Global Warming

“Science sure is spooky.”

“Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking
18 Apr 2009

SYDNEY: New analysis has indicated that contrary to the belief that there is large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, ice is actually
expanding in a large portion of the continent.

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica.

The destabilization of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.

However, according to a report in the Australian, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report noted that the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

According to Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison, sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

The melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water.

Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps.

In Antarctica, these losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by glacial movements on the mainland.

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting.

"The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said.

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years.

The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.



But no wait....isn't it shrinking ? Isn't it....oh wait , this is the cooling global warming not the warming global warming....or maybe it's the cooling and warming global warming.....

IT'S CARL ROVE'S FAULT!”

“Sunday, April 19, 2009

Bad News for the Goracle [Edward John Craig]

In taking note of the surging anthropogenic-climate-change skepticism that Rasmussen reports, Lawrence Solomon (delightfully) lays the blame at Obama's feet.

Climate change skepticism has soared under Obama's presidency, with only one third of American likely voters now blaming humans for climate change, according to a Rasmussen poll released today. In contrast, 48% believe that long term planetary trends are responsible, 7% blame other non-man-made factors, and 11% aren’t sure.

The plummeting support for Al Gore’s thesis — the lowest ever — is a complete reversal from one year ago, when 47% blamed humans and only 34% saw long-term planetary trends as the culprits.

The rise in climate change scepticism, and decline in pinning the blame on humans, tracks Obama’s assumption of power. In December, one month after his defeat of John McCain in the presidential race, the number of Americans who blamed people dropped to 43%. By February, the figure had dropped to 38% and it now rests at 34%

Why has Al Gore’s position lost so much credibility with the American public? While the Rasmussen poll does not explore this question, two Obama factors could be at play.

First, public hostility toward George Bush and the Republicans likely expressed itself in part as hostility toward global warming scepticism, with which Bush and the Republicans were identified. As soon as the Republicans lost power, many in the public lost their fervour in opposing climate change scepticism.

Second, the recession, combined with proposals from the new Obama administration to start taxing carbon in one form or another, gave the public new reason to question whether carbon dioxide really is the demon that climate change doomsayers claim. Upon investigation, the public would have found little to support the doomsayer case.





honestly , how dumb do they think we are?”

“You're pathetic.”

“�You're peculiar.”

“Progressives are dangerous, and government is out of control...


EPA takes first step toward climate change regs
Apr 17 11:58 AM US/Eastern
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer

Obama Tells Congress: Send Me Legislation That Places Market-based Cap on Carbon Pollution

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Environmental Protection Agency concluded Friday that greenhouse gases linked to climate change "endanger public health and welfare," setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws.

The EPA action marks the first step toward imposing limits on pollution linked to climate change, which would mean tighter rules for cars and power plants. Agency officials cautioned such regulations are expected to be part of a lengthy process and not issued anytime soon.

Limits on carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases would have widespread economic and social impact, from requiring better fuel efficiency for automobiles to limiting emissions from power plants and industrial sources, changing the way the nation produces energy.

In announcing the proposed finding, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said it "confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations." She reiterated that the Obama administration prefers that climate change be address by Congress through broad, economy-wide limits on climate-changing pollution. But the EPA finding of endangerment prepares for possible regulatory action if Congress fails to act.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., whose Environment and Public Works Committee is considering climate legislation, said the EPA finding—stalled by the Bush administration—is long overdue but that "the best and most flexible way" to deal with the problem is for Congress to take action on a broader approach.

Friday's action by the EPA triggered a 60-day comment period before the agency issues a final endangerment ruling.

The agency said in its finding that "in both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem" and that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases "that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act."

The EPA concluded that the science pointing to man-made pollution as a cause of global warming is "compelling and overwhelming." It also said tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles contribute to climate change.

The EPA action was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling two years ago that said greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and must be regulated if found to be a danger to human health or public welfare.

The Bush administration strongly opposed using the Clean Air Act to address climate change and stalled on producing the so-called "endangerment finding" demanded by the high court in its April 2007 ruling.

The court case, brought by Massachusetts, focused only on emissions from automobiles. But it is widely assumed that if the EPA must regulate emissions from cars and trucks, it will have no choice but to control identical pollution from power plants and industrial sources.

Congress is considering imposing an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions along with giving industry the ability to trade emission allowances to mitigate costs. Legislation could be considered by the House before the August congressional recess.”

“*snicker*”

“Look at the facts Tilt, and who you callin Pathetic dude? Stovie eat your snicker dude.”

“It looked like a sniker.”

“"honestly , how dumb do they think we are?�
- stratd00d”

“You can't handle the truth!”

“Some questions can't be un-asked, lol.”

“nevermind ----”

“Cap n Trade, gang. Here it comes and it'll be the final nail in your sovereignty. The progressives(Dems and Repubs) think that you have too much control over your Government and are deliberately and methodically stripping away your liberties.

Wake up and make a stand for rationality, responsibility, accountability, before its too late!”

“And their solutions are even worse

April 20, 2009 | 8 comments
Corn Ethanol Will Not Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions
California regulators may rule that the biofuel is no better--and might be worse--than petroleum for solving climate change

By Matthew Cimitile


CUTTING BACK ON CORN? Corn ethanol's day in the sun might be winding down in California.


California regulators, trying to assess the true environmental cost of corn ethanol, are poised to declare that the biofuel cannot help the state reduce global warming.

As they see it, corn is no better – and might be worse – than petroleum when total greenhouse gas emissions are considered.

Such a declaration, to be considered later this week by the California Air Resources Board, would be a considerable blow to the corn-ethanol industry in the United States.

If passed, the measure could serve as a model as other states and the federal government tackle carbon emissions. But California's regulators say they have no choice.

The state must assess the full climate change impact of corn ethanol under a California law requiring a sharp cut in carbon emissions from transportation fuels. The board must encourage the use of cleaner alternatives like electricity, hydrogen and cellulosic ethanol, said board spokesman Dimitri Stanich.

The proposal would work like this: If increased production of corn-based ethanol in the U.S. raises corn prices and accelerates the conversion of rainforests and conservations lands to farmland worldwide, greenhouse emissions and loss of the carbon sink associated with such deforestation and disruption must be counted towards the biofuel's total emissions.

"Losing a carbon sink would defeat the purpose of this regulation to reduce greenhouse emissions," Stanich said.

The regulation is part of California's low-carbon fuel standard to reduce greenhouse emissions from transportation fuels by an average of 10 percent by 2020 or 16 million metric tons of carbon emissions over the next decade.

A regional low carbon fuel standard has also been adopted by eleven northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. And President Obama has called for a national low carbon fuel standard. Both efforts are likely to look at California's findings as a model.

Federal law requires U.S. transportation fuels contain 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022, of which 21 billion gallons must be cellulosic ethanol.

But an overwhelming majority of ethanol mixed into gasoline today comes from corn. By 2012, about a third of all corn produced in the U.S. will go towards making ethanol, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Proponents say this will create thousands of jobs while reducing carbon emissions.

They fear California's rule could stymie that, creating an unfair playing field that only penalizes biofuel production.”

“DOOD...its not the environment it wealth envy. The wackos are just angry that they don't have stuff the hard working successful people have. They figure at least if the other people are miserable they will be happy.”

“Same chit we've heard for ever.”

“XL, I agree, but this Climate Change scam is how they are using fear to achieve their goals....”

“BraKing news!”

“you forgot to include the text that came with it. many uncertains (may, could, no one is sure). so you posted one hypothetical.

text from the above image:
Explanation: How much will the Earth's surface warm up over the lives of our children? No one is sure. Compared to the past 100 million years, the Earth is currently enduring a relative cold spell, possibly about four degrees Celsius below average. Over the past 100 years, however, data indicate the average global temperature of the Earth has increased by nearly one degree Celsius. Few disagree that recent global warming is occurring, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that we humans have created a warming surge that is likely to continue. A future temperature increase like that shown on the above predictive map may cause sea levels to rise, precipitation patterns to change, and much pole ice to melt. The result could impact many local agricultures and the global economy. Geoengineering projects that might include artificial cloud creation might reduce the amount of warming sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface

now let's look at history, not conjecture.


Figure 1 Example of regional variations in surface air temperature for the last 1000 years, estimated from a variety of sources, including temperature-sensitive tree growth indices and written records of various kinds, largely from western Europe and eastern North America. Shown are changes in regional temperature in� C, from the baseline value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991.


Figure 2 Variations in regional surface temperatures for the last 18,000 years, estimated from a variety of sources. Shown are changes in�C, from the value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991.


Figure 3 Air temperature near Antarctica for the last 150,000 years. Temperatures given are inferred from hydrogen/deuterium ratios measured in an ice core from the Antarctic Vostok station, with reference to the value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. Jouzel et al., Nature vol 329, pp 403-408, 1987 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991.

look at figure 3. the last major spike, the start of the present interglacial period, wasn't even as drastic as the one leading to the start of the eemian interglacial period. the earth is going to do what the earth does, warm up and cool down. there have been heat rises in the past that match, even exceeded the current. while i don't argue we add co2 to the atmosphere, the vanity of humans to think they can cause or stop the earth from doing what it does is too far of a stretch for me.

i'm not against conservation of resources and the environment, but science tells me the fear mongers are exactly that, fear mongers.

source of my info:
U.S. Global Change Research Information Office, Suite 250, 1717 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20006

go visit them. there's a good bit of info.

http://gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/geoclimate.html
last edited: 4/21/09 11:10:03 AM”

“Baume, you should know by now that only one side has real science behind it along with almost kinda sorta consensus.



That looks wrong.....concensus? Consensus? Where's Crash Bang?”

“I don't listen to the centigrade crap, I'm holding out with the rest of the 4.2% of world population.”

“Stay slim to save the planet
Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:28pm EDT


LONDON (Reuters) - Overweight people eat more than thin people and are more likely to travel by car, making excess body weight doubly bad for the environment, according to a study from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

"When it comes to food consumption, moving about in a heavy body is like driving around in a gas guzzler," and food production is a major source of greenhouse gases, researchers Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts wrote in their study, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

"We need to be doing a lot more to reverse the global trend toward fatness, and recognize it as a key factor in the battle to reduce (carbon) emissions and slow climate change," the British scientists said.

They estimated that each fat person is responsible for about one tonne of carbon dioxide emissions a year more on average than each thin person, adding up to an extra one billion tonnes of CO2 a year in a population of one billion overweight people.

The European Union estimates each EU citizen accounts for 11 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year.”

“
Suck on it Leroy! � ROF

”

“LOL..TILTY you know that there has NEVER been a "prediction" on future warming that could be reverse tested? Meaning its a freaking wild guess and no where close to scientific.”

“I wonder if Tilt was so militant about global cooling in the 70's.”

“How many rolls of TP have you people used to write chit about Tilt? Keep rolling Necks.”

“That top new stopry is an incredible piece of selective reporting and spin. The headline isn't evern supported by the content. It also seriously misprepresents what SCAR has reported.

See: http://www.scar.org/

Baume's argument makes more sense. It provides what seems to be a plausible explanation for the facts - it doesn't try to deceive about the nature of the facts and personally, I don't claim to know why things are warming up or where things will go from here. The changes in CO2 are scary - but (at least with my limitted knowldge) - I don't pretend to know that this and other greenhouse gas changes is what is causing the warming.”

“Nothing like reality to screw up a good religion huh tilt?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=325207473659451

Every year Steven Hayward, a scholar at the Pacific Research Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, compiles his Index of Leading Environmental Indicators. And every year, his findings contradict the alarmists' warnings that the world is on the edge of environmental cataclysm.

From evidence "that tropical rain forests may now be expanding faster than they are being cut down" to the improving health of U.S. ocean fisheries to better outdoor air quality in American cities with the worst air pollution, Hayward shows there's more to be optimistic about than there is to be troubled about.

The Environmental Protection Agency has also published its own Report on the environment. Last year's report, the most recent, indicates outdoor air quality has improved, there's been a net gain in wetland acreage, public-source drinking-water problems are uncommon and forest land is expanding after declining for a century.

Filled with extremists and anti-capitalist crusaders, its primary goals have changed. Topping the agenda of today's environmentalist groups is the pulling down of market economies, the raising up of central planning for egalitarian goals, forced lifestyle changes and the vilification � in hopes of the elimination � of signs of wealth.

None of these advance the planet's environmental health. But capitalism has. Through wealth generated by the free market, we have enough resources to move beyond the subsistence economies that damage the environment, enough disposable income to fund clean-up programs, enough wealth to scrub and polish industry.

Only in advanced economies can the technology needed to recycle hazardous waste or to replace dirty coal-fired power plants with cleaner gas or nuclear plants be developed. That technology cannot be produced in centrally planned economies where the profit motive is squelched and lives are marshalled by the state.”

“Four interesting articles on solar vs. human origins for global warming:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092655.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3036032.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm --- this one is interesting given that it relates to a solar theory that has bitten the dust
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

And interesting stuff on the solar activity variations

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8008473.stm
last edited: 4/23/09 10:52:26 AM”

“Question Ped, if we found out that we were facing a repeat of the "Little Ice Age" could we as humans do something to offset the historically destructive nature of that time?

Truthfully, say we had something sun related and then added the impact of a couple of major eruptions....could we effect it?”

“Light switches switching madly on and off in quest of the great single cause.”

“[/i]This went on for about a million years. About 10,000 years ago the earth started to warm up. Sheets of ice started to melt. As the ice melted it left lakes and broad valleys with a mixture of rocks and soil. The only ice left was up high in the mountains. The glaciers that you see now are what is left over from the ice age."[/i]

Why do we speak of the ice age in past tense? News flash: WE ARE STILL IN A WANING ICE AGE!

OMG! Discovery Channel was much about global warming yesterday. It was quite amusing. Some folk are selling the idea that we can stop the recession of glaciers, icecaps, etc. LOL! What consters! These guys are making millions and millions of dollars. This will go down as the biggest scam since.... uh.... the last really big scam.

http://library.thinkquest.org/3876/iceage.html
last edited: 4/23/09 11:32:12 AM”

“Wait...so putting what you are saying in context...if we are COMING OUT OF AN ICE AGE...that means...it would be getting WARMER??????? Kinda like how it gets warmer every April and May? But we get global cooling in October (LOL)....?”

“interesting read. sounds like there some type of grudge match going on between svensmark and lockwood. i guess that would be expected when each persons work is being disputed by the other.

if i'm reading correctly, neither camp knows for sure what effect cosmic rays have on cloud formation but the majority lean towards minimal.”

“This will all be sooooo moot when Yellowstone blows.”

“i agree gojo.”

“Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable?
By Anthony Watts
SurfaceStations.org
Executive Summary


Global warming is one of the most serious issues of our times. Some experts claim the
rise in temperature during the past century was “unprecedented” and proof that immediate
action to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions must begin. Other experts say the
warming was very modest and the case for action has yet to be made.
The reliability of data used to document temperature trends is of great importance in this
debate. We can’t know for sure if global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the data.
The official record of temperatures in the continental United States comes from a network
of 1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, a
department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Until now,
no one had ever conducted a comprehensive review of the quality of the measurement
environment of those stations.
During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically
document more than 860 of these temperature stations. We were shocked by what we found.
We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads,
on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at
wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own
siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/
reflecting heat source.
In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.
It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report
a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice
that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government
agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.
The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable.
The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7º C (about 1.2º F) during the
twentieth century. Consequently, this record should not be cited as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have
occurred across the U.S. during the past century. Since the U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows
that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.
This report presents actual photos of more than 100 temperature stations in the U.S., many of them demonstrating vividly
the siting issues we found to be rampant in the network. Photographs of all 865 stations that have been surveyed so far can
be found at www.surfacestations.org, where station photos can be browsed by state or searched for by name.

http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/SurfaceStations.pdf”

“Looks like the human activities these locations were measuring are pretty reliable. Direct production of heat is involved in every human activity, but let's talk about green house space man stuff.”

“If you go to that PFD it shows a bunch of photos of these official thermometers right next to heat sources....over and over and over. It's stupefying”

“This is accuracy according to the left


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgVEf2kUweU&feature=PlayList&p=02D5FCF6348B8183&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=35”

“i saw this earlier this week. it's interesting.


they have pictures of two in california that have been around for about 100 years. the one that's been maintained correctly, shows cooling. the one that hasen't (now sits in a parkig area against a builing near the discharge of ac units)shows warming trends. hhmmmmm...... go figure
last edited: 5/07/09 12:03:55 PM”

“Paybacks are heck � remember your laws of thermodynamics.”

“orland, ca.: maintained properly





marysville, ca: not maintained properly



last edited: 5/07/09 12:27:27 PM”

“I hear the enviro wackos are suggesting dropping the term "global Warming" because it is being seen as the Snake Oil Sales pitch that it is.”

“I guess we won't talk about how the economy has cut energy use down to levels unseen since the turn of the century. Good time to tell us all about thermometer placement that proves man made heat is being released into our environment”

“And Oil and Natural gas are heading back up again.”

“So uncliff...you are saying that a 6 month change will have THAT Significant of an impact????”