BS: Where's the Global Warming

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 09:50 AM

GUEST,Redhorse at work, 21 Dec 05 - 08:42 AM:

As pointed out by John Heilprin (article quoted above)
"Greenhouse gases act like a see-through blanket, letting sunlight in but trapping heat and warming the planet."

Air pollutants behave exactly as described above, apparently in the period given they have declined by 29 per cent.

What are your grounds for stating that "None of these are Global Warming contributors" And it does not necessarily follow that, "If energy consumption has gone up by 45%, Co2 production will have gone up nearly as much."

Rapaire, I am not really too fussed about when the EPA rules and the Clean Air Act were put in place. The point being made is that the US in general has complied with them and has reduced emmission and pollutents whereas the Europeans and Kyoto signatories who make a great show of action on behalf of the planet fail due mainly to the fact they only pay lip-servicve to their stated commitments.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 09:25 AM

Yes, absolutely there are cyclical climate changes. If you really want to see true scientists discussing them, and their relation to the late 20th century trend, go here.

Bottom line (agreed to by ~95% of scientists): "the late 20th century is anomalous in the context of last millennium, and possibly the last two millennia."

Wally Broecker of Lamont-Doherty said nearly 20 years ago - "...if we wait until it is 100% proven that humans are affecting Earth's climate, it will probably be too late to do anything about it..."

And 20 years later, 95% isn't high enough for the politically-driven fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,A
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 09:08 AM

Naw, not Clintons fault.

I am still wondering if anyone knows if there is sufficient historical to ascertain if this could be cyclical.

Just as a side note, with most complaining about heating oil and propane costs, maybe a little warming would help. It averaged 4 - 7 degrees here last Monday.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:55 AM

And when, Teribus, were the EPA rules and the Clean Air Act put into place? Just about 30 years back, I seem to remember.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:52 AM

From the AP yesterday:

"U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rose 2 Percent in 2005
By John Heilprin
Associated Press
posted: 20 December 2005
10:03 am ET


WASHINGTON (AP) —Emissions of gases blamed for warming the atmosphere grew by 2 percent in the United States last year, the Energy Department reported Monday. The report came just nine days after a United Nations conference where the United States and China refused to join any talks for imposing binding limits on emissions of those gases.
The so-called greenhouse gases, led by carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, rose to 7.12 million metric tons, up from 6.98 million metric tons in 2003, the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration said.

That's 16 percent higher than in 1990, and an average annual increase of 1.1 percent.

Greenhouse gases act like a see-through blanket, letting sunlight in but trapping heat and warming the planet. A study last month found that the gases are at a 650,000-year high in Earth's atmosphere.

About 80 percent of U.S. greenhouse gases last year was carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels —coal, petroleum and natural gas —for electricity, transportation, manufacturing and other industrial processes..."



So in the latest measure, the specific gasses that create warming are up. And that's according to the US DOE. And since 1990, they're up 16%.

That's gotta be Clinton's fault, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,a
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:51 AM

Do we have enough historical data to ascertain whether this is cyclical or not. Remember the Ice Age?
I am not making excuses, just wondering.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Redhorse at work
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:42 AM

"During this same period, air pollutants have declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent, and airborne lead by 97.3 per cent. "

None of these are Global Warming contributors, so why mention them?.

If energy consumption has gone up by 45%, Co2 production will have gone up nearly as much.

nick

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 04:29 AM

For those who wished to know:

From an article by Mark Steyn dated 6th December, 2005:

"In the past third of a century, the American economy has swollen by 150 per cent, automobile traffic has increased by 143 per cent, and energy consumption has grown 45 per cent.

During this same period, air pollutants have declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent, and airborne lead by 97.3 per cent.

Despite signing on to Kyoto, European greenhouse gas emissions have increased since 2001, whereas America's emissions have fallen by nearly one per cent, despite the Toxic Texan's best efforts to destroy the planet."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:51 PM

Yeah, Bill, seems that with every degree change upwards the average I.Q. drops about 10 points... Hate to come back in 50 years... Special Ed will no longer be special... It will be the kids with I.Q."s in the hundred range that will be the special kids... The rest... Jus Epsilons...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:49 PM

...and then either not read it, or not comprehend it.

But I can't make the specific allegation that he is dishonest or dumb. There is evidence that I am not at liberty to disclose that would support these contentions, but it is as yet unconfirmed.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:47 PM

Actually, there was an AP story in today's paper about how greenhouse gas emissions rose 2% in the USA this year. I'll get a clicky, 'cause I know good ol' T will demand one.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:34 PM

too bad the average intelligence doesn't rise at the same rate the average temperature does! How DO people so thoroughly misunderstand the information they are given?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:24 PM

Hmmmmm???

Polar ice caps meltin'... Not an opinion...

Yet Bush has hires a bunch of so-called "scientists" (???) who won't be hired if they have so much as think that global warming might be a real scientific possibility...

Meanwhile, any polluter with enough dough to funnel to Bush thru his Ranger and Pioneer "protection thugs" get tp pollute as much as they like...

Hey, I got freinds at EPA... They're all within a few years of retirement so they ain't going public but they all know what's going down...

Bottom line, you got cash, dump that sh*t anywhwere you want... Just don't tell nobody I said so...

Guess the Bushites will get it when D.C. is under water... BUt maybe not even then... They'll blame it on Clinton...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:52 PM

Yeah, but it also produces more than 50% of the orld's good ideas. Who else would come up with Sesame Street, air-walks, the video iPod and the Pet Rock? Huh? Answer me that, wise guy!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:33 PM

bovine waste product teribus..

sure a recent US report claimed that CO2 emmissions went down over
over 2001-2003 but that just happened to coincide with the downturn of the US
economy.

the way co2 emissions are calculated also dont help, since 1990 Canadian oil and gas exports to the US increased 20%. (however that increase is counted on the Canadian side, not on the US where it actually gets used).

it is true that some US industry and many US cities have started to deal with greenhouse gas emissions - all done in spite of Bush's policies, because they know the writings on the wall, the change is inevitable.

Kyoto was only a step, but it has spurred investment in wind generation as well as other
greener energy options.

also the US is 5% of the worlds population but causes 25% of the worlds pollution.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 07:47 PM

Permafrost may nearly disappear by 2100
Space and Earth science : December 20, 2005
   
The National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., says global warming may destroy most permafrost across the Northern Hemisphere.

Researchers said warming may decimate the top 10 feet or more of perennially frozen soil, altering ecosystems as well as damaging buildings and roads across Canada, Alaska, and Russia.

New simulations from NCAR show more than half of the area covered by the topmost layer of permafrost could thaw by 2050 and as much as 90 percent by 2100. Scientists expect the thawing to increase runoff into the Arctic Ocean and release vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.

The study is the first to examine the state of permafrost in a global model that includes interactions among the atmosphere, ocean, land, and sea ice as well as a soil model that depicts freezing and thawing.

The research appears online in the Dec. 17 issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 01:46 PM

The most recent summit on climate change, & the most important since Kyoto, was just held in Montreal & labeled the Montreal Summit, about 2 weeks ago(where was the US news coverage of this event?). Of the 130 attending nations only the US walked out, again unwilling as at Kyoto to seriously acknowledge the problems & that not only are we a big part of the problem by first our contributions to the causes in climate change but by also hindering, by not trying to get on board & assist with agreeing to a solution instead of fighting a solution. The other nations did not walk out of the summit quacking about ducks, like some spoiled child as the US did (thanks Canada for buying the US delegate a flock of plastic duckies). We are not standing up to these problems as some would like to suggest. We are preparing to find a way to open the Gulf of Mexico & the Alaskan Wilderness to exploration & development no matter what studies say & no matter the environmental cost. Our fuel plants have newer & better laws & more tax benefits that would encourage less efficiency & safety in lieu of productivity. Seeing as how much oil we import we could probably raise the bar in world wide shipping policy standards. Have we required all ships that import oil to the US be doubled hulled? Could we see that ships are properly manned by a reasonably sized crew? Has Bush taken any positive actions when it comes to our environment & if he has, pray tell, what are they & how will they weight in comparison to his negative actions?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: MMario
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:44 AM

There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than anytime in the last 650,000 years. actually this is not true - levels were higher for periods of years after several major volcanic events.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:44 AM

If 95% of scientists agreed that something (you fill in the blank) was harmful to children, how long would it take for it to be banned or regulated by every civilized nation? Would we wait for the other 5% of scientists to agree before we conceded that something should be done? Would we decide that several more years of study are warranted before we act rashly? Why is the Bush administration treating this threat to our children so differently? Bush didn't cause it, but he's sure in a position to do something about it, and he has consistently (and conveniently) recommended further study, and said "let's wait for the other 5%".

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: kendall
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:35 AM

Why? the word of a drowning Polar bear not good enough for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:35 AM

Don't forget that statistics do not deal with a particular event, but all events. You could toss "heads" seventeen times in a row, but in the overall scheme of things it's still a 50-50 chance you'll toss tails.

The same thing is true of "grading on the curve." The "bell-shaped curve" of probabilies is based upon a huge population, and to apply it to a population of the 20 people in a classroom is wrong. The classs could all be "A" quality just as likely as they could all be "F" quality.

Statistics deals with populations, not discrete events. Thus this year could be the coldest in the last 450,000 and still not be any indication one way or the other about "global warming."

More pragmatically, go ask the Arctic peoples what they think.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: kendall
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:43 AM

Big difference between weather and climate.

Teribus, exactly what has Bush done to ease global warming?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Pied Piper
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 07:57 AM

What a stupid question.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:58 AM

2005 Costliest Year for Extreme Weather
by Jim Lobe; December 17, 2005

WASHINGTON, Dec (IPS) - The world has suffered more than 200 billion dollars in economic losses as a result of weather-related natural disasters over the past year, making 2005 the costliest year on record, according to preliminary estimates released Tuesday by the Munich Re Foundation at the international climate conference in Montreal. These damages significantly exceeded the previous record of 145 billion dollars set in 2004, according to the Foundation, which is part of Munich Re, one of several leading re-insurance companies that have warned repeatedly over the past decade that global warming posed serious threats to the world's economy.

Of the more than 200 billion dollars in losses this year, more than 70 billion dollars was covered by insurance companies, compared to some 45 billion dollars in damages last year, according to the Foundation.

It said most losses resulted from the unprecedented number and intensity of hurricanes in 2005, particularly Wilma, which hit Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula; and Katrina, which overwhelmed New Orleans and other coastal areas in the U.S. states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and parts of Alabama. Wilma, the strongest-ever hurricane, according to records dating back to 1850, caused an estimated 15 billion dollars in economic losses, of which about 10 billion dollars was insured, according to the Foundation.

Damages caused by Katrina, the sixth strongest hurricane on record, were significantly greater, however. Estimated losses come to more than 125 billion, of which more than 30 billion dollars was insured, the Foundation said. "There is a powerful indication from these figures that we are moving from predictions of the likely impacts of climate change to proof that it is already fully underway," said Thomas Loster, the Foundation's director, who added that policy-makers should not only be concerned about the staggering economic loss.

"Above all, these are humanitarian tragedies that show us that, as a result of our impacts on the climate, we are making people and communities everywhere more vulnerable to weather-related natural disasters," he said. Loster released the Foundation's report at the ongoing 11th Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Climate Change Convention, which is addressing what the international community should do after the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol, the agreement by the world's industrialised countries, with the exception of the United States and Australia, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by about seven percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Most scientists believe that emissions are the main cause of global warming and that they will have to be reduced by 60 percent or more in order to stabilise the atmosphere. While scientists insist that the increases in financial losses caused by storms may not necessarily be linked to global warming -- increasing populations and economic development in vulnerable coastal areas may be far more important -- a growing number agree that warming is becoming an increasingly significant factor.

Such a notion is bolstered by the occurrence of other highly unusual or even unprecedented weather events recorded during the past year. These suggest the Earth's climate is changing in ways that are generally consistent with predictions by sophisticated computer models about the likely impact of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that have been pumped into the atmosphere in ever-increasing quantities since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

Hurricane Vince, for example, was the first hurricane on record to approach Europe, making landfall in Spain in October. It was the easternmost and northernmost appearance of an Atlantic hurricane on record, effectively mirroring the appearance of Hurricane Catarina off Brazil in March 2004. Catarina was the first hurricane in the South Atlantic on record.

Similarly, at the end of November, Tropical Storm Delta hit the Canary Islands to devastating effect. It was the first tropical storm to ever hit the islands. And in July, a weather station in Mumbai recorded 944 mm of rain in 24 hours, the greatest and most intense precipitation event ever recorded in India. The number of tropical storms broke all records in 2005, according to the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) in Nairobi. As of last week, there had been 26 storms, or five more than the previous record of 21. Of the 26, 16 reached hurricane force.

Scientific models have predicted an increase in the intensity of storms as the atmosphere -- and the temperatures of the seas -- became warmer. Tropical storms and hurricanes derive most of their energy from warm waters. While scientists agree that it is impossible to link global warming to the frequency and intensity of hurricanes over a one- or two-year period, recent studies have shown that storms have indeed become more intense over the past several decades.

In August, for example, Kerry Emanuel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) published a paper in the British scientific weekly Nature which found that hurricanes in the Atlantic and North Pacific had roughly doubled in power over 30 years. In September, a group of meteorologists published a study in Science weekly which found that, while the frequency of hurricanes had significantly increased over the past 35 years, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes -- the most powerful -- had increased by 80 percent over that period.

To many scientists, these studies provide additional evidence of a link between warming seas, to which warmer atmospheric temperatures contribute, and hurricane intensity. Others insist, however, that the 35-year period is still too short a time period to reach any conclusion, because such changes may be tied to other natural "oscillations" involving currents or salinity. In the 1950s and 1960s, for example, hurricane activity was significantly greater than in the three decades that followed.

In his remarks to the climate conference, Loster stressed that economic losses attributable to weather-related disasters have risen much more steeply than those caused by earthquakes, according to records since 1950. "We do not want to estimate the human tragedy of earthquakes like the recent one in Pakistan which can kill tens of thousands of people a year," he said. "But our findings indicate that it is the toll of weather-related disasters that are the ones on the rise."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:53 AM

You are wrong Ebbie (20 Dec 05 - 02:59 AM)

"where did you read that Bush caused global warming? It is just that he is taking no steps to ameliorate the causes and the effects."

He is doing a damn sight more and being a damn sight more effective than all those who signed up to the absolutely useless Kyoto Agreement. If you doubt that just ask any Kyoto supporter how many, or if any, of the signatories are going to make their targets. The US under Bush, on the other hand, in the same time span has managed to reduce it's harmful emmisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:49 AM

As evidence of global warming mounts, response is slow; Associated Press, December 18, 2005

In Geneva on Thursday, the World Meteorological Organization reported that 2005 thus far is the second-warmest year on record, extending a trend climatologists attribute at least partly to heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" accumulating in the atmosphere.

• The WMO said Thursday that in the Arctic Sea, where average winter temperatures have risen as much as 7 degrees Fahrenheit over 50 years, the ice cap this summer was 20 percent smaller than the 1979-2004 average.

• British oceanographers reported this month that Atlantic currents carrying warm water toward northern Europe have slowed. Freshwater from melting northern ice caps and glaciers is believed to be interfering with saltwater currents. Ultimately such a change could cool the European climate.

• In southern Africa, beset by four years of drought, average temperatures during the 12-month period ending in July were the warmest on record, British scientists said. The mercury stood more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit above a recent 40-year average.

• In Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea in the southwest Pacific, rising seas are forcing hundreds of islanders to abandon vulnerable coastal homes for higher ground, according to U.N. and news reports.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.warming18dec18,1,5727241.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:41 AM

Hysteresis.

The 'catastrophe point' at which a change becomes no longer easily reversible at the original energy level

That's what triggered the rapid changes in temperature testified to by frozen mammoths.

The recent movie got it partly right, just left out a lot of science, some of which is still being discovered. And there is no way that goddam statue would still be standing!

If you add up ALL of the individual causations, insignificant in each of themselves, you get a SYNERGISTIC response, where the total effect is much greater that the simple um of all the individual effects - a sort of multiplication, rather than an addition.

At least in the movie, the USA got thinned out, I suppose...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:40 AM

it is in the Siberian perma frost that is now melting and poised to release BILLIONS of tons of methane.

it is in the loss/recession of hundreds of Alaskan glaciers.

it is in the melting of the Artic sea.

..........

I do not know and wonder if OZ has the chemtrail short term solution to reflect solar heat the same as the US.

You have to be at least 20 to see the difference between jet trails that used to dissipate in 15 minutes compared to the ones that now continue to billow and spread over they sky for hours.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:38 AM

TEN YEARS OF GLOBAL WARMING
16.12.2005, www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=126351®ion=3

A pattern of more intense global warming over the past decade has been confirmed by temperatures over the past twelve months that confirm that 2005 was one of the hottest years on record. According to data released by the United Nation's World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) this year is the second warmest ever, with an increase of 0.48 degrees Celsius. The WMO uses 1961-1990 annual average surface temperature as the benchmark for climate change measurements.

In a year marked by record hurricanes in the Caribbean and melting ice floes in the Arctic, the WMO said the world experienced the warmest months of June and October ever, surpassing those recorded in 1998 and 2004 respectively. Gaps in data and outstanding readings for the final weeks of 2005 mean that this year overall could vary from being the warmest ever to being the eighth warmest when the final figure is released next February. "It could well be that this ranking could be modified but we are very confident that it will end up in the four warmest years," said WMO Secretary General Michel Jarraud.

"In the northern hemisphere it will be the warmest year on record and in the southern hemisphere we anticipate that it will be the fourth warmest on record," he said. The WMO emphasised in its statement on the global climate in 2005 that "the last ten years (1996-2005), with the exception of 1996, are the warmest years on record." "Areas of significant warmth were widespread, with large areas of Australia, Africa, Brazil, China and the United States showing significantly above-average temperatures," the statement said. Sea surface temperatures in the north Atlantic, where scientists recently warned that warm waters were melting ice floes in the Arctic Circle, are likely to be the warmest on record, said the WMO.

The agency said the extent of sea ice in the Arctic dropped by 20 percent compared to average and reached the lowest coverage observed since satellite observation began in 1979. Mr Jarraud confirmed that the hurricane season in the United States, Caribbean and Central America "was exceptional by any measure" this year, although there were fewer typhoons in the Pacific Ocean than usual. The 26 named storms in the Atlantic exceeded the previous high of 21 in 1993 and included the strongest ever recorded, Hurricane Wilma.


2005 is likely to be the hottest year in Australia since records began in 1910, while several parts of south Asia experienced extreme heatwaves or heavier than usual monsoons. East Africa was blighted by continuing long term drought extending from Kenya south to Mozambique and Zimbabwe, which left several million people exposed to hunger. Scientists fear that those extreme weather conditions are signs of climate change caused by growing emissions of greenhouse gases by industry, transport and households. "At this stage the honest scientific answer for hurricanes is that we don't know," the global met chief said, although he highlighted evidence that the Caribbean Sea was warming and producing more frequent, intense hurricanes.

"What we feel more confident with, is that global warming will lead to more frequent heatwaves." "Conversely there's also a risk of higher precipitation in regions where floods can be a problem," Mr Jarraud added. Global average temperatures over land have risen since the beginning of the 20th century, but meteorologists observed sharper rises from the late 1970s.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:31 AM

Most of Arctic's Near-Surface Permafrost to Thaw by 2100
PRESS RELEASE Date Released: Monday, December 19, 2005
Source: National Center for Atmospheric Research

BOULDER- Global warming may decimate the top 10 feet (3 meters) or more of perennially frozen soil across the Northern Hemisphere, altering ecosystems as well as damaging buildings and roads across Canada, Alaska, and Russia. New simulations from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) show that over half of the area covered by this topmost layer of permafrost could thaw by 2050 and as much as 90 percent by 2100. Scientists expect the thawing to increase runoff to the Arctic Ocean and release vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. The study, using the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model (CCSM), is the first to examine the state of permafrost in a global model that includes interactions among the atmosphere, ocean, land, and sea ice as well as a soil model that depicts freezing and thawing. Results appear online in the December 17 issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

"People have used models to study permafrost before, but not within a fully interactive climate system model," says NCAR's David Lawrence, the lead author. The coauthor is Andrew Slater of the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center. About a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere's land contains permafrost, defined as soil that remains below 32 degrees F (0 degrees C) for at least two years. Permafrost is typically characterized by an active surface layer, extending anywhere from a few centimeters to several meters deep, which thaws during the summer and refreezes during the winter. The deeper permafrost layer remains frozen. The active layer responds to changes in climate, expanding downward as surface air temperatures rise. Deeper permafrost has not thawed since the last ice age, over 10,000 years ago, and will be largely unaffected by global warming in the coming century, says Lawrence.

Recent warming has degraded large sections of permafrost across central Alaska, with pockets of soil collapsing as the ice within it melts. The results include buckled highways, destabilized houses, and "drunken forests"--trees that lean at wild angles. In Siberia, some industrial facilities have reported significant damage. Further loss of permafrost could threaten migration patterns of animals such as reindeer and caribou. The CCSM simulations are based on high and low projections of greenhouse-gas emissions for the 21st century, as constructed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In both cases, the CCSM determined which land areas would retain permafrost at each of 10 soil depths extending down to 11.2 feet (3.43 meters).

For the high-emission scenario, the area with permafrost in any of these layers shrinks from 4 million to just over 1 million square miles by the year 2050 and decreases further to about 400,000 square miles (1 million square kilometers) by 2100. In the low-emission scenario, which assumes major advances in conservation and alternative energy, the permafrost area shrinks to about 1.5 million square miles by 2100. "Thawing permafrost could send considerable amounts of water to the oceans," says Slater, who notes that runoff to the Arctic has increased about 7 percent since the 1930s. In the high-emission simulation, runoff grows by another 28 percent by the year 2100. That increase includes contributions from enhanced rainfall and snowfall as well as the water from ice melting within soil.

The new study highlights concern about emissions of greenhouse gases from thawing soils. Permafrost may hold 30% or more of all the carbon stored in soils worldwide. As the permafrost thaws, it could lead to large-scale emissions of methane or carbon dioxide beyond those produced by fossil fuels. "There's a lot of carbon stored in the soil," says Lawrence. "If the permafrost does thaw, as our model predicts, it could have a major influence on climate." To address this and other questions, Lawrence and colleagues are now working to develop a more advanced model with interactive carbon. This study was funded by the National Science Foundation, which is NCAR'S primary sponsor, and the U.S. Department of Energy. Opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado. For more information about NSIDC, please visit http://nsidc.org

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:23 AM

Is Global Warming Killing the Polar Bears?

By JIM CARLTON
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
December 14, 2005; Page B1

It may be the latest evidence of global warming: Polar bears are drowning. Scientists for the first time have documented multiple deaths of polar bears off Alaska, where they likely drowned after swimming long distances in the ocean amid the melting of the Arctic ice shelf. The bears spend most of their time hunting and raising their young on ice floes. In a quarter-century of aerial surveys of the Alaskan coastline before 2004, researchers from the U.S. Minerals Management Service said they typically spotted a lone polar bear swimming in the ocean far from ice about once every two years. Polar-bear drownings were so rare that they have never been documented in the surveys. But in September 2004, when the polar ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of the northern coast of Alaska, researchers counted 10 polar bears swimming as far as 60 miles offshore. Polar bears can swim long distances but have evolved to mainly swim between sheets of ice, scientists say.

The researchers returned to the vicinity a few days after a fierce storm and found four dead bears floating in the water. "Extrapolation of survey data suggests that on the order of 40 bears may have been swimming and that many of those probably drowned as a result of rough seas caused by high winds," the researchers say in a report set to be released today.

While the government researchers won't speculate on why a climate change is taking place in the Arctic, environmentalists unconnected to the survey say U.S. policies emphasizing oil and gas development are exacerbating global warming, which is accelerating the melting of the ice. "For anyone who has wondered how global warming and reduced sea ice will affect polar bears, the answer is simple -- they die," said Richard Steiner, a marine-biology professor at the University of Alaska.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:22 AM

If the Gulf Stream shuts down, there'll be no two ways about it - the Thames has frozen over in living memory.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Paul Burke
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:11 AM

Gulf Stream down by 30% so they say. All that heat has to go somewhere- the best bet is into bigger and better storms. And polar bears are drowning. Don't know what's happening to the Cartesian bears (linear, log or log/lin).

Apparently it's even chance for the British isles to get hotter (because of overall warming), colder (because of losing the Gulf Stream) or stay the same, the two effects cancelling out.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Rumncoke
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 05:48 AM

Forget global warming and think climate change.

There is a heating effect - but that just gets things on the go in the places most susceptible to heating - then there are changes due to, for instance, the melting of ice, the drying out of vegetation - movements of air currents, water currents, droughts, floods, and then hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones and all things revolving at speed are affected by the alterations.

There are always variations in climate due to changes in the orbit of the Earth, the vigour of the Sun, Humans changing the forest into farmland, even that blasted butterfly - but usually it is a fairly liveable with slow pendulum swing.

What the people who think about these things have been saying is that we might just have kicked the climate pendulum into swinging further, and faster than is safe, and it might just swing back and knock our silly heads off. They might be yelling 'Down!!'and there is no need - or perhaps we'd all be better off closer to the Earth, where we could see the damage being done so much easier.

Anne

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Noddy
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 04:59 AM

Bush is adding to Global Warming!

Every time he opens his mouth all we get is crap and a load of HOT AIR!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 02:59 AM

Crowbar, where did you read that Bush caused global warming? It is just that he is taking no steps to ameliorate the causes and the effects. We can and do blame the GWuB for lots of things, and with good reason. If he took notice of the phenomenon and instated measures meant to begin rolling back some of the causes, he could still improve some of the labels that will eventually be attached to his presidency. But he's evidently too dumb and too stubborn in his stupidity to be aware of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 01:29 AM

Those who are scientifically uneducated think that 'Global Warming' just means 'everything gets hotter'.

Wrong!

'Global Warming' refers to the increase in the total heat energy in the system. As this increases, TURBULENCE increases. This means that things get BOTH hotter AND colder in different places. Also, while the NUMBER of storms stays about the same, the INTENSITY of them increases.

I'm sure others here can give more lengthy technical explanations, with all the maths, but I ascribe to the KISS school.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 01:28 AM

2005 is the hottest year in Australia since records have been kept..

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 01:03 AM

R U Lon Lee 2nite?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 12:56 AM

The year 2005 has been the warmest year in recorded history except for 1998 when there was a major league El Nino event. Eighteen of the warmest years on record have occurred in the last twenty years. There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than anytime in the last 650,000 years.

That's where it is.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Crowbar
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 12:36 AM

I hear all of this grousing about Bush causing global warming. How come temperature in most of the US are way below normal for this time of year?

If we have Global Cooling will that be his fault too?