Global Warming Cont...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

ARKBob, most of the CO2 increase has been over the past 50 years, not the last 300. It is not linear.

I would say that the average global temperature has increased by about .05C over the past 100 years, and that it is mostly due to increases in the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Don't know where you get the idea that there is no relationship between atmospheric greenhouse gases and average global temperatures. Although only a tiny part of the total atmosphere, if they were removed the average global temperature would be about 12F.

Remember, the increases in the average global temperature are not uniform around the planet. It is mostly occurring as increases in the lows in the polar areas of the Northern Hemisphere.

In 100 years, if nothing is changed, the atmosphere will contain about 1366 gigatons of CO2, up from today's 766 gigatons.

---

i don't know if you have been deceived or if you are trying to be deceptive. i certainly never argued that there is no relationship between greenhouse gases and climate. as long as this thread has gone on, i thought you would have figured that out by now. the fact that greenhouse gases are essential to keeping vital heat near the earth's surface has nothing to do with the idea that a small increase in a minor greenhouse gas is going to destroy the earth as we know it.

O.K., A-Bob, let's cut to the bone.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2...6-06-22-10.asp

Do I go short ski resorts and coastal real estate ??

Do I plan to move to Idaho or Vermont ??

Actually, I've skied almost all of Vermont, so that would be a viable option, one I might be able to live with even tho I can't stand their politics.

What's a body to do ??

:laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nadB

O.K., A-Bob, let's cut to the bone.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2...6-06-22-10.asp

Do I go short ski resorts and coastal real estate ??

Do I plan to move to Idaho or Vermont ??

Actually, I've skied almost all of Vermont, so that would be a viable option, one I might be able to live with even tho I can't stand their politics.

What's a body to do ??

:laugh:

---

just move to north dakota. in a few years the weather there will be much nicer -- kinda like south dakota. :rolleyes4

FINALLY! The debate is over. Let's see if he can lead or if this is just more greenhouse gas escaping from his mouth.

Bush: Climate change is 'serious problem'
Jun 26 2:50 PM US/Eastern
http://www.breitbart.com/images/envelope.gif Email this story http://img.breitbart.com/images/LogoAFPsmall.jpg

US President George W. Bush said it was time to move past a debate over whether human activity is a significant factor behind global warming and into a discussion of possible remedies.
"I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There's a debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused," Bush told reporters.
http://www.breitbart.com/images/2006...lt-245x167.jpg
"We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary to enable us to achieve a couple of big objectives: One, be good stewards of the environment; two, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, for economic reasons as for national security reasons," he said.
Bush cited "clean-coal technology," efforts to develop automobiles powered by hydrogen or ethanol, and his push for the United States to develop significant new nuclear energy capabilities.
"The truth of the matter is, if this country wants to get rid of its greenhouse gases, we've got to have the nuclear power industry be vibrant and viable," he said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgbitten

FINALLY! The debate is over. Let's see if he can lead or if this is just more greenhouse gas escaping from his mouth.

Bush: Climate change is 'serious problem'
Jun 26 2:50 PM US/Eastern
http://www.breitbart.com/images/envelope.gif Email this story http://img.breitbart.com/images/LogoAFPsmall.jpg

US President George W. Bush said it was time to move past a debate over whether human activity is a significant factor behind global warming and into a discussion of possible remedies.
"I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There's a debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused," Bush told reporters.
http://www.breitbart.com/images/2006...lt-245x167.jpg
"We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary to enable us to achieve a couple of big objectives: One, be good stewards of the environment; two, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, for economic reasons as for national security reasons," he said.
Bush cited "clean-coal technology," efforts to develop automobiles powered by hydrogen or ethanol, and his push for the United States to develop significant new nuclear energy capabilities.
"The truth of the matter is, if this country wants to get rid of its greenhouse gases, we've got to have the nuclear power industry be vibrant and viable," he said.

---

I like the last sentence. If complaints of global warming leads to the use of nuclear power for our electicity needs, then I will remain silent. What a great idea. Use global warming to get the liberals to let us build nuclear power plants again. What does Jane Fonda think of this?

"Fonda aint got no motor in the back of her Honda..." It's a communist hydrogen cell!

Report: Global Warming Is Real

John Heilprin, Associated Press

http://dsc.discovery.com/common/sgal...extsmaller.gif

June 22, 2006 — The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, probably even longer.

The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers the Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming."

Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about one degree during the 20th century.

This is shown in boreholes, retreating glaciers and other evidence found in nature, said Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University who chaired the academy's panel.

The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.

Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.
Boehlert said Thursday the report shows the value of having scientists advise Congress.

"There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change," he said.

Other new research Thursday showed that global warming produced about half of the extra warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005, and natural cycles were a minor factor, according to Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the Commerce Department's National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Their study is being published by the American Geophysical Union.

The Bush administration has maintained that the threat is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs.

Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years. Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.

The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes research from the late 1990s was likely to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member. The conclusions from the '90s research "are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.
The panel looked at how other scientists reconstructed the Earth's temperatures going back thousands of years, before there was data from modern scientific instruments.
For all but the most recent 150 years, the scientists relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps.
Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the academy said.

Since 1876 there have been less than 4 tropical storms and hurricanes that have developed in what is considered the Northwest Atlantic during the month of June. They are not supposed to form there this time of year. Tropical system #2 this year may skip wave and depression status and may have to be named Beryl..... perhaps in just a few hours.

http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/flt/t1/loop-avn.html

Ah, the consequences of living on a planet where we are causing the Oceans not to cool off properly during the winter months. The water is too warm, folks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altadawg

Since 1876 there have been less than 4 tropical storms and hurricanes that have developed in what is considered the Northwest Atlantic during the month of June. They are not supposed to form there this time of year. Tropical system #2 this year may skip wave and depression status and may have to be named Beryl..... perhaps in just a few hours.

http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/flt/t1/loop-avn.html

Ah, the consequences of living on a planet where we are causing the Oceans not to cool off properly during the winter months. The water is too warm, folks.

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/media/f_fear.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altadawg

Since 1876 there have been less than 4 tropical storms and hurricanes...

---

less than 4? wouldn't it be much easier to say 3 or 2 or 1? how many? why not just give the actual number? anything less than 4 is very few. there's no need to use language designed to make it sound like fewer than it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soonerdawg

I like the last sentence. If complaints of global warming leads to the use of nuclear power for our electicity needs, then I will remain silent. What a great idea. Use global warming to get the liberals to let us build nuclear power plants again. What does Jane Fonda think of this?

---

I am all for nuclear power, but how do you propose nuclear power for countries quite a bit more unstable than our own? I don't trust too many countries to maintain and run nuclear power plants properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgbitten

I am all for nuclear power, but how do you propose nuclear power for countries quite a bit more unstable than our own? I don't trust too many countries to maintain and run nuclear power plants properly.

---

You finally ask a reasonable question, and I don't have an answer. I would definitely defer to Cartek on this issue, but I would think that just converting the electrical use of the US to nuclear would relieve a great deal of the fossil fuel usage.

What is your answer to your question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgbitten

I don't trust too many countries to maintain and run nuclear power plants properly.

---

If Homer Simpson can do, anyone can.

Nuclear power's potential pollution is a lot more dangerous than anything else than can produce energy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aubunique

Nuclear power's potential pollution is a lot more dangerous than anything else than can produce energy.

---

Let me get this straight. You're against nuclear power for it's potential pollution, yet don't see the benefit in the war in Iraq to stop it's potential for terrorist action?