basically forming a fence that has kept cold air out and allowed in milder air masses from the Pacific Ocean instead.
Over the coming week, Halpert said, the jet stream is expected to return to its usual wavy pattern, bringing cold air to the eastern U.S. once again.
don't you know that it's a gang of hostile co2 molecules that told the jet stream not to come any further south "or else"? greenhouse gases have taken over the atmosphere and any inconvenient weather phenomena are a direct result of their influence.:icon_winkQuote:
Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
George Bush doesn't care about beavers!Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
One of the best in a long time. Classic South Park.
Hey Arkansasbob, January 06' warmest on Record EVER. Take that and cram it up your jetstream.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/07/D8FKGOE80.html
Did you even read this article?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
The warm weather was caused because the jet stream didn't drop down for a month. The rest of the world is cold.Quote:
On the other hand, while much of the United States was basking in warm weather, parts of Europe and Asia were being battered by bitter cold. Climate details for the rest of the world for January are expected to be available next week.
During the month the jet stream, a strong high-altitude wind that guides weather fronts from west to east, stayed unusually far to the north, keeping the coldest air in Canada and Alaska, the agency said.
Keeping that cold air to the north allowed mild Pacific air to moderate temperatures across the contiguous states, leading to the warm conditions. However, the jet stream is now sliding into a more typical winter pattern, according to the Climate Prediction Center. The February outlook calls for below-normal temperatures in the mid-Atlantic, the Southeast and intermountain West, and above-normal temperatures in the Southwest, the northern Plains and Alaska.
You're mind is made up to the point that you apparently can't even read an article objectively.
This world is an aweful big place. For some, if it is cold and/or raining where they live they assume it is cold and/or raining everywhere. Go figure.
ExactlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Cool Hand Clyde
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) -- Amid concerns that global warming is melting away the icy habitats where polar bears live, the federal government is reviewing whether they should be considered a threatened species.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Tuesday that protection may be warranted under the Endangered Species Act, and began a review process to consider if the bears should be listed.
The agency will seek information about population distribution, habitat, effects of climate change on the bears and their prey, potential threats from development, contaminants and poaching during the next 60 days.
The decision comes after the Center for Biological Diversity of Joshua Tree, California, filed a petition last year that said polar bears could become extinct by the end of the century because their sea ice habitat is melting away.
The group, joined by the environmental groups Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace, also filed a federal lawsuit in December to seek federal protections for the polar bear.
"I think it's a very important acknowledgment that global warming is transforming the Arctic and threatening polar bears with extinction," said Kassie Siegel, lead author of the center's petition.
Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Bruce Woods said the petition "contains sufficient information to convince us that we need to do a more thorough analysis of the polar bear population worldwide."
Polar bears under U.S. jurisdiction are found only in Alaska. They spend most of their lives on sea ice, but the center said if current rates of decline in sea ice continue, the summertime Arctic could be completely ice-free well before the end of the century.
There is some disagreement about whether polar bears are actually being threatened.
Federal wildlife officials report healthy populations of polar bears, and are working on a hard population count. However, the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center, NASA and the University of Washington said last fall that there was a "stunning reduction in Arctic sea ice at the end of the northern summer."
If the polar bear were listed as a threatened species, federal regulatory agencies would be required to consider how their decisions affect polar bears.
A listing could affect industries seeking permission to release greenhouse gases or decisions such as setting fuel economy standards for vehicles, Siegel said.
Wow. In the millions of years of earth's existence, I had the fortune to live through the warmest January EVER? Or, in the millions of years of cycles of temperature change on earth, I have had the fortune of living through the warmest January in less than a nanosecond of cosmic time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
the article does not go into much detail on the dissenting opinion. the fact is that all population studies have showed a growing polar bear population. the only argument that the bears might be endangered is the receding ice. it doesn't seem to have been affecting the population thus far. as for the shrinking polar ice cap as evidnence for global warming, see the increase in ice coverage in the antarctic.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
The amazing thing about this is that the record wasnt just broken, it was SHATTERED! DESTROYED by 2.2 degrees warmer than 2nd place!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Amazing.
Nothing to see here. Move along. Everything is just fine. :icon_wink
It wasn't the warmest January in Louisiana despite the jet stream staying north. The fact is, you only want to talk about things that advance your agenda, and want to ignore facts that do not. You have a future with the Washington Post.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
Sooner, have you read any of the other articles posted through here about how the Gulfstream has slowed down and is not doing what it is supposed to be doing because of the lack of Ice melt/remelt issues caused by global warming? Or is it that you like jerking my chain?Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
Get out a globe and look and see what lattitude lines Europe sits on. They are about on the same lattitude as far north Canada but enjoy nice warm weather due to these currents and warm ocean water. That shit is broke to put it bluntly, and YES, they are cold. Other areas of the globe are suffering the same problems with other ocean currents.
Sorry to say EVER, but since recorded temperatures. That makes September 05', and January 06' two record months. Am I missing more? Like the whole year of 2005?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian96
Looks as if Natural Selection will have to take over. Maybe they will evolve into a swimming mammal kind of like the whales.:icon_razzQuote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
Actually, the earth is only 6000 years old according to some on here, so yeah, you may have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian96
Who ever said that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Please tell me you are not claiming that the theory that the gulf stream is slowing down caused the jet stream to stay in a straight line during January. What a reach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Nothing in that article says anything about the "gulf" stream, only the "jet" stream. Big difference.
Look, DB, I will admit that there are people who are measuring water temperatures that are finding the temperature of the earth's waters are higher by a few degrees than they were. The problem I have is, I'm not going to advocate that we kill our economy because you have scientist with an agenda who want to blame our wonderful economy for that small rise in temperature.
The people who are pushing this global warming theory hate and are jealous of our economy. I expect England, Germany and any other countries who wants what we have to talk us into tying our hands behind our economic backs. They want us to lose our productivity. They want us to ride around on bicycles like they do in Europe. Personally, I want to ride around in my car and go where I want to go, quickly and as far as I want to go.
Your interpretation of this article on the jet stream tells me that you cannot see this objectively, because you have an agenda. Whether global warming exists is somewhat debatable, and should be debated by those who can do something about it. The fact that we had a warm, wonderful January had nothing to do with global warming, and you seriously are losing a lot of credibilty by arguing that it did. In the meantime, your worring cost you some very wonderful days.
Yeah and it's flat too. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Sooner, you don't pay attention very well. You mentioned the fact that Europe was freezing. There is a reason it is freezing and that has to do with the GULF stream not the JET stream.
I did not address the jet stream because I haven't read enough on it to argue the matter. However, I could probably theorize that the lack of ice/warmer artic temperatures may have something to do with it.
Agendas/jealousy? Talk about a "reach". What a freaking joke. However, getting more fatasses on bikes may not be a bad idea. It may solve the skyrocketing health costs in this country.
And, yes, I enjoyed a wonderful day down in Austin, TX. I managed to pick up a few miles out in the nice warm sunshine.
Blah, blah, blah - You win. The United States sucks and has set off an extinction level event that will kill off our grand children. Have a good night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Just to be fair, there are agendas on both sides of the issue.
The fact is, we as humans do tend to be wasteful as a race, and we Americans blow the rest of the race out of the water with our wastefulness.
Our technology--and our economy--have developed enough since the beginning of the industrial revolution that we have no excuse for wanton wastefulness. But that doesn't mean our economy could absorb some of the extreme policies that have been proposed--Kyoto in particular.
But let's keep our eye on Iran. If things turn bad there, it may solve our problems for us, by raising the cost of petroleum so high that it cripples our economy and forces a change. Of course, we might not learn the lesson, since even the oil crisis in the '70s didn't learn us nothin'.
We shouldn't be myopic. However, some of you were just waiting for this to be posted. Second biggest winter storm in NYC history. Hum...
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/12/D8FNOIC00.html
after it hadnt snowed up and down the coast in months.... big whoop. not helping the drought in texas.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Somewhat true. But it sure is fun watching those yankees freeze their butts off. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
Is this the longest thread ever or when will it be? Late night read for something new every day.
Two feet of snow wouldn't be enough moisture to bring Fayetteville, Arkansas, out of the drought, either.
We had 11 degrees Saturday night and expect 19 by dawn Monday. But this used to be an ordinary situation a few years back. I have worn a T shirt to work three out of every five work days this winter and some nights didn't even put a jacket on to drive home after midnight! Not a good thing, although it is convenient and pleasant to be outdoors. Some weekends we opened the windows a few hours both days! Despite this situation, we have had extremely high natural-gas billls!
Our snow was only a few short-lived flurries and the wind blew it away this weekend, leaving little to even soak in to the extremely dry soil. Better than nothing.
never in my life have i known anyone to talk as if a warm january was a bad thing.:shocked2:
As the Earth gets warmer, its atmosphere is able to carry more water vapour which translates into bigger rain and snow storms. So expect even bigger snow storms in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Yeah Tyler...didn't you see "The Day After Tomorrow"? :icon_winkQuote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Tyler, Large amounts of snow charged by warmer ocean water. Heard that this morning. Try again.
When you don't have enough cold and ice to kill pests, that could be bad for everyone except pesticide companies. Also, some fruit trees require cold air for proper growth and development.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
i think it got cold enough this weekend to take care of all the pests (the insect-type, anyway -- spinoza seems to still be hanging around:icon_wink ).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
You are correct, sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
And just as Dawgbitten says above, GW and >normal Atlantic ocean temps probably aided this storm a little...
Welcome to reality non-believers.
We need to start an over/under as to when arkansasbob, soonerdawg, tyler, and a few others finally have to admit they are wrong on this subject. :)
2008?
2010?
2012?
I must admit that you guys are persistent. If the weather is warm, it is global warming. If the weather is cold, it is global warming. If it is a drought, is global warming. If it is a blizzard, it is global warming. If England is expecting cold weather over the next decade, it is global warming. If the ice caps are receding on the north pole, it is global warming. If they are increasing on the south pole, it is global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
Not only that, you believe that the evil United States and its progress is causing all of this.
There is really no way to debate this with you, because you have made up your mind, and no fact will make you change your mind.
I refuse to be swayed by your fear. I enjoyed the warm weather we had. Now I'm glad for the cold weather that is killing the bugs. I choose to enjoy life.
:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Unfortunately, the facts show that global warming is taking place. You seem to be the one who is ignoring reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
Everybody in "Green Country" that I've talked to as never seen a drought as bad as the current one.. I bet almost every pond in Tulsa County is getting very low. Of course, I'm not saying that it is due to global warming, but there is something going on with our weather.