Global Warming Cont...

[saltydawg]

The biggest "stretch" in this hypothesis is the rather far out assumption that the earth was TOTALLY covered with ice during a cold interval. There is no geologic evidense to support such an assumption, but this outrageous assumption was probably required to support the rest of the "theory".

Supposedly, the oceans were frozen solid one mile thick on the surface. Of course, at that time there was only one continent. Not sure if the Earth was 100% covered in ice but even 95% would be a lot. It's was a case of runaway global cooling and supposedly happened several times during Earth's history. As you are aware, runaway global warming is not possible here on Earth.

"Snowball" Earth is generally accepted by scientists who study that sort of thing. As the ice sheets expand, more solar radiation is reflected back into space cooling the planet even more. Since the main continent is along the equator, ocean currents that regulated the climate were not effective in transferring heat from the equator up to the polars.

[Guisslapp]

As you are aware, runaway global warming is not possible here on Earth.

Why not?

[saltydawg]

Why not?

The greenhouse effect is halted when water vapor is in equilibrium with ice or liquid water.

[arkansasbob]

As you are aware, runaway global warming is not possible here on Earth.

this is great news! so what are you and altadawg so worried about?

[altadawg]

Oops. Global warming <> tornadoes:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...809824,00.html

Scientists: Why So Many Tornadoes?

Tuesday, May. 27, 2008 By AP/SETH BORENSTEIN

But like someone who has lost all his worldly possessions to a whirlwind, meteorologists cannot explain exactly why this is happening.

"There are active years and we don't particularly understand why," said research meteorologist Harold Brooks at the National Severe Storms Lab in Norman, Okla.
Global warming cannot really explain what is happening, Carbin said. While higher temperatures could increase the number of thunderstorms, which are needed to trigger tornadoes, they also would tend to push the storm systems too far north to form some twisters, he said.

La Nina, the cooling of parts of the Central Pacific that is the flip side El Nino, was a factor in the increased activity earlier this year — especially in February, a record month for tornado activity — but it can't explain what is happening now, according to Carbin.
Carbin explained the most recent tornadoes with just one word: "May." May is typically the busiest tornado month of the year.


Dammital, we need to have Congress impose a tax on May or at least put a tornado cap and trade system in place. Al Gore should also kick off another $300MM ad campaign.

I have the feeling you really need to get your blood pressure checked... How long you been storing your quack facts, BTW?

I feel sorry for you. I dont say that to many people.

[saltydawg]

this is great news! so what are you and altadawg so worried about?

The "key" word is *runaway*. CO2 forcing is gradual which means the greenhouse effect is operative.

[arkansasbob]

The "key" word is *runaway*. CO2 forcing is gradual which means the greenhouse effect is operative.

how many times on this very thread have we been warned about runaway greenhouse effect? anyone?

[DogtorEvil]

I have the feeling you really need to get your blood pressure checked...

Blood pressure ia excellent, probably better than your bcause I'm not worried that the sky is falling.

How long you been storing your quack facts, BTW?...

"storing quack facts"?....look at the dates the articles are posted. Are you really that dense? My guess is that you never read anything that goes against your beliefs (and if you do, you immediately dismiss it as being "quack"m even though you have no scientific basis to do so).

I feel sorry for you. I dont say that to many people.

I neither need nor desire pity from you, you uneducated nimrod chicken little. The one who deserves pity here is you, because you have no idea what you're talking about in reference to this subject. Your contributions to this thread have been (A) you started it with a post about Bill "the science guy"/global warming (on Larry King no less) and (B) an occasional post along the lines of "you guys are wrong", "just wait and see". At least saltycat attempts to back up what he is sayiong with some type of data.

I'd much rather have my "head in the sand" and have a pretty good idea about what I'm talking about vs. my liberal head up my liberal arse, like you.

[DogtorEvil]

basically, Germony, one of the original signers of Kyoto, is having problems placing taxes on auto exhaust emissions...

German minister says car tax plan looks doomed

Wed May 28, 2008 3:18pm EDT

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssC...35955520080528

BERLIN, May 28 (Reuters) - Members of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition remain "miles apart" on a plan to link car taxes to emissions and are unlikely to introduce the change in 2009 as planned, Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee said.

Merkel came under criticism for backtracking on her environmental aims when the government announced last week that approval of the plan to change car tax rules to take exhaust emissions into account would be delayed.

She insisted over the weekend that the "Kfz" tax change, part of a climate protection package agreed by the coalition last year, was not dead despite differences in her government.

But Tiefensee, in an interview with Die Welt newspaper, suggested the plan was doomed and blamed Economy Minister Michael Glos for a "surprising reversal" on the issue.

"The chances of getting the Kfz tax in place from Jan. 1, 2009 are next to nil," Tiefensee told the newspaper in an article to be published in its Thursday edition. "We are miles apart in the coalition on this project."

Tiefensee, a member of the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD), said Glos and his party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), appeared reluctant to back the plan ahead of elections in their home state of Bavaria later this year.

[DogtorEvil]

May 29, 2008, 6:30 a.m.

Sacrifices to the Climate Gods
Beware Lieberman-Warner.

By Roy Spencer

http://article.nationalreview.com/pr...WVmNTc0MDMyYTU=

It is well-established that the ancient Mayan, Aztec, Incan, and Toltec peoples offered human sacrifices, probably in the belief that such rituals would placate the gods who were in charge of nature; for instance, to help bring life-giving rains to their crops.

Although we shudder at the thought of such barbaric practices, I believe that we have unwittingly reinstituted human sacrifice in modern times. But while the list of justifications has grown immensely, our new rituals are still performed in the name of avoiding the wrath of the gods of nature.

Our environmental protection practices have already caused the deaths of millions of people, mainly in poor African countries. By far the most humans — mostly women and children — have been sacrificed in the mistaken belief that the use of any amount of the pesticide DDT would harm the environment. As a result, the preventable disease malaria has continued to decimate Africa.

Only recently has this genocide disguised as environmentalism been partly reversed through the reinstituted practice of twice-yearly DDT treatments of the entryways to homes. While most environmentalists continue to insist that there is no connection between international bans on DDT and human deaths, such protestations really are like denying that the Holocaust ever happened.

Now, the Senate is preparing to debate the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which aims to limit carbon-dioxide emissions in the belief that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is disrupting the Earth’s climate and ecosystems.

Since we now have the scientific method, we rely on computer models to predict these future catastrophes rather than on our fears and prejudices. While this gives the illusion of modern objective precision, the truth is that all we have done is enlisted one of our modern idols — the computer — to justify what we want to believe anyway. And that fundamental belief is that anything mankind does to nature is inherently evil.

To be sure, the scientific method can help us understand the physical world… something the ancients could not do. But global-warming theory, unfortunately, is out of the realm of being a legitimate, testable scientific hypothesis.

For instance, to be a valid scientific hypothesis, there should be some kind of climate behavior observable in nature that would be inconsistent with the theory that mankind is responsible for global warming. But instead, everything we observe has now become consistent with the theory. Floods and droughts. Too much snow and too little snow. More hurricanes and fewer hurricanes. It is sometimes pointed out that a theory that explains everything really explains nothing.

Similarly, there is no experiment we can carry out in the laboratory to test the theory. Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and yes we are adding more of it to the atmosphere. But since weather processes create and control over 90 percent of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect through their continuous adjustments to water vapor and cloud amounts, it is not at all obvious that more CO2 will cause substantial warming. Indeed, it could well be that one of the functions of weather is to maintain a relatively constant greenhouse effect, no matter how much carbon dioxide is present.

Alarmists like Al Gore will use pseudo-scientific justifications and comparisons in their attempt to make a connection between carbon dioxide and global warming. Even though CO2 is necessary for life on Earth, the alarmists insist on calling it a pollutant, referring to our atmosphere as an “open sewer.”

For instance, Gore likes to point out that Venus has far more CO2 in its atmosphere than the Earth does, and its surface is hot enough to melt lead. Therefore, more CO2 causes warming. But we also know that the Martian atmosphere has 15 times as much CO2 as our own atmosphere, and its surface temperature averages about 70 deg. F below zero. So you see, in science a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Why do we love to believe that mankind is a plague upon the Earth? We view anything and everything that happens in nature, no matter how barbaric, bloody, or destructive, as good. Indeed, the word “natural” has no negative connotation at all.

If a volcano like Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines dumps millions of tons of sulfur into the stratosphere, cooling the Earth for two or three years, this is simply Mother Nature at work. If humans did it, we would call it an environmental catastrophe.

And now we are teaching our children to perform their own acts of worship, again hoping to placate the gods of the natural world. Substituting compact fluorescent light bulbs for incandescent ones, and turning the light off when they leave the room, makes them feel good about themselves and their relationship to nature. These rituals being taught in the public schools will help define their still-developing worldviews and religious beliefs.

Lieberman-Warner will, in effect, punish the use of energy by making it more expensive. Yet, energy is necessary for all human activities. We are already causing a food crisis around the world by converting food, such as corn, into liquid fuels for transportation. Now, with the Climate Security Act, we will also be causing additional turmoil at home as the poor struggle to survive in a world where only the middle class and wealthy can afford to live relatively comfortably.

We will, in effect, be sacrificing even more humans at the altar of radical environmentalism in the vain hope that the gods in charge of weather and climate will look favorably upon us, and not destroy us.

— Dr. Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He is author of the new book, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor.

[CooperBulldog72]

Blood pressure ia excellent, probably better than your bcause I'm not worried that the sky is falling.



"storing quack facts"?....look at the dates the articles are posted. Are you really that dense? My guess is that you never read anything that goes against your beliefs (and if you do, you immediately dismiss it as being "quack"m even though you have no scientific basis to do so).



I neither need nor desire pity from you, you uneducated nimrod chicken little. The one who deserves pity here is you, because you have no idea what you're talking about in reference to this subject. Your contributions to this thread have been (A) you started it with a post about Bill "the science guy"/global warming (on Larry King no less) and (B) an occasional post along the lines of "you guys are wrong", "just wait and see". At least saltycat attempts to back up what he is sayiong with some type of data.

I'd much rather have my "head in the sand" and have a pretty good idea about what I'm talking about vs. my liberal head up my liberal arse, like you.

Dogter, that's good. I couldn't has said it better myself!

[DogtorEvil]

Carbon Chastity
The First Commandment of the Church of the Environment


By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 30, 2008; Page A13

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052903266.html

I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2into the atmosphere but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.

Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems -- from ocean currents to cloud formation -- that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.

Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. "The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."

If you doubt the arrogance, you haven't seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over. Consider: If Newton's laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming -- infinitely more untested, complex and speculative -- is a closed issue.


But declaring it closed has its rewards. It not only dismisses skeptics as the running dogs of reaction, i.e., of Exxon, Cheney and now Klaus. By fiat, it also hugely re-empowers the intellectual left.

For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class -- social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies -- arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).

Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher's England to Deng's China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but -- even better -- in the name of Earth itself.

Environmentalists are Gaia's priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.) And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment -- carbon chastity -- they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.

Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.

There's no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.

So what does the global warming agnostic propose as an alternative? First, more research -- untainted and reliable -- to determine (a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate, and (b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate.

Second, reduce our carbon footprint in the interim by doing the doable, rather than the economically ruinous and socially destructive. The most obvious step is a major move to nuclear power, which to the atmosphere is the cleanest of the clean.

But your would-be masters have foreseen this contingency. The Church of the Environment promulgates secondary dogmas as well. One of these is a strict nuclear taboo.

Rather convenient, is it not? Take this major coal-substituting fix off the table, and we will be rationing all the more. Guess who does the rationing.

[DogtorEvil]

Seven EU states seek overhaul of CO2 rules

Tue May 27, 2008 9:15am EDT

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Seven eastern European Union countries led by Hungary are calling for an overhaul of the bloc's efforts to curb carbon dioxide so as to take account of their historical reductions before they joined the EU.

The 27-member bloc has set ambitious targets to cut CO2 emissions by one fifth by 2020 compared to 1990 levels.

That overall target has been split between countries according to their emissions and economic strength in the baseline year of 2005, the first year the EU had verified data for all its members.

However, CO2 emissions dropped significantly in eastern Europe between 1990 and 2005 due to economic weakness after the collapse of communism -- and it is this reduction in CO2 that the seven want taken into account.

"By 2005 a significant part of the 20 percent target -- namely 7.9 percent -- has already been realized," said a proposal drafted by Hungary ahead of next week's meeting of environment ministers in Luxembourg.

"In the opinion of Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia these early reduction efforts should be duly recognized and rewarded in the effort sharing and/or ETS proposal," added the proposal, obtained by Reuters.

A government source for one of the seven countries emphasized that negotiations were still under way with other member states, with the aim of reaching an agreement well before the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009.

(Reporting by Pete Harrison; Editing by Dale Hudson)

[DogtorEvil]

Billions wasted on UN climate programme

Energy firms routinely abusing carbon offset fund, US studies claim

<LI class=byline>John Vidal, environment editor <LI class=publication>The Guardian, <LI class=date>Monday May 26 2008
Billions of pounds are being wasted in paying industries in developing countries to reduce climate change emissions, according to two analyses of the UN's carbon offsetting programme.

Leading academics and watchdog groups allege that the UN's main offset fund is being routinely abused by chemical, wind, gas and hydro companies who are claiming emission reduction credits for projects that should not qualify. The result is that no genuine pollution cuts are being made, undermining assurances by the UK government and others that carbon markets are dramatically reducing greenhouse gases, the researchers say.

The criticism centres on the UN's clean development mechanism (CDM), an international system established by the Kyoto process that allows rich countries to meet emissions targets by funding clean energy projects in developing nations.

Credits from the project are being bought by European companies and governments who are unable to meet their carbon reduction targets.

The market for CDM credits is growing fast. At present it is worth nearly $20bn a year, but this is expected to grow to over $100bn within four years. More than 1,000 projects have so far been approved, and 2,000 more are making their way through the process.

A working paper from two senior Stanford University academics examined more than 3,000 projects applying for or already granted up to $10bn of credits from the UN's CDM funds over the next four years, and concluded that the majority should not be considered for assistance. "They would be built anyway," says David Victor, law professor at the Californian university. "It looks like between one and two thirds of all the total CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts."

Governments consider that CDM is vital to reducing global emissions under the terms of the Kyoto treaty. To earn credits under the mechanism, emission reductions must be in addition to those that would have taken place without the project. But critics argue this "additionality" is impossible to prove and open to abuse. The Stanford paper, by Victor and his colleague Michael Wara, found that nearly every new hydro, wind and natural gas-fired plant expected to be built in China in the next four years is applying for CDM credits, even though it is Chinese policy to encourage these industries.

"Traders are finding ways of gaining credits that they would never have had before. You will never know accurately, but rich countries are clearly overpaying by a massive amount," said Victor.

A separate study published this week by US watchdog group International Rivers argues that nearly three quarters of all registered CDM projects were complete at the time of approval, suggesting that CDM money was not needed to finance them.

"It would seem clear that a project that is already built cannot need extra income in order to be built," said Patrick McCully, director of the thinktank in California. "Judging additionality has turned out to be unknowable and unworkable. It can never be proved definitively that if a developer or factory owner did not get offset income they would not build their project."
Yesterday a spokesman for the CDM in Bonn said the fund was significantly cutting emissions and providing incentives for companies to employ clean technologies: "There is a responsible level of scrutiny. The process is in continual reform. All the projects are vetted independently and are then certified by third parties. There are many checks and balances and we can show how all projects are vetted."

The UK government last night defended the CDM. "We completely reject any assertions that [it] is fundamentally flawed," a spokeswoman said. "We've worked consistently for and seen improvement in CDM processes over the past few years of its operation. We believe the CDM is essentially transparent and robust, though we will continue to press for the environmental integrity of projects."

[DogtorEvil]

G8 summit emission cut target likely "aspirational"

Sun May 25, 2008 7:07pm IST

By Linda Sieg and Chisa Fujioka

KOBE, Japan (Reuters) - The Group of Eight rich nations will likely agree to an "aspirational" target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 but shun mid-term goals at a July summit, the top U.N. climate official said on Sunday.

Ministers and representatives from the G8 and major emerging countries gathered this weekend in Japan to try to build momentum for U.N.-led climate change talks, but remained at odds over who should do what when, and how much.

"Given the stage that we are in the negotiations, it's going to be quite difficult to get an outcome of the G8 summit that is really strong," Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, told reporters after talks among environment ministers from the G8 and major emerging countries.

"For example, it's clear now that the consensus is for an aspirational goal for 2050 rather than a firm goal," he said. "I do not believe that it will be possible at the G8 summit to agree a range of reductions for 2020 for industrialised countries."

About 190 nations have agreed to negotiate by the end of 2009 a successor treaty to the Kyoto pact, which binds 37 advanced nations to cut emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

But with wide gaps within the G8 and between rich and poorer nations over how to share the burden for fighting the climate change that is causing droughts, rising sea levels and more severe storms, some saw slim chance of a breakthrough in July.

"I think it is difficult. We have not enough time," Mexican Environment Minister Juan Rafael Elvira Quesada told reporters.

"But climate change is not waiting for any of us."

Jos Delbeke, EU deputy director-general for environment, said ministers were likely to call for an "aspirational" target of halving global emissions by 2050 in a chairman's summary to be issued on Monday. "It is quite likely that on long-term targets we will see a clear message," he told reporters.


MID-TERM AMBITIONS

But big emerging countries like China urged the G8 to take the lead by setting ambitious mid-term targets before asking developing countries to make commitments of their own.
"I think the most important issue for us that we think will unlock the process to reach an agreement by the end of 2009 is the issue of mid-term targets by 2020 of between 25-40 percent below 1990 for all developed countries," South African Environment Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk told Reuters.

"Countries that haven't committed themselves ... the United States especially, should now commit themselves," he said.

G8 leaders agreed last year to consider seriously a goal to halve global emissions by 2050, a proposal favoured by Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Japan and Canada.

Developing countries are putting priority on growth and balking at targets, and complaining that the United States, which with China is a top emitter, is not doing enough.

The European Union has said the bloc aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels, but the United States says only that it will halt the growth of its emissions by 2025 and expectations are low for bold U.S. moves until a new president takes office next January.

Advanced countries also disagree on the base-year for mid-century reduction targets, leading some to suggest the quest for long-term targets be shelved for now.

"Our view is that since we cannot reach an agreement on the long-term, we can put it aside and focus on the mid-term goal, which is to identify what should be done by 2020, so we can take actions in time," Xie Zhenhua, China's vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, told reporters.

Participants stressed the need for funds and technology transfers to help developing countries adapt to climate change and limit their emissions, but some said much of the money would come from the private sector rather than from governments.

The U.N's de Boer said "hundreds of billions of dollars a year" would be needed over the longer term.

(Additional reporting by Risa Maeda and Kentaro Hamada)