Since the link the environmental folks want to make is WARMING due to cars, interesting since it is the COLDEST since 01, that in 2006 the number of cars (just in the US) has literally JUMPED up. The number of drivers has increased. The number of miles has gone up, The number of trips have certainly increased and it is indeed COLDER.
This was the point I have tried numerous times to get across. It seems that some folks will believe anything a government agency has to say. I was sure it would eventually be sorted out. Scientific study is a good thing. Giving partial statistics to further a political agenda is bad.
A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect.
..."The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming."...
Evidently they don't have game; someone hit the puck out of there.
alternative solutions to our fossil-fuel usage, rather than just complain, and suggest using less energy. For instance rather than just suggesting to use renewable energy, and then sitting back and leetting others propose sites for windfarms and such, that then the environmental groups always seem to have problems with; I suggest environmental groups, businesses, and the government meet and start making lists of areas where we can build windfarms. And I suggest any study be limited to 1 year.
But we don't see environmental groups proposing specific solutions. What we do get is "oil is bad, use renewable" and then when someone wants to build a renewable plant the environmentalists are back with "now you need a 5 year study, and we're probably not going to like it anyway because we know there are baabaabooie doves flying nearby, and 100 will fly into the windmills each year." I'm sure we've all heard these stories. What it sounds like to me is environmentalists wanting to stop growth and modernization without really saying so, by playing "the card" that you can have energy and growth - all you have to do is find a method that has absolutely no negatives.
As we know any chemical reaction produces, and every structure takes land where some creature lives.
I like the environment too - love the Grand Canyon and the west, but I also understand some things need to be sacrificed for our way of life. Until environmentalists accept reasonable sacrifices by proposing specific sites for development I can't support them. I think the proper approach is to say: we need X-amount of energy this year, and we need to sit down and determine what is the least damaging way to get that amount. If you want to stop siting windfarms in Nantucket Sound, then you (environmentalists) are basically telling us you prefer to dig up the oil-shale, or drill off the coasts, and we'll emit more CO2.
..."If you want to stop siting windfarms in Nantucket Sound, then you (environmentalists) are basically telling us you prefer to dig up the oil-shale, or drill off the coasts, and we'll emit more CO2. "...
So what is wrong with that REAL and operative messages,actions and results :shades: ?
It is about time folks are seeing Robert Kennedy Jr for what he really is. Just like Al Gore, he wants the rest of us to be green, while he continues his decadent lifestyle.
It's about the Vision, not the View
The alliance, funded in large part by owners of property overlooking the sound, is worried that the scenic view from its coastal homes will be scarred by the turbines. These landowners consider wind farms to be an eyesore, while others see them as beautiful structures and a symbol of the future survival of this planet. Apparently, the alliance is more concerned with the aesthetics of its landscape, than reducing mercury contamination, asthma-inducing pollution and global warming.
On August 17, our activists challenged the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound as it celebrated Bobby Kennedy onboard the Spirit of Massachusetts. Two Greenpeace boats pulled alongside the event with banners reading "Bobby You Are On The Wrong Boat," and "Wind Power Protects Nantucket Sound."
It's time for Robert Kennedy to kiss and make up with proponents of clean energy. We are willing to take him back as soon as he says "Yes to Wind!"
I am a long time Audubon member. I did not approve their position on Wind Generators. If you look at this list of places they do not want wind generation, you would have to say it eliminates a lot of good potential locations. I think I may write them and cancel my membership.
Clearly delineated siting criteria that designate areas where wind power should not be allowed, such as Important Bird Areas, major migratory corridors, wilderness areas, national parks, wildlife refuges, and other sensitive habitat such as wetlands and riparian corridors
Hopefully they are not playing the greed card. I watched while they built an 800k volt power line across MN in the late 1970s. They forced it around some sanctuary to protect the wildlife. Makes you wonder who is protecting the human lives in this country. There is NO perfect way to produce electricity. Unless the environmentalists want to lead the way back to hunter/gathering cave dwelling, the demand will keep increasing.
WE are going to produce more CO2 as the population increases. To try and reduce it by 80% as the IPCC report has suggested is just plain ignorant. Why waste money on studies that are not realistic? Of course I consider the UN a big waste of money.
I dislike the grid. It encourages more of the out of sight mentality (put the nukes in Nevada). It's a big target for unfriendlies. And an eagle can land on transformer station, spread its wings, and take out the whole Northeastern corridor. Then there's that whole Enron speculation thing.
Better to limit power production to small geographical sections - people will be forced to pay more attention to how they get their power since they may have to live with a coal plant nearby. That would naturally encourage conservation and local site energy production, like home power. And like the internet redundancy, a power outage in Kansas City won't cause a brown-out in Memphis.
If wind, is as they say it is, the most bang for the buck, I am all for it. I don't think they are unsightly. You do have to have a place where the wind blows most of the time. Many desert ridges fill that bill. To take huge tracts of land and not use them for wind generation seems a poor use of public lands. I think our local Indians that are adding a large output to our local grid are to be commended. They did not have to be subjected to groups like Audubon before they decided to build a wind farm. Solar is not nearly so cost effective as Wind.
The Kumeyaay Wind farm annually produces power sufficient for about 30,000 homes and saves approximately 110,000 tons a year in greenhouse gas emissions, compared with equivalent fossil fuel generation. It helps San Diego Gas & Electric meet its target of supplying at least 20 percent of its customers' electricity from renewable sources by 2010.
If anything, Indian lands are more tightly regulated by the feds than state lands
I think it is easier to deal with the EPA than all the factions in CA. Dozens of entities feel they have to inject their nonsense into everything that is done. It is the major reason homes in CA are double or triple the rest of the USA.
Bottom line is I am glad our local Indians are not hypocrites like Robert & Teddy Kennedy. They don't mind that the windfarm is in plain view of their casino.
The byproduct of nitrogen oxides and other chemicals released into the air by vehicles and power plants, ozone is one of the most pernicious pollutants in the air — and one of the hardest to get rid of.
The article is blasting the EPA for not lowering the limits on ozone further. Yet they fail to mention that the NOx is primarily caused by the cargo ships in and out of San Pedro. I was in Long Beach 4 Sundays ago for a few hours. That was enough for me. If they want to cut pollution. Cut the number of cargo ships allowed into the Harbor. That will cut the number of diesel semi trucks hauling stuff out of Long Beach. To make matters worse they have allowed trucks into the USA from Mexico that have no regulations or low sulfur diesel requirements.
South Coast Air Quality Board has the answer. Stop people from using their fireplaces or heating with wood. It is so much easier to go after the individual in this country. They know the cars are about as clean as they are going to get.
I don't think the cargo ship are affecting the air quality in Kansas City or here in Boise as much as cars. What did the EPA say - 30% of the ground ozone is from autos?
Hmmm, don't remember which article I read where they talked about the percentage of ozone contributed by cars. It's 39% in AZ for transportation-related emissions, and cars and light trucks make up 60% of the 39%. (link)
A variety of freon have been blamed for problems with the ozone layer, and yet, when freon is leaked into the enviroment, it isn't able to defy gravity and goes straight to the earth. People buy into everything these studies produce, and ultimately it's just another money making scheme by the people who run this country. At some point in time I see these same people forcing cattle ranchers to install catalitic converters in their cows asses.
About a decade ago one of the major engine manufacturers wanted to develop a hydrogen diesel engine and the US Government stopped them. You have to stop and ask yourself why. Air pollution has been a problem for years. Global warming just popped into our language in the last 20 or so. It's not all about our mode of transportation and or use of fossil fuels. There are bigger issues outside of our own planet causing most of our problems and global warming just a smoke screen to hide it.
I remember in the early 1990s when most of the windmills along Interstate 10 going down to Palm Springs were laying on the ground broken. My understanding is they were not the best design and maintenance was too expensive compared to fossil fuel generation. $110 oil has made a difference.
When in Mother Nature's cycle of weather that includes global cooling, who will [non-permissible content removed] about that?
Amazing how easy it is to fool some of the people all of the time, if not all of the people some of the time.
The foolers wear one ear ring, drive old Volvo wagons, use MAC Pc's, eat Vegetarian, cross country ski, and paddle kayaks after having graduated from Liberal Arts Colleges i.e. Evergreen State & Reed. If they receive a pay check, it's from some form of government employment. Kum buy Ahhhhh! :P
Don't forget the up to 100% of pay with cola and other equalizers the second they retire. Perhaps that was one side of the Spock hand sign and "live long and prosper, the corollary being @100% pay and benefits AND tax exemption!! ?? There is a drill of trying to retire on "disability" so most to all of the retirement pay is tax exempt.
Worse yet, these greenies will accuse you of wanting to destroy the planet if you don't agree with them or have legitimate questions and concerns about problems that might result from a blind rush to their green nirvana.
We are in a society that accepts anything they are told if it sounds like it is going to help the planet. As the article points out the land being destroyed to grow biofuel crops would be better left alone. The crops we are diverting to make fuel would be better used to feed the world. Alternatives are good if they are well thought out and actually have a positive impact. So far I have seen little that is worthwhile. I blame most of the frenzy on the GW Alarmist cult.
Love the commentary: Boy did he nail it on the head. There are a bunch of folks running around promoting hybrids, alternative fuels, and electric cars not because it's the right thing to do or even makes sense, but because they think it says something about them or makes them better than other people somehow.
It's true. They may or may not be truly green because of the side effects of electronics and batteries, e.g., in hybrids and true electric cars, but it's what many people "think" about themselves.
I recall a BMW a few years old with license plates that said, "LQQK," meaning look at me. For all I know the red BMW was a one of a kind worth a million dollars but I had no desire to be impressed by someone driving it for prestige's sake. Prius drivers come across that way to me. If they wanted to be green they'd buy a manual 4-cyl Corolla.
It's Tuesday so that means it's Mazda chat time again! Stop in tonight and meet and greet some of your fellow CarSpace members. We'll talk anything and everything Mazda, automotive, and just plain have a good time. Anything is fair game.
March 19, 2008 Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.
In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
You know the GW Shrills (armageddon thrill ride re loading to the left in 666 mins) really do not appreciate all this "inconvenient" data. :shades: But I guess it depends on whose Ox is being gored.
"Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet. "
There are too many variables involved in the homestasis to say that GW is causing any one problem. It's amazing that NPR had this link on their site. I thought they were with the GW folks and gloom and doom.
Suggestion for previous post: "It's all about whose ox is being Gored."
Hopefully NPR prints what the scientists find and not what the politicians want US to see. I thought the paragraph you posted from the article was most insightful. Maybe the earth is better at adapting than we all knowing humans.
Faux science and advocates often misuse scientific results to make their point. That has been well shown in recent posts here.
If someone has unraveled all the interlocking factors in earth temperatures as well as a way to measure them in a comparison worthy manner, I don't believe it. It will be like the atom which has evolved from neutrons, protons, and electrons to huge worlds of subatomic particles all in 50-60 years?
The other thing GW advocates have not done (correct me here, post links if there are any) is to put into context the so called "toxic" emissions of volcano's in Hawaii and Yellowstone for example. In context the USGS list 70 active volcanos in the USA.
..." Breaking News: Tenth Bali Global Warming Conference Ends with Historic Agreement
EPA to Mandate Reductions in Emissions from Volcanoes...
Emission from volcanoes in the future could be greatly restricted under new rules that are part of the Clean Air Planning Act
Under new rules that are part of the Clean Air Planning Act, volcanoes, long responsible for more particulate and sulfur dioxide pollution than all human-caused emissions, might not get a pass any longer. "...
I heard the NASA story on NPR driving home from the airport this morning after I shuttled a carbon loaded friend to his flight to Seattle for a long weekend.
The part about sea level rising 1/2 inch was an interesting anomaly.
"Climate change has now added a new sense of urgency ... We can't allow coal and oil to slowly bake our planet."
"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus."Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."
OK - there is a SCIENTIST whose story Gary says is the "real story" saying what I have said for many posts here. THANK YOU SIR for confirming my previous assertions.
In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not."
Interesting info re the sea temperature (non-)findings. Wonder how the doomsayers will try and spin that ?
Over here in the U.K. we fully expect our Chancellor to announce a "Volcano" tax any day now. Of course, as we don't have any active volcano's it's not going to raise much for "Environmental" causes. We therefore expect a little sleight of hand that will end up taxing tyres to within an inch of their very existence. The legislators will reason that Volcano has its roots in Vulcan. All tyres are vulcanised, ergo they are the same as volcanos...............so tax the little beggars, (or rather, tax them even more). Of course they can't ban them as that would infringe the population's right to exercise their freedom of choice in buying tyres - and if you ban something you cannot raise taxes from it. It works for alcohol, tobacco, fuel, cars, packaging etc etc etc, so why not volc, er, tyres ?
Wonder if Lady Hillary has thought of this yet ? Sorry, off topic.
So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not."
I am glad you read the whole article. What is significant is the FACT that the ocean accounts for 80-90% of the planets warming or cooling. When the thermometers you are so enamored with have shown cities are warmer it is only an insignificant 10-20% of the whole GW picture. If the ocean has not warmed over the last 5 years that it has been monitored that is significant. You can spin your 10-20% any way you like, it will not mean much to the earth as a whole.
If the ocean has not warmed over the last 5 years that it has been monitored that is significant.
Ah jeez!! You just ruined my plans for an April beach-trip to Hartford, CT. I was expecting the ocean to be 70F and 60 miles in-land. That guy at Hotels.com must be a GW'er!
still looking for that cold trend.......still waiting.......Maybe 2008 will be colder than the mean temp since 1880 and we can start a 1-yr "global cooling trend" scare tactic. That would be fun !!
I personally don't much care if the earth is in a warming or cooling trend. My concern is our children being fed lies about their mom and dad's SUV killing polar bears and threatening millions of people that will be flooded if we don't all stop driving our cars. You may think that is a good thing to tell little pliable minds. I don't.
Our schools should stick to teaching children how to read, write and do math. Give them honest history and valid science data. They are failing miserably.
I don't think one little story clears up all the mystery around GW though.
What mystery? The Earth warms. The Earth cools. There is nothing today that is exceptional with regard to climate change. The only mystery is how anyone can take drastically inadequate simulations of climate change and pass that off as science. And what's even more mysterious is how so many people can buy into anthropogenic climate change without asking serious questions about the data and methodology. In any case, climate change per se is no mystery.
One of the problems Larsb has with evaluating the data, is considering that each year is a discrete event in probability terms. A discrete event example would be a coin flip, where one flip is an independent result from the other. So if you flip a coin once each year for 150 years you would expect to get 75 heads and 75 tails, and if you got 120 heads and 30 tails it isn't random chance, there's some reason for the pattern.
But the climate changes work on a much longer time scale than 1 year. It is man who conveniently selects to consider it in yearly increments. A "coin-flip" of the climate varies but may typically be 300 years, or 1,000 - it depends on what natural factors are at work, at that time. Similarly you might weigh yourself every 10 seconds while you're eating lunch and keep noting you're gaining weight and after 10 minutes of this conclude - you're going to be morbidly obese by 6pm, and dead at 9pm.
Larsb - think about this also. Say the Earth was in a cooling phase (the earth was 1F cooler on average than 1880) - the sun wasn't emitting as much energy as it was hundreds of years ago. Now if man could warm the Earth by burning fuels, and emitting CO2 would you be for it? I'm just trying to get your position. Are you 1) against man changing the climate by his actions. Would you suggest we cut back on CO2 and let the Earth get cooler? or 2) would you suggest we emit lots of CO2 to try and keep the Earth's climate the same?
Are you against man affecting the climate? Or Are you only against getting warmer?
Are you against man affecting the climate? Or Are you only against getting warmer?
I'm not "against" it per se, unless it harms and affects human life in the grand scale, whether it's warmer or cooler.
If it's nothing we can do anything about, then we are just going to suffer with the Earf thru whatever cycles the Earf throws at us.
If in fact man's actions CAN and DO alter the climate in a negative way, and no one knows that for sure, then we as humankind would be IDIOTS to not take action to reduce our own impact.
As of now, there are a plethora of opinions, both scientific an political, on both sides. I'm not sure what side I'm on, except this one:
Comments
A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect.
Evidently they don't have game; someone hit the puck out of there.
But we don't see environmental groups proposing specific solutions. What we do get is "oil is bad, use renewable" and then when someone wants to build a renewable plant the environmentalists are back with "now you need a 5 year study, and we're probably not going to like it anyway because we know there are baabaabooie doves flying nearby, and 100 will fly into the windmills each year." I'm sure we've all heard these stories. What it sounds like to me is environmentalists wanting to stop growth and modernization without really saying so, by playing "the card" that you can have energy and growth - all you have to do is find a method that has absolutely no negatives.
As we know any chemical reaction produces, and every structure takes land where some creature lives.
I like the environment too - love the Grand Canyon and the west, but I also understand some things need to be sacrificed for our way of life. Until environmentalists accept reasonable sacrifices by proposing specific sites for development I can't support them. I think the proper approach is to say: we need X-amount of energy this year, and we need to sit down and determine what is the least damaging way to get that amount. If you want to stop siting windfarms in Nantucket Sound, then you (environmentalists) are basically telling us you prefer to dig up the oil-shale, or drill off the coasts, and we'll emit more CO2.
So what is wrong with that REAL and operative messages,actions and results :shades: ?
Greenpeace is doing some interesting stuff - open sourced GreenFreeze refrigerators (with Coke, McDs). SolarChill is solar powered cooling technology.
They (and Audubon) support the Cape Code windfarm too. (link) and Audubon link
It's about the Vision, not the View
The alliance, funded in large part by owners of property overlooking the sound, is worried that the scenic view from its coastal homes will be scarred by the turbines. These landowners consider wind farms to be an eyesore, while others see them as beautiful structures and a symbol of the future survival of this planet. Apparently, the alliance is more concerned with the aesthetics of its landscape, than reducing mercury contamination, asthma-inducing pollution and global warming.
On August 17, our activists challenged the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound as it celebrated Bobby Kennedy onboard the Spirit of Massachusetts. Two Greenpeace boats pulled alongside the event with banners reading "Bobby You Are On The Wrong Boat," and "Wind Power Protects Nantucket Sound."
It's time for Robert Kennedy to kiss and make up with proponents of clean energy. We are willing to take him back as soon as he says "Yes to Wind!"
Clearly delineated siting criteria that designate areas where wind power should not be allowed, such as Important Bird Areas, major migratory corridors, wilderness areas, national parks, wildlife refuges, and other sensitive habitat such as wetlands and riparian corridors
WE are going to produce more CO2 as the population increases. To try and reduce it by 80% as the IPCC report has suggested is just plain ignorant. Why waste money on studies that are not realistic? Of course I consider the UN a big waste of money.
Better to limit power production to small geographical sections - people will be forced to pay more attention to how they get their power since they may have to live with a coal plant nearby. That would naturally encourage conservation and local site energy production, like home power. And like the internet redundancy, a power outage in Kansas City won't cause a brown-out in Memphis.
The Kumeyaay Wind farm annually produces power sufficient for about 30,000 homes and saves approximately 110,000 tons a year in greenhouse gas emissions, compared with equivalent fossil fuel generation. It helps San Diego Gas & Electric meet its target of supplying at least 20 percent of its customers' electricity from renewable sources by 2010.
http://www.campo-nsn.gov/windfarm.html
It also gives this Indian Nation something besides gambling to support them.
Don't get me started on my abrogate and assimilate lecture. :shades:
Sort of on topic:
EPA's New Ozone Limit: Not Enough? (Time)
I think it is easier to deal with the EPA than all the factions in CA. Dozens of entities feel they have to inject their nonsense into everything that is done. It is the major reason homes in CA are double or triple the rest of the USA.
Bottom line is I am glad our local Indians are not hypocrites like Robert & Teddy Kennedy. They don't mind that the windfarm is in plain view of their casino.
I find the wump, wump of the big blades relaxing.
The byproduct of nitrogen oxides and other chemicals released into the air by vehicles and power plants, ozone is one of the most pernicious pollutants in the air — and one of the hardest to get rid of.
The article is blasting the EPA for not lowering the limits on ozone further. Yet they fail to mention that the NOx is primarily caused by the cargo ships in and out of San Pedro. I was in Long Beach 4 Sundays ago for a few hours. That was enough for me. If they want to cut pollution. Cut the number of cargo ships allowed into the Harbor. That will cut the number of diesel semi trucks hauling stuff out of Long Beach. To make matters worse they have allowed trucks into the USA from Mexico that have no regulations or low sulfur diesel requirements.
South Coast Air Quality Board has the answer. Stop people from using their fireplaces or heating with wood. It is so much easier to go after the individual in this country. They know the cars are about as clean as they are going to get.
Hmmm, don't remember which article I read where they talked about the percentage of ozone contributed by cars. It's 39% in AZ for transportation-related emissions, and cars and light trucks make up 60% of the 39%. (link)
About a decade ago one of the major engine manufacturers wanted to develop a hydrogen diesel engine and the US Government stopped them. You have to stop and ask yourself why. Air pollution has been a problem for years. Global warming just popped into our language in the last 20 or so. It's not all about our mode of transportation and or use of fossil fuels. There are bigger issues outside of our own planet causing most of our
problems and global warming just a smoke screen to hide it.
Amazing how easy it is to fool some of the people all of the time, if not all of the people some of the time.
The foolers wear one ear ring, drive old Volvo wagons, use MAC Pc's, eat Vegetarian, cross country ski, and paddle kayaks after having graduated from Liberal Arts Colleges i.e. Evergreen State & Reed. If they receive a pay check, it's from some form of government employment. Kum buy Ahhhhh! :P
Blarney
We are in a society that accepts anything they are told if it sounds like it is going to help the planet. As the article points out the land being destroyed to grow biofuel crops would be better left alone. The crops we are diverting to make fuel would be better used to feed the world. Alternatives are good if they are well thought out and actually have a positive impact. So far I have seen little that is worthwhile. I blame most of the frenzy on the GW Alarmist cult.
It's true. They may or may not be truly green because of the side effects of electronics and batteries, e.g., in hybrids and true electric cars, but it's what many people "think" about themselves.
I recall a BMW a few years old with license plates that said, "LQQK," meaning look at me. For all I know the red BMW was a one of a kind worth a million dollars but I had no desire to be impressed by someone driving it for prestige's sake. Prius drivers come across that way to me. If they wanted to be green they'd buy a manual 4-cyl Corolla.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03182008/news/regionalnews/woods_home/photo01.htm
The Mazda Club Chat is on tonight. The chat room opens at 8:45PM ET Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule
March 19, 2008
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.
In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
"Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet. "
There are too many variables involved in the homestasis to say that GW is causing any one problem. It's amazing that NPR had this link on their site. I thought they were with the GW folks and gloom and doom.
Suggestion for previous post: "It's all about whose ox is being Gored."
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If someone has unraveled all the interlocking factors in earth temperatures as well as a way to measure them in a comparison worthy manner, I don't believe it. It will be like the atom which has evolved from neutrons, protons, and electrons to huge worlds of subatomic particles all in 50-60 years?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
..."
Breaking News: Tenth Bali Global Warming Conference Ends with Historic Agreement
EPA to Mandate Reductions in Emissions from Volcanoes...
Emission from volcanoes in the future could be greatly restricted under new rules that are part of the Clean Air Planning Act
Under new rules that are part of the Clean Air Planning Act, volcanoes, long responsible for more particulate and sulfur dioxide pollution than all human-caused emissions, might not get a pass any longer.
"...
link title
The part about sea level rising 1/2 inch was an interesting anomaly.
"Climate change has now added a new sense of urgency ... We can't allow coal and oil to slowly bake our planet."
Arthur C. Clarke RIP (link)
Nice of you to cherry pick a story that advocates your view and say it's the "real story."
I don't think one little story clears up all the mystery around GW though.
Would be nice if it did, but alas.................all years since 2003 have been above the norm since 1880:
2003 +.53
2004 +.46
2005 +.71
2006 +1.15
2007 +.84
Still in that warming trend, I'm afraid......
"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus."Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."
OK - there is a SCIENTIST whose story Gary says is the "real story" saying what I have said for many posts here. THANK YOU SIR for confirming my previous assertions.
In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not."
Over here in the U.K. we fully expect our Chancellor to announce a "Volcano" tax any day now. Of course, as we don't have any active volcano's it's not going to raise much for "Environmental" causes. We therefore expect a little sleight of hand that will end up taxing tyres to within an inch of their very existence. The legislators will reason that Volcano has its roots in Vulcan. All tyres are vulcanised, ergo they are the same as volcanos...............so tax the little beggars, (or rather, tax them even more). Of course they can't ban them as that would infringe the population's right to exercise their freedom of choice in buying tyres - and if you ban something you cannot raise taxes from it. It works for alcohol, tobacco, fuel, cars, packaging etc etc etc, so why not volc, er, tyres ?
Wonder if Lady Hillary has thought of this yet ?
You mean QUEEN Hillary? Sorry... WAY off topic.
Politics
or
The Race to the White House
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I am glad you read the whole article. What is significant is the FACT that the ocean accounts for 80-90% of the planets warming or cooling. When the thermometers you are so enamored with have shown cities are warmer it is only an insignificant 10-20% of the whole GW picture. If the ocean has not warmed over the last 5 years that it has been monitored that is significant. You can spin your 10-20% any way you like, it will not mean much to the earth as a whole.
Ah jeez!! You just ruined my plans for an April beach-trip to Hartford, CT.
(tongue in cheek)
Our schools should stick to teaching children how to read, write and do math. Give them honest history and valid science data. They are failing miserably.
What mystery? The Earth warms. The Earth cools. There is nothing today that is exceptional with regard to climate change. The only mystery is how anyone can take drastically inadequate simulations of climate change and pass that off as science. And what's even more mysterious is how so many people can buy into anthropogenic climate change without asking serious questions about the data and methodology. In any case, climate change per se is no mystery.
But the climate changes work on a much longer time scale than 1 year. It is man who conveniently selects to consider it in yearly increments. A "coin-flip" of the climate varies but may typically be 300 years, or 1,000 - it depends on what natural factors are at work, at that time. Similarly you might weigh yourself every 10 seconds while you're eating lunch and keep noting you're gaining weight and after 10 minutes of this conclude - you're going to be morbidly obese by 6pm, and dead at 9pm.
Larsb - think about this also. Say the Earth was in a cooling phase (the earth was 1F cooler on average than 1880) - the sun wasn't emitting as much energy as it was hundreds of years ago. Now if man could warm the Earth by burning fuels, and emitting CO2 would you be for it? I'm just trying to get your position. Are you 1) against man changing the climate by his actions. Would you suggest we cut back on CO2 and let the Earth get cooler? or 2) would you suggest we emit lots of CO2 to try and keep the Earth's climate the same?
Are you against man affecting the climate? Or
Are you only against getting warmer?
Are you against man affecting the climate? Or
Are you only against getting warmer?
I'm not "against" it per se, unless it harms and affects human life in the grand scale, whether it's warmer or cooler.
If it's nothing we can do anything about, then we are just going to suffer with the Earf thru whatever cycles the Earf throws at us.
If in fact man's actions CAN and DO alter the climate in a negative way, and no one knows that for sure, then we as humankind would be IDIOTS to not take action to reduce our own impact.
As of now, there are a plethora of opinions, both scientific an political, on both sides. I'm not sure what side I'm on, except this one:
Err on the side of caution, not by ignoring it.