Former vice president Al Gore warned Congress today of a "true planetary emergency" if it fails to act on global warming. He advised lawmakers to ban any new coal-burning power plants that lack state-of-the-art polution controls (such as those proposed for western Kansas) as part of an effort to cut carbon dioxide and other warming gases 90 percent by 2050, Associated Press reported.
Meanwhile, critics have stepped up efforts to undermine Gore’s claims and credibility. Columnist John Fund of the Wall Street Journal noted that some scientists have said that Gore is hyping some climate-change predictions (though experts overwhelmingly agree with his concern about global warming). And in addition to the recent criticism about how much energy Gore’s house uses, the Tennessean newspaper reported that Gore has earned royalties from zinc mining on his property, though it said that "there is no evidence the mine has caused serious damage to the environment in the area or threatened the health of his neighbors."
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
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
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- parkay on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- parkay on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
160 Comments
Al Gore is just a useful idiot for the U.N.
The great evangelist of the environmental movement has spoken!
yawn
Hank
This WE Blog thread should be entitled, “Phillip Brownlee, WE EAGLE opinion editor, taking heat on spelling of word “pollution” as “polution.”
WE bloggers consider Brownlee’s faux pas on par with former Vice President Dan Quail’s misspelling of “tomato” as tomatoe. Brownlee expected to hold news conference soon to apologize for spelling gaffe.
Gore pays “carbon offsets” to a company, the US subsidiary of which he chairs.
As some wise commentator(whose name escapes me)said, paying carbon offsets is like paying someone else not to eat and claiming that you are on a diet.
Edwards now claims his 28,000 square foot home and entertainment complex is now ‘carbon neutral’.
I wonder if that includes the 30 acres of woodland that he deemed necessary to clear cut to build it.
Hank
Hey JWink,
I think that you might be a little hard on poor ol’ Mr. Brownlee. At least as far as his spelling goes.
I probably think so because my spelling is horrible!
If you want to criticize him, go after his style! His editorials aren’t too bad but his BLOG topic entries generally suck. He obviously doesn’t give them the same meticulous care that his editorials recieve.
Take the first paragraph of this BLOG topic kick-off piece. Two sentences and the second sentence has 46 words. A very complex sentence to make a very simple point!
He needs to break out his ‘New York Times Manual of Style and Usage’ and start using it more often!
Hank
How about rather than spelling, style and grammar we look at content?
I think I saw a couple of them playing a little to close in the nursery the other day.
Oops, wrong spot.Please disregard prior comment
I don’t know brian,
If you are coming here for content. . .
Hank
Looking forward to catching Gore’s testimony later on Cspam.
Heh heh. This has already produced at least one good moment. James Imhofe was asking questions and would not give Gore the chance to answer. Senator Barbara Boxer told him ,” I want to talk to you for a minute. (Holds up gavel) “See this? You don’t have this anymore! I have this now. I think we can let the Vice President answer your questions.”
Stellar!!!
Gore is showing us that this problem is also a tremendous opportunity. This issue is not political. It concerns us all.
Tipper,
“Al Gore is just a useful idiot for the U.N.”
You mean these distinguished scientists at NASA, NOAA, NCAR, AMS, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, US Geological Survey, Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology – Germany, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research – Met Office – UK, National Climate Center – China, prestigious universities all over the U.S. and the world, and many other institutes?
‘Contributors to the IPCC WGI Third Assessment Report’http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/558.htm
The IPCC was established by both the UNEP and the WMO.http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm
“Looking forward to catching Gore’s testimony later on Cspam.”
Don’t forget your beach towel.fap fap fap
Suck your own BDP fleetwood.
what does BDP mean?
Gore probably wants to open his own Carbon brokerage house after which he will gleefully count his gold he has gotten from the hands of the poor and the middle class.
“Suck your own BDP fleetwood.”
I tried. I hurt my back so bad, I’ll never try again. (Never say never).
Dunno Sanford what BDP means. Seen it a few times.
what does BDP mean?
You can criticize all you want, but I am a believer in global warming.Al Gore is trying to get our government to act fast to remedy the cause.If so many scientists are saying we are causing global warming, then we are causing global warming.The scientists are the experts not the politicians.
Your money is no good in a dead world.
“what does BDP mean?”
It means Big D**k Poster.
Wiseman,
I believe in climate change, but for different reason. I also believe that extreme things be done now to make us more green, get out of using petroleum, alternative energy sources and etc.
What I don’t believe in is the UN Carbon Tax. I ain’t paying a tax to the that will end up in the hands of whomever. I want accountability.
Besides, we pay environmental fees, taxes and other forms here.
I don’t want another tax.
It’s nice for the global warming deniers to have their cake and eat it too: if somebody who lives conventionally according to their means, such as Al Gore or John Edwards, calls for steps to be taken to reverse carbonization of the atmosphere, but it is shown aha! they are contributors, this makes them HYPOCRITES. Thus, they can be discredited and ignored.
If, on the other hand, smart people who are articulate, argue for same steps, and LIVE their argument, they they are HIPPIES, and so can be discredited and ignored.
But anyway, I have some friends whose family tradition for the past 20 years has been to go to the Bahamas for spring break to enjoy some warmth. They could have stayed here this year.
Death Valley has historically been a hot place, from mid-spring to late fall. Normally, it hits the century mark in mid-to-late April. This year it hit 102 on March 16–officially that’s LATE WINTER.This never happened in the 20th century. This was an unprecedented recording.
Here, Bradford pear trees are blossoming two weeks earlier than normal. Our lawns already need mowing, two weeks earlier than normal.
As I pointed out several weeks ago, we are seeing a warming-climate phase-shift. We had spring thunderstorms in January. Low temperatures in the 50’s. Then we had a short winter cold-blast but not sustained. Now we have early greening.
“Now we have early greening.”
Man, you are right. I’ve never seen early greening before. Where do I sign up?
Hey hearlander, I remember playing tennis 25 years ago in tshirt and shorts on Christmas day. Was that Global Warming? 78 F as I recall.
The next year it was 10 degrees F.
How can things “green up” so quickly when we just recently eliminate an hour/day?We just set our clocks forward, ergo, we are running on 23 hrs, right?
Be afraid. Be very afraid. It’s a plot.
Damn right it’s a plot. My chickens don’t what time it is. I think it’s the anti-eggites.
JR-
I’ll not get involved in the substance of this one – I’ve written all I care to on that before.
But – See your 4:59 post. I’ll call you out now.
How does that add to the discussion? I’ve said time and agin that you are not the problem. Please don’t make a liar out of me.
Besides, that little rodent, Punxatony Gopher said it would be an early Spring.That’s all the evidence I need.
In third comment from top — I was just kidding Mr. Brownlee for his spelling error since he’s in the writing business. Perhaps I should have added “Ha Ha.”
The Climate ALWAYS changes.The climate has rarely stayed the same over any 100 year period!
If Mars is getting warmer, please tell me how man had anything to do with that?
Gore refuses to cut back on his own use of carbon. Gore is a hypocrite. This issue will work to the benefit of Republicans no matter what.The public will hate any politician who preaches conservation and lives like Edwards or Gore!
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7616011f-802a-23ad-435e-887baa7069ca
Hey JWink,
I figured you were kidding, I wasn’t.
Hank
The UN cut back its estimates of “warming” and the UN cut back its estimates of Man’s contribution to that “warming.”
Kyoto was NEVER presented to Congress, by Bill Clinton.
Kyoto would not solve the problem anyway, even if the US had ratified it!
These are the facts, folks!
And please, don’t arrogantly claim that “science” is on your side.For one thing, that is not how science works. This is not “American Idol” — for another, the science on this issue is all over the map, even if majority rule mattered!
Legislation intended to combat global warming will cause great harm. Those who propose dramatic changes in our way of life have not met the burden of proof. In the case of Gore and Edwards, the Global Warming kooks are not even leading by example!
1.) Is warming taking place?2.) Is man causing the warming?3.) Can man stop the warming?4.) Is the cost of action worth the price of any action?5.) Can the US solve this “problem” by itself?6.) After our failure in policing drugs and weapons and other internationally agreements, how can we possibly expect world treaties on “global warming” to be followed?7. If America reduces carbon use, wont that just decrease the cost of carbon in the 3rd world, which will increase 3rd world demand?
Again, the science is NOT settled, and that is just questions #1 and #2!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=443043&in_page_id=1965
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-19-2007/0004548669&EDATE=
By the way, Mocton did advise Enron, as you lefties pointed out. So what? Enron was a big player in the whole Carbon tax/Carbon credit scheme as well. You cant have it both ways.Carbon Credits will be tied to ENRON, count on it!
PAUL F. ROSELL,
“The UN cut back its estimates of “warming” and the UN cut back its estimates of Man’s contribution to that “warming.”…These are the facts, folks!”
Let’s see the link(s) proving your claims re UN/IPCC are “facts”.
cosmos = one trick pony
cosmosasked and anwered, many times before!Read the report, my friend!
cosmosasked and anwered, many times before!Read the report, my friend!
GMC
My post was in response to BDP fleetwoods post. He attacked first. I just hit him back.
If you want to defend THAT clown you will have a full time job. I wouldn’t waste my time.
And Paulie the energy shill reposts more of the same lies he ALWAYS posts on this subject.
Still trading in those oil and gas leases Paul? Ya might wanna check out investments in alternatives. Oil and fossil fuels are the past. Adapt or perish.
I vote perish since I hate your lying guts. But that is just me.
JR-
1) just where is this vicious attack? I looked; I didn’t see it.
2) even if true, it’s no excuse. You are responsible for you; no one else. I doubt very much when your son uses the “he did it first” excuse that it carries much weight.
3) I’ve called out fleetie before, too.
4) And how does “I hate your lying guts” add to the exchange? You’re better than that.
And this topic? We’ve beat this horse to death; we’re getting nowhere, just talking past each other, each side accusing the other side of “shilling” for the other side. Pointless.
We beat this horse to death months ago. Let it die.
Notice how Cosmos avoids addressing the huge taxes, fees and costs that will happen if we sign the Kyoto Accord and go along his GW plan.
Example:
Post-Kyoto 147 percent increase in the price of natural gas factors in. Right now, the average American family, heating its home with natural gas, pays $800 per year. By 2010, if the Kyoto treaty is implemented, their annual heating costs will be almost $2,000. Kyoto, in other words, effectively imposes a $1,200 home-heating tax on American families — no matter how rich or poor they are.
“Let it die”
Huh. I don’t remember your take on the issue GMC. But let it die SOUNDS alot like “move along nothing to see here.” Sorry, it’s only the planet at stake. And if you notice, this topic is being discussed more and more.That’s a good thing.
GMC if you are gonna play blog policeman you really need to choose your battles better. Where were you when people’s nics were being stolen? THIS is the fight you choose?
It’s because it’s me right? I’m one of the last cookies in the jar and you always had special dispensation for me anyway.
Fine prosecutor. Here is my defense.
Read my first post to this thread. Read the idiot fleetwoods reaction. In case you don’t get it, “fap fap fap” is a reference to what the Catholics call self abuse. That’s to put it nicely. So yeah I took a similar shot back.
Oh and I reserve the right to mete out special treatment to “econ”. You will not see me treat anyone else as I do him. Sheesh I remember even you being embarrassed by his posts. The guy is a pathological liar.
Don’t worry GMC. When some of the better posters return you will have AMPLE folks to call on for civility. Police your own.
JRI have never lied here.That, in itself, is a lie you “former conservative” (If anyone believes that!)
PAUL F. ROSELL,
“asked and anwered, many times before!Read the report, my friend!”
I can’t find what you claimed in the IPCC report.
You claimed it, so please quote them from this link… or at least provide the page/paragraph #’s.http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Or else admit that your claims were NOT true.
I did find other changes.The 2007 IPCC dropped the solar irradiance by about 1/2, making human GHG’s a BIGGER factor.
The climate sensitivity had a 1.5-4.5C range in 2001 — 2007’s range is 2-4.5C IPCC RAISED the lower limit.
More at,’IPCC SPM – So What’s new?’http://atoc.colorado.edu/~seand/headinacloud/index.php/2007/02/02/ipcc-spm-so-whats-new
So Cosmos,
You going to put those people who won’t be able to afford your Carbon Taxes in Greenhouse Carbon Credit Prison Farms?
Put a little concertina wire around it and throw them a environmentally friendly bone now and then?
Tip your hat to all those small business you will literally kill when they have to shut down, because they can’t afford your plan?
How about it Cosmos?
You gonna pay the extra taxes for the farmers who barely squeeze by now by loading a plethora of oppressive growing plans on them?
Whatcha going do Cosmos?
This just for fun:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19927
Oh yes Paul, you have lied here. Thing is? Most of the people who KNOW it are not here. The trolls drove them away. That is why you have chosen this time to “reappear”.
Shame on you Rosell. If the right on this blog does not see it I will be happy to point it out for them. YOU bailed out of this forum after your party badly lost the last election. YOU ran away. NOW you wanna crawl back in when those who have busted you many times many ways are not about to take you to task.You are a miserable little coward Paul F Rosell. YOU shame your “side”. I am honestly sorry for them that they have you.
By the way, I thought of the indulgence stuff on my own, without reading Coulter first!
By the way, seveal newspapers and web pages have printed the fact that the UN reduced its projections of rising sea levels and reduced its estimation of mans impact on global warming:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/global-warming121106.htm
“The Telegraph reported that a draft of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) upcoming fourth assessment has lowered mankind’s estimated impact on the Earth’s climate by 25 percent and scaled back sea level rise upper estimates by nearly half since the last IPCC report in 2001.
“We are all skeptics now. It appears that the UN is now acknowledging what an increasing number of scientists who study the climate have come to realize: Predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming are simply unsustainable,” Senator Inhofe said. ”
Those of you who are more curious than cosmos please type global warming skeptics into your browser. There are hundreds of pages to refute the left.However, nobody on the left can deny that the most recent UN report DOWNGRADES the threat some projected when KYOTO was drafted!
JrIf it is any of your busines, I was out of town for much of the period after the election.I have a very large family.We have health and other issues which are clearly NONE Of your business.This Blog does not belong to you.
By the way, YOU are the only person who cares what your opinion of me might be.
I do not. —
Ok, I just caught myself —
To be honest, sometimes pissing you off does make my day, but most of the time, I dont give a rip!
PAUL F. ROSELL,
YOU SAID it was in IPCC’s report.
UK’s ‘Telegraph’, Inhofe, and the canadafreepress.com have ZERO credibility.
If you relied on them to claim it was in the IPCC’s report, you’re stupidly gullible.
PAUL F. ROSELL: “Those of you who are more curious than cosmos please type global warming skeptics into your browser.”
Paul F. Rosell. Your LACK of CURIOUSITY is what causes YOU to be MISINFORMED.
You should ALSO check their credentials, funding, and theories. AND check the # of them, compared to the # at IPCC, and elsewhere, that believe that humans are causing GW.
More hypocracy from the “climate change prophet” himself.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7616011f-802a-23ad-435e-887baa7069ca
Ah yes….the scan continues.
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
Here is a Laundry list of Cosmos guide to body slam “Global Warming Skeptics.” It even categorizes them by levels. Cute -.-
Cosmos still denies the economic ruin that Kyoto Treaty UN Carbon Tax would cause to the U.S.
He won’t comment on it, because too many economist have studied it and have stated it would be disastrous.
CosmosThe UN report has a “revisions” section.I encourage YOU to post the report here, in English, for everyones viewing.No doubt, you will question the aunthenticity of anything I post.Every report of this type compares current projections to past projections.The projections were DOWNGRADED!Credibility is NOT determined by figuring which side of the arguement someone is on at the moment.By the way, most of those “switching sides” are comming over to the skeptics!
Anybody else worried about how windy it was today? Man, this “global windyness” is a real problem. I blame nature. Stupid nature. Nature should buy some wind credits to offset this.
JR
Once again, I don’t worry about “sides.” I don’t keep score. I don’t hold grudges. And I’m not responsible for anyone but myself.
I have great desire to “play cop.” I will try to remind folks of why so many were not sorry to see those absent, and their nastiness, leave; if you thing I’m wrong, check out Sol’s reception today when he very gently attempted to say a hello on the “other” blog. And they have the arrogance and gall to call themselves “tolerant.” Complete and utter BS. They want their private circle-jerk; they’re welcome to it. Good riddance. It’ll die a slow and inbred death, as new blood or challenging ideas are simply not welcome there.
I’d like to keep a blog where adults exchange ideas and opinions civilly – all opinions. It’s not about winning arguments, it’s about exchanging points of view. It’s not personal; for the life of me I can’t imagine why so many make it so. Maybe it’s what I do; I can (and often do) wrap up a bitterly fought jury trial with a shared brew and good company with opposing counsel. Most posters here, no matter how much I disagree with them, would be good for a beer afterward. When the battle is over, it is over. (WS, however, has anger issues; I’m glad he’s gone. I wonder about his stability – and his blood pressure).
No, I didn’t catch the “fap fap fap” bit. Cute. Yes, Fleet is out of line too.
You never answered the question, BTW. Would “they did it first” fly as an excuse for your son? Of course not. And that’s the point. You are responsible for you, as I am for I. I’ll accept responsibility for no others. But we all need accountability; if I’m out of line, and make it personal, call me on it. I’ve been wrong before (I was wrong once in ‘94 . . . I thought I was wrong in ‘87, but I was mistaken ;-).
As to “let it die.” I don’t doubt the importance of the issue, but that’s not the point. It’s that no one is “proving” anything to anyone. You’re simply talking past each other, each determined to get in the last word.
Frankly, I’m on the skeptical side; I’ve heard too many “sky is falling” scenarios that were BS to buy into one (remember Y2K?), and I understand how the academic community has enormous political pressure to conform all its own – and a very powerful one (want to keep those research grant dollars flowing? Tow the party line, or else . . .).
As I’ve said before, however, the costs if I’m wrong are potentially catestrophic. And the fixes are good for us, in the long run, if we don’t go off willy-nilly. Assuming the average scenarios are right, we should consider the costs and benefits of various courses of action carefully. Under many scenarios, little that we do could make any difference, and massive action to fix the problem could well lead to massive economic dislocation, and a massive new, and international, bureaucracy to “police” the world. Who will run it? The UN can’t find it’s ass with both hands and a map, unless it entails skimming billions from aid programs; the federal government is nearly as incompetent (and it makes no difference which party is in power; it’s the nature of the beast). And I have no intention of surrendering US sovereignty to a faceless and unaccountable UN bureaucracy.
In other words, the fix might be worse than the disease.
There’s a great deal we can do to reduce reliance on imported oil, but unfortunately, I don’t see a large-scale alternative to fossil fuels on the immediate horizon. And the US will soon not even be No. 1 or 2 in fossil fuel use. How do we deal with the Chinese smog monster, and the Indian one soon to follow?
Give me a fix that 1) is economically viable 2) won’t require a massive new government bureaucracy to run 3) will make a difference. I haven’t seen one. I’ve already endorsed increasing taxes on motor fuels and using those dollars to fund research in alternatives; that amounts to simply moving dollars around, and gov’t is reasonably good at that. It’s easy. Offset the tax increase there by eliminating sales taxes on groceries, among other things, however.
Any other ideas? I’m all ears.
But can we please end the dueling links? We’re not going anywhere.
That’s NO great desire to play cop. good god, I don’t want the hall monitor job!! (can I see your hall pass, sonny?)
Edit, edit.
JR~This sounds like a personal vendetta and should play out elsewhere.
JR~ the progression that you used to ‘reveal’ somebody on a (any) blog is pretty shameful and, low.First name, a middle initial hidden in text, followed by a last name.
IF THERE IS A PROBLEM IN THIS BLOG, IT IS PEOPLE, OF ANY ILK, THAT SPEW VENOM.
Seems to me that, the WEblog editors should pay attention to any poster that reveals a 1st, middle, and last name of a poster.
Editors —— read this -
“Oh yes Paul, you have lied here. Thing is? Most of the people who KNOW it are not here. The trolls drove them away. That is why you have chosen this time to “reappear”.
Shame on you Rosell. If the right on this blog does not see it I will be happy to point it out for them. YOU bailed out of this forum after your party badly lost the last election. YOU ran away. NOW you wanna crawl back in when those who have busted you many times many ways are not about to take you to task.
You are a miserable little coward Paul F Rosell. YOU shame your “side”. I am honestly sorry for them that they have you.
Posted by: J R | March 21, 2007 at 10:10 PM “
Republican,
“He won’t comment on it, because too many economist have studied it and have stated it would be disastrous.”
Like the UK’s Stern report? OilEndGame’s profitable MARKET based solutions? WalMart’s new building designs that CUT their energy demand by 30 to 50%, reducing utility costs?
Notice how Republican avoids addressing the HUGE costs in the future, if AGW causes the sea level to rise, disrupts agriculture, water supplies, etc..
Notice how Republican avoids addressing the HUGE costs of stronger hurricanes, heavier rainfall events, worse heat waves, droughts, etc.
Notice how Republican avoids my point on open_thread_20 that the reinsurance industry is VERY worried about climate change.
Al Gore was scheduled to give his presentation to insurance people, in New Orleans — ironically, Katrina canceled that.
Notice how Republican prefers to rely on the fossil-fuel energy and right-wing media for BOTH his anti-AGW and his anti-carbon tax “facts”(sic).
Republican’s 8:52 PM “example is quoted from the old, Oct 2000,http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17676
The author writes for humanevents.com See PAUL F. ROSELL’s 10:01 PM Ann Coulter link for another example of their work.
The fossil energy industry predicted that sulfur caps would cause an economic disaster. The actual effect was negligible.
Some more of Republican’s TRUSTED sources on AGW, and fossil-fuel economics?http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html
ah yes….”global warming”, the new home for the modern-day hippie without a cause.
On Saturday, December 25, 1982 the average temp was 36F, with rain, and wind gusts up to 27.62 mph.That was a wonderful day for tennis.
I appreciate the fact that so many of you listen to me because you can’t think on your own, and form your own ideas.Y’all Rock…!!p.s. arnold is just wrong, I AM Relavant… just ask my O-C dealer.
republicans opened up china.we now have no manufacturing here.
rich republicans want a global economy. middle class (is there even a middle class anymore) republicans live in trailer parks and think bush cares about them.
how the heck did they get so good at pr?
Sad Cosmos,
What does Walmart’s improvement towards a greener building have to do with the U.S. Economy?
What does the United Kingdom Stern Report have to do with the effect on Small Business in America?
How are you going explain for starters, an additional $1200 tax per person who use natural gas for heating. And, its even worse for coal and those who use electric power.
Just when are we going to see that sea level rise Cosmos? 2150? Oh wait, the climate will change by then and there will be icebergs floating past Hawaii. I’m sure the GW progloaters will be claiming they predict something like that as well.
The insurance companies are only worried about their bottom line, not GW. Of course it will give them an excuse to raise rates as they can point to the IPCC and then line their pockets with huge insurance increases. Oh boy, what fun!
Green power, you bet. But’s let’s do it responsibly. Let’s not some wallet hungry eggheads put some half-baked science in front of us and scream hysterically “The sky is falling! You must act now! Pay our fee, our taxes, we will solve it if you give us money!”
No thank you.
Wrong State Rush L., but a nice try.
PAUL F. ROSELL,
“The UN report has a “revisions” section.I encourage YOU to post the report here, in English, for everyones viewing.”
AGAIN… I cannot find what you claim. What page is the “revisions” section on?http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
And also, please find the IPCC report PREDICTING that the Antarctic’s Larsen-B ice shelf would breakup in early 2002. Page 182 of Al Gore’s book, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. ;)
Republican,
“Just when are we going to see that sea level rise Cosmos?”
NO… YOU claim to be the expert on AGW, so why don’t YOU tell us?
Did YOU predict the Larsen-B ice shelf would collapse in 2002?
Did YOU predict the recent faster melting in Greenland?
How much positive feedback will melting Arctic ice have?
How much positive feedback will the HUGE amounts of GHG’s released from thawing permafrost, etc., have?
How much positive feedback will much less CO2 absorbed by warming oceans, and less phytoplankton have?
How much positive feedback will other, still UNKNOWN, factors have?
But heh… just GUESS a date Republican, and post it here.
And remember… “Because we don’t think about future generations, they will never forget us.” Henrik Tikkanen.
CosmosPrint the predictions of the previous report.Then print the predictions of the most recent report.
There is a difference.
That difference is negative.
That is the revision.
A revision of the prediction on sea level increases, downward.
A revision of the prediction on mans contribution to warming, downward!
Paul F Rosell
Le’s take you apart a piece at a time.
“If it is any of your busines, I was out of town for much of the period after the election.I have a very large family.We have health and other issues which are clearly NONE Of your business.”
Uh Paul? That is NOT what you said after the election. YOU said that your posting here had become a liability to your business interests. If I can find it in the archives, I’ll prove that.
“This Blog does not belong to you.”
Nor does it belong to you Rosell. YOU bailed when your side lost. Why are you back now?
“By the way, YOU are the only person who cares what your opinion of me might be”
I HOPE that is not true. GMC called you out before. Oh I know that most who know your lies are not “here” that is why you are “here”. HOPEFULLY your side has better sense than to embrace you. YOu are a born sell out. Just like the Safeway union right Paul?
Oh my Cosmos, so many questions and we have so little time according to you.
5 minutes of Google time (click)
Did you forget to explain that the Larsen-B Ice Shelf was already Floating and would not cause any sea level rise?
Did you forget to explain that Ice shelves are thick plates of ice, fed by glaciers, that float on the ocean around much of Antarctica.
Did you fail to mention B-22 was part of a regular cycle of iceberg creation off Antarctica, and not tied to warming. A much larger iceberg was created off the Ross ice shelf two years ago?
Do I need to say that some 2000years ago the Larsen-A and B ice shelves likely were altogether absent, and that temperatures ofthat time were likely as warm as, or even warmer than, they have been recently. Which means the melting to form the ice shelf was in progress. Get it? Melting to form the ice shelf…
Did you fail to mention that 100 ppm less CO2 in the air of that time than there is in the air of today and possibly something else causes ice shelves to break off?
How about the fact that 44 percent of the Antarctic coastline has iceshelves attached?
Besides, anyone ever see ice on a bank of a river? Notice the slope of the land? If you get a chance, look at the topography underneath the Larsen-B Ice Shelf. Sort of slanting down and away from the Antarctica Continent isn’t it? :)
The Larsen-B scare tactic is now on ice. oops! bad joke. :)
Ah JRYES that is also true, that is why I use the name ECON now.
I had many reasons for giving it a rest.Business and personal.
Why do you get up in the morning? To brush your teeth or do you do other things as well?
You are pathetic and petty JR.
For those that dont know it:
Since icebergs are now the topic, someone once said, in effect, that old people should be ignored and die ( I guess much like some tribes put their old folks on icebergs) — anyway, that vicious person signed my real name to that false post.
So yes, as I was traveling back and forth to the Great Lakes area, on family business, I decided to give it a rest.
Besides, I care about issues, legislation and elections.
The period between an election and opening session is worthless. Good time to take a rest!
The real cause of the Larsen B Ice Shelf breakup.
The Great Storm:
The outer bounds of the Larsen ice shelf were either expanding or at equilibrium until 1975, when drastic retreats in Larsen-A began to be observed. Towards the end of January 1995, a storm battering the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula destroyed around 2000km2 of the Larsen-A ice shelf and knocked a 1700km2 iceberg off of the Larsen-B ice shelf. The destruction of the A shelf paved the way for further retreats in the B shelf, such as a 1024km2 retreat in November of 1998.
Imagine that…
Perhaps Al Gore forgot that oceans are huge in comparison to Antarctica. When a storm forms there are surges that form at the top of the storm and underneath the ocean. The Larsen Ice Shelf is a floater (hint: the reason it is called a shelf.) When a huge storm approached in 1995, it was so strong, it literally lifted up the entire shelf and smashed it inwardly.
Okay, Cosmos 1 theory of GW disproved, let’s see what’s next.
BTW, this is data freely available on the Internet.
Paying “carbon offsets” to a company is the biggest scam since the Catholic Church was charging money for “indulgences”.
I’m not sure why everyone is so concerned about whether Global Warming is real or not. Between Iran and North Korea’s nuclear threat and the dissipation of the human race, we won’t have to wait until the world heats up. Man will be gone long before that.
It is a fact that no civilization has been able to survive a less than 1.3 level of population growth. Most of Europe is already there, Aids is destroying Africa and China is aborting itself into oblivion. At this rate the world should be de-peopled in about 1000 years give or take a decade. Since the earth is only supposed to warm about 5 degrees in that time, no worries mate. Of course that is only if we don’t blow each other up by then, and that’s a BIG if.
Global warming may be happening. But compared to what. Do you know what the temperature was 200, 500 or even 1000 years ago? How does anyone know?
Plant some extra trees. Plant some flowers. But to have to pay more taxes because Al Gore and the so called “consensus” which by the way is not science, I will refuse. I can barely afford to pay my property taxes every year. Having to pony up more dough just because a former politician thinks the sky is falling is BS. And from Al Gore says we must cut our CO2 emissions now, that means no new business, no new cars, and no new people. As people contribute plenty of CO2 every year.
Depending on your point of view the earth is many millions of years old. It has heated and cooled many times in the past. It will continue to do so many times into the future.
I had the chance to watch much of Gore’s testimony last night on Cspan. He did very well. This despite the fact the senator from Oklahoma James Inhofe or Inhole or whaterver his name is seemed determined to ask Gore questions and not let him answer. But Senator Barbara Boxer did a good job of restoring decorum.
I need to do some digging on Inhofe or Ivanhoe or whoever that little clown is. See where the money goes. I bet there’s some big bucks from the fossil fuels industries in his vicinity.
“I had the chance to watch much of Gore’s testimony last night on Cspan.”
Did you get a good fap in?
I heard that Gore said the rising temps are the highest in thousands of years, but the UN report said they were only the highest in the past 400 years.
We know that after the last Ice Age – the Earth has been gradually warming – but what was THAT warming first caused by? Not human induced CO2.
And if it was warmer in the 1600’s then it seems the cycle may be repeating.
Plus I heard that Gore said the ocean would rise as much as 20 feet – inundating many coastal cities, but the UN report said only 23 inches. When it comes to a disaster -that makes a HUGE difference.
JR – there are massive bucks in the OK oil industry, such as Phillips 66 and some others, but I really think Inhofe means what he says.
I guess maybe it’s because I’ve been accused of all sorts of financial ‘links’ to coal-fired plants, instead of folks taking my opinions at face value, that I can easily understand how frustrating that can be.
But, yes – there is oil money in OK. Have you been to Bartlesville?
So, did “The Goracle” gain any new followers yesterday with his “climate change” stories?
I predict that “carbon taxes” and “carbon credits” (As designed by Enron and Al Gore) will not be enacted.I predict that nothing even approaching Kyoto will be enacted by the United States Congress.(Actually the Senate, that is the body that handles treaties.)
If I am wrong, it will be great for Republicans. — This will be the issue that destroys the Democrat Party.
Lets just hope this issue doesnt destroy the country, in the process!
Some of you on this Blog hate NAFTA.Tell me, if you had sovereignty issues over NAFTA, how can you justify giving up our national sovereignty for KYOTO type carbon treaties?
PAUL F. ROSELL,
IPCC’s projection ranges, using the SRES emissions scenarios re an increase in globally averaged surface temperature,for the period 1990 to 2100.
2nd report — 1.0 to 3.5°C3rd report — 1.4 to 5.8°C (2001)4th report — 1.1 to 6.4°C (2007)
When my political enemy gives me advice? I tend to figure on just the opposite.
“This will be the issue that will destroy the Demoratic party.”
Like that.
Americans are waking up to environmental issues Paulie! The environment is becoming one of THE defining issues of our day.
And you KNOW it and are scared to death of it.
Heh heh heh
JRDream on pal, lol.
When you pass carbon taxes, Republicans can point at specific acts which increased their gasoline and heating bills and specific acts that contributed to inflation and unemployment and outsourcing of jobs.
Happy Days are Here Again!LOL
Globally average temperature just doesn’t appear to be right. 6.4 C is a lot for one. How can it be an average if it is a range of temperatures?
Secondly, temperatures in the Antarctic are far far colder than other places on the Globe. Antarctica is part of the globe last time I checked.
Compiling average temperatures from let’s Alberta Canada and Brownsville Texas is totally useless in Climate change. They are under different influences, different longitudes and latitudes and different geophysical conditions.
This is like comparing temperatures of rump roasts with one being in a stream bed and the other being in the middle of a hot Texas highway.
Hardly conclusive I would say.
Like the Danish Scientist said on TV, averaging temperatures is like averaging telephone numbers in a phone book. It provides nothing in the way of statistical data and is a pointless exercise.
cosmos1.1?
Any thoughtful person, from the numbers you just posted, can see that some on the UN are covering their asses!The range is getting broader.
And still, my major point is that mans estimated contribution to any warming has been reduced by the UN report itself.
Give me a break cosmos, literally thousands of written publications, blogs and webpages and editorials have pointed out that the UN has reduced its estimations.
They are all “lying”???
Hey Paulie
Smile while your heart is breaking.
Smile while your boots are shaking.
Hey Paulie, get outta fossil fuels and sell your clients on investment in green technology. You will make them a mint.
Republican,
The ice shelves help HOLD back the NON-FLOATING land ice.
You left out the relevant parts in your 2:30 AM ‘copy/paste’.
http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~christowilson/recession.htmThe 2002 Larsen-B Breakup:”Beginning January 31st, 2002 during the HOTTEST summer ever recorded for the area … The blue areas on the surface of the ice before it breaks up are melt water ponds that are large enough to be seen from space….Repercussions of the Larsen-B Collapse:Researchers have measured up to eight times increased flow rates in the glaciers that feed the Larsen-B ice shelf since it collapsed. This has caused the elevation of the glaciers to drop by 38 meters in six months.”
That link has very good coverage on the unexpected ice melting.
Or you can watch Gore’s DVD, or read his book, starting on page 176.
Republican,
“Like the Danish Scientist said on TV, averaging temperatures is like averaging telephone numbers in a phone book.”
Why do you PREFER LIES (from Lomberg?) instead of FACTS from scientists?
See NASA and IPCC links at my post to Republican yesterday, http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/03/open_thread_20.html#comment-63981990
As I said before Cosmos, temperatures in the Antarctic have been higher with the co2 100ppm lower than it is today.
Rates in glacier flow faster? Well duh!
If you remove the wheel chocks on a car parked on a hill, it’s going to move faster. The ice plates acted as chocks for the glaciers and when they fail in some parts, of course glaciers are going to move faster.
As I said previously, an calved off the Ross Ice shelf that was much bigger than the Larson B. Not a peep out of the GW folks, because it was the result of normal adjustments in ice plates and glacial movements.
The inconvenient truth only points out areas where they can see melting, but conveniently leave out parts that a storm weakened the ice shelf and completely ignore a more significant event from the Ross Ice shelf because it didn’t fit into their GW theory.
Gores science of GW is a non-science of convenient picking and choosing scare tactics when examined don’t hold up to standards.
Lies from Lomburg…There you go again Cosmos, depending on the almighty hyperlink of discrediting people. That is really pathetic.
You notice the only person I discredit is Al Gore and his preaching of the holy word of GW.
If you don’t have the qualifications to discredit a scientist, then may I ask you politely to bow out of the discussion.
Your applied science of hyperlinks ain’t getting it Cosmos.
Clean car from Honda…
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/03/09/cars.hydrogen.popsci/index.html
Nice car Sol, but what’s the market price?
GSheridan,
“but the UN report said they were only the highest in the past 400 years.”
Page 10,http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf“Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years….Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years.”
“very likely” = > 90%”likely” = > 66%
CO2 did not trigger past warmings, but it did AMPLIFY the warming.
Gore did NOT state a time for the sea level rise. 20 feet IS about what happens if Greenland melts… same for West Antarctic.
Repub,No price listed in the article. Very limited production available in ‘08. Maybe in ‘09 we’ll see them. Question is, where are you going to fill up?
Republican,
What’s your problem? Are you so deep in AGW denial that you cannot understand the research that YOU quoted from?
‘What Can Be Learned From the Larsen-B Collapse?’http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~christowilson/concl.htm
And you can consider Lomborg credible if you want to, but I don’t.
‘UCS examines The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjørn Lomborg’http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/ucs-examines-the-skeptical-environmentalist.html
Good question Sol. I know they have hydrogen storage and wells? in SE Kansas. Driving to SE Kansas to fill up a hydrogen cell might put me off a bit. :)
Actually, I read from that article Cosmos, but didn’t reference from it. The problem I have with all the “heat” related theories is they completely ignore tectonics of ice and undersea formations. They ignore the huge impacts that ocean currents have on ice shelves and other types of drift.
They get all excited when they see “melt” and attribute everything to “heat” related causes only.
From what I read on Glacial formation, there is a lot more than “heat” involved in their respective iceberg “lives.”
Sheer mass and the effects of gravity, failures of tectonic underpinnings is far more significant in my mind that just “heat.”
Again Cosmos, with the discrediting Scientist by hyperlink it is a pathetic ploy.
Now if you admit to being a Professor of Statistics like Dr. Lomborg, I might be inclined to listen to you. You could argue down his statistical methods as being faulty.
Using a hyperlink as your main focus of argument is weak, irrelevant in the case of scientific challenge and provides nothing to the argument.
SolDevVB,
A map of the 62 operational and planned hydrogen stations in teh US and Canada,http://bioage.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/h2map.gif
(hat tip to http://www.greencarcongress.com/h2/index.html , lots of info there)
I think Honda and Mazda (others?) will begin leasing H2 cars in California next year.
I remember seeing ads from … Exxon or BP. H2 service sations for mass transit in Cali. Has that progressed?
Republican,
So the ONLY part you think is accurate is the section you posted at 2:30 AM?http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~christowilson/recession.htm‘Breakup Incidents Before 2002:’
The HOTTEST summer ever recorded for the area, and meltwater turning the ice into ’swiss cheese’ were insignificant?
What are YOUR credentials that qualify YOU to say the scientist’s warming and meltwater explanations are wrong?
What qualifies you to say that this statement is wrong?http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~christowilson/index.htm“The size and speed with which this huge piece of ancient ice collapsed shocked scientists and heralded in new fears about the immediate consequences of global warming.”
What qualifies you to say that warming, meltwater, etc are NOT also causing changes in Greenland?
‘GREENLAND ICE SHEET FLOWS FASTER DURING SUMMER MELTING’http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020606greenland.html
Republican: “They ignore the huge impacts that ocean currents have on ice shelves and other types of drift.”
Strawman. They do NOT ignore other factors — it’s in other research.
Posted by: cosmos | March 22, 2007 at 02:16 PMWhat qualifies you to say that warming, meltwater, etc are NOT also causing changes in Greenland?”
Because we were discussing the far North West tip of Antarctica and not Greenland?
Face it Cosmos, your GW Scientists s got caught with their pants down on this one.====”What are YOUR credentials that qualify YOU to say the scientist’s warming and meltwater explanations are wrong?”
What are your credentials that qualify YOU to say the scientist’s warming and meltwater explanations are the only theory that count?===”The size and speed with which this huge piece of ancient ice collapsed shocked scientists and heralded in new fears about the immediate consequences of global warming.”
Since when is being shocked about something a principle of science?===
Cosmos, your science by hyperlink is failing miserably. I only concentrated on one aspect of your GW and it couldn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Imagine when teams of real scientists remark on GW as caused by man as being based on bad science do.
Oh wait, there are scientists that already have proved man made GW warming wrong and it is charlatans and snake oil salesmen like you that keeps selling this bilge water.
You are so sure on man-made GW is not wrong on anything, you have chosen the tactic to discredit any scientist that has an opposition view.
I just picked one aspect of your pet theory as imprecise and without merit and did it with little problem.
Your answer? More hyperlinks and “its in other research.”
Leave the science to scientists and stop discrediting Scientist who you never met and don’t know anything about. You don’t have the qualifications to discount anything now do you?
Can you be called in a Court of Law to dispute any facts have been addressed to you? No hyperlinks allowed there in court, I’m talking about certified pure scientific background.
You can’t be called in court as an expert as an expert witness can you? Your arguments and discrediting statements are as flaccid and limp.
Hyper linking is not a science taught in Climatology is it? When it is,let me know.
Republican that is a good point. If the case of whether or not man was responsible for global warming were to be tried in court, each side could call the same number of expert witnesses. If one side could choose from twice as many or ten times as many experts, it wouldn’t matter.
It would fall to who has the most convincing argument.
I believe the planet has been going through warming and cooling cyles since it was formed. If I remember correctly the northeastern part of Kansas was formed by a glacier at one time, and from the fossils found here Kansas was at one time under water. So the planet is changing, so what! Survial of the fittest don’t you know, if we can’t adapt maybe we don’t deserve to exist. I really don’t think anything can be done about what is a natural occurrence anyway. But putting our faith in the U.N., which is a group of nation states most of which are not democracies, and the elites from those nations that claim to represent their people, along with these unelected organizations that aren’t accountable to anyone, each with there own agenda operating under the auspices of the U.N. is foolish. Like these people have our best interests at heart. They are often petty, jealous and envious that we have created the greatest country ever, and they’d like nothing better than to take us down a peg or two. Remember that in this country the power of the government comes from the people, the governed if you will, not the elitists of the United Nations and some unelected folkes that think they know it all. All this global warming talk is just a ploy to sell this “you are a citizen of the world” crap to convince Americans to forgo their heritage and become “enlighten” and become like the sheep in Europe led by those who are destined to decide what’s right for the rest of us. What a crock.
Here here JayW!
thumps hand on desk in support…
Republican,
Your simply saying that the melt water theory re Larsen-B is wrong does NOT prove it wrong.
Can you personally point out the errors in this paper?http://geosci.uchicago.edu/%7Edrm7/research/Jglac_49_(164).pdf
Can you explain how a climate warming 4.5 degs F, to just ABOVE freezing, and more days of meltwater would NOT weaken the ice?
Can you explain how that WEAKER ice would NOT be MORE susceptible to breakup, from stresses and storms?
Can you offer better theories, that other scientists agree with? That match COMMON SENSE?
If not, you’re simply DENYING, and that’s NOT proving.
‘Antarctic Ice Shelves Breaking Up Due To Decades Of Higher Temperatures’April 7, 1999http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/1999/139.html“But as climate inches toward an average summertime temperature just above 0 degrees C — the melting point of water — the Larsen and Wilkins ice shelves have begun to disintegrate.
… report an increase in mean annual temperature of about 2.5 degrees C or roughly 4.5 degrees F since the 1940’s. Both groups concur that ice shelf breakup is a direct result of local climate warming.”
‘Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapse Triggered By Warmer Summers’http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2001/14.html“After analyzing images of the Larsen Ice Shelf over the past two decades, he deduced the years with the longest duration of surface meltwater corresponded to the years of major shelf breakup events.
The melt season during the 1995 Larsen Ice Sheet retreat was more than 80 days long – about 20 days longer than average.”
btw JM, warming and melt water are ALSO happening in Greenland.
outlander,
“It would fall to who has the most convincing argument.”
The AGW side would quickly win in court. They’ve got solid science and data.
The anti-AGW side, has pseudo-science, no or bad data, misquotes, etc. They can’t withstand peer-reviewed scrutiny.
That’s why the anti-AGW side works from the “shadows”, writing op-eds in the WSJ, Washington Times, and fossil-funded sites. Their only viable strategy is to cause confusion, and delay.
The anti-GW side does NOT want a head-to-head debate. They know they’d LOSE, and they’d no longer have any influence.
Some one here Mr. Hyperlink quacking his repetitive tune?
Quack quack quack…
same old stuff.
Dang, we’re still talking about “global warming”? Shit man, the debate is over. It’s the Sun and nature, not me or my evil car.
If the GW quack quacks have to enter a court of law, which they will, if they Kyoto treaty is ever passed in the U.S.
They will spend more time in court explaining their half-baked theories than a judges gavel banging on a desk.
It will be a joy watching them being proved wrong and humiliated.
There’s a new name for Algore: “The Goracle” You know, Al Gore, the oracle of GW.
Made me laugh when I heard it.
Ya know?
IF the science turns out to be correct, those who are fighting against addressing global warming proactively may be looked upon with very vindictive and judgemental eyes. I can imagine millions and millions of people quite angry that nothing was done and that in fact some worked hard AGAINST doing anything.
RepublicanKhan JM and other deniars? My kid is gonna have to live in the world we leave him. If by your active advocacy against addressing this problem we ultimately let it happen I am going to be looking for some justice. And it won’t be merciful.
You multiply that sentiment by a few hundred million people and you might want to think about keeping quiet and “erring” on the side of caution.
Sorry J R, I don’t respond to threats from punks like you.
Wow JR, that’s deep man…deep. You both moved me to tears and made me tremble in fear in the same post. Touching…so very touching.
And, my kid will be living in the world we leave him as well. Except, with the kind of ignorance you’re breeding your kid will be working for my kid…well, if he is worth hiring in the first place.
JRIf I believed in reincarnation, I would believe that you once burned witches.
Your “God” is “Mother Earth” and you regard any dissent from your weird Global Warming “religion” as heresy.
You are the ugly part of an angry mob. You incite hatred and violence, if you can get away with it. Fortunately, you seem to have very few followers.
As stated before, most bullies are idiots. You prove my point!
How on EARTH will we know, 50 years from now, even if the Earth IS 2 degrees warmer, whether or not that increase was caused by man?
And if it was caused by man, why should your liberal “heroes” like Al Gore be off the hook for their personal behavior? The majority of liberals who advocate for Kyoto and Carbon Credits/Carbon Taxes have a LARGER carbon footprint than the average American.
What hypocrisy!
Oh well, you Democrats can’t get anything done anyway.
Bush won’t have to veto much, you obviously can’t pass anything!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032200944_pf.html
I also saw how the Dems pulled back their “DC Representation” Bill (Unconstitutional anyway) But Dems are having trouble since conservative Dems want to add an amendment overturning the DC Gun Ban. — The Courts are going to throw out the ban anyway, but Lib Dems won’t allow the Conservative Dems to vote on this one!)
My point is that the Dems can’t get anything done.
Republican,
“Some one here Mr. Hyperlink quacking his repetitive tune?”
I posted the links to provide the facts — that area of the Antarctic IS warming, and IS having more melt days.
I’ll REPEAT my obvious, direct, NON-hyperlinked questions to YOU.—–Can you explain how a climate warming 4.5 degs F, to just ABOVE freezing, and more days of meltwater would NOT weaken the ice?
Can you explain how that WEAKER ice would NOT be MORE susceptible to breakup, from stresses and storms?
Can you offer better theories, that other scientists agree with? That match COMMON SENSE?—–
Republican… are you unable to debate like a mature adult?
You know, what would happen if that ice DID melt?
I just saw the movie The Day After Tomorrow so quiz me, I know.
PAUL F. ROSELL, financial planner,
You’re barking up the WRONG tree. Please contact these people directly, and convince THEM that they are WRONG.http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/558.htm
Cosmos,
Can you stop ignoring what I proposed on the real cause of the Larsen B breakup?
I doubt you can, you already sold yourself down the river to the GW fanatics.
Nice try Paul.
If one of us is a zealot it would be you.
And I grow more and more amused at the “bully” charge. I can’t use anything against you that you don’t bring here yourself.
“You are the ugly part of an angry mob. You incite hatred and violence, if you can get away with it.”
Nope Paulie I just call a shill a shill. Shill.
With more open minded and reasonable posters, I take a different tac. I encourage those who would not see but what makes them comfortable to see both sides. I’d ask you if YOU had seen the Gore documentary but I know you haven’t and won’t.
You’re a zealot Paul. It nearly got you arrested once remember?
Encourage any kids to lay down in front of cars lately Paul?
Lol. When you say it on the internet, it’s forever!
Threaten anyone J R? You’ve threaten me several times here on this blog.
You have some mental issues.
One more before Paul calls my Mom and cries about me “bullying” him.
Salem witch trials in my past life Paul?
We have much more recent zealotry on your part.
Didn’t you once say that the people at CBS should be dragged into the street and shot?
Republican,
“Can you stop ignoring what I proposed on the real cause of the Larsen B breakup?”
Question #1: Am I CORRECT in saying that your 2:30 AM post “proposed” the “real cause” was “storms”?
Please answer yes, or no.
Question #2: PLEASE tell all of us how I was “ignoring” your “storms” point, when I included it in my question (twice) to you:
(emphasis added)”Can you explain how that WEAKER ice would NOT be MORE susceptible to breakup, from stresses and ****STORMS****?”
You seem to have sold yourself down the river of denial… and that’s NOT the river in Egypt.
Looks like JR got out the lefty playbook.
Play # 1. Got no answer? No problem, just change the subject and maybe they will forget.
Absolutely, the storms caused an already weakly formed ice shelf that was floating on the ocean to be heaved up and broken up even more.
The ice shelf was in water already susceptible to surging underwater tidal influences.
The ice shelf had effects of grounding (slanted slopes) that kept the intensity of tidal influences on a cyclic basis. Pounding, thrashing the ice shelf relentlessly hour after hour, day after day.
The effects of melting occurs with any ice shelf and Glacial mass. What you are proposing is simpling a natural process of any ice shelf break up.
And how come your side is ignoring the much larger break up of the Rosal Ice shelf? It was many times larger than the Larsen B and not one peep out of the GW conspiracy?
Why is that?
RepublicanKhanJM
“You’ve threaten me several time here on this blog.”
Oh? Care to show one?
Do you mean using your own posts against you? That’s hardly a threat.
“You have some mental issues.”
You’re projecting JM.
I saved all of them J R, waiting for the proper time to send them to Phillip Brownlee. :) Complete web pages.
You can’t even remember your own rhetoric. Pretty sad.
I’m sorry SOB. When did you join this thread in a serious capacity?
Are you Paul’s mom?
Bring it RepublicanKhanJM!
Pages and pages huh? And YOU only here 3 weeks?
I’ll just ask Phil to have a look at your IP addresses.:)
Go ahead J R, it will prove fruitless.
You are truly a delusional person claiming I’m someone else.
Yes, pages and pages…you don’t realize how many times per day you go over the top.
I’ve said it elsewhere.
Put up the gun or fire it.
Hey howsabout we do it on the next “Open”?
I’ll put my “over the top” against yours any day.
Republican,
So that’s a “yes” to my question #1 (”storms”)?
WAS that a “yes”, or a “no” to my question #2 (I “ignored” “storms”)?
Republican: “What you are proposing is simpling a natural process of any ice shelf break up.”
A 4.5 deg F. warming (to above freezing), and more days of meltwater, caused by AGW, is simply a “natural process”? You seem to be delusional.
And ANOTHER strawman, re Ross ice shelf? That’s weak. Very, very weak.
But heh… that’s all that your side has. VERY weak stuff.
A strawman? You need to go back and re-take your course in critical thinking, that is, if you even attended one in the first place, which I doubt.
The Rosal Ice shelf broke off a much large piece than the Larsen B. It was due to natural processes that occur with ice plates, shelves, glaciers and etc.
How come this much larger one occurs and it wasn’t reported by the GW conspiracy people? Hmmm?
Melt pools or ponds are well known in the path of a Glacier. You are delusional Cosmos.
You haven’t proved a thing, you’re just arguing some hyperlink and quoting it over and over.
You can argue because you have no independent thought. All of your knowledge is tied up into hyperlinks.
“can’t argue”
Republican,
Who on the AGW side is “ignoring” the Ross ice?
How do “natural processes”, like at Ross, INVALIDATE the unusual warming, and more melt days in the Antarctic Peninsula region.
I did NOT ignore your “storm” theory.
I’m STILL WAITING for you to answer my questions—Can you explain how a climate warming 4.5 degs F, to just ABOVE freezing, and more days of meltwater would NOT weaken the ice?
Can you explain how that WEAKER ice would NOT be MORE susceptible to breakup, from stresses and ****STORMS****?—
Those are direct questions, from me to you, not a “hyperlink”.
Can you answer them? Your “independent thoughts”?
Instead of calling me “delusional”, changing the subject (Ross), etc?
Rational people can understand that if humans add more GHG’s to Earth’s atmosphere, Earth will get warmer.
Rational people can understand that ice melts when temperatures go ABOVE freezing.
Rational people can understand that an ice shelf with many deep crevasses and moulins CAUSED by that melting will be MORE susceptible to breakup.
Cosmos,
You explain how a climate warming 4.5 degs F, to just ABOVE freezing, and more days of meltwater would NOT weaken the ice?
It’s your sides pet theory not mine.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Republican,
I AGREE with the scientists that the Antarctic Peninsula ice was weakened by the warming climate.
You claimed that the scientists and I are wrong, and the “storm” cause Larsen-B to breakup.
The “storm” is your “pet theory”. Answer my questions, or admit that you’re wrong.
Already explained several times Cosmos.
The only roadblock in your way is to disprove that a combination of storm, pressure, ground and the physics of ocean waves have no effect on an ice shelf which floats in the water.
Now get to it Cosmos…
BTW explain how your Global Warming effects can penetrate several hundred feet down underwater to break off an ice shelf.
Melting ice in the ocean at 200 feet in depth? ROFL!
Republican,
The meltwater DID cause crevasses DEEP into the ice.
Did you NOT even read the theory that you insist is wrong?
From your “storm” theory site.http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~christowilson/science.htm“Research done by scientists from the University of Chicago suggests that melt water seeping into existing crevasses tends to break them further since water is more dense than the surrounding ice. As shown in diagram B, as these cracks extend through the ice they exert pressure on the rest of the sheet horizontally since they tend to tip over. After a critical mass of cracks form the combined force of them all breaks the sheet outward like in diagram C as all the pieces topple over sideways (2).This explains the blue color and rapid outward expansion of the ice debris seen from satellite images after Larsen-B collapsed: the pieces falling on their side would have exposed tons of blue, glacial ice usually covered by snow to the sky as they fell sideways (5). This contrasts normal calving events where the iceberg remains white as seen from above since it does not fall sideways, it merely separates and begins to float.
Detailed report from that site’s ‘reference’http://geosci.uchicago.edu/%7Edrm7/research/Jglac_49_(164).pdf
And I did NOT say storms, waves, etc have no effect.
Again, the “storm” is your “pet theory”. Answer my questions, or admit that you’re wrong.
I’ll admit it. You’re wrong.
I still say so what if there’s melting. The ocean’s a big place – it can take it. Then there will be freezing again. Then all will be fine still.
Trust me, I know. I just saw The Day After Tomorrow. Woohoo!
“break them further” from your entered text Cosmos. Not initiating the effect solely to GW.
Your initial assertion that Larson B as mentioned by Al Gore(the Goracle)was from the effects of GW only.
I simply added and proved that there were ocean waves, storms and pressures primarily responsible for the break up of a floating ice shelf.
You entry from your hyperlinked document that you once again write : “break them further” not only substantiates my theory that the ice shelf was not caused by GW only and the major cause were natural processes.
Your own hyperlinks and words defeat you Cosmos.
Republican,
“Your initial assertion that Larson B as mentioned by Al Gore(the Goracle)was from the effects of GW only.”
False. Quote the post where I said or implied that.
This one? “Can you explain how that WEAKER ice would NOT be MORE susceptible to breakup, from stresses and ****STORMS****?”
Are there ANY ice shelfs that do NOT have natural “existing crevasses”?
Question: WHAT allowed melt water to “break them further”?
Answer: A WARMING climate, with MORE melt days.
If there had be FEWER melt days, the melt water would NOT have been able to “break them further” as DEEPLY — and they’d re-freeze later.
It’s like multiple hammer blows on a wedge to split firewood.
Prove that the Antarctic Peninsula ice would’ve broken up the way it did, if a warming climate had not allowed melt water to “break them further”.
“The earth’s temperature has risen 1/2 a degree higher. So obviously the earth will be a burning ball of fire”
The Goracle
blah blah f**king blah
“without this gig, who’d listen to me?”
The Goracle
“If we build a really big lockbox, we can put the warming in there.”
The Goracle
Prove that the Antarctic Peninsula ice would’ve broken up the way it did, if a warming climate had not allowed melt water to “break them further”.Posted by: cosmos | March 23, 2007 at 02:31 PM
You mean proof like the much larger piece of the Rosal Ice Shelf that broke away without any evidence of GW making it happening?
Republican,
You mean Ross, not Rosal?
This event, with the LARGE SNOW-covered pieces?http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=6779
Ross broke off by a different process than Larsen-B.
Larsen-B broke off in sheets, and the photos show the blue ice, not the normal snow-covered bergs from calving.
Stop changing the subject, and answer my question re the Antarctic Peninsula ice. Or admit that you’re wrong.
I think I’m having a Gorgasm.fap fap fap
Well said fleettwood! You grasp the administration position perfectly!
That is not what I was grasping.
Some key points re the Antarctic Peninsula ice shelf breakups:
* Scientists thought they’d be stable for a MUCH longer time.* Ice shelf breakup allows faster movement of land-based glaciers, causing a faster sea level rise.* If human-added GHG’s warm Earth past the “tipping-point”, there’s probably NO way we can stop those sea level rises.
NASA recently discovered the positive feedback of less phytoplankton if the oceans warm — and there may be other unknowns out there.
Or more accurately, ughknowns!!!, considering the impact it’d have on our Earth.
Please carefully read, and think about (emphasis added),’Larsen Ice Shelf 2002warmest summer on record leads to disintegration’http://web.pdx.edu/~chulbe/science/Larsen/larsen2002.html“This season’s dramatic events, coming at the end of an exceptionally warm summer when melt ponds were pervasive, provide a good test for the theory.Days before the final break-up, large meltponds are seen to contract, indicating that crevasses had cracked through the FULL thickness of the ice shelf and the surface water was begining to DRAIN to the sea.The southern boundary of the embayment cut into the Larsen B TRACKS CLOSELY to the southernmost limit of surface meltponds seen in images leading up to the March event.Together, these observations lend STRONG support to the meltwater-crevasse propagation theory.”
http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/“Melt ponds are occasionally observed in limited regions of the Larsen C shelf. More importantly, the warmest part of the GIANT Ross Ice Shelf is in fact only a FEW degrees too cool in summer presently to undergo the SAME kind of retreat process.The Ross Ice Shelf is the main outlet for several MAJOR glaciers draining the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which contains the equivalent of 5 m of sea level rise in its above-sea-level ice.”
Cosmos~ thanks for the large expanse of scroll over territory.
My personal opinion is that brevity is the soul of wit, and also a workable dialogue.
Otherwise, you are lecturing. No thanks.
Wit? Brevity?
I pity your lack of attention span and your predelection for low comedy “Sanford”.
Perhaps you would be happier monitoring and offering opinion about the Cartoon channel?
You are a non entity here. Why not check out some cartoons?
I guess J R doesn’t know Sanford is a Swedish knockout. :D
Sanford,
No, thank Republican for the many ice-shelf posts on this thread.
He seems unable to understand the meltwater-crevasse theory, and it’s significance.
Republican, JM,
Do you understand the meltwater-crevasse theory?