BS: Global warming - the myth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 02:08 AM

"Huge numbers of American car buyers are willing to put themselves on a waiting list for three, four, six months to get a Toyota Prius or Honda Insight. Hybrids and other fuel-efficient cars can't be made fast enough to meet the demand for them."

I took my mother to buy a Prius one afternoon, she drove it home that night. A couple of weeks later we went to buy a Pruis & bought it that night & dorve it home the next day.
The waiting time is now going down because they're becoming much more popular. Chrysler years ago came out with the slant 6 which saved the company at the time because it would run forever, you just couldn't kill it. The big 3 should be watching this trend, lest it kill them.

I was pissed that the auto industry didn't offer more in the way of hybrid choices to their consuming public. I'm also pissed that the government is slack of it's tax incentives for buying fuel eco cars. It gave some but then reduces it depending on how many vechiles the manufactur sells & it doesn't look like it will repeat the incentives this year, at least not yet. Buy American, why? You couldn't pay me to buy an American vechile.

Cutting auto fuel efficiency & admissions in the US alone would be a huge step in the reduction of global warming world wide. At this point there ought to be a law or at least a decent incentive!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 02:28 AM

Americans call it 'lobbying' politicians - others call it 'bribery'...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 10:09 AM

"It seems to me that if folks get it thru their heads that they need to BOTH reduce their contribution to the overall problem AND prepare for the possible consequences of the warming in general, all interests will have been served."

I agree- BUT that IS NOT what I see is happening- the claim is being made, repeatedly, that Kyoto accords, and reducing CO2 emmissions, WILL prevent global warming- NOT that it will still occur, and we should takles any other steps to deal with it.

EVERY presentation is " Here is what WILL happen if we don't stop CO2 emmissions- If we just cut C)2 emissions, all will be well."

THAT is what I have been protesting, to little effect here. Do people really not care about human survival, or is it just too much for them to understand?


**********************************************************************
(I was trying to show that "Saint Al" was using the terms I was told are not being used.)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 10:40 AM

"Cutting auto fuel efficiency & admissions in the US alone would be a huge step in the reduction of global warming world wide."

Numbers, please. ( I presume you meant increasing efficiancy and cutting emmissions)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 10:46 AM

BTW, has anyone looked at volcanic erruptions over the last, say, 40 years?

If you can't get God to sign the Kyoto accords, is it really going to help any?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 11:18 AM

Well, Bruce....it seems to me you need to write "Saint Al" and any others you have caught mis-stating the problem as you see it. Convincing everyone in Mudcat that 'some' scientists and environmentalists are too optimistic may not be the best use of your time.

I, personally, am more concerned that the world in general BE convinced that there is indeed a problem, and that something needs to be done...


(You know, of course, that if we all try VERY hard and it is still bad, we will still never know if the task was impossible, or if we just didn't start early enough....and both claims will be made.)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Bee
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:20 PM

BBruce, some of us just wish for something to be done in the right direction. It looks very much like, and the scientific consensus is, that regardless of other influences over which we have no control (the sun, volcanos, etc.) humans are contributing hugely to the problem. What you seem to advocate (even if you aren't doing so in every post) by your insistence on the 'other causes' is that nothing can be done except to mitigate the resulting disasters.

I seriously doubt many people are so sanguine as to think 'Kyoto will fix everything'. Canadians know that serious problems are already occurring in the Arctic (we may need to relocate people, build very high cost roads, abandon some ventures, and not far in the future). There are low-lying tropical islands (damn if I can recall the name of the place) which will have to be evacuated soon, after centuries of habitation, because the sea has already risen enough, along with other factors, to flood them regularly, and soon, permanently. Perhaps people where you live are less informed or less educated, I wouldn't know.

"2. The stopping of CO2 emissions may well destroy the industrial capability that we (mankind) need to SURVIVE the real global warming ( ie, climactic shift) that is taking place.

3. The focus on CO2 has been used by some as a smokescreen to ingore dealing withg the inevitable effects ( flooding, agricultural failure, species extinction) that WILL occur even after we STOP all CO2 emmissions. " - bearded bruce

Frankly, I don't believe either of the above is true. Humans are unlikely to 'destroy our industrial capacity'; if you think about it, you'll realise that's not gonna happen. And honestly, anyone with two brain cells knows we (worse, our children) have a long hard road ahead, and that we will not see many species again, we will lose cities and shorelines, we will need to adjust our agriculture greatly, and even if we are solely responsible for climate change, we will not see any positive results in our own lifetimes.

But to do nothing, to not continue to study the climate, to not try to mitigate our enormous six billion body footprint, would be a complete and cruel betrayal of our own offspring.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: DougR
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:24 PM

No doubt about it ...the sky is surely falling.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:35 PM

Gee, Doug...that was SO helpful. You wanna expand on that carefully worded, succinct comment?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 02:08 PM

"But to do nothing, to not continue to study the climate, to not try to mitigate our enormous six billion body footprint, would be a complete and cruel betrayal of our own offspring. "

You presume I advocate doing nothing- Not true. I advocate dealing with the results of global warming, which IMHO will not go away as soon as the CO2 emissions are reduced, as the spokespeople for this issue keep telling me.

I have no problem with reducing CO2 emissions, provided that it is NOT claimed that will solve allour problems, as Gore and others have stated repeatedly. BUT WE NEED to deal with the real effects of global warming, as well- and THAT is what is being ignored.

Please show me ANY plans that Gore has proposed to deal with ANY of the aspects of global warming, besides pushing for the reduction of CO2 emissions. Yet, HE has the solution to the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 03:19 PM

"the claim that it will stop Global Warming,"

Is anyone actually saying that?   What I'm hearing is people saying is that not reducing carbon emissions it is likely to make it worse, and at most hoping against hope that if we can cut down the consequences might not be as bad as currently predicted and feared. And I find the evidence for the first part of that totally convincing.

I think it's not justifiable to assume that cutting carbon emission is supposed to make it harder to deal with the predicted effects of global warming. Rebuilding cities inland and easing the process by which millions of people will be moving away away from areas and whole countries that will be flooded need not be carbon intensive operations.

Insofar as these kind of activities might in fact be carbon intensive, it seems pretty self evident that this would be another argument for reducing carbon emissions on other far less urgent aspects of human activity.

As I said earlier, when you're in a hole, you stop digging, even if the hole was there before you fell into it.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 02:40 AM

OK, I think I see where BB claims he is coming form now, even though I don't think he was very clear about it at first, but trying to get out the message that you should love your enemy tends to be a bit counterproductive while the bullets are still flying...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 07:54 AM

"As I said earlier, when you're in a hole, you stop digging, even if the hole was there before you fell into it. "


When you are in a hole, filling with water, don't keep saying that stopping the digging will keep you fropm drowning.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 08:20 AM

"When you are in a hole, filling with water, don't keep saying that stopping the digging will keep you from drowning"

No - but keeping on digging will just make the hole DEEPER, and more likely to drown you once it gets over your head.

The smart would just get out of the hole...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 08:48 AM

"The smart would just get out of the hole..."

The implication being that on COULD get out of the hole-

MY premise is that Global warming WILL occur, regardless, and we CAN'T* get out of the hole. Regadless of how smart we are.



Except by moving to another planet- Mars should warm up a little, and we can FORCE global warming there, by having LOTS of CO2 emissions.
But that still leaves the Earth in the hole, with the water rising...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 09:07 AM

""When you are in a hole, filling with water, don't keep saying that stopping the digging will keep you from drowning""

"The smart would just get out of the hole... "

Obviously, the RAF is flying high today...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 02:08 PM

bb, it appears that you are more defeatist than those of us who are sounding the alarm. You seem to be saying that we can't fix it so we shouldn't try. We are saying, Let's fix the parts that we *can* fix and see if that tips the balance in our direction.

Or is it all, in your opinion, just semantics?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 02:14 PM

I think the real problem here is that BB just doesn't like Al Gore very much and resents the attention Al is getting these days... ;-) It is your resentment of Al Gore which keeps drawing you back to this thread to argue, BB, that's my opinion. It's a similar phenomenon to the way many of us are drawn to various threads to attack George Bush...because we resent him. It's irresistible.

By the way, I think you're right in much of what you say. Obviously there are a number of reasons for global warming, and human-based CO2 emissions are not the only one.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 02:27 PM

"We are saying, Let's fix the parts that we *can* fix and see if that tips the balance in our direction."


What is being said is that this WILL fix everything, so there is no need to bother with any solutions to the effects of global warming. NO-ONE is trying to deal with the problems.

If I am wrong, but we solve the problems, everything will still be livable.
If those who say that the SOLUTION is to limit CO2 emissions are wrong, and global warming still occurs, there will be mass die-offs of many species, destruction of cities, and inevitable war as the populations try to find a livable place.

I have no problem with reducing CO2: It is advisable for other reasons as well- BUT IT IS NOT THE ****SOLUTION**** to global warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 02:48 PM

BTW, how much should the CO2 be reduced?


When would lack of CO2 cause cooling?

How much is need to keep the plants that convert it to oxygen alive?
(most of which are in the oceans, and would be reduced by global cooling if it occurs.

If global warming is "caused" by CO2 emissions, wouldn't there also be a growth in the vegetation ( especially in the oceans) becuae of the trapped heat, the increased ocean area, and the CO2 itself? Won't that cause a rebound into global cooling, as the increased vegetation takes the CO2 out of the air? How long before we are thrown into an ice age, with ice caps reflecting the solar radiation back ino space?

When ALL of these questions have been addressed, THEN I think we can safely tamper with the CO2 in the atmosphere- BUT we can start to deal with the effects of global warming NOW, BEFORE the inevitable disruptions have altered our ability to take any effective action at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 08:27 PM

the debate on this is long over...over 900 of the worlds climate scientists agree on this..

but if you want to look at ways of dealing with global warming
(without dealing with c02 emissions) then you can look at 'roger angels
space umbrella' with millions of tiny gps umbrellas that can deflect solar radiation enough to make a difference in temperature..
(i tried to make a link but google roger angel space umbrella)

of course Angel himself believes the much better solution is to reduce co2 emissions, what does he know he's only a physicist astronomer..

then theres Gregory Benford from U Cal who proposed seeding northern skies with diatomaceous dust - from planes, to reflect some of the solar radiation..
one of his other ideas - is to float farm waste, from corn crops etc down rivers and sink them in the ocean..(as a way of sequestering the co2)
this is only a temporary solution as the co2 will eventually be released.. but if one is standing in a cornfield the amount of co2 present in the corn is far more than in a column of air going up to the upper atmosphere...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 06:49 PM

"What is being said is that this WILL fix everything, so there is no need to bother with any solutions to the effects of global warming. NO-ONE is trying to deal with the problems. " bb

That is just not true, bb. A two-part error in your thinking. #1) That is NOT what we are saying. #2): Perhaps you are not aware of it but there are a LOT of places and people who are and have been for some time trying to make a difference. Even some states- Massachusetts and California, for just two.


"When ALL of these questions have been addressed, THEN I think we can safely tamper with the CO2 in the atmosphere- BUT we can start to deal with the effects of global warming NOW, BEFORE the inevitable disruptions have altered our ability to take any effective action at all." bb


What are you saying? Surely you don't mean this part? "When ALL of these questions have been addressed, THEN I think we can safely tamper with the CO2 in the atmosphere" bb

You're talking as though the atmosphere needs all that CO2? As though we would damage something if we reduced it- or at least kept ourselves from adding to it forever. (!)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM

When the house is on fire, just sitting around and speculating on how the fire might have got started is not the smartest thing one can do. The intelligent thing to do is to try to put out the fire.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 09:06 PM

From seeing BB's comments in this thread, I now understand his approach in previous threads...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 09:25 AM

" #1) That is NOT what we are saying. #2): Perhaps you are not aware of it but there are a LOT of places and people who are and have been for some time trying to make a difference. Even some states- Massachusetts and California, for just two."

1. I have given the examples of where they HAVE/. Please show me examples of otherwise.

2. Wonderful! What have they done?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 01:15 PM

Quite a bit, BB. Why don't you look it up? Educated yourself.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 02:44 PM

When ALL of these questions have been addressed, THEN I think we can safely tamper with the CO2 in the atmosphere- bb

Well all the questions haven't been answered, but here we are tampering with the C02 in the atmosphere, by adding to it fast. Safely is another matter....

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 08:48 PM

What is being said is that this WILL fix everything,

Anyone who says that is being hopelessly naive - or rather overhopefully naive. And I haven't come across anyone serious seriously saying that.

What is being said is that not cutting down on carbon emissions is likely to make things significantly worse, and that cutting down on them sufficiently would go some way to stop things getting as bad as is currently anticipated.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 08:54 PM

As I said - I now understand BB much better.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Andy Jackson
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 11:39 AM

Now then. To re-cap where were we when I started this thread all those sunfilled days ago, (cough cough splutter, God this CO2 I just exhaled will be the death of me)

Ah yes
"The SUN governs our weather and the CO2 changes with the temperature , not the other way around."

Ok off you all go again

Round and round the arguments
Knocking Tony Blair,
One step, two step,
Getting us nowhere.


I must say it's a jolly old jape to come back to a thread weeks after you start it and look at some of the equine poo that it has generated.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Stu
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 12:08 PM

You're not kidding.

Try asking for references to some of the arguments here. An eerie silence occurs, followed by a change of subject. Supply the references, and chances are they won't be read and countered with other data, just badly argued toss.

They'd never get through the peer review process.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 03:57 PM

"Anyone who says that is being hopelessly naive - or rather overhopefully naive. And I haven't come across anyone serious seriously saying that. "

So Al Gore is not serious? And he is hopelessly naive? What a revelation!

""Gore -- who is one of voters' top choices for the Democratic presidential nomination even though he says he's not running -- implored lawmakers to adopt a list of policy prescriptions
***************TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING.********************

Fresh off a triumphant Academy Awards appearance in which his climate change documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won two Oscars, Gore drew overflow crowds as he testified before House and Senate panels about a "true planetary emergency" ******* IF CONGRESS FAILS TO ACT.************ (Read more about Gore's Oscar-night speech)

Gore advised lawmakers to cut carbon dioxide and other warming gases 90 percent by 2050 ******************TO AVOID***************
a crisis. Doing that, he said, will require a ban on any new coal-burning power plants -- a major source of industrial carbon dioxide -- that lack state-of-the-art controls to capture the gases."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/gore.ap/index.html "

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 04:04 PM

Another example, though not as extreme as Gore, of what you state is hopelessly naive...



"Many -- not all -- of those effects can be prevented, the report says, if within a generation the world slows down its emissions of carbon dioxide and if the level of greenhouse gases sticking around in the atmosphere stabilizes. If that's the case, the report says "most major impacts on human welfare would be avoided; but some major impacts on ecosystems are likely to occur.""

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/10/climate.report.ap/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 11:23 PM

As I said.. naw, don't wanna sound like a broken record...


""Many -- not all -- of those effects can be prevented, the report says, if within a generation the world slows down its emissions of carbon dioxide and if the level of greenhouse gases sticking around in the atmosphere stabilizes. If that's the case, the report says "most major impacts on human welfare would be avoided; but some major impacts on ecosystems are likely to occur."""

It's called the 'hysteresis effect' (the system is fooking large, you know!) - and goddamme, there's certainly an excess of hysteria in this thread too!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 07:56 AM

Fooles et al,

You seem to be missing the point.

Looking at the charts of past temperature, before the Industrial Revolution, it is obvious that global warming has occurred in the past, and can be expected to occur in the future.

The present CO2 emissions may be accelerating the onset of global warming, but is not the sole cause.

The change in solar flux can be seem by the climactic changes on the other planets, ie Mar's ice cap shrinking, and the change, after so many hundred years, in the Red spot on Jupiter.

There is NOTHING ( Yes, I mean to yell!) being done to DEAL with the real EFFECTS of global warming, save to state that if we just cut our CO2 emissions, we can stick our heads back in the sand and wait for the rising water to cover us up.



"As I said.. naw, don't wanna sound like a broken record..."

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 02:24 PM

"When the house is on fire, just sitting around and speculating on how the fire might have got started is not the smartest thing one can do. "


So, you would run into the burning house and take away all matches- then go home while the house burns down?


"The intelligent thing to do is to try to put out the fire"

IE, you would deal with the situation- unlike those who state that "just cut the CO2 emissions and all will be well" , like Gore.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Dickey
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:07 PM

Weather global warming exists or not, weather it is man made or not, it behooves all of us to cut energy consumption and decrease CO2 emissions.

If not for the sake of ecology then for the sake of economics.

It can be done so let's do it. China and India should be made to follow with economic sanctions.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:09 PM

"China and India should be made to follow with economic sanctions."

??????

The UN can't stop Iran with economic sanctions: How will we stop countries with populations the size of China and India??????????

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Dickey
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:26 PM

Why involve the UN?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:55 PM

Climate zones to disappear
Email Print Normal font Large font James Randerson, London
March 28, 2007

Other related coverage
Planet 'hotter than ever'
Advertisement
AdvertisementUP TO two-fifths of the Earth will have a hotter climate by the end of the century, according to a study that predicts the effects of global warming.

The changes — which will have a devastating effect on biodiversity in areas such as the Amazon and Indonesian rainforests — will wipe out numerous animals that are unable to move to stay within their preferred climate range. They will have to evolve rapidly or die out.

Lead author John Williams, of the University of Wisconsin, said: "How do you conserve the biological diversity of these entire systems if the physical environment is changing and potentially disappearing?"

Studies already suggest that animals are shifting towards the poles at six kilometres a decade.

Professor Williams' team used emissions scenarios set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to predict changes in temperature and precipitation.

The team predicts that as the planet warms, climate zones will move towards the poles. To work out the significance of these changes, it compared them with the natural climate variation. It attached greater weight to changes in relatively stable areas. This suggests that some of the worst impacts will be in tropical and sub-tropical regions as they shift to new climatic conditions.

"The tropics have very little variability from year to year in temperature, they are a very stable climatic zone. So species that live in those climates expect a limited degree of variability," Professor Williams said.

Other studies have suggested the Amazon basin will have an increased risk of forest fires because of its hotter, drier climate.

"One of the things that comes from our paper is that because the species that live in the tropics are adapted or have evolved for a reduced range of variability, it may be that a two to three-degree temperature change in the tropics may be more significant than say a five to eight-degree change in high latitudes," he said.

Up to now, much of the focus of the impact of global warming has been on polar regions because this is where the climate is changing fastest.

The climate model predicts climates will be lost mainly from tropical mountains and the edges of continents nearest the poles.

As the Earth warms, these climate regions have nowhere to go. Some of the losers are the tropical Andes, the African Rift Mountains, the Zambian and Angolan highlands, the South African Cape region, south-east Australia, parts of the Himalayas and the Arctic.

The team reports in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that by 2100, 12 to 39 per cent of the land surface of the Earth will have a new climate, while the combination of climatic conditions on 10 to 48 per cent of the planet will have disappeared altogether. This is using one of the climate change panel's business-as-usual global development scenarios. Using a different scenario that assumes more environmentally friendly development, the corresponding predictions are 4 to 20 per cent.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 05:05 PM

Yesterday morning when our new book This Moment On Earth went on sale in bookstores nationwide, it was ranked 3,398th on Amazon.Com.

No wonder the skeptics thought they were winning -- one reporter even thought she had a fair point when she asked John whether Americans really cared about the environment.

Well, it's only one day later -- and the book is now ranked #139 on Amazon.Com!

This huge first day of sales shows that Americans really care about the environment.

Please, come check it out -- write a review -- share your thoughts about environmental heroes you know -- and spread the word to your friends and neighbors:

http://www.amazon.com/This-Moment-Earth-Pioneers-Environmental/dp/1586484311/

"John Kerry and Teresa Heinz have written a book that is a profound challenge to all of us but contains, in the examples of the men and women who are fighting the great fight for a better future for our environment, the clear hope that if we can embrace their resourcefulness, determination and essential patriotism we will prevail."
-- Former Vice President Al Gore

The book grew out of conversations that John and I had with Americans from coast to coast about the environment and the critical challenges we all face in protecting the earth for future generations.

The stories inspired and moved us. John and I share the hope that they will lead all of us to question the way things are and look for small but significant ways that each of us can make a positive contribution to this new environmental movement. We hope they spark a new conversation about ways that everyday Americans from all walks of life can have an impact on the environment around them.

And, since all of the proceeds of the book go to environmental causes, we hope the book makes a financial difference for some great environmental organizations, as well.

Come check it out -- write a review -- and let your friends know:

http://www.amazon.com/This-Moment-Earth-Pioneers-Environmental/dp/1586484311/

Sincerely,

Teresa Heinz Kerry

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 05:48 PM

If Al Gore was saying that cutting down carbon emissions will instantaneously restore all the effects of carbon pollution t5hat are already predicted he was indeed being remarkably naive and unscientific.

My understanding is that he has been saying is that a major reduction in carbon emissions is essential if we are to avoid much worse things happening within our lifetimes and the lifetimes of our children.

That isn't the same thing at all. And it does indeed qualify as "an inconvenient truth". Or how about "an inconvenient strong possibility", bb?

In any case it's a fairly academic issue, since the likelihood of our energy hungry culture making the kind of reductions that appear highly advisable is pretty remote, at least until New York and London are under water, so getting ready to cope with the impending problems is clearly a high priority. Retrospectively I suppose there'd be arguments as to whether the blame for the catastrophe should be laid at the door of the older generation and their politicians, or on the Sun - but so what?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 11:01 PM

"The present CO2 emissions may be accelerating the onset of global warming"

So just sod anything bad we might be doing, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 11:08 PM

When the Thames barrage is finally topped, the water in the streets of London will be up near the tops of the light poles.

New York has no such physical delaying tactics... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 10:56 AM

wonder how Mr. Cooney would have edited the recent draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, written and reviewed by 1,000 scientists convened by the World Meteorological Society and the U.N. It concluded that global warming is "unequivocal," that human activity is the main driver, and that "changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent."

I am not out to promote any party, but reading articles like the Cooney one makes me say: Thank goodness the Democrats are back running the House and Senate — because, given its track record, this administration needs to be watched at all times.

But I also say thank goodness for the way Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has built a Republican-Democratic coalition in California to blunt climate change. The governor is not only saving the Republican Party from being totally dominated by climate cranks, like Senator James Inhofe, and hacks-for-hire, like Cooney, but he also is creating a bipartisan template for dealing with climate change that will be embraced by Washington as soon as the Bush team is gone. I went out to Sacramento to interview the "Governator" a few weeks ago.

"The debate is over," he said to me. "I mean, how many more thousands and thousands of scientists do we need to say, 'We have done a study that there is global warming?' "

What is "amazing for someone that does not come from a political background like myself," said Governor Schwarzenegger, is that "this line is being drawn" between Democrats and Republicans on climate change. "You say to yourself: 'How can it be drawn on the environment?' But it is. But the great thing is more and more Republicans are coming on board for this. Seeing how important this is. And more and more Democrats and Republicans are working together. ... I said in my inaugural address: 'There isn't such a thing as Republican clean air or Democratic clean air. We all breathe the same air.' Let's get our act together, fix this problem and fight global warming."...

(Friedman, NY Times, 3-27-07)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 02:47 PM

It's turning out that Conan the Barbarian is a lot better governor than I would have anticipated. Good for him. Good for everybody!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 08:18 PM

He's not really a thick headed fool - he only plays one in the movies...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 08:06 AM

Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning
POSTED: 4:49 p.m. EDT, March 29, 2007
Story Highlights• Antarctica's Amundsen Sea Embayment is undergoing rapid changes
• Scientists blame the melting ice on changing winds around Antarctica
• Amundsen holds enough water to raise world sea levels close to 20 feet
Adjust font size:
HOUSTON, Texas (Reuters) -- A Texas-sized piece of the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning, possibly due to global warming, and could cause the world's oceans to rise significantly, polar ice experts said on Wednesday.

They said "surprisingly rapid changes" were occurring in Antarctica's Amundsen Sea Embayment, which faces the southern Pacific Ocean, but that more study was needed to know how fast it was melting and how much it could cause the sea level to rise.

The warning came in a joint statement issued at the end of a conference of U.S. and European polar ice experts at the University of Texas in Austin.

The scientists blamed the melting ice on changing winds around Antarctica that they said were causing warmer waters to flow beneath ice shelves.

The wind change, they said, appeared to be the result of several factors, including global warming, ozone depletion in the atmosphere and natural variability.

The thinning in the two-mile- thick ice shelf is being observed mostly from satellites, but it is not known how much ice has been lost because data is difficult to obtain on the remote ice shelves, they said.

Study is focusing on the Amundsen Sea Embayment because it has been melting quickly and holds enough water to raise world sea levels six meters, or close to 20 feet, the scientists said.

"The place where the biggest change is occurring is the Amundsen Sea Embayment," said Donald Blankenship of the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics.

"One, it's changing, and two, it can have a big impact," he said in a Webcast with a number of conference participants.

Other parts of the continent also were losing ice, he said, but generally not as quickly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Highest Point    The highest point in Florida is Britton Hill, Lakewood Park in Walton County and is only 345 feet above sea level. Walton County is located in the Florida Panhandle.   (More...)

Lowest Point      The lowest point in Florida is sea level where Florida meets the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico.

Mean Elevation    The Mean Elevation of the state of Florida is only 100 feet above sea level.


Hear all those moving vans headed north?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 04:58 PM

Study: Red planet heating up
POSTED: 3:46 p.m. EDT, April 4, 2007

CHICAGO, Illinois (Reuters) -- Earth's dusty neighbor Mars is grappling with its own form of climate change as fluctuating solar radiation is kicking up dust and winds that may be melting the planet's southern polar ice cap, scientists said Wednesday.

Researchers have been watching the changing face of Mars for years, studying slight differences in the brightness and darkness of its surface.

These changes in brightness have been generally attributed to the presence of dust, but until now their effect on wind circulation and climate has not been clear.

NASA scientist Lori Fenton and colleagues, reporting this week in the journal Nature, now believe variations in radiation from the surface of Mars are fueling strong winds that stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet's temperature.

By studying changes in light reflected from the surface of Mars -- a measure known as an object's albedo -- they predict the red planet has warmed by around 1 degree Fahrenheit from the 1970s to the 1990s, which may in part have caused the recent retreat of the southern polar ice cap.

On Earth, carbon dioxide traps infrared radiation which can affect global climate. This a phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Fossil fuel emissions add to the problem.

On Mars, it's the red-tinged dust.

Fenton's team compared thermal maps gathered from NASA's Viking mission in the 1970s with maps gathered more than two decades later by the Global Surveyor.

They saw that large swaths of the surface have darkened or brightened over the past three decades.

These albedo changes strengthened winds, picking up and circulating dust, creating a vicious cycle that is warming the planet.

"Our results suggests that documented albedo changes affect recent climate change and large-scale weather patterns on Mars," Fenton's team wrote.

They believe changes in albedo should be an important part of future studies on atmosphere and climate change.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 06:38 PM

So Man's ever increasing activities do not stir up ever increasing amount of dust?

I had to mow my drought ravaged front lawn yesterday - grass spikes up to knee high - and it pulled up so much dust in just a few minutes.