I've taken the bus several times around here...never had a problem...but I live in an uppity area.
For my commute though...using the bus would triple the time needed, or more...and I am still paying many car expenses even if it sits idle...so I'll drive. Gas isn't nearly expensive enough to keep me off the road.
Jane Ferrigno of the U.S. Geological Survey in a National Public Radio interview
Ms. FERRIGNO: The fact that the ice shelves are changing on the peninsula is a significant signal that global change, climate warming, is affecting the ice cover of Antarctica. It’s affecting first the area that’s towards the north, that’s slightly warmer, but the effect of the warming has traveled from the northern part of the peninsula to the southern part of the peninsula, where it’s colder.
“RAZ: Give us a sense of how much ice [on the Antarctic peninsula] has been lost over the past, say, 10 years.
Ms. FERRIGNO: I think I’ll go back 20 years, and in the last 20 years, I would say at least 20,000 square kilometers of ice has been lost, and that’s comparable to an area somewhere between the state of Texas and the state of Alaska.
RAZ: So about the size of the state of Texas in terms of ice has been lost in the past 20 years. ”
Some would say she is lying. I think she is just stupid. And we are stupid for giving her a high paying job in the Government.
Ms. FERRIGNO: Well, this is a fairly small amount of ice when you consider the whole Antarctic continent consists of about 13 million square kilometers of ice.
RAZ: I mean, it sounds so dramatic, the size of Texas, right?
(Soundbite of laughter)
Ms. FERRIGNO: It is. It is very dramatic, and it is larger than the size of Texas, but when you consider the entire Antarctic ice sheet, it’s still a fairly minimal amount. But the thing that we’re really interested in seeing is that this is a sort of a red flag because if the warming continues, if the retreat continues, if the amount of ice on the continent starts to flow into the water, then there will be substantial impact to the sea level.
RAZ: That’s Jane Ferrigno. She is a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey.
Jane Ferrigno, thanks for coming in.
Ms. FERRIGNO: Thank you.
Ms. Ferrigno might do well to have a look at this map of the USA and Antarctica compared at Texas A&M University’s Polar Science program to get a sense of scale.
I hope she was thoroughly embarrassed when her colleagues corrected her ignorance.
I thought when discussing ice-sheets, that most professionals referred to Volumes, not 2-dimensional measurements. You really want to know the (length x width x height), not just the (length x width).
So that little discussion did not impress me as being very scientific; especially if the intent was to mislead by saying so much area was lost, and maybe not mentioning that the ice in many areas has become thicker in Antartica.
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.
"Most of the deep ocean is like a desert, but these vents are oases of life and weirdness," said Winckler. "The Pacific Antarctic ridge is one of the ridges we know least about. It would be fantastic if researchers were to dive to the seafloor to study the vents we believe are there."
Two important facts helped the scientists isolate the hidden vents. First, the ocean is stratified with layers of lighter water sitting on top of layers of denser water. Second, when a seafloor vent erupts, it spews gases rich in rare helium-3, an isotope found in earth's mantle and in the magma bubbling below the vent.
Hmmm. That would be on the side of Antartica that is losing ice. Anyway that quote just is a wonderful example of how much science doesn't know about the natural world. It is an example of why I don't trust scientific models which are based on incomplete knowledge. I mean there are whole areas of the world where we have no idea how many volcanic vents exist, and the chemistry and energy balances going on in the environment.
wattsupwiththat = denier's blog
I don't know if it is or isn't, but that story on Antartica's ice growing can be found in dozens of other links, like the news organizations.
I thought the following might put into perspective my prior comments on man's power vs. nature's. The following is a short discussion comparing mankind's most powerful effect - it's global nuclear weapons stockpile compared to a single earthquake, on a single day. And then you still had the Sun beaming down gazillions of joules of energy, oceanic waves, volcanic vents, wind ... all easily surpassing our effect on nature.
Mankind is not significantly changing the environment of the Earth by driving around in a few hundred million vehicles. It is nothing compared to the forces at work around us.
Not significant compared to the amount of pollution that nature releases. Nature releases
- about 95% of the CO2 released each year; decay of organic matter - lots of methane released into the oceans and from land - numerous forest-fire debris from lightning strikes - volcanos, not just on land but oceanic - radon gas releases from rock - vegetation releasing pollen and other organic airborne particles - solar radiation interacting with our atmosphere causing chemical changes - solar radiation causing oceanic evaporation and formation of clouds - more natural pollution.
Quite a long list of pollution to me.
Go ask those passengers from that cruise-ship off the coast of Spain, who's in charge - nature or mankind. :P
My point is that just as Nature has a large number of pollution constants, so doth Man.
It's not the number of different types of pollution but the quantity that nature produces. Nature produces about 20X the amount of CO2 each and every day then man does. Nature similarly releases huge amounts of methane everyday, which is another GHG. The Sun provides so much energy to the planet that is keeps it from becoming colder then Neptune or Pluto. Take away the natural warming of the sun, and the whole solar system drops hundreds of degrees below 0F. It is Nature far and away that sets the environment. Could mankind change the climate a fraction of a degree here and there? Sure. I agree that is change; but it is NOT SIGNIFICANT CHANGE compared to the natural forces which set the climate.
What the AGW wants the believe is that the breeze you are feeling on your cheek standing 3' from me, is simply me whistling your way; all the while we're standing in a 100mph cyclone. Sure I have an effect; but NOT significant.
Well, so all those polluted rivers, unusable ground water, brown pollution clouds in Phoenix, Grey Smog in SoCal, all that would still be happening without man's influence?
I would say, and would love to see actual statistics, that airborne pollen causes more health care problems than does exhaust from automobiles. I know the VOG in Hawaii from the volcano is causing a lot of respiratory problems. How many people die per year as a direct result of automobile exhaust compared to natural disasters like earthquakes, Tornadoes and floods? If you think man made pollution impacts humans on a scale with nature you have not been doing your homework. As a matter of fact one of the biggest health care problems in the USA is people living a lot longer. We have the highest percentage of centenarians in the World. Using the most fossil fuel per capita has not affected our people getting older.
Man is insignificant in the scope of the universe and our little planet. The sooner the AGW cult either sees reality, or are forced out of business, the better for all of us.
Most of the brown pollution in Phoenix is caused by dust and buses using cheap diesel. I think if you check most farmers, heavy equipment and municipalities are using high sulfur diesel. They were exempted from the ULSD mandate until around 2012. Much of your pollution is pollen also. You sit in a horrible spot for asthma.
I think he knows more than the USGS scientist that thinks 20,000 square kilometers is bigger than TX.
You may have more in common with Anthony Watts than Al Gore.
While I have a skeptical view of certain climate issues, I consider myself “green” in many ways, and I promote the idea of energy savings and alternate energy generation. Unlike many who just talk about it, I’ve put a 10KW solar array on my home, plus a 125 KW solar array on one of our local schools when I was a school trustee. I’ve retrofitted my home with CFL’s and better insulation, as well as installed timer switches on many of our most commonly used lights.
I also drive an electric car for my daily around town routine.
I encourage others to do the same when it comes to efficient use of energy and energy conservation. For example, I recently installed energy saving LED lighting in my home, reducing power consumption for my largest lighting use from 325watts to 60 watts.
Every time you get pressed on GW and have no answers you try to pretend we are talking about pollution. I have told you before, GW and pollution are not the same. I think we are all in agreement on how bad pollution is.
Gary says, "You may have more in common with Anthony Watts than Al Gore. "
I would agree, but even if I knew NOTHING about Anthony Watts, I would still have virtually NOTHING in common with AlGore.
I walk the walk - he does not. I don't preach doom and gloom - he does. I think the issue of AGW is still undecided - he thinks the debate is over. He likes Carbon Credits/CapnTrade etc - I despise that idea. He thinks he won the 2000 election - I know he did not.
I've got virtually nothing in common with AlGore. Glad you finally agree.
houdini1 says, "Every time you get pressed on GW and have no answers you try to pretend we are talking about pollution."
What do I "not have an answer for?" Because I can get one.
BUT - Like I have stated before, more than once - the main reason I care about Global Warming is the pollution aspect of it. I'd like to stand on Coronado Island and see for 15 miles down the coast, not just 1 mile.
Well, so all those polluted rivers, unusable ground water, brown pollution clouds in Phoenix, Grey Smog in SoCal, all that would still be happening without man's influence?
I'm with Houdini; how does any of that pollution you mention make the climate warmer? If anything air pollution blocks a little sunshine and makes the Earth a fraction of a degree cooler. But that's still a small effect compared to the amount of sun-blocking naturally-forming clouds cause.
And to be clear, humans care about pollution, to protect their fragile status on the planet. Overall the planet isn't hurt by human activities, as the very things you are concerned about will be reprocessed back into the Earth over the millenia. You can take the nastiest PCP and plutonium mix you can imagine, and will humans don't like it, the earth is not going to be effected 1 bit by it. It'll all be recycled into the bowels of the Earth.
BUT - Like I have stated before, more than once - the main reason I care about Global Warming is the pollution aspect of it. I'd like to stand on Coronado Island and see for 15 miles down the coast, not just 1 mile.
Then you should be looking for the source of the pollution, not general human activity. CO2 is not the dirty brown cloud you see at the coast. Most likely where you are referring to geographically, the pollution is caused by hundreds of idling ships burning bunker-diesel up the coast a little. All those Chinese imports waiting to be unloaded in Long Beach, with the never-ending stream of trucks needed to haul all the containers away. I bet even San Diego has enough ship traffic to dirty the air.
kernick says, "I'm with Houdini; how does any of that pollution you mention make the climate warmer?"
We don't know that it DOES NOT.
So, common sense tells us that until we detemine that man-made GHG are not influencing the climate in a warming manner, we need to reduce our production of them - the result will be cleaner air, if nothing else !!!
P.S. Of course you are "with Houdini" - I'm the only non-conformer around this here forum.
You got Avalon our resident scientist that agrees with you. Steve wants to, but common sense prevails most of the time.
You do mix and match to suit your argument. CO2 is not a smog producing part of the filthy air that drifts from Long Beach and hits the mountains at San Bernardino. That is mostly soot caused by high concentrations of sulfur in the bunker oil used in cargo ships. About 5000 PPM on average.
Most of the talk with AGW has nothing to do with air or water quality. It is the scare tactic that Florida will soon be under the ocean. Or the Polar bears will drown with no ice to float around on.
And you don't know that what you eat for lunch won't cause you cancer either. So are you going to stop eating? I don't know if the next time I go to a canyon, and look out at the scenery that the whole ledge isn't going to crumble; maybe we should ban everyone from going near a canyon ledge?
the result will be cleaner air, if nothing else
Go after your cleaner air and water, but stop using a MAYBE theory, line-of- reasoning to use Issue A - GW, to reach your goal of Issue B - pollution. Issue B -pollution can be solved all on its own.
New cars put out very little pollution, and the cleanest actually filter the air as they operate, making the air cleaner. So many cars will reduce overall pollution, while they put out CO2 and H20, based on their gasoline usage.
So, common sense tells us that until we detemine that man-made GHG are not influencing the climate in a warming manner, we need to reduce our production of them - the result will be cleaner air, if nothing else !!!
P.S. Of course you are "with Houdini" - I'm the only non-conformer around this here forum
I only pop in occasionally, but I agree with your "non-conformist" position... for the most part.
If Pollution is "solved" (never gonna happen) then some of the issues with AGW will also go away.
So if the Earth freezes over completely to the equator, or the poles melt completely just as they have done alternately in the past you're fine with that, just as long as it has nothing to do with mankind contributing 1 degree either way? As long as the Earth freezes naturally or is totally ice-free naturally, as has occurred in the past, you're priority would be to see that mankind did not have 1% or even 5% contribution? That's all you ask? There can be a hole in the side of the boat with water rushing in, but you'll focus to make sure I don't spill my beer in the boat.
We don't HAVE To pollute in an out-of-control manner.
We set rules and laws in this country based on what the majority agree is reasonable. Reasonable is subjective. For example what is a "unreasonable noise" can be different decibel levels and during different times of day in different towns. You sound like you think the current level that society accepts is "out-of-control". You're welcome to your opinion, and if enough people agree maybe someday the rules are changed. But for now the majority of people are content with the level of pollution that their activity creates.
Because you and some others are unhappy with the level of pollution, I suspect that AGW is just something that is thrown out as a possibility, so it can then be to achieve your anti-pollution goals, which you wouldn't otherwise be able to achieve? Sounds like you heard someone smelled smoke once, and now you're saying there could be a fire in the woods, so stay out of the woods. Really the smoke-story is just a ruse so you can keep people out of the woods.
We all know about the Corn ethanol boondoggle. Many countries that cannot afford such Extravagant mistakes have fallen victim to the JATROPHA scam.
The Jatropha bubble is at the verge of bursting
A "miracle" plant, once thought to be as the answer to producing renewable biofuels on a vast scale, is driving thousands of farmers in the developing world into food poverty, a damning report concludes today.
Five years ago jatropha was hailed by investors and scientists as a breakthrough in the battle to find a biofuel alternative to fossil fuels that would not further impoverish developing countries by diverting resources away from food production.
Jatropha was said to be resistant to drought and pests and able could grow on land that was unsuitable for food production. But researchers have found that it has increased poverty in countries including India and Tanzania.
Millions of the plants have been grown in anticipation of rich returns, only for growers to be hit by poor yields, conflict over land and a lack of infrastructure to process the oil-rich seeds.
Oil giant BP, which planned to spend almost £32m on a joint venture to set up jatropha plantations, has now pulled out and the charity ActionAid today warns that jatropha needs to be cultivated on prime food-growing land to produce significant yields.
A key element in the global biofuel disaster that has been underreported is the difficulty we will face when we inevitably realize that biofuels are a tragic mistake. We will then try to rid our farmlands of destructive biofuel weeds to return them to normal food production, but this will be no easy task. Switchgrass, Obama's biofuel weed of choice, has very deep roots and is difficult to get rid of once it has been planted. Future economic headlines will tell of the great cost to our society of trying to eradicate biofuel weeds, which also include giant reed and jatrophra. Jatropha is being planted in tropical countries to turn its toxic seeds into biodiesel. Jatrophra is even more difficult to eradicate than switchgrass, and in the poor countries where it is planted it may destroy the land's value for food production and wildlife habitat for centuries.
It is the same bunch of political zealots behind these money making scams as the AGW Cap n Trade crooks. It is all about making a few people rich at the expense of the rest of US. All under the guise of saving the planet.
STOCKHOLM – Dozens of ships including a passenger ferry with nearly 1,000 people on board were trapped Friday in heavy pack ice in the Baltic Sea off Sweden's east coast, officials said.
Ice breakers were trying to free the ferry Amorella and two cargo ships stuck at the edge of an archipelago northeast of Stockholm, while rescue helicopters and military hovercraft were on standby to evacuate passengers if needed. Gale-force winds were hampering the effort, the Swedish Maritime Administration said.
"As soon as they break the ice, it freezes over again," sea rescue spokesman Peter Lindquist said. He said no one was hurt and there were no immediate plans to evacuate the ships.
A total of about 50 ships were stuck in ice along Sweden's eastern seaboard, said Johny Lindvall, who manages the maritime administration's ice breaker service. Heavy ice cover is not uncommon further north, but the ice rarely gets thick enough in the Stockholm archipelago to trap powerful passenger ferries like the Amorella.
I bet this ice issue is handled just like the weather, the glaciers, and the ice-sheets. In spots where the weather has been warmer, the glacier is receding, and the ice is thinner is the data that goes into supporting GW. Where the weather has been colder, or the ice is getting thicker, this data is just dismissed as "anomalies" or "blips"; and when the data is massaged these are given a "correction-factor", or omitted.
If you look back at the history of science, and how science held-on to incorrect theories for many years before correcting them, you will really question why it took so long for the incorrect theories to be dismissed. When you come to the conclusion that scientists are people, and that people who are the champion of the current theory get a lot of honor and prestige, and are looked to as THE expert opinion, which overrules other experts; then you understand the problems we have.
We all saw this perfectly displayed about 10 years ago, when the powerful prestigious leaders of our intelligence-services proclaimed that they had scientific evidence that WMD were in Iraq. They proclaimed themselves as THE experts, professionally bullying any other experts who offered different theories on the satellite and other data. They proclaimed "The debate is over. The data is irrefuteable. The only question is what do we do about it.". And the public is swayed to believe that's the truth, because the experts told us it is so.
I'm sure if you went back thru the history of science, you will find many other examples of powerful establishments - kings, governments, churches, who have supported false scientific theories. The scientists and these establishments are very reluctant to admit error. With the various people in the IPCC and in NASA or other organizations supported by the various political groups around the world, I see the same situation playing out. The leaked e-mails of the IPCC show the embarassment of the establishment, in having the public know what they are really discusiing - that the AGW or even GW theory is standing on some pretty shaky legs.
“Vice President Gore’s career has been marked by visionary leadership, and his work has quite literally changed our planet for the better,” UT Knoxville Chancellor Jimmy G. Cheek said in a statement. “He is among the most accomplished and respected Tennesseans in history, and it is fitting that he should be honored by the flagship education institution of his home state.”
That is a sad commentary on Tennesseans. What about Davy Crockett a real statesman and Hero? Did UT give him a Doctorate?
Look, I could/would be on the "AGW hoax" side except for the fact that the Earth IS WARMING. That was known LONG before AlGore became a blip on the political landscrape.
And the cause is NOT KNOWN.
Better to be on the side of "caution" than to just proceed as normal, polluting as much as ever, and not caring about the consequences.
You have no way to know if that is true or not !! Even if it was true it would be a natural event like it always has been, and soon enough the pendulum would swing back the other way.
"AGW hoax" side except for the fact that the Earth IS WARMING.
If you believe the data was collected consistenly over the years and if you believe the people handling the data aren't making adjustments or throwing out what they consider "blips".
And if you believe the data, then you must believe that the warming stopped about 15 years ago, and we're in the first 15 years where the climate has stopped increasing and we're entering a cooling-trend. :P
And the cause is NOT KNOWN.
Just like it is not known how all those WMD - the mobile biolabs, and nuclear programs that Iraq supposedly had - disappeared? Yep our scientists don't know what happened to all that data they had either, or how it could be wrong!
It's amazing how - Wanting Something to be True - can lead to the bias and prejudice that make you put blinders on and only see what you want. If you want to make a case for AGW, then I'm sure you can find and manage data, and make a model that says there is AGW, whether there is or not. And the reward to climatologists and politicians in having AGW is prestige, more jobs, more grants, political power, and making more money. It just snowballs, so now everyone who's a climatologists either gets on-board with AGW or is ostracized by the AGW establishment as a "nut, amateur, or oil-company lackey".
The debate is, how can we believe the data? When they used 6000 weather stations 20 years ago and only 1500 now. The most of those removed were in colder areas. The ones left are mostly in concrete jungles better known as cities. Whether you believe it or not the facts are clear. We do not KNOW if it is warmer or colder today than it was 20-30 or 100 years ago. There is no consistent data set to go by.
Add to that most of the World is experiencing a record cold winter. Logic says if it is man that is the major cause of GW, it would continue up every year. We are putting out more CO2 every year, back to the beginning of the industrial revolution. The World's climate has NOT followed the growth in GHG.
You should stick to fighting air and water pollution and leave the rest of US to fight the AGW Hoax. They are not synonymous.
Much of that data from the 1980s and 1990s was collected BEFORE ANYONE HAD A GW AGENDA !!!
You are absolutely right. Back then the same breed of loonies were pushing an alarmist theory of Global Cooling.
In April, 1975, in an issue mostly taken up with stories about the collapse of the American-backed government of South Vietnam, NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing "ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," the magazine warned of an impending "drastic decline in food production." Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect "just about every nation on earth." Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling.
The names change the modus operandi is the same. Which means:
: a method of procedure; especially : a distinct pattern or method of operation that indicates or suggests the work of a single criminal in more than one crime
And I'm still amazed you make an argument that mankind controls what happens in our natural environment, when the Chile earthquake, just 1 of many that are now occurring shows us that the forces of nature are thousands of times greater than mankind could muster.
Yes the Chile earthquake affected the Earth 1,000X more than if mankind took all its nuclear weapons to that point and set them off! And nature manifests energy in many other forms each day such as wind, lightning, tides, and solar energy; not just in these referenced earthquakes. Ridiculous! When we can build a Death-Star, then I'll believe we can change the climate or future of nature on Earth.
When you consider one little 7.0 earthquake killed more people than we did with two atom bombs in Japan. I think the Haiti count is well over 300,000 dead. Man can cause some havoc. Nothing like mother nature wields.
Gary says, "When you consider one little 7.0 earthquake killed more people than we did with two atom bombs in Japan."
Gary, that was nuclear power in it's infancy.
If we unleashed every primed nuclear warhead we have NOW, including the thermo-nuclear warheads, we could devastate the population at least similar in effect to all the volcanoes on earth erupting at once. We could wipe out mankind.
What natural situation on Earth could wipe out mankind? Nothing short of a huge asteroid or a Captain-Trips-like virus.
Can Man equal the power of an F5 tornado? Easy. Can Man equal the power of a Category 5 Hurricane? Easily.
So thanks to technology, Man is at least equivalent in destructive power to Nature.
Comments
My son takes a bus every day, and I take several bus trips per year. And we have NEVER had a bad incident.
Just as MILLIONS of mass transit riders each day use mass transit without incident.
I mean, "sponges of society" use it. My bad.
For my commute though...using the bus would triple the time needed, or more...and I am still paying many car expenses even if it sits idle...so I'll drive. Gas isn't nearly expensive enough to keep me off the road.
Ms. FERRIGNO: The fact that the ice shelves are changing on the peninsula is a significant signal that global change, climate warming, is affecting the ice cover of Antarctica. It’s affecting first the area that’s towards the north, that’s slightly warmer, but the effect of the warming has traveled from the northern part of the peninsula to the southern part of the peninsula, where it’s colder.
“RAZ: Give us a sense of how much ice [on the Antarctic peninsula] has been lost over the past, say, 10 years.
Ms. FERRIGNO: I think I’ll go back 20 years, and in the last 20 years, I would say at least 20,000 square kilometers of ice has been lost, and that’s comparable to an area somewhere between the state of Texas and the state of Alaska.
RAZ: So about the size of the state of Texas in terms of ice has been lost in the past 20 years. ”
Some would say she is lying. I think she is just stupid. And we are stupid for giving her a high paying job in the Government.
Ms. FERRIGNO: Well, this is a fairly small amount of ice when you consider the whole Antarctic continent consists of about 13 million square kilometers of ice.
RAZ: I mean, it sounds so dramatic, the size of Texas, right?
(Soundbite of laughter)
Ms. FERRIGNO: It is. It is very dramatic, and it is larger than the size of Texas, but when you consider the entire Antarctic ice sheet, it’s still a fairly minimal amount. But the thing that we’re really interested in seeing is that this is a sort of a red flag because if the warming continues, if the retreat continues, if the amount of ice on the continent starts to flow into the water, then there will be substantial impact to the sea level.
RAZ: That’s Jane Ferrigno. She is a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey.
Jane Ferrigno, thanks for coming in.
Ms. FERRIGNO: Thank you.
Ms. Ferrigno might do well to have a look at this map of the USA and Antarctica compared at Texas A&M University’s Polar Science program to get a sense of scale.
I hope she was thoroughly embarrassed when her colleagues corrected her ignorance.
LOL
So that little discussion did not impress me as being very scientific; especially if the intent was to mislead by saying so much area was lost, and maybe not mentioning that the ice in many areas has become thicker in Antartica.
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/revealed-antarctic-ice-growing-not-shrinki- - ng/
Two important facts helped the scientists isolate the hidden vents. First, the ocean is stratified with layers of lighter water sitting on top of layers of denser water. Second, when a seafloor vent erupts, it spews gases rich in rare helium-3, an isotope found in earth's mantle and in the magma bubbling below the vent.
http://www.physorg.com/news186840060.html
Hmmm. That would be on the side of Antartica that is losing ice. Anyway that quote just is a wonderful example of how much science doesn't know about the natural world. It is an example of why I don't trust scientific models which are based on incomplete knowledge. I mean there are whole areas of the world where we have no idea how many volcanic vents exist, and the chemistry and energy balances going on in the environment.
wattsupwiththat = denier's blog
I don't know if it is or isn't, but that story on Antartica's ice growing can be found in dozens of other links, like the news organizations.
Just like the stories of the melting can be found at numerous blogs and news sites.
Proves my contention that more study needs to be done.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=04738da90f95a017d7dd941beacca8df&p- - =2605513#post2605513
Mankind is not significantly changing the environment of the Earth by driving around in a few hundred million vehicles. It is nothing compared to the forces at work around us.
That's just ludicrous, and not the Rapper kind.
- about 95% of the CO2 released each year; decay of organic matter
- lots of methane released into the oceans and from land
- numerous forest-fire debris from lightning strikes
- volcanos, not just on land but oceanic
- radon gas releases from rock
- vegetation releasing pollen and other organic airborne particles
- solar radiation interacting with our atmosphere causing chemical changes
- solar radiation causing oceanic evaporation and formation of clouds - more natural pollution.
Quite a long list of pollution to me.
Go ask those passengers from that cruise-ship off the coast of Spain, who's in charge - nature or mankind. :P
If it's a "how long is YOURS (list)" competition, you don't want to even be on the side of Nature.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
What Am I "denying?" That Nature affects pollution levels? I'm not denying that at all.
I'm not "selecting any belief" at all.
My point is that just as Nature has a large number of pollution constants, so doth Man.
It's not the number of different types of pollution but the quantity that nature produces. Nature produces about 20X the amount of CO2 each and every day then man does. Nature similarly releases huge amounts of methane everyday, which is another GHG. The Sun provides so much energy to the planet that is keeps it from becoming colder then Neptune or Pluto. Take away the natural warming of the sun, and the whole solar system drops hundreds of degrees below 0F. It is Nature far and away that sets the environment. Could mankind change the climate a fraction of a degree here and there? Sure. I agree that is change; but it is NOT SIGNIFICANT CHANGE compared to the natural forces which set the climate.
What the AGW wants the believe is that the breeze you are feeling on your cheek standing 3' from me, is simply me whistling your way; all the while we're standing in a 100mph cyclone. Sure I have an effect; but NOT significant.
Puh-Leeze.
Man is insignificant in the scope of the universe and our little planet. The sooner the AGW cult either sees reality, or are forced out of business, the better for all of us.
Good Joke !!!
http://www.pollen.com/allergy-weather-forecast.asp
You may have more in common with Anthony Watts than Al Gore.
While I have a skeptical view of certain climate issues, I consider myself “green” in many ways, and I promote the idea of energy savings and alternate energy generation. Unlike many who just talk about it, I’ve put a 10KW solar array on my home, plus a 125 KW solar array on one of our local schools when I was a school trustee. I’ve retrofitted my home with CFL’s and better insulation, as well as installed timer switches on many of our most commonly used lights.
I also drive an electric car for my daily around town routine.
I encourage others to do the same when it comes to efficient use of energy and energy conservation. For example, I recently installed energy saving LED lighting in my home, reducing power consumption for my largest lighting use from 325watts to 60 watts.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/about/
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I would agree, but even if I knew NOTHING about Anthony Watts, I would still have virtually NOTHING in common with AlGore.
I walk the walk - he does not.
I don't preach doom and gloom - he does.
I think the issue of AGW is still undecided - he thinks the debate is over.
He likes Carbon Credits/CapnTrade etc - I despise that idea.
He thinks he won the 2000 election - I know he did not.
I've got virtually nothing in common with AlGore. Glad you finally agree.
What do I "not have an answer for?" Because I can get one.
BUT - Like I have stated before, more than once - the main reason I care about Global Warming is the pollution aspect of it. I'd like to stand on Coronado Island and see for 15 miles down the coast, not just 1 mile.
I'm with Houdini; how does any of that pollution you mention make the climate warmer? If anything air pollution blocks a little sunshine and makes the Earth a fraction of a degree cooler. But that's still a small effect compared to the amount of sun-blocking naturally-forming clouds cause.
And to be clear, humans care about pollution, to protect their fragile status on the planet. Overall the planet isn't hurt by human activities, as the very things you are concerned about will be reprocessed back into the Earth over the millenia. You can take the nastiest PCP and plutonium mix you can imagine, and will humans don't like it, the earth is not going to be effected 1 bit by it. It'll all be recycled into the bowels of the Earth.
Then you should be looking for the source of the pollution, not general human activity. CO2 is not the dirty brown cloud you see at the coast. Most likely where you are referring to geographically, the pollution is caused by hundreds of idling ships burning bunker-diesel up the coast a little. All those Chinese imports waiting to be unloaded in Long Beach, with the never-ending stream of trucks needed to haul all the containers away. I bet even San Diego has enough ship traffic to dirty the air.
We don't know that it DOES NOT.
So, common sense tells us that until we detemine that man-made GHG are not influencing the climate in a warming manner, we need to reduce our production of them - the result will be cleaner air, if nothing else !!!
P.S. Of course you are "with Houdini" - I'm the only non-conformer around this here forum.
You do mix and match to suit your argument. CO2 is not a smog producing part of the filthy air that drifts from Long Beach and hits the mountains at San Bernardino. That is mostly soot caused by high concentrations of sulfur in the bunker oil used in cargo ships. About 5000 PPM on average.
Most of the talk with AGW has nothing to do with air or water quality. It is the scare tactic that Florida will soon be under the ocean. Or the Polar bears will drown with no ice to float around on.
That's because it's a complicated issue, with no "one answer fits all scenarios."
Each part of the debate can be argued around it's own dangers or virtues.
And you don't know that what you eat for lunch won't cause you cancer either. So are you going to stop eating? I don't know if the next time I go to a canyon, and look out at the scenery that the whole ledge isn't going to crumble; maybe we should ban everyone from going near a canyon ledge?
the result will be cleaner air, if nothing else
Go after your cleaner air and water, but stop using a MAYBE theory, line-of- reasoning to use Issue A - GW, to reach your goal of Issue B - pollution. Issue B -pollution can be solved all on its own.
New cars put out very little pollution, and the cleanest actually filter the air as they operate, making the air cleaner. So many cars will reduce overall pollution, while they put out CO2 and H20, based on their gasoline usage.
P.S. Of course you are "with Houdini" - I'm the only non-conformer around this here forum
I only pop in occasionally, but I agree with your "non-conformist" position... for the most part.
Most likely, there IS something in there that might. But we all gotta go.
We don't HAVE To pollute in an out-of-control manner.
If Pollution is "solved" (never gonna happen) then some of the issues with AGW will also go away. They are hand-in-hand.
So if the Earth freezes over completely to the equator, or the poles melt completely just as they have done alternately in the past you're fine with that, just as long as it has nothing to do with mankind contributing 1 degree either way? As long as the Earth freezes naturally or is totally ice-free naturally, as has occurred in the past, you're priority would be to see that mankind did not have 1% or even 5% contribution? That's all you ask? There can be a hole in the side of the boat with water rushing in, but you'll focus to make sure I don't spill my beer in the boat.
We don't HAVE To pollute in an out-of-control manner.
We set rules and laws in this country based on what the majority agree is reasonable. Reasonable is subjective. For example what is a "unreasonable noise" can be different decibel levels and during different times of day in different towns. You sound like you think the current level that society accepts is "out-of-control". You're welcome to your opinion, and if enough people agree maybe someday the rules are changed. But for now the majority of people are content with the level of pollution that their activity creates.
Because you and some others are unhappy with the level of pollution, I suspect that AGW is just something that is thrown out as a possibility, so it can then be to achieve your anti-pollution goals, which you wouldn't otherwise be able to achieve? Sounds like you heard someone smelled smoke once, and now you're saying there could be a fire in the woods, so stay out of the woods. Really the smoke-story is just a ruse so you can keep people out of the woods.
The Jatropha bubble is at the verge of bursting
A "miracle" plant, once thought to be as the answer to producing renewable biofuels on a vast scale, is driving thousands of farmers in the developing world into food poverty, a damning report concludes today.
Five years ago jatropha was hailed by investors and scientists as a breakthrough in the battle to find a biofuel alternative to fossil fuels that would not further impoverish developing countries by diverting resources away from food production.
Jatropha was said to be resistant to drought and pests and able could grow on land that was unsuitable for food production. But researchers have found that it has increased poverty in countries including India and Tanzania.
Millions of the plants have been grown in anticipation of rich returns, only for growers to be hit by poor yields, conflict over land and a lack of infrastructure to process the oil-rich seeds.
Oil giant BP, which planned to spend almost £32m on a joint venture to set up jatropha plantations, has now pulled out and the charity ActionAid today warns that jatropha needs to be cultivated on prime food-growing land to produce significant yields.
jatropha bubble
The Western Appetite for Biofuels is Causing Starvation in the Poor World
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/160007.html
A key element in the global biofuel disaster that has been underreported is the difficulty we will face when we inevitably realize that biofuels are a tragic mistake. We will then try to rid our farmlands of destructive biofuel weeds to return them to normal food production, but this will be no easy task. Switchgrass, Obama's biofuel weed of choice, has very deep roots and is difficult to get rid of once it has been planted. Future economic headlines will tell of the great cost to our society of trying to eradicate biofuel weeds, which also include giant reed and jatrophra. Jatropha is being planted in tropical countries to turn its toxic seeds into biodiesel. Jatrophra is even more difficult to eradicate than switchgrass, and in the poor countries where it is planted it may destroy the land's value for food production and wildlife habitat for centuries.
The truth about biofuels
It is the same bunch of political zealots behind these money making scams as the AGW Cap n Trade crooks. It is all about making a few people rich at the expense of the rest of US. All under the guise of saving the planet.
Ice breakers were trying to free the ferry Amorella and two cargo ships stuck at the edge of an archipelago northeast of Stockholm, while rescue helicopters and military hovercraft were on standby to evacuate passengers if needed. Gale-force winds were hampering the effort, the Swedish Maritime Administration said.
"As soon as they break the ice, it freezes over again," sea rescue spokesman Peter Lindquist said. He said no one was hurt and there were no immediate plans to evacuate the ships.
A total of about 50 ships were stuck in ice along Sweden's eastern seaboard, said Johny Lindvall, who manages the maritime administration's ice breaker service. Heavy ice cover is not uncommon further north, but the ice rarely gets thick enough in the Stockholm archipelago to trap powerful passenger ferries like the Amorella.
Arctic Ice Found
All you Al Gore Polar Bears, the Ice is in Sweden. Plenty of meatballs to eat there also.
If you look back at the history of science, and how science held-on to incorrect theories for many years before correcting them, you will really question why it took so long for the incorrect theories to be dismissed. When you come to the conclusion that scientists are people, and that people who are the champion of the current theory get a lot of honor and prestige, and are looked to as THE expert opinion, which overrules other experts; then you understand the problems we have.
We all saw this perfectly displayed about 10 years ago, when the powerful prestigious leaders of our intelligence-services proclaimed that they had scientific evidence that WMD were in Iraq. They proclaimed themselves as THE experts, professionally bullying any other experts who offered different theories on the satellite and other data. They proclaimed "The debate is over. The data is irrefuteable. The only question is what do we do about it.". And the public is swayed to believe that's the truth, because the experts told us it is so.
I'm sure if you went back thru the history of science, you will find many other examples of powerful establishments - kings, governments, churches, who have supported false scientific theories. The scientists and these establishments are very reluctant to admit error. With the various people in the IPCC and in NASA or other organizations supported by the various political groups around the world, I see the same situation playing out. The leaked e-mails of the IPCC show the embarassment of the establishment, in having the public know what they are really discusiing - that the AGW or even GW theory is standing on some pretty shaky legs.
http://www.knoxnews.com/polls/2010/feb/al-gore-poll/
“Vice President Gore’s career has been marked by visionary leadership, and his work has quite literally changed our planet for the better,” UT Knoxville Chancellor Jimmy G. Cheek said in a statement. “He is among the most accomplished and respected Tennesseans in history, and it is fitting that he should be honored by the flagship education institution of his home state.”
That is a sad commentary on Tennesseans. What about Davy Crockett a real statesman and Hero? Did UT give him a Doctorate?
And the cause is NOT KNOWN.
Better to be on the side of "caution" than to just proceed as normal, polluting as much as ever, and not caring about the consequences.
That attitude is the height of selfishness.
I find your belief that CO2 is a pollutant somewhat hypocritical. As long as you insist on exhaling.
BALDERDASH !!
You have no way to know if that is true or not !! Even if it was true it would be a natural event like it always has been, and soon enough the pendulum would swing back the other way.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
If you believe the data was collected consistenly over the years and if you believe the people handling the data aren't making adjustments or throwing out what they consider "blips".
And if you believe the data, then you must believe that the warming stopped about 15 years ago, and we're in the first 15 years where the climate has stopped increasing and we're entering a cooling-trend. :P
And the cause is NOT KNOWN.
Just like it is not known how all those WMD - the mobile biolabs, and nuclear programs that Iraq supposedly had - disappeared? Yep our scientists don't know what happened to all that data they had either, or how it could be wrong!
It's amazing how - Wanting Something to be True - can lead to the bias and prejudice that make you put blinders on and only see what you want. If you want to make a case for AGW, then I'm sure you can find and manage data, and make a model that says there is AGW, whether there is or not. And the reward to climatologists and politicians in having AGW is prestige, more jobs, more grants, political power, and making more money. It just snowballs, so now everyone who's a climatologists either gets on-board with AGW or is ostracized by the AGW establishment as a "nut, amateur, or oil-company lackey".
The cause? Unknown, therefore why we still have a debate.
Add to that most of the World is experiencing a record cold winter. Logic says if it is man that is the major cause of GW, it would continue up every year. We are putting out more CO2 every year, back to the beginning of the industrial revolution. The World's climate has NOT followed the growth in GHG.
You should stick to fighting air and water pollution and leave the rest of US to fight the AGW Hoax. They are not synonymous.
Anyone who disbelieves the weather data is just looking for a reason to bolster his point.
Much of that data from the 1980s and 1990s was collected BEFORE ANYONE HAD A GW AGENDA !!!
You are absolutely right. Back then the same breed of loonies were pushing an alarmist theory of Global Cooling.
In April, 1975, in an issue mostly taken up with stories about the collapse of the American-backed government of South Vietnam, NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing "ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," the magazine warned of an impending "drastic decline in food production." Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect "just about every nation on earth." Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling.
The names change the modus operandi is the same. Which means:
: a method of procedure; especially : a distinct pattern or method of operation that indicates or suggests the work of a single criminal in more than one crime
Yes the Chile earthquake affected the Earth 1,000X more than if mankind took all its nuclear weapons to that point and set them off! And nature manifests energy in many other forms each day such as wind, lightning, tides, and solar energy; not just in these referenced earthquakes. Ridiculous! When we can build a Death-Star, then I'll believe we can change the climate or future of nature on Earth.
"Because Nature is so powerful and Man is so weak, it is impossible for Man to substantially influence the climate"
Is that what you are saying?
Gary, that was nuclear power in it's infancy.
If we unleashed every primed nuclear warhead we have NOW, including the thermo-nuclear warheads, we could devastate the population at least similar in effect to all the volcanoes on earth erupting at once. We could wipe out mankind.
What natural situation on Earth could wipe out mankind? Nothing short of a huge asteroid or a Captain-Trips-like virus.
Can Man equal the power of an F5 tornado? Easy.
Can Man equal the power of a Category 5 Hurricane? Easily.
So thanks to technology, Man is at least equivalent in destructive power to Nature.