"Question: Are we attributing change in denning distribution to global climate change phenomenon? Answer: We haven’t studied data thoroughly enough to ascribe an explanation yet. I wouldn’t be surprised if changes in the conditions of the sea ice has made it less suitable for denning, but don’t know for sure yet."
From the ADN in 9/07:
"Things could be turned around so that they don't disappear completely," said Steve Amstrup, the biological study team leader for the USGS. On the other hand, Amstrup said, climate-warming models chosen for the study tended to be conservative, so the bears might disappear faster than predicted" link
Being a scientist I am sure he would be guarded in what he says. At least until he has a couple of my Margaritas. We got to go out with him tagging bears a couple times back in the 1980s. His whole life is Polar Bears. He was instrumental in our zoo getting two cubs that lost their mom to an Eskimo bullet a few years ago. I think he would tell it like it is and not be influenced by politics. What I don't see is the correlation between drilling in the Arctic and GW. It is a foregone conclusion we are going to keep driving. Using oil from the Arctic keeps our balance of trade with a very small impact on the environment. Much better than say drilling off of Key West. Though I think Cuba will beat us to that oil with the help of China.
PS Just got an email from Steve. Says he is stuck in Kaktovik waiting for the fog to lift so they can go out tagging bears. He did say that climate change IS impacting the bears. Did not go into detail. The State may not want to use him as I don't think he would write a scientific report that they would want.
so the bears might disappear faster than predicted
Here is my question. What did the Polar Bears do in the period around 1300, when the earth was 6 degrees warmer than today? Did a remnant survive then make a big comeback when it got cold again. He also says there is really not much that can reverse the trend. We just have to add that to the list that could not adapt. Like the Tiger we will have them in zoos.
I say send a batch to Antarctica where the ice is expanding and feed them penguins. I think there are seals down there.
His credentials look ok, his rhetoric sounds like he uses Al Gore's speech writer. Is it possible that Hansen is an activist with an agenda? Our colleges are full of PHDs that are nut cases.
Tidester says, "If you did you would have commented on the paragraph that followed so I am puzzled over why you ignored it. "
This is the paragraph you were talking about, right?
The current trend in rising temperature has been happening for 400 years. There is not a shred of evidence that the trend lines would be any different in the absence of mankind. Real science would indicate that if a certain trend existed before an alleged causal agent is introduced into a system and the trend is unchanged after the introduction of the alleged causal agent then the alleged causal agent probably isn't.
Well, I didn't feel a need to comment on it because it's just your opinion. Here's a comment, if you must have one:
We are not talking about what might have caused temperatures to rise 300 years ago, are we? We are talking about what effect, if ANY, that man and his activities can and do or might have on global climate in TODAY'S world.
That is the science I am talking about. I want that answered. Right now, there are basically two groups - YES man has an effect, and NO man does not. Both sides have good arguments.
That's why this debate is not settled. If it were a slam dunk for either side, then we would not be talking about it, would we?
Man affects virtually everything on this planet, including the planet to some degree, but 400 years is not even an eye blink relative to our discussion here.
Does man affect the climate? I would say yes, but probably so little that it could not begin to be measurable. Greater forces are at work. Saying man has an affect on the climate is like saying man affects the level of water in the ocean by tossing a pebble into it.
and seeing the quantity of ash circling around Earth I decided to forego saving Earth from human activities. Man's impact is like a pimple on an Elephant's butt.
Well, I didn't feel a need to comment on it because it's just your opinion.
Well, sorry, no. It's not just my opinion. It is from scientific data published by Akasofu in the report I referenced a few days back (remember the large pdf I mentioned?). He says "this trend should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years in estimating the manmade effect ..." Go click on the link and read the report.
We are not talking about what might have caused temperatures to rise 300 years ago, are we?
That's nonsense. (a) The physics has not changed in 300 years or 3 MILLION years for that matter and (b) we cannot possibly know whether man is having a significant impact on the climate without knowing how the climate evolved before man entered the climatological picture.
That is the science I am talking about.
You're not talking about science at all. Cherry picking data and ignoring everything that does not conform to your theory is antithetical to science.
Right now, there are basically two groups - YES man has an effect, and NO man does not.
Seems to be two groups, you ... and then everybody else. I gotta hand it to you though larsb, tidester and the gang have been pounding on you for, ohh about a year now, and yet you still keep fighting, will not give up. Perhaps they need to present a better argument to change your mind? :P
But, I always thought your position to be that the earth is warming, not nessesarily because of man...what should we do about it? Tidester and everyone else take the,"Where's the beef?" position. They want scientific proof that the earth is warming due to man's influence. They say there is no proof... just a lot of politically inspired nonsense.
Well, they are never going to change my mind. Because the fact remains, no one has yet shown me a reputable chart or website which charts the Earf's temps going DOWN instead of UP in the last few years.
So the warming is happening, of that I cannot be un-convinced. The CAUSE of said warming is still up for debate.
I, like everyone else, still do not know if Man is a causal variable in the warming. It's not proven under any scenario that man IS or IS NOT a contributor.
But to stick one's chest out and say "no way, and anyone who thinks so is a fool/idiot/sheep" is the wrong way to approach the issue.
Tidester, I'm not going to play "battling PDFs" with you. I could present 50 "man is a causal factor" reports for every 50 you could produce that say "man has no effect." So debating it like that is just a wash/waste.
And it's not NONSENSE to be concerned with the causes of the CURRENT temperature fluctuations, both warming and cooling. If the causes/trends need to be analyzed using historical data, then that's fine. (Unless you are one of the people who says the historical record is useless.) But that data applies FAR LESS to the current situation than the recent data.
And yes, sir, I am talking about science. Just because GW proponents have a version of facts with which you disagree does not change the fact that they are also dealing with valid climate data.
Excuse me, but you cannot keep asking for data and then, when someone shows it to you, declare it to be a "PDF battle." Even the most ardent supporters of the global warming theories recognize that temperatures have been rising far longer than since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Only people who want to make political points will insist on making 1800 or so the reference point. Those who want to understand what is going on will look at the whole picture and consider all relevancies.
But that data applies FAR LESS to the current situation than the recent data.
Nothing could be further from the truth. If you want to establish that mankind plays a role in today's "warming" then you must absolutely establish some kind of a baseline for comparison. The only basis for that IS the historical record so that the "old data" is utterly critical in making the case - one way or the other.
And yes, sir, I am talking about science.
Sorry, but you're not. Tossing out relevant data and relevant physics cannot in any way be construed as science.
In the decade or so following President Nixon's decree (and Congress's subsequent rubber stamp) that created a national speed limit of 55 mph, the weenies that continued to support that silly limit would proudly show how the lower limit had been the key reason behind a dramatic year over year reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries since the "double nickel" had gone into effect.
I always thought it was very humorous to show those folks the graphical plot that went back ten years prior the Nixon. Why did I think it was funny? Simple, the curve (or better said, the downward slope) didn't hardly change at all (in fact, fatalities actually went UP during the first few months of the 55 limit).
So, here we are again, larsb is saying that the planet is warming and using as his basis for that claim a very-very tiny snippet of data. Sorry dude, I've got to declare shenanigans on this one. I suspect that the only person you're convincing with your arguments is yourself.
tidester says, "Sorry, but you're not. Tossing out relevant data and relevant physics cannot in any way be construed as science."
And you do the same with the data I have shown you. So we are not different in that regard.
Tidester says, "If you want to establish that mankind plays a role in today's "warming" then you must absolutely establish some kind of a baseline for comparison."
The baselines have been established, and can be shown with hundreds of different studies. PROBLEM IS; no one really agrees on one baseline, and that's reasonable, with all the different data sets. You and I cannot agree on one, and the dueling scientists cannot either.
You and I cannot agree on one, and the dueling scientists cannot either.
With that we agree. I don't think I would argue that there could be an upward trend in the global temperature. It does not seem to be nearly as high as other times in the last 1000 years. Which makes me believe it is natural and NOT man made.
Data from ice cores indicate that from AD 800 to 1300 the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a relatively mild climate similar to today. Trees and herbaceous plants grew there, and the climate initially allowed farming of livestock as in Norway.[3] These remote communities thrived on farming, hunting and trade with Norway
So for Greenland this warming is a boon. Look at the bright side instead of being a gloom and doom Hysteriac!
Known for its massive ice sheets, Greenland is feeling the effects of global warming as rising temperatures have expanded the island's growing season and crops are flourishing. For the first time in hundreds of years, it has become possible to raise cattle and start dairy farms.
When eminent scientists have disagreements on the cause. Politicians should just Butt out of the discussion. Especially those that make policy. Policy based on flawed scientific theory will only cause more problems. Ethanol being the most recent government boondoggle.
Policy based on flawed scientific theory will only cause more problems.
The problem is that it may take decades for the problems (unintended consequences?) to show up. Think DDT again.
But you have to base policy on something. Best available science or a gut feeling?
"Ford has been developing an all-inclusive business model—financial, social and environmental—to tackle sustainable mobility.
“[The model’s] goals are to reduce carbon emissions and secure our energy future,” Cischke said. Ford will begin implementing its short-term goals in 2012"
Greenland is one of the most rapidly warming regions on Earf.
Read this:
To emphasize the point, Steffen's colleague, NASA scientist Jay Zwally, Ph.D., 67, shows me a series of charts and tables, the fruit of a decade's worth of data. Not even the whiskey, fatigue, and steam can blur the clear reality of the graphs' upward-ticking lines: Surface temperatures and ice-sheet velocity have risen exponentially at Swiss Camp over the past decade. It is a problem compounded by a new theory that Zwally and Steffen have developed about how ice tunnels, called "moulins," might be forming at a greater rate, speeding warming on the cap. Zwally points out that this is not just Greenland's problem. If warming continues at its current pace, Greenland's melting ice sheet will raise worldwide sea levels a startling 1.6 feet (less than a meter) in the next hundred years. Further melting could even shut off the warm ocean currents that keep Europe habitable, plunging it into an ice age.
So Global Warming could freeze Europe. Interesting.
But then Zwally puts down his charts, looks me in the eye, and dares me to get off the ice and visit the habitable fringe of Greenland, where subsistence hunters and adventure travelers are coming face-to-face with global warming on a daily basis. "You won't need a thermometer to see climate change," he says. "There, it's obvious. People are changing their lifestyles."
And overall, the BAD things far outweigh the good things in Greenland. Read more here:
Greenland's melting ice sheet will raise worldwide sea levels a startling 1.6 feet (less than a meter) in the next hundred years.
One point 6 feet in 100 years. That is a far cry from the radicals saying it will rise 30 feet in 50 years. I have to reiterate. These same esteemed scientists cannot predict the weather tomorrow with any degree of accuracy. And you want me to believe they can tell me what will happen 100 years from now. I am not that gullible.
1.6 feet is a bit more believable and not at all alarming to me. I am at the 1960 foot level with a view of Coronado and Pt Loma. It will just improve my ocean view. If I live that long.
Your NG article says the ocean currents are warming. The scientists with the measurement devices in the worlds oceans say NO it is not rising. Who is Lying here.
These guys can prove with their data that their numbers are correct, and so can the other guys !! One group will make assumptions based on data which the other group will challenge as incorrect, and vice-versa.
Does not mean there is a LIE involved at ALL.
That's why the GW debate is so frustrating !!!
Can we just close this Forum? It has not had an "Are Automobiles A Major Cause Of Global Warming" post in about three months.
It's mostly posters saying "Nya Nya larsb is wrong" and larsb saying "No I'm not."
It's not productive at all, and has nothing to do with cars at this point.
It's not productive at all, and has nothing to do with cars at this point.
Gee, I just tried with my "Ford has been developing an all-inclusive business model—financial, social and environmental—to tackle sustainable mobility" post.
And overall, the BAD things far outweigh the good things in Greenland.
Is this one of the bad things? .
"When I moved here 11 years ago we never saw mallards," Jacobsen says, silently dipping the narrow oarlike tip of his Greenlandic paddle into the water, as if he were sneaking up on a seal. Mallards are southern, Canadian birds. All but southernmost Greenland has always been too cold for them. "Now we see them all the time," he says, smiling. "I kind of like them."
I don't get it; I read the whole article and I don't see a big list of bad things. I see the above as a positive - that a warmer Greenland will allow more life to flourish, where it basically doesn't exist.
This is proven and is fact now. The statements about the currents and Europe freezing are just conjecture based on unproven theories. The fact is you can have a theory that Europe warms. or the theory that europe stays the same. The fact is life is becoming better for many species as the Earth warms.
The average temperature is only 57F, and life flourishes in the warmer parts of the Earth. The Amazon being the prime and best example of an ideal climate for life.
So IF my ICE is adding to the planet warming, I'm proud of it. I'm sitting here thinking how my car and home heating system is helping to grow palm trees on the coast of Greenland someday.
I'm sitting here thinking how my car and home heating system is helping to grow palm trees on the coast of Greenland someday.
Maybe someday there will be palm trees in the Arctic as there was at one time long ago. I tell you what. It is cold here in San Diego today. Normal is 75 and we are right now sitting at 55 degrees. I guess all that cold from the Arctic and Greenland has shifted to So CA. What we need is a way to put out more CO2 without using so much of the high priced gas. I expect to see Polar Bears migrating this way at any moment. :shades:
Gary, it's not "global cooling" my friend, as much as you like to joke about it. Just your basic low pressure system. Nothing special about it. ALLCAPS not mine - provided by the Weather Service
AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SAN DIEGO CA 930 AM PDT TUE MAY 6 2008
.SYNOPSIS...DEPARTING UPPER LEVEL LOW PRESSURE WILL CAUSE ISOLATED SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS THIS MORNINGS...MAINLY IN SAN DIEGO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES. ONSHORE FLOW AND THE MARINE LAYER WILL CONTINUE LOW CLOUDS AND FOG WEST OF THE MOUNTAINS DURING THE NIGHTS AND MORNINGS...LINGERING NEAR THE COAST INTO THE AFTERNOONS. OTHERWISE...FAIR.
LOW CLOUDS AND FOG WERE INTO THE COASTAL MOUNTAIN SLOPES THIS MORNING AND REMAIN EXTENSIVE OFFSHORE. THERE WAS ALSO MID LEVEL MOISTURE FLOWING IN FROM THE NE WITH ISOLATED THUNDERSTORMS IN SAN DIEGO AND SW RIVERSIDE COUNTIES. THE 12Z NKX SOUNDING HAD AN INVERSION BASED NEAR 4900 FT AND SHOWED THE MID LEVEL MOISTURE IN NE WINDS. ONSHORE GRADIENTS WITH ABOUT 5 MB SAN-IPL.
THE MID LEVEL MOISTURE AND CHANCE OF THUNDERSTORMS WILL DECREASE TODAY AS THE UPPER LOW MOVES E. ANY THUNDERSTORMS THIS MORNING WILL BE ISOLATED WITH 10000 FT BASES. RAIN AMOUNTS WILL BE SMALL...AND DRY LIGHTNING IS POSSIBLE. HOWEVER...THE DEEP MARINE LAYER WILL RESULT IN HIGH RH VALUES IN THE VICINITY OF ANY LIGHTNING STRIKES WEST OF THE COASTAL MOUNTAIN SLOPES.
WEAK SHORT WAVE UPPER RIDGING LATE THIS AFTERNOON AND EARLY WED WILL BE REPLACED BY A TROUGH BY THU MORNING. FLAT NW FLOW WILL DEVELOP ALOFT THU AFTERNOON BECOMING WEAKLY CYCLONIC FRI. THERE WILL BE A SLIGHT AND BRIEF DOWNWARD TREND IN THE MARINE LAYER TONIGHT AND WED MORNING THEN IT WILL DEEPEN AGAIN WED NIGHT IN RESPONSE TO THE UPPER SHORT WAVE. THE MARINE LAYER WILL AGAIN TREND DOWNWARD SLIGHTLY THU NIGHT. HOWEVER...THESE WILL BE MINOR CHANGES AND THE MARINE LAYER WILL REMAIN RELATIVELY DEEP. EXPECT SLOW AND PARTIAL AFTERNOON CLEARING NEAR THE COAST EACH DAY. MODERATELY STRONG ONSHORE GRADIENTS WILL CAUSE LOCALLY BREEZY CONDITIONS IN THE MOUNTAINS AND DESERTS...MAINLY DURING THE AFTERNOONS AND EVENINGS. THERE COULD ALSO BE ISOLATED DRIZZLE FROM THICK MARINE LAYER CLOUDS DURING THE NIGHTS AND MORNINGS. MAX TEMPS WILL REMAIN A LITTLE BELOW SEASONAL AVERAGES.
.LONG TERM (SAT-TUE)...MARINE LAYER CLOUDINESS WILL CONTINUE. A WEAK SHORT WAVE RIDGE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY A WEAK UPPER TROUGH RESULTING IN SLIGHT WARMING SAT AND SUN THEN A LITTLE COOLING MON. WARMER TUE AS A STRONGER RIDGE BEGINS TO BUILD ALOFT.
Disappearing sea ice around the edge of the island is causing air temperatures to rise, which means that the semipermanent high-pressure system that forms over Greenland every winter is disappearing, bringing fog, snow, and unstable weather.
Sea levels rising worldwide means LOTS of problems, the least of which is an ice age in Europe:
Surface temperatures and ice-sheet velocity have risen exponentially at Swiss Camp over the past decade. It is a problem compounded by a new theory that Zwally and Steffen have developed about how ice tunnels, called "moulins," might be forming at a greater rate, speeding warming on the cap. Zwally points out that this is not just Greenland's problem. If warming continues at its current pace, Greenland's melting ice sheet will raise worldwide sea levels a startling 1.6 feet (less than a meter) in the next hundred years. Further melting could even shut off the warm ocean currents that keep Europe habitable, plunging it into an ice age.
No job for the ice dogs:
But since the winter sea ice disappeared in 2001, locals no longer use their dogs to hunt whales and seals trapped in a frozen Disko Bay. Other than the odd tourist trip up into the hills, these dogs are idle now. And so they whine and cry, until their owners decide that they're tired of wasting money on feeding them. The lucky ones are then shot. Most starve. According to Ilulissat's veterinarian, Marit Holm, 34, the Greenlandic dog population has declined nearly 25 percent in the past four years. "There's a tradition here to think of these dogs only as working dogs," she says, while tidying up her office, a chore that includes dragging a recently euthanized dog off her stoop. But since the dogs aren't earning their keep, she explains, people stop feeding them. "I spend 80 percent of my time doing animal-welfare work, traveling to the settlements just to kill dogs."
Losing money on tourist trade:
In years past, the shops made a good business of providing dog-sledging trips overland into the hills—a bumpy ride that lacks much of the grace and speed of gliding over ice. But the weather has warmed up too early this year and the trails are already too muddy. "I just got back," says a German woman who'd flown here a few days earlier to spend a week sledging on the nearby trails. "We got stuck in the mud on the first day, and the sledge driver had to call off the rest of the trip."
Surprise floods on the fjords because of ice calving killing people:
Signs on the water's edge warn against deadly flash floods. Stories abound of people being swept out to sea.
Possibly losing one of the most beautiful places on Earf:
The Jakobshavn Icefjord is one of the most beautiful places in the world. But its future is now in question.
The loss of the chance to kayak around some of those areas because of the dangers of the ice breaking up.
Losing weather stations:
Climatologist Konrad Steffen—fully clothed now—is trying to reestablish a weather station called JAR2, which has been incapacitated by melting ice. So much of it has vanished from beneath the station that its measurements of snow and ice depth are now completely inaccurate. To reset the station, Steffen needs to drill a hole 22 feet (7 meters) deep into solid ice. But every time he gets down 10 or 15 feet (3 or 5 meters), the drill finds a void caused, in part, by warming temperatures. It's frustrating work, and I swear I can hear Steffen curse the oil companies every time he has to restart the drill.
Losing good scientists trying to study the phenomenon:
Zwally relates a story about David Drewry, a British glaciologist who fell into a meltwater stream and was whisked along for several hundred yards, stopping short of a moulin by a mere hundred yards. A colleague of Steffen's wasn't so lucky and disappeared for good into one of these holes.?
And if Greenland's situation REALLY is a barometer for the world climate" as many scientists believe, we are all headed for drastic changes:
What's really cool—but just as terrifying—is how fast all of this is happening and how quickly scientists such as Zwally and Steffen have to move just to stay on top of it from year to year.
The point is this: The warming will affect areas far flung from Greenland, and the ice at both poles, if it continues.
To ignore it and say, "oh well, it's just Mother Nature doing her little thing" is simply silly.
There might be warming in some regions but the oceans are actually getting cooler - verified by a most recent study that you will never read in the paper.
As far as the oceans rising when the ice melts, does the water level in a glass rise or fall when the ice melts? It falls. Enough said on that matter.
We should all conserve our natural resources be careful how we use them. Oil is not a non-renewable resource as many believe. It does not come from fossils and should not be called fossil fuel. Oil is present in places where there is no evidence of the existence of fossils.
Have a great day and quit worrying so much. The dread and gloom is getting old. God will be the one who destroys the earth in His time.
is disappearing, bringing fog, snow, and unstable weather.
That's unusual or bad? Standard weather everywhere I've lived.
Sea levels rising worldwide
Future conjecture. I go to the same beaches for the last 40 years.
Dogs dying. I'm sorry about that, but it sounds like lots of other animals benefit. More good than bad.
And the rest of your post contains very, very minor negatives. The fact is Greenland was warmer during the Viking period, than it is now, and that is proof that Mother Nature does go thru changes all by itself. You keep wanting to ignore that. You keep ignoring that the Earth is constantly changing - continents drift, earthquakes occur, mountains rise and are eroded, rivers cut canyons, seas dry up, deserts and jungles are formed, the climate goes up 10F and then it goes down 20F ...
To say that Mother Nature changing is silly is ignoring every bit of scientific fact. The burden of proof is on GW proponents not to just prove the Earth's climate is changing, BUT to PROVE it is changing outside of its normal pattern. The Earth has warmed and cooled many times - prove that this warming is not natural - the Earth's climate has gone up 1F many times.
You don't have to send me the weather report. I am sitting in a 51 degree cloud that is supposed to be 75 degrees. I know you and big Al would like to blame every condition that comes along on Global Warming. Thinking people are not buying into the hype.
I agree with Kernick the positives of growing food for people far out weigh the negatives of giving dog sled rides to tourists. The Greenland folks can now enjoy a few hundred years of decent weather before the next mini ice age.
It's a matter of perspective. I feel my perspective matches up better with reality.
And I am a thinking person, Gary, you know that. I have not bought into anyone's HYPE. I have just read the climate reports. And most of them say we are warming.
Until "most of them" say we are not warming, I'm using my BRAIN and staying with the most likely scenario.
Warming is not the issue. What caused it to warm is the issue. I just read more blah blah blah from EGore. He is blaming the cyclone that has killed 50k people on, you guessed it GW. What a worthless human being. Every legitimate study on those kinds of weather conditions does not blame man. Yet you have this goober claiming that every time something comes along it is man made GW. It is called self-aggrandizement. Quite frankly I would argue against any point he made. I consider Al Gore a Liar, a Charlatan, and a detriment to society.
has been a strategy for many global warming activists, and it was just a matter of time before someone found a way to tie the recent Myanmar cyclone to global warming.
Former Vice President Al Gore in an interview on NPR’s May 6 “Fresh Air” broadcast did just that. He was interviewed by “Fresh Air” host Terry Gross about the release of his book, “The Assault on Reason,” in paperback.
“And as we’re talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated,” Gore said. “And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.”
In October 2007, CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano disputed Gore’s claim that there is a strong correlation between intense storms and global warming. He explained that “global warming does not conclusively cause stronger hurricanes like we've seen,” pointing out that “by the end of this century we might get about a 5-percent increase.”
"The hope here is that Ford will voluntarily measure, verify and report greenhouse gas emissions annually and members of the public will be able to see these figures, meaning Ford will have to make a concentrated effort to reduce greenhouse gases in order to keep public opinion in its favor."
The best thing the Congress can do to cut GHG in the USA is ban the sale of new vehicles completely. When all the used car lots are empty they allocate how many vehicles each maker can build and sell. That would cut GHG at the source. That should help appease the more ardent back to the caves environmentalists.
Of course you can always plant mango trees in some place they will not grow.
Actually, banning the sale or transfer of old cars would be more effective. They tend to be smog hogs. Japan has pretty draconian rules for getting older cars off the road although they do let people export them to other countries.
Getting the old cars off the roads would help the automakers survive too.
Let's see - my Outback is 11+ years old and my Quest will be 10 in December. I think the feds should entice me with some incentive money and tax rebates for trading those old carbon hogs in. I think $10,000 or $12,000 each would just about do it. :shades:
my understanding is we get 1000s of low mileage engines from Japan. One importer told me that the cars rust away before they get 50k miles on them. I put one in my son's POC Toyota PU.
banning the sale or transfer of old cars would be more effective.
Not really. Most of the pollution is in the production, not the driving. Keeping a car on the road 10-15 years is much better for the environment than buying a new one every 3-8 years. Because we are a country built on the economics of planned obsolescence that is how our cars are built.
"my understanding is we get 1000s of low mileage engines from Japan. One importer told me that the cars rust away before they get 50k miles on them. I put one in my son's POC Toyota PU. "
I find that highly unlikely. Why? Because the cost of converting used JDM cars to Left Hand Drive would simply make them way too expensive to be sold into the American market.
"Actually, banning the sale or transfer of old cars would be more effective. They tend to be smog hogs."
Hmmm, we have two Dodge Grand Caravans, both with the venerable 3.8 liter engine in them. The 1998 has nearly 160,000 miles on it and the 2003 has nearly 110,000 miles on it. Funny thing though, it is our 10 year old van that is the one that produces less smog. How can that be? Simple, the 1998 was bought in northern New Jersey and as such had to comply with the CARB rules that had been adopted by nearby New York, however, our 2003 was bought in New Hampshire and had the conventional 45 States pollution controls. Per the window stickers of the two vans, the older one is the cleaner one. Go figure.
They just send the engines and transaxles over is my understanding. We import low mileage used Japanese engines and transmissions. Most motors come complete with starter, distributer, alternator, carb/fuel injector, and flywheel. When finding a replacement motor or transmission for your car Import Engine Trans Warehouse offers you the most selection at the best price!
Sorry, my bad. You wrote, "my understanding is we get 1000s of low mileage engines from Japan." However, I read, "my understanding is we get 1000s of low mileage cars from Japan." :sick:
shipo says, "Hmmm, so by extension, anybody that strongly disagrees with you or your statements (me) is either a non-thinking person or an idiot?"
No, that was not my point at all, in any way shape or form. If you read the post I was responding to at the time, Gary had sidehandedly mentioned something in his post about "thinking people" and had intimated that I was not in that group because of my GW views.
I put that statement in there just to let him know that I do not deserve to be put outside his group of thinking people.
I would never say or intimate that you are a non thinker. I do believe in your zeal for clean air that you grab hold of false teachings. Thinking somehow those that are pushing GW being man made will make a positive difference in the air we breathe. That may be a benefit of the GW agenda. Personally I think it has polarized rather than united folks toward making our environment better. Cleaning our air, water and planet are all good things. Using less fossil fuel and finding alternatives is imperative. If we don't go back to 1990 CO2 levels all the folks along the oceans will drown is a tactic. to control the masses. Man having much affect on the weather is flawed science twisted by greedy politicians and well meaning environmental types.
I was watching the History channel last night - Megadisasters, and thought I'd pass along some data on what the Earth has survived.
Apparently there are about 170 accounts of a great Flood from people scattered over thousands of miles, that occurred 4,800 years ago. Scientists theorize and have evidence (rocks) of a comet strike in the Indian Ocean at this time. The comet was about 3 miles in diameter, travelling about 100,000 mph. When it hit in the water it hit with the energy of 30,000,000 megatons of TNT. (This compares to the world's nuclear weapon stockpile which is under 100,000 megatons which we think is incredible). This energy vaporized vast amounts of water and rock, and yes created havoc for a few years around the world.
Did it destroy the Earth? Did it kill all life? Did it even kill off all humans? Or did it stop civilization from progressing? No, no, no, no. So I really don't think a little CO2 - ppm increase is going to destroy Earth.
BTW - the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was 100,000,000 megatons, and guess what - life survived.
I also would echo Gagrice's statements that GW is nothing more than a scare-tactic to push other agenda and to gain power and prominence for a few.
But the evidence of warming is not falsely created data. There are thousands of climate scientists who have produced peer-reviewed studies on the warming.
It's the CAUSE of the warming and the EFFECTS on global climate that is in question.
Just like two people can completely independently create a cost/benefit analysis on any investment and have it look completely different, two climate scientists with different opinions can come up with two totally different scenarios based on the same data.
That's why the GW debate is so frustrating. Everyone can show that they are right !!
Comments
"Question: Are we attributing change in denning distribution to global climate change phenomenon? Answer: We haven’t studied data thoroughly enough to ascribe an explanation yet. I wouldn’t be surprised if changes in the conditions of the sea ice has made it less suitable for denning, but don’t know for sure yet."
From the ADN in 9/07:
"Things could be turned around so that they don't disappear completely," said Steve Amstrup, the biological study team leader for the USGS. On the other hand, Amstrup said, climate-warming models chosen for the study tended to be conservative, so the bears might disappear faster than predicted" link
If you get in touch, invite him to join it.
Being a scientist I am sure he would be guarded in what he says. At least until he has a couple of my Margaritas. We got to go out with him tagging bears a couple times back in the 1980s. His whole life is Polar Bears. He was instrumental in our zoo getting two cubs that lost their mom to an Eskimo bullet a few years ago. I think he would tell it like it is and not be influenced by politics. What I don't see is the correlation between drilling in the Arctic and GW. It is a foregone conclusion we are going to keep driving. Using oil from the Arctic keeps our balance of trade with a very small impact on the environment. Much better than say drilling off of Key West. Though I think Cuba will beat us to that oil with the help of China.
PS
Just got an email from Steve. Says he is stuck in Kaktovik waiting for the fog to lift so they can go out tagging bears. He did say that climate change IS impacting the bears. Did not go into detail. The State may not want to use him as I don't think he would write a scientific report that they would want.
You mean being a scientist working for the feds... Scientist Says Politicians Edit Global Warming Research.
Here is my question. What did the Polar Bears do in the period around 1300, when the earth was 6 degrees warmer than today? Did a remnant survive then make a big comeback when it got cold again. He also says there is really not much that can reverse the trend. We just have to add that to the list that could not adapt. Like the Tiger we will have them in zoos.
I say send a batch to Antarctica where the ice is expanding and feed them penguins. I think there are seals down there.
This is the paragraph you were talking about, right?
The current trend in rising temperature has been happening for 400 years. There is not a shred of evidence that the trend lines would be any different in the absence of mankind. Real science would indicate that if a certain trend existed before an alleged causal agent is introduced into a system and the trend is unchanged after the introduction of the alleged causal agent then the alleged causal agent probably isn't.
Well, I didn't feel a need to comment on it because it's just your opinion. Here's a comment, if you must have one:
We are not talking about what might have caused temperatures to rise 300 years ago, are we? We are talking about what effect, if ANY, that man and his activities can and do or might have on global climate in TODAY'S world.
That is the science I am talking about. I want that answered. Right now, there are basically two groups - YES man has an effect, and NO man does not. Both sides have good arguments.
That's why this debate is not settled. If it were a slam dunk for either side, then we would not be talking about it, would we?
Does man affect the climate? I would say yes, but probably so little that it could not begin to be measurable. Greater forces are at work. Saying man has an affect on the climate is like saying man affects the level of water in the ocean by tossing a pebble into it.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Well, sorry, no. It's not just my opinion. It is from scientific data published by Akasofu in the report I referenced a few days back (remember the large pdf I mentioned?). He says "this trend should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years in estimating the manmade effect ..." Go click on the link and read the report.
We are not talking about what might have caused temperatures to rise 300 years ago, are we?
That's nonsense. (a) The physics has not changed in 300 years or 3 MILLION years for that matter and (b) we cannot possibly know whether man is having a significant impact on the climate without knowing how the climate evolved before man entered the climatological picture.
That is the science I am talking about.
You're not talking about science at all. Cherry picking data and ignoring everything that does not conform to your theory is antithetical to science.
Seems to be two groups, you ... and then everybody else.
But, I always thought your position to be that the earth is warming, not nessesarily because of man...what should we do about it? Tidester and everyone else take the,"Where's the beef?" position. They want scientific proof that the earth is warming due to man's influence. They say there is no proof... just a lot of politically
inspired nonsense.
So the warming is happening, of that I cannot be un-convinced. The CAUSE of said warming is still up for debate.
I, like everyone else, still do not know if Man is a causal variable in the warming. It's not proven under any scenario that man IS or IS NOT a contributor.
But to stick one's chest out and say "no way, and anyone who thinks so is a fool/idiot/sheep" is the wrong way to approach the issue.
Only time will tell I suppose.
And it's not NONSENSE to be concerned with the causes of the CURRENT temperature fluctuations, both warming and cooling. If the causes/trends need to be analyzed using historical data, then that's fine. (Unless you are one of the people who says the historical record is useless.) But that data applies FAR LESS to the current situation than the recent data.
And yes, sir, I am talking about science. Just because GW proponents have a version of facts with which you disagree does not change the fact that they are also dealing with valid climate data.
Excuse me, but you cannot keep asking for data and then, when someone shows it to you, declare it to be a "PDF battle." Even the most ardent supporters of the global warming theories recognize that temperatures have been rising far longer than since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Only people who want to make political points will insist on making 1800 or so the reference point. Those who want to understand what is going on will look at the whole picture and consider all relevancies.
But that data applies FAR LESS to the current situation than the recent data.
Nothing could be further from the truth. If you want to establish that mankind plays a role in today's "warming" then you must absolutely establish some kind of a baseline for comparison. The only basis for that IS the historical record so that the "old data" is utterly critical in making the case - one way or the other.
And yes, sir, I am talking about science.
Sorry, but you're not. Tossing out relevant data and relevant physics cannot in any way be construed as science.
I always thought it was very humorous to show those folks the graphical plot that went back ten years prior the Nixon. Why did I think it was funny? Simple, the curve (or better said, the downward slope) didn't hardly change at all (in fact, fatalities actually went UP during the first few months of the 55 limit).
So, here we are again, larsb is saying that the planet is warming and using as his basis for that claim a very-very tiny snippet of data. Sorry dude, I've got to declare shenanigans on this one. I suspect that the only person you're convincing with your arguments is yourself.
And you do the same with the data I have shown you. So we are not different in that regard.
Tidester says, "If you want to establish that mankind plays a role in today's "warming" then you must absolutely establish some kind of a baseline for comparison."
The baselines have been established, and can be shown with hundreds of different studies. PROBLEM IS; no one really agrees on one baseline, and that's reasonable, with all the different data sets. You and I cannot agree on one, and the dueling scientists cannot either.
With that we agree. I don't think I would argue that there could be an upward trend in the global temperature. It does not seem to be nearly as high as other times in the last 1000 years. Which makes me believe it is natural and NOT man made.
Data from ice cores indicate that from AD 800 to 1300 the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a relatively mild climate similar to today. Trees and herbaceous plants grew there, and the climate initially allowed farming of livestock as in Norway.[3] These remote communities thrived on farming, hunting and trade with Norway
So for Greenland this warming is a boon. Look at the bright side instead of being a gloom and doom Hysteriac!
Known for its massive ice sheets, Greenland is feeling the effects of global warming as rising temperatures have expanded the island's growing season and crops are flourishing. For the first time in hundreds of years, it has become possible to raise cattle and start dairy farms.
When eminent scientists have disagreements on the cause. Politicians should just Butt out of the discussion. Especially those that make policy. Policy based on flawed scientific theory will only cause more problems. Ethanol being the most recent government boondoggle.
The problem is that it may take decades for the problems (unintended consequences?) to show up. Think DDT again.
But you have to base policy on something. Best available science or a gut feeling?
"Ford has been developing an all-inclusive business model—financial, social and environmental—to tackle sustainable mobility.
“[The model’s] goals are to reduce carbon emissions and secure our energy future,” Cischke said. Ford will begin implementing its short-term goals in 2012"
Ford Official Discusses Sustainability (Harvard Crimson)
Read this:
To emphasize the point, Steffen's colleague, NASA scientist Jay Zwally, Ph.D., 67, shows me a series of charts and tables, the fruit of a decade's worth of data. Not even the whiskey, fatigue, and steam can blur the clear reality of the graphs' upward-ticking lines: Surface temperatures and ice-sheet velocity have risen exponentially at Swiss Camp over the past decade. It is a problem compounded by a new theory that Zwally and Steffen have developed about how ice tunnels, called "moulins," might be forming at a greater rate, speeding warming on the cap. Zwally points out that this is not just Greenland's problem. If warming continues at its current pace, Greenland's melting ice sheet will raise worldwide sea levels a startling 1.6 feet (less than a meter) in the next hundred years. Further melting could even shut off the warm ocean currents that keep Europe habitable, plunging it into an ice age.
So Global Warming could freeze Europe. Interesting.
But then Zwally puts down his charts, looks me in the eye, and dares me to get off the ice and visit the habitable fringe of Greenland, where subsistence hunters and adventure travelers are coming face-to-face with global warming on a daily basis. "You won't need a thermometer to see climate change," he says. "There, it's obvious. People are changing their lifestyles."
And overall, the BAD things far outweigh the good things in Greenland. Read more here:
Greenland is changing all right, and much of it is bad
One point 6 feet in 100 years. That is a far cry from the radicals saying it will rise 30 feet in 50 years. I have to reiterate. These same esteemed scientists cannot predict the weather tomorrow with any degree of accuracy. And you want me to believe they can tell me what will happen 100 years from now. I am not that gullible.
1.6 feet is a bit more believable and not at all alarming to me. I am at the 1960 foot level with a view of Coronado and Pt Loma. It will just improve my ocean view. If I live that long.
Your NG article says the ocean currents are warming. The scientists with the measurement devices in the worlds oceans say NO it is not rising. Who is Lying here.
These guys can prove with their data that their numbers are correct, and so can the other guys !! One group will make assumptions based on data which the other group will challenge as incorrect, and vice-versa.
Does not mean there is a LIE involved at ALL.
That's why the GW debate is so frustrating !!!
Can we just close this Forum? It has not had an "Are Automobiles A Major Cause Of Global Warming" post in about three months.
It's mostly posters saying "Nya Nya larsb is wrong" and larsb saying "No I'm not."
It's not productive at all, and has nothing to do with cars at this point.
Gee, I just tried with my "Ford has been developing an all-inclusive business model—financial, social and environmental—to tackle sustainable mobility" post.
Is this one of the bad things? .
"When I moved here 11 years ago we never saw mallards," Jacobsen says, silently dipping the narrow oarlike tip of his Greenlandic paddle into the water, as if he were sneaking up on a seal. Mallards are southern, Canadian birds. All but southernmost Greenland has always been too cold for them. "Now we see them all the time," he says, smiling. "I kind of like them."
I don't get it; I read the whole article and I don't see a big list of bad things. I see the above as a positive - that a warmer Greenland will allow more life to flourish, where it basically doesn't exist.
This is proven and is fact now. The statements about the currents and Europe freezing are just conjecture based on unproven theories. The fact is you can have a theory that Europe warms. or the theory that europe stays the same. The fact is life is becoming better for many species as the Earth warms.
The average temperature is only 57F, and life flourishes in the warmer parts of the Earth. The Amazon being the prime and best example of an ideal climate for life.
So IF my ICE is adding to the planet warming, I'm proud of it. I'm sitting here thinking how my car and home heating system is helping to grow palm trees on the coast of Greenland someday.
Maybe someday there will be palm trees in the Arctic as there was at one time long ago. I tell you what. It is cold here in San Diego today. Normal is 75 and we are right now sitting at 55 degrees. I guess all that cold from the Arctic and Greenland has shifted to So CA. What we need is a way to put out more CO2 without using so much of the high priced gas.
AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SAN DIEGO CA
930 AM PDT TUE MAY 6 2008
.SYNOPSIS...DEPARTING UPPER LEVEL LOW PRESSURE WILL CAUSE ISOLATED SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS THIS MORNINGS...MAINLY IN SAN DIEGO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES. ONSHORE FLOW AND THE MARINE LAYER WILL CONTINUE LOW CLOUDS AND FOG WEST OF THE MOUNTAINS DURING THE NIGHTS AND MORNINGS...LINGERING NEAR THE COAST INTO THE AFTERNOONS. OTHERWISE...FAIR.
LOW CLOUDS AND FOG WERE INTO THE COASTAL MOUNTAIN SLOPES THIS
MORNING AND REMAIN EXTENSIVE OFFSHORE. THERE WAS ALSO MID LEVEL MOISTURE FLOWING IN FROM THE NE WITH ISOLATED THUNDERSTORMS IN SAN DIEGO AND SW RIVERSIDE COUNTIES. THE 12Z NKX SOUNDING HAD AN INVERSION BASED NEAR 4900 FT AND SHOWED THE MID LEVEL MOISTURE IN NE WINDS. ONSHORE GRADIENTS WITH ABOUT 5 MB SAN-IPL.
THE MID LEVEL MOISTURE AND CHANCE OF THUNDERSTORMS WILL DECREASE TODAY AS THE UPPER LOW MOVES E. ANY THUNDERSTORMS THIS MORNING WILL BE ISOLATED WITH 10000 FT BASES. RAIN AMOUNTS WILL BE SMALL...AND DRY LIGHTNING IS POSSIBLE. HOWEVER...THE DEEP MARINE LAYER WILL RESULT IN HIGH RH VALUES IN THE VICINITY OF ANY LIGHTNING STRIKES WEST OF THE COASTAL MOUNTAIN SLOPES.
WEAK SHORT WAVE UPPER RIDGING LATE THIS AFTERNOON AND EARLY WED WILL BE REPLACED BY A TROUGH BY THU MORNING. FLAT NW FLOW WILL DEVELOP ALOFT THU AFTERNOON BECOMING WEAKLY CYCLONIC FRI. THERE WILL BE A SLIGHT AND BRIEF DOWNWARD TREND IN THE MARINE LAYER TONIGHT AND WED MORNING THEN IT WILL DEEPEN AGAIN WED NIGHT IN RESPONSE TO THE UPPER SHORT WAVE. THE MARINE LAYER WILL AGAIN TREND DOWNWARD SLIGHTLY THU NIGHT. HOWEVER...THESE WILL BE MINOR CHANGES AND THE MARINE LAYER
WILL REMAIN RELATIVELY DEEP. EXPECT SLOW AND PARTIAL AFTERNOON
CLEARING NEAR THE COAST EACH DAY. MODERATELY STRONG ONSHORE
GRADIENTS WILL CAUSE LOCALLY BREEZY CONDITIONS IN THE MOUNTAINS AND DESERTS...MAINLY DURING THE AFTERNOONS AND EVENINGS. THERE COULD ALSO BE ISOLATED DRIZZLE FROM THICK MARINE LAYER CLOUDS DURING THE NIGHTS AND MORNINGS. MAX TEMPS WILL REMAIN A LITTLE BELOW SEASONAL AVERAGES.
.LONG TERM (SAT-TUE)...MARINE LAYER CLOUDINESS WILL CONTINUE.
A WEAK SHORT WAVE RIDGE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY A WEAK UPPER TROUGH RESULTING IN SLIGHT WARMING SAT AND SUN THEN A LITTLE COOLING MON. WARMER TUE AS A STRONGER RIDGE BEGINS TO BUILD ALOFT.
Unstable weather:
Disappearing sea ice around the edge of the island is causing air temperatures to rise, which means that the semipermanent high-pressure system that forms over Greenland every winter is disappearing, bringing fog, snow, and unstable weather.
Sea levels rising worldwide means LOTS of problems, the least of which is an ice age in Europe:
Surface temperatures and ice-sheet velocity have risen exponentially at Swiss Camp over the past decade. It is a problem compounded by a new theory that Zwally and Steffen have developed about how ice tunnels, called "moulins," might be forming at a greater rate, speeding warming on the cap. Zwally points out that this is not just Greenland's problem. If warming continues at its current pace, Greenland's melting ice sheet will raise worldwide sea levels a startling 1.6 feet (less than a meter) in the next hundred years. Further melting could even shut off the warm ocean currents that keep Europe habitable, plunging it into an ice age.
No job for the ice dogs:
But since the winter sea ice disappeared in 2001, locals no longer use their dogs to hunt whales and seals trapped in a frozen Disko Bay. Other than the odd tourist trip up into the hills, these dogs are idle now. And so they whine and cry, until their owners decide that they're tired of wasting money on feeding them. The lucky ones are then shot. Most starve. According to Ilulissat's veterinarian, Marit Holm, 34, the Greenlandic dog population has declined nearly 25 percent in the past four years. "There's a tradition here to think of these dogs only as working dogs," she says, while tidying up her office, a chore that includes dragging a recently euthanized dog off her stoop. But since the dogs aren't earning their keep, she explains, people stop feeding them. "I spend 80 percent of my time doing animal-welfare work, traveling to the settlements just to kill dogs."
Losing money on tourist trade:
In years past, the shops made a good business of providing dog-sledging trips overland into the hills—a bumpy ride that lacks much of the grace and speed of gliding over ice. But the weather has warmed up too early this year and the trails are already too muddy. "I just got back," says a German woman who'd flown here a few days earlier to spend a week sledging on the nearby trails. "We got stuck in the mud on the first day, and the sledge driver had to call off the rest of the trip."
Surprise floods on the fjords because of ice calving killing people:
Signs on the water's edge warn against deadly flash floods. Stories abound of people being swept out to sea.
Possibly losing one of the most beautiful places on Earf:
The Jakobshavn Icefjord is one of the most beautiful places in the world. But its future is now in question.
The loss of the chance to kayak around some of those areas because of the dangers of the ice breaking up.
Losing weather stations:
Climatologist Konrad Steffen—fully clothed now—is trying to reestablish a weather station called JAR2, which has been incapacitated by melting ice. So much of it has vanished from beneath the station that its measurements of snow and ice depth are now completely inaccurate. To reset the station, Steffen needs to drill a hole 22 feet (7 meters) deep into solid ice. But every time he gets down 10 or 15 feet (3 or 5 meters), the drill finds a void caused, in part, by warming temperatures. It's frustrating work, and I swear I can hear Steffen curse the oil companies every time he has to restart the drill.
Losing good scientists trying to study the phenomenon:
Zwally relates a story about David Drewry, a British glaciologist who fell into a meltwater stream and was whisked along for several hundred yards, stopping short of a moulin by a mere hundred yards. A colleague of Steffen's wasn't so lucky and disappeared for good into one of these holes.?
And if Greenland's situation REALLY is a barometer for the world climate" as many scientists believe, we are all headed for drastic changes:
What's really cool—but just as terrifying—is how fast all of this is happening and how quickly scientists such as Zwally and Steffen have to move just to stay on top of it from year to year.
The point is this: The warming will affect areas far flung from Greenland, and the ice at both poles, if it continues.
To ignore it and say, "oh well, it's just Mother Nature doing her little thing" is simply silly.
There might be warming in some regions but the oceans are actually getting cooler - verified by a most recent study that you will never read in the paper.
As far as the oceans rising when the ice melts, does the water level in a glass rise or fall when the ice melts? It falls. Enough said on that matter.
We should all conserve our natural resources be careful how we use them. Oil is not a non-renewable resource as many believe. It does not come from fossils and should not be called fossil fuel. Oil is present in places where there is no evidence of the existence of fossils.
Have a great day and quit worrying so much. The dread and gloom is getting old. God will be the one who destroys the earth in His time.
Brad :shades:
That's unusual or bad? Standard weather everywhere I've lived.
Sea levels rising worldwide
Future conjecture. I go to the same beaches for the last 40 years.
Dogs dying. I'm sorry about that, but it sounds like lots of other animals benefit. More good than bad.
And the rest of your post contains very, very minor negatives. The fact is Greenland was warmer during the Viking period, than it is now, and that is proof that Mother Nature does go thru changes all by itself. You keep wanting to ignore that. You keep ignoring that the Earth is constantly changing - continents drift, earthquakes occur, mountains rise and are eroded, rivers cut canyons, seas dry up, deserts and jungles are formed, the climate goes up 10F and then it goes down 20F ...
To say that Mother Nature changing is silly is ignoring every bit of scientific fact. The burden of proof is on GW proponents not to just prove the Earth's climate is changing, BUT to PROVE it is changing outside of its normal pattern. The Earth has warmed and cooled many times - prove that this warming is not natural - the Earth's climate has gone up 1F many times.
I agree with Kernick the positives of growing food for people far out weigh the negatives of giving dog sled rides to tourists. The Greenland folks can now enjoy a few hundred years of decent weather before the next mini ice age.
And I am a thinking person, Gary, you know that. I have not bought into anyone's HYPE. I have just read the climate reports. And most of them say we are warming.
Until "most of them" say we are not warming, I'm using my BRAIN and staying with the most likely scenario.
Former Vice President Al Gore in an interview on NPR’s May 6 “Fresh Air” broadcast did just that. He was interviewed by “Fresh Air” host Terry Gross about the release of his book, “The Assault on Reason,” in paperback.
“And as we’re talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated,” Gore said. “And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.”
In October 2007, CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano disputed Gore’s claim that there is a strong correlation between intense storms and global warming. He explained that “global warming does not conclusively cause stronger hurricanes like we've seen,” pointing out that “by the end of this century we might get about a 5-percent increase.”
Hmmm, so by extension, anybody that strongly disagrees with you or your statements (me) is either a non-thinking person or an idiot? :confuse:
Sucking up carbon dioxide to combat global warming
HIGH-TECH IDEAS FACE COST ISSUES
By Alan Zarembo
Los Angeles Times
link title
and
with R and D & machines that USE CO2: a new source of energy!!!!
Time for the EnvironNazNeoCons to get with the program!!!
Ford first automaker to join Climate Registry (Straightline)
Of course you can always plant mango trees in some place they will not grow.
Getting the old cars off the roads would help the automakers survive too.
Let's see - my Outback is 11+ years old and my Quest will be 10 in December. I think the feds should entice me with some incentive money and tax rebates for trading those old carbon hogs in. I think $10,000 or $12,000 each would just about do it. :shades:
Not really. Most of the pollution is in the production, not the driving. Keeping a car on the road 10-15 years is much better for the environment than buying a new one every 3-8 years. Because we are a country built on the economics of planned obsolescence that is how our cars are built.
I find that highly unlikely. Why? Because the cost of converting used JDM cars to Left Hand Drive would simply make them way too expensive to be sold into the American market.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Hmmm, we have two Dodge Grand Caravans, both with the venerable 3.8 liter engine in them. The 1998 has nearly 160,000 miles on it and the 2003 has nearly 110,000 miles on it. Funny thing though, it is our 10 year old van that is the one that produces less smog. How can that be? Simple, the 1998 was bought in northern New Jersey and as such had to comply with the CARB rules that had been adopted by nearby New York, however, our 2003 was bought in New Hampshire and had the conventional 45 States pollution controls. Per the window stickers of the two vans, the older one is the cleaner one. Go figure.
We import low mileage used Japanese engines and transmissions. Most motors come complete with starter, distributer, alternator, carb/fuel injector, and flywheel. When finding a replacement motor or transmission for your car Import Engine Trans Warehouse offers you the most selection at the best price!
http://www.import-engine-trans.com/
Best Regards,
Shipo
No, that was not my point at all, in any way shape or form. If you read the post I was responding to at the time, Gary had sidehandedly mentioned something in his post about "thinking people" and had intimated that I was not in that group because of my GW views.
I put that statement in there just to let him know that I do not deserve to be put outside his group of thinking people.
I don't accuse people of being non-thinkers.
Apparently there are about 170 accounts of a great Flood from people scattered over thousands of miles, that occurred 4,800 years ago. Scientists theorize and have evidence (rocks) of a comet strike in the Indian Ocean at this time. The comet was about 3 miles in diameter, travelling about 100,000 mph. When it hit in the water it hit with the energy of 30,000,000 megatons of TNT. (This compares to the world's nuclear weapon stockpile which is under 100,000 megatons which we think is incredible). This energy vaporized vast amounts of water and rock, and yes created havoc for a few years around the world.
Did it destroy the Earth? Did it kill all life? Did it even kill off all humans? Or did it stop civilization from progressing? No, no, no, no. So I really don't think a little CO2 - ppm increase is going to destroy Earth.
BTW - the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was 100,000,000 megatons, and guess what - life survived.
I also would echo Gagrice's statements that GW is nothing more than a scare-tactic to push other agenda and to gain power and prominence for a few.
And GW might be a "money grab" for a select few.
But the evidence of warming is not falsely created data. There are thousands of climate scientists who have produced peer-reviewed studies on the warming.
It's the CAUSE of the warming and the EFFECTS on global climate that is in question.
Just like two people can completely independently create a cost/benefit analysis on any investment and have it look completely different, two climate scientists with different opinions can come up with two totally different scenarios based on the same data.
That's why the GW debate is so frustrating. Everyone can show that they are right !!
The dinosaurs didn't. :P
Maybe we're the next dinosaurs....
"There is no Fate but what we make for ourselves"
John Connor, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines