Thank you for the sciam link,

‘Thanks to Climate Change, by 2050 America’s Breadbasket Will Be in Canada’

and also the included link,’New crops needed to avoid famines’http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6200114.stm

Perhaps Max will now post something about how Hillary’s campaign funding is more important to the U.S. (and the world), than global warming? :)

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=thanks_to_climate_change_by_2050_america&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Nice to know Neufeld is looking after wheat farmers!”

America’s maple farmers have lost a lot of their business because of rising temperatures shifting more maple production to Canada. We used to get 80% of maple from U.S. farmers but now we only get 20%.

More about the cooling trend in the stratosphere — and you will enjoy the title. :)

‘The sky IS falling’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling

How can we have simultaneously, “BAD” warming AND “BAD” cooling????”

Paul – I recommend that you take at least one climatology course; preferably graduate level after the pre-requisites.

I’ll try to make it simple for you. If I improve the insulation in my attic in the winter then I BOTH keep my house warmer AND make the roof colder. That is because the heat is not escaping from my house as easily.

If, on the other hand, my house is warmed because it is hot outside then my roof would likely be warmed even more.

Thus the difference between the effect of increasing solar output (warming throughout the atmosphere) and ‘better insulation’ (split warming/cooling)

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=thanks_to_climate_change_by_2050_america&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Nice to know Neufeld is looking after wheat farmers!

“Average temperatures are continually moving up or down. … In spite of what Al Gore says, there never has been a time of equilibrium in the system, and that’s a good thing.”

Posted by: Ron | September 30, 2007 at 10:26 AM

Gore’s documentary had a graph that very clearly showed how Earth’s climate had wide temperature swings during the last 600,000+ years.

Ron: “Thirty-five years ago NASA’s James Hansen was designing climate models that showed an ice age was imminent;”

Hansen did not write, nor endorse the 1971 paper re cooling.

Hansen wrote his first paper on climate in 1976 (31 years ago) on how human-made methane and nitrous oxide were likely to be important GHG’s.Details at,http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_Grandfather_70924.pdf

Ron: “But the track record of the models is just as dismal.”

Actually, it’s very good. See graphs, etc at,

‘Climate MYTHS: We can’t trust computer models’http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11649

Please excuse me Ron, for not wasting my time debunking the rest of your post.

The Earth is not a black body, and Heinz Hug’s CO2 work(sic) is a joke.

http://staff.imsa.edu/science/geophysics/atmosphere/ebm/ebm1.html

http://staff.imsa.edu/science/geophysics/atmosphere/energy/planck1.html

http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

Short-wave Radiation- Direct sunlightLong-wave Radiation- Absorbed and reradiated energy

Absorption is radiant energy absorbed. All sorts of things absorb energy, water, earth, gases (co2 – etc.)

The albedo effect is when radiant energy is reflected back (white=snow) Snow’s high albedo helps keep temperatures low by reflecting solar radiation away.

Basically, two types of radiation addressing the matter here:

The Earth’s oceans and land masses eventually radiate heat back out. Some of this heat makes it into space (troposphere etc.) The rest of it ends up getting absorbed when it hits certain things in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane gas and water vapor.

The argument in my opinion is the duration of time of the absorption with co2. My side of the argument argues it is statistically insignificant what man made co2 does in the atmosphere because it is in such a small amount and the effective yield of absorption over time wouldn’t really correlate very well with the amount of man made co2 released and the gradual increase in temperature (heat) we are seeing. (this has to do with the nature of blackbodies – won’t go into that here)

Anyway, time to shower…

There are too many other factors that are poorly considered by the Kyoto Protocol researchers because they don’t know much about them or give them little weight which they shouldn’t do, just to promote their pet theories.

“Note also that if warming were caused by an increase in solar output you would expect WARMING of the stratosphere; not cooling.

Posted by: Ben | October 01, 2007 at 04:52 PM

WE ARE GETTING GLOBAL WARMING ARENT WE?

So, the sun isnt warming enough to warm the stratosphere, but the rest of Globe IS warming?

Wouldnt Man Made Global Warming also warm the Stratosphere???

How can we have simultaneously, “BAD” warming AND “BAD” cooling????

“The upper-level ozone layer has thinned dramatically in the Southern Hemisphere in recent decades, creating a dangerous hole through which UV rays stream. The decline is due largely to man-made chlorofluorocarbons released into the atmosphere.”

Also mentioned is a cooling of the stratosphere making the northern hemisphere effect worse. This too is anthropogenic:

http://www.wunderground.com/education/strato_cooling.asp

Note also that if warming were caused by an increase in solar output you would expect WARMING of the stratosphere; not cooling.

“The decline is due largely to man-made chlorofluorocarbons released into the atmosphere.”

Posted by Econ101.

No, it clearly states that very intense solar storms around Halloween 2003 AND a massive low pressure system caused the Arctic ozone drop..http://www.livescience.com/environment/050301_ozone_thinning.html

That does not refute the science re CFC’s and loss of ozone in the Southern Hemisphere.

Posted by: Melvin

No, but it probably will be. Hotter temperatures = more evaportion and water demand. Native plants and animals will be stressed, etc.

And GW will definitely be bad for the worlds coastal areas (sea level rise). A warmer, more acidic ocean will be bad for coral reefs and marine life. Water supplied by glaciers will be gone. Heat waves and storms will be more severe, etc.

A rational human race would not risk the many known negatives worldwide, for some possible, but unknown positives in a few regions.

Posted by: Melvin | September 30, 2007 at 09:50 PM

It’s impossible to answer that question.Posted by: cosmos

Well then just as certainly you cannot say GW will be bad for Kansas either, nor to what extent.

Posted by: Melvin | September 30, 2007 at 09:50 PM

It’s impossible to answer that question.

And Melvin Neufeld has NO proof to support his pro-coal claim, that global warming is a good thing for Kansas.

The future climate change in Kansas (and worldwide) depends on too many unknowns. Four example reasons,

1) How soon, and how sharply, will humans reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

2) How much will (known and unknown) natural positive feedbacks amplify our human-caused warming?

3) Global warming events (Arctic sea ice melt, etc) are happening FASTER than scientists had projected.

4) Scientists are not yet able to accurately project regional climate changes.

The optimal climate, sea level, etc is the one ALL life on Earth has lived in for the past many centuries.

And… if we do not like the future climate changes, it will be probably be impossible to reverse them.

This is just another example of why Paul just can’t be trusted on scientific issues. The article he links to says, “The decline is due largely to man-made chlorofluorocarbons released into the atmosphere.”

Paul, if you are actually going to use science then perhaps it’s best to actually read the articles you are going to reference so you don’t disprove your own arguments.

Posted by: Palm Trees for Sale

But the plants will still emit CO2, and cause more global warming.

‘Stop coal, stop global warming, says architect’

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9782715-7.html?tag=nefd.blgs
The problem with coal is two fold: it spews a lot of carbon dioxide, among other materials into the air, and the world has a lot of it, making it tempting to use. In the U.S. alone, there are 151 coal plants in the planning and construction phase.

The emissions from a single coal-fired power plant for one month will negate the efforts Wal-Mart is putting forth to curb its emissions. Wal-Mart wants to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent in seven years, he said.

Home Depot has announced it will plant 300,000 trees to offset is carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, those 300,000 trees will have to live 100 years before they offset the fumes from ten days from a coal-fired plant, he said.Replace every incandescent bulb in America with compact fluorescents? The benefits are eradicated by the carbon dioxide from two coal-fired plants over a year, he said.

“The silver bullet is no more coal,” he said.”

A legal opinion released Friday by Attorney General Paul Morrison opines that Gov.Sebelius’ administration has wide latitude to reject a coal-fired electric power project in western Kansas. The opinion launched a flurry of action surrounding the proposal by Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to build twin 700-megawatt plants near Holcomb next to its existing 360-megawatt plant. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), which is considering permits for the plants, immediately sought to delay litigation filed by a Lawrence couple who want to stop the plant’s construction. And KDHE announced it would make a decision on the Sunflower permit within 30 days. KDHE is led by Secretary Rod Bremby, a Cabinet official appointed by Sebelius, a Democrat.Meanwhile, western Kansas legislators, mostly Republicans, who want the plant built said they will appoint a panel next week to find out why the permits for Sunflower Electric haven’t been granted yet. And one of them said Sebelius’ opposition to the project has politically charged the decision on whether it goes forward. “The bottom line is that politics has held this up for a ridiculously long time,” said Sen. Jay Emler, R-Lindsborg, and chairman of the Senate Utilities Committee. Emler said, “It will be denied and it will be all politics.”KDHE said, however, that political considerations would not play into its decision and have had no effect on the length of time it has taken to decide on the permits. “The secretary is reviewing the permit application and reviewing all the comments that have come in,”said KDHE spokesman Joe Blubaugh. Sunflower submitted its air quality permit application on June 1, 2006, and the period for hearings and public comment on the proposal ended in December 2006. Morrison’s legal opinion, which was sought by KDHE after the agency was sued over the plants, allows the agency to consider the effect of unregulated pollutants such as carbon dioxide when granting air quality permits. In other words, KDHE could reject Sunflower’s permits “to protect the health of persons or the environment.” But the opinion said KDHE probably couldn’t delay the issuance of permits if it decided to try to adopt regulations on carbon dioxide emissions. In other words, the agency’s regulatory scheme at the time of the permit application is what governs the outcome.Once the A.G.’s decision was announced, Sec. Bremby asked a Shawnee County District judge to delay oral arguments scheduled for Oct. 12 in a lawsuit filed by Sarah and Ray Dean, the Lawrence couple that sued KDHE to force it to impose restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, which many scientists believe causes disastrous climate change. Bremby said KDHE needed more time to analyze whether Morrison’s legal opinion would have any impact on the lawsuit. Of course, the A.G.’s opinion is just a lawyer’s opinion, not a court finding . . . but it is based upon careful research by knowledgeable attorneys. “Because of the pending litigation and the importance of this issue, we felt it was appropriate to seek an opinion from the attorney general,” Bremby said. “This guidance will now be analyzed and deliberated throughout the remainder of the decision-making process.”Rhetoric has increased about the proposal. Last week, dozens of Republican legislators wrote KDHE, urging the agency to permit the facility, while Sebelius and Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson continued to publicly state their opposition. Environmentalists say pollution from the plant will cause health problems and add to global climate change.
They also warned that a large part of Kansas residents live down wind from the proposed plants. After speaking at a renewable energy conference earlier this week, Parkinson told reporters that development of the project would hurt efforts to increase wind energy. And Sebelius has said one reason she opposes the Sunflower project is because about 90% of the energy would be sold out of state.Supporters say the plants will be among the cleanest-burning coal facilities in the nation, and help the western Kansas economy.