Opinions and Anecdotal Evidence:

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 3:31 AM GMT on January 28, 2009

Share this Blog
3
+

Opinions and Anecdotal Evidence:

Here at the beginning of the Obama administration there is a shift in mindset unlike any I have ever seen. During my years in the U.S. government, the science agencies didn’t get significant attention until a year or more into the new administration. This year we see science getting attention from the beginning, and, for example, there was a nominee for NOAA administrator announced prior to the inauguration. (Jane Lubchenco from Wikipedia, Professor Jane Lubchenco, More on Obama science appointees). Along with this new emphasis on science there are people and groups trying to position themselves. This includes those who fight against the government taking action to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Climate change is, presently, completely linked to consumption of energy. Consumption of energy is required for successful economies and societies. Energy insecurity and economic weakness will trump climate change, as long it is isolated as a separate issue. This is already seen in recent polls that show decreasing public acceptance of anthropogenic climate change and its consequences. (For example, Pew Poll, Rasmussen Reports, New York Times Story) It is heartening to me, however, to see President Obama not isolating climate change as an issue, and stating that environmental sustainability needs to be integrated in policies across the board.

Scientists often state that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report provided definitive and unequivocal documentation about the observations and predictions of climate change. A carry away message is that the Earth has warmed and it is virtually certain that much of this warming is directly related to the activities of humans. As this information flows out of the scientific community others take the information and carry forth their messages and advocate their positions. Al Gore, for example, has taken forth the message of climate change and the havoc that it will cause. Mr. Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize – a prize of both merit and politics.

It is the propagation of science-derived information outside of the climate community that will determine how this information is used. Since climate change impacts all of society, there are those in all sectors who will analyze the information and take a stand. For example, within the past few months I have been made aware of a paper by a law professor at Berkeley, Daniel Farber, who, after analyzing climate predictions and the rigors of the IPCC process determined that climate predictions are deserving of legal status Farber’s Climate Models: A Users Guide (See also, link). Like scientific information about smoking and lung cancer, assigning legal standing to the knowledge we have about climate change sets the stage to evaluate whether or not we use this information responsibly. Throughout academia, government, and corporations, people are taking stock of the knowledge of climate change and making plans. Their motivations range from strategies to better manage resources such as water, to anticipating the impact climate policy might have on their activities, to looking for opportunities for new ways to provide energy and manage carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

On this background of deliberation and preparation to address the challenges of climate change are the voices of those who feel that climate change is bogus, of low priority relative to other problems, or the clamor of self-interested scientists. Some of these voices are anchored in reasoned advocacy and some are anchored in what qualifies primarily as the rhetoric of belief – belief as opposed to a science-derived knowledge base.

There are two primary sources of fuel for this rhetoric. The first is drawn from the polls of public opinion and a constant quest to find and amplify voices in the science community that can be classified as dissent from the dogma of the IPCC. That is, that the Earth has warmed and it is virtually certain that much of this warming is directly related to the activities of humans. The second is the casual, isolated interpretation of the now ever present environmental information.

Public Opinion and the Consensus of Scientists

The rhetoric that is fueled by the interpretations of opinions and consensus is consistent with that seen in many previous societal discussions motivated by scientific investigations in both environment and public health (see Antilla, 2005). Much of it is fueled by recent opinion polls showing climate change as a less important issue in the face of the economic and energy challenges that we currently face. (For example, Pew Poll, Rasmussen Reports, New York Times Story) There is also this constant extraction of statements by scientists who are viewed as skeptical of global warming and as challenging the doctrine of mainstream (for example, Senate Minority Report January 14, 2009).

It is not surprising that the importance of climate change weakens in the eyes of the public in the face of economic or energy troubles. But there is at least one curious aspect of this study of consensus and opinion. It is circulating on the web that those who call themselves climatologists overwhelmingly agree with the basic conclusion that the Earth will warm as a consequence of the activities of humans (97%). The number of meteorologists who agree with that basic conclusion is far smaller (64%). (Mongabay.com report of Poll, Doran and Zimmerman, Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change). First, there are many flavors of meteorologists and many climatologists come from the ranks of meteorologists. (Disclosure, I am a meteorologist.) Second, I have noticed for years that especially amongst broadcast meteorologists, there is a high level of skepticism about the basic conclusions of climate change. Why might this be?

An argument I have often heard is that if we can’t forecast the weather beyond a few days, then how can we forecast climate credibly? A comparison that I have developed is the following: (Rood / Models (3) Predictable Arguments) Imagine that you live on the ocean shore or the shore of Lake Michigan. The wind blows the waves. It is virtually impossible to predict individual waves, but if the wind increases it is certain that the water will rise higher and erosion of the shore will increase. Does the inability to predict the more or less random aspects of the wave field mean that you should ignore the fact that the water will rise? The climate is being forced by increased surface warming; the physics is astoundingly simple, but the system is astoundingly complex and full of seeming randomness.

In the case of the creeping collapse of consensus, there has been circulated a list of several hundred scientists who are throwing off the shackles of the doctrine, many of whom are prominent in their fields. ( Notably: Senate Minority Report January 14, 2009, Sheppard / Climate: Change You Can’t Believe In). Within the group on this list are many flavors of skepticism. There are some who simply choose not to believe the quality of the observations and models and the integrity of the IPCC. There are some who make cogent arguments that climate change is not as important as some of the other problems we face. A group has evolved who consider themselves balancing the advocacy of some scientists. (Yes, scientists can and do take positions based on beliefs other than the hard conclusions of their research.) There are those who challenge the consensus and there are those troubled by the amount of detail that can be drawn out of the climate observations and models. Often, these criticisms are targeted at the attribution of regional impacts, such as drought, to climate change when there are other plausible and more likely explanations of the localized events. Finally, there are some in the group who are by their nature contrarian; it is their personality, their style, and it has been of value to them in their careers.

The focus on whether or not scientists are in consensus is not a knowledge-based argument. The efforts to argue that there is a lack of consensus in the climate community take isolated comments made for a variety of reasons and amplify them. It is good for distraction; it is good for entertainment.

There are many thousands of scientists, and while large groups of individuals often share many like-minded values and beliefs, they are never in lockstep on the details of all aspects of their beliefs. It is not expected that in a community of thousands of scientists that there is a uniform chant of doctrine. This is especially true given the very nature of scientific investigation of an enormously complex system. Challenging conclusions is part of the scientific method. Scientists tend to reduce problems to pieces to isolate processes, to determine cause and effect. How these pieces are tied together is not unique; the unification is subject to argument. The question for climate change at this point is --- are there fundamental errors in our formulation that would change the basic conclusion that the Earth will warm, sea level will rise, and the weather will change?

Anecdotal Environmental Observations

There are three current observations of the environment that are being used to challenge that the globe is warming. These are the cold weather in much of the U.S. and Europe, global observations of sea ice, and the lack of sunspots on the Sun.

It has been cold in the East and Midwest of the U.S. and Western Europe and this has stoked reports that global warming is a bogus idea. ( Lou Dobbs Video). The key conclusions of the IPCC are that the Earth has warmed, will warm more, and that the activities of humans are largely responsible for this. That the globe as a whole will warm does not preclude periods of cold as weather systems stall and take on the characteristics of wintertime continents. It still gets dark at the North Pole in the winter, and when the Sun does not shine it gets cold. There is natural variability of the climate and unvarying warming year after year is not demanded by the tenets of global warming. (Rood / Cold in a Warm World, Rood / Cold in the East) Furthermore, if we get away from the eastern part of the U.S. and go to the West, we see many warm states. The weather in Alaska has been stunning. (Masters \ Fire and Ice) There are cold regions and warm regions; there is nothing to establish or challenge the robustness of the conclusions of the IPCC report.

The second piece of geophysical evidence that has circulated the Internet recently is the fact that, currently, during the Northern Hemisphere winter the total area of the ocean covered by sea ice on the planet, north plus south, is comparable to those amounts about thirty years ago. At best this is a naïve observation, and at worst a deceitful way to make a point. The important measure of sea ice is the amount of sea ice that is present in the summer when the Sun is up. Related to this is the thickness of the sea ice in the winter, which determines if the sea ice can last through the summer. (Masters \ Averaging together Antarctic and Arctic Sea Ice …) The North Pole is a place where climate change is amplified. The last two summers have seen the Northwest Passage open; they have seen record melt. The persistent low levels of summer ice in the Northern Hemisphere remains a compelling observation that is consistent with the basic conclusions of global warming by greenhouse gases. (The South Pole is a place where the climate is expected to be relatively stable. This is due to the layout of the continents and the oceans as well as the fact that much of Antarctica is at very high altitudes. {Rood / Cold in the East) Recent papers document that there is slow warming at the South Pole as well (Steig, 2009).)

The final piece of observational information that is fueling current controversy is the fact that sunspots are at a sustained minimum. We have much evidence that when sunspots are low, the Earth’s climate is cool. Therefore, some are led to conclude that the current sunspot minimum will provide natural cooling. This is, in fact, accounted for in climate models, but it is true that the scientific community has not closed the book on the role of solar variability in climate change. The observed climate impact on Earth is larger than the models predict. However, it is still quite small when compared with the impact due to greenhouse gases. Even looking as far back as the Little Ice Age, approximately 400 years ago a period of sustained sunspot minimum, the observed average surface temperature difference was less than a degree different from the long-term mean. (For example, Anderson, 2008) With global warming we are soon expecting two or more degrees centigrade due to greenhouse gases, a far larger number. (Rood \ Solar Variability Series)

Summary

These recent observations and measures of opinion motivate conversation, but they do not challenge the fundamental conclusions of climate change science. The Earth will warm, sea level will rise, and the weather will change. Yes there is natural variability, but we can definitively attribute much of the warming to the activities of humans. Majority opinion to the contrary does not make this less true. It is only a convenient belief that abrogates responsibility.

Whenever there is uncertainty, it can always be used to keep ideas from converging. This is part of discourse; it is part of scientific investigation. It can evolve in obfuscation and diversion. It is also true that argument and rhetoric are a normal part of the response to scientific investigation that addresses issues of environmental consequence (Antilla, 2005). It is important to understand the role and motivation of those who challenge the conclusion of the climate change community; it is important to evaluate the credibility of message and the risk of acting on that message relative to the risk of not acting to mitigate climate change and to prepare for adaptation to climate change. The responsible must conclude that it is necessary to prepare for climate change with progressive and growing deliberateness. We have a unique opportunity to be ready for the future.


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: 105 - 55

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Quoting cyclonebuster:


Didn't we have alot of ice storms these past few years?


I'm claiming cooling are you?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Ice Ice Baby Storms.

a href="" target="_blank">Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Quoting Stanb999:



Yeah, they didn't have a winter storm like this in 20 years... Seems it's a bit cold on the ConUS.

Same for the great lakes Ice Cover. Seems it's the same.


Didn't we have alot of ice storms these past few years?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
The Greenhouse Effect and the Bathtub Effect
A new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluding that the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases could leave a profound millenniums-long imprint on climate and sea levels, focuses on a characteristic of global warming that the public, and many policymakers, have not absorbed at least according to John Sterman at M.I.T.

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Sometimes



Yeah, they didn't have a winter storm like this in 20 years... Seems it's a bit cold on the ConUS.

Same for the great lakes Ice Cover. Seems it's the same.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Stanb999:



Yeah, they generally get rain... No snow or Ice. Thats why them suckers can't drive. Do you read other blogs on this site?


Sometimes
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Iron Fertilization To Capture Carbon Dioxide Dealt A Blow: Plankton Stores Much Less Carbon Dioxide Than Estimated
ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2009) — A possible solution to global warming may be further away than ever, according to a new report published in the journal Nature. Scientists measuring how much of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is locked away in the deep ocean by plankton when it dies found that it was significantly less than previous estimates.
Plankton is a natural sponge for carbon dioxide. It occurs naturally in the ocean and its growth is stimulated by iron which it uses to photosynthesise and grow. When plankton dies it sinks to the bottom of the ocean locking away some of the carbon it has absorbed from the atmosphere.



Link



The ocean collects and releases way more CO2 than we could ever hope to in a single year. Temperature is the main driver of CO2 content in the Ocean.

If you really wish to change the mass balance why not do what the one poster above says and change the ocean currents?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting SteveBloom:
Re #90: "2C is well within all the charting I've seen for the roman Optimum."

Here you're a) referring to non-peer-reviewed stuff made up by denialists or b) lying to salve your ego. As you've not even provided a source for the former, we'll assume the latter.

Goodnight, sweet troll.



Have a good evening, Tho there is no reason to insult.

I guess your like the other one that can't have a debate without name calling.



To the OP

The conduct of your supporters directly reflects on your ability to change minds and influence people.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Another sign of global warming are more ice storms instead of snow storms. "Regulated Upwelling" can prevent such storms.


CNN) -- A massive winter storm has left at least 17 people dead and more than a million homes across the Midwest without power, according to reports from several state emergency management agencies.
Almost half those households are in Kentucky, where 45 shelters have been set up to help residents battling icy conditions, a spokesman for the governor's office said.

"One of our biggest concerns is [providing] power generators, especially for nursing homes out in the western part of the state that are without power," Jay Blanton, spokesman for Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, said Wednesday.

The storm dumped ice and snow on a region that extends from Texas to Kentucky and left "absolutely everything in northwest Arkansas ... at a standstill," an Arkansas police officer said.



Link




Yeah, they generally get rain... No snow or Ice. Thats why them suckers can't drive. Do you read other blogs on this site?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Iron Fertilization To Capture Carbon Dioxide Dealt A Blow: Plankton Stores Much Less Carbon Dioxide Than Estimated
ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2009) — A possible solution to global warming may be further away than ever, according to a new report published in the journal Nature. Scientists measuring how much of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is locked away in the deep ocean by plankton when it dies found that it was significantly less than previous estimates.
Plankton is a natural sponge for carbon dioxide. It occurs naturally in the ocean and its growth is stimulated by iron which it uses to photosynthesise and grow. When plankton dies it sinks to the bottom of the ocean locking away some of the carbon it has absorbed from the atmosphere.



Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Another sign of global warming are more ice storms instead of snow storms. "Regulated Upwelling" can prevent such storms.


CNN) -- A massive winter storm has left at least 17 people dead and more than a million homes across the Midwest without power, according to reports from several state emergency management agencies.
Almost half those households are in Kentucky, where 45 shelters have been set up to help residents battling icy conditions, a spokesman for the governor's office said.

"One of our biggest concerns is [providing] power generators, especially for nursing homes out in the western part of the state that are without power," Jay Blanton, spokesman for Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, said Wednesday.

The storm dumped ice and snow on a region that extends from Texas to Kentucky and left "absolutely everything in northwest Arkansas ... at a standstill," an Arkansas police officer said.



Link

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Re #90: "2C is well within all the charting I've seen for the roman Optimum."

Here you're a) referring to non-peer-reviewed stuff made up by denialists or b) lying to salve your ego. As you've not even provided a source for the former, we'll assume the latter.

Goodnight, sweet troll.
Quoting streamtracker:
Gore's testimony to Senate Foreign relations Committee today:

My opening statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today:

We are here today to talk about how we as Americans and how the United States of America as part of the global community should address the dangerous and growing threat of the climate crisis.

We have arrived at a moment of decision. Our home - Earth - is in grave danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, of course, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.

Moreover, we must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization at a time when our country must simultaneously solve two other worsening crises. Our economy is in its deepest recession since the 1930s. And our national security is endangered by a vicious terrorist network and the complex challenge of ending the war in Iraq honorably while winning the military and political struggle in Afghanistan.

As we search for solutions to all three of these challenges, it is becoming clearer that they are linked by a common thread - our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels. As long as we continue to send hundreds of billions of dollars for foreign oil - year after year - to the most dangerous and unstable regions of the world, our national security will continue to be at risk.

As long as we continue to allow our economy to remain shackled to the OPEC rollercoaster of rising and falling oil prices, our jobs and our way of life will remain at risk.

Moreover, as the demand for oil worldwide grows rapidly over the longer term, even as the rate of new discoveries is falling, it is increasingly obvious that the roller coaster is headed for a crash. And we're in the front car.

Most importantly, as long as we continue to depend on dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil to meet our energy needs, and dump 70 million tons of global warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, we move closer and closer to several dangerous tipping points which scientists have repeatedly warned - again just yesterday - will threaten to make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable destruction of the conditions that make human civilization possible on this planet.

We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change.

For years our efforts to address the growing climate crisis have been undermined by the idea that we must choose between our planet and our way of life; between our moral duty and our economic well being. These are false choices. In fact, the solutions to the climate crisis are the very same solutions that will address our economic and national security crises as well.

In order to repower our economy, restore American economic and moral leadership in the world and regain control of our destiny, we must take bold action now.

The first step is already before us. I urge this Congress to quickly pass the entirety of President Obama's Recovery package. The plan's unprecedented and critical investments in four key areas - energy efficiency, renewables, a unified national energy grid and the move to clean cars - represent an important down payment and are long overdue. These crucial investments will create millions of new jobs and hasten our economic recovery - while strengthening our national security and beginning to solve the climate crisis.

Quickly building our capacity to generate clean electricity will lay the groundwork for the next major step needed: placing a price on carbon. If Congress acts right away to pass President Obama's Recovery package and then takes decisive action this year to institute a cap-and-trade system for CO2 emissions - as many of our states and many other countries have already done - the United States will regain its credibility and enter the Copenhagen treaty talks with a renewed authority to lead the world in shaping a fair and effective treaty. And this treaty must be negotiated this year.
Not next year. This year.

A fair, effective and balanced treaty will put in place the global architecture that will place the world - at long last and in the nick of time - on a path toward solving the climate crisis and securing the future of human civilization.

I am hopeful that this can be achieved. Let me outline for you the basis for the hope and optimism that I feel.

The Obama administration has already signaled a strong willingness to regain U.S.leadership on the global stage in the treaty talks, reversing years of inaction. This is critical to success in Copenhagen and is clearly a top priority of the administration.

Developing countries that were once reluctant to join in the first phases of a global response to the climate crisis have themselves now become leaders in demanding action and in taking bold steps on their own initiatives. Brazil has proposed an impressive new plan to halt the destructive deforestation in that nation. Indonesia has emerged as a new constructive force in the talks. And China's leaders have gained a strong understanding of the need for action and have already begun important new initiatives.

Heads of state from around the world have begun to personally engage on this issue and forward-thinking corporate leaders have made this a top priority.

More and more Americans are paying attention to the new evidence and fresh warnings from scientists. There is a much broader consensus on the need for action than there was when President George H.W. Bush negotiated - and the Senate ratified - the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 and much stronger support for action than when we completed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

The elements that I believe are key to a successful agreement in Copenhagen include:

- Strong targets and timetables from industrialized countries and differentiated butbinding commitments from developing countries that put the entire world under a system with one commitment: to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and otherglobal warming pollutants that cause the climate crisis;

- The inclusion of deforestation, which alone accounts for twenty percent of the emissions that cause global warming;

- The addition of sinks including those from soils, principally from farmlands and grazing lands with appropriate methodologies and accounting. Farmers and ranchers in the U.S. and around the world need to know that they can be part of the solution;

- The assurance that developing countries will have access to mechanisms and resources that will help them adapt to the worst impacts of the climate crisis and technologies to solve the problem; and,

- A strong compliance and verification regime.

The road to Copenhagen is not easy, but we have traversed this ground before. We have negotiated the Montreal Protocol, a treaty to protect the ozone layer, and strengthened it to the point where we have banned most of the major substances that create the ozone hole over Antarctica. And we did it with bipartisan support. President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill joined hands to lead the way.


So once it closes will the warming get even worse?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Quoting streamtracker:
Gore's testimony to Senate Foreign relations Committee today:

My opening statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today:

We are here today to talk about how we as Americans and how the United States of America as part of the global community should address the dangerous and growing threat of the climate crisis.

We have arrived at a moment of decision. Our home - Earth - is in grave danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, of course, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.

Moreover, we must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization at a time when our country must simultaneously solve two other worsening crises. Our economy is in its deepest recession since the 1930s. And our national security is endangered by a vicious terrorist network and the complex challenge of ending the war in Iraq honorably while winning the military and political struggle in Afghanistan.

As we search for solutions to all three of these challenges, it is becoming clearer that they are linked by a common thread - our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels. As long as we continue to send hundreds of billions of dollars for foreign oil - year after year - to the most dangerous and unstable regions of the world, our national security will continue to be at risk.

As long as we continue to allow our economy to remain shackled to the OPEC rollercoaster of rising and falling oil prices, our jobs and our way of life will remain at risk.

Moreover, as the demand for oil worldwide grows rapidly over the longer term, even as the rate of new discoveries is falling, it is increasingly obvious that the roller coaster is headed for a crash. And we're in the front car.

Most importantly, as long as we continue to depend on dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil to meet our energy needs, and dump 70 million tons of global warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, we move closer and closer to several dangerous tipping points which scientists have repeatedly warned - again just yesterday - will threaten to make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable destruction of the conditions that make human civilization possible on this planet.

We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change.

For years our efforts to address the growing climate crisis have been undermined by the idea that we must choose between our planet and our way of life; between our moral duty and our economic well being. These are false choices. In fact, the solutions to the climate crisis are the very same solutions that will address our economic and national security crises as well.

In order to repower our economy, restore American economic and moral leadership in the world and regain control of our destiny, we must take bold action now.

The first step is already before us. I urge this Congress to quickly pass the entirety of President Obama's Recovery package. The plan's unprecedented and critical investments in four key areas - energy efficiency, renewables, a unified national energy grid and the move to clean cars - represent an important down payment and are long overdue. These crucial investments will create millions of new jobs and hasten our economic recovery - while strengthening our national security and beginning to solve the climate crisis.

Quickly building our capacity to generate clean electricity will lay the groundwork for the next major step needed: placing a price on carbon. If Congress acts right away to pass President Obama's Recovery package and then takes decisive action this year to institute a cap-and-trade system for CO2 emissions - as many of our states and many other countries have already done - the United States will regain its credibility and enter the Copenhagen treaty talks with a renewed authority to lead the world in shaping a fair and effective treaty. And this treaty must be negotiated this year.
Not next year. This year.

A fair, effective and balanced treaty will put in place the global architecture that will place the world - at long last and in the nick of time - on a path toward solving the climate crisis and securing the future of human civilization.

I am hopeful that this can be achieved. Let me outline for you the basis for the hope and optimism that I feel.

The Obama administration has already signaled a strong willingness to regain U.S.leadership on the global stage in the treaty talks, reversing years of inaction. This is critical to success in Copenhagen and is clearly a top priority of the administration.

Developing countries that were once reluctant to join in the first phases of a global response to the climate crisis have themselves now become leaders in demanding action and in taking bold steps on their own initiatives. Brazil has proposed an impressive new plan to halt the destructive deforestation in that nation. Indonesia has emerged as a new constructive force in the talks. And China's leaders have gained a strong understanding of the need for action and have already begun important new initiatives.

Heads of state from around the world have begun to personally engage on this issue and forward-thinking corporate leaders have made this a top priority.

More and more Americans are paying attention to the new evidence and fresh warnings from scientists. There is a much broader consensus on the need for action than there was when President George H.W. Bush negotiated - and the Senate ratified - the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 and much stronger support for action than when we completed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

The elements that I believe are key to a successful agreement in Copenhagen include:

- Strong targets and timetables from industrialized countries and differentiated butbinding commitments from developing countries that put the entire world under a system with one commitment: to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and otherglobal warming pollutants that cause the climate crisis;

- The inclusion of deforestation, which alone accounts for twenty percent of the emissions that cause global warming;

- The addition of sinks including those from soils, principally from farmlands and grazing lands with appropriate methodologies and accounting. Farmers and ranchers in the U.S. and around the world need to know that they can be part of the solution;

- The assurance that developing countries will have access to mechanisms and resources that will help them adapt to the worst impacts of the climate crisis and technologies to solve the problem; and,

- A strong compliance and verification regime.

The road to Copenhagen is not easy, but we have traversed this ground before. We have negotiated the Montreal Protocol, a treaty to protect the ozone layer, and strengthened it to the point where we have banned most of the major substances that create the ozone hole over Antarctica. And we did it with bipartisan support. President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill joined hands to lead the way.



Did he make it??
I thought he would have to cancel due to the storm. LOL

No really they didn't talk about it all day on the news. I figured they were rescheduling. Then I postulated that it would be During what NOAA is saying is a potential "storm of the century" next week. Now that would be funny, no?


P.S. They will solve this problem like Ozone? Haha. Ozone is created in a warm upper atmosphere. Did the upper atmosphere strangely cool? Dooh!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Gore's testimony to Senate Foreign relations Committee today:

My opening statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today:

We are here today to talk about how we as Americans and how the United States of America as part of the global community should address the dangerous and growing threat of the climate crisis.

We have arrived at a moment of decision. Our home - Earth - is in grave danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, of course, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.

Moreover, we must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization at a time when our country must simultaneously solve two other worsening crises. Our economy is in its deepest recession since the 1930s. And our national security is endangered by a vicious terrorist network and the complex challenge of ending the war in Iraq honorably while winning the military and political struggle in Afghanistan.

As we search for solutions to all three of these challenges, it is becoming clearer that they are linked by a common thread - our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels. As long as we continue to send hundreds of billions of dollars for foreign oil - year after year - to the most dangerous and unstable regions of the world, our national security will continue to be at risk.

As long as we continue to allow our economy to remain shackled to the OPEC rollercoaster of rising and falling oil prices, our jobs and our way of life will remain at risk.

Moreover, as the demand for oil worldwide grows rapidly over the longer term, even as the rate of new discoveries is falling, it is increasingly obvious that the roller coaster is headed for a crash. And we're in the front car.

Most importantly, as long as we continue to depend on dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil to meet our energy needs, and dump 70 million tons of global warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, we move closer and closer to several dangerous tipping points which scientists have repeatedly warned - again just yesterday - will threaten to make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable destruction of the conditions that make human civilization possible on this planet.

We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change.

For years our efforts to address the growing climate crisis have been undermined by the idea that we must choose between our planet and our way of life; between our moral duty and our economic well being. These are false choices. In fact, the solutions to the climate crisis are the very same solutions that will address our economic and national security crises as well.

In order to repower our economy, restore American economic and moral leadership in the world and regain control of our destiny, we must take bold action now.

The first step is already before us. I urge this Congress to quickly pass the entirety of President Obama's Recovery package. The plan's unprecedented and critical investments in four key areas - energy efficiency, renewables, a unified national energy grid and the move to clean cars - represent an important down payment and are long overdue. These crucial investments will create millions of new jobs and hasten our economic recovery - while strengthening our national security and beginning to solve the climate crisis.

Quickly building our capacity to generate clean electricity will lay the groundwork for the next major step needed: placing a price on carbon. If Congress acts right away to pass President Obama's Recovery package and then takes decisive action this year to institute a cap-and-trade system for CO2 emissions - as many of our states and many other countries have already done - the United States will regain its credibility and enter the Copenhagen treaty talks with a renewed authority to lead the world in shaping a fair and effective treaty. And this treaty must be negotiated this year.
Not next year. This year.

A fair, effective and balanced treaty will put in place the global architecture that will place the world - at long last and in the nick of time - on a path toward solving the climate crisis and securing the future of human civilization.

I am hopeful that this can be achieved. Let me outline for you the basis for the hope and optimism that I feel.

The Obama administration has already signaled a strong willingness to regain U.S.leadership on the global stage in the treaty talks, reversing years of inaction. This is critical to success in Copenhagen and is clearly a top priority of the administration.

Developing countries that were once reluctant to join in the first phases of a global response to the climate crisis have themselves now become leaders in demanding action and in taking bold steps on their own initiatives. Brazil has proposed an impressive new plan to halt the destructive deforestation in that nation. Indonesia has emerged as a new constructive force in the talks. And China's leaders have gained a strong understanding of the need for action and have already begun important new initiatives.

Heads of state from around the world have begun to personally engage on this issue and forward-thinking corporate leaders have made this a top priority.

More and more Americans are paying attention to the new evidence and fresh warnings from scientists. There is a much broader consensus on the need for action than there was when President George H.W. Bush negotiated - and the Senate ratified - the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 and much stronger support for action than when we completed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

The elements that I believe are key to a successful agreement in Copenhagen include:

- Strong targets and timetables from industrialized countries and differentiated butbinding commitments from developing countries that put the entire world under a system with one commitment: to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and otherglobal warming pollutants that cause the climate crisis;

- The inclusion of deforestation, which alone accounts for twenty percent of the emissions that cause global warming;

- The addition of sinks including those from soils, principally from farmlands and grazing lands with appropriate methodologies and accounting. Farmers and ranchers in the U.S. and around the world need to know that they can be part of the solution;

- The assurance that developing countries will have access to mechanisms and resources that will help them adapt to the worst impacts of the climate crisis and technologies to solve the problem; and,

- A strong compliance and verification regime.

The road to Copenhagen is not easy, but we have traversed this ground before. We have negotiated the Montreal Protocol, a treaty to protect the ozone layer, and strengthened it to the point where we have banned most of the major substances that create the ozone hole over Antarctica. And we did it with bipartisan support. President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill joined hands to lead the way.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
Quoting SteveBloom:
Re #75: Nice attempted dodge, but I'm afraid your credibility hangs entirely on finding a source for that +2C claim.

FYI, one has to go back before the Pleistocene to find that sort of global temp (although some past interglacials, in particular MIS 11, may have gotten close). Title/abstract::

"Pliocene role in assessing future climate impacts

"Future warming projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has the potential to affect each of us. Extreme weather events, rising sea level, and migrating ecosystems and resources may result in socioeconomic stresses. Although we can plan and prepare for what is expected, the most dangerous aspect of our changing climate is the uncertainty in climate sensitivity.

"To reduce the uncertainties of climate change, paleoclimatologists are focus- ing on a possible yet imperfect analog to a future warmer climate. The middle part of the Pliocene epoch, approximately 3.3-3.0 million years ago, is the most recent period in Earth's history in which global warmth reached temperatures similar to those projected for the end of this century, about 2°-3°C warmer globally on average than today."

But what about 1,000 years ago? There's direct evidence that we're already warmer (partial quote):

'"For Martin Grosjean, the leather items found on the Schnidejoch, dated at over 5,000 years old, are proof, if any more were needed, that the Earth is now warming up.

'"The leather is the jewel among the finds," he says. "If leather is exposed to the weather, to sun, wind and rain, it disintegrates almost immediately.

'"The fact that we still find these 5,000-year-old pieces of leather tells us they were protected by the ice all this time, and that the glaciers have never been smaller than in the year 2003 and the years following."

'Scientists and archaeologists from all over the world attended the conference in Berne to hear about the Schnidejoch findings, and present research of their own.

'Patterns have begun to emerge: researchers in Canada's Yukon region have found evidence of Neolithic farming and domesticated animals at high altitudes.

'Again, they correspond with the calculations climatologists have made about the Earth's warmer periods.
"'

So, present temps are already about as warm as those during the Holocene hypsithermal that ended 5,000 years ago. I should note that the hypsithermal and similar warm periods during past interglacials are all known to have been caused by orbital cycle combinations that are not operating in the present.



No not really, It depends various proxies show various temps across time. 2C is well within all the charting I've seen for the roman Optimum.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:



Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
Re #75: Nice attempted dodge, but I'm afraid your credibility hangs entirely on finding a source for that +2C claim.

FYI, one has to go back before the Pleistocene to find that sort of global temp (although some past interglacials, in particular MIS 11, may have gotten close). Title/abstract::

"Pliocene role in assessing future climate impacts

"Future warming projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has the potential to affect each of us. Extreme weather events, rising sea level, and migrating ecosystems and resources may result in socioeconomic stresses. Although we can plan and prepare for what is expected, the most dangerous aspect of our changing climate is the uncertainty in climate sensitivity.

"To reduce the uncertainties of climate change, paleoclimatologists are focus- ing on a possible yet imperfect analog to a future warmer climate. The middle part of the Pliocene epoch, approximately 3.3-3.0 million years ago, is the most recent period in Earth's history in which global warmth reached temperatures similar to those projected for the end of this century, about 2°-3°C warmer globally on average than today."

But what about 1,000 years ago? There's direct evidence that we're already warmer (partial quote):

'"For Martin Grosjean, the leather items found on the Schnidejoch, dated at over 5,000 years old, are proof, if any more were needed, that the Earth is now warming up.

'"The leather is the jewel among the finds," he says. "If leather is exposed to the weather, to sun, wind and rain, it disintegrates almost immediately.

'"The fact that we still find these 5,000-year-old pieces of leather tells us they were protected by the ice all this time, and that the glaciers have never been smaller than in the year 2003 and the years following."

'Scientists and archaeologists from all over the world attended the conference in Berne to hear about the Schnidejoch findings, and present research of their own.

'Patterns have begun to emerge: researchers in Canada's Yukon region have found evidence of Neolithic farming and domesticated animals at high altitudes.

'Again, they correspond with the calculations climatologists have made about the Earth's warmer periods.
"'

So, present temps are already about as warm as those during the Holocene hypsithermal that ended 5,000 years ago. I should note that the hypsithermal and similar warm periods during past interglacials are all known to have been caused by orbital cycle combinations that are not operating in the present.
Quoting cyclonebuster:


We as a species won't make it in a warming world. We flourish in a cooler climate past history shows us this.



Well are you suggesting warming well beyond what the IPPC is?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:
As you can see the oceans PH is falling over time.




I did go look at the site the picture came from, Noaa and Nasa. Here is the thing. Do you see the variation in the bars? Do you see that the data ends 2 years ago? I wonder how new data fits with the trend. That is a very interesting chart tho. I wish i could find how the test as well.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Stanb999:


Does slightly closer to acidic ocean water kill ocean creatures? Not likely the regional variation is much greater.

Did you read the study done on the mollusks? They did a study that showed that slightly increased Carbonic Acid in the ocean as seen in past times was better for their forming of shell and over all growth. They evolved in a time with much higher co2 concentrations. So it stands to reason that they would do better. No?



No! All the recent studies I have read show shell thinning in higher acidity in both field and lab studies.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
Quoting Stanb999:


That area their is a very closed system. So I'd be surprised to not find lots of pollution based issues, Just like the gulf coast near the Mississippi.

But what does this have to do with the plant food co2?

Here is an interesting article on co2 and plant growth they even link the need to global warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7844285.stm


We as a species won't make it in a warming world. We flourish in a cooler climate past history shows us this.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Is that when it rains on the ocean or runoff from land or combined??


Land run off can't be combined... Their are far to many other things in the mix. This is based on the 70% of the earths surface where most of the rain lands.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Domic Acid is just as bad as Carbonic Acid.

Scientists Discover 'Hot Spot' for Toxic Harmful Algal Blooms Off Washington Coast
January 28, 2009

A new study funded by NOAA and the National Science Foundation reveals that a part of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, which separates Washington state from Canada’s British Columbia, is a potential “hot spot” for toxic harmful algal blooms affecting the Washington and British Columbia coasts. Understanding where and how these blooms originate and move is critical for accurate forecasts that could provide early warning to protect human and ecosystem health, according to NOAA scientists.

Scientists concluded that under certain conditions, toxic algal cells from this offshore “initiation site” break off and are transported to nearshore areas, where they can trigger blooms that can ultimately force the closure of Washington state shellfish beds on beaches.

Link


That area their is a very closed system. So I'd be surprised to not find lots of pollution based issues, Just like the gulf coast near the Mississippi.

But what does this have to do with the plant food co2?

Here is an interesting article on co2 and plant growth they even link the need to global warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7844285.stm
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
As you can see the oceans PH is falling over time.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Domic Acid is just as bad as Carbonic Acid.

Scientists Discover 'Hot Spot' for Toxic Harmful Algal Blooms Off Washington Coast
January 28, 2009

A new study funded by NOAA and the National Science Foundation reveals that a part of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, which separates Washington state from Canada’s British Columbia, is a potential “hot spot” for toxic harmful algal blooms affecting the Washington and British Columbia coasts. Understanding where and how these blooms originate and move is critical for accurate forecasts that could provide early warning to protect human and ecosystem health, according to NOAA scientists.

Scientists concluded that under certain conditions, toxic algal cells from this offshore “initiation site” break off and are transported to nearshore areas, where they can trigger blooms that can ultimately force the closure of Washington state shellfish beds on beaches.

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Quoting Stanb999:


YOUR RIGHT!!!!
Yes Sir,
I misstated the "acid" rain is shown to affect the PH top 1/8" of the oceans surface by -.003



Is that when it rains on the ocean or runoff from land or combined??
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Carbonic acid kills shellfish. Kill the Shellfish then the fish die. Carbonic acid also kills the corals in other ways.


Does slightly closer to acidic ocean water kill ocean creatures? Not likely the regional variation is much greater.

Did you read the study done on the mollusks? They did a study that showed that slightly increased Carbonic Acid in the ocean as seen in past times was better for their forming of shell and over all growth. They evolved in a time with much higher co2 concentrations. So it stands to reason that they would do better. No?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:
"Normally rain water is slightly acidic, with a pH of between 4.9 and 6.0, because in the atmosphere, water reacts with carbon dioxide to form a weak carbonic acid."

Not 6.997


YOUR RIGHT!!!!
Yes Sir,
I misstated the "acid" rain is shown to affect the PH top 1/8" of the oceans surface by -.003

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Stanb999:


you said co2 harms ocean life... Right? Well when the co2 was higher ocean life thrived. Things like coral are that old no?


Carbonic acid kills shellfish. Kill the Shellfish then the fish die. Carbonic acid also kills the corals in other ways.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Quoting SteveBloom:
Re #63: +2C warming during this interglacial? Not hardly. Keep that unsourced garbage comin'.


Really depends on the proxy used no? The bristol pine shows no warming in the past right?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Was modern man here 6 million years ago?


you said co2 harms ocean life... Right? Well when the co2 was higher ocean life thrived. Things like coral are that old no?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Re #63: +2C warming during this interglacial? Not hardly. Keep that unsourced garbage comin'.
Quoting SteveBloom:
Gosh, Ricky, you really pushed the yahoo button with this one. I'm reminded of Mencken's observation that nobody ever lost any money underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

Re #44: Quoting Inhofe and lauding the truth in the same breath? That's just ludicrous.


To tell you the truth, I think he posted that because I opened it in a tab as I was reading down the blog. But later I couldn't find it referenced. That was the reason I posted he didn't read the article he posted. Believe me I know full well how the environmental lobby feels about Inhofe.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Stanb999:



Were people not here 1000 years ago? how about the hottest time in the recent past 12,000 years ago?

This warm period allowed man to flourish and form the first civilizations. I doubt it will be bad this time. If last time was so good.


Was modern man here 6 million years ago?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Re #61: "But the mounting evidence is that the AGW alarmists have got it wrong; water vapor is subject to its own set of very robust negative feedbacks which keep it's levels in check, namely the "Iris" effect, clouds and precipitation"

Happy to just make stuff up? It's a bit like comfort food, isn't it? FYI the "iris" was refuted years ago.
"Normally rain water is slightly acidic, with a pH of between 4.9 and 6.0, because in the atmosphere, water reacts with carbon dioxide to form a weak carbonic acid."

Not 6.997
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Quoting cyclonebuster:


I am sure they have been on "Gods Good Earth" longer than we have. Who's to say we can survive such climatic changes as they do?



Were people not here 1000 years ago? how about the hottest time in the recent past 12,000 years ago?

This warm period allowed man to flourish and form the first civilizations. I doubt it will be bad this time. If last time was so good.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Carbonic acid in rain water is bad also.I assume this makes its way to the ocean.

Acid Deposition

What is Acid Rain and What Causes It?


Scientists discovered and have confirmed, that sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are the primary causes of acidic conditions in the atmosphere. In the United States, about 2/3 of all SO2 and 1/4 of all NOx comes from electric power generation that relies on burning fossil fuels like coal (EPA Acid Rain website).

Acidic conditions develop when these gases react in the atmosphere with water, oxygen, and other chemicals to form various acidic compounds. Sunlight increases the rate of most of these reactions. The result is a mild solution of sulfuric acid and nitric acid. The acidic compounds then fall to or are deposited on the earth’s surface.

Normally rain water is slightly acidic, with a pH of between 4.9 and 6.0, because in the atmosphere, water reacts with carbon dioxide to form a weak carbonic acid. Pure water would have a neutral pH of 7. It is important to point out that the “normal” range cited here must be evaluated in the context of site-specific circumstances and acid conditions. In certain situations, even slight changes in acidity can have serious environmental consequences.


Link



Rain isn't "acid" it's just slightly non-base. So if it was pure water it would have a ph of 7 right. well the acid rain has a ph of 6.997 scary I know.


One other thing to consider, You do know what they call the time period when massive ocean life prevailed and CO2 was many times higher than today, The Carboniferous. You do know that this is when sea life build the coal and oil we use today.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Stanb999:




So how long has the temperature been steady in Europe? What is the tolerable temperature variation? How did the past warming of 2C affect them and why are they there now 1000 years later?

Insects are very interesting because they have the most generations in the shortest time (besides microscopic life)so I'd expect them to be one of the few types to with stand any changes.


I am sure they have been on "Gods Good Earth" longer than we have. Who's to say we can survive such climatic changes as they do?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Gosh, Ricky, you really pushed the yahoo button with this one. I'm reminded of Mencken's observation that nobody ever lost any money underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

Re #44: Quoting Inhofe and lauding the truth in the same breath? That's just ludicrous.
Carbonic acid in rain water is bad also.I assume this makes its way to the ocean.

Acid Deposition

What is Acid Rain and What Causes It?


Scientists discovered and have confirmed, that sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are the primary causes of acidic conditions in the atmosphere. In the United States, about 2/3 of all SO2 and 1/4 of all NOx comes from electric power generation that relies on burning fossil fuels like coal (EPA Acid Rain website).

Acidic conditions develop when these gases react in the atmosphere with water, oxygen, and other chemicals to form various acidic compounds. Sunlight increases the rate of most of these reactions. The result is a mild solution of sulfuric acid and nitric acid. The acidic compounds then fall to or are deposited on the earth’s surface.

Normally rain water is slightly acidic, with a pH of between 4.9 and 6.0, because in the atmosphere, water reacts with carbon dioxide to form a weak carbonic acid. Pure water would have a neutral pH of 7. It is important to point out that the “normal” range cited here must be evaluated in the context of site-specific circumstances and acid conditions. In certain situations, even slight changes in acidity can have serious environmental consequences.


Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Butterflies Across Europe Face Crisis As Climate Change Looms
ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2009) — Climate change will cause Europe to lose much of its biodiversity as projected by a comprehensive study on future butterfly distribution. The Climatic Risk Atlas of European Butterflies predicts northward shifts in potential distribution area of many European butterfly species.

Link




So how long has the temperature been steady in Europe? What is the tolerable temperature variation? How did the past warming of 2C affect them and why are they there now 1000 years later?

Insects are very interesting because they have the most generations in the shortest time (besides microscopic life)so I'd expect them to be one of the few types to with stand any changes.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"Regulated Upwelling" prevents this.


Global Warming From Carbon Dioxide Will Increase Five-fold Over The Next Millennia, Scientists Predict
ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2009) — Scientists at the University of Liverpool have found that heating from carbon dioxide will increase five-fold over the next millennia.
Scientists studied the impact that current carbon emissions have on the delicate balance between air and sea carbon exchange. They found that the ocean’s ability to store excessive amounts of carbon dioxide over thousands of years will affect the long-term heating of the planet.

The ocean acts as an enormous carbon sink which naturally absorbs any extra carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere. Its ability to store more carbon dioxide than both the atmosphere and land provides long-term storage for the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities.

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
The bottom, Bottom BOTTOM Line on the entire AGW hypothesis is this: without a linkage between water vapor and CO2, there is no scary global warming due to increasing CO2 levels. Without the positive feedback of water vapor, CO2 is responsible for a minuscule fraction of the greenhouse budget; with a (theoretical) positive feedback with water vapor however, that figure jumps to 26%, which would be highly significant.

But the mounting evidence is that the AGW alarmists have got it wrong; water vapor is subject to its own set of very robust negative feedbacks which keep it's levels in check, namely the "Iris" effect, clouds and precipitation

What is scientific about ignoring this mounting evidence?

Jimbo
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"Regulated Upwelling" saves the Penguins.


Emperor Penguins March Toward Extinction?
ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2009) Popularized by the 2005 movie March of the Penguins,emperor penguins could be headed toward extinction in at least part of their range before the end of the century, according to a paper by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) researchers published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
"Regulated Upwelling" is the way out of this folks.Computer modeling will prove it.

Climate Change Largely Irreversible For Next 1,000 Years, NOAA Reports
ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2009) A new scientific study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reaches a powerful conclusion about the climate change caused by future increases of carbon dioxide: to a large extent, theres no going back.

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Butterflies Across Europe Face Crisis As Climate Change Looms
ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2009) — Climate change will cause Europe to lose much of its biodiversity as projected by a comprehensive study on future butterfly distribution. The Climatic Risk Atlas of European Butterflies predicts northward shifts in potential distribution area of many European butterfly species.

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
37. GulfPoet 4:28 PM GMT on January 28, 2009
Where is the Holocene Sea?


LOL!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Quoting GulfPoet:
Stanb999 - do you think we should reduce our dependence on forieng oil? Bring down the costs for energy and provide the individual with abundant low cost energy? Do you think we should reduce our dependence on finite fuel supply and develop abundant, inexpensive, long term alternatives?



GulfPost,

Who in the world would not want that. But as far as I know we are pretty far from 0 point. 5-10 years is what I heard. Tho, they been saying that for better than 20 years.


Don't worry about our dependence on foreign OIL.
Your real worry should be our dependence on OIL. we peaked production in 2005-06. The oil monster is on the way out. I just hope something else comes along.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 105 - 55

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
77 °F
Scattered Clouds

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.