I have no doubt that you believe that.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
"As long as old men, sit and talk about the weather, as long as old women sit and talk about old men."
Printable View
I have no doubt that you believe that.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
"As long as old men, sit and talk about the weather, as long as old women sit and talk about old men."
:rolleyes4Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I will give you guys this much I might agree to and the verse in the Bible that allows me to do just that. When the disciples asked Jesus what would be a sign of the "End of Times/Age", these below were just a small part of his answer.
Luke 21:25-28
Luke 21 Read This Chapter21:25 "There will be signs in the sun, the moon, and the stars, and on the earth distress among nations confused by the roaring of the sea and the waves. 21:26 People will faint from fear and foreboding of what is coming upon the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 21:27 Then they will see "the Son of Man coming in a cloud' with power and great glory. 21:28 Now when these things begin to take place, stand up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."
I could see the the above highlighted in red (being hurricanes, tsunami, freak waves and the such) being due in part to Global Warming. But only because GOD is allowing, and maybe even causing, it to happen as a sign of the End of Times and His coming. These signs, as well as many others mentioned in the Bible, are meant as a warning to get your house in order and to point others/non-believers to Christ.
Not inconsistent. Global warming is taking place although a particular weather event, such as the current drought, cannot be directly tied to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Faith leads to action on global warming
A group of evangelical leaders properly urges Christians, including the president, to confront climate change
Monday, February 13, 2006
C limate change is real, it threatens millions of the world's most vulnerable people and it demands action by people of faith, a group of evangelical Christian leaders say in a powerful new statement.
Amen to that. The call to action on global warming recently issued by 86 prominent evangelical leaders is a welcome and significant new voice in the debate over how the United States should respond to climate change.
For years, President Bush has largely ignored the chorus of scientists, environmental groups, government officials and many others urging serious action on global warming. Catholic, Jewish and other religious groups also have called for a response. But now some of the people closest to President Bush, both spiritually and politically, are pressing him to take serious steps to address climate change.
The signatories to the statement include the heads of several dozen Christian colleges and universities, directors of relief organizations such as the Salvation Army, and evangelical leaders such as Rick Warren, the nationally known megachurch pastor. They have crafted a statement that reaches four important conclusions.
The first is that human-induced climate change is real. The document cites the overwhelming scientific consensus about global warming, including the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of the world's leading science and policy experts who have studied climate change for more than 25 years.
The second conclusion is that the consequences of climate change will be significant, and land hardest on the world's poor. The third is that Christian moral convictions demand a response to climate change. "Love of God, love of neighbor, and the demands of stewardship," the statement reads, "are more than enough reason for evangelical Christians to respond to the climate change problem with moral passion and concrete action."
The fourth conclusion is that it is urgent that the United States act now. The evangelical leaders call on the government, businesses, churches and individuals to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that are the primary cause of climate change.
Specifically, they urge the Bush administration and Congress to pass and implement mandatory, market-based mechanisms to reduce carbon emissions. That is exactly what the president has resisted, even as other industrialized nations have responded to overwhelming evidence of climate change.
Yet the many voices demanding action have never been this loud -- or this close -- to President Bush. The world should be praying that he finally hears, and heeds, them.
Hmmm, interesting. I wonder if the Baptist groups jump on the bandwagon if Sooner, Tyler and some of the other right wingers will suddenly change their :drummer: and :guitaristQuote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Allowing, yes I can buy that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Causing? Tougher sell. Personally, I dont think God is very happy with the all the changes his children have made in the past 150 years. Especially with how we are treating good old mother earth.
Thats my take anyway.
Salty, that article is old news. Anyway, Rick Warren is rich enough to be liberal now. :)
Alta, I sure am glad your relationship to God is close enough that you have had conversations with him about the environment. That would explain kooky views on the environment. :icon_wink
Oh, by the way. When did I earn my lable as a "right winger?" I am a disciple of the Dirtydawg school of politics. Think for myself.
Sorry, my bad. Your right wing on this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
So, "nonalarmist" equals "right wing." MAN, I need to take a refresher poli-sci course while I'm back in Ruston. :)
Where do I fit, as long as we're handing out labels? I agree that our planet is suffering tremendous abuse at the hands of our race, and that our ridiculous and unnecessary dependence on fossil fuels is a significant contributor to that abuse (among many other, even more inane examples). But I do not agree that the doomsday scenarios and Chicken-Little dances that are being performed based on a relatively short stream of data "confirming" the notion of global warming are entirely based on good science. Where do I fit on the right-left continuum?
your close to good, just a little too right of center on the alta-continuum. We'll work on it. Or rather, the evidence will work on you and you shall correct to center naturally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian96
GOD HELPS THOSE WHO HELP THEMSELVES.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Don't stand around with your 2 hands in your pockets waiting for the Jesus to come back.
Satan is behind global warming and the other damage we are doing to the planet Earth. God is disgusted with the way we are treating His world. It is only a matter of time before His wrath is felt.
I'm surprised that so many Christians have been fooled by that Thrice-Great Magician, Satan, especially when it comes to protecting God's creation. Satan wants to destroy it and he is by using our lust, greed and vanity to accomplish his purposes.
Not in the Bible SaltyQuote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Not happening here.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Gee, I never thought I would hear you blame anything on SATAN like us rightwing Christians might do......Hum..... Read the verses again Salty. I still bet GOD is possibly allowing these signs mentioned above to point to His coming and to get your house in order. BTW, who caused the Great Flood that killed who knows how many millions of people. And who has shown signs using the stars before (Star of Bethleham). Of course GOD can do these things. He is GOD.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Luke 21 Read This Chapter21:25 "There will be signs in the sun, the moon (WE DID GO TO THE MOON DIDN'T WE?), and the stars (we are now seeing events in the stars never imagined before), and on the earth distress among nations confused by the roaring of the sea and the waves. (Hurricanes and Tsunami) 21:26 People will faint from fear and foreboding of what is coming upon the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 21:27 Then they will see "the Son of Man coming in a cloud' with power and great glory. 21:28 Now when these things begin to take place, stand up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."
salty, what's up with the faith-based science? don't you take a skeptical view of anything?
no, brian. to alta, et al, "right-wing" is label placed on people who argue logic against their irrational rants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian96
Here I am trying to help you poor Christians realize that Satan has pulled the wool over your eyes and you call it science. LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Satan is pulling the strings here on planet EArth and the sooner you know that the sooner you will see the error in your ways.
So don't go blaming God for Satan's work!!
i don't remember blaming God for anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
i really don't mind if y'all want to live in irrational fear of a pseudo-science-based scare campaign. the only problem i have is that folks are so scared of an IMAGINARY threat that they are willing to advocate policy that is a REAL threat to the poor.
Okay, I'm convinced. There is global warming. Here is another five-year trend that simply cannot be ignored. Just as we should not be happy for nice weather in January, we cannot be happy about this either. Please, do not let your guard down. Fear is in order here:
Worldwide Shark Attacks Down
POSTED: 11:33 am EST February 13, 2006
UPDATED: 5:39 pm EST February 13, 2006
GAINESVILLE, Fla. -- The number of fatal and nonfatal shark attacks worldwide dropped in 2005, continuing a five-year trend, the director of the International Shark Attack File said Monday.
There were 58 total attacks in 2005, compared to 65 in 2004, while the number of fatal attacks dropped from seven to four, said George Burgess, director of the shark attack program, which is housed at the University of Florida's Museum of Natural History.
In contrast, there were 78 attacks in 2000, 11 of them fatal, the record year for attacks.
Surfers were the most frequent victims last year, accounting for 29 attacks, followed by 20 attacks on swimmers and waders and four attacks on divers.
http://images.ibsys.com/2004/1117/3924731_200X150.jpg
"It appears that humans are doing a better job of avoiding being bitten, and on the rare occasion where they actually meet up with a shark, and are doing the right thing to save their lives," Burgess said.
Burgess points to a suffer attacked Dec. 24 off the Oregon coast. He saved his life with a well-timed punch to the shark's nose.
Despite a worldwide decline, the number attacks in the United States rose slightly from 30 in 2004 to 38 in 2005, but well below the record of 52 in 2000.
Florida remained to U.S. shark attack capital, where the number of attacks increased from 12 to 18, but below the record of 37, Burgess said.
One of last year's four fatalities occurred in Florida, two were in Australia and one on the island of Vanuatu.
The Florida attack occurred June 25 along the Gulf Coast, where 14-year-old Jamie Daigle was attacked by a bull shark while swimming off Sandestin. It was the state's first fatal shark attack in four years. Two days later, Craig Hutto, 16, lost his right leg to a shark while fishing in waist-deep water off Cape San Blas, also in the Florida Panhandle.
Five of Florida's 18 attacks occurred on the Gulf Coast and the remainder occurred on the state's Atlantic coast. Five attacks occurred in South Carolina, four each in Texas and Hawaii, three in California, two in North Carolina and one each in New Jersey and Oregon.
The number of shark attacks depends on a variety of factors including ocean and weather conditions, abundance of prey and the amount of time people spend in the water, Burgess said.
People aren't really ocean mammals. Anyone want to discuss this idea?
Anything to forget a close loss on the road and not being able to tell people we are leading the WAC tomorrrow!
google 'aquatic ape theory'... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...y+&btnG=Search . some people would argue with you on that. but we have another thread for this stuff. just a little interesting reading for you or anyone else who's interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubunique
sorry about diverting from global warming...please, continue...:D
I just wanted to join the chicken littles and post an article that has a trend. I'm sure that somehow global warming is causing sharks to not bite as much.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubunique
Sooner, watch out for Satan! You could be in chest high water right now and Satan is that Great White circling you! Do your part to protect God's creation of planet Earth. Don't make fun of the destruction of God's favorite planet! That is something Satan would do.
BTW, can't you put some more clothes on that avatar of yours? Are you trying to stir up lust in men's loins?
I'll see if I can find a picture of Shakira wearing a fig leaf.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Greenland Glaciers dumping more ice. It seems all the time tables are moving at a faster rate than any one expected.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060216/...TdmBHNlYwM3NTM-
AS GWB would tell you, with a twinkle in his eye, "Don't Worry! Be Happy!!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
If ARbob and Sooner admit they are all wrong about this, I will quit posting on this thread.
http://drudgereport.com/logo9.gif
60 MINUTES: SCIENTIST SAYS GLOBAL WARMING HAS CAUSED MORE INTENSE HURRICANES LIKE KATRINA
Thu Feb 16 2006 12:27:11 2006
Rising ocean temperatures have increased the intensity of hurricanes like the one that decimated New Orleans, says a scientist in a 60 MINUTES report on global warming. Bob Correll, one of the world’s foremost authorities on climate change, appears in Scott Pelley’s report to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Feb. 19 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.
“The oceans in the Northern Hemisphere are the warmest they’ve been on record,” says Correll. “When they get up in that temperature, they spin off hurricanes….The one thing we can say with a fairly high degree of confidence is the severity of the storms…these cyclonic events like hurricanes and cyclones…they’re going to be more severe,” he tells Pelley.
Correll is interviewed in Greenland above the Arctic Circle, where the rising temperature has caused the glacial ice in place for eons to steadily recede for the last few decades. “This is bell weather, a barometer….the warning that things are coming,” says Correll, who also predicts lowlands will be inundated by waters from the melting glaciers in the future. “In 10 years here in the Arctic, we see what the rest of the planet will see in 25 or 35 years from now,” he says. “The entire planet is out of balance,” says Correll.
Whether the change in temperature is a natural or man-made phenomenon has been a matter of debate, but Paul Mayewski of the University of Maine says the proof that man is responsible is in the ancient ice at the top of the world. There is evidence of high levels of “greenhouse gases,” like carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels that contribute to warming the earth’s surface, in the core samples of ice he collected in Greenland. “We haven’t seen CO2 levels like this in hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions of years,” says Mayewski. “It all points to something that has changed and something that has impacted the system which wasn’t doing it more than 100 years ago,” says Mayewski. “It’s human activity.”
The Bush Administration spends $5 billion a year on climate change research but the president refuses to sign a treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Correll says the sooner we curb the emissions, the better for the generations to come. Even total cessation of the burning of fossil fuels will not stop the warming immediately and to continue burning them will affect the planet into the distant future – perhaps thousands of years. “I try to tell [policymakers] exactly what we know scientifically. The science is, I believe, unassailable,” Correll tells Pelley.
Developing...
NOAA disagrees with your scientist with an agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
we have given the reasons for our skepticism on global warming alarmism, yet you continue to post this non-evidence that we have debunked and shown to prove nothing. why don't you post something when there's real evidence that we're all in danger?
is it this bob correll?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
http://www.canosoarus.com/09JetBike/JetBike01.htm
ARbob, I haven't seen you debunk anything. Please point me to where you have done this?
NASA scientist doesn't agree with Bush admin, bob, or sooner.
http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...icle345926.ece
Okay, I will be lazy and print an entire article like DB, SD and DC do, just to show we can copy and past articles that oppose their chicken little articles. And, if I choose, I can find another rehash of this article somewhere else if I choose to at a later date. In other words, this is nothing new, just like their articles are nothing new:
Hurricane Upsurge Not Linked to Global Warming, NOAA Concludes
Atlantic Ocean is in peak of 20- to 30-year natural pattern
Written By: Kerry Jackson
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: February 1, 2006
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has concluded the upsurge in recent hurricane activity is not related to global warming.
In a study released November 29, 2005 NOAA concludes the Atlantic Ocean is experiencing more hurricanes because it is in a peak period of a 20- to 30-year natural hurricane pattern.
Natural Cycle Is Peaking
According to NOAA, the U.S. has been in a cycle of heightened Atlantic Ocean hurricane activity for the past 11 years. The cycle began in 1995 and is expected to continue for at least another decade. Importantly, the cycle is part of a naturally occurring pattern and is not in any way related to global warming activity, concluded NOAA.
"NOAA attributes this increased activity to natural occurring cycles in tropical climate patterns near the equator," states the NOAA study. "These cycles, called 'the tropical multi-decadal signal,' typically last several decades (20 to 30 years or even longer). As a result, the North Atlantic experiences alternating decades long (20 to 30 year periods or even longer) of above normal or below normal hurricane seasons. NOAA research shows that the tropical multi-decadal signal is causing the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995, and is not related to greenhouse warming."
The current upsurge in hurricane activity is similar to the previous cycle of heightened hurricane activity lasting from the late 1920s to the late 1960s. An intervening cycle of below-normal hurricane activity occurred from 1970 to 1994, the NOAA study concludes.
"Since 1995, the tropical multi-decadal signal has produced lower wind shear (changing winds with height) and warmer waters across the tropical Atlantic, along with conducive winds coming off the west coast of Africa. This key combination of conditions produces active hurricane seasons," explains NOAA. "With an active hurricane era comes many more landfalling tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes in the United States. ... The United States can expect ongoing high levels of landfalling tropical storms and hurricanes while we remain in this active era."
CO2 Not to Blame
Regarding the warmer Atlantic waters, the lower wind shear, and the conducive winds coming off the west coast of Africa, NOAA observes, "Research by NOAA scientists Gerry Bell and Muthuvel Chelliah, currently in press with the Journal of Climate, describes the tropical multi-decadal signal and shows that it accounts for the entire inter-related set of conditions that controls hurricane activity for decades at a time."
The NOAA study affirms the findings of most hurricane researchers. "There is consensus among NOAA hurricane researchers and forecasters that recent increases in hurricane activity are primarily the result of natural fluctuations," reports NOAA.
In interviews for this article, three of the nation's leading hurricane experts agreed with the NOAA assessment.
Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at the NOAA National Hurricane Center in Miami, Florida, observed any impact global warming might have on hurricane activity is neither large nor immediate.
"We may be looking at stronger hurricanes by 5 percent," Landsea said. "And even that is a very small change that is still way off in the future."
Even the potential 5 percent change in hurricane strength may be too small to measure. According to Landsea, hurricane experts can estimate a storm's winds "only to the nearest 5 mph."
"We can't even measure that [5 percent change], it's so small," Landsea said.
Current Activity Is Normal
Jeff Masters, director of meteorology for the popular Web site Weather Underground, confirmed global warming cannot be blamed for even the warmer Atlantic Ocean temperatures, let alone the other factors necessary for heightened hurricane conditions.
"Everyone agrees the tropical oceans have warmed a half-degree Fahrenheit over the last 100 years," Masters said. However, he noted, multiple studies on the subject have reached conflicting conclusions on causation.
It is "way too early to say one way or the other" if global warming is responsible, Masters said.
William Gray, head of Colorado State University's Tropical Meteorology Project, reported that despite media claims to the contrary, most hurricane researchers are skeptical of asserted connections between global warming and recent hurricane activity.
"There is no evidence of changes in tropical storms compared to what we would normally expect during this current cycle," Gray said.
Jim Henson has staked his entire career on his stance on global warming. He better hope there is global warming or he will be disgraced. Well, perhaps not, because the chicken littles have framed the argument so that no matter what happens, there is global warming, even if it gets colder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
I thought the Kermit the Frog puppet guy was dead. :shocked2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
Hey Dawgbitten, I'm with you on global warming and all...I just wish it would hurry up.
Sooner, CO2 levels are going up, year after year, because we are burning huge amounts of fossil fuels. This CO2 gas is a greenhouse gas in that it makes the planet surface warmer because heat cannot radiate back into space as it did when CO2 levels were lower. The average surface temperature of the planet is getting warmer. Sea levels are rising and our oceans are becoming more acidic because of their absorption of CO2. Check out the Gulf of Mexico water temperatures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
This is not Chicken Little stuff. We can sing "Don't worry. Be Happy!!" all day long but eventually our grand-children and great-grandchildren will have to pay the piper. If you are not concerned about them, then party like it's 1999..
Bump for Salty's last comments:icon_winkQuote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
i don't have time to repeat the same old arguments (although you apparently do). i have given my reply to every argument put forth on this thread and the previous three. if you have something new, i will respond -- otherwise, i'm through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
The level of the Planetary Ocean is slowly increasing, as well as the quantity of free water in the atmosphere. And this is due partly to the fact that the loss of ice from Greenland doubled between 1996 and 2005, as its glaciers flowed faster into the ocean in response to a generally warmer climate, according to a NASA/University of Kansas study.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
According to a press release by NASA, the study will be published tomorrow in the journal Science. It concludes the changes to Greenland's glaciers in the past decade are widespread, large and sustained over time. They are progressively affecting the entire ice sheet and increasing its contribution to global sea level rise.
Researchers Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Pannir Kanagaratnam of the University of Kansas Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets, Lawrence, used data from Canadian and European satellites. They conducted a nearly comprehensive survey of Greenland glacial ice discharge rates at different times during the past 10 years.
"The Greenland ice sheet's contribution to sea level is an issue of considerable societal and scientific importance," Rignot said. "These findings call into question predictions of the future of Greenland in a warmer climate from computer models that do not include variations in glacier as a component of change. Actual changes will likely be much larger than predicted by these models."
The evolution of Greenland's ice sheet is being driven by several factors. These include accumulation of snow in its interior, which adds mass and lowers sea level; melting of ice along its edges, which decreases mass and raises sea level; and the flow of ice into the sea from outlet glaciers along its edges, which also decreases mass and raises sea level. This study focuses on the least well known component of change, which is glacial ice flow. Its results are combined with estimates of changes in snow accumulation and ice melt from an independent study to determine the total change in mass of the Greenland ice sheet.
Rignot said this study offers a comprehensive assessment of the role of enhanced glacier flow, whereas prior studies of this nature had significant coverage gaps. Estimates of mass loss from areas without coverage relied upon models that assumed no change in ice flow rates over time. The researchers theorized if glacier acceleration is an important factor in the evolution of the Greenland ice sheet, its contribution to sea level rise was being underestimated.
To test this theory, the scientists measured ice velocity with interferometric synthetic-aperture radar data collected by the European Space Agency's Earth Remote Sensing Satellites 1 and 2 in 1996; the Canadian Space Agency's Radarsat-1 in 2000 and 2005; and the European Space Agency's Envisat Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar in 2005. They combined the ice velocity data with ice sheet thickness data from airborne measurements made between 1997 and 2005, covering almost Greenland's entire coast, to calculate the volumes of ice transported to the ocean by glaciers and how these volumes changed over time. The glaciers surveyed by those satellite and airborne instrument data drain a sector encompassing nearly 1.2 million square kilometers (463,000 square miles), or 75 percent of the Greenland ice sheet total area.
From 1996 to 2000, widespread glacial acceleration was found at latitudes below 66 degrees north. This acceleration extended to 70 degrees north by 2005. The researchers estimated the ice mass loss resulting from enhanced glacier flow increased from 63 cubic kilometers in 1996 to 162 cubic kilometers in 2005. Combined with the increase in ice melt and in snow accumulation over that same time period, they determined the total ice loss from the ice sheet increased from 96 cubic kilometers in 1996 to 220 cubic kilometers in 2005. To put this into perspective, a cubic kilometer is one trillion liters (approximately 264 billion gallons of water), about a quarter more than Los Angeles uses in one year.
Glacier acceleration has been the dominant mode of mass loss of the ice sheet in the last decade. From 1996 to 2000, the largest acceleration and mass loss came from southeast Greenland. From 2000 to 2005, the trend extended to include central east and west Greenland.
"In the future, as warming around Greenland progresses further north, we expect additional losses from northwest Greenland glaciers, which will then increase Greenland's contribution to sea level rise," Rignot said.
It is hard to imagine anyone doesn't want to decrease pollution and attempt to maintain earth's sustainable environment.
Seek first to understand then to be understood.
I agree and I think both parties want the same thing. Republicans that I know would agree that we should work hard on both of those isues. The methods are probably different at times. But all should want the same results.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubunique
Think Dubya knows which side his bread is buttered on?
One big supporter of climate science research is the Bush administration, spending $5 billion a year. But Mr. Bush refuses to sign a treaty forcing cuts in greenhouse gases. The White House also declined 60 Minutes' request for an interview.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1323169.shtml
Tech88, good report.
I watched the report last night. The very last statement made by the guy told the tail.......The climate is changing and the reduction of greenhouse gases will help a small amount.
I'm sure 60mins. chose not to elaborate on the other causes (likely natural) of climate changes. They do have a platform after all..... Reduce Greenhouse Gases at All Costs. Just guessing here, but I don't think Bush wants to wreck the entire world economy for something that will only help a small amount.
I could not agree with that statement any more.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubunique
So we're all in agreement there is such a thing as global warming?Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Don't hold your breath. There are a certain number here who think that global warming is a hoax.Quote:
Originally Posted by TECH88
They are all humming, "Don't worry, be happy!!"
Yep. They are just like GW and Michael Crichton. They get their information from Fictional works.
Has anyone read this book?
Bush's Chat With Novelist Alarms Environmentalists
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox...le-sponsor.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox...logo_88x31.jpg
http://view.atdmt.com/ORG/view/nwyrk...org/direct/01/
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY
Published: February 19, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 — One of the perquisites of being president is the ability to have the author of a book you enjoyed pop into the White House for a chat.
Over the years, a number of writers have visited President Bush, including Natan Sharansky, Bernard Lewis and John Lewis Gaddis. And while the meetings are usually private, they rarely ruffle feathers.
Now, one has.
In his new book about Mr. Bush, "Rebel in Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush," Fred Barnes recalls a visit to the White House last year by Michael Crichton, whose 2004 best-selling novel, "State of Fear," suggests that global warming is an unproven theory and an overstated threat.
Mr. Barnes, who describes Mr. Bush as "a dissenter on the theory of global warming," writes that the president "avidly read" the novel and met the author after Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, arranged it. He says Mr. Bush and his guest "talked for an hour and were in near-total agreement."
"The visit was not made public for fear of outraging environmentalists all the more," he adds.
And so it has, fueling a common perception among environmental groups that Mr. Crichton's dismissal of global warming, coupled with his popularity as a novelist and screenwriter, has undermined efforts to pass legislation intended to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, a gas that leading scientists say causes climate change.
Mr. Crichton, whose views in "State of Fear" helped him win the American Association of Petroleum Geologists' annual journalism award this month, has been a leading doubter of global warming and last September appeared before a Senate committee to argue that the supporting science was mixed, at best.
"This shows the president is more interested in science fiction than science," Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, said after learning of the White House meeting. Mr. O'Donnell's group monitors environmental policy.
"This administration has put no limit on global warming pollution and has consistently rebuffed any suggestion to do so," he said.
Not so, according to the White House, which said Mr. Barnes's book left a false impression of Mr. Bush's views on global warming.
Michele St. Martin, a spokeswoman for the Council on Environmental Quality, a White House advisory agency, pointed to several speeches in which Mr. Bush had acknowledged the impact of global warming and the need to confront it, even if he questioned the degree to which humans contribute to it.
Would science have labled it "Global Warming" if they knew it wasn't caused by man?Quote:
Originally Posted by TECH88
Yes. The average global temperature is going up. That's a fact. So, global warming is a fact. Some may argue with why the planet is getting warmer but global warming is taking place.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
If it is not caused by man why do we think we have any control? Or as you suggested earlier........why worry?
Ahhhhhh, I'm beginning to see now. In the secular world we live in, some folks believe they ALWAYS have control. The only way to drive that point home is to associate problems with mankind and by limiting mankind they can appear to be in control even if they are not.
That's the ticket.:icon_wink
your premise is wrong,,,,,the current increase in averge global temperatures IS caused by human activities. So it might be possible to change our behavior as to decrease the amount of global warming in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Perhaps you are thinking that because God destroyed the world with Noah's Flood, that He is currently planning the second destruction of the Planet using rapidly rising temperatures, and that there is nothing mankind can do to stop Him? That is certainly within the realm of possibilities..:icon_wink
Not my premise. This was the premise of the guy 60mins interviewed. He said greenhouse gasses were a small part of global warming, it needed to be addressed, but that we were still going to have global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
You say and your scientists say it MIGHT be possible to change our behavior and decrease global warming. WTH! Let's just go ahead and wreck the economy. It it doesn't help it only hurts a few rich Republicans. Right?
It's a myth that controlling CO2 emissions would wreck the economy. It would actually help it!Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
I could "cut and paste" something on it if you would like to read it.
Okay, that is funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Contrary to popular believe, there are now 3 standards of inevitability.
Death, taxes, and the fact I will never, ever let this thread drop to the 2nd page
:)
"Researchers Find Evidence of Human-Produced Warming in Oceans"...
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...olicyNews.html
Where from, Salty??? From an Al Franken monologue or from Wickipedia --( you know, the online "encyclopedia" where anyone can change anything they want to ?? Is that where most of your "facts" come from??????Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
UNEP report shows investments to curb air pollution pay off economicallyQuote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
7 February 2006 – Governments that invest in air pollution control measures can save billions of dollars as health care costs are slashed, worker productivity soars and ecosystems flourish, according to a report released today in Dubai by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP).
These savings, along with other economic gains such as sounder bridges, public buildings and other infrastructure that endure less corrosive air pollutants can be six times greater than the initial investments in techniques and equipment to curb air pollution, says UNEP’s Global Environment Outlook Year Book 2006.
Released at the environmental agency’s Global Ministerial Environment Forum now underway in the United Arab Emirates, this year’s Year Book focuses on energy’s impact on air quality. The leaders gathering at the Forum, which ends tomorrow, are looking at ways to deliver sustainable energy and environmentally safe tourist activities.
Klaus Toepfer, UNEP’s Executive Director, said governments should set the framework for industry, trade unions and civil society to promote energy efficiency and diversify the world’s sources of energy away from fossil fuels.
“The benefits, as the new GEO Year Book shows, are potentially huge, covering health, environment, improved management of natural resources, reducing the risks of climate change and, last but not in least, improved security regionally, nationally and at the level of households,” Mr. Toepfer said.
The report’s findings on the economic savings emanating from investments in air pollution controls stem from work by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the experiences of city governments in Mexico City and Santiago, Chile.
The United States agency, for example, estimates that the economic benefits of the country’s Clean Air Act will total $690 billion over the 20-year period that ends in 2010. A Santiago study assessed the financial benefits stemming from compliance with the Santiago Decontamination Plan at $4 billion during a 15-year period.
These studies mirror a new report by the European Commission on achieving improved air quality standards by 2020. The Commission estimates that an investment of around €7 billion to reduce air pollution will deliver €42 billion in economic benefits as a result of “fewer premature deaths, less sickness, fewer hospital admissions and improved labour productivity.”
The Year Book finds that indoor air pollution may be responsible for up to 2.4 million premature deaths a year while outdoor air pollution from industries and vehicle may trigger about 800,000 premature deaths annually, with 65 per cent of the deaths occurring in the developing countries of Asia.
Personally, I think the economic devastation from GW would far outweigh what peanuts are paid to try and curb emissions. I believe we will see more evidence coming this summer and the money will eventually pick sides. Even though I am kind of in the camp that we have tipped the scale beyond the Point of no return, we should try something.
In today's edition of the USA Today, there are two pretty good articles on GW and what states are doing to curb CO2 emissions since our federal government is to spineless to bite the hand that feeds.
I agree with everything you have stated except the part about "the point of no return". I think that if we start a very serious project to control CO2 emissions immediately, the threat of a massive "disconnect" with our current climate can be avoided. Yes, we will still have significant GW but within the context of our curent model of the temperature rising 3 to 5F this century. If we do nothing we could face the prospect of the climate and ocean currents going haywire, and global temperatures going up 10F this century. If that happens, life here on planet Earth will be very much different than what anyone live now could imagine. Folks, our oceans are dying because of all the excess CO2 we are releasing into the atmosphere. And yes, I'm an alarmist for good reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
This story is about "air pollution." Greenhouse gases are not "air pollutants." This is actually one of the arguments I have seen AGAINST radical greenhouse gas control measures. Measures to reduce actual "pollutants" are more pressing because they result in actual reduction of air quality and present significant threats to health, especially in rapidly-growing industrial areas. Fossil fuel dependence is also linked to this, and is also one of the areas that need to be addressed with regard to air pollution, so addressing fossil fuel dependence is a win-win-win situation: reduce geopolitical tensions centered around petroleum supplies, reduce air pollution, reduce greenhouse gas emissions.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
CO2 emissions from buring fossil fuels are air pollutants......Mother Nature didn't put them there. The economic equation remains the same. Jobs created to capture and store CO2. Less weather problems and ocean levels rising rates which have huge economic consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian96
I'll see if I can find something more specific about the economic benefits of controlling greenhouse gases. I know that i've seen it before..
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/...ContentID=4788Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I'll try to troll around for something on this, also. CO2 emissions don't count as pollutants in the same way, though. This isn't the crux of the argument, but CO2 occurs very naturally, we just are making more of it than we used to.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
It still boggles my mind that serious attempts to diversify our energy sources have not been seriously developed in all this time. I mean, it didn't take us nearly this long to learn about reforestation. Of course, that is a much more 1 + 1 = 2 type of relationship to pick out, but still.
I'm not going to bother posting anything on the CO2 is not a pollutant issue. Everything I've found on either side of the issue is clearly politicized, which seems to stem from the fact that we really don't know that much about it. There doesn't even seem to be hard evidence about how long CO2 remains in the atmosphere. It seems to be at most 100 years, which means this is a battle that we can win, or at least make an impact in.
The argument about "pollutants" seems largely semantic. Classically, pollutants were particles, etc., that impact air quality. CO2 doesn't impact air "quality" per se, but just makes it harder for solar heat to be deflected back through the atmosphere. In any event, addressing the fossil fuel dependence problem is the only way to make meaningful change in both "actual pollutants" and "greenhouse gases."
What bugs me, though, is that concerns over CO2 are elevated above more-rapidly increasing actual threats to human health. It's like the "save the whales" campaign from the 80s when huge swaths of Africa were dying from famine, drought, and genocide.
Only about 1/2 of the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels go into the atmosphere. The other half goes into the oceans and the "bio-mass." So even if we stop dumping all CO2 into the atmosphere today, CO2 levels would continue to INCREASE for the next hundred years because the CO2 in the oceans and "bio-mass" would cycle through the atmosphere. Check out "carbon sink".Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian96
Yeah, Yeah, Salty.....
The United Nations is really a "good" source for unbiased facts!!! Right?????
Just ask good 'ole Kofi!!!
That thing you posted is a bunch of slanted tripe.
Oklahoma is on fire! Literally! Things are going to get hairy in Ok and Tx if we dont get some decent rain, and soon!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/01/okl...res/index.html
"Oklahoma City posted a record high of91 degrees Wednesday, and the state has been experiencing the second-driest six-month period since 1917, according to the National Weather Service. The state received only a quarter-inch of rain between late October and January.
The previous record high for this date was 85 degrees, set in 1976. The normal high temperature for Oklahoma City this time of year is 58, Curl said."
according to the estimates of the people pushing the kyoto protocol, it has cost over $155 billion since its adoption last year. all to save 0.001615048 °C by 2050.
they still are, not to mention malaria. yet the people making a big stink about co2 are the same whackos who try to prevent the use and production of ddt (never proven to be harmful) and convince starving african countries not to accept donations of biotech corn. it's hard to take them seriously with those kind of priorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian96
Now that's money well spent.:icon_wink And look how it's reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, too!Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Effect of climate change in Europe
The effects of climate change are already manifest and are expected to become stronger as temperatures rise further. Over the 20th century the global average temperature rose by about 0.6°C and the mean temperature in Europe increased by more than 0.9°C. Globally, the 1990s were the warmest decade since 1861 when temperatures started to be measured, and the 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1991. According to NASA, 2005 was the hottest year recorded, followed by 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which brings together the world's leading experts in this field, projected in its Third Assessment Report in 2001 that the globally averaged surface temperature will increase by between 1.4 and 5.8°C from 1990 to 2100 under business-as-usual, and that sea levels will rise by between 9 and 88 centimetres over the same period. If nothing is done to prevent or limit these changes, they will have major environmental, economic and social consequences.
These consequences will include geographic shifts in the occurrence of different species and/or the extinction of species. Changes in rainfall patterns will put pressure on water resources in many regions, which will in turn affect both drinking water supplies and irrigation. Extreme weather events - storms, floods, droughts and heat waves - will become more frequent and cause human suffering and economic damage. Warm seasons will become dryer in the interior of most mid-latitude continents, increasing the frequency of droughts and land degradation. This will be particularly serious for areas where land degradation, desertification and droughts are already severe. Developing countries will suffer particularly, and tropical diseases will extend their geographic range.
The IPCC’s findings were reinforced by a report by the European Environment Agency issued in August 2004,[1] which concluded that Europe is warming faster than the global average. The temperature in Europe is projected to climb by a further 2.0-6.3 °C this century as emissions of greenhouse gases continue building up. The report identifies a broad range of current and future impacts of climate change in Europe, including the following:
* Almost two out of every three catastrophic events since 1980 have been directly attributable to floods, storms, droughts or heat waves. The average number of such weather and climate-related disasters per year doubled over the 1990s compared with the previous decade. Economic losses from such events have more than doubled over the past 20 years to around €8.5 billion annually. This is due to several reasons, including the greater frequency of such events but also socio-economic factors such as increased household wealth, more urbanisation and more costly infrastructure in vulnerable areas.
* The annual number of floods in Europe and the numbers of people affected by them are rising. Climate change is likely to increase the frequency of flooding, particularly of flash floods, which pose the greatest danger to people.
* Climate change over the past three decades has caused decreases in populations of plant species in various parts of Europe, including mountain regions. Some plants are likely to become extinct as other factors, such as fragmentation of habitats, limit the ability of plant species to adapt to climate change.
* Glaciers in eight of Europe's nine glacial regions are in retreat, and are at their lowest levels for 5,000 years.
* Sea levels in Europe rose by 0.8-3.0 mm per year in the last century. The rate of increase is projected to be 2-4 times higher during this century.
* Projections show that by 2080 cold winters could disappear almost entirely and hot summers, droughts and incidents of heavy rain or hail could become much more frequent.
Link please.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Global Greenhouse Gas Trade Soared in 2005 - Study
COPENHAGEN, - Global trading in greenhouse gas credits grew explosively last year to be worth more than nine billion euros, 25 times the value of deals recorded in 2004, according to a report published on Tuesday.
"The growth and speed in the carbon market has been quite extraordinary," said Oslo-based analysts Point Carbon, the report's author, in a statement.
Total trade in carbon dioxide (CO2), the main traded greenhouse gas, was worth 9.4 billion euros, with dealing volumes surging eightfold to 799 million tones, the report said.
Despite the massive growth, CO2 markets are still dwarfed by mature commodity markets like crude oil which is worth trillions of dollars a year.
The surge in CO2 trade came in the year that Europe officially launched its emissions trading scheme - the world's first international emissions market - as the mainstay of its effort to meet Kyoto Protocol targets.
The European scheme formed the biggest segment of the global market in value terms (7.2 billion euros).
But volumes were highest in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a Kyoto Protocol scheme which allows rich countries to earn low-cost credits through investments in foreign markets like China and India.
In Europe, 5.4 billion euros of trade was done via brokers and exchanges, with 79 percent of that total going through brokers. Among several CO2 exchanges which have sprung up in Europe, the European Climate Exchange dominates, according to Point Carbon.
Story Date: 1/3/2006
Brian, Ark Bob gets those "numbers" from neo-con website. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian96
As for Green Power, there is a lot of activity in that area, especially wind power. Even Willie Nelson is getting in the act with his own brand of bio-diesel.
http://www.wnbiodiesel.com/
Right, I had forgotten that Willie Nelson was a Kyoto negotiator...:icon_winkQuote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Man, one of the reasons I never got too involved in this thread is that when I went trolling for "facts" I couldn't find anything without a spin to it.
Willie got into the bio-diesel fuel biz I think because he is interested in the plight of the small American farmer. Anyway, on his website he does report that B20 reduces CO2 emissions by 80% as compared to regular petro-diesel. So if all diesel vehicles ran on bio-diesel, there would be a very significant reduction in CO2 emissions without a large net cost for CO2 control and our imports of foreign oil would be reduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian96
The USA is the largest user of fossil fuels so we need to "get with the program." Check out the US epa or NASA website for a good explanation of global warming.
I'm already a fan of biodiesel, but I didn't know before your post that WN had gotten involved with it. It definitely seems like one of the best short-range options we have, until fuel cells become market-viable at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
The USA is the largest user of EVERYTHING, no matter how you want to cut it, but the biggest disparity is our PER CAPITA use/waste. It's mindboggling. Even next to countries with comparable standards of living we are ridiculously wasteful.
I think that the momentum behind global warming has been enhanced by well-meaning concern on the part of scientists and researchers. The science doesn't seem to be as unequivocal as some would have us believe. That's why I don't want to see us dive headlong into shortsighted attempts to "reduce greenhouse gases" when we don't understand what's going on well enough to make informed decisions about how to stop it.
On the other hand, it is absolutely unequivocal that our over-use of fossil fuels is causing a ridiculous amount of absolutely measurable problems, including political, environmental, and health. We HAVE to do something about this, and it is long overdue. If the discussion about global warming moves us in the direction of meaningful reductions in fossil fuel use, GREAT! But attacking "global warming" as its own entity garners way too much cost for way too few known benefits.
The main problem will using fossil fuels is that it dumps CO2 (carbon) into the environment. It's killing our oceans and causing global average temperatures to rise. Yes, I agree, that the best short-term fix is to cut-back on our use of fossil fuels, to curb the waste. Longer term, look for alternative, green sources of power and technologies to collect the carbon released by using fossil fuels. I know that my next car will be a hybrid that I can plug into an outlet in my garage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian96
Record high for March 1 in Abilene, TX yesterday. 95 degrees!
http://www.weather.com/activities/ev...03&from=search
Does anyone have a theory as to why the drought line sits on the treeline in TX and Oklahoma?
http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html
This is kind of subjective, though, because fossil fuel burning is also linked to higher incidences of health risks, with much more straightforward cause-effect data than the "greenhouse gas" data. My problem with the GW movement is not that I staunchly believe GW doesn't exist, but that what the activists lack in data they supplement with histrionics and appeals to emotion. One dose science, two doses alarmism, and abracadabra! "Major environmental catastrophe lurks. Look at my 'science'!"Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I hope they come out with a hybrid or biodiesel minivan before I have to upgrade. I need the seven seats plus the extra luggage space for my expanding family. However, since moving to Ruston in August, we have reduced our gasoline use from over 100 gallons per month to under 20. We no longer have a 80-mile per day commute like we had in Georgia, and here I walk or bike to work/school.
Speaking of commuting, and speaking of waste, I could never get over noticing all the cars with one individual coming from the same neighborhoods at the same time of day with the same factory parking permit on the windows. Is it really that shameful to car pool?
Because it enjoys the shade?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
No, I know, it's making a political statement about deforestation.
those hybrids are so expensive right now that the extra price of the vehicle would not likely be cancelled out by the savings on gas. so, one would have to be truly altruistic to buy one, because it's not really going to save you any money. if the government is truly concerned about the enviornment they should consider providing some sort of incentive to consumers for buying them or to the companies building them to keep the price lower. it just doesn't seem to me that anyone in washington has been concerned with tryuly improving the state of our ecology for quite some time.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
if i could have gotten a hybrid version of the vehicle that i presently have (or a similar vehicle) and paid near or the same price as the standard one, i would have done it in a heartbeat. it has to be comparable in price for it to really catch on.
Actually, there is a tax break for buying a hybrid (just the year you buy it though). I think when I crunched the numbers, depending on how much you drive and whether that is city or highway, between the fuel savings and the tax break, you at least make up for the difference in price. Depending on your driving habits and any modifications you make to the car, you could do better.Quote:
Originally Posted by sik-m-boi
As for modifications, I heard about a guy who rigged is to be able to charge it with an extension cord, so he started with a full battery. He could go about 40 miles without the gas engine ever kicking in. He only had a 20 mile each way commute, so his "effective" mpg was something like 300mpg.
i just looked up some MSRPs to emphasize my point:
standard honda accord $18,200
hybrid $30,900
standard honda civic $14,500
hybrid $21,800
insight (essentially a gocart with a roof) $19,300 (but it does get 66 mpg)
standard toyota highlander $24,500
hybrid $30,400
prius (toyota's 4 dr gocart) $21,700
i know there are some american car companies making hybrids but i didn't feel like looking them all up.
there needs to be more...but i appreciate the info.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian96
[quote=saltydawg]Effect of climate change in Europe
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which brings together the world's leading experts in this field, projected in its Third Assessment Report in 2001 that the globally averaged surface temperature will increase by between 1.4 and 5.8°C from 1990 to 2100 under business-as-usual, and that sea levels will rise by between 9 and 88 centimetres over the same period. If nothing is done to prevent or limit these changes, they will have major environmental, economic and social consequences.
Just to refresh us on who the IPCC is and how their studies, which resulted in the Kyoto Protocol, were put together here's an excerpt from a paper I put together over a year ago......................
What about the claim that there is indeed Global Warming?
If this is true, how did we find this out? Are the claims valid? Were the predictions made with sound science? The basic claim of recent global warming and the main basis for what became the Kyoto Protocol lies in a United Nations panel – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This panel put together a group of 122 well known scientific authors to document what was (or is) happening to the Earth’s climate. Note that some of these authors are Nobel Prize winners, thus immediately adding credibility to their findings, although it is worth noting that few of the Nobel prizes had anything to do with climate.
Organized into 14 groups, each produced a paper dealing with a particular aspect of the subject. What is not generally well known is that none of the 122 authors had a chance to review or challenge findings from other groups. There were several hundred additional “outside” reviewers but their approval on any content was not solicited. The resulting papers were then summarized into the final 14 chapters by yet another group. From, this, the “Summary for Policymakers” was edited by a small group of UN “Policymakers”, not the scientists!! It seems highly likely that the Policymakers simply “cherry-picked” the points they wanted from the material. Thus the Summary from which the media takes virtually all of its “points” came from a political body! Statements by ideological environmentalists and politicians that thousands of IPPC scientists agree on everything in the final report are simply untrue and grossly misrepresent the process. In fact, since the original document was released, many scientists, including many who were involved in the basic analysis, have come forward and said that they do not support the final summary report that resulted in the Kyoto accord.
Billpup. glad to know you are feeling better enough to wade into this matter again.
actually, i don't think junkscience.com is neo-con, but they are definitely pro business and anti-tax-on-society. regardless of their bias, they are using the estimates provided by the folks that were pushing kyoto. they have links, if you have time to follow them. i don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
as for willie, his music is great. that doesn't mean that i care what he thinks about bio-deisel. by the way, how is it again that biodeisel will help reduce greenhouse gases?
March 3, 2006
Loss of Antarctic Ice Increases
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Two new satellite surveys show that warming air and water are causing Antarctica to lose ice faster than it can be replenished by interior snowfall, and thus are contributing to rising global sea levels.
The studies differed significantly in estimates of how much water was being added to the oceans this way, but their authors both said that the work added credence to recent conclusions that global warming caused by humans was likely to lead to higher sea levels than previous studies had predicted.
The earlier projections presumed that snowfall over Antarctica, as well as Greenland, would increase as warming added moisture to the air, compensating for the losses of ice from crumbling or melting along coasts.
Several independent experts agreed with the new conclusions, saying they meshed both with more localized studies of trends in Antarctica and with evidence from warm spells before the last ice age.
"Snowfall will matter less and less," said Robert Bindschadler, an expert on polar ice at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration who was not involved in either study. "We know that warmer climates eventually lead to less ice."
Most of the ice is being lost in western Antarctica, where warming air and seawater have recently broken up huge floating shelves of ice, resembling the brim of a hat. That, in turn, has allowed ice in the interior to flow more readily to the coast.
One of the new surveys, led by H. Jay Zwally, a NASA scientist, used satellites and aircraft to measure changes in the height of ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland over the decade ended in 2002. It found a loss of volume in Antarctica and a small overall gain in Greenland, where inland snows have outpaced ice flowing into the sea, at least temporarily. It was just published in The Journal of Glaciology.
The other study, by scientists at the University of Colorado, looked at changes from 2002 to 2005 using NASA satellites that detect subtle changes in Earth's gravitational field that can be used to estimate the weight of water in an ice sheet.
"The changes we are seeing are probably a good indicator of the changing climatic conditions there," said Isabella Velicogna, the lead author of the gravity-sensing study, which was published online yesterday by the journal Science.
I'll send them an email and find out.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
On second thought, here is a link to their web site that explains it rather nicely:Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
http://www.wnbiodiesel.com/products.html
What? Your wanting to kill America's living and breathing plants and animals to make our cars go down the rode? How convenient! THIS IS JUST OUTRAGEOUS!!!!:icon_wink What will the liberal enviro-wackos think of next. Killing our babies for convenience sake? Oh wait...they already helped make that legal.:icon_rollQuote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
If none of you believe this finding then why don't you get in a plane, and go up there with scientists and take the damn samples yourself.
Antarctic ice sheet in 'significant decline': study
Thu Mar 2, 2:10 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Antarctica's mammoth ice sheet, which holds 90 percent of the Earth's ice, is showing "significant decline" as world temperatures heat up, according to a new study released.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N636.Ya...1403071509796?
As Earth's fifth largest continent, Antarctica is twice the size of Australia and contains 70 percent of Earth's fresh water resources. British research suggests the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet alone would raise global sea levels by over 20 feet (six meters).
And now a team of US researchers at the University of Boulder in Colorado say they have discovered that the Antarctic ice sheet is losing up to 36 cubic miles (152 cubic kilometers) of ice annually.
The estimated ice mass in Antarctica is the same as 0.4 millimeters of global sea rise annually, with a margin of error of 0.2 millimeters, according to the study. There are about 25 millimeters to one inch.
The study, however, appears to contradict the 2001 assessment by the UN-mandated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which forecast that the Antarctic ice shelf would actually gain mass in the 21st Century due to higher precipitation in a warming climate.
Using specialized data from two NASA satellites orbiting Earth in tandem, the Boulder researchers determined the Antarctic ice sheet has lost significant mass in recent years.
"This is the first study to indicate the total mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet is in significant decline," said Isabella Velicogna, of the university's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences.
The bulk of the loss is occurring in the West Antarctic ice sheet, according to Velicogna.
"The changes we are seeing are probably a good indicator of the changing climatic conditions there," she said.
The continent's ice sheet has an average thickness of about 6,500 feet (1,981 meters).
The study appears in the online issue of Science Express.
I think recently someone had a response as to why Antarticia's ice was not melting. Looks like it is too.
I think Dwayne said they are using it to make Sonic's ice. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
You would think that the residents of southern Louisiana would be mildly interested if ocean levels increase by 20 feet. What's the elevation of BR, anyway?
most people i S LA are focusing more on getting back to some level of normalcy...it's hard to be concerned about the water level rising a fraction of a millimeter a year when you have no home or job or have had your city's population grow by a third in a matter of days...i believe i heard on the radio that BR is planning to build several thousand new homes in their area in the coming year(s) as apposed to the couple hundred (if that) that are normally produced there. i'm not saying that they shouldn't be concerned, but we've got a lot to deal with down here.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
incidently, i heard a scientist (who was on board with global warming) say that even if the world completly stopped all use of fossil fuels and other pollutants, the earth's avg temp would continue to rise for the next 10-20 years before any effects would be seen.
i've already stated in the single-digit posts of this thread that we need to cut pollution...because, if nothing else, it's not good to be breathing it (there's a place called "cancer ally" near donaldsonville, la that has a bunch of polluting factories and a high cancer rate...i doubt that is coincidental). whether or not excessive pollution in the atmosphere causes global warming is not certain...but what is not questionable is that having this stuff put into our bodies everyday is not the key top a long, healthy life.
Sure, the residents of S La have there hands full right now. BTW, the elevation of BR is 66 ft. And my understanding is that even if ALL CO2 emissions were stopped today, the average global temperature would continue to increase for the next 100 years BUT the rise would not nearly be as high if we do nothing. Air pollution should be going down because of the interstate rules regarding SO2 and NOX.Quote:
Originally Posted by sik-m-boi