Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Global Warming or????? not.......................

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Global Warming or????? not.......................
thirteen
unregistered
posted February 16, 2007 07:56 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions
COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.

It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.

David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.

"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."

Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century.

"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .

"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.

Last year, Bromwich's research group reported in the journal Science that Antarctic snowfall hadn't increased in the last 50 years. "What we see now is that the temperature regime is broadly similar to what we saw before with snowfall. In the last decade or so, both have gone down," he said.

In addition to the new temperature records and earlier precipitation records, Bromwich's team also looked at the behavior of the circumpolar westerlies, the broad system of winds that surround the Antarctic continent.

"The westerlies have intensified over the last four decades of so, increasing in strength by as much as perhaps 10 to 20 percent," he said. "This is a huge amount of ocean north of Antarctica and we're only now understanding just how important the winds are for things like mixing in the Southern Ocean." The ocean mixing both dissipates heat and absorbs carbon dioxide, one of the key greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

Some researchers are suggesting that the strengthening of the westerlies may be playing a role in the collapse of ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula.

"The peninsula is the most northern point of Antarctica and it sticks out into the westerlies," Bromwich says. "If there is an increase in the westerly winds, it will have a warming impact on that part of the continent, thus helping to break up the ice shelves, he said.

"Farther south, the impact would be modest, or even non-existent."

Bromwich said that the increase in the ozone hole above the central Antarctic continent may also be affecting temperatures on the mainland. "If you have less ozone, there's less absorption of the ultraviolet light and the stratosphere doesn't warm as much."

That would mean that winter-like conditions would remain later in the spring than normal, lowering temperatures.

"In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion," he said. "The year 2006 was the all-time maximum for ozone depletion over the Antarctic."

Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong.

"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.

IP: Logged

carlfloydfan
unregistered
posted March 22, 2007 02:38 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The earth is warming though it is natural, not man made.

IP: Logged

BlueRoamer
Knowflake

Posts: 95
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 22, 2007 03:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for BlueRoamer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That's quite a statement Carl, let's hear some evidence.

If you're going to go against the global consensus, the UN, and our hero, the Goremeister, you're gonna have to come up with some hard facts!

IP: Logged

thirteen
unregistered
posted March 22, 2007 04:08 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I beleive that we are experiencing weather extremes. This coincides with the new energy of the planet that will be complete by 2012.(End of days aka end of old energy). Since this new energy has created extreme polarity in the beliefs of people and people's energy creates the weather effects,we are now seeing the crazy weather patterns. I do beleve there will be problems with the depletion of the ozone layer in the next generation or the one after that but that is not global warming.
One has to remember that Global Warming is not proven, its basically a theory.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 22, 2007 06:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If you really want to know the scientific basis upon which the real climate scientists base their opinion that man made global warming is a gigantic hoax, fraud and swindle, then spending 1 hour and 19 minutes here is your best bet for understanding the real science of climate.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 23, 2007 02:10 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
THE HEAT IS ON
Gore plan would 'ban new cars and people'
GOP congressman blasts former VP at hearing: 'You're not just off a little. You're totally wrong'
Posted: March 21, 2007
2:30 p.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily.com

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, today told former Vice President Al Gore his theories on global warming are not supported by the facts and if Gore's desires are implemented, there would be no new businesses, cars or even people allowed in the United States.

"You just gave us an idea for a straight CO2 freeze, if I heard you correctly. I think that's an idea that's flawed. If you take that literally, we can add no new industry, nor new cars and trucks on our streets, and apparently no new people," Barton, who represents the 6th District in Texas, said. "People are mobile-source emitters. Every person emits 0.2 tons of CO2 a year, so an absolute true freeze would be no new industry, no new people, and no new cars."

During a hearing before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Barton challenged the "facts" being used to promote Gore's campaign for a new war on global warming, portrayed in Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth." Gore has called such warming "a crisis that is by far the most serious we've faced," and described it as "a true planetary emergency."

But Gore's claims that climactic changes that are forecast in coming years should be blamed on increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and will produce rising ocean levels, more dangerous weather and widespread flooding or drought weren't supported by the facts, according to Barton.

"The first thing I want to address is the science of global warming as portrayed by the vice president's film, 'An Inconvenient Truth.' This is something that I think we absolutely have to get right. Even the mainstream media, Mr. Vice President, are now noticing that global warming science is uneven and evolving. We need to be deliberative and careful when we talk about so-called scientific facts," Barton, the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said.

"In your movie, you display a timeline of temperature and compared to CO2 levels over a 600,000-year period as reconstructed from ice core samples. You indicate that this is conclusive proof of the link of increased CO2 emissions and global warming. A closer examination of these facts reveals something entirely different," Barton said.

Barton said a Science magazine article he was submitting for the record shows that historically, increases in CO2 concentrations actually lagged temperature changes by up to 1,000 years.

"The temperature appears to drive CO2, not vice versa. On this point, Mr. Vice President, you're not just off a little. You're totally wrong. And it's not just this one article; the president of the National Academy of Sciences agreed, under oath, last summer in an Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing on this very point," said Barton.

Barton also noted that "historically, and repeatedly," CO2 levels have far exceeded concentrations now being reported, which are in the range of 380 parts per million.

"Indeed, CO2 levels in the past have exceeded 1,000 ppm, and average earth temperatures have been much higher then than they are today. We know these things. … t remains a fact, and is clear from the data we do have, that for hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 levels followed temperature rise, not the other way around, as you preach," he said.

[i]"You've also asserted that global warming will cause sea levels to rise by over 20 feet. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report indicates a rise of at most 23 inches.

"You state that there will be more and stronger hurricanes because of global warming. The IPCC report does not support this claim. You also state that malaria has been exacerbated in Nairobi because of global warming. The World Health Organization report does not support this allegation. In fact, malaria is not exclusively a warm weather disease – inhabitants of Siberia have long experienced malaria outbreaks," Barton noted.

Barton said without a doubt legislation needs to keep four things in mind: "We want to be sure it actually helps the environment; we want to keep the lights on at an affordable price; we want to keep the American economy strong and American jobs here, and we can't get out in front of what is technologically possible at the current time."

Barton said there are, in fact, some good ideas that Gore has promoted, and Congress already has acted in most of those cases. "They include more efficient use of electricity in heating, cooling, appliances, and lighting; more energy efficient buildings and businesses; more fuel efficient cars, hybrids and fuel cell cars; better designed cities, mass transit and fuel efficient trucks; increased use of renewables; and carbon capture and sequestration. These are good ideas; they are not just reasonable responses to climate change, but they're good energy policy as well.

"We have before you one of your tables from your book, I believe. I'm happy to report that in the last Congress, under the chairmanship of myself and with the strong and able support of Mr. Dingell, the current chairman, we reported out and passed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005 on a bipartisan basis. If we look at that piece of legislation, we'll see that many of the things you've recommended, we've already done," Barton said.

"You want more efficient systems for heating and cooling and appliances and electronic equipment. In the Energy Policy Act we did that in Titles 1, 9, and 13. You want end-use efficiency design in buildings and businesses to use far less energy than they currently do. We did that in Titles 1, 9 and 13. You want increased vehicle efficiency, cars that run on less gas and more hybrid and fuel-cells cars. We attempted to start that process in Titles 7, 8, 9, 13, and 15. You want to make other changes in transportation efficiency, better mass transit systems and heavy trucks that use less fuel. We did that in Titles 7 and 9. You want increased renewable energy – wind, solar and biofuels. We do that in Titles 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18. And finally you think that we need to research and try to capture and store carbon from power plants and factories. We start that process in Titles 4, 9 and 17. So on many of the things you recommend, we not only agree with you, we've already done it," he said.

Other Gore ideas, however, are flawed, Barton said.

"Your suggestion of a carbon tax is a something that would harm our competitiveness, raise costs to American families, export jobs, and actually do very little to improve our environment. Likewise, a Kyoto-style cap-and-trade system for CO2 will mainly increase the price of electricity while providing few, if any, environmental benefits. These proposals, especially considering that neither of them includes large emitters of greenhouse gases such as China and India, fail the common-sense test that any legislation should meet: they provide little benefit at a huge cost," Barton said.

"A carbon tax on the American people, or instituting a cap on carbon without the participation of nations like China and India, is an attempt to reverse global warming similar to a doctor telling an overweight, sedentary chain-smoker to wear a seat belt. China is adding a coal power plant a week, and will add more coal-fired electricity generation this year than the entire state of Texas currently has. When you were vice president and you jetted into Kyoto to sign the Kyoto Protocol, you rejected requests of people like myself and Chairman Dingell to insist that China and the developing nations be included in that same protocol.

"Let's look in Europe when they tried to instigate their cap-and-trade. In Germany electricity wholesale rates have risen 30 to 40 percent and they're facing job losses. Despite all the efforts of the European nations that signed Kyoto, almost none of these countries are on target to meet their Kyoto obligations. Cap-and-trade isn't working in Europe; it will not even be tried in Asia, and it should not be unilaterally imposed in the United States of America," Barton said.

Even as Gore prepared to appear before the House committee, Czech President Vaclav Klaus was calling the issue a new religion, and describing it as the modern equivalent of communism.

"It becomes evident that while discussing climate we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment, but a clash of views about human freedom," the Czech leader has said.

"As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants," said Klaus, responding to questions posed by the two lawmakers. "Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism."
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54808

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 23, 2007 02:24 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Typical brain dead leftist hypocrite.

Do as I say, not as I do.

Gore Refuses to Take Personal Energy Pledge
NewsMax.com
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:36 p.m. EDT

Former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a "Personal Energy Ethics Pledge" today to consume no more energy than the average American household. The pledge was presented to Gore by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, during today's global warming hearing.

Senator Inhofe showed Gore a film frame from "An Inconvenient Truth" where it asks viewers: "Are you ready to change the way you live?"

Gore has been criticized for excessive home energy usage at his residence in Tennessee. His electricity usage is reportedly 20 times higher than the average American household.



It has been reported that many of these so-called carbon offset projects would have been done anyway. Also, carbon offset projects such as planting trees can take decades or even a century to sequester the carbon emitted today. So energy usage today results in greenhouse gases remaining in the atmosphere for decades, even with the purchase of so-called carbon offsets.

"There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don't give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do," Senator Inhofe told Gore.

"Are you willing to make a commitment here today by taking this pledge to consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?" Senator Inhofe asked.

Senator Inhofe then presented Vice President Gore with the following "Personal Energy Ethics Pledge:

As a believer:

that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;

that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;

that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions;

and that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;

I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008."

Gore refused to take the pledge.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Gore%20Refuses%20to%20Take%20Personal%20Energy.html

IP: Logged

BlueRoamer
Knowflake

Posts: 95
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 23, 2007 03:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for BlueRoamer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I read about that in Time Jwhop.

Gore is a hypocrite but that doesn't nullify the importance of recycling or conserving energy and water.

IP: Logged

Moon666Child
unregistered
posted March 23, 2007 03:38 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This is one reason why I hate polytricks. They will never walk the talk.

However I do agree the high intelligent human race has made enough problem for The Mother, but I do also see and believe that we have so many enlightened souls who are making a difference. It is only a matter of time before nature cools off herself, now, what happens to us because of that is a different story.

------------------
Welcome to my blog The Rechargehouse!

IP: Logged

Moon666Child
unregistered
posted March 23, 2007 03:41 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
If you really want to know the scientific basis upon which the real climate scientists base their opinion that man made global warming is a gigantic hoax, fraud and swindle, then spending 1 hour and 19 minutes here is your best bet for understanding the real science of climate.

Jwhop, even though I can agree that there is a natural explanation for the climae change, we can never escape from the responsibility for trigering the process. The huge city structures (with concrete, glasses, mirrors), use of huge amount of un-clean fuel etc etc etc and what nt.

------------------
Welcome to my blog The Rechargehouse!

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 23, 2007 08:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree with recycling and I agree with saving energy. But saving energy is a function of market forces. When energy costs rise people cut back.

I also agree with cleaning up emissions from autos and industry.

But none of that has anything to do with the CO2 man made global warming argument.

It is clear that rising temperatures cause a rise in CO2 levels. Not the other way around.

Records of increased sun activity..solar radiance...perfectly match the rise in earth's temperatures. The reverse is also true. When the sun's output drops off, temperatures on earth fall.

IP: Logged

BlueRoamer
Knowflake

Posts: 95
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 25, 2007 08:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for BlueRoamer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Increase in solar energy output is a correlation. Correlation is not causation, it could just be coincidence.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 25, 2007 11:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Right BlueRoamer. It's just coincidence that when you stand in front of a roaring fire you feel the heat.

The roaring fire is not the cause of the heat you feel. Right!

IP: Logged

carlfloydfan
unregistered
posted March 26, 2007 03:58 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Humans HAVE had a destructive impact on this earth. the sh!t we put into the air and water is terrible. but it is minimal impact compared to natural causes.

Sorry, I am late to respond. I have learned a lot about this topic because of others:

-solar radiation and sun spot activity is parallel to temp changes here. Increased sun spot activity and solar radiation explains increased temps.

-why do people who favor manmade explanations NOT factor in sun activity and earth cycles (el nino for instance)

-the earth has gone through many of these warming and cooling cycles throughout its 4.5 billion-year history, and that what we are going through now is not new.

-There was the Medieval Warm Period, which spanned the years of 800-1300AD, followed by a mini ice age, from 1300-1900. Temperatures now are actually lower than the medieval warm period.

-other planets in the solar system are also undergoing a warming process

-Rise in CO2 levels lag behind rise in temp, by 800 years

-human contribution to Co2 levels is minimal compared to volcanic and ocean emission

-most conclusions stating that temp change is man made is politically charged and funded. I don't buy into the scientific studies backed by politics.

-the warming temps are just the natural course of this planet. There are scientists who speak the truth, who are not paid off. Sadly, a lot of the mainstream media has to resort to smear tactic, equating deniers of man made global warming with holocaust deniers. Of course most of these people realize there is global warming, but it is LARGELY natural. How immature of others to equate these people with holocaust deniers. Don't you feel this is a little sketchy? don't you wonder why a lot of people resort to these tactics? and why many people eat up these simple tactics?

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 26, 2007 04:24 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 26, 2007 08:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
carlfloydfan, you're right of course. Attempting to label scientific opponents of man made global warming as deniers and also suggesting they should be tried in a Nuremberg type trial...not to mention suggestions meteorologists who disagree should be stripped of their professional credentials..are acts of desperation.

As more scientists who work in fields related directly to climate speak up against the crackpot theory, they become more desperate to shut every opponent up and force through legislation before the issue slips away from them entirely.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 02, 2007 10:09 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Mark Harris: Gore's 'Fever' Dangerously Wrong
Dr. Mark Harris
Monday, April 2, 2007


At the time of the crime, the suspect is nowhere in the vicinity. Why have the greatest increases in global warming been recorded in high latitudes where carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations are lowest?

Because the problem isn't carbon dioxide (CO2).

Most heat absorption in the so-called "CO2 wavelengths" is actually done by water vapor. Compared to CO2, there is 100 times more water vapor in the atmosphere.

So, even if CO2 were an equally effective absorber of heat rays, which it isn't, enormous CO2 increases would produce negligible increases in heat. Plus, over 96% of atmospheric CO2 comes from natural, not "man made" sources.

In fact without water vapor to trap heat, most of the planet would resemble the poles, i.e. buried under thick layers of ice.

Thus on the question of atmospheric temperatures, natural materials and events do, and have always overshadowed man.

Here's an example: in the 1920s my father, and his friends, often wore a jacket in the tropical Caribbean. Why?

In 1908 a scorching visitor (likely a comet) from deep space struck Siberia, and six years before Mount Pelee erupted in the Caribbean... Both threw huge thick dust and ash clouds high into the stratosphere, where they stayed for years, reflecting solar radiation and chilling the Earth for the next 30 years.

Average temperatures fell 5º C between 1902 and 1910, recovering slowly by 1937. Ignore that drop, and Earth's average temperature looks nearly constant over the last 150 years, up to and including 2007. But delete the years preceding 1902, and presto, it looks like warming begins in 1910 (which it didn't, only the recovery)! Especially as that rebound coincides with increasing CO2 levels! This return (no increase) is currently being touted as the "beginning of global warming"!

It gets worse.

Enter, the 1970s. With fossil fuelled CO2 levels still going up, enter Newsweek. The April 28, 1975 issue on page 64 predicted: "The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

The title of the article? "The Cooling World" describing a coming ice-age! So it seems, with the chilly 1970s, another correlation is born: "Whenever the temperature changes, opinions on impending catastrophes move in that same direction". Still, for the proponents of long-term change -

Is equilibrium being maintained, or lost? Where is the hard data?

Global temperatures have never been static. But we have never been frozen or fried out of existence. Like a cork bobbing on the waves above and below an imaginary horizontal line, Earth temperatures respond to natural events. This is called a steady-state equilibrium. But are "man-made" factors presently changing the horizontality of that temperature line from steady-state equilibrium to one which points upward(dynamic equilibrium)?

At worst, the answer is inconclusive. Further, all steady-state systems (including Earth) have recovery tools (like the human body's arsenal for bringing fever/chill conditions back to its set temperature). Regulators of course must be preserved and protected. But as for "man-made CO2", its effect seems dwarfed by the potency and sheer volume of nature's heavyweights - the mighty oceans for example, a powerful heat buffer (damper). Even though temperatures between 1950 and 1980 declined several times, carbon dioxide concentrations continued to rise in that period while temperatures dropped. Remember in 1975 we are on the edge of an ice age.


So, the recent hysteria is, at best, a politically correct ration of nonsense.

Dr. Mark Harris is an educator Environmental Geochemist, Northern Caribbean University , a degreed geographer and geologist and holds a doctorate in Environmental Geochemistry.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/1/203544.shtml?s=lh

IP: Logged

lalalinda
Moderator

Posts: 1120
From: nevada
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 02, 2007 04:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for lalalinda     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Chaos and Effect
New climate report from IPCC will have bad news and worse news

On Friday, a comprehensive new report will map the likely effects of global warming -- and it ain't pretty. The good news is, we can expect higher food production in northern, more affluent regions. Whee! Now the bad news: globally, we can expect increased poverty and starvation, drinking-water shortages, more infectious diseases, flooding, drought, heat waves, melting glaciers, disappearing islands, vanishing species, and the continuing popularity of reality TV. The report is the second of four expected from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change this year. The first, in February -- perhaps you heard about it? -- covered the basic science. The report this Friday is on "Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability." Cheat sheet: we're vulnerable, impacts will be nasty, and we'd better adapt. But don't worry, says one scientist: "The worst stuff is not going to happen because we can't be that stupid." Ha ha! Nothing like a little humor to brighten up some cataclysmically depressing news. In a month, the IPCC will release its report on ways we can battle climate change. Finally.


http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/02/02/ipccI/index.html?source=daily

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=tropical-losers-northern&chanId=sa003

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/03/31/climate_draft_charts_extinction s/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/science/earth/01climate.html?ei=5090&en=6c6c7d5cadd0ffba&ex=1333080000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1175541721-5232X38E6htpXaU2Efn aqg

Jwhop

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 02, 2007 08:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Paul Shanklin

The Earth is a precious thing
Because of man, it's..warrrrming
Earth's temperature is risen, half a degree higher
So obviously, the world will soon be a ball of firre

Our whole world will be a burning ball of firrrre
Polar bears drown drown as the seas get higher
As it burns burns burns, the earth on firrrre
A ball of firre

The taste, of fame is sweet
Without this gig, who'd listen to me?

So change your ways, every man and child
Oh before, the firre goes wild

Our whole world will be a burning ball of firre
Polar bears drown drown as the seas get higher
As it burns burns burns, the earth on firrre
a ball of firre

Our whole world will be a burning ball of firre
Polar bears drown drown as the seas get higher
As it burns burns burns, the earth on firrre
A ball of firre.

lalalinda

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 02, 2007 09:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Supreme Court Rules EPA Can Regulate Greenhouse Gases

By J.R. Pegg

WASHINGTON, DC, April 2, 2007 (ENS) – The Bush administration failed to follow the requirements of the Clean Air Act when it refused to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today. The 5-4 decision in Massachusetts v EPA orders the administration to reconsider its decision, a move that could result in the first nationwide regulations aimed at tackling emissions linked to global warming.

"EPA can no longer hide behind the fiction that it lacks any regulatory authority to address the problem of global warming," said Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. "The agency cannot refuse to use its existing authority to regulate dangerous substances simply because it disagrees that such regulation would be a good idea."

Although the ruling only forces EPA to reconsider whether it should set greenhouse gas emission standards for new cars and trucks, Coakley said, it would be difficult for the agency "to refuse such regulation once it applies legally permissible factors."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters the administration was reviewing the decision, which she said was about a legal question, not about policy.

"Now the Supreme Court has settled that matter for us, and we're going to have to take a look and analyze it and see where we go from there," Perino said.

The dispute stretches back to 1999, when environmentalists filed a petition calling on EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.

The Bush administration denied the petition in 2003, claiming carbon dioxide is not a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and that EPA lacked authority under the statute to impose regulations. In addition, the administration said that even if EPA had such authority, the agency would not set greenhouse gas emission standards for new vehicles because of scientific uncertainty and conflicts with the administration's policy of voluntary programs.

A dozen states and 13 environmental groups filed suit challenging the decision. Ten states and several automobile trade groups sided with EPA in the dispute.

The Supreme Court's review of the case centered on two critical issues - whether the states had standing to pursue the lawsuit and the scope of EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act.

The majority determined that Massachusetts, the lead plaintiff, had standing because sufficient scientific evidence shows the state faces harm from rising sea levels caused by global warming.

"The risk of catastrophic harm, though remote, is nevertheless real," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. "That risk would be reduced to some extent if petitioners received the relief they seek."

The administration argued against standing, contending that Massachusetts was unlikely to get relief from rising sea levels if EPA regulated greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. motor vehicles because global warming is the result of emissions from across the world.

"Its argument rests on the erroneous assumption that a small incremental step, because it is incremental, can never be attacked in a federal judicial forum," Stevens wrote. "Yet accepting that premise would doom most challenges to regulatory action. Agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell regulatory swoop."

The majority said it had "little trouble" rejecting the administration's argument that the Clean Air Act did not provide EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Greenhouse gases are pollutants under the law, Stevens said, and EPA's "alternative basis for its decision - that even if it has statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it would be unwise to do so at this time - rests on reasoning divorced from the statutory text."

The law explicitly states that EPA can avoid regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do, according to the majority.

EPA has done neither, Steven wrote, and instead "has offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate."

Those reasons, including existence of voluntary programs to address greenhouse gas emissions and foreign policy considerations, have nothing to do with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, the court said.

"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," wrote Stevens, who was joined in the majority with Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter.

The four conservative members of the court dissented, largely on grounds of whether the states had standing in the case.

"The realities make it pure conjecture to suppose that EPA regulation of new automobile emissions will likely prevent the loss of Massachusetts coastal land," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his dissent.

The goals of the plaintiffs "may be more symbolic than anything else," Roberts wrote. "The constitutional role of the courts, however is to decide concrete cases - not serve as a convenient forum for policy debates."

Environmentalists hailed the decision as a turning point for U.S. global warming policy - the case is the first centered on global warming heard by the court.

"The prospect that EPA will act under today's Clean Air Act may light a fire under some industries that have been standing in the way," said David Doniger, NRDC's attorney in the case. "We've now broken a major legal logjam on this issue, and this will be the year that the political logjam is broken, too."

The decision could also have significant implications on other related cases, in particular a lawsuit filed by automakers seeking to block a California law that puts limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars. The law, currently subject to a temporary injunction, has been adopted by nine other states.

"The Bush administration should immediately give California and other states the green light to put their clean cars programs into effect," said Amy Figdor of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. "Any delay is completely unjustified given today's ruling."
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2007/2007-04-02-10.asp

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 03, 2007 03:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Some may think this split Supreme Court decision is a victory.

Wait until citizens begin to file lawsuits against large cities for their concentrated releases of CO2 into the atmosphere. Population density is going to become an issue. If CO2 is harmful to the earth, to humans and to animals, the places which concentrate CO2 will have to be restricted.

Wait until citizens sue cities for approving plans to enlarge the cities. One of the largest sources of heat released into the atmosphere are cities. In fact temperature monitoring stations are placed away from cities to prevent false readings because cities are producers of heat released into the atmosphere.

Wait until citizens begin to sue cities for not restricting residential dwellings on the basis of an occupant/square foot ratio. It's well known larger residences use more electricity for heating and cooling and electricity production produces CO2.

Wait until citizens begin to sue states for not adopting weight/horsepower/seating ratios for automobiles. Weight and horsepower relate directly to fuel consumption and fuel consumption relates directly to emissions of CO2.

Wait until citizens sue the various state and federal Forest Services for permitting trees to be cut. Trees are major absorbers of CO2. Oh, and don't even think about cutting trees to make room for a residence, subdivision or commercial building.

Wait until citizens sue states for registering and licensing electric cars. It takes more carbon based energy to operate an electric car than those powered by gasoline..when the fuel used to produce that electricity is also considered.

Wait until citizens sue state and federal regulators and so called environmental groups for rejecting, obstructing and impeding the building and operation of nuclear power plants which produce non CO2 polluting electricity.

Wait until citizens sue state, federal and local regulators, environmental groups and individuals like Ted Kennedy who reject, obstruct or impede the building of clean electric producting wind farms.

Wait until citizens sue the states and federal government for registering ownership of private jets and even commercial jets and permitting them to operate in the airspace over America.

This is the point.

Those who want to force this CO2 issue will not, in the end enjoy the ways it's going to impact their own lives.

I can hear the screeching from Algore, Edwards, Huffington, Kennedy..all the Kennedys, Hollywood and politicians when their homes are declared oversize for the number of occupants, when their vehicles are declared oversized, overweight and over powered and their private jets are not permitted to be registered by the states and not permitted to fly over America.

And that's only the beginning for those who are the do as I say, not as I do crowd.

If the EPA attempts to regulate CO2 from cars or any other source, I'd be inclined to file some of those lawsuits myself. Some of those who are cheering now won't be cheering when they wade through the mountains of lawsuits which will challenge their every action in a court of law.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 09, 2007 11:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Why So Gloomy?
By Richard S. Lindzen
Newsweek International
April 16, 2007 issue

Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.

Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.

Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.

Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 10, 2007 07:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
DOOMSDAY CALLED OFF
Sunday November 27, 2005 at 7pm ET on CBC Newsworld


In this eye-opening documentary viewers will discover how the most respected researchers from all over the world explode the doom and gloom of global warming.

Humans stand accused of having set off a global climate catastrophe by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The prophecy of doom is clear and media pass on the message uncritically.

Now serious criticism has arisen from a number of heavyweight independent scientists. They argue that most of the climatic change we have seen is due to natural variations.

They also state that if CO 2 is to play a role at all -it will be minuscule and not catastrophic!

This story presents a series of unbiased scientists as our witnesses.
We will hear their eloquent criticism of the IPCC conclusions illustrated by coverage of their research work.
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/doomsday.html

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off

Videos 1 through 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro&mode=related&search=

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 11, 2007 11:27 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If there truly are doomsday prophets these days it would be the Al Gores and environmental scientists.

Funny how some of the Christians and government Christians who spout off their own versions of doomday ( a la the Middle East ) all the time ignore these people.

Just my two sense. And/or non-sense depending on your viewpoint.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a