suggested reading for sooner.
http://www.newkerala.com/news4.php?a...lnews&id=21448
|
|
|
|
|
suggested reading for sooner.
http://www.newkerala.com/news4.php?a...lnews&id=21448
I was reading something on this the other day.Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Another article:
http://www.whatistheword.com/story/USWorld_25.html
A couple of notes:
Theoretically, this is the smallest the Arctic ice cap has been in the last 100 years; however, the methods for measuring the cap where not reliable until the mid-70's. The cap is 20% smaller than recorded in 1978 (which is the same time some people said we were going into another ice age).
In neither article do they say they know what the cause is:
"While it's true that the climatic changes in the Arctic is primarily a natural phenomenon, researchers believe that the role of global warming cannot be ignored."
"Cautioning that recent Arctic changes are not well understood and many questions remain, Nghiem said, "It's vital that we continue to closely monitor this region, using both satellite and surface-bsed data."
More Kyoto information:
Europeans missing Kyoto Targets:
http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...icle335198.ece
Europeans/Asians skate around climate change pledges
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...1.html?ref=rss
An interesting read on reasons behind Russia signing the treaty:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102204K
From the article:
"American legislators, as well as President Bush, remain staunch opponents of Kyoto because of the economic damage it will cause and because developing countries, whose emissions exceed those of industrial countries, are exempt from the treaty's emissions-reduction requirements.
In addition, the treaty was written to make it easier for Europe to comply than for the United States, putting the U.S. at an economic advantage.
But, for all its bluster, Europe isn't complying anyway. According to a German think thank, 11 of the 15 "old" members of the EU are missing their emissions targets, and, overall emissions in Europe rose last year by 2 percent."
Ford, GM were against increasing their vehicles MPG to come inline with other foreign countries. They said it couldn't be done without damaging their business. Now tell me, how has this helped our economy and their businesses? How has delphi, ford, tiremakers, etc. been doing lately while Toyota, Nissan, and others contine to grab market share?
The only damage done to the economy to meet these guidelines would be expansion of our economy. The only damage would be the energy companies would have to open their wallets and maybe small increases in utilities to the consumer.
And remember, smoking was not dangerous either according to tobacco.
New Strategy employed by Bill since he lost all credibility and no one is believing his Bullsh*t "We can't do nothing about it anyway, so let's be a bunch of quiters and meet our fate head on". Sounds like a great strategy, Bill. He gave you that one? We may not be able to do anything, but we can at least try.
Colorado State professor disputes global warming is human-caused
Views ‘out of step’ with others are good for science, academic says
By Kate Martin
The Daily Reporter-Herald
Global warming is happening, but humans are not the cause, one of the nation’s top experts on hurricanes said Monday morning.
Bill Gray, who has studied tropical meteorology for more than 40 years, spoke at the Larimer County Republican Club Breakfast about global warming and whether humans are to blame. About 50 people were at the talk.
Gray, who is a professor at Colorado State University, said human-induced global warming is a fear perpetuated by the media and scientists who are trying to get federal grants.
“I think we’re coming out of the little ice age, and warming is due to changes to ocean circulation patterns due to salinity variations,” Gray said. “I’m sure that’s it.”
Gray’s view has been challenged, however.
Roger Pielke Jr., director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said in an interview later Monday that climate scientists involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that most of the warming is due to human activity.
“Bill Gray is a widely respected senior scientist who has a view that is out of step with a lot of his colleagues’,” Pielke said. But challenging widely held views is “good for science because it forces people to make their case and advances understanding.”
“We should always listen to the minority,” said Pielke, who spoke from his office in Boulder. “But it’s prudent to take actions that both minimize human effect on the climate and also make ourselves much more resilient.”
At the breakfast, Gray said Earth was warmer in some medieval periods than it is today. Current weather models are good at predicting weather as far as 10 days in advance, but predicting up to 100 years into the future is “a great act of faith, and I don’t believe any of it,” he said.
But even if humans cause global warming, there’s not much people can do, Gray said. China and India will continue to pump out greenhouse gases, and alternative energy sources are expensive.
“Why do it if it’s not going to make a difference anyway?” he said. “Whether I’m right or wrong, we can’t do anything about it anyway.”
But Pielke said it makes sense to reduce humans’ impact on the climate.
“There are uncertainties. It’s not like you change your light bulbs today, you’re going to have better weather tomorrow,” he said. “It’s even better if those actions you’re taking make sense for other reasons, like getting off Middle Eastern oil or saving money'.
Apparently Dr. Gray hasn't heard anything about Steorn, an Irish based company that is claiming to have discovered the first ever perpetual motion device. If energy could be free, then why use fossil fuels? And that would solve the problem head on.
For those here who haven't heard about Steorn and their supposed discovery, go to www.steorn.com to read more about it. It's fascinating, whether it's a hoax or not.
Daniel
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14944138
Study: Oceans have cooled in recent years
Scientists say that despite temperature change, sea levels continue to rise
Boxer takes the reigns away from the idiot from Oklahoma. Can't say I like Boxer, but she may be what is needed for this problem.
Boxer pledges shift on global warming policy with new Senate role
SAMANTHA YOUNG, Associated Press Writer
November 9, 2006 3:39 PMSACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Sen. Barbara Boxer on Thursday promised major policy shifts on global warming, air quality and toxic-waste cleanup as she prepares to head the U.S. Senate's environmental committee.
''Time is running out, and we need to move forward on this,'' Boxer said of global warming during a conference call with reporters. ''The states are beginning to take steps, and we need to take steps as well.''
Boxer's elevation to chairwoman of the Senate Environmental Public Works Committee comes as the Democrats return to power in the Senate. It also marks a dramatic shift in ideology for the panel.
The California Democrat is one of the Senate's most liberal members and replaces one of the most conservative senators, Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Inhofe had blocked bills seeking to cut the greenhouse gases contributing to global warming, calling the issue ''the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people.''
Environmentalists were overjoyed at the change.
''That's like a tsunami hit the committee,'' said Karen Steuer, who heads government affairs at the National Environmental Trust, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. ''You can't find two members or people more ideologically different.''
Boxer said she intends to introduce legislation to curb greenhouse gases, strengthen environmental laws regarding public health and hold oversight hearings on federal plans to clean up Superfund sites across the country.
On global warming, Boxer said she would model federal legislation after a California law signed this summer by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. That law imposes the first statewide cap on greenhouse gases and seeks to cut California's emissions by 25 percent, dropping them to 1990 levels by 2020.
A top environmental aide at the White House signaled Thursday that the administration would work with Boxer.
In an e-mail to the senator's chief counsel, George Banks, the associate director for international affairs at the Council for Environmental Quality requested a meeting to discuss global warming, Boxer said.
President Bush has opposed a federal mandate to limit greenhouse gas emissions from industry and automobiles, saying such steps should be voluntary. His administration also has ruled that greenhouse emissions are not a pollutant.
''We look forward to working with Congress in bipartisanship on all issues,'' said Kristen Hellmer, a spokeswoman for the Council on Environmental Quality.
She declined to discuss specifics related to the upcoming global warming discussion.
Democrats and environmentalists have criticized Bush for refusing to send the Senate the 1997 Kyoto accord for ratification. It requires 35 industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
California's law and various bills in Congress set more aggressive targets.
Stephanopoulos: Pelosi May Create Special Global Warming Committee
This morning on ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos reported that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) “is considering setting up a special committee in the House to deal with climate change and global warming.”
Also on ABC, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) called climate change “the most serious environmental problem” we face, and said “we’ve got to get action on it” and “not wait until everybody around the world is going to do it.”
Last year, Waxman introduced the Safe Climate Act, which aims to freeze greenhouse gas emissions by 2010 and cut emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020. The bill would create “a flexible economy-wide cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions, along with measures to advance technology and reduce emissions through renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cleaner cars.”
Full transcript:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Congressman Waxman, you helped write the Clean Air Act back in 1990 and I think the warm weather this weekend has reminded us all of that global warming, as if we needed another reminder. I’ve been told Speaker Pelosi is considering setting up a special committee in the House to deal with climate change and global warming. Do you think that’s a good idea and what should it do?
WAXMAN: I haven’t heard what she’s thinking along those lines, but I introduced the first global warming bill in the House 18 years ago. I have a bill now pending that has the most co-sponsors in it. What we’ve got to do is hold hearings and that’s what our committee plans to do. This is a serious — this is the most serious environmental problem that we’re facing. We’ve got to get action on it. We may not since this administration won’t even acknowledge the fact of global warming, but we’ve got to set out the way that we can reduce those carbon emissions in this country, not wait until everybody around the world is going to do it, but be the leader and get other countries to work with us as we chart a course of reducing emissions, carbon emissions from motor vehicles and other sources.
LOL. This is the best you can come up with? Did you even read the article?? LOL
"The temperature drop, a small fraction of the total warming seen in the last 48 years, suggests that global warming trends can sometimes take little dips."
"Most scientists agree that much of the warming in the past 50 years has been fueled by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities. "
"In a previous study, researchers reported that in parts of the Antarctic, 84 percent of glaciers have retreated over the past 50 years in response to a warmer climate."
Page 2?
Sooner and silent bob, this is a must read.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...061120fa_fact3
This is some real scary information. If true, N.O. is toast.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/sc...=1&oref=slogin
January 16, 2007
The Warming of Greenland
By JOHN COLLINS RUDOLF
LIVERPOOL LAND, Greenland — Flying over snow-capped peaks and into a thick fog, the helicopter set down on a barren strip of rocks between two glaciers. A dozen bags of supplies, a rifle and a can of cooking gas were tossed out onto the cold ground. Then, with engines whining, the helicopter lifted off, snow and fog swirling in the rotor wash.
When it had disappeared over the horizon, no sound remained but the howling of the Arctic wind.
“It feels a little like the days of the old explorers, doesn’t it?” Dennis Schmitt said.
Mr. Schmitt, a 60-year-old explorer from Berkeley, Calif., had just landed on a newly revealed island 400 miles north of the Arctic Circle in eastern Greenland. It was a moment of triumph: he had discovered the island on an ocean voyage in September 2005. Now, a year later, he and a small expedition team had returned to spend a week climbing peaks, crossing treacherous glaciers and documenting animal and plant life.
Despite its remote location, the island would almost certainly have been discovered, named and mapped almost a century ago when explorers like Jean-Baptiste Charcot and Philippe, Duke of Orléans, charted these coastlines. Would have been discovered had it not been bound to the coast by glacial ice.
Maps of the region show a mountainous peninsula covered with glaciers. The island’s distinct shape — like a hand with three bony fingers pointing north — looks like the end of the peninsula.
Now, where the maps showed only ice, a band of fast-flowing seawater ran between a newly exposed shoreline and the aquamarine-blue walls of a retreating ice shelf. The water was littered with dozens of icebergs, some as large as half an acre; every hour or so, several more tons of ice fractured off the shelf with a thunderous crack and an earth-shaking rumble.
All over Greenland and the Arctic, rising temperatures are not simply melting ice; they are changing the very geography of coastlines. Nunataks — “lonely mountains” in Inuit — that were encased in the margins of Greenland’s ice sheet are being freed of their age-old bonds, exposing a new chain of islands, and a new opportunity for Arctic explorers to write their names on the landscape.
“We are already in a new era of geography,” said the Arctic explorer Will Steger. “This phenomenon — of an island all of a sudden appearing out of nowhere and the ice melting around it — is a real common phenomenon now.”
In August, Mr. Steger discovered his own new island off the coast of the Norwegian island of Svalbard, high in the polar basin. Glaciers that had surrounded it when his ship passed through only two years earlier were gone this year, leaving only a small island alone in the open ocean.
“We saw it ourselves up there, just how fast the ice is going,” he said.
With 27,555 miles of coastline and thousands of fjords, inlets, bays and straits, Greenland has always been hard to map. Now its geography is becoming obsolete almost as soon as new maps are created.
Hans Jepsen is a cartographer at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, which produces topographical maps for mining and oil companies. (Greenland is a largely self-governing region of Denmark.) Last summer, he spotted several new islands in an area where a massive ice shelf had broken up. Mr. Jepsen was unaware of Mr. Schmitt’s discovery, and an old aerial photograph in his files showed the peninsula intact.
“Clearly, the new island was detached from the mainland when the connecting glacier-bridge retreated southward,” Mr. Jepsen said, adding that future maps would take note of the change.
The sudden appearance of the islands is a symptom of an ice sheet going into retreat, scientists say. Greenland is covered by 630,000 cubic miles of ice, enough water to raise global sea levels by 23 feet.
Carl Egede Boggild, a professor of snow-and-ice physics at the University Center of Svalbard, said Greenland could be losing more than 80 cubic miles of ice per year.
“That corresponds to three times the volume of all the glaciers in the Alps,” Dr. Boggild said. “If you lose that much volume you’d definitely see new islands appear.”
He discovered an island himself a year ago while flying over northwestern Greenland. “Suddenly I saw an island with glacial ice on it,” he said. “I looked at the map and it should have been a nunatak, but the present ice margin was about 10 kilometers away. So I can say that within the last five years the ice margin had retreated at least 10 kilometers.”
The abrupt acceleration of melting in Greenland has taken climate scientists by surprise. Tidewater glaciers, which discharge ice into the oceans as they break up in the process called calving, have doubled and tripled in speed all over Greenland. Ice shelves are breaking up, and summertime “glacial earthquakes” have been detected within the ice sheet.
“The general thinking until very recently was that ice sheets don’t react very quickly to climate,” said Martin Truffer, a glaciologist at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. “But that thinking is changing right now, because we’re seeing things that people have thought are impossible.”
A study in The Journal of Climate last June observed that Greenland had become the single largest contributor to global sea-level rise.
Until recently, the consensus of climate scientists was that the impact of melting polar ice sheets would be negligible over the next 100 years. Ice sheets were thought to be extremely slow in reacting to atmospheric warming. The 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, widely considered to be an authoritative scientific statement on the potential impacts of global warming, based its conclusions about sea-level rise on a computer model that predicted a slow onset of melting in Greenland.
“When you look at the ice sheet, the models didn’t work, which puts us on shaky ground,” said Richard Alley, a geosciences professor at Pennsylvania State University.
There is no consensus on how much Greenland’s ice will melt in the near future, Dr. Alley said, and no computer model that can accurately predict the future of the ice sheet. Yet given the acceleration of tidewater-glacier melting, a sea-level rise of a foot or two in the coming decades is entirely possible, he said. That bodes ill for island nations and those who live near the coast.
“Even a foot rise is a pretty horrible scenario,” said Stephen P. Leatherman, director of the Laboratory for Coastal Research at Florida International University in Miami.
ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5-7dc37ec39adf
AMS CERTIFIED WEATHERMAN STRIKES BACK AT WEATHER CHANNEL CALL FOR DECERTIFICATION
January 19, 2007
Posted by Marc Morano marc_morano@epw.senate.gov
After EPW blog post yesterday Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord _id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 check out this blog post from ABC-TV Alabama affiliate weatherman James Spann http://www.jamesspann.com/blog.htm
Also check out Weather Channel response to the controversy http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord _id=3ab9e37d-802a-23ad-430e-1c42aad22006&Region_id=&Issue_id= From Spann blog - his bio:
"In 2005 I upgraded the AMS seal of approval to the new "Certified Broadcast Meteorologist" designation. The CBM is the highest level of certification from the AMS, and involves academic requirements, on-air performance, a rigorous examination, and continuing education.Official bio here: http://www.abc3340.com/news/talent.hrb?i=188
The Weather Channel Mess
January 18, 2007 | James Spann | Op/Ed
Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?
I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:
*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.
*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.
If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.
In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.
WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.
I have nothing against “The Weather Channel”, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.
Here's an even better article.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636
TT, the levels of atmospheric CO2 continue to rise. Most TV weather persons are not in the field of climate research so naturally I would expect them to be out of the loop on the topic.
Remember , there is a direct corerlation with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the global average temperature. Post something that says that's not true.
Humans exhale CO2. I think its time to cull the herd in the name of global warming. Let's start by eliminating school zones to quickly get rid of the young stupid ones.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
