It’s extraordinary that the Bush administration now proposes listing polar bears as a “threatened” species, which draws a tricky link between climate change and species protection. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials have concluded that polar bears could be endangered within 45 years because the Arctic ice on which they depend is receding; from 1987 to 2004, the bear population in the Western Hudson Bay in Canada dropped from 1,194 to 935. Unlike many obscure or small species at risk, the polar bear makes a powerful poster child for those worried about global warming. But is this administration really ready to take the next step — regulating Americans’ output of greenhouse gases?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Raptor on Open thread 11/21
- janeeyre on Open thread 11/21
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- XXX on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on ACORN stole election?
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
139 Comments
I Gusses that means the seal population is going to explode, since we are killing polar bears.
Time for clubbing baby seals again?
BETTER HEADLINE FOR THIS THREAD: “Could Kansas’ proposed ethanol manufacturing plants, and coal and natural gas power plants end life as we know it right here in Wichita, Kansas, USA? ANSWER: YES … SOON!
Ethanol, coal and natural gas all use lots of our remaining western and central Kansas ancient underground water aquifers. In the not to distant future, WICHITA will be drinking recycled and salt polluted river water which is also obviously disappearing. Just view the downtown Arkansas River trickle through town.
Coal fired power plants emit various dangerous greenhouse gases even though “bag houses” trap some effluent.
Using cleaner burning natural gas from Hugoton in southwestern Kansas drives up the cost of our residential natural gas heating source. And hastens the day when our formerly great Kansas natural resource, the “Hugoton gas fields” are depleted.
Wichita citizens are already being damaged by higher natural gas bills and drought related problems. Wichita’s poster child will be none other than our ubiquitous Mayor, Carlos Mayans. So, Mayor Mayans, welcome to “future world” right here in River City.
Sniff, sniff…poor Canada!
They couldn’t possibly be the source of their own problems?
Coal-fired power-generating stations were among Canada’s biggest polluters last year as the country continued to produce nearly 280 million tonnes of annual greenhouse gas emissions.
Canada’s single largest polluter was the Nanticoke power station owned by Ontario Power Generation where emissions rose 20 per cent in 2005 to 17.6 million tonnes. Nanticoke is one of the largest coal-fired electricity producers in North America.
And just how many prevailing winds from from Kansas to Canada? Is it the great Kansas MesoThermic Blowhard? Or the GreatPlains Cattle Induced Flatus Wind?
It’s odd, I always remember the winds that influence the weather appear to come from the North of the U.S. border or the La Ninja or El Nino off the cost of South America, which don’t go beyond certain latitudes, like Mexico for instance.
More liberal press claptrap.
The answer in an unequivocal YES. The atmosphere mixes fully, from north pole to south pole. Within 12 months CO2 concentrations even out globally.
JM – I suggest an intriductory climatology course for overall wind movements. Also this non-liberal press site:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/education.asp
I can’t speak to the coal fire plants, but I know for a fact that an ethanol plants use of water is being blown out of proportion by the media. It takes 3 to 4 center pivots to run a 100 million gallon ethanol plant for an entire year. Considering there are almost 7000 water rights in the mid-ark basin alone, the previous posters alarmism is just that – alarmist.
Ben,
I’ve been expose to Climatology. How else would I calculate how HAZMAT chemicals affect surrounding areas when there is an accident? I have also done this for a single nuclear blast.
As you well know, disipation rates dramatically scale downward as distance and time increases. There are other influences for sure.
But for sure, I will peruse the website and study it. Also I will make sure their conclusions are not based on single incident correlation, but sound scientific theory. :)
“Ethanol Facts”: Rather than using our remaining relatively pure drinking water from the Ogallala underground sand aquifers — why not take the water needed for ethanol production from the effluent of sewage treatment plants? I presume no one drinks ethanol.
JM – the difference here is that the total amount is building up. So, dissapation rates become irrelevant.
Another symptom:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16390346/
Ancient ice shelf breaks free in Canadian ArcticBreakaway may ’signal the onset of accelerated change,’ researchers say
Not isolated incidents; those would be meaningless. More like “death by a thousand cuts”
Using your nuclear blast scenario: rather than a single one think of a million … eventually the plumes will ‘dissapate’ and merge; there will then be a global burden of the material.
I remember the last time I was in western kansas. I saw three polar bears stomping through the corn fields looking for some seal chow.
Not finding any, the bears chased a vw bus load of long hair (is that redundant) hippies across the ok/tx panhandle. The last I heard, the hippies and the bears started a commune in albuquerque, new mexico.
Seriously, though, whether or not canada is a polluter is a problem the canadian government needs to address. We need to look at the energy supplies in this country and reduce or eliminate as much co2 pollution as possible. NOT building coal fired plants is one thing that can be done.
This country is a major player in the co2 pollution department, and needs to be addressed asap. No new coal fired plants . . . period.
Ethanol “facts”
7000 water rights? What does that mean, how much water are all those “rights” holders allowed to pump on those “rights”?
What is not in dispute, at least in the Smoky basin, and probably in the Ark basin too, is that David Pope has been over appropriating water rights for over 20 years.
Real slow for you now, ethanol, that means the state allows “rights” holders to pump more water than exists, or is available, in those basins.
First, according to ks water law, you have to shut down junior rights just to keep the water we already have. Second, issuing new water rights would be out of the question. Third, the ethanol plants would have to buy up existing senior rights.
It only takes 3 or 4 center pivots to run an ethanol plant? Well, that depends on how much those pivots pump, and what their water rights are, and the size of the plant.
What about all the acres of corn that are irrigated to feed the ethanol making process? How many center pivots does THAT take? And “facts” do you know that ethanol is energy negative? That means it uses more energy than it produces? It has a net DRAIN on the nation’s energy resources?
Even the Kansas Geological Survey agrees that it is irrigation pumping in western Kansas that causes water shortages at Kanopolis and thus for Salina.
Do you really have any doubt that the water shortage is NOT moving your direction? And that it has NO correlation to the pumping of the aquifer in western Kansas? You think ethanol plants do NOT harm the water supply in ks along with all the irrigated grains?
You know something the KGS doesnt know? Something about all we have to do is shut down 3-4 of pivots and all will be well?
heheheh six impossible things before breakfast….
Ethanol, coal and natural gas all use lots of our remaining western and central Kansas ancient underground water aquifers. In the not to distant future, WICHITA will be drinking recycled and salt polluted river water which is also obviously disappearing. Just view the downtown Arkansas River trickle through town.
Wolf, wolf, wolf: All together will only use a tiny percentage of what irrigators use.
Interesting article on the front page of the Salina Journal this week.
Tracy Streeter, the head of the Kansas Water Office, has been bleating that the “drought” is really at the bottom of all our water problems. It is the “drought” that causes all the shortages, and that if it just rains real hard again, all our water problems will go away.
heheheheheh
Funny thing is, as the Salina Journal points out, the rainfall levels for at least THAT part of Kansas are no where near low enough to be called “drought”.
Geez, you would think the head of governor leaderships “drought response team” would have his facts straight about what constitutes a “drought”.
Of course, being a political appointee, Streeter could never admit that the problem is political, not only a lack of rainfall. That Pope has been allowed, for years, to allocate water based on politics, with no basis in reality. And with no one trying to call him or the water agencies to heel.
hee hee hee hee hee
I hope it gives Kansans a lot of confidence to know that the head of the water office and governor leadership’s go-to guy on drought doesnt know what constitutes a “drought” and what constitutes a looming political crisis.
If economics is the dismal science dedicated to the allocation of scare resources, maybe we need a few folks in the water regulatory agencies that know something about economics and hydrology and climatology.
Not just political science.
And the band plays on…..
re Holcomb coal plant water use,
http://www.holcombstation.coop/Environmental/water.cfm“The water supply for the Project will be groundwater from the Ogallala Aquifer… Each of the three new units will require about 8,000 acre-feet of water to meet annual production needs.”
Cosmos, according to the Salina Journal, Sunflower’s filing documents indicate that the complex will use some 30,000 ACRE FEET of water annually.
So it will use 300,000 acre/feet of water over ten years. That is the amount of water to cover 300,000 acres with one foot of water.
How much is an acre foot? The amount it takes to cover one acre with one foot of water. How many times can YOU count that Holcomb had that much rainfall in a year? In ten years?
Anyone see a problem here?
Ethanol and coal proponents need to look at how much water goes into the aquifer in that same amount of time.
Anyone still NOT see a problem here?
Every country in the World should be in on the Regulation of Polution not just the United States
Buck – that is what the international treaty is all about.
It is a problem. We tried ethanol back in the 70’s when petroleum was expensive, but once the oil barrel price went down, ethanol ceases (with the exception of making spirits, beer and cosmetic products).
I think ethanol is an exciting field, but the problem with it, isn’t the water the plant will consume, but just as ksfarmgrrl pointed out, it’s the crops that are grown to feed the raw materials for ethanol. Mainly corn!
These farmers out in Western Kansas that grow feed grain and most popular, corn is because they don’t know how to grow anything else. Their local county extention office tells them what to grow, because of subsidy purposes. Then they go out and plant corn and irrigate it 24/7 from seed to harvest.
The only reason why the ethonal industry is taking off right now is because of several things. Oil barrel prices up, making it somewhat competitive (but gasoline needs to reach $5 for ethonal to be viable in cost), huge tax breaks and incentives to investors, farm subsidies still continue for grains making it artifically cheap, and high tariff in importing ethanol from overseas (we can import it from Brazil and other South American countries a whole hell of a lot cheaper than we can do it, because of surgar canes and beets are more bang for your buck than corn.) But I understand that they slapped the high tariffs on imports of ethonal products because they wanted a chance for the investment community to capitalize on domestic product. And least not, the US government subsituted Ethanol as an additive for gasoline instead of MSTB, for enviromental and keeping farmers on the government payroll purposes.
What you guys are basically doing is making beer. But the excitment comes from switchgrass (easily maintained, needs no irrigation, grows several times a year meaning several harvest a year, natural to our enviroment and leaves no crop waste.) But it’s not a subsidy crop, so it won’t be presued.
The science for ethanol isn’t so much the crop but the enzyme science to break down crops more efficiently. That is why switchgrass, sawdust, crop waste and a whole host of other possibilities are within the realm of ethanol production.
I’m for ethanol, but I’m not for another subsidy train for farmers to get on.
JM
As you well know, disipation rates dramatically scale downward as distance and time increases.”
CO2 “distance” = global, “time” can = 100+ years
ksfarmgrrl,
Wonder why Salina Journal reports an extra 6k/year? 30k vs 3×8k=24k. Sunflower’s “PR” (cough cough) spin?
30,000 acre-feet annually? Imagine a 1 acre “footprint” watertower 30,000 feet (5.7 miles) high!!
God help me I agree with Joe… :)
The ethanol processing plants should NOT be located in western Kansas. I appreciate Rhonda and others looking out for us concerning jobs (big eye roll here) but many MORE jobs will go away when the water runs out.
The only reason the processing plants are located out here are the grain crops on the front end and the feedlots on the back end. The feedlots feed the packing plants, which use enormous amounts of water as well. They also provide a market for all those subsidy crops like corn. So it all comes full circle to corn and other irrigated grains.
Just ask the folks around Kanopolis and Salina.
One point of disagreement with Joe is that farmers do know how to grow other crops and dryland crops. But the subsidies make it more profitable to grow corn and such.
Where I live, in one of the dryest areas of the state, they even grow dryland corn, knowing no crop will ever be harvested. We call them “subsidy farmers” because they are farming subsidies, not crops. They dont care if it grows or not as long as the subsidies take care of their interest payments.
So if that is true with dryland farmers, what do you think is the case with irrgated corn farmers? And it is even DRYER down Holcomb/Dodge/Liberal way. Also where Steve Irsik lives. Remember him? The head of the Kansas Water Board and Sebelius appointee and crony. And one of the largest subsidy and irrigation farmers in western Kansas. No connection there? heheheheheheheh
And watch Kansas howl if Congress tried to CHANGE the subsidies, much less cut them.
Farmers dont grow what extention tells them. They grow what the subsidies pay for. Like compensation plans drive business, the subsidies drive farming.
If we wanted to drive a different direction, we could. We just need new drivers at the wheel.
Like new elected officials not beholdin’ to subsidy queens and water pigs for campaign contributions.
heheheheh cosmos.
I think each “burner” may indeed only use 8000 acre feet, but there are other processes and water usages not accounted for in that specific figure. I think 30,000 acre/feet is the overall water usage.
The Salina Journal has all their past articles available through the front page. It is mostly directed at the Smoky basin, but it certainly portends something for the Ark basin as well, since that is where the plants, both ethanol and coal, are all being located.
Better fill yer canteens now…
Typical of the bush administration.
Barely and halfass acknowldge a problem may or may not exist and mull the matter over for 45 years before doing anything.
I wonder how we will answer the questions of the children of the future.
J R,
The “problem” does exist — and even if it did not, higher efficiency, etc are better than continued addiction to fossil fuels.
Henrik Tikkanen: “Because we don’t think about future generations, they will never forget us.”
We really don’t need to kill the Polar Bears! I perform a ritual every New Years day that has so far kept them away quite nicely.
With Bush listing the polar bears as threatened we have moved one step closer to winning our war on terror. As everyone knows polar bears have been responsible for about a dozen attacks on people. Since we took the fight to them in Iraq (believed to be the HQ of polar bears because nobody would expect them hiding in a desert) their numbers have dropped off.
The terrorists are losing. A few polar bears may be hiding out in Iran so we may need to invade there to smoke them out.
One polar bear population (western Hudson Bay ) has declined since the 1980s and the reproductive success of females in that area seems to have decreased. We are not certain why, but it appears that ecological conditions in the mid-1980s were exceptionally good.
Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada , 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.
It is noteworthy that the neighbouring population of southern Hudson Bay does not appear to have declined, and another southern population ( Davis Strait ) may actually be over-abundant.
I understand that people who do not live in the north generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears in an area. People who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like to have too many polar bears around.
This complexity is why so many people find the truth less entertaining than a good story. It is entirely appropriate to be concerned about climate change, but it is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria. Dr. Mitchell Taylor
hee hee Jed. I take a polar bear swim too, unless I have to break ice on the stock tank!!!
It was so much easier though in Austin….
Here are 2 examples of StillJM’s “media-assisted hysteria”.
‘Arctic sea ice on the wane: Now what?”http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articles/2006/2006_seaice.html
‘Satellites See a Double-Texas Sized Loss In Arctic Sea Ice’ (Sep 2005)http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/arcticice_decline.html
StillJM? Ice reflects the sun’s heat, open sea water absorbs the heat.Less ice means warmer water (and air), melting the ice faster, causing more heat to be absorbed, faster melting (repeat…)
It is sad to see the losing of specie, it is an unwelcome change.Not one person on this blog understands the changes that are occurring with global warming.We are seeing more clouds in our skies today then what we are used to, that is one of the effects of global warming, it is also the reason why NASA recently sent up a satellite to measure and monitor the amount of clouds developing.Another effect of global warming is trying to understand what happens to our environment as far as the weather as in super storms that will most likely develop.Jupiter and Saturn have total cloud cover with super storms that lasted for centuries.Earth has had super storms in the past that has lasted for as long as 110 years.This is real facts, not just alarmist callings.
One of the hind-sight to ethanol production will be the lack of sun to grow crops.
Jed above: In addition to keeping polar bears away from Wichita, your New Year’s Day ritual seems also to prevent penguins from living in Wichita and Sedgwick County. Of course, I haven’t visited all corners of Sedgwick County so can’t say for sure.
Ben, why does Wichita water rate such a high lead content that may be stupidifying Wichita children? Is this metric due to high lead in the original supply (e.g. Equus Beds), or archaic city pipe connection solder, or archaic in-home solder for tested water? What does the 2/3 actionable level for Wichita, under federal statute, represent? Where is the poison originating?
Wink,No, that’s a different ritual altogether. I do that one on Midsummer’s Eve. Those pesky penguins are a real problem!
It’s gotta be the drought, folks, because some twit in saliva says so. Being rainfall for the state averages 25.6″ a year, with that figure dropping the further one heads west, drought seems to be a natural aspect of western kansas life.
With slaughter houses, the new “ethanol” boom, and the waste associated with poor watering habits, a new coal-fired energy plant is about the last thing we need. Class 4 nuclear plants could be built, but not on agricultural land. And that’s not taking into account the pollution aspect.
As for the polar bear problem: comparing what bush has proposed in listing the polar bear with terrorism, as doug has done, sure brings alot to the table, doesn’t it?
As the polar regions warm up, and the ice melts, where do you think the polar bears are going to congregate? Yep, you got it: population centers. Why? Food. Who’s going to win? Sure ain’t going to be the polar bears.
Maybe the best place for the bears are zoos. They are cared for, given basically ideal conditions and their dna, sperm and eggs can be stored, exchanged and used for research. That may be their only means of survival, should the current warming trend continue.
But that all may be worthless speculation if global warming reaches the roll-over point. Intelligent life, as we know it, on this planet, could cease to exist. Not too far fetched, as it has happened more than once.
Maybe bush should put humans on the list as well:-)
Cosmos, you put up your junk data disputing the word of someone who is actually in the area disputed (Hudson Bay, Canada – polar bear area.) When the truth is told you deny it.
When you are told only 1 polar bear population out of 13 populations has actually declined you go on with more junk science?
Yes, all the SUV’s and Coal-Fired Plants are causing the Martian Polar Caps to shrink as well! Dang that’s powerful stuff. Next time you fire up your car, be cognisant that you are reducing polar ice on Mars as well!
Let’s see, Mars is also having a global warming.
Is it due to CO2? How about some Carbon Cycle anomaly? What about an Ozone layer? Hmmm, probably not.
What about the fact that the Sun and it’s relational shift to the earth might be causing it? Naw, too logical…
Let’s see, CO2 is causing Global Warming because it keeps temperatures in right? You know the Greenhouse effect?
CO2 gas is 340 ppm (parts per million) currently according to scientific measurements.
Water Vapor, you know the cloud thing, is at 40,000 ppm. Have you ever heard anything anywhere on how clouds cause global warming? Of course not, the environmental kook heads exclude it from their data.
Ever hear of the Medieval Warming Period? Evidently the Vikings did when thy sailed to Greenland without any interference from those nasty ice floes and bergs. Heck, they even farmed and set up communities on Greenland. Why the heck do you think they called it Greenland, because it was covered with ice!!!
Global temperatures change, polar ice caps melt, redistribute and generally never stay the same in mass, extent or area covered.
And it has zip to do with global warming.
Heartlander,Some of your questions may be answered here:http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/pubs/reports/wrir.02-4073.html
Thanks Dusty, but that doesn’t answer the question of Wichita water lead content, per se.
Does Cheney Lake water have a high lead content?
There are ways to remove lead, including adding precipitating anions (ion exchange), electrolysis and reverse osmosis. If these are “too expensive” for the taxpayers to support for the whole water supply, then the options are individual-household decontamination, with or without government subsidy, or people who want to retain their natural intellegence should move out.
If the problem is lead-leaching from city water lines, then they should be fixed. If the problem is household lead, then at least the Eagle should report this, and give people the informed opportunity to redo their plumbing or use lead-removing purifiers. Perhaps with public subsidies.
Cosmos brings science.
YOU JM, bring every single last scrap of Rush Limbaugh twaddle in your last post.
If I were you? I’d be embarrassed to show myself off as such a mind numbed, unthinking robot.
Let’s forget global warming for a second.
I want YOU JM to expound for us on just why conservation, elimination of pollution, and healthy respect for the planet we live on are BAD things.
Don’t come back with “it hurts the economy”. If I have to choose the Earth over the revenue of energy companies and their share holders I will do so every time.
The floor is yours JM. Tell us why greenhouse gases are good.
heartlander – generally lead is leached from pipes, not the water itself. The main thing the water dept does is try to keep mineral content high enough to minimize that.
Still JM – H2O and CO2 have different IR absorbance lines. That is REAL science, not your kook stuff.
This is real science too:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/education.asp
And further links therein.
JM, Lets assume you are correct in that it is mainly the suns doing concerning the reduction of ice at the poles. If indeed that is the case, the introduction of greenhouse gasses may have a destablizing effect on what would be a natural phenominum.
If the earth is prepared (call it ghia, or whatever) for the sun’s periodic warming of the planet, can it recover from the gases man has introduced via energy pollution? Would the addition of these greenhouse gases add up to the point where the earth could go through a radical change resulting in extremes that could wipe out our species?
The answer I have come up with, through research, is: Yes, they can. At no time in recorded earth history have the gases present in our atmosphere been there in such abundance when the solar warming periods have happened in the past.
Rush may have all of your answers, but the questions they answer have nothing to do with what is really going on on this planet.
Not likely that it would eliminate Homo sapiens; however it would likely ‘cull the herd’ quite a bit.
People can still hunt Polar Bears right?
In at least some places yes. The problem is not predation or hunting, it is habitat.
Ok Joe I have to ask. I may be sorry for it but I have to.
Why in the world are you interested in whether or not it is legal to hunt polar bears?
He thinks it is inconsistent to worry about habitat destruction if hunting is allowed. Never mind that habitat destruction is the danger and that, in fact, cannibalism has been observed.
Polar bears taste better than Bald Eagles.
Because I didn’t know you could. I thought they were off limits, but I’m not a hunter, so I don’t know anything about which animal can be hunted.
But I when I went to Gander Mountain just before Christmas they have a poster board of pictures of game that people have hunted or fish. There was one with a young guy holding a large rifle sitting right next to a dead and blood stained polar bear.
I was a little shocked! I know Tigers, Rhinos and Elephants are off limits, just thought Polar bears were too.
AH I see. Thank you for the answer.
That question just left me scratching my head.
Joe – the difference is whether the endangerment is due to hunting/predation or habitat. Actually, I think the only hunting now allowed is by treaty with native nations.
‘J R,’Your question about greenhouse gases almost made me spit up from laughter.
And ‘Open-Mind,’ not much of an open mind if you are saying I get my data from Rush. I was a science major in college through my Master’s Degree. This data is direct data. It is the same data the Global Warming people used, except I use my own interpretations on it.
Ben, Why do you keep sending me to a University’s website(U. of Mich.) who puts up unreferenced data that favors the Global Warming caused by man made CO2?
Okay,here goes…
Here are some greenhouse gases emitters,
Man made CO2 – 5 billion tons produced
Plants (trees, grasses) – 50 billion tons produced
Oceans – 115 billion tons produced
One Large Volcano Eruption produces more C02 gases than the entire Industrial Age CO2 emissions combined!
Now, let’s talk about how the Global Warming Theorists got their data on CO2.
Primarily from 2 sources.
(1) from Mauna Loa Volcano in Hawaii(2) Ice Core Artic Samples of gases dissolved from hundreds of years
The samples from Mauna Loa obtained are commonly called flask samples over 2 decades. One wonders why they picked an area where three of the biggest co2 emitters can be found.i.e., a volcano, a jungle and near an ocean.
The ice core sample was taken before 1950 and represents an era supposably not influenced by the modern age.
Did the Al Gore Movie chart these out on separate graphs. Well, yes and no. What they did is to put the very slow rise in C02 ice sample on the left and instead of separating the other sample, the Mauna Loa sample, they basically made a slide to appear where the Mauna Loa Flask sample looked connected to the Ice sample.
So what does the viewer see, he sees a slow rising CO2 level (the ice sample,) then it sky rockets! Why be dishonest about this Al Gore? Why show two separate samples appear to be the same sample and skew it where it makes it looks like the sample areas are from the same place? Not only did they skew the data by flask sampling from one the highest co2 emitters in a natural setting, they tried to fool the viewer by making the graph slope look as if it were one continuous slope!
Why would they compare two data samples from two different areas with two different eras of time?
The answer is deception.
This is bad, klunky, fraudulent science.
JM?
And so NOW you were a science major in college too?
Hey JM? Change your nic to BS.
My goodness JM you DO get around!
So FAR you’ve been a sciene major, a hazmat expert, in the air force, etc.
etc.
etcetera.
Why waste my time?
But here goes.
ALL the CO2 sources you list are NATURAL. The planet has means for coping with them.
The human produced CO2 is NOT natural and IS increasing exponentially.
And you DIDN’t answer my question!
How is conservation, restriction of pollution, and a healthy attitude toward the Earth BAD??
What is to lose by addressing this problem proactively?
Or…..are you only for getting into wars proactively as your other posts suggest?
JM you win honors here. You are the biggest kook to wander in since Paul F Rosell. And THAT is saying something.
J R
If you are old enough, one can have several careers. And Yes a B.S. and M.S. means you went through the College of Sciences at a University to get a degree in Science. Since I’m a Safety Engineer, my degree has more chemistry and biology in it rather than other types of science. Yes, HAZMAT is integrated with the Safety Profession. (yawn)
I mentioned all natural gases?
“Here are some greenhouse gases emitters,Man made CO2 – 5 billion tons produced”
Man Made gases are natural? Okay…
How is conservation, restriction of pollution, and a healthy attitude toward the Earth BAD??
No that question would not be bad if global warming wasn’t made on erroneous conclustions.
Do you know why NASA is extremely miffed at the Global Warming People?
It is because the Global Warming People deny that the most accurate temperature data available, computer verified Satellite and Meteoriological Balloon data isEXCLUDED. Nasa provides this data free of charge to anyone.
Why do the GLOBAL WARMING PEOPLE EXCLUDE THIS DATA?
It is because it does not show a temperature rise as the GLOBAL WARMING people want!
What is to lose by addressing this problem proactively?
If there isn’t a problem, how can it be addressed proactively?
Yeah, okay perhaps global warming might be a problem to some beach front property owners, but this climate change has recurred many, many times in the earth’s history before man and since man’s beginnings.
Global Warming is a natural occurence. Man Made Emissions of C02 only represent 0.24 percent of total C02 emissions.
Explain to me why the medieval period had higher temperatures without on SUV running up and down the King’s highway?
Explain why we are just starting to come out of the ‘Little Ice Age’ as described by many climatologists.
Explain why it was Global Cooling before 1975 that was the concern.
Explain why Jimmy Carter said in 1978 we would use all up ALL OIL RESERVES in 10 years.
I’ll make it easy on you…
BAD SCIENCE!
Here’s one last thing: Explain why almost 10,000 U.S. scientiests signed with the National Academy of Science to conclude that Global Warming was bad science. This includes 6 Nobel Prize winners.
Here’s an easy one for you…
How many Nobel Prizes have been given to Global Warming Scientists?
Zero, zip…they know bad science when they see it.
Almost forgot, that signatory against Global Warming isn’t the Oregon writ either.
StilJM – the site I link has further links to numerous peer-reviwed sites. One good one there is realclimate.org. I don’t know that I am linking U Michigan; I am linking Weather Underground. I use that as a sort of portal to everything else.
I also use it to check current weather in many places.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/928.asp
The scientific concensus. Link there and from there to various others:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
I collected a list of climate change position papers put out by the major governmental scientific institutes of the world that deal with the atmosphere, ocean, and climate. All of these organizations (at least that I could find) agree that significant human-caused climate change is occurring:
United Nations IPCCAmerican Meteorological SocietyNOAAU.S. National Academy of SciencesNASAEPAAmerican Geophysical UnionNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchRoyal Society of the United KingdomCanadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Science, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Royal Society (UK)
Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK)
If anyone can find examples of governmental scientific organizations that deny the consensus position, I’d be happy to make a second list of links. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have long been hostile to international climate change negotiations, so their scientific organizations may well have official positions opposing the consensus. However, the Saudis are apparently changing their stance, as announced in May 2006 at a U.N. sponsored meeting in Germany. “I believe the petroleum industry should actively engage in policy debate on climate change as well as play an active role in developing and implementing carbon management technologies to meet future challenges,” said the president of the Saudi state-run oil industry giant, Aramco. In 2005, both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gases. However, the Protocol does not call on them to reduce their emissions.
In summary, there is an overwhelming level of scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. Those who defend the contrary view are fond of pointing out that we shouldn’t stifle their opposing point of view, since heroes like Galileo with his sun-centered solar system view and Wegener with his continental drift theory both challenged the overwhelming scientific consensus of their day and were proved to be correct. That is true. However, Galileo and Wegener did not have the public relations staff of multi-billion dollar companies helping them promote their contrary views. I’m not too worried about the contrarian view of human-caused climate change being stifled, and would like to see the media stop quoting the contary views of such think tanks as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall foundation, and scientists such as S. Fred Singer of the SEPP. Getting one’s climate science information from these sources it similar to getting one’s news from a tabloid newspaper. Sure, some of the stories are true, but a lot of the material is of questionable quality, to say the least. The media should focus on getting their scientific information from leading climate scientists who regularly publish in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The best easily available source of this infomation is from realclimate.org, a web site maintained by some of the world’s foremost climate scientists.
Dr. Jeff Masters, Chief Meteorologist for The Weather Underground
BTW – NASA scientists are in agreement with warming; the bureaucrats try to silence them. ALL data is used, from ALL sources.
JM
There are those better equipt than I to take you to task.
I am not a man of letters. I AM a pursuer of truth.
What is your interest here JM?
Why are you FOR continuous and unaddressed human production of greenhouse gases?
Are you invested or employed by the fossil fuels industry?
I note here JM that you have on multiple occasions “melted down” on this forum. You have done so because your “pro life” views have been discredited. You have done so because you are dissatisfied with the sign in procedure.
You did these things to yourself JM. I am just helping you.:)
J R,
My pro life views have not been discredited, they have been denied by people who shout me down, call names and generally are rude in response. The exception is Political Mom who took the time to discuss. Although I disagree with her I acknowledge her position and consider it one with honor. She didn’t stoop to one line bumper sticker logic.
Now, back to Global Warming.
For one, let me make it very clear. Is there such thing as Global Warming? Of course and always has been. Is there such a thing as an anthropomophic driven (man-driven) Global Warming?
Not with the data we know now there isn’t.
And Ben,
Here’s what the Official NASA website says on Global Warming and not those ‘pretend’ Websites that put NASA in their name to appear official.
From the NASA library:
“Projections of greenhouse gas concentrations alone cannot tell scientists how much the Earth’s surface will warm or the climate will change. To make forecasts, they must employ climate models, which are essentially computer simulations of the climate.
Scientists are currently not sure what role clouds will play in a future global warming scenario. They could possibly change to either enhance or to offset any warming due to greenhouse gases. For instance, as the Earth heats up, the cloud composition in the atmosphere could change dramatically.
NASA climate modelers at GISS have evidence that black carbon aerosol particles (soot) contributes significantly to warming of the lower atmosphere, since they absorb incoming radiation. The IPCC, on the other hand, estimates that black soot plays only a very small role in warming.
Most of the pre-satellite, pre-1970 data were collected in urban areas using many types of thermometers that were spread far apart. Such measurements are subject to human error and do not give a clear depiction of ocean temperatures. Until satellite data are collected for several more decades, some researchers feel that the temperature data remain too unreliable to take at face value.Though data collection and modeling efforts have come a long way in the last 25 years, NASA and other agencies dealing with global warming are still a long way off from forecasting the future with certainty. But this new generation of satellite remote sensors are far more sophisticated than their predecessors.”======So Ben, what I am discrediting is this “ram-it-down-your throat-give us-several-billion-dollars-or-else Kyoto Kooks” group of people that claim that all of global warming catastrophes can be assigned to man made emissions. In the U.S. Al Gore has taken the chairman position of that group for some odd reason.
Ask any reputable scientist including those contributing data to Gore’s Man-Made Global Warming group and they will say with 99.9 percent certainty that they just don’t have enough data to make any conclusion to show what the next century’s temperature range will be like.
The Volstok Russia Ice Core samples are out now and much discussion is going on. I’m reading up on the data and studying intently what various Scientists are saying around the world.
What most of the scientist in that group are saying now, is they cannot conclude with any degree of certainity what temperatures will be in a Century from now. They are still struggling correlating data down to a 10,000 year cycle.
With that I bid you all good nite.
It is 55 deg F at Midnight in Wichita Dec. 30. Check historical records for this date. The low is going to be around 50. (’m going to risk a prediction: 52 at 7 AM.)
The normal low is 21. The normal low for SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA for Dec. 30 is 49. The normal low for HOUSTON TEXAS is 41. Right now it is 73 DEGREES. A normal MAY 30 midnight reading for Houston is 73.
A 55 degree midnight reading for Wichita is MAY 1.
What part of global warming is it that some of you don’t understand?
The greenhouse gas theory and its computer models say that the most significant part of warming in mid-latitudes will be an increase in wintertime low nightly temps. It’s here folks. It was here last year too. We’re drawing a humongous mass of subtropical air from the Gulf of Mexico. That didn’t happen historically until March.
Let’s not confuse everyone with isolated weather statistics referring to a Climate Change.
For those interested,check here to see the difference between Weather and Climate.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
The low last night was 55 degrees. This is a profound anomaly. Last night’s LOW TEMPERATURE was 15 degrees warmer than the normal DAYTIME HIGH at this time of year. It was equal to the average DAYTIME HIGH in the SECOND WEEK OF MARCH.
My neighbor’s lawn is as green as a typical coastal California lawn for this time of year. Last year it maintained some green through the entire winter, so we’re not talking about a few days of warm weather here and there.
StillJM,
So you believe that since scientists cannot solidly predict “the next century’s temperature range”, we should NOT do anything?
The northern latitudes ARE warming, as predicted by the climate models.
Melting Arctic ice, methane from thawing permafrost, etc are positive feedbacks.
Do you personally guarantee that it is 100% impossible for those feedbacks to take Earth’s climate past the “tipping point”.
You are betting on the future of our only planet.
Your NASA quote: “Most of the pre-satellite, pre-1970 data…” comes from the “SKEPTICS” section of,http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/warming5.html“While the general consensus among scientists is that global warming is real and its overall effects are detrimental,…”
That NASA column was written in April 2002 — more data has been collected, and there are fewer “skeptics”.
Re your “Global Cooling before 1975″, “medieval period”, volcanos, Greenland, etc, I suggest as a starting point, http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/guides-by-category.html
Water vapor has been heavily studied — it’s a “feedback”, not a “forcing”, like CO2, and other GHG’s.
If humans could somehow quickly cause a change in water vapor, precip/evap would restore the equilibrium within a month or so.
But CO2 from the proposed Holcomb coal plants could stay in Earth’s atmosphere for a century, or longer. It would warm our Earth for that entire time.
It would be our “gift” that keeps giving, to future generations. /sarcasm
“Water vapor has been heavily studied — it’s a “feedback”, not a “forcing”, like CO2, and other GHG’s.”
WRONG, totaly WRONG. Water vapor is one of the greenhouse gases. Just look at your own links! Mater vapor is 1000 times a better greenhouse gas than CO2!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“But CO2 from the proposed Holcomb coal plants could stay in Earth’s atmosphere for a century, or longer.”
WHER do you get that from. NASA states that the residency of CO@ in the atmosphere is something like 15 years, not a century. We can absorb tons of CO2 in the Western Kansas area. Actually, the Western Kansas areas needs MORE CO2 to make the photosynthesis more effecient, adn produce more corps. THAT is the limiting factor and well yes the water.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NUclear Plants are MUCH better than any of the hippie crystal gripping nonsense that has been posted here. The 60’s were a long time ago and the “experience experiment” was a failure. SO stop with the hippie crystal gripping nonsense!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
JM is right:
“The answer is deception.
This is bad, klunky, fraudulent science.”The scientists are driven by their need for grant money and since it is better to perpatrate a fraud than get any real answers and shut off the money flow, they blame the corporations, instead of looking at the true source, natural and we can do nothing about that. Additionally, IF this is a man influenced issue, then we haven’t got a prayer. CHINA and INDIA will be TRIPLING our coal and fossil fuel consumption in just the next decade.
You need to take that in your equations your greeniacs before you start spouting off that you know the reason. YOU DON’T and CAN’T know shit about this because you are too biased ofr scientific rationale. You are clouded with political agenda.
In Alaska right now, coastal communities that with marine moderation normally have 20’s lows, such as Juneau, Sitka, Seward and Valdez didn’t even get an overnight frost last night (temps 36 to 39). Anchorage’s low was 27. Fairbanks was +9. Its normal low is -18 this time of year. Remember Napoleon and Hitler’s disastrous winter-folly invasions of St. Petersburg (Stalingrad)? It got a light frost last night (30).
There is an intense cold-air mass in Siberia with temps -40 to -60 right now. But it’s very small. It will send colder temps eastward to North America next month, but in the mass itself will moderate in the process. Right now the Jet Stream west of it is veering south into China, and then east to Japan, and then British Columbia.
Canada doesn’t have a major cold airmass to speak of at this point, and what there is is too far east to affect the Midwest. The Jet Stream is siphoning off part of it to Ontario, and then eastward.
We still have another 6-8 weeks of winter ahead and one or two larger very cold subpolar air masses will likely form next month. My hunch is that we may get one or two snowstorms followed by nighttime teen-lows in January, with quick returns to lows in the upper-20’s to 30’s.
asbestos,
Learn how to read. I did not say that water vapor was not a greenhouse gas.’Water vapour: feedback or forcing?’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
CO2 stays in atmos for decades to centuries.
How do you plan to keep “MORE CO2″ in Kansas? Extra CO2 mostly helps weeds grow faster — other plants require more fertilizer.
So WalMart is doing “hippie crystal gripping nonsense”, by designing their new buildings 30 to 50% more energy efficient?
The AGW debate is basically over, except for people like you, and Pat Michaels, who’s funded by the coal industry. The scientists are now looking at adaption and mitigation issues.
Why do we have to make the same mistakes as China and India?
You need to learn how to read idiot. You stated it was not a “forcing” GHG, WRONG again, you need to read what YOU post. It is NOT a feedback.
“Water vapor has been heavily studied — it’s a “feedback”, not a “forcing”, like CO2, and other GHG’s.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++”The AGW debate is basically over, except for people like you, and Pat Michaels, who’s funded by the coal industry.”
Wrong Again. The IPCC and NOAA has scaled back their influence of man produced GHG effect ot a 25% of the total. WHOOPS. I guess you are off your rocker worshiping at the alter of AL BORE, and basing your “science” on political agneda. You are a screwball there COSMOS, and haven’t a clue about what you are saying.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
“Why do we have to make the same mistakes as China and India?”
Another idiotic response. We AREN’T MAKING the mistakes. CHINA and INDIA are making the MISTAKES that we corrected DECADES AGO!! DUMBASS! READ THE DAMN POST!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Heartlander is an idiot too.”We still have another 6-8 weeks of winter ahead and one or two larger very cold subpolar air masses will likely form next month.”
Winter just started on Dec. 21. We have had 2 massive cold air masses come in in lass than 10 days into the “WINTER”. Additionally snowfall this year is WAY HIGH. And we are only in the first 10 days.
Additionally, what happened to the hurricane season that was to be so bad because of “Global Warming”?????
Your camp was wrong on that, just as AL BAGY and his f-ed up movie was hysterics at the time of Katrina and Rita. An anomolous season does NOT make a trend.
If any of you were truley scientisit, you would know how to look at data.
Dumbasses!
Substitute deception with concern, and you more closely relate todays scientist and his/her concern about global warming.
I would find it interesting if stilljm were to answer openmindeds question concerning (there’s that word again)the effects of co2 when combined with his thinking the sun’s migrational wonderings warming of the planet.
Can the earth overcome the imbalance in the overabundance of co2 and the heating effect of the sun? And do it without seriously depleting man’s lifestyle, as well as man himself? What proof do you offer?
Heartlander,
Texas had 9 tornadoes yesterday — odd for late Dec.
StillJM,
Thanks for the link to NASA’s “climate_weather” page. U.S. map shows impressive warming in 2005, compared to 1950-1995 longterm average. 2006?
And one of many examples of what scientists have learned since April 2002,’Climate Warming Reduces Ocean Food Supply’ (Dec 2006)http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/warm_marine.html
Less phytoplankton = positive (bad) climate feedback.
An excellent (and scary) column re climate feedbacks. Read it, and consider how insane it is to propose building new coal-fired plants.
“Review of the year: Global warmingOur worst fears are exceeded by reality”http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2110651.ece
asbestos,
Learn to read. Scientists label water vapor a “feedback”.
“The IPCC and NOAA has scaled back their influence of man produced GHG effect ot a 25% of the total.”
Again, you MISREAD. They said that the “EFFECT” is less, due to unexpected cooling caused by the aerosols we emit, and the ocean’s heat absorbtion.
The actual impact is TEMPORARILY DELAYED.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml“It also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.
Large amounts of heat have been absorbed by the oceans, masking the warming effect.
Prof Rick Battarbee, the director of the Environmental Change Research Centre at University College London, warned these masking effects had helped to DELAY global warming but would lead to LARGER changes in the future.”
“Again, you MISREAD. They said that the “EFFECT” is less, due to unexpected cooling caused by the aerosols we emit, and the ocean’s heat absorbtion.”
What part of the draft IPCC report was that on. I did not see it. NO it was pretty clear. Man produced CO2 contributions to the Issue is reduced to 25%. Sorry idiot. YOU are the one that needs to read.
And BTW, one looney abscure Professor lining his pockets with GW Grants is not the best source of research. Again, the “consensus (you guys liked it until the consensus went away) is that there is NO WAY for Human produced greenhouse gases outpace natures.
BTW, there is a UK scientist that says that it is cow farts that is the major GHG that is causing the warming.
SO ther you go.
YOU do NO KNOW ANYTHING for sure on this issue.
Addressing global warming proactively means:
less pollutiondevelopment of alternative energy sources
a greater respect for the planet
How can ANYONE be against this? Where is the loss?
JR,
I too belive that we should ween ourselves off fossil fuels and become better stewards of our planet’s enviroment. I have erected a power generating windmill on my property, I have installed solar panels and I have purchased a hybrid vehicle.
However, the hysterics and outright falshoods propagated by Al gore and his ilk are offputting. The evil Kyoto accords should have been rejected as they are a giant macroeconomic global social welfare scheme that will give China, India and other a license to befould the planet at our expense.
viva La Raza Blanco!!
Glad to see there is a continuing debate. If you think this debate is hot, just read a few lines from PhD’s who will cut each’s other professional throat just to hold on to some sort of turf.
DustyChaps,
As far as the man-made CO2, I thought I addressed that. It is in the low end of all the CO2 producers. And yeah we probably need to watch ourselves. But’s they why we have a Federal EPA, State EPA’s and a zillion other watchdog agencies in the U.S.
We don’t need contribute billions to the Kyoto fund for something we are already doing.
I’m not one of the bad guys and I think it was J R asked if I worked for the oil industry. No, I’m currently retired, but will come out on a contract if they need a mule to do some grunt work at a site.
I’ll be the guy going along with the detection and measurement instruments along with one of my PhD Industrial Hygiene friends that do the measurements on facilities like Coal Fired Plants or to check places like Boeing that use solvents or maybe even something as mundane on how a Consumer Safety Issue that a match book is flaring up into a ball of flame for no apparent reason.
It’s what I do and have done, protect the people.
This is why I know that there are agencies already in place to protect the citizens of the United States.
We don’t need to pay blackmail money to the Kyoto Treaty. Are they going to protect us? Nope, they will just continually come out with some barely studied policy.
Then they will get some naive countries to ban something like oil, where you can use only synthetics or substitutes only on their terms.
Irrational decisions like they Kyoto Treaty will drive nations into bankruptcy all for the half-baked theories of a few who can’t even agree with each other.
asbestos,
For whatever reason(s), you seem unable to understand a simple concept a young child could grasp.
Aerosols (from coal-fired power plants, etc) BLOCK some of the sun’s energy – like a giant shade cloth out in space. That masks/hides the heat “forcings” of human-added CO2 and other GHG’s.
A child could understand how our vast oceans (with mixing currents) could delay heating of our air — but you can’t understand that.
Methane (20 times more potent than CO2) from “cow farts” IS a problem — but the huge amounts from thawing permafrost of Siberia and northern Canada could be MUCH worse.And unlike “cow farts”, humans will NOT be able to stop thawing permafrost.
asbestos: ” what happened to the hurricane season that was to be so bad because of “Global Warming”?????”
It is GLOBAL, not “Atlantic & Gulf of Mexico warming”. 180+ mph winds aren’t fast enuf for you?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005-06_Southern_Hemisphere_tropical_cyclone_seasonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Pacific_typhoon_season
cosmos – didn’t you know? If it doesn’t hit the US it doesn’t count!
Ben,
You’re right… and also, asbestos (et al) seem to be stuck back in the 1980’s, spewing old fossil-energy funded BS.
StillJM,
“As far as the man-made CO2, I thought I addressed that. It is in the low end of all the CO2 producers.”
You “addressed” it by ignoring the fact that CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26% of Earth’s greenhouse “forcing”.
You “addressed” it by ignoring the LONG time CO2 remains in our atmosphere — and the fact that humans have caused it to to rise from 280 ppm up to 380 ppm. And it’s still climbing…
What part of global, orbiting satellites and U.S. Joint Ventures in Ocean, Atmosphere and Environment is not understandable? Thousands of U.S. Scientists already participating in studies globally.
We do not need to give some U.N. sinkhole sponsored organization like Kyoto billions and billion of dollars to do suspect research concentrating only on biased agendas.
This is already being done in the U.S. in spades!
Let’s stop giving away our National Wealth just because some opportunistic scientists what to cash in on their latest theories.
If they want to contribute their theories by getting funding elsewhere, then by means go for it.
No thank you to increasing the National Debt of the U.S.
StillJM,
The Kyoto Treaty is about “billions and billion of dollars” to do climate research? First time I’ve heard about that. Links/proof please?
And while you’re at it, please explain why WalMart’s new buildings are designed to be 30 to 50% more energy efficient.(Hint: Saving energy, which also REDUCES greenhouse gases, is profitable!)
“… and the fact that humans have caused it to to rise from 280 ppm up to 380 ppm.”
That is NOT a proven fact that it came from HUMANS. It is true it increased, but NO ONE has tied it difinetively to HUMANS production. IF you do , you have to address CHINA and INDIA. What dumbasses!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“The Kyoto Treaty is about “billions and billion of dollars” to do climate research? First time I’ve heard about that. Links/proof please?”
COSOMS you are a fing idiot. You spout unsubstanciated OPIONIO as fact, however when something comes up that OPPOSES your POV you need a link that you will never go to or never read. You are a prick.
HINT: WalMArt is the LAST organization on earth that cares about being “green” unless they can market it. They are doing it for the same reason anyone else is, energy costs money and they do not do it for CO2 reductin. What a moron!
ASBESTOS – I have posted links showing that there is a scientific consensus that the 280-280-380 jump is anthropoganic.
Ben
You are using words too big to communicate effectively with ASBESTOS.
ASBESTOS? When intelligent people are having a discussion? You’d best stick to reading. I’ve yet to see you add anything to any thread beyond rants and profanity.
asbestos,
“That is NOT a proven fact that it came from HUMANS… IF you do , you have to address CHINA and INDIA. What dumbasses!”
“… energy costs money…”
Thank you VERY much, for proving my earlier points.
“As far as the man-made CO2, I thought I addressed that. It is in the low end of all the CO2 producers. And yeah we probably need to watch ourselves.” . . . .stilljm.
You know, jm, I agree with you in some aspects of global warming. Where we disagree is in the fact we ARE contributing in a detrimental way, as is the rest of the world.
Where I have reservations about Kyoto is in giving third world nations, including China, basically free passes while hammering developed countries. If co2 levels are going to be reduced, it will take, especially third world country compliance, massive efforts to do so.
Telling countries like most of south america, mexico, and asian that they can “buy” credits to offset co2 production is just plain wrong. If these countries intend to join the rest of the developed nations, they need to focus on the environment as a way of life.
While man’s co2 production may rank below natural production, it still adds mega tons of the gas to the atmosphere on a daily basis. Saying western kansas needs more co2 is both ridiculous and disengenous. It needs WATER, not co2; and the more co2 in the atmosphere, the less water the west will get. That has been shown on virtually every climate modal to date.
Western Kansas is NOT the place for a coal fired energy plant . . . NO place is.
O, ya, before someone brings up the fact third world countries need money, I might be the devils advocate and ask: why are they third world countries in the first place? Ya think POLITICS has anything to do with it?
“Where I have reservations about Kyoto is in giving third world nations, including China, basically free passes while hammering developed countries.”
Thank you Dusty for acknowledging that. I lived in asia for a while and their air is terrible. Thank you for being honest about this facet of Kyoto.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Telling countries like most of south america, mexico, and asian that they can “buy” credits to offset co2 production is just plain wrong.”
Those 2 reasons are very good reasons NOT to comply with Kyoto. Those are the deal blowers for me.
“ASBESTOS – I have posted links showing that there is a scientific consensus that the 280-280-380 jump is anthropoganic.
Posted by: Ben Huie | December 30, 2006 at 06:20 PM”
FROM WIKIPEDIA??? You are NOT serious? I was quoting from the NEW draft IPCC document that has been leaked. It replaces the older stuff that is in the WIKI statment that is wrong. IPCC has backed away from the “anthropogenic” influence since CHINA is giving them hell now. ANd well China can pllute because they, well are NOT America.
ASBESTOS – You KNOW my link was NOT Wikipedia. You are lying – AGAIN.
By the way – China is people too, not nature. So, China (and India) is also an anthropogenic source.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
IPCC – a link from the one I commonly use as a portal.
If you have a newer IPCC document post it.
I don’t use Wikipedia for things like this; just as I do not rely on Gore’s movie. I have much better sources than those.
Here you go Abestos here are some smoking guns that blow the Wikipedia IPCC spoon-fed data (280ppm CO2)right out of the water. You see if IPCC gets data they don’t like, they just throw it out. (uh oh, bad science again.)The author references Professor Jaworski, Ice Core projects done within the past three decades.
“First, there are two issues wiith deep ice cores that could lead to sample loss. Temperature is one, but the other one is pressure. I have not seen any solutions to the pressure issue. Jawarowski brought up this issue, however I have not seen his detrators deal with this issue. For every 10 m of ice core depth pressure increases by approximately 1 atmosphere. Very deep ice cores are thus under pressures of hundreds of atmospheres. When these cores are brought to the surface the pressure change will have an effect on the ice.”
Smoking Gun#1:The data from shallow ice cores, such as those from Siple, Antarctica[5, 6], are widely used as a proof of man-made increase of CO2 content in the global atmosphere, notably by IPCC[7]. These data show a clear inverse correlation between the decreasing CO2 concentrations, and the load-pressure increasing with depth (Figure 1 A). The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was “too high”. This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. The CO2 atmospheric concentration of about 328 ppmv was measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii as later as in 1973[8], i.e. 83 years after the ice was deposited at Siple.
Imagine that that, CO2 concentration was 328ppm in an ice core sample in 1890 and in 1973 the much abused Mauna Loa CO2 flask sample was 328. Makes you go “hmmmm” doesn’t it.
Smoking Gun #2:From the United States Geological Survey:On the Big Island, we have a significant natural source of greenhouse gas. Kilauea volcano emits more than 700,000 tons of CO2 each year, less than 0.01% of the yearly global contribution by human sources. For some local perspective, this is about the same amount of CO2 as is emitted by 132,000 sport utility vehicles (there are 118,000 registered vehicles on the island).
By the way, Kilauea is located on the same Island as Mauna Loa Volcano Bed sample site and in fact is its next door sample. Can we say sample fudging by the Mauna Loa people?
Also, since the Kilauea Volcanic eruptions the incidence of asthma related deaths in the entire U.S.! Who you gonna believe about emissions from Volcanos? The Mauna Loa observatory or those precious lungs of deceased children of Hawaii.
Smoking Gun #4:
Recent Ice Samples from Siple Dome, the same place where those 1950 ice samples IPCC so heavily relies upon revealed mean samples of 390ppm of CO2. What? Yeah, 390ppm. The samples were take between January 2001 to March 2003.
Smoking Gun#5:
Don’t believe there is more data? Let your lieing eyes review this data which shows chemical analysis of CO2 data from 1900-1965.http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/co2vsSSTg.gif
Sorry about that I left out Smoking Gun#3 due to a cut and paste error.
heh, anyway there it is, love it or hate it.
I’d sure like to see his complete analysis rather than just this carefully redacted piece. By the way StillJM – where did Wikipedia ever enter this discussion?
Who is Warwick Hughes anyway?
Ben,
My apologies on the Wikipedia reference, I didn’t finish reading your response to Asbestos.
Here’s two links to the German and Polish Scientist Research. I’ll get the 2001-2003 reference when I get back from visting my daughter.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/BeckCO2short.pdfE-G Beck Paper
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zj21c97.pdfZbigniew Jaworski Paper (5mb in size)
I don’t know who E G Beck is exactly. These papers are not exactly peer-reviewed to my knowledge, but make good fodder for blog discussions. heh
Anyway a couple of dissenting scientists who ‘appear’ to have some solid data backing their claims.
Occured to me I didn’t answer who Warwick Hughes is?
He claims to be a freelance Earth Scientist from Australia. Not sure what freelance Earth Scientist is? Rock Collector or Geologist?
http://www.warwickhughes.com/
He has an email at his website, I suppose you could write him and ask him for credentials.
ASBESTOS, your statement about winter starting on Dec. 21st confuses the four “season-marking” solar phases originating in the Middle East (two solstices, two equinoxes) with solar and climatic seasons elsewhere. For example, in northernmost Norway, the sun doesn’t rise after November 14. No sun is equated with “winter”. A lot of Antarctic research ceases in March (September equivalent) because strong winter storms begin in April (Oct. equivalent). In northern Canada and Alaska, winter (subzero temps, lake surfaces freezing without thawing until spring) historically starts in November.
Remember the lost Mt. Hood climbers? They sought winter conditions–and got them–on Dec. 7. The coldest nights I ever experienced in low-elevation Oregon–loss of power from ice-downed power lines, had to hunker down in sleeping bags with a woodstove fire for two days, occurred in early December. In British Columbia, Washington and Oregon, the “winter” skiing season starts Thanksgiving weekend. Enough snow to ski on = winter. Having to put chains on your tires, or studs, in late November, is winter, to Oregonians. I put on chains and then ordered studs. That’s my experience.
Even in Kansas, some of the coldest nights of the winter have occurred before Dec. 22. This year, Dec. 1 had a 3 degree low. Let me assure you that the vast majority of nights next month and in February, will have higher temps. We could go below +3, and I think a lower temp sometime next month or in early February is a pretty strong possibility. But nevertheless, there won’t be many January or February days this year that get down to +3 degrees. I think most readers here would say, +3 degrees is a WINTER temp. Maybe not for you ASBESTOS, but for most Wichitans +3 degrees sure feels like winter. That episode was made possible by a subarctic cold air mass that started developing in mid-November.
Don’t take my word for on this, here are some extraordinary statements from World Class Climatologists and other Scientists.
There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures — one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. ”
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicistProfessor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service==========”I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth’s most powerful greenhouse gas– water vapor. ”
Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climateLamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
======The very close correlation between sunspot number and temperature is very clear. At present there have been literally hundreds of studies carried out showing a similar correlation.remarks were delivered at the Risk: Regulation and Reality Conference by Dr. Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology at Carleton University. I am a Quaternary geologist by profession. That is to say that my research interests are focused primarily on about the last 2 million years of Earth’s history. An important aspect of my research is assessing past climate conditions. Thus I am also a paleoclimatologist. Earth’s climate has varied considerably during the past 2 million years or so as indicated by the more than 33 glacial major advances and retreats that have occurred through this interval. Based on geologic paleoclimatic data it is obvious that climate is and has been very variable. Thus the only real constant about climate is change. It changes continually.
Take a look at Dr. Tim Patterson’s Sun Spot/Temperature Rise/CO2 rise chart.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M
Dr. Patterson also said, “”There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.”
======And, there is plenty more where that comes from.
“Maybe not for you ASBESTOS, but for most Wichitans +3 degrees sure feels like winter. That episode was made possible by a subarctic cold air mass that started developing in mid-November.”
So you are saying in your defense of Global Warming that Kansas is experiencing an unseasonably COLD winter? How is that possible?
StillJM,
You really should check on what scientists have to say about your “extraordinary statements”. Example, Singer’s “450 million years ago”,http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/an_embarrassment_to_australian.php “Well yes, over hundreds of millions of years, things like continental drift and long term changes in the sun are more important to climate than CO2. I’d keep that in mind if I was try to predict what the climate would be like in 100 million years. What about over the last 400,000 years? Study the graph below.”
A good “point-counterpoint” on Avery/Singers talk,http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air
StillJM: “And, there is plenty more where that comes from.”
And it’s mostly from fossil-energy and/or right-wing funded sources.http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.htmlhttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Patterson
They spread misinformation, trying to delay action on AGW . Many non-science people are gullible enough to believe Singer’s 450 million years-ago BS.
You can believe them if you want to, but it makes you look foolish.
Heartlander reminded me of all the odd weather I’ve seen in my lifetime.
When I lived in Texas, I’ve gotten both 75 degree days and two inches of snow for the Holiday Season. That was almost 45 years ago.
As a Kid playing in Kansas, I remember my grandfather wouldn’t allow me outside because his thermometer read 112F. I also remember sheets of ice on cars as thick as 2×4’s in March, snow in April. I remember the snow forts we built from two to three feet of snow fall. I remembe white Christmas’s and some with no snow and relative ly warm. That was 50-60 years ago.
I remember summer dust storms in Oklahoma with the subsequent winter being extremely cold with lots of ice.
I got stuck in that Blizzard in Ohio for three days in 78 or 79, don’t remember exactly.
I remember my grandfather dutifully waiting to plant his potatoes because the Farmers Almanac said there would be a freeze. Sure enough there was and his neighbors lost part of their new potatoe crop.
I remember one time in Oklahoma in getting nice moderate weather, rain, sleet and then snow within a 5 minute drive outside of Oklahoma City. No other areas of the state were affected.
And in reference to this topic, I remember seeing Polar Bears in about every big zoo known for it’s moderate weather. They appeared to be enjoying themselves basking in the sun.
StillJM,
“I don’t know who E G Beck is exactly. These papers are not exactly peer-reviewed to my knowledge, but make good fodder for blog discussions. heh”
No, they’re stinking garbage, and a waste of bandwidth. You might want to read, and study the graph at,http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
COSMOS your “REALCLIMATE” website is a hoot. It is a propaganda machine for the global warming nuts. From that site:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/
“DisclaimerThe contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the organizations for which they work, nor the agencies which fund them. The contributors are solely responsible for the content of the site and receive no remuneration for their contributions.”
So the “contributions” from say an “off the reservation” scientist from NOAA and NASA and NWS are NOT representing the views of those agencies. SO I found out your wer misrepresenting the Agency, and it is the “INDIVIDUAL’S OPINION”, not reflective of the agency.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
Additionally there is this:
“AboutFiled under: Extras— group @ 12:00 am – ()RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.”
They are a PROPAGDA STIE!!! ANd you quote them for science when they say their site is for the “media and educating the masses”?? That is what all propagandists do, what a hoot! It looks as if “REALCLIMATE” is the one spreading disinformatin.—–
And from the “Union of Concerned Scientists”:
http://www.ucsusa.org/ Three topics:
“The reality of feed at animal factories
Global warming bears human fingerprints
Nuclear attack on Iran would be a deadly mistake”
AND:
“They have on the front page “URGE the EPA to stop destroying documents”. They are not destroying any documents, they are however digitizing them and putting them on the web so they are available to ALL. This is a left wing site if I ever saw one. Closing down the libraries, and digitizing all the court cases, data, ROP, CA and SEPs, was the BEST thing because you can search them.”
That is where I found out Wichita is violating the law on their 2 sites, the Gilbert and Mosley Site and the North Commercial Corridor. Illegally taken off the NPL under CERCLA.
Before you worry about the big things (global climate change) worry about the things we should be able to control (superfund sites in Wichita, with out fleecing the state on cleanup funding)
here is another one that is a hoot on the “Union of Concerned Scientists”
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/vetting-experts-on-who-panel.html
The UCS want the US HHS to NOT vette their “experts” before they are giving testimoney to the other Global bodies such as the UN or WHO. They want no oversight, and any idiot that has a political appointment is fine by them????
Half truths from UCS again:
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/international-aids-conference.html
They are pissed because we spent less money on the “conference” “The amount HHS spent on supporting the conference was also sharply reduced, from $3.6 million in 2002 to $500,000 in 2004.¹”
However the Bush admin. DID expand the budget on fighting AIDS to the largest in US HISTORY!!! These idiots are worried about a party??!!
NOT a very Credible group.
Did anybody mention here that when you burn hydrocarbons, the hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water vapor?
How about this one:
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/naaqs-epa-staff-paper.html
It starts off:
“A new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy could significantly minimize the role of independent science in determining acceptable levels of air pollution.”
Well it was Carol Browner whom did away with peer reviewed science in the ruling. That is how we got the “xL” program that allowed so many “brownfields” to not be cleaned up and allowed major air pollution. It was Carol Browner whom did away with the “cost benefit analysis” for “common sense reasoning”. Cost benefit had a value, common sense is not so common and reasoning is in the eye of the beholder.
So do not lay the total blame of the CAA failure to be laid at the Bush Admin’s feet.
It was Carol Browner who dreamed that up and it was terrible and not scientifically supported.
This is the last. Notice how all the articles start off blaming Pres. Bush?
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/climate-change.html
“Land modifications, mainly in the middle latitudes of the northern hemisphere, may have been a net source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere over much of the last century. However, quantitative estimates have only been possible over the last two decades, when forest clearing had shifted to the tropics. In the 1980s land became a small net sink forcarbon, that is, the various processes storing carbon globally exceeded the loss due to tropical deforestation, which by itself was estimated to add 10–40% as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as burning of fossil fuels. In the 1990s the net storage on land became much larger, nearly as large as the ocean uptake. How land contributes, by location and processes, to exchanges of carbon with the atmosphere is still highly uncertain, as is the possibility that the substantial net removal will continue to occur very far into the future.”
“The atmospheric CO2 increase over the past few decades is less than the input from human activities because a fraction of the added CO2 is removed by oceanic and terrestrial processes. Until recently, the partitioning of the carbon sink between the land and sea has been highly uncertain, but recent high-precision measurements of the atmospheric oxygen:nitrogen (O2:N2) ratio have provided a crucial constraint: fossil fuel burning and terrestrial uptake processes have different O2:CO2 ratios, whereas the ocean CO2 sink has no significant impact on atmospheric O2. The atmospheric CO2 increase for the 1990s was about half the CO2 emission from fossil fuel combustion, with the oceans and land both serving as important repositories of the excess carbon, i.e., as carbon sinks.”
Last 2 from “Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (2001)”
The Asbestos v. Asbestos Debate of 2006.
asbestos,
“SO I found out your wer misrepresenting the Agency, and it is the “INDIVIDUAL’S OPINION”, not reflective of the agency.”
Do you have a reading problem? I never claimed that RealClimate represented any agency. And they use a standard disclaimer.
ANYONE else here agree with asbestos’ claim that they’re “spreading disinformatin”?
Seem like very highly qualified scientists.’Contributors Bio’s’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10
Water vapor IS a feedback. See IPCC links in comment 1,http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=133
You cannot dispute UCSA’s list of GW “skeptics” and groups funded by fossil-energy, Rev. Moon, etc — so you misquote them on other issues?
Anyway, thank you for all the examples proving that you have problems reading… or something?
Cosmos,
I didn’t see anything there other than commentary and a graph. It was just another opinion as was E.G. Beck.
Do you even know what Peer Review is? I mean real Peer Review doing research…
It can be an exhausting and an labor intensive process. You meet boards, have committees accessing the data, it gets sent out for independent review, machines are calibrated, credentials are checked and even format of the evidence is reviewed. It’s a pain.
I wouldn’t call the data garbage, it’s just hard to independently confirmed from where I sit.
Tell, me what do you think of the Mauna Loa people doing their own calibration with no outside Independent group verifying the results? or the fact, they changed their data after calibration without notifying agencies of the fact?
I don’t do science in a classroom, I went out and did science in the field for a very long time. There is a big difference.
If I get something wrong I can lose a contract, get sued or not get hired again.
If some college group like those out in UC doing Mauna Loa get something wrong, they can just say, “Oh well, whoops…ummm.”
StillJM,
To make the most meaningful CO2 measurements, you need to be far away from industry and vegetation. Altitude also helps. Mauna Loa, barren, at 3.4 km. altitude is ideal — and they check for volcanic contamination.
“rural and isolated” = sarcasmhttp://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/amateur-night.html“Essentially all of Beck’s sources made measurements in Europe, including such rural and isolated areas as Vienna, Kopenhagen, Paris, Rostock, Dieppe, Bern, Hamburg, etc.”
StillJM: “If some college group like those out in UC doing Mauna Loa get something wrong…”
Scripps does careful, accurate work. And are you also accusing NASA of being sloppy?
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.php“NOAA started its own CO2 measurements in May of 1974, and they have run in parallel with those made by Scripps since then.”
You want to claim that their data from towers in North Carolina and Wisconsin is also wrong?http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/diurnal.html
“Scripps does careful, accurate work. And are you also accusing NASA of being sloppy?”
We have lost 2 space shuttles and crews and an Apollo CM and crew due to NASA screw-ups. We also lost the maritian lander because someone did not make a simple metric to english conversion. Something like 100 Billion on that.
NO scientist is perfect, that is why there is PEER REVIEW.
What you are arguing is the data tabulation. There is also the modeling software and algorithems that have error. The first climatic models and algorithems were TERRIBLE. Some today are not much better because of the 100s of varibles and the weighting that changes seasonally and daily. Hell, we cannot even measure mold spores with any degree of confidence, either locally or globally.
Measuring lots of tiny things that are changing, sinking, or are just not constant is tricky. It is hard enough to predict the numbers of atoms in a material with radioactive half life. NOW we are supposed to believe that scientists have this climate thing all figured out because AL BORE made a f-ing movie???
“Mauna Loa, barren, at 3.4 km. altitude is ideal — and they check for volcanic contamination.”
Mauna Loa is NOT ideal. You cannot correlate the carbon sink effect in Hawaii, a pacific island surrounded by ocean with continental levels of sinks for CO2. The production is not nearly the same either. With it being barren, then you have an anomolous reading, because most everywhere else there is plants, ie Carbon Sinks.
so no it is not ideal to even guess about what the global level is based on Mauna Loa.
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/globalview/ch4/index.html
The NOAA datasets show something NOBODY is talking about. Methane has increased far more than CO2 and is much better at trapping heat as a GHG by some 100 times that of CO2.
I wonder why NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT THAT DATA????
See what I mean as far as “varibles”.
ASBESTOS?
“We have lost 2 space shuttles and crews and an Apollo CM and crew due to NASA screw-ups. We also lost the maritian lander because someone did not make a simple metric to english conversion. Something like 100 Billion on that”
I think you want to reword that.
The first shuttle was lost due to negligence on the part of PRIVATE CONTRACTOR Morton Thiokol.
The second was a tragic freak of nature.NASA also has two rovers on the surface of Mars right now. Their expected lifetime was a few months. In a few weeks they will have been doing valuable science for TWO YEARS.
So I think you are stretching to impugn NASA.
Cosmos,
Evidently you haven’t read anything I’ve written and digested it.
There is no doubt that Scripps or anyother lab might get similar results.
What I questioned and tens of thousands of other scientist question is the actual effect of C02 on globabl warming.
Also, the fact is that the Global Warming Man-made Theorists used bad data as their base line when they compared pre-Industrial Age CO2 levels to CO2 levels of today.
Evidently, the fact that CO2 levels that were 10 times as high as they were hundreds of thousands of years ago and the climate was much colder does not make you wonder?
NASA and other U.S. agencies have said, we cannot accurately predict any climate change because we do not have the computer models. The IPCC people have used inaccurate highly variable tempature comparisons. The NASA says it will take many more years of data collection of satellite and temperature data collection before they can even make a model.
Even with those data samples, temperatures and C02 will be an extremely tiny part of what will be involved make super computer software to run climate simulators.
You are spending too much time trying to prove me wrong instead of viewing the matter objectively.
Sorry, but there is not enough data that man-made CO2 is doing anything to change the climate.
And we have our own government to deal the our emissions problem if it decided that there is one. We don’t need to pay blackmail money to someone else to decide what our future should be like.
Or better yet, and go to a foreign country and do an air sample of pollution or CO2 emmissions. You haven’t lived until you have had a coughing fit because of all the toxins expelled by cities such as Tokyo, Frankfurt, London or any other big Kyoto-signaturory city.
I’ve been to all of those cities have you?
I have a question for JM and ASBESTOS.
Now I KNOW that JM is connected and retired of the petro chemical industry. Likely he has a retirement and stocks riding in this?
ASBESTOS has NOT explained his shrill stance here. I would GUESS that his view is also biased by facts he will not share.
The question is this:
Can you to your satisfaction categorically rule out the human factor in global warming? Are you absolutely certain that it is a non issue to the point that you so advocate doing nothing?
There is an AWFUL lot at stake here. If there is even the smallest chance that all these scientists are right? Wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of caution? Your personal financial situation notwithstanding?
You think hard before you answer that.
J R
I’m not retired of the Petro Chemistry, never have worked for them, don’t have stock in any Petro relted company unless you count filling up at Quick Trip as an association or getting my oil changed at one of the Lube stations.
We are already watching our emissions in the U.S. Do yourself a favor and start COUNTING the number of agencies in State and Federal government, at the University level and independents that are already doing Climatology research, then come back and convince me we aren’t already doing something as a nation.
asbestos,
Thanks again for proving you’re clueless about science, and/or perhaps irrational.
Calibrating measuring instruments has nothing to do with space flight — and other scientists worldwide also measure CO2.
They do NOT WANT the “carbon sink effect in Hawaii”. They want an averaged, global CO2 level. A site far away from carbon sinks (and sources) is ideal.
People ARE concerned about methane — but currently the forcing from CO2 is higher, and CO2 stays in our atmosphere much longer.
“The first shuttle was lost due to negligence on the part of PRIVATE CONTRACTOR Morton Thiokol.”
Negative there. You have not read the Challanger report. It was the NASA guys pushing the Morton Thiokol engineers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“The second was a tragic freak of nature.”
NO it was foam that was shedding. Thatis what grounded the fleet for 2 years prior to Columbia and then after Discovery shed foam. NASA folks had “go fever”, the safety engineers were overidden on the Foam Before Columbia, and for Discovery’s first launch back, it still shed foam.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Even with those data samples, temperatures and C02 will be an extremely tiny part of what will be involved make super computer software to run climate simulators.”
Thanks JM from a fellow EH&S professional. I do IH work, but am not a CIH.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
“NASA and other U.S. agencies have said, we cannot accurately predict any climate change because we do not have the computer models.”
Again well said JM.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++”ASBESTOS has NOT explained his shrill stance here.”
I am an environmental Scientist. Degreed and everything. I think we need to spend money in things we CAN control and CAN make a difference in.
MY STANCE: if global warming is in fact from Human influences, and IF it is occurring at the rate, and CO2 stays in tha air sa long as COSOMS says, or as AL GORE states …. we haven’t a prayer. If the data you shills are spouting is CORRECT, we are already done for. Why? CHIAN and INDIA. You nitwits are raising hell about 3 700 MW powerplants. Well, CHINA and Inda combined will burn more coal in 8 years than we have burnt in the history of the United States.
That is why I think this is BS. If what you are saying is true, CHINA and India will not change, and we are already doomed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“There is an AWFUL lot at stake here. If there is even the smallest chance that all these scientists are right?” Yeah, so why are you giving the US hell. we are not the main or number one GHG producer anymore, not by a long ways. Most of ASIA is much worse. Go live there for a little while, you will see that their emissions are MUCH HIGHER than they ARE REPORTING!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“You think hard before you answer that.”
You need to just plain THINK. As I said, IF the your premiss is correct, we are already doomed, because of the magnitude of the GHG emissions from CHINA, INDIA and the developing world countries are ORDERS of MAGNITUDE more than the United States. Hell we have the EPA, and state agencies. What does India have? What does CHINA have?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And finally, DUMBASS, I AM NOT ADVOCATING DOING NOTHING.
I AM ADVOCATING NUCLEAR GENERATION.
NO EMISSIONS OF GHG.
“Calibrating measuring instruments has nothing to do with space flight — and other scientists worldwide also measure CO2.”
Spin from a dumbass loosing the argument.
“They do NOT WANT the “carbon sink effect in Hawaii”. They want an averaged, global CO2 level. A site far away from carbon sinks (and sources) is ideal.”
what do you call that big blue wet thing circling Hawaii hence it’s name as “islands”? It is called an ocean and is a MAJORT sink. So as I was saying, there is NO AVERAGING there IF you want to get away from the sinks!
You guys do not know science at all. What you are doing is spouting the left wing talking points and what some obscure professor kissing Al gore’s ass states.
That is no more science that the yahoos in Kansas wanting to have Creo/ID as a “scientific theory” to be taught and tested on in Public schools.
Sicence is just that. The minute it starts getting political (Al Gore Earth In the Balance, and that looney chick that wrote “Silent Spring”) is nothing but hysterics. Silent Spring caused the banning of DDT. Is that a good thing? The Democrats loved it then. However, in our International Assistance, we are seeing Malaria coming back. The DDT USE needed to be controled, not banned. By banning DDT some 25,000,000 people have died. Malaria making a comeback. We nearly had it wiped out.
THAT is the problem with “JUNK SCIENCE”.
JM
I have apparently mis read your posts. I assumed you were affiliated with the energy industry.
ASBESTOS
Now you’re a scientist? I could be wrong again. But I think you told us before you are in construction.
In any case, I doubt you are a scientist. You don’t come across like one.
Only a fool fights in a burning house. Fortunately? The public is coming around to the danger. A new Congress will hopefully begin to address the problem.
J R
I was right in my assessment before to ignore you.
I have mentioned as three or four times in the WE Blogs what I did and what my degrees were in, including ONE DIRECTLY ADDRESSED TO YOU JR IN THIS BLOG.
If you can’t even acknowledge as something as simple as something as what my career was, then you’re not worth my time reading.
Click, your on the no read list again.
“Only a fool fights in a burning house. Fortunately? The public is coming around to the danger. A new Congress will hopefully begin to address the problem.”
A new congress will address the problem?? Hello we cannot even control our borders. We cannot get Mexico to control people crossing into the US, how the hell are we going to get Mexico to control CO2? Or China? The new congress will hold sway over China and India? You are a moron!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++”Now you’re a scientist? I could be wrong again. But I think you told us before you are in construction.”
I have done construction, that is how I paid my way through school. I was one of the few laborers with an advanced degree. Then I traveled the glode doing professional environmental work. Worked in Asia on and off from 1996-2001. I spend the equal of about 2 years over there. Worked in Eurpoe too. 28 states as well. That is called “practical application”. Ever seen the incinerators in Atsugi, Japan? I did a survey there. Also worked for the US State Dept. US Embassy Tokyo as an Industrial HYgienist>
Yes I am qualified, … and worldly too.
“Calibrating measuring instruments has nothing to do with space flight — and other scientists worldwide also measure CO2.”
Cosmos,
I can’t believe you wrote that.
If you want to find the quickest way to get de-certified in any field try doing any measurement and submit that measurement as accurate without calibrated instruments that have been calibrated by certified calibration specialists or the manufacturer.
There is also intermediate or sometimes called field calibrate to set up with local conditions or because the instrument has to be setup from its packing crate.
The mundane technical quality of science is often having to do with the proper setup and calibration of instrumentation.
That is basic science 101, one of the first things you learn in any lab besides lab safety.
StillJM,
I did read your posts. Did you read mine… or even your own?
Here’s your post quoting “skeptic” Patterson at 1:45 AM:”In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.”
Here’s your recent 6:07 PM post:”Evidently, the fact that CO2 levels that were 10 times as high as they were hundreds of thousands of years ago and the climate was much colder does not make you wonder?”
Why did you change the “skeptic’s” “450 million” to “hundreds of thousands”? 1 million does not = ~ 1/2 BILLION.
The Earth and sun was probably very different “450 million years ago”, as I already explained to your 1:45 post.
I’m much more concerned about what happened during the last four hundred thousand years, Fig 2.22 athttp://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/072.htm
StillJM: “tens of thousands of other scientist question” AGW. Who are they? The bogus OISM petition?
Odd that you complain about “coughing fit[s]” in toxic big cities, but see NO problem with Beck making a CO2 baseline from big European cities data.
Cosmos,
I have no idea what you’re talking about changing numbers without a blog entry reference. Those aren’t my numbers and besides volume can be expressed by weight, by unit or in units of distribution. It’s basic math.
I already wrote that the scientists I referenced were not part of the Oregon Writ, twice I believe.
Sometimes lab experiments are done in big cities. From what I’ve read on Beck, he did a lot of experiments in the Alps, coastal areas and off-shore Islands.
You’re not faring well Cosmos, you’re arguing about science when you seem to be missing some basic education in it.
StillJM,
You’re taking my “Calibrating measuring instruments” reply to asbestos out of context.
asbestos claimed that the shuttle accidents, etc proved that NASA couldn’t calibrate instruments.
And my typo — NOAA (not NASA) collects Mauna Loa data.
Considering that Scripps, NOAA, and many others are collecting CO2 data, it very unlikely a calibration error would be noticed.
Oops, that should have been hundreds of millions of years ago.
Thanks Cosmos for pointing that out, it was typo entry error, nothing else.
I don’t really proofread blog stuff it’s a waste of time.
But if you point out an entry error I’ll be glad to acknowledge it which I am know.
Still doesn’t change the premise.
“You’re not faring well Cosmos, you’re arguing about science when you seem to be missing some basic education in it.”
That is what I have been trying to tell you COSMOS, but JM does it better.
In MY example with the numbers yu have, the United States and Europe were responsible for addition from “prestine” or natural background CO2. 280-290 PPM of CO2 in the world’s air is used as a “theoritical level” of natural existing CO2, without the influence of Man. Where was this? IPCC first edition, I have it and bought it when I was in the K-State Union.
SO we are now at 380 ppm. OK. Now take that ENTIRE history in 300-400 years it took to build that up. The amount of coal and fossil fuels burnt in CHINA and INDIA over the next decade will equal that. Not in 400 years, but in a decade! add that growth rate in only a decade. Remember in that 400 years the “sinks” were keeping up. But with that equivalant in only 10 years the raise will not be a direct 100 PPM, but 2-2.5 times that amount.
Do you understand the math yet of what you are proposing on the US, that will have NO NET EFFECT IT global warming IS a problem and IS caused by CO2 and IS from Human influenced emissions.
You get it yet?????
See the big picture yet. Here in the US you are preaching to a very tired and enlightened chior. But in the developing countries, look out. Dirty technology is better than no technology at all.
“asbestos claimed that the shuttle accidents, etc proved that NASA couldn’t calibrate instruments.”
No THAT is out of context. YOU said NASA never makes a mistake, and THAT is what my response was about. You are a liar.
“Considering that Scripps, NOAA, and many others are collecting CO2 data, it very unlikely a calibration error would be noticed.”
Wrong again! You know nothing about measurement. The more measurements you take the better you can predict results, and the MORE LIKELY you would notice calibration error. More data means more data to compare.
You don’t do this very well.
StillJM,
The units are “years”. You can’t scroll up the page to 1:45 AM? Okay, I think this will work.
“about 450 million years ago,” (near end of post)http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/12/could_kansas_pr.html#comment-27108630
“hundreds of thousands of years ago” (5th paragraph)http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/12/could_kansas_pr.html#comment-27123460
I hope you calibrate measuring instruments more accurately than you argue against AGW.
StillJM: “Sometimes lab experiments are done in big cities.”
Beck seems to quote CO2 data from big cities — that’s NOT a reliable baseline.
“I already wrote that the scientists I referenced were not part of the Oregon Writ,”
Do you have a link, or even a name of the list?
asbestos,
Thank you for catching my typo, and also making my point for me.
I should’ve posted, “…it’s very unlikely a calibration error would *NOT* be noticed.”
Cosmos,
Shouting down does not count as logical argument.
I made a simple error, no need to attack my professional status for it.
I can see you won’t let this go now until you can either by discrediting the person or by typo.
Have fun writing, you had your chance with me discussing this reasonably.
Good luck in your search for truth.
StillJM,
I apologize for not seeing your 7:53 PM post: “Oops, that should have been hundreds of millions of years ago. … Still doesn’t change the premise.”
Okay, I’ll accept that.
Now, would you PLEASE explain why you believe “hundreds of millions of years ago” is *SO* relevant, but the last 400,000 years is not?
I’ve already made that point twice, and you have IGNORED it both times.http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/12/could_kansas_pr.html#comment-27116373http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/12/could_kansas_pr.html#comment-27124841
Give me a “logical argument”… or slink away.
StillJM: “Evidently you haven’t read anything I’ve written and digested it.”
If I haven’t read your posts, how could I post replies to your posts? Singer, Patterson, Beck, Mauna Loa, etc.
Hey cosmo,
You’ll be interested to learn the company I work for has been awarded the design of one of your CHP’s in the UK.
Funny thing, though, these CHP’s still burn natural gas, which results in CO2, one of those greenhouse gases.
I still say Nuclear is the way of the future.
Tim,
I’m glad they’re designing a CHP. It still burns nat gas, but at least it’s more efficient.
Like the video I gave a link to said, that helps buy time, until better solutions are used.
Nuclear is good, if they can get the costs down. Plus the issues of GHG’s from mining and transport, unless switch to H2 or ?? power.
Check out our recent blog about Kansas coal plant permits and the politics behind the decision:
http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/10/rodney_and_goliath_environment.html
Check out our recent blog about Kansas coal plant permits and the politics behind the decision:
http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/10/rodney_and_goliath_environment.html