DEBATE ON GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Fshhead , 6:52 AM GMT on May 10, 2006

This is my continuing blog on global warming. If you are new visitor, please look at last couple of blog entrys also on global warming!!!!










"There are so many arguments proving & disputing global warming that people can't seem to agree completly on it. But for all the preperations that we make for hurricanes & other disasters, what do we have to lose if we prepare for global warming as if the worst might come true?
The answer is pure common sense. We should try to eliminate the variables that cause global warming instead of just arguing about it. It's like a hurricane- if we prepare for the worst, it can only save lives & money. If it does not come, no one will have been hurt & we may even have a healthier Earth."

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 711 - 661

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32Blog Index

711. MichaelSTL
12:30 AM CDT on August 20, 2006
This is from disneylogic's link (the RealClimate one):

One of the fallacies that Curry et al. list is the fallacy of distribution which "occurs when an argument assumes that what is true of the members is true of the class (composition), or what is true of the class is true of its members (division)." It seems to me that scientists have been commiting a similar fallacy for several years now.

They have been saying that you cannot prove that global warming is causing more hurricanes because that is the fallacy of Hasty Generalisation(not enough evidence.) But they have also argued that about the increase in forest fires, and melting glaciers, etc. By arguing that each member does not provide enough evidence, they are missing the point that when the evidence is added together it is true for the class.

In other words, although increased hurricanes on their own do not prove antrhopogenic global warming (AGW) is happening, when you include forest fires, melting glaciers etc. then it is obvious that it is happening. Since it is happening, then it logically follows that it must be causiing more hurricanes, forest fires, melting glaciers etc. We don't really need the temperature record to prove AGW! The symptoms are all there. What walks like a duck and quacks like a duck is a duck!

By concentrating on indivdual events, like Katrina, or even classes like hurricanes, then claiming there is no proof, they are committing the fallacy of distribution. To avoid it you must consider the super class.


Take note of what this says - even though any one event (or class of events) may not be the result of warming, when they are all taken togther, it suggests that something is going on... Also, I should correct what it says about hurricanes: not more hurricanes, but stronger ones.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
710. Alec
1:25 AM EDT on August 20, 2006
One thing that I might add is that weather data tracking was very inaccurate(before the inventions of barometers, satellites, and other weather tools) back in the days........Assuming that the Earth has been around for an extremely long time(billions of yrs as some claim), we know only a very small fraction of our weather cycles(compared to the timeframe of Earth's existance) and cannot compare recent weather patterns with inaccurate data from much further in earth's history(especially the time when we didnt have sophisticated weather instruments)........just my thoughts.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
709. Trouper415
5:05 AM GMT on August 20, 2006
Safetyteam,

We here on this blog and many others have done lots of research and read plenty of articles on Global Warming to know enough that every extreme storm is due to Global Warming. I bet if you followed this blog since it begun many months ago, you too would believe Global Warming is humans induced. Whether or not each individual extreme weather event is Global Warming caused is up in the air at every point, however looking at the past trends for decades, these events are on the rise and on schedule with Global Warming forcasts.

With no negatives whatsoever in the switch to alternative enegy, why not do so? Itll insure a much safer, cleaner, and better future for us and our children. And the people who advocate fossil fuels are screwing you as well, whatever your political stance. Its your choice whether or you belive Global Warming is human induced, however I do not believe there is even a reason for us to use fossil fuels taking into consideration all of the negatives they bring not even counting Global Warming.

Patrick
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 5 Comments: 718
708. disneylogic
10:31 PM EDT on August 19, 2006
did thing on climate change and science.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
707. disneylogic
8:39 PM EDT on August 19, 2006
RealClimate has a recent post and associated interesting discussion on the subject of hurricane trends.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
706. disneylogic
8:38 PM EDT on August 19, 2006
maybe this guy wants to move to Ireland.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
705. safetyteam
10:34 PM GMT on August 19, 2006
Hmmm...well, I see no one wants to discuss facts! You are too consumed with the hype of the of misstated facts and conjecture to look at actual facts and figures!

Yes, last year was a bit unusual, but the National Hurricane Center stated on CNN that these things run in cycles and pointed out that the Labor Day hurricane of 1935 was but one of three that year that were extremely strong. The other two hurricanes pressure were
not recorded as they were "near misses"!

Weather has run in cycles since recorded history. Even today we don't have the necessary data and understanding to figure out just what drives the weather. Ask any weatherman if he has enough information to make an accurate long term forecast and you will quickly see we are grossly short on data. Also, any person who deals with statistics will tell you that in the case of weather, 30 years, 50 years or even 100 years is not even enough to start to plot trends! Come on folks, get real! If you are going to "trend" at least use the past 1000 years for any trending. Also, the good Lord above gave you a brain, use it for something other than to properly keep your ears spaced! DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH! Avoid, or prove/disprove data given you by those who have an agenda!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
704. Fshhead
7:28 PM GMT on August 19, 2006
We're All New Orleanians Now

By Mike Tidwell
Sunday, August 20, 2006; Page B01

How's this for poetic justice? In future years, the White House and all those federal agencies accused of acting too slowly after Hurricane Katrina smashed New Orleans last August will probably find their own D.C. offices threatened by catastrophic flooding from monster storms. They may be hunkering behind massive levees and fantastic floodgates, harried by the annual threat of Katrina-scale hurricanes.

Because one year after the great catastrophe in Louisiana, this much is clear: It's coming here.

Barring a rapid change in our nation's relationship to fossil fuels, every American within shouting distance of an ocean -- including all of us in the nation's capital -- will become de facto New Orleanians. Imagine a giant floodgate spanning the Potomac River just north of Mount Vernon, there to hold back the tsunami-like surge tide of the next great storm. Imagine the Mall, Reagan National Airport and much of Alexandria well below sea level, at the mercy of "trust-us-they'll-hold" levees maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers. Imagine the rest of Washington vulnerable to the winds of major hurricanes that churn across a hot and swollen Chesapeake Bay, its surface free of the once vast and buffering wetland grasses and "speed bump" islands that slow down storms.

Because of global warming, this is our future. Oceans worldwide are projected to rise as much as three feet this century, and much higher if the Greenland ice sheet melts away. And intense storms are already becoming much more common. These two factors together will in essence export the plight of New Orleans, bringing the Big Easy "bowl" effect here to the Washington area, as well as to Charleston, S.C., Miami, New York and other coastal cities. Assuming we want to keep living in these cities, we'll have to build dikes and learn to exist beneath the surface of surrounding tidal bays, rivers and open seas -- just like New Orleans.

We better be ready, because the hurricanes are coming, and they are more ferocious than they were in the past. Multiple scientific studies in the past year have found that rising sea-surface temperatures linked to global warming are causing an increase in the number of stronger hurricanes. One study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that hurricane wind speeds have doubled in the past 30 years. This may account for the fact that among the six most powerful hurricanes recorded in the Atlantic Basin -- going back 150 years -- three occurred over 52 days in 2005: Katrina, Rita and Wilma
Link
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
703. Fshhead
7:21 PM GMT on August 19, 2006
Invasion of the warm water aliens

Previously rare species follow plankton and fish they feed on

John Vidal, environment editor
Saturday August 19, 2006
The Guardian


Robin Turner, fish auctioneer and boat owner, has seen most things caught off Cornwall in the last 30 years, but even he was surprised at what has turned up lately. Not the catch of rare Spanish mackerel brought to Newlyn market this week, nor the shoal of even rarer giant ocean sunfish reported off Plymouth, but the 9 kilo (20lb) yellow fin tuna netted off Land's End, which was only the second recorded in British waters.

Coastal resorts are competing for the most spectacular exotic finds. As scientists this week reported an explosion of previously rare snake pipefish - a kind of seahorse - in northern waters, a swordfish was caught off Northumberland, an octopus was found in Hartlepool marina and a 159kg Porbeagle shark off Sunderland. North-east Scotland is becoming a centre for whale watching, and west Wales is attracting rare sharks, turtles, dolphins and jellyfish galore.
More and more warm water fish, whales, crustaceans and other marine species are heading north, following the plankton and fish on which they feed. In the last few years, trigger and puffer fish, rainbow wrasse, sardines, anchovies, barracudas and seahorses have been recorded. There is anecdotal evidence of great white sharks.

Douglas Herdson, manager of the UK fish recording scheme at the National Marine Aquarium at Plymouth, says: "There have always been open sea species coming into British waters, as well as the odd stray, but we are now seeing the range extending.

"Fish seen rarely in the past are turning up in markets once a month. Half the national records of amberjacks have been in the last five years; there have been 13 records of tritons - large gastropods that are rare even in the Mediterranean - and more records of baby slipper lobsters, normally found in warm waters, than of giant squid.

"Giant sunfish have always come in the summer, but now we have phenomenal numbers and they are here for up to 11 months of the year. Fish that were found in southern Britain are now in Wales or Scotland. Others which used to only visit are now breeding in Cornish and Devonian waters," he says.

"These sightings are entirely expected," says David Hydes, a marine chemist at the Southampton Oceanography Centre. "There is more heat going into the marine system, so there is more energy and all the seas are changing [as they warm]. We are seeing a gradual push northwards of plankton. These changes are here to stay."

But there is disagreement on whether climate change is entirely responsible. Doug Beare from the European commission's joint research centre in Italy, said that it was "unlikely" to be the primary cause of the dramatic increase in pipefish recorded this week by an team of scientists led by Mike Harris from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.

"The pipefish are extending their range northwards and coming in greater numbers," said Professor Harris. "There have been changes in water temperature in the North Sea since about 1988 but large numbers have only appeared during the last three or four years."

Emily Lewis-Brown, a climate change marine officer with the World Wildlife Federation said: "Warmer water species are taking over the ecological niche once held by colder water species. Britain is on the borderline between cold and warm species of plankton and the line has shifted north in the last 40 years. The chemistry of the water is more acidic, the density is changing, and so is the way it moves and what's in it. "

Chris Read, director of the Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science believes climate change has shifted currents and had a major effect on plankton. "There has been a great change in the timing and abundance of plankton. It looks like a whole marine ecosystem is changing. This is reflected also in sea bird populations. Colder species like cod are retreating."

Others say changes may be cyclical. "This [arrival of exotic species] has happened before. The French used to catch tuna off Cornwall between the wars," says Mr Turner. Joana Doyle, marine officer with the Cornwall wildlife trust said. "People are more aware of the environment, so more is being seen."

But research supports the changes being observed by amateurs. University of East Anglia scientists say that 21 species have shifted their distributions in line with the rise in sea temperature, and 18 species had moved much further north. The North Sea cod population has moved 73 miles towards the Arctic while haddock have moved 65 miles north.

Back in Cornwall, Rory Goodall who runs Elemental Tours, is delighted. Last week he took a group of tourists out to sea where they saw a huge basking shark as well as a giant sunfish 800 metres off the coast. "I don't understand why anyone goes abroad now," he said.


Link
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
702. Trouper415
5:21 PM GMT on August 19, 2006
Anyone up for signing the Global Warming petition. Its to see action taken towards Global Warming. All I need is your first name.
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 5 Comments: 718
701. disneylogic
12:27 PM EDT on August 19, 2006
"all great truths begin as blasphemies"

somewhere i've heard that line before. from the Discovery Institute perhaps?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
700. disneylogic
12:24 PM EDT on August 19, 2006
What we have developed is a way to construct magnetic fields so that when you travel round the magnetic fields, starting and stopping at the same position, you have gained energy

when are people gonna learn a little physics and shove clowns like this out the door?

no, people get their science knowledge from psychics and the Sci-Fi channel.

i've read their patent. there is nothing in it which suggests it generates anything. it switches things on and off. that's it.

and it uses "a small amount of energy" to do this. how do they parlay this into an energy source?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
699. Brillig
4:00 PM GMT on August 19, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/zt4jd
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
698. Brillig
10:16 AM GMT on August 19, 2006
Sounds like a simple dynamo to me, converting kinetic energy to electrical energy. It would be nice if there were more information in the story.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
696. Fshhead
8:13 AM GMT on August 19, 2006
Irish company challenges scientists to test 'free energy' technology Fri Aug 18, 10:48 AM ET

DUBLIN (AFP) - An Irish company has thrown down the gauntlet to the worldwide scientific community to test a technology it has developed that it claims produces free energy.
The company, Steorn, says its discovery is based on the interaction of magnetic fields and allows the production of clean, free and constant energy -- a concept that challenges one of the basic rules of physics.

It claims the technology can be used to supply energy for virtually all devices, from mobile phones to cars.



Steorn issued its challenge through an advertisement in the Economist magazine this week quoting Ireland's Nobel prize-winning author George Bernard Shaw who said that "all great truths begin as blasphemies".

Sean McCarthy, Steorn's chief executive officer, said they had issued the challenge for 12 physicists to rigorously test the technology so it can be developed.

"What we have developed is a way to construct magnetic fields so that when you travel round the magnetic fields, starting and stopping at the same position, you have gained energy," McCarthy said.

"The energy isn't being converted from any other source such as the energy within the magnet. It's literally created. Once the technology operates it provides a constant stream of clean energy," he told Ireland's RTE radio.

McCarthy said Steorn had not set out to develop the technology, but "it actually fell out of another project we were working on".

One of the basic principles of physics is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change form.

McCarthy said a big obstacle to overcome was the disbelief that what they had developed was even possible.

"For the first six months that we looked at it we literally didn't believe it ourselves. Over the last three years it had been rigorously tested in our own laboratories, in independent laboratories and so on," he said.

"But we have been unable to get significant scientific interest in it. We have had scientists come in, test it and, off the record, they are quite happy to admit that it works.

"But for us to be able to commercialise this and put this into peoples' lives we need credible, academic validation in the public domain and hence the challenge," McCarthy said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060818/sc_afp/irelandscienceenergy_060818141011

Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
695. Fshhead
7:43 AM GMT on August 19, 2006
Posted By: Brillig at 1:22 PM GMT on August 18, 2006.
I do notice there have been a number of storms in the Pacific. As far as intensity goes, it might be instructive to look at a list of hurricanes ordered by intensity and see if it correlates to anything. Katrina certainly wasn't the most intense hurricane on record, nor was any other hurricane of 2005.

Huh?
Ahhh thanx for correcting that statement Michael. Wilma takes the record for strongest storm. Three stongest hurricanes in 1 year hmmmmmm....
Brillig yes, the Pacific is also being influenced by global warming. I have posted earlier about how many severe hurricanes in the last few years. The number is staggering & that did NOT take this last year into account for the Atlantic or Pacific.
& last but not least, Safetyteam...
You are totally correct, one heat wave does not prove global warming BUT, when you take all the weird weather anamolies from the past few years, add in all the glaciers melting, then add in the heat waves & stuff. This shows a trend my friend. Do me a favor guys read through all of this blog. I have compiled alot of "evidence" showing that this is indeed happening. As always thanx for readin' & postin'
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
694. Brillig
3:12 AM GMT on August 19, 2006
OK, but Camille, 1969, and Allen, 1980, both had stronger sustained winds. Dog, 1950, had just as strong winds. Furthermore, recorded minimum barometric pressures of older storms are not necessarily the minimum pressures attained by the storm. For example, the reading of 914 for Janet was made when it was a category 4 storm.

And what was the pressure of the Great Hurricane of 1780, or many other old hurricanes? The answer is that we simply don't know.

Oh, and there are 17 Pacific storms with pressures less than Wilma's, none of them in 2005. The Pacific's most active seasons, furthermore, were all in the 60s and 70s.

Pacific storms are not hurricanes, you might object. I would counter that they are just as vulnerable to global warming as Atlantic storms, and so their statistics should also be included in a discussion of global warming.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
693. Trouper415
11:00 PM GMT on August 18, 2006
The Epac is on the same pace the Atlantic was last year.
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 5 Comments: 718
692. MichaelSTL
12:08 PM CDT on August 18, 2006
Oh, also notice that Ivan (2004) is on the list as well.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
691. MichaelSTL
11:57 AM CDT on August 18, 2006
Posted By: Brillig at 1:22 PM GMT on August 18, 2006.
I do notice there have been a number of storms in the Pacific. As far as intensity goes, it might be instructive to look at a list of hurricanes ordered by intensity and see if it correlates to anything. Katrina certainly wasn't the most intense hurricane on record, nor was any other hurricane of 2005.


Huh?

Most intense Atlantic hurricanes
Intensity is measured solely by central pressure
Rank Hurricane Season Min. pressure
1 Wilma 2005 882 mbar (hPa)
2 Gilbert 1988 888 mbar (hPa)
3 "Labor Day" 1935 892 mbar (hPa)
4 Rita 2005 895 mbar (hPa)
5 Allen 1980 899 mbar (hPa)
6 Katrina 2005 902 mbar (hPa)
7 Camille 1969 905 mbar (hPa)
Mitch 1998 905 mbar (hPa)
9 Ivan 2004 910 mbar (hPa)
10 Janet 1955 914 mbar (hPa)

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
690. safetyteam
10:56 AM CDT on August 18, 2006
I posted the following on another WU memebers blog. I also will add some update to the bottom of this one!
*****

Yep, that Global Warming thing is getting to be a hot potato! I have some comments, based on facts, not gut feelings or knee jerks.

Yes...Global Warming is a real thing! But we as our modern society selves are not to blame! ..at least not totally as some would have you believe. I say we probably do contribute some to the effect but there are other factors that far outweigh anything we could do short of total nuclear destruction.

Since the mid 70's, NASA's satellites have consistently recorded the output of the sun. The trend has been an average of .02% INCREASE of the output of the sun annually. If one does their research on red dwarf stars, like our sun, you will find their life cycle is one of ever increasing output until such time as they burnout, collapse and go super nova. Fortunately, even the generation born today will not see that event for it is several million years down the road! But the fact the output of the sun continues to increase cannot be ignored in the global warming formula. We also cannot ignore the spewing of volcanoes either. They belch out more CO, CO2, Sulfur compounds and lord knows what other chemicals than the modern society has ever thought about emitting! I will not dispute the fact that in our current generation, we emit a huge amount of CO, CO2 and sulfur compounds, but in the total scheme of things it is deminus, meaning it is there, but not really a factor.

Global warming started long before any weather records were kept! I dare say that global warming started millions of years ago when the last ice age consumed the earth. Something happened that caused a warming cycle to occur that melted the glaciers away and that impact continues today. What was that event? I have little clue except the life cycle of our good ol' red dwarf star! For other than the volcanoes, what was there to cause the warming? There was NO society emitting greenhouse gases, no automobiles, no factories, so what was it? I say it was the sun, and continues to be the sun!

I know there are going to be those of you out there who say that if the sun's output has been increasing at the referenced rate, then why are we today not living in the tropics at the poles?

It's very easy to explain! Volcanoes!

One of the most recent catastrophic eruptions was in 1815. It caused tidal waves in Tambora, Indonesia killed many thousands of people. It is speculated that this volcanic eruption, one of the largest recorded eruptions in history, was also the cause of worldwide climate disruptions in the following year, sometimes referred to as the "year without a summer." Normally temperate climates in the northern hemisphere experienced frost and temperatures well below normal averages. This suggests that large volcanic eruptions may have wide-ranging and enduring effects beyond immediate local effects. This eruption is also thought to have caused the mini ice age of the UK, when the author Dickens wrote "A Christmas Carol".

So the continued eruption of volcanoes has slowed our warming process by the dust they have thrown into the atmosphere. We have not had a major eruption in many decades now which allows the full impact of the sun to increase temperatures.

So in summary, I acknowledge that global warming exists! I just don't buy into the short sighted, anti industrialists ideas of what is causing it! What can we do about it? Clearly, given the current price of crude oil and its limited supply, we need to be using our advanced technology to develop alternate fuel sources. To me that is simply "best practice"!

Hope I haven't bored every to tears, but to me, global warming is light years more complicated than what some would have us believe!

UPDATES to my initial rant!

Summer Heat Waves - Global Warming or Just Hot Air? By Lowell Ponte
Wednesday, Aug. 16, 2006

WASHINGTON -- "More Frequent Heat Waves Linked to Global Warming" declared the Aug. 4 Washington Post headline of a story predicting that record-breaking killer heat waves might soon become the norm in the United States and Europe.
Because of the Earth's warming climate, this story warned, the lethal heat that scorched Europe in 2003, killing thousands, would by 2040 return every other summer. The United States, too, would suffer frequent hellish summers, presumably in punishment for our environmental sins of greenhouse pollution.
With 100-plus degree heat index temperatures baking America's Northeast from Boston to Washington, D.C., some Post readers doubtless rushed into air-conditioned theaters to immerse themselves in former Vice President Al Gore's doomsayer documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," a science fiction worst-case scenario of catastrophic global warming.

But are such heat waves, however extreme, really evidence of a fast-warming global climate as Gore and the mainstream media would have us believe? Even Post reporter Juliet Eilperin conceded that "it is impossible to attribute any one weather event to climate change."
"Virtually all climate experts agree that it is impossible to attribute any single weather event a heat wave, drought or hurricane to global warming," wrote the New York Times near the bottom of an Aug. 1 editorial, "given the myriad factors that influence weather."
"A heat wave is a heat wave," is the more blunt assessment of Jim St. John, a meteorological scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. "We've always had them in the summer months, and they don't necessarily tell us anything about climate change."
Atmospheric scientists have good reasons to be skeptical about purported weather-climate connections. Weather involves short-term phenomena such as rainstorms, heat waves and dry spells that happen on time scales from minutes to at most a few years. Weather changes constantly and often goes to extremes of hot and cold, wet and dry.

Climate, by contrast, describes a place's average patterns of weather over 30 years or more and therefore reflects the continuing influence of temperature, wind, precipitation and many other factors. A place's or a planet's climate cannot be redefined by a few days, or even a few years, of unusual weather.
Environmental radicals claimed that this summer's heat wave shattered all previous high-temperature records, and they implied that this heat came at least in part from human-caused global warming. Such claims are incorrect or unproven, according to Virginia Polytechnic Institute climatologist Patrick Michaels.
"From June 1 to Aug. 31, 1930," Michaels told Cybercast News Service, "21 days had high temperatures that were 100 degrees or above" in metropolitan Washington, D.C. Many heat records were set that year, especially from July 19 to Aug. 9. "That summer has never been approached," said Michaels, "and it's not going to be approached this year."
The blazing summer of 1930 began the longest American drought of the 20th century. "In 1934, dry regions stretched from New York and Pennsylvania across the Great Plains to California," wrote CNS reporter Randy Hall. "A Dust Bowl' covered about 50 million acres in the south-central plains during the winter of 1935-36," and drove many thousands of busted Oklahoma and Arkansas farm families -- Okies and Arkies -- westward to California.

Then as now, a few scientists became media darlings by warning of an impending climatic disaster from global warming. A handful of those scientists identified carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels as a climate-warming greenhouse gas, but human cars and factories were too few to have caused the Dust Bowl.
But a sudden chill began around 1940, the start of nearly four decades of climatic cooling in the Northern Hemisphere. By the late 1970s the Mississippi River was clogging with winter ice. Water pipes five feet underground were freezing and bursting in Chicago. Buffalo, N.Y., was buried beneath record blizzard snowfall. Snow even fell briefly on the beaches of Miami, Florida. The same weekly news magazines that today tout Gore's extreme claims about global warming were only three decades ago warning of a fast-approaching new ice age.
Weather runs to extremes over the United States and Europe because our skies are a battleground where churning warm air moving north from the equator collides with cold air pushing south from the Arctic. This gives the United States the most varied, turbulent weather anywhere on Earth, from desert "witches winds" in the West to Tornado Alley and blizzards in our heartland to hurricanes along our Gulf and East Coasts. A heat wave typically happens when warm air pushes farther north than usual. But at the same time, chances are that somewhere else around the planet cold Arctic air is bulging farther south than usual as Earth's "weather machine" redistributes energy in the atmosphere.
The mainstream media trumpets hot spells as evidence of the global warming on its political agenda. Here's some of the opposite-but-equal unusual cold it scarcely reported:

In December 2005 devastating cold chilled the Rocky Mountain West. Last Dec. 7 at West Yellowstone, Mont., the temperature fell to 45 below zero, fully six degrees colder than the previous record set in 1927, according to the National Weather Service. In Fort Collins, Colo., the mercury plunged to 37 below zero, and even in Lubbock in the Texas panhandle it dipped to only six degrees above zero.
Across the Pacific Ocean, February 2006 temperatures along Russia's Siberian coastline plummeted to 69 degrees below zero, shattering all previous cold records by six degrees. Unusual cold and snow blasted other regions of the former Soviet Union, from Moscow to Georgia along the southern beaches of the Black Sea.
Winter snowfall has been breaking records in the United States and Eurasia since March 1993's "Storm of the Century" dumped snow up to four feet deep from New York to Alabama, as TechCentralStation reported June 2. On Feb. 17-18, 2003, Boston set a new all-time storm record with 27.5 inches of snow. On Feb. 17-18, 2006, a blizzard dumped 26.9 inches of snow on New York City's Central Park, a record unequalled since the blizzard of 1888.
The climate is now measurably cooling in Eastern Europe. Even Gore in his global warming book, An Inconvenient Truth, shouts that "temperature increases are taking place all over the world" (p. 78) but in the back of the book's fine print admits that "some parts of the globe such as northern Europe might actually become colder" (p. 321).
We now know that the 2003 European heat wave was caused by rare events in Earth's upper atmosphere, not by global warming. Recent record snowfall, as well as 2005's brief burst of hurricanes, has been driven by known cycles in such weather phenomena, not necessarily by global warming.
Bottom line: As research scientist Dr. Nigella Hillgarth of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography near San Diego says, "One heat wave does not make global warming."
Lowell Ponte, a NewsMax.com contributing editor, is the former Roving Science Editor for Reader's Digest Magazine. He wrote The Cooling (Prentice-Hall), a study of Earth's changing climate.


DON'T FALL FOR THE HYPE OF THE MEDIA TO MAKE A BUCK ON YOUR MISFORTUNE!



Thanks
Dave

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
689. Brillig
1:22 PM GMT on August 18, 2006
I do notice there have been a number of storms in the Pacific. As far as intensity goes, it might be instructive to look at a list of hurricanes ordered by intensity and see if it correlates to anything. Katrina certainly wasn't the most intense hurricane on record, nor was any other hurricane of 2005.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
688. Fshhead
7:02 AM GMT on August 18, 2006
Brillig, 1st of all welcome, please read through the rest of the blog.
As far as the 2006 comment, we are entering the height of the season now. Still a few months left. The warming from what I have heard increases intensity not number of storms... We will see what this season still has in store, after then we can make some "guesses" on how the season was influenced or not by global warming. Tell you one thing, I thought by now we would have had a few storms but it seems there is way to much shear going on.
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
687. Brillig
6:45 AM GMT on August 18, 2006
I would like to see a more careful study of global warming. Unfortunately, for some, the term global warming implies a human cause, but that is hardly a given. Consider, for example, that other planets are warming as well. Are we responsible for that? Even Pluto is warming.

Information about sea levels should not be taken uncritically as evidence for global warming. Issues like sea level variation and land mass elevation should be taken into account. Pacific Islands, for example, are typically created by volcanos. New islands are tall, and older ones are shorter. They're shorter because of a variety of factors, including erosion, moving of plates, etc. Are they being inundated because of increasing sea levels due to global warming? If you believe so, back it up.

Continental areas like New Orleans appear to show global warming by increasing sea levels. However, other factors are involved. The Mississippi has been controlled such that sedimentation around the New Orleans areas is a small fraction of what it used to be. Forces maintaining the river delta have been controlled. Meanwhile, compacting causes the land to sink, giving the impression of increasing sea levels. And what of the oil being pumped out from under the ground? Will not the ground rebound to take the place of the missing oil?

Increasing hurricanes are predicted by some global warming alarmists, but what of 2006? The plethora of hurricanes that were supposed to materialize are mysteriously absent.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
686. Fshhead
6:27 AM GMT on August 18, 2006
Al Gores movie (and book), An Inconvenient Truth, is playing to rave reviews. His laudable project is an urgent message on the vital issue of global warming. We all must heed the call.

If we didnt realize it already, we now know that we are overheating our planet to alarming levels with potentially catastrophic consequences. 2005 was the hottest year on record. Think of an overheated car; now imagine that on a planetary scale.

Organizations from Greenpeace to the Union of Concerned Scientists, World Bank and the Pentagon, all agree that global warming is, perhaps, the most serious threat to our imperiled planet. The Pentagon report, for example, states that climate change in the form of global warming should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern, higher even than terrorism. The effects of global warming are not hypothetical: waves are already washing over islands in the South Pacific, coastal cities and low-lying countries face severe flooding, extreme weather conditions like hurricanes are intensifying, the polar ice caps and the worlds glaciers are melting, polar bears and other species are threatened with extinction, diseases are spreading more easily, crop failures are mounting. We are standing at a precipice.

Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
685. Trouper415
6:39 PM GMT on August 17, 2006
^^^^^^^^

Most important issue to face mankind.
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 5 Comments: 718
684. Fshhead
6:38 AM GMT on August 17, 2006
Global warming 'threatens' wine regions
August 17, 2006 - 3:34PM

Australian wine regions won't be able to grow the grapes they're famous for because of global warming, wine lawyers say.

Lawyers from Adelaide-based Finlaysons rate climate change as the biggest long-term challenge facing Australia's wine industry.

Wine quality could suffer from reduced harvest times, more extreme weather and reduced water supplies, Finlaysons partner Will Taylor said.

"Climate change is probably the biggest long-term issue facing the wine industry throughout the world and individual Australian winemakers and grapegrowers need to be planning for it now," Mr Taylor said.

"We're likely to see changes in vine phenology and wine styles, including potential reductions in quality, shorter optimum harvest times, reduced water supply in most areas, different disease and pest pressures, and changes in the varieties of grapes that can be grown successfully in particular areas across Australia."

Mr Taylor said the character of Australia's wine regions will change.

"That represents a fundamental challenge for the Australian wine industry, given our wine regions are known and loved around the world because of their existing characteristics.

"The bottom line is that regions like Barossa Valley, Margaret River, Hunter Valley and Yarra Valley won't be able to grow the grapes they're famous for."

OH-OH just like Californias wine industry. Posted an article here earlier about them saying there industry is going to be in trouble due to the warming. LOL THIS is probably what will be the thing for people to start waking up to the issue. Start messing with peoples wines.......

Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
682. Fshhead
6:28 AM GMT on August 17, 2006
No way out by drill from U.S. oil trap
Commentary
By CHARLES W. KLEEKAMP
Good news from Washington: The Senate just passed a narrowly focused bill that would open 8.3 million acres for new energy development in the Gulf of Mexico. A hundred miles off Florida, it is called Sale 181 Area, and may contain as much as 1.2 billion barrels of oil.

The House has its own, even more ambitious version: It would expand the drilling to most of the continental shelf off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist rammed the Senate's bill through during the remaining time for legislation this year, with no amendments.

Hyped to "enhance the energy independence and security of the United States," the bill will be sold to the public as an answer to our problems. And some people will believe it.

It seems the Bush administration's attitude is to convince the people that we can deal with our oil gluttony if we just focus on drilling the last reservoirs of oil under our control. This blind charge doomed any Senate discussion of sensible provisions to address our addiction to oil, leaving only a misguided attempt to feed it.

As dictated by Frist, there were no amendments offered for stringent fuel-efficiency standards for cars, which could drastically reduce imports. Try for a 40-miles-per-gallon average, rather than the current 21 miles per gallon. That would save the import of some 4 million barrels a day, much of it from you know who.
Unfortunately, there was no discussion of repealing the royalty-relief program for energy companies, which are currently taking our oil for free. Traditionally, the royalty the companies are supposed to pay the government is one-sixth, or 16 percent, of the selling price of oil. The relief from this payment was intended to encourage expensive deep drilling in our dwindling Gulf of Mexico reserves. In truth, it is a government giveaway to energy developers of, over the next five years, $7 billion in royalties that belong to you and me.

And who's making record profits? In this last quarter alone, the windfall goes to Exxon Mobil ($10 billion), ConocoPhillips ($5 billion), and BP ($7 billion). We pay for it at the gas pump. That's simply outrageous.

And far beyond the imagination _ much less discussion _ of most senators is the development of renewable energy for long-term sustainability. The senators could at least have extended the modest production tax credit for wind energy, which ends next year. But no. Not in this bill.

Better to drill for the dwindling reserves, feed the profits, and get elected again.

A billion barrels sounds like a lot of oil. But consider it in relation to our import of 11 million barrels a day. Just suppose this new Gulf area could be magically producing at a rate equal to these foreign imports: The production would last about 110 days! Or, more plausibly, if pumped at a rate of just one million barrels a day, the oil would last for about 3 1/2 years.

So what's next? I'm concerned about an inconvenient conclusion.

Remember Denmark? In 1973 it generated 90 percent of its electricity from imported oil. Never again. Now not only are the Danes energy-self-sufficient, but they also export 50 percent of their oil, 30 percent of their natural gas, and 19 percent of their electrical energy.

And remember wind energy? The wind is free and plentiful, and not subject to cutoff. Denmark is the leader in the generation of wind energy, and also in the manufacturing and technology of wind turbines.

Where do you think the five big wind turbines here in Massachusetts were made? You guessed it: Denmark.

So here we sit in the shadow of unhealthful emissions from the Cape Cod Canal power plant, which consumes about 8 million barrels of oil a year.

That's almost two days' production from all the oil wells in the continental United States. And our Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. William Delahunt are doing all they can to kill the country's first offshore wind farm, proposed for Nantucket Sound. This facility could replace 2 million barrels of that imported oil to generate pollution-free electricity and no global warming.

Unfortunately, many members of Congress feel compelled to drain the last of Mother Earth's oil in a fleeting feast of fun in big cars and energy-company record profits, to ensure their election for another term. With little view of the future and the impact of global warming, they will quickly burn through our remaining resources, which should be saved and stringently parceled out by future generations.

It remains to be seen what the compromise oil-drilling bill will look like after the summer recess is over. But the oil companies will undoubtedly be delighted.

So, do you still think we can drill our way out? Think again. I just ordered my Prius.

(Charles W. Kleekamp, a retired engineer, is vice president of Clean Power Now, a nonprofit group promoting construction of Cape Wind, the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm off the coasts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island.)


Published: Wednesday, 16 August 2006

Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service

LOL wow these fools never learn. Seems to me that all this oil drilling off the coasts(especially Fla.) is very vulnerable. They seem to have forgotten about the hurricanes. We got "lucky" that the whole chain of rigs & refinerys didn't get wiped out last year. They got minimal damage & look at how the pump prices jumped bigtime.
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
681. Fshhead
6:25 AM GMT on August 17, 2006
250,000 Katrina Evacuees Seen as 'Climate Refugees'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mail this story to a friend | Printer friendly version

US: August 17, 2006


NEW YORK - Some 250,000 evacuees from last year's Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast may never return permanently and should be considered "climate refugees," whose ranks around the world could grow until global warming is mitigated, an environmental expert said.


The number of "climate refugees" will grow unless the world cuts the amount of greenhouse gases it releases, said Lester Brown, president of Earth Policy Institute in Washington D.C.
"What we're looking at is the potential not of displacing thousands of people, but possibly millions of people as the result of rising seas and more destructive storms in the years and decades ahead if we don't move quickly to reduce CO2 emissions," he said.

Most scientists believe greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide released from burning fossil fuels contribute to global warming.

More intense hurricanes are likely in the future because global warming could mean warmer sea surface temperatures, which fuel hurricane development, scientists from green group Environmental Defense said this month.

Katrina flooded New Orleans and sent a 28-foot (8.5 meter) storm surge into Mississippi and Alabama, forcing about 1 million people to evacuate to neighboring states.

In New Orleans parish, only about half of the pre-Katrina population of 437,000 had returned by the beginning of last month, according to Claritas, a private demographic data firm.

Not everyone agrees the evacuees should be considered "climate refugees." Bill O'Keefe, a board member of Washington D.C.-based think tank the George C. Marshall Institute and a consultant to the oil industry said last year's hurricanes were a result of a 20- to 30-year cycle in storm intensity.

He said Brown was taking "an extremist view, made to make a political point."

So far this year no hurricanes have formed in the Atlantic, but typhoon activity in Asia has been intense. The strongest typhoon to hit China in half a century killed more than 250, according to the official Xinhua news agency. Brown said residents of Shanghai, a city of millions, would be particularly vulnerable to any storm the strength of Katrina.



Story by Timothy Gardner


REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
678. Fshhead
7:29 PM GMT on August 16, 2006
Investment in 'cleantech' soars
$87 million in energy, environment
Share of spending triples to 18 per cent
Aug. 16, 2006. 07:06 AM
TYLER HAMILTON
ENERGY REPORTER


Canadian venture capitalists dramatically increased their investment in alternative-energy and environmental technologies during the second quarter of 2006, amid the backdrop of rising oil prices and heightened concerns over global warming and local smog.

While overall venture capital activity during the quarter plunged 25 per cent year-over-year to $496 million, companies focused on alternative-energy, environmental and other "emerging" technologies captured 18 per cent of the total. That was up from just 6 per cent in all of 2005, according to data released yesterday by the Venture Capital and Private Equity Association.

In dollar terms, $87 million was invested in the second quarter alone, compared with $109 million for all of last year.

Rick Nathan, president of the association and managing director of Kensington Capital Partners in Toronto, said it's too early to say whether the growing interest in such companies often wrapped under the banner "clean technology" is a quarterly blip or the sign of a long-term trend.

"It could be a one-off thing, but it's enough of a jump that it made us take notice," said Nathan.

"If we see this level of activity for another couple of quarters, then I think it would show the sector has really emerged as a core part of our industry."

It may be a case of Canada, comparatively conservative in venture capital circles, just catching up to the rest of the world.

"It's definitely not a blip," said Nicholas Parker, chairman and co-founder of the Cleantech Venture Network, which tracks venture capital investing in North American clean-technology companies. "It's entirely consistent with what we're seeing in Europe and the United States."

North American venture capital investment in "cleantech" companies rose to $843 million (U.S.) in the second quarter, up 129 per cent from the same quarter a year earlier, according to figures released last Thursday by the Cleantech Venture Network.

Parker said it was the eighth consecutive quarter of growth for the sector, which is largely focused on new energy technologies such as solar and ethanol. The sector also includes waste reduction, water purification, pollution control and energy efficiency.

Cleantech captured 13.4 per cent of total North American venture capital investments in the quarter.

The sector surpassed telecommunications and medical investments but remained behind biotech and software.

"This is happening almost in spite of public policy, and that's what's so fascinating and exciting," Parker said.

Canadian cleantech companies that raised funds in the second quarter included Ottawa-based cellulosic ethanol developer Iogen Corp.; solar-cell maker Arise Technologies Corp. of Kitchener; and Advanced Glazings Ltd., based in Sydney, N.S., a maker of a high-efficiency insulating glaze for windows.

Globally, clean-energy investments exceeded $2 billion (U.S.) in the second quarter, more than double the amount a year earlier, according to New Energy Finance, a London-based alternative-energy research company.

And momentum is building.

Earlier this month, Chrysalix Energy LP, a Vancouver-based venture capital firm that focuses on clean-energy technologies, announced the closing of a new fund totalling $70 million (Canadian).

The company said the fund will target investments in a number of clean-technology areas.

They will include solar, biofuels, fuel cells, clean coal, energy efficiency, energy storage and energy from waste.

This is certainly good news!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
676. Fshhead
4:22 AM GMT on August 16, 2006
NewsTrack - Science
Global change causing hurricanes change
TALLAHASSEE, Fla., Aug. 15 (UPI) -- Florida State University scientists say global warming is affecting Atlantic hurricane intensity and hurricane damage will likely become greater.

James Elsner and colleagues said their research directly connects climate change with hurricane intensity. Other studies have linked warmer oceans to a likely increase in the number of hurricanes.

The researchers compared the average global near-surface air temperature and Atlantic sea surface temperature with hurricane intensity during the past 50 years.

"The large increases in powerful hurricanes over the past several decades, together with the results presented here, certainly suggest cause for concern," Elsner said. "These results have serious implications for life and property throughout the Caribbean, Mexico and portions of the United States.

Link
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
675. Trouper415
12:39 AM GMT on August 16, 2006
All you have to do is put your first name. That would be great.

Anything to show you are supportive of change towards the solving of Global Warming is all I need.

Thanks
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 5 Comments: 718
674. Trouper415
8:25 PM GMT on August 14, 2006
Hey all, good day.

I am starting a Nationl Signature list for people to sign who want to see action taken against Global Warming. I know there is an online one, but this one is person to person, signatures I am attaining.

I am doing this because when people go to the ballots to vote for someone who will take action against Global Warming, they think, "what is my one vote going to do? It will be lost and someone else who may even be a weaker candatite would get voted because of my lost votes. However, if this signature ends of going Nation Wide, or even state wide here in California, people would now know at the ballots there there are 100,000 thousand others who support action taken against Global Warming or even 10,000,000!

People also think similarily, what does me one action against Global Warming do? "if I buy 500$ in solar panels, that may be helping me, but does it help the overall cause?" Not really, unless people know other people are dedicated to seeing change.

And there are!!!!!!!!!!!!! Millions of people in this country want to see change, all we need to do is bring them together!!!! And I think running a list of signatures is a great way to know that millions of people care about the issue, and with this new knowledge, further action will become previlent much faster against Global Warming.

So, If you could write your name below by itself I will sign you on to it. I am trying to make this as big as possible and I think it will be easy to do so. I already have 50 sigs in the first day and havent even been around much trying. It doesnt cost you anything, however I firmly believe the benefits of this will be of great magnitude in the comming months.

I'll keep you guys posted.

For now, sign up!!!!!!

Thanks and have a great day.
Patrick
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 5 Comments: 718
671. Fshhead
7:05 PM GMT on August 14, 2006
Typhoon season 'unusually' harsh

August 14 2006 at 02:25PM

By Robert Saiget

Global warming is contributing to an unusually harsh typhoon season in China that started around a month early and has left thousands dead or missing, government officials and experts say.

"The natural disasters caused by typhoons in our country have been many this year," the head of the China Meteorological Administration, Qin Dahe, said in recent comments on his organisation's website.

"Against the backdrop of global warming, more and more strong and unusual climatic and atmospheric events are taking place."The strength of typhoons are increasing, the destructiveness of typhoons that have made landfall is greater and the scope in which they are travelling is farther than normal."
The vice minister of the Ministry of Water Resources, E Jingping, also spoke last week about the unusual ferocity, frequency and early arrival of typhoons in China this year.

Jingping said the typhoon season in China normally starts around July 27, but this year the first typhoon hit the southern province of Guangdong on May 18.

"This is the earliest typhoon to hit Guangdong since 1949," he said in a speech.

"The typhoons have come earlier this year, they are strong, the area that they hit is wide and the length of time they last is long."

Natural disasters in China this year have killed 1 699 people and left another 415 missing, the nation's Red Cross Society said last week.

More than 1 300 of those died in weather-related incidents from May to the end of July, the government reported earlier.

Those reports came before the arrival on Thursday last week of Saomai, the eighth typhoon of the season and the strongest to hit China in 50 years.

Saomai has killed at least 214 people, mostly in the two eastern coastal provinces of Zhejiang and Fujian, according to figures released on Tuesday.

The president of the Washington-based Earth Policy Institute, Lester Brown, told AFP that the weather in China over the past few months was reflective of the worldwide extent of the problem of global warming.

"The emerging consensus in the scientific community is that higher temperatures bring more frequent and more destructive storms," Brown said.

"Our seasons seem to be beginning earlier and ending later."

According to Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the earths average temperature has risen by 0.8C since 1970, he said.

But this is only the beginning of what the UN's International Panel on Climate Change believes will be a rise in temperature for this century of 1.4C to 5.8C.

"Just imagine what typhoons and hurricanes might be like in the future," Brown said.


Link
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
670. wetbehindtheears
11:20 AM GMT on August 14, 2006
Is it the Antartic or the Artic that has polar bears and killer whales? Just want to check before I buy one of your beach front homes...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
669. wetbehindtheears
11:16 AM GMT on August 14, 2006
Just to clarify, I did not mean that my post was very interesting, I was referring to the whole thread and the post started by fshhead.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
668. wetbehindtheears
10:28 AM GMT on August 14, 2006
Hope you all had a good weekend?

Photon Flux, as far as I can work out is about potential, i.e. when you turn on a light the power does not travel through the wire but on/around it. If you can imagine the power travelling toward the light, at a point in its journey you disconnect both ends of the wire and join them together. You have the potential of power travelling in a continual loop, it can continue the loop by drawing on the power of the universe facilitated by the use of magnets.

I may be totally wrong but that was my mental summing up after reading lots of articles on the net - and yes as mentioned earlier it could be complete humdrum.

I cannot understand why it has been mentioned previously in this post, that if the electric car was a viable option big business/corporates would be involved.... why?

At the moment billions of pounds/dollars are made by the automobile industry through the use of oil, they in-turn pay our wonderful representatives in government a nice percentage of that. The big profit items in a car are oil filters, air filters, spark plugs, and "high performance engine-oil", these items are changed and charged as regular as clockwork and cost a small fortune to the consumer but cost the manufacturer very little. Hence the "sanctioning" of hybrid vehicles as they still need all of these items. (I thought this was the subject of the recentlly released US documnetary,). An electric vehicle would need a set of brushes every few tens of thousand miles.

Sorry to wittle on about it but, our representatives who count their - sorry our - taxes are not going to let go of the revenue generated by fuel tax, approx 83% of the price of the fuel in GB. First they will need to work out a good way of taxing electric cars, looks as though it will be satelite tolls for GB. Once everything has been totalled up and the figures balance I am sure we will see a whole raft of electric vehicles suddenly become available.

If you think I am a conspiracy theorist - then check out the availability of electric vehicles country by country, then the cost of fuel country by country. The higher the price of fuel the less electric vehicles are available, the opposite of what you might think of as natural. (not my research, I believe the web site is evuk.co.uk) - It is just a cold economic fact.

A very interesting post with lots of really good comments and observations.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
667. Skyepony
3:36 AM GMT on August 14, 2006
CBS did a good show on global warming today.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 365 Comments: 42557
666. PoopyMcCrappyPants
4:58 PM GMT on August 13, 2006
I really think that the Antartica thing would be a good return investment. If I play my cards right, I could start selling beach front property there over the next several years!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
664. Fshhead
7:43 PM GMT on August 12, 2006
Global warming threatens all life on a fragile planet



What is the use of a house if you haven't a tolerable planet to put it on? Henry David Thoreau
Global warming is about whether life on this planet will continue or end. This is the disturbing warning given in Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth. And we don't have a lot of time to reverse the trend. Some scientists say as little as 10 years.

The ecological crisis we face may be questioned by some politicians, whose pockets are lined with oil company campaign contributions, but only a handful of reputable scientists believe otherwise that we are burning fossil fuel at such alarming rates that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to more trapped heat and then conditions hostile to all life on Earth.

Twenty years ago European scientists were giving warnings about an ecological crisis. Most Americans were too busy buying SUV's and cutting down trees to build more shopping malls and housing projects. It began to hit home when our budgets were bludgeoned by $3-a-gallon gas for our cars and home-heating oil.

The problem is, we don't have a great deal of time to make the changes needed to save our planet. Chief NASA climatologist James Hansen said we need to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions significantly in the next decade or face dire consequences. Some scientists argue that we need to reduce fossil-fuel consumption by 70 percent just to keep things where they are when it comes to global warming.

Think about it. Unless we change our ways, in the coming decades half of all species on Earth would disappear. Millions of us would die. There would be incredibly massive migrations of people from land masses being covered by water.

Many of us don't believe the dire predictions or don't want to worry about them. We have, said President Bush, an addiction to oil. Coming from a former oil businessman and someone less than friendly to environmental issues, that's saying something.

A recent cartoon showed a son and father driving in their large SUV. Says here, the son read from the newspaper, that the Earth's temperature is at a 400-year high. That's OK, responded the father. We've got A/C.

It is estimated that a typical American generates about 15,000 pounds of carbon dioxide every year from personal use, such as heating homes or running cars, not to mention the costs associated with producing consumer goods and services. Any reductions would make a difference, and if millions of people would conserve energy, the impact upon our survival would be significant.

The producers of An Inconvenient Truth suggested 10 simple things anyone can do to help stop global warming, from driving less to recycling more, using less hot water to adjusting your thermostat down two degrees in winter and up two degrees in summer.

You can also plant a tree or two, avoid products with a lot of packaging, or turn off your electronic devices when not in use. You most certainly can ride public transportation rather than drive to work solo in your gas guzzling van.

All of the steps you can take may make your life a little more inconvenient, but what's a few inconveniences compare to the loss of a planet?

Of course, while it's important to take personal responsibility for global warming, it's also important to promote public policy that recognizes global warming as a national security issue. The best way to deal with terrorists might be to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and begin actively seeking alternative sources of energy.

We need to stop playing politics with the environmental crisis, pretending it's a Democratic or Republican issue. It's a worldwide catastrophe already happening. We need to learn to work with other nations, especially China and India, on ways to reduce global warming. We need to elect public officials who put finding solutions to the environmental crisis at the top of their priorities.

I have observed how some things never change until they hit home. If losing your planet is not enough to get you involved, then, perhaps, losing your family might be. If not this, then perhaps losing the very air you breathe brings the crisis a little closer.

In his movie, Gore said the first photograph of Earth from space was revolutionary. It helped us see ourselves as one part of a larger ecological system on a fragile, blue planet circling a third-rate sun somewhere in one of billions of galaxies. It may be there are other civilizations on other planets in other galaxies, but for now all we really know is that we are here now, representing every living organism. What a waste to end it all.

Poets know firsthand how precious and fragile life is, whether a person, animal or plant.

Alice Walker said in her novel, The Color Purple, that if you cut down a tree, her arm would bleed.

It's this kind of deep wisdom that might yet save us from our own greed and unwillingness to change.

The Rev. John C. Morgan is a former journalist and retired pastor who resides in Muhlenberg Township. He teaches ethics and philosophy at Reading Area Community College. To comment on this column or offer suggestions, call Eagle Link at (610) 376-6000, category code 3010.



Link
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
663. PoopyMcCrappyPants
7:43 PM GMT on August 12, 2006
Here is my take on it. Spread enough panic about global warming that everyone freaks out. Meanwhile, invest your money into sunblock companies and retire early to what's left of Antartica.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
662. Fshhead
7:40 PM GMT on August 12, 2006
Overwhelming scientific consensus supports global warming



DAKOTA DUNES -- In the 1960s and '70s, faced with growing scientific evidence that their product was killing people, the tobacco industry embarked on a program of deliberate obfuscation to combat the increasing calls for regulation.

The approach was two-fold. First, find a few scientists willing to publicly buck the growing consensus and claim that cigarettes were not a health risk. Second, emphasize uncertainties and anomalies in the data (e.g., non-smokers sometimes get lung cancer) that would suggest that the evidence was not clear. Eventually the data was so overwhelming and the science so compelling that the tobacco industry lost their fight.

In spite of this failure, similar tactics have been adopted by opponents of everything from seat belt laws to evolution. The latest target is global warming. The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, as articulated repeatedly by the National Academy of Sciences, the premier scientific organization in the country, is that 1) global warming is undoubtedly occurring and 2) human activities are responsible for at least part of that warming. Conservative politicians working on behalf of oil and energy companies combat this consensus by trotting out the few scientists who dispute this consensus and suggest that because opinion is not unanimous, we should do nothing.

Real scientists are fully aware that local climate effects may vary even as the globe as a whole warms, but the cynical industry apologists ignore and distort these complexities in order to paralyze scientifically illiterate policy makers who might otherwise pass laws that would cut into their profits. -- Keith Weaver

Link
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
661. Fshhead
7:34 PM GMT on August 12, 2006
By Bruce Lieberman
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
August 12, 2006

Increasing temperatures will transform California, threatening some of its most valuable resources in coming decades.

That's the primary message of a new state publication that summarizes 17 scientific studies examining how global warming is expected to play out in California.

The potential impacts of global warming are unmistakable, adding more days of deadly heat, more intense and frequent wildfires, shorter supplies of drinking water and serious public-health risks, Linda Adams, the state's secretary for environmental protection, said yesterday during a news conference at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla.

By publishing the report, titled Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California, state officials hope to engage citizens who haven't followed the steady stream of reports ordered last year by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger when he called for statewide reductions in the emission of greenhouse gases.

Worldwide, scientists agree that Earth's atmosphere and oceans are warming and that human use of fossil fuels for energy is driving the trend. Levels of carbon dioxide a byproduct of burning gas, oil and coal are now higher than they've been for at least 650,000 years, scientists have reported.

One global change that will affect California's coastline is rising sea levels. Over the 20th century, sea levels rose about 7 inches due to warming. Depending on how much more carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere during the next several decades, sea levels could rise as much as 28 inches more.

Sea levels that high could devastate San Diego County's coastline, particularly during high tides and El Nio storms.

Warming in California also is melting mountain snow the state's primary source of drinking water earlier in the spring. That means less snow melt will be available later in the year, during the state's hot, dry summer and fall seasons.

Other results of global warming could be more frequent and intense heat waves, as well as bigger and longer-lasting wildfires.

Climate change is an issue we all need to be educated about, said Mike Chrisman, California's secretary for resources. We've got to do a better job of educating. It's a long-term effort, (and) we've got to get people talking about it.

Dan Cayan, a climate scientist at Scripps, said the general public is beginning to recognize the specter of rising temperatures.

Last month's heat wave across the nation, Europe's deadly heat wave of 2003, melting glaciers in Greenland and other events have contributed to a growing realization that a warming climate is changing the globe.

I think people have, in a sense, a mental scoreboard, and they're seeing these factors accumulate, Cayan said. I really believe that this is becoming an issue that is starting to get taken more seriously.

The Scripps news conference followed one held in Riverside, where state officials highlighted the connection between warming temperatures and the risk of wildfires in California.

More meetings around the state are planned.

To see the report online, go to www.climatechange.ca.gov.

Link
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960

Viewing: 711 - 661

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32Blog Index

Top of Page

Fshhead's WunderBlog

About Fshhead

Local Weather

Clear
56 °F
Clear

Fshhead's Recent Photos

Hurricane Andrew August 24, 1992
Hurricane Andrew August 24, 1992
Hurricane Andrew August 24, 1992
Hurricane Andrew August 24, 1992