On World News tonight they said burning of tropical forests in (Costa Rica?) or elsewhere contributes more CO2 than all the automobiles, etc., on the earth.
So all we have to do is stop the burning of rain forests. Then we can hope that some are right that CO2 is the evil villain if there actually is a changeable cause for any changes.
"Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans. But the chemistry of the atmosphere is changing and there is a high enough risk “true believers,” like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases.
“It’s like buying fire insurance,” Moore said. “We all own fire insurance even though there is a low risk we are going to get into an accident.”
The only viable alternative is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century"
Some people are slow learners. I guess it is better late than never. Gore has too much invested to admit he is wrong. I do agree we need to use less fossil fuel. I would buy a smaller diesel SUV if it was available to do just that. I don't mean HH or RH small. I do have limits.
We needed the nuclear power plants about 30 years ago. I laughed at the local guy leading groups to block the construction entrance to the nuclear plant being built near Cincy. He got all the press and the public got the bill. The fossil energy that would have been saved probably would have put Gore out of business. The plant ended up being converted to a coal plant during construction because of the stalling due to the antinuclear groups.
Maybe we can look up those folks and send them the bill for opportunity lost in nuclear power and coal and oil savings that are forever lost.
"It's surely relevant when using it to compare current temps to past temps. How do we know 1998 was warmer than 1929? By comparing historical temperature data."
Other than to say "Gee, today was hotter (or colder) than this day in 1929", there is no relevance, in fact, even if you see a warming (or cooling) trend year over year during that period of time, it's still irrelevant. Why? Because 80, 100, even 500 years is necessarily enough to determine what's really happening. And why is that? Because the Earth goes through cycles waaaay longer than that.
"If you say it's not relevant, then this will be my last post directed toward something you say on this particular point, because you will be TOTALLY not comprehending my point."
You're right, I'm not getting your point, and from the sounds of it, nobody else around here is either. The fact is, you made the original post in this thread titled "Keep ignoring it fellas" http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f0fc7a5/2444 in which you said, "But I will say this: Just keep ignoring it fellas. When species start to disappear, coastlines are ravaged by higher sea levels, and heat waves and water shortages abound, maybe you'll remember how you ridiculed the thought of man affecting the environment and reconsider those actions.
Yeah, it's safe to say that many/most of us aren't getting your point.
Larsb said: But I will say this: Just keep ignoring it fellas. When species start to disappear, coastlines are ravaged by higher sea levels, and heat waves and water shortages abound, maybe you'll remember how you ridiculed the thought of man affecting the environment and reconsider those actions.
I have to say that does sound like the same rhetoric put out by Al Gore and the whole Climate Change (GW) Cult.
All I am asking for is proof. Your statement says to me you think the proof is already part of the discussion. Sadly this kind of debate overshadows the advantages to conserving. I cannot help but fight back when my grandson is fed LIES by the media and his teachers. Which I am more than happy to debate with anyone that thinks they have all the answers.
They had places for burying and storing that nuclear waste, when the times comes. It was somewhere in Idaho, I believe.
Nuclear for producing electric power has fossil fuel consumption beat. The wisdom of the 70s could have saved lots of coal and oil for later uses, like now.
It's interesting that it's okay to run our carriers and warships on nuclear power but not okay to use it for home electricity generation... but that's a topic for another discussion.
Watched Fox this morning as they talked about global cooling. They were pointing out trouble with the truth of the Inconvenient Truth.
Maybe the media isn't just parrots for whatever comes along. But then it was Fox, not CNN, MSNBC, etc.
They may not be like parrots but they can behave like sheep. If one network starts to seriously poke holes in the "GW/CC Truth", how long before others start to modify their published views for fear of not being seen as savvy ? Watch out for "The Emperor's New Clothes" type revelations. I give it two years before serious Anthropogenic Climate Change is seen as bunkum.
Funny you should mention coal. While the zealots are busily blocking new coal fired plants here in the U.S., Europe is building them as fast as they can.
They expect this round of new coal fired electric generating plants to economically supply their citizens with electricity for the next 50 years or so. Such an elegantly simple solution.
The U.S. has about as much coal as we do dirt. With a determined effort we could really cut our oil use by utilizing more coal and bring the price of oil back to about $50. a barrel. Probably just the threat of us doing this would be enough to bring the price down significantly.
The Green Folk have stood to block coal plants because they want to use special coal and not the coal in abundance in many areas. They also want the effluent scrubbed beyond belief because they fantasize about sulphur having a negative effect downwind.
I also think it rather silly that people get worked up about storing nuclear waste in isolated underground sites. The last I knew underground is exactly where the radioactive elements are coming from!
I would have been very happy if someone were to have removed the radioactive elements from under my house, which a radon-test had picked up as being at a dangerous level. I would have preferred them relocated to the nearby nuclear powerplant. Sure storage of nuclear waste can be a negative, but to me it's less of a negative then the alternatives. Most solutions do not have all positve effects - there is no perfect energy alternatives.
Also the means of measurement are truly not calculating the true cost of CURRENT energy sources.When you add up all the industrial, political, etc etc deaths,injuries accidents, etc , in the WHOLE logistical pipeline, they more than dwarf deaths from any nuclear deaths.
They just normally do not look as drastic and dramatic as that vignette of the burnt child after the Hiroshima/Nagasaki blasts. But these are weapons, and more actual damage was done by NON nuclear weapons (oil based) .
They do have underground storage of nuclear waste here in Idaho. It's "stored" in the Snake River Aquifer. IEER.org
"The Snake River aquifer supports a large part of Idaho agriculture, which supplies 25 percent of U.S. potatoes, 75 percent of U.S. commercially grown trout, and 25 percent of U.S. barley used for beer." Arbiter Online
At least you'll be able to find your beer in the dark when the lights go out.
..." thought the plan was to store the waste in a cave in Nevada? "...
Yes, but there was no critical water sources and other critical life supporting systems (like the site mentioned in another post) to pollute in case of things like leakage. :lemon:
aka, Nevada didnt want to become the home to the nuclear waste cemetery industry and legalized prostitution. hey one out of two aint bad. :shades:
I don't like beer either but the farm raised trout is actually very good. Check out 1,000 Springs for a scenic drive (in your electric car) one of these years.
I'm sure they feed 'em Purina Trout Chow made with corn though. :shades:
They also want the effluent scrubbed beyond belief because they fantasize about sulphur having a negative effect downwind.
The cleaner we can get our coal fired generators the better. There needs to be economical alternatives before blocking coal generation.
In the morning report from our local volcano:
The SO2 emission rate remains high; the most recent measurement (April 21) was 1150 tonnes/day compared to a background rate between 150-200 tonnes/day.
To put that in perspective. All the electric generators in CA put out 266 tons of SO2 last year.
China passed the US in 1995 in SO2 & CO2 emissions. According to several sources coal fired power plants are the largest portion of man made GHG.
..."Any ideas on slowing China and India's growth?"...
Well you do have to admit that parts of our culture are corrosive, infectious, coveted, aspired to, prone to exponential wild growth, etc. yah gotta thank the Hollywood crews for all the good/bad press!!
At least you'll be able to find your beer in the dark when the lights go out.
Well at least the delivery truck will have energy to get the beer to the store.
Speaking of radiation, you do know that many of your foods are irradiated to kill bacteria.
As someone pointed out with - the banning of DDT - you may protect yourself in one way, but make things generally worse from the same decision, in other ways.
We could reduce our CO2 emissions but since the GW-link is not proven, and any warming the Earth has gone through in the last century for whatever reason is minimal (1F), it seems the results of reducing CO2 emissions would be pretty bad.
For example - what would be the impact of reducing fossil fuels 50% in the production and transportation of our foods? If you reduce the number of tractors and combines, and started using oxen and getting millions of laborers to tend the fields?
And what if we asked each American to use 50% less energy, which means buy less and travel less. (For example just consider all the energy that was used to make common products in your house - bleach, plastic wrap, ...) I think the economy would collapse.
It seems to me that for all the CO2 we are generating and probably more importantly what is NATURALLY being generated, the real R& D should be in CO2 USING applications. This is either categorically being ignored or intentionally by-passed.
So for one example,
Algae CONSUMES CO2 to make OXYGEN (the whole photosynthesis thing we all studied in H.S. biology?) . Algae can be used to make food products and oil products, which (for the nexus purposes of this discussion) can be converted to bio diesel. Bio diesel emits the LEAST GHG's !!!!
So yes it is summarily dismissed as being less than commercially viable.I know that, I understand that. But in the summary dismissal, guess what is being left? Commerically viable CO2 generating processes!!!????? To ask folks to use less or emit less C02 is utterly futile!! Perhaps that is the point of the whole exercise!!?? :lemon:
Sorry to egg you on Steve. I know those nukes always get you fired up, and get a reply from you.
But the fact is there are trace amounts of almost every stable element in you and in our environment. I know from my current house buying that I can get radon tests to let me know HOW MUCH radon is in the air and water. The question is how much; not IF it is there.
Even sunshine is not without its problems, as the radiation does affect your cells.
And your cleaners that guarantee to kill 99+% of household germs, still leave thousands living - and probably the nastier ones.
The point I'm trying to make is that we don't live in a black-and-white world, and we can't eliminate all the things we don't like. We try to minimize risk and choose the least negative technologies; but I would not vote for going backwards - the reality of life over previous centuries was that life was shorter, tougher, and more brutal. Harnessing energy has allowed us to live better lives.
Well, if you follow the progression from a scant 3/4 generations ago to now, the US having huge almost boundless manufacturing capability; basically the name attached to the process in the last 30 or so years is ..... GLOBALIZATION...!?? Even China has been crying the blues, as manufacturing capability goes off THEIR shores....
>removed the radioactive elements from under my house, which a radon-test had picked up as being at a dangerous level.
Radon comes from a natural radioactive isotope in naturally occurring rocks. Hope you installed ventilation in your basement to let the radon move through to the outside air...
Yes radioactive elements are natural as well as the non-radioactive elements.
Hope you installed ventilation in your basement to let the radon move through to the outside air...
Yes. The radon reduction system LOWERS the level, but does not completely get rid of it. I think 4ppm (or is it ppb) is the suggested limit. My system lowered it to about 1.5.
So I rather my radioactive elements removed from the ground, concentrated, and put to a more useful purpose in a reactor, where it could provide useful energy.
If I didn't enjoy the repartee, I'd go caulk my windows or do something else "useful". You always manage to nudge my brain cells. :shades:
Yeah, nukes generate poison and there's no plan to get rid of it, and limited liability for the companies generating the power. Clean coal is an oxymoron. Big Oil - yikes, $4 a gallon. Dams - hate 'em - mess up the salmon and the whitewater. Solar - seems great if you don't mind the maintenance on the storage batteries and have a place to site the panels. Wind - not in the viewshed or migration flyways please. Natural gas - well, I'm not fond of combustion gases in my living quarters. Wood stoves - got one but no catalytic converter on it so it's not helping my wife's asthma when I use it. Bunker fuel - that stuff is really nasty. Geothermal is pretty neat and there's quite a bit around Boise. Fusion and hydrogen seem pretty marginal players. Methane from landfields and cows ... hmmm. Biofuels - travel or starve, pick your pleasure.
Did I miss any? Tidal maybe? Hydraulic rams? Instream turbines? Don't forget conservation either.
So - it's either be a hypocrite or a hermit. I did live in my van for a year a decade ago, lol. I could afford to move it almost every day back then though. With the price of RUG, I'd just have to park it down by the river. It wouldn't be smogging the sky that way at least.
(Dr. Bronner's is the cleaner of choice around here, btw)
and I live on the Columbia where the Oregon Fraidy Cats had the Trojan Nuclear plant demolished. Those same cats complain about the higher price of gas and they all vote Democrat to boot!
Nothing has changed at all. The reporting stations they list are not the official site. The official site is not listed as a source, therefore the 109 and the 111 are different.
Wanna race? I bet I can find more sites that list the 111 as the high than you can which list the 109 as the high..................
CANBERRA: Scientists have warned that the world might once again be heading towards an Ice Age, with global warming approaching a possible end.
Evidence in support of this theory has come from pictures obtained from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, which showed no spots on the sun, thus determining that sunspot activity has not resumed after hitting an 11-year low in March last year.
A sunspot is a region on the sun that is cooler than the rest and appears dark.
Some scientists believe a strong solar magnetic field, when there is plenty of sunspot activity, protects the earth from cosmic rays, cutting cloud formation, but that when the field is weak - during low sunspot activity - the rays can penetrate into the lower atmosphere and cloud cover increases, cooling the surface.
According to Australian astronaut and geophysicist Phil Chapman, this might have caused the world to cool quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C.
"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," said Dr Chapman.
"If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over," he added.
Dr Chapman has proposed preventive, or delaying, moves to slow the cooling, such as bulldozing Siberian and Canadian snow to make it dirty and less reflective.
"My guess is that the odds are now at least 50:50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades," he said
Looks like we can break out those big SUV's, burn the cheap coal, roast marshmellows on an open flame ... and change the title of this discussion to who/what is to blame for global cooling. Wonder how Al Gore will make his money now? :P
Maybe he can market a "Carbon Credit" furnace. Get some heat out of all those carbon credits.
Further evidence is Idaho ski resorts staying open in may this year. That should be good news for Steve.
McCALL -- Near-record snowfall and low spring temperatures are creating ideal conditions at Brundage Mountain Resort. Resort officials announced today that they will be open for a third bonus weekend in May.
The resort is currently closed on weekdays, and had planned this Saturday and Sunday to be the final ski weekend of the season, but that was before 10 inches of fresh powder fell this week. Now, resort managers have decided to be open on May 3rd and 4th.
“Mother Nature has been extremely kind to us this year,” said resort spokesperson April Russell. “And our loyal visitors have shown that they are still interested in skiing and riding on the best snow in Idaho.”
Resort operators are keeping a close watch on Mother Nature and customer interest to decide if additional weekends in May are possible.
Brundage is a nice resort - I heard that this was the first time they've ever opened in March. Silver Mtn. up north is open one last Saturday this weekend, but I think all the other resorts around have closed. I got plenty of days in at Bogus thank you, and the drive is a lot closer to my house than Brundage or the other spots.
Jeb Bush just says to cool it. Speaking of name calling - he's on the religious zealot bandwagon.
Jeb can spot snakeoil salesmen. He is not on the payroll so he can tell the truth about what is going on. Now Newt, what a disappointment he is climbing on the gravy wagon.
Professor Barry Brook from the University of Adelaide says those who deny climate change often have ulterior motives.
Is he saying that those that are pushing the human caused climate change agenda are without ulterior motives?
"Some people will attempt to hijack science for political or ideological reasons and in doing so besmirch science's public image," he said.
As Director of Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability, his job is to prove his agenda. His ulterior motive is right up front. If he was a decent scientist he would welcome the challenge to prove his ideas instead of calling those scientists that question Climate Change names.
He said they were variously called sceptics, denialists, contrarians, delayers or delusionists.
"Whatever the label you attach to them, they are all cut of the same anti-intellectual cloth," Prof Brook said in an article published in the latest issue of Australasian Science.
Prof Brook is probably as good a reason as any to call the whole genre charlatans. If you cannot accept the challenge to your scientific theory it is probably not valid. I would say he is the anti-intellectual he is warning us about.
2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year 01.16.08
Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century.
"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature," said Hansen. "Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."
The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.
Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea ice temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years.
The greatest warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic, and neighboring high latitude regions. Global warming has a larger affect in polar areas, as the loss of snow and ice leads to more open water, which absorbs more sunlight and warmth. Snow and ice reflect sunlight; when they disappear, so too does their ability to deflect warming rays. The large Arctic warm anomaly of 2007 is consistent with observations of record low geographic extent of Arctic sea ice in September 2007.
So, Dr. Chapman says Goddard said it was cooler. But they did not.
If you know the source of the 0.7 degree dip data, tell us where to look and post a link.
You know, if you read the "formula" for the way they figure the temp then everyone would be so confused they would not know what to believe. They don't just accept the raw temps, they have to "massage" them until they get what they want.
In the link you posted there are pages and pages of footnotes to describe the method they used to obtain the final data. Anyone could prove anything after going thru these gymnastics
David Karoly from Melbourne University's School of Earth Sciences is outraged.
"This is not science. This is misinterpretation or misrepresentation and mis-communication of the factors that influence global temperature," he said. "It appears to be an opinion of Phil Chapman and he's welcome to his opinion, but in terms of climate variations and an approaching ice age, he is sadly misinformed.
"Yes, the climate system did cool from January 2007 to January 2008 quite dramatically. That cooling was associated with changes in the ocean temperatures in the Pacific, a well known phenomenon, the El Nino to La Nina switch. It isn't unprecedented."
But he says it is not due to sunspot activity.
"Sunspot variations do not lead to the sorts of temperature variations seen from January 2007 to 2008," he said.
"They don't lead to those large temperature variations, even on an 11-year sunspot cycle.
"And so in terms of increasing greenhouse gases, we can also see that effect because the most recent La Nina, the current La Nina, is warmer than earlier La Nina episodes of the same strength.
"We're actually seeing a warming even in these cool periods associated with La Nina."
Dr Graeme Pearman is a climate scientist and past chief of atmospheric research at the CSIRO.
He says the doubt over global warming and its causes is not reasonable and he warns Dr Chapman's wait-and-see approach is dangerous.
"And what science has seen over the last six months or so are changes that are occurring that are further advanced than we would like," he said.
"And so I think there is a high probability, a much higher probability than his scenario coming true, that we're going to look back and rue the fact that we didn't act earlier.
"We must get on with trying to slow down the growth of our emissions as a global community and as an Australian community as soon as possible."
Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century.
If our increased production of GHG has a significant impact on the Climate, this should not happen.
"Yes, the climate system did cool from January 2007 to January 2008 quite dramatically. That cooling was associated with changes in the ocean temperatures in the Pacific, a well known phenomenon, the El Nino to La Nina switch. It isn't unprecedented."
Your posts do point out that the consensus claimed by the political arm of the GW cult is not true.
Just what does Australia plan to do that will reduce their carbon footprint? I would say they will just waste money and energy flying to GW conferences in glamorous vacation spots like Bali. Maybe they should have a conference this next winter in the Siberian Arctic to see for themselves how warm it is. Last year was record cold in the Alaskan Arctic. They have a gravy train and will not let it go no matter how much scientific evidence surfaces refuting their computer models and data manipulation.
I just saw a Cable/TV Euro news piece on how Australia is a major supplier of coal to China. Indeed mile long coal trains are loaded on ships bound for China each day!!! According to the new piece, it would be more but there are not enough ships to transport the product to China!!!
That sounds about right. Do the Aussies think that SO2 stays over China after it is used? I think that loud mouthed new Prime Minister has pulled back from his campaign promises on cutting CO2 emissions. When he found out the cost to the people he did not want to lose his voter base. About like here in the USA..
I think the thing that goes unacknowledged is this almost unlimited, unmitigated, carte blanche scenario is in accordance with the Kyoto Accord!!!!! China is NOT the only one allowed!
Last year, Mr. Runge and a colleague, Benjamin Senauer, wrote an article in Foreign Affairs, “How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor.”
“We were criticized for being alarmist at the time,” Mr. Runge said. “I think our views, looking back a year, were probably too conservative.”
Ethanol was initially promoted as a vehicle for America to cut back on foreign oil. In recent years, biofuels have also been touted as a way to fight climate change, but the food crisis does not augur well for ethanol’s prospects.
“It takes around 400 pounds of corn to make 25 gallons of ethanol,” Mr. Senauer, also an applied economics professor at Minnesota, said. “It’s not going to be a very good diet but that’s roughly enough to keep an adult person alive for a year.”
Mr. Senauer said climate change advocates, such as Vice President Gore, need to distance themselves from ethanol to avoid tarnishing the effort against global warming. “Crop-based biofuels are not part of the solution. They, in fact, add to the problem. Whether Al Gore has caught up with that, somebody ought to ask him,” the professor said. “There are lots of solutions, real solutions to climate change. We need to get to those.”
Mr. Gore was not available for an interview yesterday on the food crisis, according to his spokeswoman. A spokesman for Mr. Gore’s public campaign to address climate change, the Alliance for Climate Protection, declined to comment for this article.
However, the scientist who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore, Rajendra Pachauri of the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, has warned that climate campaigners are unwise to promote biofuels in a way that risks food supplies. “We should be very, very careful about coming up with biofuel solutions that have major impact on production of food grains and may have an implication for overall food security,” Mr. Pachauri told reporters last month, according to Reuters. “Questions do arise about what is being done in North America, for instance, to convert corn into sugar then into biofuels, into ethanol.”
In an interview last year, Mr. Gore expressed his support for corn-based ethanol
A Harvard professor of environmental studies who has advised Mr. Gore, Michael McElroy, warned in a November-December 2006 article in Harvard Magazine that “the production of ethanol from either corn or sugar cane presents a new dilemma: whether the feedstock should be devoted to food or fuel. With increasing use of corn and sugar cane for fuel, a rise in related food prices would seem inevitable.” The article, “The Ethanol Illusion” went so far as to praise Senator McCain for summing up the corn-ethanol energy initiative launched in the United States in 2003 as “highway robbery perpetrated on the American public by Congress.”
"...Wonder how Al Gore will make his money now?..."
Are you kidding? A slug like Al will just declare victory due to his intervention and then find some other scam to ruin the US economy. His mindless minions will follow right behind in lock-step.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
The Associated Press Published: April 26th, 2008 12:37 PM
Anchorage continues to dig out from a snowfall that set a record for the day and the month.The National Weather Service says 17.2 inches fell at its office just south of Anchorage's international airport and 22 inches fell in northeast Anchorage on Friday and Saturday.
The heaviest snow fell between 3 and 6 p.m. Friday at a rate of almost two inches per hour.
The monthly total at the weather service office is now 29.7 inches, breaking a record from 1963 when 27.6 inches fell during April.
The 15.5 inches that fell Friday is the third-most for any one day in Anchorage. The record is the 25.7 inches that fell six years ago on March 17, 2002.
It is almost May and we had frost warnings here in the KC area and the low will be close to freezing the next two mornings. Practically unheard of around here.
I am watching the Byron Nelson, played in the Dallas/Ft.Worth area today and I notice that at 2:30 PM there most of the players are wearing sweaters!! And no, it is not raining, just partly cloudy.
I am sure that someone will point out that this is merely anecdotal evidence, however, my experience has taught me that anecdotal evidence is often the best evidence.
Comments
So all we have to do is stop the burning of rain forests. Then we can hope that some are right that CO2 is the evil villain if there actually is a changeable cause for any changes.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But the chemistry of the atmosphere is changing and there is a high enough risk “true believers,” like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases.
“It’s like buying fire insurance,” Moore said. “We all own fire insurance even though there is a low risk we are going to get into an accident.”
The only viable alternative is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century"
Greenpeace founder: There's no proof humans cause global warming (idahostatesman.com)
Maybe we can look up those folks and send them the bill for opportunity lost in nuclear power and coal and oil savings that are forever lost.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Other than to say "Gee, today was hotter (or colder) than this day in 1929", there is no relevance, in fact, even if you see a warming (or cooling) trend year over year during that period of time, it's still irrelevant. Why? Because 80, 100, even 500 years is necessarily enough to determine what's really happening. And why is that? Because the Earth goes through cycles waaaay longer than that.
"If you say it's not relevant, then this will be my last post directed toward something you say on this particular point, because you will be TOTALLY not comprehending my point."
You're right, I'm not getting your point, and from the sounds of it, nobody else around here is either. The fact is, you made the original post in this thread titled "Keep ignoring it fellas" http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f0fc7a5/2444 in which you said, "But I will say this: Just keep ignoring it fellas. When species start to disappear, coastlines are ravaged by higher sea levels, and heat waves and water shortages abound, maybe you'll remember how you ridiculed the thought of man affecting the environment and reconsider those actions.
Yeah, it's safe to say that many/most of us aren't getting your point.
But I will say this: Just keep ignoring it fellas. When species start to disappear, coastlines are ravaged by higher sea levels, and heat waves and water shortages abound, maybe you'll remember how you ridiculed the thought of man affecting the environment and reconsider those actions.
I have to say that does sound like the same rhetoric put out by Al Gore and the whole Climate Change (GW) Cult.
All I am asking for is proof. Your statement says to me you think the proof is already part of the discussion. Sadly this kind of debate overshadows the advantages to conserving. I cannot help but fight back when my grandson is fed LIES by the media and his teachers. Which I am more than happy to debate with anyone that thinks they have all the answers.
Nuclear for producing electric power has fossil fuel consumption beat. The wisdom of the 70s could have saved lots of coal and oil for later uses, like now.
It's interesting that it's okay to run our carriers and warships on nuclear power but not okay to use it for home electricity generation... but that's a topic for another discussion.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Maybe the media isn't just parrots for whatever comes along. But then it was Fox, not CNN, MSNBC, etc.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Maybe the media isn't just parrots for whatever comes along. But then it was Fox, not CNN, MSNBC, etc.
They may not be like parrots but they can behave like sheep. If one network starts to seriously poke holes in the "GW/CC Truth", how long before others start to modify their published views for fear of not being seen as savvy ? Watch out for "The Emperor's New Clothes" type revelations. I give it two years before serious Anthropogenic Climate Change is seen as bunkum.
They expect this round of new coal fired electric generating plants to economically supply their citizens with electricity for the next 50 years or so. Such an elegantly simple solution.
The U.S. has about as much coal as we do dirt. With a determined effort we could really cut our oil use by utilizing more coal and bring the price of oil back to about $50. a barrel. Probably just the threat of us doing this would be enough to bring the price down significantly.
Where are our leaders?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I would have been very happy if someone were to have removed the radioactive elements from under my house, which a radon-test had picked up as being at a dangerous level. I would have preferred them relocated to the nearby nuclear powerplant. Sure storage of nuclear waste can be a negative, but to me it's less of a negative then the alternatives. Most solutions do not have all positve effects - there is no perfect energy alternatives.
They just normally do not look as drastic and dramatic as that vignette of the burnt child after the Hiroshima/Nagasaki blasts. But these are weapons, and more actual damage was done by NON nuclear weapons (oil based) .
"The Snake River aquifer supports a large part of Idaho agriculture, which supplies 25 percent of U.S. potatoes, 75 percent of U.S. commercially grown trout, and 25 percent of U.S. barley used for beer." Arbiter Online
At least you'll be able to find your beer in the dark when the lights go out.
I thought the plan was to store the waste in a cave in Nevada?
Yes, but there was no critical water sources and other critical life supporting systems (like the site mentioned in another post) to pollute in case of things like leakage. :lemon:
aka, Nevada didnt want to become the home to the nuclear waste cemetery industry and legalized prostitution. hey one out of two aint bad. :shades:
I'm sure they feed 'em Purina Trout Chow made with corn though. :shades:
The cleaner we can get our coal fired generators the better. There needs to be economical alternatives before blocking coal generation.
In the morning report from our local volcano:
The SO2 emission rate remains high; the most recent measurement (April 21) was 1150 tonnes/day compared to a background rate between 150-200 tonnes/day.
To put that in perspective. All the electric generators in CA put out 266 tons of SO2 last year.
China passed the US in 1995 in SO2 & CO2 emissions. According to several sources coal fired power plants are the largest portion of man made GHG.
Any ideas on slowing China and India's growth?
World coal and GHG
Well you do have to admit that parts of our culture are corrosive, infectious, coveted, aspired to, prone to exponential wild growth, etc. yah gotta thank the Hollywood crews for all the good/bad press!!
Well at least the delivery truck will have energy to get the beer to the store.
Speaking of radiation, you do know that many of your foods are irradiated to kill bacteria.
As someone pointed out with - the banning of DDT - you may protect yourself in one way, but make things generally worse from the same decision, in other ways.
We could reduce our CO2 emissions but since the GW-link is not proven, and any warming the Earth has gone through in the last century for whatever reason is minimal (1F), it seems the results of reducing CO2 emissions would be pretty bad.
For example - what would be the impact of reducing fossil fuels 50% in the production and transportation of our foods? If you reduce the number of tractors and combines, and started using oxen and getting millions of laborers to tend the fields?
And what if we asked each American to use 50% less energy, which means buy less and travel less. (For example just consider all the energy that was used to make common products in your house - bleach, plastic wrap, ...) I think the economy would collapse.
It seems to me that for all the CO2 we are generating and probably more importantly what is NATURALLY being generated, the real R& D should be in CO2 USING applications. This is either categorically being ignored or intentionally by-passed.
So for one example,
Algae CONSUMES CO2 to make OXYGEN (the whole photosynthesis thing we all studied in H.S. biology?) . Algae can be used to make food products and oil products, which (for the nexus purposes of this discussion) can be converted to bio diesel. Bio diesel emits the LEAST GHG's !!!!
So yes it is summarily dismissed as being less than commercially viable.I know that, I understand that. But in the summary dismissal, guess what is being left? Commerically viable CO2 generating processes!!!????? To ask folks to use less or emit less C02 is utterly futile!! Perhaps that is the point of the whole exercise!!?? :lemon:
I'd just as soon not have plutonium show up in my drinking water, nor in the irrigation water that grows all that bacteria laden food.
The economy may stumble, but I don't think we've scratched the surface on conservation efforts.
Any ideas on slowing China and India's growth?
Easy, Quit buying products "Made in China." Don't buy Dell computers or use Earthlink. Both of them use Indian technical support..
But the fact is there are trace amounts of almost every stable element in you and in our environment. I know from my current house buying that I can get radon tests to let me know HOW MUCH radon is in the air and water. The question is how much; not IF it is there.
Even sunshine is not without its problems, as the radiation does affect your cells.
And your cleaners that guarantee to kill 99+% of household germs, still leave thousands living - and probably the nastier ones.
The point I'm trying to make is that we don't live in a black-and-white world, and we can't eliminate all the things we don't like. We try to minimize risk and choose the least negative technologies; but I would not vote for going backwards - the reality of life over previous centuries was that life was shorter, tougher, and more brutal. Harnessing energy has allowed us to live better lives.
Sonny and Cher.... and the beat goes on!
Give them our congress and president?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Radon comes from a natural radioactive isotope in naturally occurring rocks. Hope you installed ventilation in your basement to let the radon move through to the outside air...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Yes radioactive elements are natural as well as the non-radioactive elements.
Hope you installed ventilation in your basement to let the radon move through to the outside air...
Yes. The radon reduction system LOWERS the level, but does not completely get rid of it. I think 4ppm (or is it ppb) is the suggested limit. My system lowered it to about 1.5.
So I rather my radioactive elements removed from the ground, concentrated, and put to a more useful purpose in a reactor, where it could provide useful energy.
If I didn't enjoy the repartee, I'd go caulk my windows or do something else "useful". You always manage to nudge my brain cells. :shades:
Yeah, nukes generate poison and there's no plan to get rid of it, and limited liability for the companies generating the power. Clean coal is an oxymoron. Big Oil - yikes, $4 a gallon. Dams - hate 'em - mess up the salmon and the whitewater. Solar - seems great if you don't mind the maintenance on the storage batteries and have a place to site the panels. Wind - not in the viewshed or migration flyways please. Natural gas - well, I'm not fond of combustion gases in my living quarters. Wood stoves - got one but no catalytic converter on it so it's not helping my wife's asthma when I use it. Bunker fuel - that stuff is really nasty. Geothermal is pretty neat and there's quite a bit around Boise. Fusion and hydrogen seem pretty marginal players. Methane from landfields and cows ... hmmm. Biofuels - travel or starve, pick your pleasure.
Did I miss any? Tidal maybe? Hydraulic rams? Instream turbines? Don't forget conservation either.
So - it's either be a hypocrite or a hermit. I did live in my van for a year a decade ago, lol. I could afford to move it almost every day back then though. With the price of RUG, I'd just have to park it down by the river. It wouldn't be smogging the sky that way at least.
(Dr. Bronner's is the cleaner of choice around here, btw)
Wanna race? I bet I can find more sites that list the 111 as the high than you can which list the 109 as the high..................
Evidence in support of this theory has come from pictures obtained from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, which showed no spots on the sun, thus determining that sunspot activity has not resumed after hitting an 11-year low in March last year.
A sunspot is a region on the sun that is cooler than the rest and appears dark.
Some scientists believe a strong solar magnetic field, when there is plenty of sunspot activity, protects the earth from cosmic rays, cutting cloud formation, but that when the field is weak - during low sunspot activity - the rays can penetrate into the lower atmosphere and cloud cover increases, cooling the surface.
According to Australian astronaut and geophysicist Phil Chapman, this might have caused the world to cool quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C.
"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," said Dr Chapman.
"If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over," he added.
Dr Chapman has proposed preventive, or delaying, moves to slow the cooling, such as bulldozing Siberian and Canadian snow to make it dirty and less reflective.
"My guess is that the odds are now at least 50:50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades," he said
Looks like we can break out those big SUV's, burn the cheap coal, roast marshmellows on an open flame ... and change the title of this discussion to who/what is to blame for global cooling. Wonder how Al Gore will make his money now? :P
Maybe he can market a "Carbon Credit" furnace. Get some heat out of all those carbon credits.
Further evidence is Idaho ski resorts staying open in may this year. That should be good news for Steve.
McCALL -- Near-record snowfall and low spring temperatures are creating ideal conditions at Brundage Mountain Resort. Resort officials announced today that they will be open for a third bonus weekend in May.
The resort is currently closed on weekdays, and had planned this Saturday and Sunday to be the final ski weekend of the season, but that was before 10 inches of fresh powder fell this week. Now, resort managers have decided to be open on May 3rd and 4th.
“Mother Nature has been extremely kind to us this year,” said resort spokesperson April Russell. “And our loyal visitors have shown that they are still interested in skiing and riding on the best snow in Idaho.”
Resort operators are keeping a close watch on Mother Nature and customer interest to decide if additional weekends in May are possible.
Meanwhile, down under, Scientist slams spread of climate change 'misinformation'. Gee, we have used the terms "contrarians, delayers or delusionists" in here before I don't think (another link).
Jeb Bush just says to cool it. Speaking of name calling - he's on the religious zealot bandwagon.
Jeb can spot snakeoil salesmen. He is not on the payroll so he can tell the truth about what is going on. Now Newt, what a disappointment he is climbing on the gravy wagon.
Professor Barry Brook from the University of Adelaide says those who deny climate change often have ulterior motives.
Is he saying that those that are pushing the human caused climate change agenda are without ulterior motives?
"Some people will attempt to hijack science for political or ideological reasons and in doing so besmirch science's public image," he said.
As Director of Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability, his job is to prove his agenda. His ulterior motive is right up front. If he was a decent scientist he would welcome the challenge to prove his ideas instead of calling those scientists that question Climate Change names.
He said they were variously called sceptics, denialists, contrarians, delayers or delusionists.
"Whatever the label you attach to them, they are all cut of the same anti-intellectual cloth," Prof Brook said in an article published in the latest issue of Australasian Science.
Prof Brook is probably as good a reason as any to call the whole genre charlatans. If you cannot accept the challenge to your scientific theory it is probably not valid. I would say he is the anti-intellectual he is warning us about.
link title
2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year 01.16.08
Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century.
"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature," said Hansen. "Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."
The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.
Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea ice temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years.
The greatest warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic, and neighboring high latitude regions. Global warming has a larger affect in polar areas, as the loss of snow and ice leads to more open water, which absorbs more sunlight and warmth. Snow and ice reflect sunlight; when they disappear, so too does their ability to deflect warming rays. The large Arctic warm anomaly of 2007 is consistent with observations of record low geographic extent of Arctic sea ice in September 2007.
So, Dr. Chapman says Goddard said it was cooler. But they did not.
If you know the source of the 0.7 degree dip data, tell us where to look and post a link.
In the link you posted there are pages and pages of footnotes to describe the method they used to obtain the final data. Anyone could prove anything after going thru these gymnastics
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
David Karoly from Melbourne University's School of Earth Sciences is outraged.
"This is not science. This is misinterpretation or misrepresentation and mis-communication of the factors that influence global temperature," he said. "It appears to be an opinion of Phil Chapman and he's welcome to his opinion, but in terms of climate variations and an approaching ice age, he is sadly misinformed.
"Yes, the climate system did cool from January 2007 to January 2008 quite dramatically. That cooling was associated with changes in the ocean temperatures in the Pacific, a well known phenomenon, the El Nino to La Nina switch. It isn't unprecedented."
But he says it is not due to sunspot activity.
"Sunspot variations do not lead to the sorts of temperature variations seen from January 2007 to 2008," he said.
"They don't lead to those large temperature variations, even on an 11-year sunspot cycle.
"And so in terms of increasing greenhouse gases, we can also see that effect because the most recent La Nina, the current La Nina, is warmer than earlier La Nina episodes of the same strength.
"We're actually seeing a warming even in these cool periods associated with La Nina."
Dr Graeme Pearman is a climate scientist and past chief of atmospheric research at the CSIRO.
He says the doubt over global warming and its causes is not reasonable and he warns Dr Chapman's wait-and-see approach is dangerous.
"And what science has seen over the last six months or so are changes that are occurring that are further advanced than we would like," he said.
"And so I think there is a high probability, a much higher probability than his scenario coming true, that we're going to look back and rue the fact that we didn't act earlier.
"We must get on with trying to slow down the growth of our emissions as a global community and as an Australian community as soon as possible."
Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century.
If our increased production of GHG has a significant impact on the Climate, this should not happen.
"Yes, the climate system did cool from January 2007 to January 2008 quite dramatically. That cooling was associated with changes in the ocean temperatures in the Pacific, a well known phenomenon, the El Nino to La Nina switch. It isn't unprecedented."
Your posts do point out that the consensus claimed by the political arm of the GW cult is not true.
Just what does Australia plan to do that will reduce their carbon footprint? I would say they will just waste money and energy flying to GW conferences in glamorous vacation spots like Bali. Maybe they should have a conference this next winter in the Siberian Arctic to see for themselves how warm it is. Last year was record cold in the Alaskan Arctic. They have a gravy train and will not let it go no matter how much scientific evidence surfaces refuting their computer models and data manipulation.
“We were criticized for being alarmist at the time,” Mr. Runge said. “I think our views, looking back a year, were probably too conservative.”
Ethanol was initially promoted as a vehicle for America to cut back on foreign oil. In recent years, biofuels have also been touted as a way to fight climate change, but the food crisis does not augur well for ethanol’s prospects.
“It takes around 400 pounds of corn to make 25 gallons of ethanol,” Mr. Senauer, also an applied economics professor at Minnesota, said. “It’s not going to be a very good diet but that’s roughly enough to keep an adult person alive for a year.”
Mr. Senauer said climate change advocates, such as Vice President Gore, need to distance themselves from ethanol to avoid tarnishing the effort against global warming. “Crop-based biofuels are not part of the solution. They, in fact, add to the problem. Whether Al Gore has caught up with that, somebody ought to ask him,” the professor said. “There are lots of solutions, real solutions to climate change. We need to get to those.”
Mr. Gore was not available for an interview yesterday on the food crisis, according to his spokeswoman. A spokesman for Mr. Gore’s public campaign to address climate change, the Alliance for Climate Protection, declined to comment for this article.
However, the scientist who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore, Rajendra Pachauri of the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, has warned that climate campaigners are unwise to promote biofuels in a way that risks food supplies. “We should be very, very careful about coming up with biofuel solutions that have major impact on production of food grains and may have an implication for overall food security,” Mr. Pachauri told reporters last month, according to Reuters. “Questions do arise about what is being done in North America, for instance, to convert corn into sugar then into biofuels, into ethanol.”
In an interview last year, Mr. Gore expressed his support for corn-based ethanol
A Harvard professor of environmental studies who has advised Mr. Gore, Michael McElroy, warned in a November-December 2006 article in Harvard Magazine that “the production of ethanol from either corn or sugar cane presents a new dilemma: whether the feedstock should be devoted to food or fuel. With increasing use of corn and sugar cane for fuel, a rise in related food prices would seem inevitable.” The article, “The Ethanol Illusion” went so far as to praise Senator McCain for summing up the corn-ethanol energy initiative launched in the United States in 2003 as “highway robbery perpetrated on the American public by Congress.”
Are you kidding? A slug like Al will just declare victory due to his intervention and then find some other scam to ruin the US economy. His mindless minions will follow right behind in lock-step.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Published: April 26th, 2008 12:37 PM
Anchorage continues to dig out from a snowfall that set a record for the day and the month.The National Weather Service says 17.2 inches fell at its office just south of Anchorage's international airport and 22 inches fell in northeast Anchorage on Friday and Saturday.
The heaviest snow fell between 3 and 6 p.m. Friday at a rate of almost two inches per hour.
The monthly total at the weather service office is now 29.7 inches, breaking a record from 1963 when 27.6 inches fell during April.
The 15.5 inches that fell Friday is the third-most for any one day in Anchorage. The record is the 25.7 inches that fell six years ago on March 17, 2002.
I am watching the Byron Nelson, played in the Dallas/Ft.Worth area today and I notice that at 2:30 PM there most of the players are wearing sweaters!! And no, it is not raining, just partly cloudy.
I am sure that someone will point out that this is merely anecdotal evidence, however, my experience has taught me that anecdotal evidence is often the best evidence.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460