:icon_rollQuote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
find where i said that and i'll buy you a coke at the next home football game.
Printable View
:icon_rollQuote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
find where i said that and i'll buy you a coke at the next home football game.
Sorry to misquote you on exact wording. However, I dont think I was off by much.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
i think i said somethink like the excessive regulation required by kyoto would be a huge blow to the economy. that's not even close to what you said. i'm all for alternative energy. if you fuel cars with ethanol distilled with steam from nuclear and coal, you will come out way ahead of $70 per barrel oil. but this doesn't require any subsidies or regulation by the government. if oil stays this high, the market will produce the alternatives (but only if the government stays out of it).Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
:thumbsup: Assuming you mean that the government will only assure a free market and stay out of it from there, you are dead on accurate with that statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
yes, thanks for clarifying. government intervention should only take place when market freedom is threatened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
Global warming is problem, needs fixing, sportsmen say
Sent May 15, 2006
rmjj
By Rob Moritz
Arkansas News Bureau
LITTLE ROCK — A majority of Arkansas hunters and fishermen believe that global warming is an urgent problem in need of immediate action to stop, an environmental group’s survey release Monday showed.
Arkansas sportsmen also said they have seen evidence of global warming in the state, including warmer and shorter winters, hotter summers, prolonged droughts and a decline of wetlands and migratory birds in the winter, including ducks.
A majority of those polled said the United States should move toward renewable forms of energy, such as solar and wind power, rather than the current fossil burning fuels, which they believe are contributing to global warming.
“Hunters and anglers feel we have a moral responsibility to confront global warming to protect our children,” said David Carruth, president of the Arkansas Wildlife Federation.
An avid hunter and fisherman, Carruth said the results of the poll show that global warming is a major concern among the people who spend the most time in the woods and needs to be addressed before it kills off habitat and wildlife.
The poll found that 77 percent of the state’s hunters and anglers agree that global warming is occurring.
The survey was conducted by Mark Damian Duda, executive director of Responsive Management, a Virginia-based survey research firm. The firm telephoned 308 Arkansas hunters and fishermen in March and April. The respondents were chosen from the list of people in the state who have hunting and fishing licenses. The poll has a sampling error of plus or minus 5.6 percent.
Carruth, a Republican, said the poll was nonpartisan.
The survey also found that 84 percent of the hunters and fishermen agree with President Bush’s statement that the United States is addicted to oil, but 85 percent said the administration and Congress are not doing enough to break the addiction.
Overall, 72 percent of those polled said the nation is on the wrong track in meeting its energy needs.
Eighty percent said people should conserve and that more fuel efficient vehicles and renewable sources of energy should be developed rather than drilling for more oil and gas within the country.
“We are reaching a tipping point ... where the vital constituency of hunters and anglers is adding its voice to those who recognize global warming is occurring, that it poses serious threats and that action must be taken to address it,” Carruth said.
About 630,000 Arkansans make hunting and fishing a nearly $1 billion industry in the state. Hunting and fishing also account for about 20,000 jobs in Arkansas.
Duda said the poll found that about 73 percent of the hunters and fishermen consider themselves moderate or conservative in politics. Nearly 60 percent of those who participated in the poll said they voted for President Bush over U.S. Sen. John Kerry two years ago.
Randy Thurman, executive director the Arkansas Environmental Federation, said his organization is working with industries in the state to address the global warming problem, and the race to develop ethanol and other biodiesel fuels for cars is a good example of work that is being done.
The federation represents industries in Arkansas and helps them deal with environmental issues and legislation.
“We are doing what we can to educate our membership on issues related to global warming,” said Thurman.
The federation and the state Department of Economic Development recently held a training conference on global greenhouse emissions, he said.
Thurman said the poll results did not surprise him because he has seen similar results in other state in recent years.
“Global warming is forcing industries to consider how they do business,” he said. “Whether you agree with the science or not, the perception is out, so industry is trying to address it.”
Similar polls of hunters and anglers have been done in five other states, including Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota and South Carolina. Those poll results are to be released later this week, Duda said.
A national poll of hunters and fishermen is to be released May 23.
-----
On the Web: www.targetwarning.org/arkansas
In the morning I will fill up my full size V-8 truck and burn more fuel. I think global warming is the biggest crock of crap there is. I say lets tap Alaska and get gas down to $2 a gallon so I can buy one of the last Hummer 1's!!!!
The earth puts out more gases than man kind ever will.Stay Strong!LOL
well, i was skeptical until now, but aub has me convinced. if arkansas hunters and fishermen say its a problem, then it must be real.
:icon_roll
here's an insightful article by a fellow who might know a little bit more about climate change than a bunch of good ole boys from arkansas:
Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/images...nd_dingbat.gif
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
http://opinionjournal.com/extra/041206globe.jpgIf the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.
So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.
All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/images...nd_dingbat.gif
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
So, extreme tree hugging is big money?
here's a link to a more detailed and slightly technical explanation of the current state of climate science by mr. lindzen, which i (being the nerd that i am) found very interesting.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
Fortune magazine and The Pentagon have both addressed this issue and are taking it seriously. But hey, we all know how radicall those guys are!
"T"
True
i think the problem here is that anyone who dissents is considered "radical." anyone who is the least bit skeptical is instantly labeled an industry stooge. silencing one side of a debate is not a good way to find the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by T
What debate? There is no debate. The only debate brewing is how to slow down the inevitable destruction of the entire planet and everything in it including soonerdawg.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
thanks for proving my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
ark bob, are you keeping track of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere? Are they still going up? When do you think that they start to go down?Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Remember, increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere means higher average global temperatures.
ARBob, Even God believes in Global Warming and it's effects on hurricanes. He even told Pat Robertson about it.
http://www.wftv.com/news/9235304/detail.html
remember, increasing levels of co2 are only a small piece of what determines global temperatures.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
wow, robertson just gets kookier and kookier every day. now that he believes in global warming, i know he's really lost it. :icon_winkQuote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Quote: "a small piece".
Hmmmm. Maybe you will be willing to tell us what the "big pieces" are?
I bet you didn't know this..Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Watervapor accounts for 80% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Watervapor is also more potent than CO2 in terms of holding in heat.
CO2 levels have risen from 280 ppm to 370 ppm in over 100 years. The people who say it's a man made cause point to the increasing amount of an isotope of CO2 that is not produced naturally, but by burning fossil fuels. If you look at the readings they indicate that CO2 levels have risen more sharply in the last 10 years, but the isotope that scientists look at has not risen in the same correlation.
Let's not forget that 35 years ago, the same magazine, Newsweek that is telling us today that we're about to be fried like eggs, said we'd be in for a major ice age.
100 years of climate observations is not enough time to predict that a global climate catastrophe is imminent when temperatures in the year 1000-1200 AD were considerably warmer than today.
You can cherry pick your data to match whatever argument that you want, but if you look at the big picture (which liberals can never do) then you'll understand that the only hubbub being created are from people who need attention.
i think mj did a decent job of that. the only thing i would add is that the greenhouse effect is not all there is to global temperatures, either. intensity of solar radiation, clouds, and volcanic activity are only a few of the other factors.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
thanks, mjrod. but i doubt if hearing the same thing from someone different will do anything to change his mind. any weather phenomena at all can be used as "evidence" of global warming (including cold weather!). no amount of scientific evidence will ever convince him (or others like him) otherwise.
if you haven't already, salty, please read my new signature. it is pretty good advice to the folks that want to shut up the anti-global-waming scientists.
Having studied meteorology as a hobby for many years and understanding climate, there are many processes we still have no idea how they work. Most climate models that are used in predicting global warming do very little prediction about cloud cover. People still don't understand how cloud cover plays a role. Wanna see evidence of that?
The National Hurricane Center uses some 10 different climate modeling programs to help track a course of a hurricane. In many cases, the models diverge greatly as to predicted strength, landfall, size, etc, and so the predictors "average" them out. The models have gotten so much better over the last decade that their accuracy in predicting a hurricane's characteristics, course, etc, 5 days out has improved to almost 30%.
Here's a couple more for ya..
On MSNBC, the director of the National Hurricane Center was asked, point blank, "Is Global Warming the cause of the increase in intensity of hurricanes?"
His answer was not only no, but that this type of activity has been predicted and is based on a 50 year cycle of hurricane activity. We're about to enter a period where the number and intensity are increasing.. but it's not because of global warming, but a climate cycle.
On CNN, they were reporting on the iceberg that broke off Antartica and a specialist from Univ. of Wisconsin Milwaukee was asked "Is Global Warming the reason the iceberg broke off?"
She said unequivocally "No, these are happening because the ice sheet is trying to remain a stable size. It's a natural process."
Ooops..
Water vapor is a positive feedback to rising CO2 levels. Doubling the CO2 level from 280 ppm to 560 ppm causes the average global temperature to rise 1.2 C. A warmer atmosphere produces and holds more water vapor so the feedback to the increase in CO2 levels actually increases global average temperatures to more than double to 2.5 C.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjrod
The carbon cycle moves CO2 from the atmosphere to the oceans to the biomass in a long-term and constant exchange. It is a fact that burning fossil fuels dumps more than 6 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Some of it stays in the atmosphere but about half goes into the oceans and biomass which also releases CO2 back into the atmosphere. So I think that any "talk" about CO2 isotopes is not very convinving. Maybe you can provide a link?
Nobody knows what the average global temperature was from 1000 to 1200 AD. Your assertion is based on reports that Europe was warmer than usual during that period. Probably it was colder than normal during that period somewhere else on the planet. The question you need to ask yourself is were atmospheric CO2 levels rose during that period and the answer is a definite "no."
Who gives a rat's ass what Newsweek said 30 years ago or today. That is one of the weakest arguments I have ever read.
Neo-con wing-nuts rely on junk science to justified their head-in-the-sand positions on climate change.
You can count the number of anti-global warming scientists with your hands and toes. The only scientists who don't think global warming is taking place are usually getting a fat paycheck from Big Oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
So you been watching the evening TV weather reports for a few years. Seems to me that you don't have a very good handle on the process of climate change.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjrod
Everybody knows that global warming will not significantly increase the number of hurricanes so much as it will increase the number of the really big storms.
As far as cloud cover is concerned, whether the feedback is positive or negative depends upon the type of cloud, water or ice, thick or thin, average size of cloud particle, and height.
Check out the melting of the Greenland ice sheet for some "more on the point" information about the affect the current level of increasing average global temperature is having on polar ice.
Get em' salty!
National Hurricane Center Predicts a Calmer Season Than Last Year's Record Storm Count
By LAURA WIDES-MUNOZ, Associated Press Writer
MIAMI -- A hectic, above-normal tropical storm season could produce between four and six major hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico this year, but conditions don't appear ripe for a repeat of 2005's record activity, the National Hurricane Center predicted Monday.
There will be up to 16 named storms, the center predicted, which would be significantly less than last year's record 27. Still, people in coastal regions should prepare for the possibility of major storms, said Max Mayfield, the National Hurricane Center director.
"One hurricane hitting where you live is enough to make it a bad season," Mayfield told reporters.
Last year, officials predicted 12 to 15 tropical storms, seven to nine of them becoming hurricanes, and three to five of those hurricanes being major, with winds of at least 111 mph.
But the season turned out to be much busier, breaking records that had stood since 1851. Last season there were 15 hurricanes, seven of which were Category 3 or higher.
In the center's detailed 2006 prediction report, meteorologists said water in the Atlantic is not as warm as it was at this stage in 2005. Warm water is a key fuel for hurricane development.
Also, it is not clear whether atmospheric conditions that helped produce the 2005 storms will repeat again this year, forecasters said. And, it appears that the Pacific Ocean water conditions known as El Nino and La Nina will not have any impact on the Atlantic hurricane season this year, forecasters said.
The Atlantic seasons were relatively mild from the 1970s through 1994. Since then, all but two years have been above normal. Experts say the world is in the midst of a 20-year-cycle that will continue to bring strong storms.
Between 1995 and 2005, the Atlantic season has averaged 15 named storms, just over eight named hurricanes and four major hurricanes, according to the National Hurricane Center. Before this latest above-normal cycle, from 1971 to 1994, there were an average of 8.5 named storms, five hurricanes and just over one major hurricane.
The Atlantic hurricane season runs from June 1 to Nov. 30.
Get em' Dirty!
Being in between all you wackos on both sides, I'd thought I'd throw some fuel to this fire :-)
Al Gore's slideshow that he based An Inconvenient Truth on...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/5/19/10294/4690
LOL. 16 storms with 4-6 major?? When I started tracking these things, if NOAA would have come out with a prediction like that, that was considered a ROUGH season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
in 1992, Andrew (first named storm of the season) hit Florida in late August.
Lets keep things in perspective.
Here is my prediction. We will see 3 or 4 - Cat 4 or greater storms. Lets just hope none make landfall in the Gulf. Another big storm in S. La. would be DEVESTATING.
Yet another catastrophic, horrid, deadly, and otherwise downright evil global warming thingybopper
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/05/30....ap/index.html
This is the last straw!!!!!We're all riding bikes from here on out!!!!:laugh:
Just imagine what it will do to the ordinary back-yard marijuana plant.Quote:
Originally Posted by marketdawg
Hey, maybe this global warming thing ain't so bad after all.:laugh:
Scientists Say Arctic Once Was Tropical
Humm... Global warming in the past huh...:laugh: Actually both sides will enjoy this article.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060531/D8HUVKSO0.html
ha ha! i was listening to nerd radio the other day and they interviewed the scientist that led that study. she was talking about how SCARY it is that poison ivy is going to be growing faster and itchier! run for your lives! the ivy is coming!Quote:
Originally Posted by marketdawg
why do you suppose they did the study on poison ivy? because it is one of the very few plants that we don't WANT to grow faster. since poison ivy only affects a small percentage of the population as a minor nuisance, wouldn't the study be more useful if it focused on tree growth, or corn, or wheat, or soybeans, or just about anything other than poison ivy? this is fearmongering at its most desperate.
As if the population of NYC, Boston, Altanta, Chicago, Los angeles, etc, are waking up every morning worried sick about the threat of poison ivy. But I agree, let's do a similar study on corn or soybeans.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
If japanese honeysuckle grows any faster, we'll never get it all cleared off the World Peace Wetland Prairie!
Same CO State professor that gets in front of the media saying the same thing over and over. I wonder how much he gets paid under the table?
I saw an interesting show the other day on the Science channel. It told how in the early 1900's an idea was floated about burning as much coal as possible to warm the climate. The thought was so more land could be farmed.
Clyde, they even knew the effects of excess CO2 back then. They even had the faulty theory of a warmer climate being better so there would be more land to farm. I even think your CO St. professor was the one that mentioned how wonderful that would be in an article you posted a while back.
I've had a really bad week, so here is where I'm gonna go off:
I hope that regardless of your belief in Global Warming, that you believe that all the crap we put in the air is bad for the Earth. God's Earth. And since we are now so overpopulated on it, we are tasked with protecting it.
Now those on the other side who think that I am siding with you, think again. I'm tired of all the griping on the liberal side. You (mainly directed at Gore, clinton, etc) can bitch when you do something about it. I drive a small car and plant trees... I'm so tired of the hipocrisy on that side of the argument I could honestly hurt someone. Can a liberal even HAVE a conscience? I mean what's worse, not believing that there's a problem, or believing and not doing a DAMN THING ABOUT IT?!?
i certainly agree that we are tasked with protecting the earth. the rest of that statement i completely disagree with. i do not believe that the co2 and water vapor that we put into the atmosphere are bad for the earth. and God is not the direct ruler of the earth in its present form, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Dude, have you ever been to L.A.? The air is hard to breathe over there. I'm not talking about GW here, I'm just using common sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
He created it, He can destroy it, He can rule it. It's his Earth regardless if he calls the shots in my book.
One of the best attributes of living in a rural setting is its high air quality compared to the huge Metro areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Unless you live next door to a coal fired power plant located in those rural areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Ain't that the truth! I got three of them in my backyard. The only good aspect is that most of the time I'm upwind of them. Arkansas and Missouri get most of the mercury, SO2 and Nox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Here we go again...
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/grap...629.shtml?5day
do you think it is the co2 and water vapor that make it hard to breathe in l.a.? if so, perhaps you should enroll in a "chemistry in the community" type course at your local community college.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Quote:
Originally Posted by TECH88
Monty Python has a song for all you, DB, Salty, Alta, etc... I'd like to take a moment to dedicate it to you guys.
"I'm So Worried"
I'm so worried about what's hapenin' today, in the middle east, you know.
And I'm worried about the baggage retrieval system they've got at Heathrow.
I'm so worried about the fashions today, I don't think they're good for your
feet.
And I'm so worried about the shows on TV that sometimes they want to repeat.
I'm so worried about what's happenin' today, you know.
And I'm worried about the baggage retrieval system they've got at Heathrow.
I'm so worried about my hair falling out and the state of the world today.
And I'm so worried about bein' so full of doubt about everything, anyway.
I'm so worried about modern technology.
I'm so worried about all the things that they dump in the sea.
I'm so worried about it, worried about it, worried, worried, worried.
I'm so worried about everything that can go wrong.
I'm so worried about whether people like this song.
I'm so worried about this very next verse, it isn't the best that I've got.
And I'm so worried about whether I should go on, or whether I should just stop.
(pause)
I'm worried about whether I ought to have stopped.
And I'm worried about, it's the sort of thing I ought to know.
And I'm worried about the baggage retrieval system they've got at Heathrow.
(longer pause)
I'm so worried about whether I should have stopped then.
I'm so worried that I'm driving everyone 'round the bend.
I'm worried about the baggage retrieval system they've got at Heathrow.
Looks like my fishing trip may be spared!Quote:
Originally Posted by TECH88
Let a couple of these things make landfall near Washington DC and maybe GW will actually say the word "global warming".
Real leadership. He is living up to his old nickname "The Oak". He is not some spineless girlieman giving in to special interests.
Schwarzenegger calls on Western governors to fight global warming
Associated Press
SEDONA, Ariz. - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said that Western states must work together to reduce greenhouse gasses in the fight against global warming.
"We are long past the time when we can just talk about this problem," Schwarzenegger said Sunday at the annual meeting of the Western Governors' Association. "We must take action."
Schwarzenegger, a Republican running for re-election, pointed to California's work to try to reduce emissions by 33 percent by 2020.
"In California, we now have a booming economy and are taking care of the environment, so it can be done," Schwarzenegger told governors at the three-day conference.
Schwarzenegger applauded the work of the Clean and Diversified Energy Advisory Committee, a 250-member group that has spent the past two years studying energy issues in the West.
The committee released its report Sunday, concluding that the Western states could meet or exceed several goals, including developing an additional 30,000 megawatts of clean energy by 2015, increasing energy efficiency 20 percent by 2020 and ensuring secure, reliable transmission for the next 25 years.
The governors adopted three resolutions regarding energy issues, including:
_Approving a two-year report that recommends ways to achieve a more clean and diversified energy portfolio in 10 years, including calling upon Congress to pass federal tax credits for energy efficiency investments.
_A call for more investment in ethanol, biodiesel, electricity, natural gas and the transmission grid needed to support it. The resolution was designed to call to attention the country's dependence on foreign oil as a national security risk and environmental concern.
_A resolution asking Western states to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The resolution urges federal agencies to invest in climate change research and support coordinated international research on the issue.
Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, said research into alternative energy could reduce dependence on foreign oil and create engineering jobs.
"Unless you're living naked in a tree and eating nuts, you're part of the problem, and I'd like to hear your solution," he said.
Sunday is the first time Schwarzenegger has attended the association's annual meeting since taking office in 2003.
States represented at the governors' meeting include Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.
I don't know the answer to this, but since you may be a graduate of the "chemistry in the community" course, wouldn't the water vapor help trap the emissions which in turn makes smog?Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
well, i know a little bit more about chemistry than they teach in those courses and i doubt if water vapor does much trapping of emissions. in fact, l.a. is so dry already, that i imagine a little moisture in the air would help people breathe easier. its the ozone that makes it hard to breathe in l.a. (and atlanta, and houston on a particularly hot and calm day). now water vapor does help make it hard to breathe sometimes in louisiana, but that louisiana heat and humidity has been here a lot longer than people and their evil carbon emissions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Why Los Angeles has really bad smog.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
http://daphne.palomar.edu/calenvironment/smog.htm
thank you for the link. that is a very good description of the causes of smog in l.a. as you can see, it has nothing to do with co2 or water vapor (or "global warming").Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
DD, when the next cat. 3 or 4 wipes out the pipelines in south LA I think the entire nation should be worried. How's $6/gallon sound??Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
And look at Blanco's retarded move. Let's sign an ethenol bill with ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO IMPLEMENT IT. Even better, let's sign hard deadline's and rough language to completely wreck the chances for gas prices to remain affordable. The cost for this bill has been estimated at a savings of 6 cents all the way to an additional $1+ per gallon. This in the most empoverished state of the Union. ARGGH!Quote:
Originally Posted by TECH88
Got any links about this? I am unsure of what she has done.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
thats why we need good ol' fiscally conservative republicans back... Not the kind who are worried about illegal gay mexican immigrants smuggling 'nucular' weapons in from iraq handing out abortions and evolution pamphlets along the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Stay on topic. :-) Jindal would do better.Quote:
Originally Posted by daybreaker2
Dawgbitten, I'll find something on it. It seemed like she had the heart, but just no brain...
I never said it did.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
no, you didn't. that remark was directed toward duckbill and dawgbitten.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I didn't know. That is why I asked.
Dawgbitten, here's an article that I thought was pretty decent about it. There are articles that go both ways on it though.
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/...606130324/1002
I'm starting to come around to it. Not because of Blanco, but because of the people who are implementing it. If this suceeds, it will suceed despite her and not because of her. I still think this needs to be a national issue though. Louisiana is too poor to be the test bed for something that could hurt the consumer.
I saw the house debate when I was in BR on the Ethenol bill. The members of the house and senate took the teeth out of the bill. I have to think that Blanco signed it just to say she signed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
I believe that was a good thing then. I have to say that I agree with the bill in principle, but I was actually afraid of the teeth that Blanco would put in.Quote:
Originally Posted by atobulldog
It won't hurt the consumer to have cleaner air and water!
Hmmm. What happened in Houston this morning? Better hope that cut off low moves away or doesnt get out into the gulf. Cut off meaning, its got nothing to stear it!
An area near Lake Charles also got hammered. This isnt even a "tropical" system.
My advise to anyone living along or south of Interstate 10 from Pensecola to Houston is this: Dont live there anymore. Its no longer safe. Im serious.
quit being an alarmist alta.
You can't be serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
This global warming scare has got to be the most ridiculous thing since the orignal radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds.
I lived in Cameron Parish as a kid. Where did the destructive storms come from back then? There were horrendous storms. Tornados and water spouts, high gusts of winds, storms with no steering current.
Please tell me you post was in jest. Again, sarcasm is hard to read on a board. I hope that was the case.
CCCCCCCCCCCRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
Nope. The Gulf of Mexico is heating up.
yes. the gulf of mexico is heating up. and there are still severe storms along the gulf just like there were 30, 50, 100 years ago. don't you understand that nobody is arguing that the gulf of mexico was the same temperature at this time of year in 1950? what we are saying is that it really is not the end of the world, and that it is most likely not manmade. this is the same point i have made over and over, but you still keep making assertions that no one is contesting as if they prove something. that is why i went "silent bob" on this thread originally. i came back because there was fresh discussion, but now it looks like its going back to the same old thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
:s07: :thumbsdow :furious3: :bomb:
Bob, what you seem not to understand is that 2006 is not 1906 is terms of the influence that human activities are having on our climate.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Your naked assertion that human activities are "most likely" not affecting the climate is not supported by the world's
leading scientists on this subject. Even the US Gov't admits global warming is taking place because of our burning fossil fuels.
The "carbon cycle" before we started burning fossil fuels was a "closed system". We are adding way over 6 gigatons of CO2 a year to the "carbon cycle" and this means increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Do you know what a gigaton is?
do YOU even know what a "closed system" is? do you know how many gigatons of carbon dioxide are in the atmosphere? do you know how much aditional plant growth it takes to absorb a gigaton of co2? do you know how much a gigaton of co2 contributes to global warming? i know the answer to the last two questions -- no. unless you know more than the "leading scientists" know on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
You're right Ark Bob, I was must of been thinking "outside the box" when I made my comment about the carbon cycle being a closed system. It should be considered an "open system" since not only mankind can inject carbon into the system but also large natural events like super volcanos.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
As for the number of gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere, I found this on the net:
<<Atmosphere. This consists primarily of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and methane. The amount of carbon in the atmosphere has increased from 578 gigatons in 1700 to about 766 gigatons in 1999, and continues to increase at the rate of about 6.1 gigatons per year.>>
ArkBob, Listen to the way too smart horny guy.
Hawking: I like Chinese culture, women
(AP)
Updated: 2006-06-21 17:23
Stephen Hawking charmed a group of Chinese students on Wednesday, telling them he liked Chinese culture and women while warning that global warming might turn the Earth into a fiery planet.
Before an audience of 500 at a seminar in Beijing, the wheelchair-bound celebrity cosmologist said, "I like Chinese culture, Chinese food and above all Chinese women. They are beautiful."
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2...2772805318.jpg
Stephen Hawking from the University of Cambridge, one of the world's leading theoretical physicists, is greeted by a Chinese student in Beijing June 21, 2006. [Reuters]
The audience of mostly university students and professors and a smattering of journalists applauded.
Asked about the environment, Hawking, who suffers from a degenerative disease and speaks through a computerized voice synthesizer, said he was "very worried about global warming." He said he was afraid that Earth "might end up like Venus, at 250 degrees centigrade and raining sulfuric acid."
An occasional visitor to China, Hawking was in Beijing to attend a conference on string theory, an area of physics that attempts to explain and model the universe.
Hawking has near-superstar status in China, and the Chinese government preaches that scientific prowess is crucial to the country's future power.
"In the world there's only one like him. I very much respect his personality and strong spirit," said Liu Fei, 24-year-old doctoral candidate at the Chinese Academy of Sciences' Institute of Physics in Beijing.
the Chinese government preaches that scientific prowess is crucial to the country's future power.
The reason why they are kicking our ass. While we debate the scientific validity of Creation Science.
ARBob, you can also send ABC your story detailing how some here just want leave this subject alone and it is making your life miserable.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/...C-RSSFeeds0312
Communist China. That is a real objective source about whether this all about destroying our free enterprise system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Sooner, send your story to ABC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
Considering I just arrived home from Houston after having been there on the 19th, 20th and today, I would have to say you're being quite a bit extreme. I didn't experience anything I haven't experienced in my previous 40 years of living south of I10. Besides, why not include all of Florida south of Pensacola in that advice?
I could not answer how global warming has affected me. I would have plenty to write about if they asked how has the global warming scare tactic by the radical left has affected me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
ARBob, seems another source uses the term "closed system".
http://www.koshland-science-museum.o...c/carbon02.jsp
Sooner, Go look at Shakira.
ok, so let me catch up: you guys have no idea what the difference is between an open and closed system, abc wants to know how the global mean temperature rising 0.5 degrees is affecting me, and a cosmologist is worried about glomal warming. does that just about cover it? of course stephen hawking is worried about global warming. he knows that in just a short trillion years or so, the degeneration of the earth's orbit is going to cause it to occupy venus' current orbit, making it an unbearable fireball.
but seriously, the purpose of the post to which dawgbitten and saltydawg have been replying was to point out that scientists don't know what affect increased co2 has on global temperatures.
by the way, salty, thanks for the co2 numbers. so co2 levels have supposedly risen by roughly 33% since 1700. how much has the mean global temperature risen during that period? (we can come up with a pretty good answer for that one). how much of that warming was due to the co2 increase? (nobody has a good answer for that one).
oh, i forgot to discuss my thoughts on the "closed system" thing. whether a system is open or closed depends on where you draw the boundaries. i assume that when salty claimed that the carbon cycle used to be a closed system, he was referring to the cycle in which plants absorb carbon from the air and then die and decay, returning the carbon to the atmsosphere. of course there's the oceans absorbing and releasing co2, but you can draw your box around the oceans and consider them part of the closed system. supposedly then, we are interrupting this pristine, delicate, closed system by pumping gigatons of co2 into the air. but wait a minute, think about where the carbon is coming from that we are returning to the atmosphere: mostly fossile fuels. where do fossile fuels come from? from the carbon left in plants and animals after they decay. carbon that was taken from the atmosphere to help the plants grow, but was not returned to the atmosphere when they died. so if the carbon cycle was a closed system before, then it still is now because we are not introducing any carbon from outside of the boundaries that you have to set to make it a closed system in the first place.
ARKBob, most of the CO2 increase has been over the past 50 years, not the last 300. It is not linear.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
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.
Yes, let's call it a closed system that has a major role in determining the planet's average global temperature.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
The fossil fuels took hundreds of millions of years to be formed (4000 gigatons of carbon). We will release that carbon back into the carbon cycle in only a few hundred years.
My conspiracy theory involves the sun. I can't believe this hasn't even been brought up. The sun is continually expanding (it will until it explodes), causing the suns gases and heat to come closer and closer in contact with the earth every year. So it is not unreasonable to me why the earth is getting hotter and hotter. The sun is getting closer to the earth.
I do not know of any environmental plan to combat this issue, but it should be a doozie.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science....ap/index.html
HAve a look. The evidence just continues to mount from all directions. Republicans jumping on board left and right! All aboard! The train is leaving without ya!
"Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, it said"
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
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. :rolleyes4Quote:
Originally Posted by nadB
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
"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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/media/f_fear.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
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 altadawg