Come on, down, Al. Tell me more: DRUDGE FLASH 2009®: GORE HEARING ON WARMING MAY BE PUT ON ICE
|
Come on, down, Al. Tell me more: DRUDGE FLASH 2009®: GORE HEARING ON WARMING MAY BE PUT ON ICE
None of it matters now George, the damage we've done to the planet is done.
Suddenly, since Obama is the Prez the global warming gasbags are getting even more hysterical.Quote:
Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Climate change is "largely irreversible" for the next 1,000 years even if carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be abruptly halted, according to a new study led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The study's authors said there was "no going back" after the report showed that changes in surface temperature, rainfall and sea level are "largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after CO2 emissions are completely stopped."
NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon said the study, published in this week's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, showed that current human choices on carbon dioxide emissions are set to "irreversibly change the planet."
Researchers examined the consequences of CO2 building up beyond present-day concentrations of 385 parts per million, and then completely stopping emissions after the peak. Before the industrial age CO2 in Earth's atmosphere amounted to only 280 parts per million.
The study found that CO2 levels are irreversibly impacting climate change, which will contribute to global sea level rise and rainfall changes in certain regions.
The authors emphasized that increases in CO2 that occur from 2000 to 2100 are set to "lock in" a sea level rise over the next 1,000 years.
Rising sea levels would cause "irreversible commitments to future changes in the geography of the Earth, since many coastal and island features would ultimately become submerged," the study said.
Decreases in rainfall that last for centuries can be expected to have a range of impacts, said the authors. Regional impacts include -- but are not limited to -- decreased human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts.
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Gasbags?? Dude!
I know science is out of favor with you guys. But you're going to have to get used to the NEW paradigm. That's one that bases things on reality. It's going to be that way from here on out.
excon
Science must be out of favor with the hundreds of climatologists who attended the U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland this December .650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis.
Really? "...the Nevada Democrat is already worried about his own re-election fight in 2010. Sen. Reid, perhaps the most-vulnerable Democrat who will face re-election in a midterm race that is likely to favor his party once again, began interviewing campaign managers last week. The Senate majority leader also recently stepped up fund-raising." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123033501646236333.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
George ;ever notice that whenever the Goracle schedules these high profile events to promote his carbon trading business that inevidibly a cold spell or blizzard occures. Momma Gaia must be telling him something.
You mean we're finally going to hear the truth about the junk science and political agenda over climate change in the media? Is that the new paradigm?
Perhaps you missed my post on the previous page about warming finally reaching Antarctica where the scientist said "It is hard to make data where none exist." Is that the kind of science that should be in favor?
Hello again, George:Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
Dude! We're missing each other in the night, even more than usual... I'm talking about policy being based on science from here on out.
That has nothing to do with the "Nevada Democrat" running again... Nothing! I have NO idea where you got that.
excon
Seems the new Prez is one of those "so as I say and not as I do" guys also... and the NY Slimes doesn't even get it. It's all about the new "more informal culture" in the White House to them. While a 92-year-old WWII vet freezes to death in his home, Mr. Obama "had cranked up the thermostat" in the White House because “He’s from Hawaii, OK?" “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”
Maybe someone needs to point out his EPA's website for tips on saving energy and fighting global warming? Or perhaps he should follow Carter's advice and leadership on this issue?
Update, Ed Morrisey of Hotair gleaned this Obama gem from the campaign trail:
Like Ed says, "Well, apparently some of us can, and those lucky few do call themselves “leaders”. The rest of us call them hypocrites as we fetch another sweater."Quote:
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.
“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added.
Hello wrong wingers:
Memo to RickJ:
The following should be a "sticky note" on the current events page:
If a Democrat wants to be warm, flies first class, doesn't carpool, or uses very heavy, non fuel efficient Cadillac limos to drive around in, they're HYPOCRITES.
Ok?? I got it.
excon
I think we've been here before on this post. Yep, we've definitely been there, done that. I don't recall even implying that a Democrat that "wants to be warm, flies first class, doesn't carpool, or uses very heavy, non fuel efficient Cadillac limos to drive around in" is a hypocrite... just those (of whatever affiliation) that do so while preaching the religion of global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I'm sure you'd call Bush a hypocrite for saying "we don't torture," why can't I call Obama a hypocrite for telling us to turn our thermostats down while he's cranking up the White House thermostat? I'd be more than willing to bet you that my turning my thermostat up to 72 in the winter - which doesn't generally happen since I use programmable thermostats to warm up the house to 70 as I get home from work - would be a lot less damaging to the environment than cranking up the heat in the White House. So which of us is the hypocrite on the environment?
Check this: "But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels", from "The Amazing Story Behind Tho Global Warming Scam". The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner
Yep they say that (I think it is 6,000) scientists are saying global warming is a lie.
Once again this winter I am begging for people to send me their global warming!
On Monday I asked for a shipment of sand-----I got a ton of snow!
The sole purpose of global warming is so they can tax us for breathing by convincing people about the necessity of carbon footprints.
I suspect those scientist's were bought by big oil :DQuote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Lol scientists all over the world are looking to cash in on the Big Oil stimulus .
Maybe the Torquemada of the climate cult will hold Stalinist show trials for all the heretics
Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist | Environment | The Guardian
The credibility of science may never recover
Obama and global warming- Comments & Analysis-Opinion-The Economic TimesQuote:
Sea levels are rising, but they have been rising at least since the early 1800s. In the era of satellite measurements, the rise has not accelerated (actually we've seen a sea-level fall over the past two years). The UN expects about a 30-centimetre sea-level rise over this century — about what we saw over the past 150 years.
In that period, many coastlines increased, most obviously in Holland, because rich countries can easily protect and even expand their territory. But even for oft-cited Bangladesh, scientists just this year showed that the country grows by 20 square kilometres each year, because river sedimentation win out over rising sea levels.
Obama's claim about record droughts similarly fails even on a cursory level — the US has, in all academic estimates, been getting wetter over the century (with the 1930s 'dust bowl' setting the drought high point). This is even true globally over the past half-century, as one of the most recent scientific studies of actual soil moisture shows: “there is an overall small wetting trend in global soil moisture.”
Furthermore, famine has rapidly declined over the past half century. The main deviation has been the past two years of record-high food prices, caused not by climate change but by the policies designed to combat it: the dash for ethanol, which put food into cars and thus upward pressure on food prices. The World Bank estimates this policy has driven at least 30 million more people into hunger. To cite policy-driven famine as an argument for more of the same policy seems unreasonable.
You mean credibility is important in science?
I had to ponder which post to add this update to, so in honor of the Goracle here it goes.
Stimulus Plan: Non-Existent Unemployed Climate Modelers Get $140 Million
Quote:
President Barack Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus plan, has morphed into an appropriations bill devoid of debate. The process forgoes any pretense of targeting unemployed people and resources.
For instance, the bill reads “Provided further, That not less than $140,000,000 shall be available for climate data modeling.” This raises the question of how many unemployed climate modelers are out there pounding the pavement.
When presented with that question, last Friday, Pat Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists stated “I don’t know one unemployed modeler.”
Whether another $140,000,000 for climate data modeling is a good idea, it is hard to see an immediate, economy-stimulating impact from this item.
What’s the rush? Maybe they need to get all their modeling done before another cool year highlights how bad the models are.
NO I would say they are good scientists with common sense!Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasParent
Gore has N0 real scientific proof of his scam!
Um... well there needs to be a scientific Superbowl between those who don't have any proof of Global warming and those that don't have any proof of the counter argument (what is that anyway).Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
It's easy to say that the scientists don't have any proof, but since it is science you better bring your science to say it isn't true by proving your theory.
Hello Tex:Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasParent
They'll bring the email from Limbaugh.
excon
Memories are sure short here. I know tom has mentioned several times the fact that the dissent among scientists is growing. Over 650 contested the consensus last year, up from 400 the year before and "more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers."Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
We'll let them bring the science without Rush's help. The question is, willl the consenus scientists open their minds or will they continue to mock and silence the dissent? Or as some want, prosecute deniers "for high crimes against humanity and nature?"
Shezam! Heaviest snow in 20 years brings large parts of Britain to a halt Heaviest snow in 20 years brings large parts of Britain to a halt - Times Online
Hello again, George:
The more you keep insisting that the present cold weather is PROOF that global warming does not exist, the more clueless you sound.
But hey, knock yourself out.
excon
PS> The thing is, I don't know if global warming is real either. But, in my simple little brain, I can figure out that throwing tons and tons of trash into our atmosphere every single day for the last 100 years, is going to DO something...
You seem to be denying it. I have NO idea why you would. Course, I have NO idea where you come up with MOST of your stuff.
What a simpleton mentality to insist that because its cold in Britain and the US at the moment that global warming doesn't exist. Im not saying I think it does. I have my reservations but I laugh every time you guys throw out a news report of a bit of snow. Try this on for size.
Melbourne heatwave breaks record > Environment > LIVENEWS.com.au
Record Heat Wave Hits Australia - TIME
Talking about a 'simpleton mentality' or a dangerous instrumentality: Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Glenn Beck - Gore to 12 year olds: 'you know things older people don't know'
"Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn't believe that humans are causing global warming.
"I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.
"Schmitt contends that scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels...
"Schmitt resigned after the group blamed global warming on human activity. In his resignation letter, the 74-year-old geologist argued that the "global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making." Former astronaut speaks out on global warming - BostonHerald.com
Good news, Bill Clinton is afraid the climate is going to crater and that will be the end of civilization.
More good news, we've found the human directly responsible for global warming. Kim Jong-Il and his supernatural powers are to blame. All we have to do is take him out or find and use his Kryptonite on him and all should be well again.
See that's better George. Something and somebody with a tiny bit of substance. You look a lot better than when you simply link us to a post about some snow around town. Its like me linking you to the memorial site for the 200 odd dead down under here caused by fires due to that heat wave I showed you above and telling you its proof of global warming. Silly really!!
Thanks, Skell; I undertand the cause of those fires is arson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
No! One or two out of about 30 - 40 fires was deliberately lit. The rest were natural. But again I'm not necessarily blaming global warming. Although many are ill reserve my judgment. Continual dry and hot weather couple with some neglect to carry out controlled burning played a huge part in this.Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
What's a half million square kilometer error?
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaice...ure1_thumb.pngQuote:
"The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has been at the forefront of predicting doom in the arctic as ice melts due to global warming. In May, 2008 they went so far as to predict that the North Pole would be ice-free during the 2008 'melt season,' leading to a lively Slashdot discussion. Today, however, they say that they have been the victims of 'sensor drift' that led to an underestimation of Arctic ice extent by as much as 500,000 square kilometers. The problem was discovered after they received emails from puzzled readers, asking why obviously sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as ice-free, open ocean. It turns out that the NSIDC relies on an older, less-reliable method of tracking sea ice extent called SSM/I that does not agree with a newer method called AMSR-E. So why doesn't NSIDC use the newer AMSR-E data? 'We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data.' Turns out that the AMSR-E data only goes back to 2002, which is probably not long enough for the NSIDC to make sweeping conclusions about melting. The AMSR-E data is updated daily and is available to the public. Thus far, sea ice extent in 2009 is tracking ahead of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, so the predictions of an ice-free north pole might be premature."
Figure 1. Daily Arctic sea ice extent map for
February 15, 2009, showed areas of open water
which should have appeared as sea ice.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
Roughly the size of California.Quote:
What's a half million square kilometer error?
The National Snow and Ice Data Center?? Now there's an agency worthy of elimination .
So based on drifting censors we have to fundamentally change our life style ?Did anyone give this info to no clue Chu ?
By the way, here's the link I forgot.
Yes tom, things such as drifting sensors, computer models and homogeneity-adjusted data from weather stations are all behind this forced lifestyle change.
"Staying married is better for the planet because divorce leads the newly single to live more wasteful lifestyles, an Australian lawmaker said Tuesday.
"Senator Steve Fielding told a Senate hearing in the Australian capital Canberra that divorce only made climate change worse.
"When couples separated, they needed more rooms, more electricity and more water. This increased their carbon footprint, Australian Associated Press (AAP) quoted Fielding as telling the hearing on environmental issues."
Stay married and save the planet - Aussie lawmaker
I love it...
A collapsing carbon market makes mega-pollution cheap
'Roll up for the great pollution fire sale, the ultimate chance to wreck the climate on the cheap. You sir, over there, from the power company - look at this lovely tonne of freshly made, sulphur-rich carbon dioxide. Last summer it cost an eyewatering €31 to throw up your smokestack, but in our give-away global recession sale, that's been slashed to a crazy €8.20. Dump plans for the wind turbine! Compare our offer with costly solar energy! At this low, low price you can't afford not to burn coal!"
Set up to price pollution out of existence, carbon trading is pricing it back in. Europe's carbon markets are in collapse.
Yet the hiss of escaping gas is almost inaudible. There's no big news headline, nothing sensational for TV viewers to watch; no queues outside banks or missing Texan showmen. You can't see or hear a market for a pollutant tumble. But at stake is what was supposed to be a central lever in the world's effort to turn back climate change. Intended to price fossil fuels out of the market, the system is instead turning them into the rational economic choice.
That there exists something called carbon trading is about all that most people know. A few know, too, that Europe has created carbon exchanges, and traders who buy and sell. Few but the professionals, however, know that this market is now failing in its purpose: to edge up the cost of emitting CO2.
The theory sounded fine in the boom years, back when Nicholas Stern described climate change as "the biggest market failure in history" - a market failure to which carbon trading was meant to be a market solution. Instead, it's bolstering the business case for fossil fuels.
Understanding why is easy. A year ago European governments allocated a limited number of carbon emission permits to their big polluters. Businesses that reduce pollution are allowed to sell spare permits to ones that need more. As demand outstrips this capped supply, and the price of permits rises, an incentive grows to invest in green energy. Why buy costly permits to keep a coal plant running when you can put the cash into clean power instead?
All this only works as the carbon price lifts. As with 1924 Château Lafite or Damian Hirst's diamond skulls, scarcity and speculation create the value. If permits are cheap, and everyone has lots, the green incentive crashes into reverse. As recession slashes output, companies pile up permits they don't need and sell them on. The price falls, and anyone who wants to pollute can afford to do so. The result is a system that does nothing at all for climate change but a lot for the bottom lines of mega-polluters such as the steelmaker
This guy's solutions are as much a joke as the cap and trade system itself. How do you rescue a system that's a sham to begin with? Everything about it is artificial... except The Goracle's profits from it of course.
Speaking of pollution . How about the carbon foot print of the NASA climate satellite that just crashed ?
Good question tom. More good news though, Obama plans to have emissions revenue by 2012.
Yet another cause of climate change - the Charmin effect.
OK, but can we call it something besides "recycled toilet tissue?" That just sounds nasty. I know Americans are to blame, we just can't seem to deem "a rough sheet of paper" as sufficient. Perhaps the new administration will require us to make better use of our corn cobs in the near future?Quote:
The national obsession with soft paper has driven the growth of brands like Cottonelle Ultra, Quilted Northern Ultra and Charmin Ultra — which in 2008 alone increased its sales by 40 percent in some markets, according to Information Resources, Inc. a marketing research firm.
But fluffiness comes at a price: millions of trees harvested in North America and in Latin American countries, including some percentage of trees from rare old-growth forests in Canada. Although toilet tissue can be made at similar cost from recycled material, it is the fiber taken from standing trees that help give it that plush feel, and most large manufacturers rely on them.
Customers “demand soft and comfortable,” said James Malone, a spokesman for Georgia Pacific, the maker of Quilted Northern. “Recycled fiber cannot do it.”
The country’s soft-tissue habit — call it the Charmin effect — has not escaped the notice of environmentalists, who are increasingly making toilet tissue manufacturers the targets of campaigns. Greenpeace on Monday for the first time issued a national guide for American consumers that rates toilet tissue brands on their environmental soundness. With the recession pushing the price for recycled paper down and Americans showing more willingness to repurpose everything from clothing to tires, environmental groups want more people to switch to recycled toilet tissue...
Environmentalists are focusing on tissue products for reasons besides the loss of trees. Turning a tree to paper requires more water than turning paper back into fiber, and many brands that use tree pulp use polluting chlorine-based bleach for greater whiteness. In addition, tissue made from recycled paper produces less waste tonnage — almost equaling its weight — that would otherwise go to a landfill.
Still, trees and tree quality remain a contentious issue. Although brands differ, 25 percent to 50 percent of the pulp used to make toilet paper in this country comes from tree farms in South America and the United States. The rest, environmental groups say, comes mostly from old, second-growth forests that serve as important absorbers of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas linked to global warming.
And let's not forget it's the quantity as well as the quality that we need to mea culpa about .Quote:
we just can't seem to deem "a rough sheet of paper" as sufficient.
YouTube - Sheryl Crow On Global Warming: WIPE MY A _ _ !!!
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:09 PM. |