Global warming caused by the SUN who would have GUESED

[longtimer]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

The real cause is the Sun is putting out more energy.

http://boards.ign.com/teh_vestibule/b5296/134350427/p9
Some points about Global Warming

1. the primary greenhouse gass is water vapor, not man made CO2
2. water vapor comes from the oceans, rivers, lakes and streams of the planet.
3. we do not and cannot control the evaporation of these water masses.
4. CO2 is not a poison in the atmoshpere: example: the goal of eliminating caustic emmissions from automobiles is to reduce those emmissions to two harmless substances: water vapor and CO2. Clean running automobiles spew out only water vapor and CO2. CO2 is colorless (it is not what you see eminating from smoke stacks. It cannot be seen.),odorless, formless and harmless to man. We make CO2 in our bodies from oxygen and we exahale CO2 into the atmosphere everytime we breath. All mamals produce CO2 by breathing. In turn, plants consume the CO2 and "breath out" oxygen. The less CO2 plants have , the less oxygen the produce. The less oxygen plants produce, the less breathable air man has.
5. CO2 (carbon dioxide) is an airborn fertilizer for plants on the earth. It causes plants to grow better, be healthier, retain moisture and produce more fruits. The CO2 produced by man is primarily consumed by the earth's plants and very little of it ever reaches the atmosphere.
6. there is NOT a scientific consensus that global warming is the product of CO2 production. The only consensus is that global warming is part of an extended cycle of the earth's warming and cooling and that our current cycle is part of end of the little ice age. Most scientists agree that the earth's natural climate is actually much warmer than our current climate. Many scientistific studies used in Al Gores movie actually prove the opposite of his disaster theory and the scientists who did the studies recommended specifically against drawing the kinds of conclusions Al Gore has drawn based on those studies.
7. the ice caps are melting very slowly because we are leaving an ice age, not because man is producing CO2
8. the ice caps have been melting since the 1880s, long before man was creating CO2 through technology, and continue to melt at approximately the same rate now as they were then.
9. the sea level rises of 20 feet are a severe exageration of the truth. The United Nations committee has recently back peddled on this estimate, bringing theirs inline with actual science. Approximate 7 inches to 23 inches over the next century or more. The rise is gradual, it is nothing new, and it will not displace billions of people.
10. the polar bears are not threatened. 4 bears died in one month due to a sudden wind storm. It was a lot for one month, but it has not recurred before or since. There is no evidence that their deaths had anything to do with global temperature.

I remember in the 1960s we were being told that the world was getting colder and pretty soon the ice at the north and south poles was going to be so heavy that it was going to spin the earth out of its orbit and we were all going to die. This was supposed to happen in my life time. Politicians, actors, famous writers of the time were all shouting about our impending doom then and a few fringe scientists were doing the same. The main core of scients , however, were saying then what they are saying now, this was a cooling cycle that would end soon and a warming cycle would begin. When the warming cycle began the same alarmists who panicked that the planet was never going to stop cooling took up the "global warming disaster" banner, and again, are doing the same thing, while ignoring the actual scientific studies and the core scientists who do them.

I meet young people every day ( I am an old person) who think that the world is about to end because of human CO2 production. They sincerely believe that ALL scientists are in agreement on this and this is no longer speculation, but a scientific fact. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Young people have a lot of life ahead of them. Wasting it on panic driven non-scientific disaster fears is unworthy. If youth desires to put its energy into a better future for mankind, why not look at distributing the cure for malaria or leprosy instead of worrying about global warming and the weather? We can cure these two devestating illnesses for very little money today and yet, millions die of these diseases around the world because we will not devote the resources to getting them the cure. Yet, we are talking about devoting huge quantities of the world's resources to stopping CO2 production just on the word of a handful of people who , without proof, made a very dramatic and beleivable film fiction?

The prevention of CO2 production is unnecessary and would be very harmful to the most vulnerable people in the world, the poor. It is an elitist concept, that 1st world countries have their energy and can afford the shift, and 2nd and 3rd world countries will simply have to do without. And, if the elimination of manmade CO2 is the goal, then 2nd and 3rd world countries will have to be tethered and bound by the same limitations, which means, they will be prevented from creating cheap efficient energy sources for their people. More people will die from a global ban on CO2 than would ever die from Al Gore's fictional global disaster of rising waters.

Finally, and young people should consider this, Al Gore and many like him would like Americans to pay a tax on the air we breath. The first step towards implementing such a tax is to convince people that CO2 (product of breathing) is bad for the world and must be "offset" . Al Gore buys "offsets" for his CO2 usage, and at present anyone can do the same thing if they wish. (It should be noted that apparently, I have no presonal knowledge but according to a number of research journalists this is true, Al Gore owns the company from which he buys the "offsets" for his production of CO2)
However, Al Gore believes the government should REQUIRE everyone to purchase them. The government would determine averages for the breathing of say your children and wife and yourself and bill you for the "offsets" which you would have to purchase.

This is a tax on the air you breath folks. And,if Al Gore gets his way, you are the generation that will have to pay it. Us old folks used to have a saying, "the tax everything else, someday they'll tax the air we breath..." I never thought I would see it, but the camel has his nose in the tent and if the young people do not object, he will occupy the tent soon enough.

If you are interested in reading more about the scientists who do NOT agree with Al Gore, and there are thousands of them, you can get some information at www.cei.org

Don't take anyone's word for it. Never fall for the "consensus" argument, because consensus does not equal truth. Man has held consensus on many subjects that were not true: witchcraft, eugenics, salvery, to name a few. Fact is , consensus just means that the objections are being ignored.

I may never get back here. I am old and have a lot to do each day. But, I like young people and I hope this will contribute something to your discussion and give you things to think about. Still, you should do more reading and research before you make up your mind. And I hope you all learn things that help you in the process.

Finally, if I mispelled words or left out punctuation, I apologize. I am writing quickly here and may have typed incorrectly.

[mhgaffney]

If you are correct, the next question is: what is causing the sun to heat up?

[longtimer]

If you are correct, the next question is: what is causing the sun to heat up?

It seems to be a natural Cycle, When you look at MARS the polar caps there are melting to and to my knowledge man is not burning focil fuels on that planet.

I head that insects produce more Co2 than mankind does.

[longtimer]

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020314231701data_trunc_sys.shtml

This supports the fact that nature produce Co2 in huge quantities.

[Requiem]

ya and jesus was my friend 2

[Sassy]

Uh oh...he's plastered and getting religious on us! Ha!

[longtimer]

ya and jesus was my friend 2

The scientific facts show that man is 10th on the list of Co2 producers. all of the others are natural causes.
i need to find the list I read.

But when I was in junior high The wacko treehugger's said that by the year 2000 we would be in a new ice age. the same wacko tree huger now so called scientist are saying man is the only cause of the global warming. The facts do not support what crapp they are trying to force feed us.

[longtimer]

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/03/my_latest_townhall_column_10_q.php
I found this some good question that I have never heard any good answers to.

10 Questions For Al Gore And The Global Warming Crowd
I'll be the first to admit that like most conservatives, I'm deeply skeptical of the idea that mankind is causing global warming. Is that because I take payoffs from the energy industry, don't like Al Gore, don't like science, or any of the other silly excuses global warming alarmists come up with to explain why people don't buy their theory?

No.

It's because “the Earth-is-going-to-burn-us-alive” crowd cannot answer the most basic questions about the theory that they haughtily insist is so beyond reproach that there should be no more need for debate. In fact, the most ironic thing about the global warming argument is that Al Gore and Company have declared that it’s settled, but they have to use scary stories about cities being flooded a hundred years from now and fake tales about polar bears drowning to sell it. If they're on such rock solid scientific ground, why doesn't the science speak for itself? Does anyone remember Sir Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein trying to get people to buy into their scientific theories by coming up with doomsday scenarios? No, of course not.

Despite that, like most conservatives, I'm open minded and could be convinced that mankind is responsible for causing global warming -- but with science, not scaremongering. If the proponents of the manmade global warming theory can come up with good answers to questions like these, you can expect everyone, including me, to accept their theory:

1) The earth has warmed and cooled numerous times in the past and many of those temperature swings have been much greater than anything we've experienced so far. So, since we human beings don't really understand why those temperature swings occurred, how can we be sure that the very mild warming we've seen so far hasn't been caused by normal changes in our climate?

2) If greenhouse gasses produced by mankind are behind the roughly one degree increase in temperature over the last century, then why did the global temperature go down from roughly 1940 to 1975 even though mankind's production of greenhouse gasses was skyrocketing during that same time period?

3) We can't accurately predict whether it's going to rain or not a week from now. We can't accurately predict what the weather will look like next year (Remember that in 2005, they were predicting we'd be hammered with non-stop hurricanes in 2006 because of global warming. It didn't happen). Since that's the case, how can we possibly have any confidence in predictions of what the weather will be like in 50-100 years?

4) Mars has also been experiencing global warming. Since man can't be a factor on that planet, doesn't it suggest that perhaps a factor other than man, i.e. the sun, is responsible for the warming on both planets?

5) Back in the early seventies, the in-vogue scientific theory was that we were in the midst of global cooling that was caused by man. Now, it turns out that there was nothing much behind that except that the global temperature was getting cooler. So, where did they go wrong back in the early seventies and how do we know that we're not making the same type of mistake today in forecasting global warming?

6) Global warming alarmists will tell you that there is "scientific consensus" that mankind is causing global warming and that only a few scientists disagree. But, there are more than 17,200 scientists who say that, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." Since that's the case, how can anyone credibly claim that there is "scientific consensus" on the issue?

7) Even if mankind was responsible for global warming, how would the solutions that are being offered, like Kyoto or carbon credit trading schemes, fix the problem? Big developing countries like India and China are exempt from Kyoto and unlikely to sign on to any deal that hurts their economy, Europe isn't meeting its Kyoto goals, and environmentalists say Kyoto wouldn't fix the problem even if all of its targets are met.

8) In Bill Bryson's book on science, "A Short History Of Nearly Everything," (and yes, Bryson does appear to be a believer in manmade global warming), he notes that,

"For most of its history until fairly recent times, the general pattern was for earth to be hot with no permanent ice anywhere." -- P.427

That would seem to suggest that despite everything we hear about the "hottest temperatures on record," the global temperature is significantly cooler than it has been throughout much of earth's history. Since that’s the case, is the small change in global temperature we’ve seen so far really out of the ordinary or anything to be alarmed about?

9) As Carl Zimmer has noted in Discover, at times in the earth's past, we've had considerably more carbon dioxide in the air that we do today, and yet it's debatable whether the temperature was significantly warmer,


"During the Ordovician Period, 440 million years ago, there seems to have been 16 times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is today--and yet, judging from the gravelly deposits it left behind, there was also an ice sheet near the South Pole that was four-fifths the size of present-day Antarctica. The second exception is even more troubling. The Cretaceous Period, when dinosaurs ruled the Earth and CO2 levels were about eight times what they are today, has been one of the most popular case studies for global warming forecasters. And everyone knows what the climate was like during the dinosaurs’ heyday: steamy. Or was it? The latest evidence, reported just this past summer by British researchers, suggests that temperatures in the tropics 95 million years ago were no higher than they are now; and while it was a lot warmer at the poles than it is today, it was still freezing cold."

Doesn’t this suggest that there isn’t anywhere near as much of a close relationship between greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide and the temperature as many people seem to believe?

10) Skeptics of manmade global warming have often pointed out that the rise in global temperature seems to track much more closely to increased solar activity than it does to an increase in manmade greenhouse gasses. Doesn't that seem to strongly suggest that the sun, not mankind, is more likely to be responsible for global warming?

Bonus Question) If people like Al Gore believe their own hype and think it's necessary for us to cut back our energy consumption, why aren't they practicing what they preach? If a global warming fanatic like Al Gore can’t get by on less than 20 times the amount of energy that a regular family uses, how can we reasonably expect the average family to dramatically cut their energy usage?

Quite frankly, if you buy into manmade global warming, you should have good answers for these questions or, if you don't, admit that your opinion is based more on faith and guesswork than it is on science.

[Atlas]

whatever. We all need top by land about 10 miles from the ocean and in 50 years we'll all have beach front property.

[epicSocialism4tw]

If you are correct, the next question is: what is causing the sun to heat up?

It has to be the mini nukes that Bush has been sending into the sun. He's going to destroy the sun so that he can corner the market on light.

All I know is that if there is something wrong, Bush is behind it and we must force guilt upon ourselves about it.

[Willynowei]

You'd have to be borderline dellusional to really believe that global warming is little more than a climate/astronomical cycle.

[Drek]

That article you linked is **** and generally full of spin doctoring of which it occuses the global warming freaks.

Despite that, it does have a few valid points. Our CO2 emitions weigh very little in the grand scheme of an unavoidable planetary warming cycle, but the climate of an entire planet is far too complex for anyone to truly weigh it. It might be the straw that broke the camel's back, or it might be a small insignificant drop in the bucket. That said, in all reality you can accept one of two theories.

Theory 1: The Holocene isn't real, we're still in the Pleistocene and likely would've seen another ice age if it weren't for the industrial revolution. Our CO2 emissions are causing global warming, but it is averting another ice age from coming.

Theory 2: The Pleistocene has ended and with it the ice ages of just 11,500 years ago. The "little ice age" was a death rattle from a cold period and we now are entering another warming cycle. Global warming is not a human generated phenomenon.

Its your choice for disaster theory, either we're all going to freeze or we're all going to melt. Me personally? I take theory #2 with a healthy dose of "who the **** cares?" Buy an air conditioner. All global warming means is those rich pricks with private islands and beach front property in the lower lattitudes will sweat their balls off while the rest of us get milder winters and nicers springs/falls in exchange for a slightly higher cooling bill in the summer.

That said, rapid consumption of our fossil fuels carries many non-environmental evils. Foremost of which is the political ramifications it can thrust us into (hello "War for Oil" and UN members, such as France and China, acting against international laws to keep their oil flowing).

Also, we aren't totally innocent on the environmental destruction deal. Not only have we managed to skeeze up just about 80% of all lakes and streams in our country (can't imagine what its like in second and third world countries trying to industrialize) with ground level polutants and tore up enough forrests to knee cap all the other less sentient species on our planet, we've also managed to poke a giant hole in the O-Zone layer, the very thing protecting us from UV rays.

Thats the real thing we should be worried about. Since the industrial revolution CO2 production has gone up significantly, but its still only fractions increased over previous levels. It has as much to do with deforrestation as it does fossil fuel burning. What we should be worried about is the 370% spike in CFCs since the industrial revolution. A contaminent that basically didn't exist pre-technology and that specifically breaks apart O3 (O-Zone) particles.

You wonder where this sudden rise in cancer is coming from? Its not the drinking water or the steroid fed cows. Its the dramatic rise in UV rays we're all getting bombarded with, day in and day out.

Want to help the environment? You're doing more by setting down the arosol can than car pooling to work.

[ton80]

Enjoyed the reads Longtimer. Thanks.

[DenverBrit]

One thing's for sure.

When the ice melts and the oceans rise, those of us living a 'Mile high' will have lots of company. :wave:

[SonOfLe-loLang]

ahhhh, typical republican bull****. Lets have one scientist disagree with thousands and do nothing to save money! great idea!

[longtimer]

Enjoyed the reads Longtimer. Thanks.

Just seems like the media no longer practices journalisium but only tries to give the public what they think will further their own views. News as they interpret it. The public is not smart enough to understand the events so they have tell us what it really means instead of just reporting the facts on both sides of an issue.

[longtimer]

ahhhh, typical republican bull****. Lets have one scientist disagree with thousands and do nothing to save money! great idea!

Problem is that the scientist are spit down the middle on this one. We do not hear the other side due to the bias of the media outlets.

I would like to see the USA solve the need for fosal fuels due to the health risks of having to breath that crap. When I search google I find more research that sujest the sun is the major cause not mankind. this sujests it is a naturual cycle.

[Rock Chalk]

ahhhh, typical republican bull****. Lets have one scientist disagree with thousands and do nothing to save money! great idea!

Tell me SonOfLe-loLang oh ye of very little intelligence.

How many times in human history has the Earth warmed and cooled?

Want to take a guess?

14. 14 different major climactic shifts.

Want to guess how many were produced since the dawn of civilization? 2.

Want to guess how many since industrialization? 0.

Yet, the Earth is undergoing climactic change...again...and all of a sudden its our puny fault?

Left wing alarmist.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Just seems like the media no longer practices journalisium but only tries to give the public what they think will further their own views. News as they interpret it. The public is not smart enough to understand the events so they have tell us what it really means instead of just reporting the facts on both sides of an issue.

The news media at large has always been a propaganda industry. There is no direct connection to the government outside of oversight committees like the FCC, but there are indirect connections through elite ownership and lobby dollars.

[Garcia Bronco]

One thing's for sure.

When the ice melts and the oceans rise, those of us living a 'Mile high' will have lots of company. :wave:

BS...sometimes...you gotta thin the roster

[fdf]

ahhhh, typical republican bull****. Lets have one scientist disagree with thousands and do nothing to save money! great idea!

Well, you express the popular opinion, which has been shaped by the media onslaught about global warming for the past several years. I actually know a little about this subject professionally and academically. Maybe the following might help you assess the media onslaught. First, my qualifications. I run a company that does computer modeling and am one of the authors of a leading graduate level textbook on computer modeling. As the ENTIRE case for global warming is built on computer models, I think I can speak fairly well on the subject.

1. Your notion that few scientists disagree with the global warming hypothesis is just wrong. I attend lots of scientific conferences, mostly in earth sciences. Virtually all of the folks I talk to there about this subject (serious scientists) share my opinion on man-made global warming which is: maybe it's true but there's almost no serious scientific support for the hypothesis. But folks are very cautious before expressing this opinion. The reason: it is widely believed in the scientific community that the best way to lose government grants or not be granted tenure at a university is to become an outspoken critic of the "science" behind the man-made global warming hypothesis.

2. The entire case for man-made global warming is based on two things: theoretical computer models and the claim that CO2 levels have increased dramatically in the 20th century. Regarding models, that happens as follows: some smart guys say "I think the following factors are the important ones and they interact in this way using the following parameters." Then they run the model in the computer and simulate the earth's climate for a hundred years or so, assuming of course, that their model actually corresponds to reality.

The key to computer modeling, which I do professionally, is to validate the model against reality. That is, when it runs, it needs to actually correspond to what happens in the real world. There are two kinds of validation, weak and strong. Weak validation is when the model actually predicts what happened IN THE PAST. This is a very dangerous technique of validation and has to be applied VERY carefully. Otherwise, you get terrible models in terms of predicting the future. Strong validation occurs if the model makes a surprising prediction about the future that would not be predicted by other models and that prediction comes true.

Here is the record of validation for global warming models:

- Strong validation. No global warming model has EVER made a surprising prediction about the future that has come true.

- Weak validation. No global warming model, when run on the known data from the past actually makes predictions that correspond to what really happened.

This is not surprising. Climate is a very complex system. Meteorologists are hard pressed to predict weather a week out. Why should we blindly accept models that claim to predict the earth's climate 100 years out?

3. Now, regarding CO2 levels. I'll assume in this post that there is, in fact, a verifiable 20th spike in CO2 levels, although some recent studies have cast serious doubt on that. The argument is, CO2 has gone up. Temperature has gone up. Therefore, the increase in CO2 has caused the increase in temperature.

It is, of course, a fundamental scientific error to draw this conclusion. Just because two things happen together does not mean that one causes the other. In fact, the ice-core studies going back hundreds of thousands of years show temperature spikes, frequently associated with CO2 spikes. But curiously, the CO2 often increases AFTER the temperature increase has already occurred. In other words, it is just as likely that increasing temperatures cause CO2 spikes as the other way around.

4. A brief mention of the "hockey stick." The hockey stick was the central evidence presented by global warmingists for years. It showed flat temperatures for years and then a sudden bend upward (don't recall the date but it was in the 20th century). Every global warming article had a picture of the hockey stick. Then, a couple of years ago, some statisticians looked at the code that produced the hockey stick and proved conclusively that the hockey stick was an artifact of a software bug in performing a procedure called Principal Components Analysis. The global warmingist's software would find a hockey stick in virtually ANY data.

The important thing here is that the response by the global warming community was not to reassess their conclusions. They just dropped the hockey stick like a hot potato and kept issuing the alarmist press releases. That ain't science. It's politics masquerading as science.

4. On the other hand, the recent studies of the relationship between solar cycles and earth's temperature explain a very large amount of the variance in Earth's temperature using just solar output. The statistics are quite impressive in terms of its fit to past data. So it's validation in the "weak testing" sense I discussed above is quite good-- many times better than the validation for any of the global warming computer models. And, the solar output theory actually makes a prediction that can be tested. It predicts that global temperature should slowly start down (don't remember the date but it's not too far out) as the current solar high abates.

5. Finally, a note on the politics as you seem to be interested in that, most of all. Doesn't it strike you as somewhat concerning that a small group of people in the UN, Europe and the US insist that there is a huge crisis (global warming) that can only be solved by giving them control over the entire world economy? Most of them are socialists; and it just happens that the crisis de jour absolutely requires that everyone hand them the power they so desperately crave for other reasons.

6. I'm agnostic about the conclusion that we will ultimately reach. The global warming folks have a hypothesis. Currently, the evidence for that hypothesis is weak. The solar hypothesis is, imho, considerably better supported by evidence today. But it is possible that the man-made global warming folks are right and they will eventually be able to make a case. But they have not presented it yet. On that case, I am not even close to prepared to turn control of the global economy over to Al Gore.

[ton80]

Just seems like the media no longer practices journalisium but only tries to give the public what they think will further their own views. News as they interpret it. The public is not smart enough to understand the events so they have tell us what it really means instead of just reporting the facts on both sides of an issue.

To add to your thought, tv news programming is driven by selling commercial time. That means the news programming must cater to the fools that can be manipulated by slick advertising. The ones that can be manipulated by slick advertising are more than likely not going to interested in an honest discussion of global warming. That's why the likes of Fox News and CNN (choose your news network) spend more time shoveling the Anna Nicole Smith stories, the Scott Peterson stories, and the dunce Aruba story than actual important topics like climate change.

People that are interested in learning something important aren't going to be suckered by slick advertising. Those that can be suckered by slick advertising aren't interested in important topics. Bottom line, its all about money. An intellectual stimulating global warming debate ain't going to generate advertising revenue.

[longtimer]

Watch this good info

http://publish.vx.roo.com/g6publish/common/playlist/asxgeneratorportal.aspx?siteId=78c91922-bbee-425b-83d2-094b1a91b30b&clipId=1094_102085&channel=National%

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21542564-421,00.html

Mankind 'can't influence' climateBy Simon Kirby
April 12, 2007 01:47am
Article from: AAPFont size: + -
Send this article: Print Email

Solar activity a greater climate change driver than man
'0.1 per cent of carbon dioxide due to human activity'
Geologist says he doesn't care if no-one agrees - Video

MANKIND is naive to think it can influence climate change, according to a prize-winning Australian geologist.

Solar activity is a greater driver of climate change than man-made carbon dioxide, argues Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide and winner of several notable science prizes.

“When meteorologists can change the weather then we can start to think about humans changing climate,” Prof Plimer said.

“I think we really are a little bit naive to think we can change astronomical and solar processes.”

Speaking last night after presenting his theory for the first time, to the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy in Sydney, Prof Plimer said he had researched the history of the sun, solar and supernovae activity and had been able to correlate global climates with solar activity.

“But correlations don't mean anything, you really need a causation,” Prof Plimer said.

So he then examined how cosmic radiation builds up clouds.

A very active sun blows away the cosmic radiation, while a less active sun allows radiation to build up, he said.

“So you can very much tie in temperature, cloud formation, cosmic radiation and the sun,” he said.

The next part of Prof Plimer's research was to examine the sources of carbon dioxide.

He said he found that about 0.1 per cent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide was due to human activity and much of the rest due to little-understood geological phenomena.

Prof Plimer also argued El Nino and La Nina were caused by major processes of earthquake activity and volcanic activity in the mid-ocean ridges, rather than any increase in greenhouse gases.

Nor does the melting of polar ice have anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide, he said.

“Great icebergs come off, not due to temperature change but due to the physics of ice and the flow of ice,” Prof Plimer said.

“There's a lag, so that if temperature rises, carbon dioxide rises 800 years later.

“If ice falls into the ocean in icebergs that's due to processes thousands of years ago.”

On the same basis, changes to sea level and temperature are also unrelated to anything happening today, he said.

“It is extraordinarily difficult to argue that human-induced carbon dioxide has any effect at all,” he said.

Prof Plimer added that as the planet was already at the maximum absorbance of energy of carbon dioxide, any more would have no greater effect.

There had even been periods in history with hundreds of times more atmospheric carbon dioxide than now with “no problem”, he said.

The professor, a member of the Australian Skeptics, an organisation devoted to debunking pseudo-scientific claims, denied his was a minority view.

“You'd be very hard pushed to find a geologist that would differ from my view,” he said.

He said bad news was more fashionable now than good and that people had an innate tendency to want to be a little frightened.

But Prof Plimer conceded the politics of greenhouse gas emissions meant that attention was being given to energy efficiency, which he supported.

The professor, who is writing a book on the subject, said he only used validated scientific data, published in reputable peer-reviewed refereed journals, as the basis of his theories.



Share this article (What is this?)Digg this Post to del.icio.us Post to Newsvine RSS
NEWS.com.au is not responsible for the content for external internet sites

Related storiesWater grab: Drought-hit state urged to tap NSW's river supply
Audio and Video
Video: 'It's not popular, but it's the truth'
Today's Top Picks
Girls, girls, girls
In pictures: Bikini babes from around the world hit the beach in Mexico ahead of judging in the Miss Universe contest later this month.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brought to you by

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
Have Your SayLatest Comments:
Yes, I totally agree with Professor Plimer. Although we do create pollution, it is not substantial enough to cause Global Catastrophy. I have long doubted the "Carbon Dioxide" theory and "Greenhouse Gasses". Carbon Dioxide is a heavy gas and tend to sink instead of float in our atmosphere. Most of the pollution we create can be neutralised if we have better management of our resources. I sincerely think we should not just talk about pollution or industrial emissions but try to do something positive to reduce it. This article only explains what is happening to the best of the data availble, but it does not mean that we have to be complacent.
Posted by: Prosper Ooi of Rockhampton Australia 11:48am April 19, 2007 Professor Plimer makes reasonably valid points in his argument... if you look at things on a geological timescale. The impact that human society is having on the planet at the moment is small when you look at that scale. The big difference this time around is that there are over 6.5 billion people on the planet. We haven't been through even small changes in climate since the earth has been this populated. The planet and the environment will recover (perhaps with a few changes), but there are serious implications for human society and displaced populations in much shorter timescales that what Prof Plimer is talking about.
Posted by: Jonathan Hodge of Brisbane 4:10pm April 17, 2007 Yes, we must stop raping the planet to feed American Imperialism, but the Global Warming scam will not be about conservation, sustainable technology, or anything of the like. It will be all about CARBON CREDITS, like the ones billionaire Al Gore just bought so he can impress his friends with his obscenely huge house. It will be about reducing the population by starving as many of us peasants out as possible, and it will be about more stealing, lying, raping and pillaging by the predatory class. Can't afford carbon credits? Then you don't drive, heat your home, in fact you don't LIVE in a home. And you better pay your global carbon tax or you don't breathe, ****, or die, either. When they eliminate the middle class, what's left will be easier to brainwash and/or kill off as the whim suits them. Just look at Africa. I guarantee you that zero ecological improvements will occur until we storm DC and drag the psychopaths out of the capitol.
Posted by: Julie Crist 8:16am April 15, 2007

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Perhaps that is true, perhaps its not, but, as you said, global warming is simply the CO2 not letting the reflected rays exit the atmosphere. No one is saying that our CO2 production is the SOLE reason for it, but we are ADDING to the problem by pumping so much of it into the air everyday.

And, even if man made global warming is not true (which i seriously doubt), if its an excuse to get off foriegn dependancy of oil, its worth it. A cleaner energy source that we can provide (like wind energy..which i understand will cost more, but i, as a socialist, wouldn't mind paying for self improvement of the whole) can only help the environment and the country. Sitting around and doing nothing claiming, "nothing we do will help anyway" is the exact reason that America is not the superpower it once was.

[longtimer]

Perhaps that is true, perhaps its not, but, as you said, global warming is simply the CO2 not letting the reflected rays exit the atmosphere. No one is saying that our CO2 production is the SOLE reason for it, but we are ADDING to the problem by pumping so much of it into the air everyday.

And, even if man made global warming is not true (which i seriously doubt), if its an excuse to get off foriegn dependancy of oil, its worth it. A cleaner energy source that we can provide (like wind energy..which i understand will cost more, but i, as a socialist, wouldn't mind paying for self improvement of the whole) can only help the environment and the country. Sitting around and doing nothing claiming, "nothing we do will help anyway" is the exact reason that America is not the superpower it once was.

I would like to see the USA fund any energy source that would allow us to fill our tanks with water as a way to make hydrogen. See other thread on the subject.

The only problem is that when we switch we will find problems with burning Hydrogen like some desert critter will become endangered because of all the water that we a making is ruining the ecosystem in the Arizona dessert.

The tree hugger wackos will never be happy until we go back to being cave men and cave women prior to the use of fire.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Hey, whoever thought we could get a grad-level mini course on computer modeling in this forum?

Thanks for sharing, fdf.

[longtimer]

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat
by Roy W. Spencer
(last updated March 9, 2007)
Introduction
Here I present a simplified (but hopefully accurate) explanation of the basics of global warming - call it a global warming primer. First, I will address the issue of how warm we are today, and some possible explanations for that warmth. Next, I'll briefly describe the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and global warming theory. Finally, I will explain the "thermostatic control" mechanism that I believe stabilizes the climate system against substantial global warming from mankind's greenhouse gas emissions. Some of what I will present is an extension of Richard Lindzen's "infrared iris" effect, support for which has been recently found in satellite measurements.


Warming Over the Last Century
There is little doubt that globally averaged temperatures are unusually warm today (at this writing, 2007). While a majority of climate researchers believe that this warmth is mostly (or completely) due to the activities of mankind, this is as much a statement of faith as it is science. For in order to come to such a conclusion, we would need to know how much of the temperature increase we've seen since the 1800's is natural. So, let's examine current temperatures in their historical context. Over the last 100 years or so (see Fig.1) globally-averaged surface temperature trends have exhibited three distinct phases.


Fig. 1. Globally averaged surface temperature variations (deg. C) over the last century (through 2006) have shown warming until about 1940 (which must have been natural), then a slight cooling until the 1970's (either natural or the result of aerosol pollution), then steady warming since the 1970's (J. Hansen, NASA/GISS).

The warming up until 1940 represents the end of the multi-century cool period known as the "Little Ice Age" which was, historically, a particularly harsh period for humanity. This warming must have been natural because mankind had not yet emitted substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Then, the slight cooling between 1940 and the 1970's occurred in spite of rapid increases in manmade greenhouse gases. One theory is that this cooling is manmade -- from particulate pollution. Finally, fairly steady warming has occurred since the 1970's. It should be noted that there is still some controversy over whether the upward temperature trend seen in Fig. 1 still contains some spurious warming from the urban heat island effect, which is due to a replacement of natural vegetation with manmade structures (buildings, parking lots, etc.) around thermometer sites.


Warming Over the Last Millenium
Thus, at least in the context of the last century or more, today's global temperatures are unusually warm. But when was the last time that the Earth was this warm?. You might have heard claims in the news that we are warmer now than anytime in the last 1,000 years. This claim is based upon the "Hockey Stick" temperature curve (Fig. 2) which used temperature 'proxies', mostly tree rings, to reconstruct a multi-century temperature record. That "warmest in 1,000 years" claim lost much of its support, however, when a National Acadamy of Science review panel concluded in 2006 that the most that can be said with any confidence is that the Earth is warmer now than anytime in the last 400 years. (Note that this is a good thing, since most of those 400 years occurred during the Little ice Age.)
Fig. 2. The Mann et al. (1998) proxy (mostly tree ring) reconstruction of global temperature over the last 1,000 years is believed to have erroneously minimized the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP).

But it turns out we don't need to use "proxies" for temperature like tree ring measurements -- there are actual temperature 'measurements' that go back over 1,000 years. 'Borehole' temperatures are taken deep in the ground, where the seasonal cycle in surface temperature sends an annual temperature "pulse" down into the Earth. A measurement and dating of these pulses from Greenland (Fig. 3) reveals much warmer temperatures 1,000 years ago than today.


Fig. 3. The GRIP (Greenland) borehole record is one of the best records because it is not a proxy, it is a DIRECT measure of temperature. Shown are the last 2000 years. (Dahl-Jensen et al. 1998, Science, 282, 268-271 "Past Temperatures Directly from the Greenland Ice Sheet"). A similar reconstruction occurs for the Ural Mountain borehole temperatures (i.e. warmer 1000 years ago, Bemeshko, D., V.A. Schapov, Global and Planetary Change, 2001.

Note that such methods for dating temperatures cause a "smearing" of the signal in time. Because of this smearing effect, decadal-time scale temperature "spikes" probably occurred during the MWP which are smoothed out in Fig. 3. If we could see those temperature spikes that undoubtedly occurred during the MWP, our current warmth would seem even less significant.


Thus, we see that substantial natural variations in temperature can, and do, occur -- which should be no surprise. So, is it possible that much of the warming we have seen since the 1970's is due to natural processes that we do not yet fully understand? I believe so. To believe that all of today's warmth can be blamed on manmade pollution is a statement of faith that assumes the role of natural variations in the climate system is small or nonexistent.


If We Can't Explain It, It Must Be Human-Induced
The fact is, science doesn't understand why these natural climate variations occur, and can not reliably distinguish between natural and possible human influences on global temperatures. So, if scientists have no other natural explanation for a warming trend, they tend to assume that it is manmade. And it is indeed possible to explain the temperature changes over the last 100 years by carefully tuning climate models with some estimated effects from volcanic eruptions, sunlight intensity variations, manmade aerosol emissions, and greenhouse gas increases. But this is simply one possible explanation -- one that largely ignores possible natural sources of temperature variability.


As a result, how worried we are about global warming is directly related to how much faith we have that natural climate variations (for instance, a small change in low-level cloudiness) are not substantially contributing to our current warmth. "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Global warming is our hammer, and so every change we see in the climate system that we can not otherwise explain tends to look like a nail.


Climate Prediction and Weather Forecasting Are Not the Same
Before describing the greenhouse effect and climate models, we first need to clear up a common misconception about forecasts of global warming. There are two quite different kinds of forecasting of atmospheric behavior: weather prediction, and climate prediction. Weather prediction involves measuring the state of the atmosphere at a given time and then using a computer program containing equations (a 'numerical model') to predict how the weather will evolve in the coming days. Simply stated, these 'initial condition' models extrapolate the measured atmospheric behavior of the atmosphere out into the future. They have been quite successful at short ranges (a few days), and their skill is slowly improving over time, but that skill drops to close to zero at about 10 days.


In contrast to weather prediction models, the purpose of climate models is not to get a good 3 day or 10 day forecast. Climate models are instead run for much longer periods of simulated time - many years to centuries. Their purpose is to determine how the model's climate (average weather) is affected when one of the rules -- 'boundary conditions' -- by which the atmosphere operates is changed in the model.


In the case of global warming, that rule change is mankind's addition of greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, which then affects the model's 'greenhouse effect' -- the way in which the model atmosphere processes infrared (radiant heat) energy.


The Earth's Natural Greenhouse Effect
Global warming is all about mankind's small enhancement of the Earth's natural 'greenhouse effect'. The greenhouse effect refers to the trapping of infrared (heat) radiation by water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other minor greenhouse gases (see Fig. 4). You can think of the greenhouse effect as a sort of 'blanket' -- one that operates on infrared radiation rather than by physically trapping warm air beneath it like a regular blanket does. The natural greenhouse effect makes the lower atmosphere warmer, and the upper atmosphere cooler, than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect.



Fig. 4. The Earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect is due to the absorption of infrared (heat) radiation by water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.


Mankind's Enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect
The most common explanation for global warming goes like this: Mankind's addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere disrupts the Earth's radiative energy balance (see Fig. 5) by reducing its ability to radiatively cool to outer space. Energy balance refers to the expectation that all of the Earth's absorbed sunlight (the energy input) is balanced by an equal amount of infrared radiation that the Earth emits back to outer space (the energy output). It is estimated that this input and output, averaged over the whole Earth over several years, is naturally maintained at a value of around 235 Watts per square meter (W/m2).



Fig. 5. The Earth's radiative energy balance is fundamental to understanding global warming theory, which says that mankind's greenhouse gas emissions is disrupting the 235 W/m2 balance (solar input & infrared output).


But mankind's emissions of greeenhouse gases is believed to have disrupted that balance. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it is estimated that the normal infrared cooling rate of 235 W/m2 has been reduced by about 1.6 W/m2. Taking into account the warming that has already occurred (supposedly) in response, one estimate is that a 0.8 W/m2 imbalance still exists today. That continuing imbalance represents further warming that must occur, even if we were to stop producing greenhouse gases immediately. Of course, since mankind continues to emit greenhouse gases, a radiative imbalance will continue to exist, and so warming will continue as well.


Interestingly, the Earth-orbiting instruments for measuring the Earth's radiative components are not quite accurate to measure the small radiative imbalance that is presumed to exist. That imbalance is, instead, a theoretical calculation.


You might also be surprised to find out that the direct effect of this imbalance (often called a 'radiative forcing') from the extra CO2, by itself, would have very little effect on the Earth's temperature. If everything else in the climate system remained the same, a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (probably late in this century) would cause little more than 1 deg. F of surface warming. The effect is so small because, even at CO2 doubling, the fraction of our atmosphere that carbon dioxide occupies is still less than 1 part in 1,000.


Obviously, a 1 deg. F warming would cause little concern - if that was the whole story. The problem is that everything else probably doesn't remain the same.


Positive or Negative Feedbacks?
Almost all of the scientific uncertainty about the size of manmade global warming is related to how the climate system will respond the small (1 deg. F) warming tendency. The atmosphere could dampen the warming tendency through 'negative feedbacks'-- for instance by increasing low-level cloudiness. Or, it could amplify the warming tendency through 'positive feedbacks', for instance by increasing the water vapor content of the atmosphere (our main greenhouse gas), or by increasing high-altitude cloudiness.


Most computerized climate models behave in this second way, amplifying the initial warming by anywhere from a little bit, to a frightening amount (over 10 deg. F by 2100). So, you can see then that is very important to determine how sensitive the climate system is to the radiative forcing from the extra greenhouse gases we are putting into the atmosphere.


To be able to predict how much warming there will be, what we really need to know then is the kind of negative and positive feedbacks that exist in the climate system. The net effect of all of the feedbacks together determines what is called the 'climate sensitivity', which as the name implies, expresses how much surface warming would result from a given amount of radiative forcing - say, a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.


Estimating Climate Sensitivity
It would be very helpful if we could do a laboratory experiment to determine how the Earth will respond to mankind's addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere - but we can't. There is only one 'experiment' going on, and we are all part of it.

[longtimer]

If we can't do a laboratory experiment, another way to estimate climate sensitivity would be some previous example of climate change in response to radiative forcing. For instance, there are pretty good estimates of how much the Earth cooled after the major eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in June, 1991 (see Fig. 6). The millions of tons of sulfur dioxide that was injected into the stratosphere by Mt. Pinatubo spread around the Northern Hemisphere, and reduced the amount of incoming sunlight by as much as 2% to 4% The resulting cooling effects lasted two or three years, until the sulfuric acid aerosols finally dissipated.

Fig. 6. The explosive 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines injected millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. The resulting 2%-4% reduction in sunlight offered a natural test of the Earth's climate sensitivity to changes in solar radiation.


Unfortunately, an estimate of climate sensitivity from changes in sunlight is not necessarily the same as the sensitivity to changes in greenhouse gases, which affect infrared light. While sunlight is the source of energy for the climate system, greenhouse gases affect how that energy courses through the climate system. Very simply put, sunlight causes weather, but the greenhouse effect is the result of weather.


So, are there any previous examples of infrared (greenhouse) climate forcings? There are ice core measurements from Antarctica which suggest that, hundreds of thousands of years ago, carbon dioxide levels and temperature did indeed go up and down together. But there is much debate over which was the cause, and which was the effect. Based upon the available evidence, the current consensus of opinion is that the temperature changes preceded the carbon dioxide changes by a century or more. Temperature changes causing carbon dioxide changes might be explained by the fact that warmer water can not hold as much carbon dioxide, so periods of climatic warming led to a slow release of oceanic CO2.
Thus, in contrast to volcanic eruptions and their effect on solar heating, we are possibly left without a natural example of infrared radiative forcing, which is what global warming is all about.


But the climate models suggest it does not really matter. They suggest the climate has about the same sensitivity to solar heating changes as to infrared cooling changes. If that is true, then natural events like the Pinatubo eruption could indeed be used to estimate manmade global warming. But I believe that the climate's sensitivity to solar forcing is not the same as its sensitivity to infrared forcing. And here's why....


What Determines the Earth's Natural Greenhouse Effect?
Sunlight is the source of energy for our weather, and so it makes sense that more (or less) sunlight will make the Earth warmer (or cooler). But the greenhouse effect's infrared heat trapping does not 'cause' weather - instead, weather causes the greenhouse effect! Remember, most of the Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and so it is the weather (winds, evaporation, precipitation, etc.) that controls the strength of the natural greenhouse effect.


This cause-versus-effect role of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is an important distinction. I mentioned above the common explanation that the Earth's "energy balance results in a roughly constant globally-averaged temperature". But I believe that this has cause and effect turned around: It is more accurate to say that "the atmosphere generates a greenhouse effect and temperature that results in energy balance" with the incoming sunlight.


But Don't Climate Models also "Generate" a Greenhouse Effect?
If the climate models have the correct physics in them, then such differences in how we conceptualize the problem won't matter. But unless we understand the processes that control the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, climate modelers risk putting too much emphasis on physics that don't matter that much, at the expense of ignoring physics that end up having a controlling influence on climate.


As it is, even climate 'experts' give faulty physical explanations for how manmade global warming works. For instance, the largest and most consistent positive feedback exhibited by these models is positive water vapor feedback. The common explanation for this feedback is that the warming tendency from the extra carbon dioxide causes faster evaporation of water from the surface...and since water vapor is the atmosphere's dominant greenhouse gas, this faster evaporation leads to an amplification of the warming tendency from the extra CO2.


This simple explanation has great appeal, and is widely repeated by climate modelers. But it is grossly misleading. The average amount of water vapor that resides in our atmosphere is not controlled by evaporation. Instead, it is controlled by precipitation (rain and snow) systems. Even though water is continuously evaporating from the surface of the Earth, the atmosphere never fills up with it because precipitation systems remove it long before saturation is reached.


Precipitation Systems: Nature's Air Conditioner?
I believe that it is precipitation systems that ultimately control most of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect. All of the air in that portion of the atmosphere where weather occurs (the troposphere, which contains 80% of the atmosphere's mass) is continuously being recycled through precipitation systems (see Fig. 7). Winds in the troposphere's 'boundary layer' pick up water vapor that has been evaporated from the surface, and then transport this vapor to precipitation systems, where an equal amount of vapor (on average) is removed as rain or snow.



Fig. 7. Most of the atmosphere gets continuously recycled through precipitation systems, which determine the moisture properties, and thus greenhouse effect, of the air.


But here's the part that even climate researchers tend to forget: For all of the moist air flowing into the precipitation systems in the lower troposphere, an equal amount of air must be flowing out of those same systems, mostly in the middle and upper troposphere. (The exception is thunderstorm downdrafts, which you have likely experienced before). That air flowing out has moisture (water vapor and cloud) amounts that are controlled by precipitation processes within the systems. Thus, precipitation processes within clouds have a controlling influence on the greenhouse effect.


At this point some scientists will protest, "But that's only in the vicinity of the precipitation systems!" No, not at all...precipitation systems exert control over the greenhouse effect -- at least the water vapor portion -- far beyond the immediate vicinity of those systems - in fact, over the entire Earth. For instance, the cloud-free, dry air that is slowly sinking over the world's deserts got its dryness from air flowing out the top of precipitation systems. Eventually, that air will leave the desert, pick up moisture evaporated from the land or ocean, and be cycled once again through a rain or snow system.


Similarly, the cold air masses that form over continental areas in the wintertime are extremely dry because the air within them came from the upper troposphere after it had been exhausted out of a rain or snow system. It this were not the case, wintertime high pressure systems would become saturated with water vapor as the air radiatively cools to outer space.


Thus, we begin to see that much of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is under the control of these systems. It doesn't matter whether they are tropical thunderstorms, or high latitude snowstorms, it is still the air flowing out of them in the upper troposphere that determines the humidity characteristics of the cloud-free regions everywhere else.


...And There's More....
And the precipitation system's control of the the climate system doesn't even end there. They also indirectly control cloud amounts in other regions. The heat trasported upward in precipitation systems largely determines the vertical temperature profile of the troposphere. The temperature profile, in turn, exerts a strong influence on cloud systems. For instance, there are vast areas of marine stratus clouds in the lower troposphere that form over the eastern ends of the subtropical oceans where cold water wells up from below (see Fig. 8). Those clouds form because the moist air from ocean evaporation gets trapped below a temperature inversion (warm air layer). That warm air is there because it has been sinking in response to moist rising air in precipitation systems, some possibly thousands of miles away.

Fig. 8. Marine stratocumulus clouds, which cool the climate system by reflecting sunlight, are partly under the control of precipitation systems far away.


It should be increasingly clear to you that we can not know how sensitive the climate system is to mankind's small enhancement (from extra greenhouse gases) of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect (mostly from water vapor and clouds) unless we understand precipitation systems. Unfortunately, precipitation is probably the least understood of all atmospheric processes.


In a little-appreciated research publication, Renno, Emanuel, and Stone (1994, "Radiative-convective model with an explicit hydrologic cycle, 1: Formulation and sensitivity to model parameters", J. Geophys. Res., 99, 14429-14441) demonstrated that if precipitation systems were to become more efficient at converting atmospheric water vapor into precipitation, the result would be a cooler climate with less precipitation. Thus, precipitation systems have the potential to be, in effect, the Earth's 'air conditioner', switching on when things get too warm.


The big question is, do they behave this way or not?


Precipitation in Climate Models
Climate model representations of precipitation processes are very crude. In fact, for warm air masses, the models don't actually grow precipitation systems. They instead use simple 'parameterizations' that are meant to statistically represent the net effects of precipitation on the atmosphere. There is nothing inherently wrong with using parameterizations - as long as they represent the feedbacks that exist in the real atmosphere. What we really need to know is how the efficiency of precipitation systems changes with temperature.


Unfortunately, relatively little testing of the climate models has been done in this regard. Most of the emphasis has been on getting the models to behave realistically in how they reproduce average rainfall, not how the model handles changes in rainfall efficiency with warming.


Recent research with satellite observations (in review for publication as of 7 March 2007) suggests that when the tropics become unusually warm for a few days or weeks at a time, precipitation systems there produce less high-altitude ice clouds. This, in turn, reduces the natural greenhouse effect of the tropical atmosphere. This reduction in high-altitude cloudiness causes enhanced infrared cooling to outer space, which then results in falling tropical temperatures.


This is a natural negative feedback process that is counter-intuitive for most climate scientists, who believe that more tropical rainfall activity would cause more high-level cloudiness, not less. Whether this process also operates on the long time scale involved with global warming is not yet known, and will surely be the subject of considerable debate.


A Summary, and the Future
It is now reasonably certain that changes in solar radiation cause temperature changes on Earth -- for instance, the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo caused a 2% to 4% reduction in sunlight, resulting in two years of below normal temperatures. It is not so obvious, however, that small changes in the Earth's infrared cooling from mankind's burning of fossil fuels will do the same. This is because the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is mostly under the control of weather systems: specifically, precipitation systems. Either directly or indirectly, these systems determine the moisture (water vapor and cloud) characteristics for most of the rest of the atmosphere.


Precipitation systems thus act as a thermostat, causing cooling when temperatures get too high (and warming when temperatures get too low). It is amazing to think that the ways in which tiny water droplets and ice particles combine in clouds to form rain and snow could determine the course of global warming, but this might well be the case.


I believe that it is the inadequate handling of precipitation systems -- specifically, how they adjust atmospheric moisture contents during changes in temperature -- that is the reason for climate model predictions of excessive warming from increasing greenhouse gas emissions.


I predict that further research will reveal some other cause for the warming we have experienced since the 1970's -- for instance, a change in some feature of the sun's activity. In the meantime, a high priority research effort should be the study of changes in precipitation systems with changes in temperature -- especially how they confer moisture charateristics to the atmosphere as air is continuously recycled through them.


Fortunately, we now have several NASA satellites in Earth orbit that are gathering information that will be immensely valuable for determining how the Earth's climate system adjusts during natural temperature fluctuations. It is through these satellite measurements of temperature, solar and infrared radiation, clouds, and precipitation that we will be able to test and improve the climate models, which will then hopefully lead to more confident predictions of global warming.





Roy W. Spencer received his PhD in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. He has been a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville since 2001, before which we was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center where he received NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal. Dr. Spencer is the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite. His research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE.




Better Looking Weather from


by ZIP code -or- City & State


WeatherQuestions.com home

info@weatherstreet.com
Copyright© 2007 WeatherStreet

[cutthemdown]

If you are correct, the next question is: what is causing the sun to heat up?

Actually the Earth does what it does and we are along for the ride. To spend money on why it's happening when chances are 100 percent we can't alter it would be wasteful. Better to spend the money on protecting cities from rising sea levels. Figuring out how will we get water to drought stricken areas. Shoring
up FL NC MI LA TX etc for bigger storm protection. More technology to deal with what crops will do well in the hotter climate and what ones wont. I'm sure the list goes on and on. There are hundreds of sources of CO2 that we can't control. Even if everyone stopped driving I doubt it would matter.

[Dr.5280]

If you are correct, the next question is: what is causing the sun to heat up?

We are not praying to the right god.

[Killericon]

I find it entertaining that either side can possibly think that they have the absolute answers. The indisputable scientific "Facts" are disproven nearly on a weekly basis.

Personally, I think that this(Warming of the globe) is a naturally occurring thing. Most of the evidence and my common sense seems to point that way. However, I can't be sure. To think that one can be is foolish. It's like some other post said; if we can't predict the weather next week, how can we predict the results of this climate shift? The important thing is that it is theoretically possible that we are causing this. If we can't prove or disprove that, why not air on the side of caution? I mean, most forms of eco-friendly energy sources are economically friendly in the long run, and fossil fuels can't last forever anyways, right? Why wouldn't we try to switch to more eco-friendly means of sustaining our high-level of industrialization? To suggest that we should not is just lazy.

[SureShot]

If you are correct, the next question is: what is causing the sun to heat up?

We underestimated the age of the sun. Its dying and we are all going to die with it. We need to send all our money to Al Gore. Only he can save us.

[Houshyamama]

Perhaps that is true, perhaps its not, but, as you said, global warming is simply the CO2 not letting the reflected rays exit the atmosphere. No one is saying that our CO2 production is the SOLE reason for it, but we are ADDING to the problem by pumping so much of it into the air everyday.

It's only a problem if you live by the beach. I say let it happen, what the hell.

[RocBronc]

You'd have to be borderline dellusional to really believe that global warming is little more than a climate/astronomical cycle.

You're proving his point... Cite no evidence, refute nothing he said, just spout a sweeping generality. I don't mean to be harsh but proving things either logically or scientifically requires evidence to make a claim, you cited none so actually you're much more likely to be "borderline delusional" than the person you accused of being that because they cited evidence for their belief and you cited none.

[RocBronc]

I find it entertaining that either side can possibly think that they have the absolute answers. The indisputable scientific "Facts" are disproven nearly on a weekly basis.

I agree, people on both sides overstate their cases. This touches on a subject that I feel pretty strongly about. People need to realize in life, in science, in law, in just about everything. ALMOST NOTHING IS 100% KNOWN OR PROVABLE COMPLETELY. It drives me nuts when people demand this or claim just because something is 95% true than we shouldn't believe it at all. This is not a argument for some sort of relatavisistic world where nothing is true, or worthy of belief but rather a wake up call to realize that in life you have to "weigh the evidence" and believe the side that has more "weight", even if there is some evidence on both sides. Let me illustrate my point. If there's a 95% chance that a train will cross a certain road in a 24 hour period, how stupid would you be to commit to standing on that section of track for a day? Does that mean that you could stand on that track and not be fine the next day, no, in fact on average 5 days out of a hundred that would be the case but that doesn't change the fact that anyone that would stand there for a day is a complete moron. This isn't a perfect example but I think you get my drift. Here's another example, there is not a person in jail that couldn't cite some evidence of his or her innocence that's why the legal standard of guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt" not with no doubt.

To bring this back to the issue at hand... There will never be a time when it will 100% provable that mankind is or isn't the major cause of global warming. However, I do believe that it we can and should make a determination based on the evidence which is more worthy of belief and make decisions in our lives and political actions based on that.

[Rohirrim]

Senility is a sad thing to watch.

[fdf]

What you are really arguing is called, by environmentalists, the "precautionary principle." The precautionary principle became popular amongst environmentalists every time someone pointed out that there was little or no evidence that mankind was causing global warming. The environmentalist response would be: yes, but under the precautionary principle, we should act as if it were proven because the stakes are so high. Effectively, they were arguing that their position was so important that they should not be held to normal standards of scientific proof.

Take your example of: "If there's a 95% chance that a train will cross a certain road in a 24 hour period, how stupid would you be to commit to standing on that section of track for a day?" Of course, the answer is "really stupid." But the reason is that there is no benefit whatsoever to standing on that track for a day. Let me change the facts a little. Bill Gates has committed to give you 1 billion dollars and to feed 100,000 poor kids for a year if you stand on that track for 24 hours. Now the calculus is a bit different.

And what I just described is more representative of the global warming debate (even assuming the environmentalists turn out to be correct in their assessment of man-made global warming). Again, assuming the envirnomentalists' models to be true, we would have to blow up the world economy and kill millions on millions of humans to make an impact of any kind on temperature rise. For example, the Kyoto protocols (which no major country every believed or intended to meet) would make (according to the green's own model) perhaps a difference of 0.3 degrees over a century. To actually counter the man-made warming they tell us is coming, we would have to have measures several times more draconian than Kyoto. I cannot imagine a scenario in which the world economy survives even partial such measures intact--we are talking about mass starvation based on a theory (man-made global warming) supported by very shaky empirical foundations.

[Rohirrim]

Simply getting off of the internal combustion engine would make a massive difference and wouldn't hurt economies in the slightest, except perhaps the Saudis.

There's another way to look at it as well. It wouldn't hurt us at all to stop doing the things that cause a higher ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere. AND, we have the technology to do it now. Regardless of the effect (global warming or no global warming) that we are creating, we are denuding forests, pouring pollution into the air, fouling our oceans, etc. etc. We have to breath it and eat it. Humans act as if they can despoil the world and yet somehow remain immune to the effect. It's what I call "crazy ape" thinking: "I can trash the planet and overpopulate, but it won't effect me." And now, we're so stupid that we've turned it into a political argument.

Regardless of what Mr. Senility posts, the last time there was this much CO2 in the atmosphere was the Eocene, when the entire planet was a swamp. Through all of our excesses, we are sawing off the branch upon which we are sitting, while arguing about the possible effect. Kind of funny, actually.

Personally, I think the best thing that could happen to the Planet Earth is to lose about two thirds of the human beings that inhabit it, so anything that moves us in that direction is okay by me. (As long as it's not me and mine. ;D)

[DarkHorse30]

good post, Longtimer. Liberals seem to be trying to prevent free speech, especially concerning scientific theories. I guess they can't move to France now, ....maybe Antarctica?

[longtimer]

good post, Longtimer. Liberals seem to be trying to prevent free speech, especially concerning scientific theories. I guess they can't move to France now, ....maybe Antarctica?

You know I always find it interesting that the liberals either blame the USA for the earths problems or it mankind that is killing the poor little critter. When it most likely is a natural event.

I liked how Romney correctly call the war we are in as not being a war on terror but a war against extremist Muslims trying to wage a jihadist movement to take control of the earth. In my opinion not much different than Hitler in Germany.

We did not want to be pulled into it but just like WWII they attacked us so we need to finish it.
If all the Liberal leaders would stop aiding and help the enemy by telling them if you just hold on we will save you by trying to move the troops some were else and hope the the good hearted extremist will not bother us in the future. this thinking give the extremist the victory they want so you can plan you next move to take over the USA since that is one of their stated goals.

I personal think that leaders that make statements like this and then try to pass legislation to admit our defeat is treason and has been the reason that most of our troops have been killed. The only part of the war they are winning is the press releases because they can not take the USA in any head to head fighting.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Longtimer... I think you're a great speller. It really reflects your intelligence well.

[watermock]

http://www.house.gov/goode/images/photos/richmond041.jpg

Greenie lost a bet to Golic on Mike and MIKE and has to milk a cow as he is utterly terrified.

It's problematic to guess who will be releasing more methane, Greenie or the Cow...

I'm much more concerned about the rain forest and even more about drops in plankton.

[longtimer]

Longtimer... I think you're a great speller. It really reflects your intelligence well.

English skill are not my strength, but intellect has nothing to do with how you can express your thoughts, in fact the most intelligent individuals in the world are those with certain types of learning disability such as dyslexia. The educational system can not correctly tap into their intellectual potential due to how they process information compared with how a normal individual proccess information. To give you some idea of historical people who had this learning disability. Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison are two that come to mind.

[Swedish Extrovert]

I'm not insulting your viewpoint. All I'm saying is that I'm 21, and will start for my masters in political science at New Hampshire College next semester. You talk like a 16 year old... but you probably are a 16 year old so it's cool

But yeah dude, I respectfully disagree with you. So does the UN and 97% of the top scientists from every UN country.

Oh and Al Gore.

[longtimer]

I'm not insulting your viewpoint. All I'm saying is that I'm 21, and will start for my masters in political science at New Hampshire College next semester. You talk like a 16 year old... but you probably are a 16 year old so it's cool

But yeah dude, I respectfully disagree with you. So does the UN and 97% of the top scientists from every UN country.

Oh and Al Gore.
First i am not 16 i am at least twice your age.

And further my IQ is in the top 97% in the world And yes I have Dyslexia. I have difficulties communicating the complex thoughts and concepts that are in my head this is due to the fact that there is to date no way to help me proccess the information in a way that allows me to express it so others can understand it.

I was actually taught to read by the use of computers in the 1960's the only way the could teach me to read was to teach me haw to recognize the geographical shapes of the different words since I could not proccess them a a letter.

[watermock]

Somebody hop a plane to China and eliminate those 1.3 billion methane factories.

[Killericon]

Uh-oh. This debate on Global Warming(Or, as Karl Rove has determined it should be called, "Climate Change") is taking a turn down The War in Iraq("The War on Terror") street. This could get even uglier.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Somebody hop a plane to China and eliminate those 1.3 billion methane factories.

Maybe we should have global emmissions controls. Isn't that what Kyoto was supposed to do?

[watermock]

Dyslexia has nothing to do with intelligence. I dunno if Longtimer is a lefty, but it's more common with lefties.

Amusing factoid. The left hand in Islam is considered "dirty" because they wipe their ass with the left hand. I guess with all that oil money they can't afford TP. I wipe with my right hand because I'm left handed! Correction, I use the right hand AND TP.

On a more serious but possibly dirtier note, an amazing number of Presidents were left handed. Lefties are generally more intelligent but more prone to dyslexia. Part of it is the brain fights over who is the boss. Lefties are also much more prone to be ambidextrous...and swtch hitters. I'm left handed but right footed. Go figure.

I make some dyslexic spelling errors but usually it's just not proofreading a post. I do have spelling issues tho, mostly by getting two vowels mixed up.

[RkyMtnThunder]

IMO

As usual, I believe the truth lays somewhere between the extremes.

You have one group convinced what we are experiencing is a completely natural phenomenon of planetary climate cycle and mankind has nothing at all to do with it. They go to great lengths to prove their point - and some valid points are made.

You then have another group convinced that mankind and mankind alone is wholly responsible for climate change. They too go to great lengths to prove their point - and again, some valid points are made.

So you have these two camps arguing over who is right and who is wrong. And since humanity has some fundamental flaws we cant seem to get over, it becomes like any other argument - a battle of ego.


Is the Earth experiencing a natural climate change? Quite possibly.

Is mankind escalating said natural climate change? Quite possibly.

Does this mean mankind should abandon attempts to change their ways?

Absolutely not.

Yes, the Earth has had its natural climatic changes over the course of history.

But for the 1st time in Earth's history, mankind has the ability to impact the Earth in very negative ways.

Combine them both, and you have a natural phenomenon - on steroids.

Fortunately mankind also possess the ability to remove its impact from the equation and allow nature and nature alone to take its course.

Unfortunately, mankind has been conditioned over our existence to 'master nature' rather to live harmoniously within it.


Our technologies have been wonderful in advancing ourselves - at the expense of the planet. We have now come to a point where we can improve our technologies for the continued benefit of mankind and our planet.

And that is the direction we are all heading - damn the silly arguments on either side of the fence.

[broncocalijohn]

If this is true, Al Gore wants the Sun blown up. Of course he wants to personally get a little bitty sun for himself first then "F you all and the carbon footprints." Get your own, po people!"

[watermock]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hXB3BDc8LA

I blame the aliens.

[Rohirrim]

We all know human history well enough to know how this is going to play out. Humans are going to squabble and squabble and not do a damn thing about it. Then, we're going to get one of those hurricanes that one climatologist warned is possible if the Caribbean heats up to a certain point. It will be miles wide. It will hit the Florida peninsula as a full bore 5, maybe stronger. It will cross the peninsula and it won't leave a blade of grass in the ground for miles. You won't find any survivors. Hell, you won't find a stick. All of that will be scattered across the Gulf. Thousands will be dead. Then, we'll stop the Three Stooges routine and get serious.

Meanwhile, for entertainment, we can listen to this Right wing moron-fest.

[epicSocialism4tw]

We all know human history well enough to know how this is going to play out. Humans are going to squabble and squabble and not do a damn thing about it. Then, we're going to get one of those hurricanes that one climatologist warned is possible if the Caribbean heats up to a certain point. It will be miles wide. It will hit the Florida peninsula as a full bore 5, maybe stronger. It will cross the peninsula and it won't leave a blade of grass in the ground for miles. You won't find any survivors. Hell, you won't find a stick. All of that will be scattered across the Gulf. Thousands will be dead. Then, we'll stop the Three Stooges routine and get serious.

Meanwhile, for entertainment, we can listen to this Right wing moron-fest.


Uh oh...It's a full-blown leftist apocalypse!

[watermock]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Wzl_3HqPcM&NR=1

[longtimer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Wzl_3HqPcM&NR=1

Now we all know the truth about how man is to blame for raising the earth temperature.

[Swedish Extrovert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Wzl_3HqPcM&NR=1

Hair Spray

[DarkHorse30]

When are the libs going to address the REAL global emissions problem......cow and hillary clinton farting. She is a giant gasbag......and vaguely resembles a heifer. The UN scientists could probably come up with a theory that could tie this all together.

[houghtam]

There's global warming. There's no global warming. You're too far left. You're too far right. Blah blah blah.

Global warming or not, my questions are pretty straightforward. What could it hurt for us to not drive biga$$ SUV's and save a little on gasoline, a resource that may not be around for very much longer anyway? Not use plastic bags because of the threat they cause, not to the "environment", but to the animals living in the "environment"? How much effort does it actually take to throw an aluminum can or glass bottle (and from reading some of these posts, there should be plenty of empties lying around) in a recycling container as opposed to a trash can? Is not spending the extra two minutes, couple dozen calories, and/or couple dollars a week really worth the risk that A) global warming ISN'T all a sham, or B) our environments WON'T really be ruined?

The funny thing is, a lot of the anti-global warming camp is coming from the right wing, which likes to stand on its moral pedestal on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and the like, yet seems to "conveniently" forget about taking care of Gods' other creations so they can drive a bigger car. An Inconvenient Truth, indeed.

Call me a leftist all you want, but I'm looking at it logically. I don't need scientists to tell me one way or the other whether we should or shouldn't recycle and try to be environmentally friendly. I know the answer.

[MOCRUSH]

Smurf:

Check your class list and go for more science and less politics, then you will find that 3% figure exists only in the newsrooms. BTW your oracle Al Gore was also a little light on science in his college days, read Earth in the Balance for a primer on the environmental mysticism.

[Rohirrim]

Uh oh...It's a full-blown leftist apocalypse!

Case in point.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Case in point.

LOL

You have to be kidding me.

You are calling the only poster on this thread with any real information on this subject (fdf) a moron, and you provide some hysterical guilt-ridden account of the impending doom that awaits us we dont change our wrong behavior? The only difference between your hysterical doom-and-gloom scolding and that of Isaiah is that Isaiah's prophecies were true to events. Yours are based in some political fear tactic force-fed to you by your political heroes. Pretty funny really. Ironic in the least.

Get over your religious hysteria and think, Rohirrim.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I'm not insulting your viewpoint. All I'm saying is that I'm 21, and will start for my masters in political science at New Hampshire College next semester. You talk like a 16 year old... but you probably are a 16 year old so it's cool


God, you are probably the last person on this entire board that should ever comment about someone's age after some of your naive posts from the past. My favorite still has to be the thread you started about 5 years ago claiming that a gym was run by racists because they wouldn't let your black friend in, even though he (and I believe you too) did not meet the age requirements to work out there.

[frerottenextelway]

"It should be noted that apparently, I have no presonal knowledge but according to a number of research journalists this is true, Al Gore owns the company from which he buys the "offsets" for his production of CO2"

Not true. He buys from www.nativeenergy.com

One of the problems with the Right is they tend to distort or outright lie and never go back to correct themselves.

[frerottenextelway]

"The CO2 produced by man is primarily consumed by the earth's plants and very little of it ever reaches the atmosphere."

That's not true. We know that the concentration of CO2 has increased in the atmosphere from 280ppm (parts per million) to 390ppm virtually completely by human activities.

I recommend this reading to explain how and why we know this:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

[longtimer]

"The CO2 produced by man is primarily consumed by the earth's plants and very little of it ever reaches the atmosphere."

That's not true. We know that the concentration of CO2 has increased in the atmosphere from 280ppm (parts per million) to 390ppm virtually completely by human activities.

I recommend this reading to explain how and why we know this:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

The problem with that is we can not determine were the CO2 came from. Did it come from man or nature. Please tell me the test that seperates CO2 produced by man from the CO2 produced in nature.

With the sun burnning hotter this cause addition CO2 to be released from other sources that have been frozen and from the water on the earth.

Fairly aragant to say the reason for the increase is mankind doing.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

"It should be noted that apparently, I have no presonal knowledge but according to a number of research journalists this is true, Al Gore owns the company from which he buys the "offsets" for his production of CO2"

Not true. He buys from www.nativeenergy.com

One of the problems with the Right is they tend to distort or outright lie and never go back to correct themselves.

Gotta love someone so committed to the cause that he can't be inconvenienced enough to actually lower his carbon footprint, he just buys offsets instead.

I might care little for greenies, but I do respect someone like Leo who actually backs up what he preaches with his actions. Gore on the other hand . . .

[Rock Chalk]

You know this is the most mornic debate in teh world.

It doesnt matter if we are helping, or if we are the sole cause or if we have nothing to do with climate change. Its IRRELEVANT.

What is relevent is that climate change is a natural part of Earth's cycle. Instead of trying to figure out who to blame, which lefties are prone to do, try putting our resources towards figuring what we will do with the inevitable climate change that is part of Earth's NATURAL cycle.

If we ushered it in, does it really matter? Honestly? It is going to happen whether we contribute or not. If that is the case, why not focus our intellect as a species on how we are going to adapt to this change? Let's assume that we dont all die off anytime soon. Lets assume that we last 1 million more years on PLanet Earth. Thats on average, 10 more ice ages we will have to deal with as an advanced technological society. This climate change we are facing is the first since we have had the technology to possibly cope in a manner which most people will survive through. What we SHOULD be doing instead of pointing fingers which solves absolutely nothing is focusing our efforts through science on what adaptations we are going to make.

****ing leftist ******s like Mighty Smurf who is young and mostly stupid...no, completely stupid, dont get that simple fact. Whether we helped it along or not, it is going to happen. We all agree on that. Who cares what the cause is, its not important. Whats important is surviving as a species.

The right fringe is just as bad in their ranting. Sticking their head in the sand and saying nothing is wrong. Look, something is wrong. I dont care why its wrong, but its not what we are used to so get your heads out of your asses, accept that changes are coming and start working on a ****ing solution.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Dyslexia has nothing to do with intelligence. I dunno if Longtimer is a lefty, but it's more common with lefties.

Amusing factoid. The left hand in Islam is considered "dirty" because they wipe their ass with the left hand. I guess with all that oil money they can't afford TP. I wipe with my right hand because I'm left handed! Correction, I use the right hand AND TP.

On a more serious but possibly dirtier note, an amazing number of Presidents were left handed. Lefties are generally more intelligent but more prone to dyslexia. Part of it is the brain fights over who is the boss. Lefties are also much more prone to be ambidextrous...and swtch hitters. I'm left handed but right footed. Go figure.

I make some dyslexic spelling errors but usually it's just not proofreading a post. I do have spelling issues tho, mostly by getting two vowels mixed up.

I write left handed. I could play hockey either way, but I prefer right handed.

I'm somewhat ambidextrous, probably a little dyslexic too. It takes me forever to read, but I tend to absorb what I read a lot better.

[Swedish Extrovert]

God, you are probably the last person on this entire board that should ever comment about someone's age after some of your naive posts from the past. My favorite still has to be the thread you started about 5 years ago claiming that a gym was run by racists because they wouldn't let your black friend in, even though he (and I believe you too) did not meet the age requirements to work out there.

Yeah that was pretty stupid of me... what are you going to do though? I was 14.

[Swedish Extrovert]

You know this is the most mornic debate in teh world.

It doesnt matter if we are helping, or if we are the sole cause or if we have nothing to do with climate change. Its IRRELEVANT.

What is relevent is that climate change is a natural part of Earth's cycle. Instead of trying to figure out who to blame, which lefties are prone to do, try putting our resources towards figuring what we will do with the inevitable climate change that is part of Earth's NATURAL cycle.

If we ushered it in, does it really matter? Honestly? It is going to happen whether we contribute or not. If that is the case, why not focus our intellect as a species on how we are going to adapt to this change? Let's assume that we dont all die off anytime soon. Lets assume that we last 1 million more years on PLanet Earth. Thats on average, 10 more ice ages we will have to deal with as an advanced technological society. This climate change we are facing is the first since we have had the technology to possibly cope in a manner which most people will survive through. What we SHOULD be doing instead of pointing fingers which solves absolutely nothing is focusing our efforts through science on what adaptations we are going to make.

****ing leftist ******s like Mighty Smurf who is young and mostly stupid...no, completely stupid, dont get that simple fact. Whether we helped it along or not, it is going to happen. We all agree on that. Who cares what the cause is, its not important. Whats important is surviving as a species.

The right fringe is just as bad in their ranting. Sticking their head in the sand and saying nothing is wrong. Look, something is wrong. I dont care why its wrong, but its not what we are used to so get your heads out of your asses, accept that changes are coming and start working on a ****ing solution.

Riiiiiiggggghhhhhttt

I do agree that we should be starting to prepare the the inevitable disaster, but we can prevent the severity of the blow too.

I'm sure - over the last 650,000 years - that they have nothing to do with each other.

[fdf]

We all know human history well enough to know how this is going to play out. Humans are going to squabble and squabble and not do a damn thing about it. Then, we're going to get one of those hurricanes that one climatologist warned is possible if the Caribbean heats up to a certain point. It will be miles wide. It will hit the Florida peninsula as a full bore 5, maybe stronger. It will cross the peninsula and it won't leave a blade of grass in the ground for miles. You won't find any survivors. Hell, you won't find a stick. All of that will be scattered across the Gulf. Thousands will be dead. Then, we'll stop the Three Stooges routine and get serious.

Look, Rohirrim. You might be right. It could happen that way. And, it is possible that man-made global warming (instead of natural) could be the cause. My point on this thread is that, as of today, there is very little science supporting your position. So yours is a political preference, not a scientific one. It's OK to have a political preference--but don't mistake passionate belief for science. They are different.

The namecalling (three-stooges and moron (from your post), and my favorite, "denier", as in holocaust denier (from the folks at the UN)), is just an attempt to shut down a debate on the facts and get straight to the socialism part where Al Gore or his ilk get control of the global economy--sooner rather than later. I would think that the history of the Russians and the Chinese with state run economies would at least make people think twice about the proposed remedies. But the lust for power is an enormous driver and they are prepared to misrepresent the science "for our own good."

I don't trust politicians, R's or D's. Anytime one of them tells me they need lots more power for my own good, it's almost always the politicians who will benefit and the citizens who will pay the bill. Even if their programs do good for a while, their successors will corrupt the program and turn it into a goodie bag from which they dispense favors to rich folks who make campaign contributions.

Sometimes you have to give politicians power. But when you do, it should be only after they have made a very powerful case and then the power should be dispensed in teaspoons. That's my political preference. So until the global warming folks make a MUCH better case than they have to date, I am not prepared to even consider turning over management of our economy and the rest of the world's economy to Al Gore and the UN.

[frerottenextelway]

The problem with that is we can not determine were the CO2 came from. Did it come from man or nature. Please tell me the test that seperates CO2 produced by man from the CO2 produced in nature.

With the sun burnning hotter this cause addition CO2 to be released from other sources that have been frozen and from the water on the earth.

Fairly aragant to say the reason for the increase is mankind doing.

Actually, we can determine where the C02 came from. This is something that is very well understood and I encourage you follow the link I gave above. Actually, this link (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160) does a little better job of explaining it.

I'll give a quick summary of the two big points:

* According to all studies, CO2 levels are increasing in the oceans. If the atmospheric CO2 increase was caused, even in part, by carbon emitted from the oceans, we would measure a carbon decrease in the oceans. The oceans cannot be a source of carbon to the atmosphere, because we observe them to be a sink of carbon from the atmosphere.

* Carbon is composed of three different isotopes. CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has a different isotopic composition than that of what's naturally in the atmosphere. As CO2 from burning fossil fuels or burning forests are released in the atmosphere, the isotopic ratio of the atmosphere changes.

Fairly ignorant to say the reason for the increase isn't mankind's doing.

[fdf]

Hey, whoever thought we could get a grad-level mini course on computer modeling in this forum?

Thanks for sharing, fdf.

Thanks. Every off-season, I resolve not to post on the political threads. And then I log on thinking that maybe, just maybe, there's some broncos news and whoops, there I am posting on political threads. :kiddingme: It's usually so pointless and a waste of time. Especially on stuff like this. Folks minds are made up and they could care less about the actual science.

Frankly, if I saw a convincing case that men were causing global warming and that it was possible to affect that outcome, I would be prepared to discuss other steps. My personal preference has nothing to do with whether or not mankind is causing global warming--that's a fact that is either true, false, or partly true. But we don't have any idea what the actual answer is and the folks proposing huge changes in the way we work and live have given us little with which to answer the question.

But this debate has, imho, nothing to do with science and everything to do with panicking the public into taking those "other steps." The other steps (to the global warming folks) would mean an enormous increase in the power of governments worldwide. For the global warming folks, getting the public to accept those "other steps" is the actual goal. Global warming is the vehicle to get them there. If that weren't true, they would not be misrepresenting the science so egregiously.

[frerottenextelway]

If I may give myself a cheap plug here, here's a link to a rough transcription of An Inconvenient Truth. :D

http://forumpolitics.com/blogs/2007/03/17/an-inconvient-truth-transcript

[broncocalijohn]

Maybe we should have global emmissions controls. Isn't that what Kyoto was supposed to do?

and kill GNP for every participating country.

[frerottenextelway]

6. there is NOT a scientific consensus that global warming is the product of CO2 production. The only consensus is that global warming is part of an extended cycle of the earth's warming and cooling and that our current cycle is part of end of the little ice age. Most scientists agree that the earth's natural climate is actually much warmer than our current climate. Many scientistific studies used in Al Gores movie actually prove the opposite of his disaster theory and the scientists who did the studies recommended specifically against drawing the kinds of conclusions Al Gore has drawn based on those studies.

Actually, there is a scientific consensus.

Here's a link (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) to the study that Gore references in his movie about the consensus.

And here's a chart from the latest IPCC Report on Radiative Forcing (basically means how much each contributes to global warming) components.

http://forumpolitics.com/pics/ipcc-forcing.JPG

[frerottenextelway]

[url]
1. the primary greenhouse gass is water vapor, not man made CO2
2. water vapor comes from the oceans, rivers, lakes and streams of the planet.
3. we do not and cannot control the evaporation of these water masses.


I encourage you to check this link out.

Water vapour: feedback or forcing? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)

[frerottenextelway]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

The real cause is the Sun is putting out more energy.


Here's 2 paragraphs taken from your link. Sounds like a pretty misleading headline.

He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.

[frerottenextelway]

2. The entire case for man-made global warming is based on two things: theoretical computer models and the claim that CO2 levels have increased dramatically in the 20th century. Regarding models, that happens as follows: some smart guys say "I think the following factors are the important ones and they interact in this way using the following parameters." Then they run the model in the computer and simulate the earth's climate for a hundred years or so, assuming of course, that their model actually corresponds to reality.

The key to computer modeling, which I do professionally, is to validate the model against reality. That is, when it runs, it needs to actually correspond to what happens in the real world. There are two kinds of validation, weak and strong. Weak validation is when the model actually predicts what happened IN THE PAST. This is a very dangerous technique of validation and has to be applied VERY carefully. Otherwise, you get terrible models in terms of predicting the future. Strong validation occurs if the model makes a surprising prediction about the future that would not be predicted by other models and that prediction comes true.

Here is the record of validation for global warming models:

- Strong validation. No global warming model has EVER made a surprising prediction about the future that has come true.

- Weak validation. No global warming model, when run on the known data from the past actually makes predictions that correspond to what really happened.

This is not surprising. Climate is a very complex system. Meteorologists are hard pressed to predict weather a week out. Why should we blindly accept models that claim to predict the earth's climate 100 years out?


Really? I suggest you read this (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/) about Jim Hansen's famous computer model from over 20 years ago that has turned out to be very accurate.

[Dempsey Dog]

Consensus science sucks!

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had". -Michael Crichton

The crossroads of public policy and science has always been a slippery slope. The global warming debate is no different. There are lots of scientists who are skeptical. The problem is that the liberal left, who is suppose to be the "all-inclusive party", tends to muffle those who disagree and chastise them.

A great speech by Michael Crichton that talks about using science to back public policy and how it fails can be read at the below link. It is very provocative:


http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

[Swedish Extrovert]

and kill GNP for every participating country.

Yeah cause it's done that to every country except the USA and Australia ::)

[frerottenextelway]

The consensus argument isn't that people should believe because there is a consensus, it's just that there's a consensus because they believe in the science. The science regarding global warming is quite strong, as I think I've done a fair job in here of showing some key aspects in this thread.

[Dempsey Dog]

There is not a consensus because people beleive in the science. Scientist are looking at this at a lot of angles and not all agree on their results, theories, etc. Stop talking about a consensus and spinning it. For every article you refer people to, there is another one with a different look, outcome, spin, etc.

For example, read this article...blah.blah.blah

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

[Bob]

ahhhh, typical republican bull****. Lets have one scientist disagree with thousands and do nothing to save money! great idea!

I can imagine that a VERY distant relative of a modern day alarmest, who lived during the end of the last ice age was telling all of his primative friends -- put out your fires! Repent! Cant you see what you are doing? We are all going to die in a flood! Then, someone told Gorg, to shut the hell up -- it was a natural cycle, and not to make a new religion out of it.

Anyone who thinks WE are the primary cause of global warming are the delusional druids of the new Millennium. If you are a scientist and you respectfully disagree with the degree of the threat -- it doesnt sell to be a moderate on this issue, nor will it bring in the grant dollars to which they are sadly beholden.

This is another transparent issue, that will distract many from the real threats of our time.

[Bob]

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020314231701data_trunc_sys.shtml

This supports the fact that nature produce Co2 in huge quantities.

Doesn’t matter if what you say is true as facts are secondary to the new faith that is being birthed. (I haven’t read all of the threads on this subject yet) but did you hear how Gore make his case about a "mass persuasion campaign" (if that doesn’t creep you out I don’t know what will) so the rest of us could be converted to what will amount in another tax of developed nations -- and those evil folks that drive – gasp! --- fossil fueled cars?

[Bob]

I'm not insulting your viewpoint. All I'm saying is that I'm 21, and will start for my masters in political science at New Hampshire College next semester. You talk like a 16 year old... but you probably are a 16 year old so it's cool

But yeah dude, I respectfully disagree with you. So does the UN and 97% of the top scientists from every UN country.

Oh and Al Gore.

So Mighty, does it help that I have a bachelor’s degree in English, and a masters? Look at the guy's ideas and refute them, I shudder to think you are offering grammar lessons, and discounting ideas that will be popular by your future professors (who will promote their new found faith not because they really believe in the crap that we will all drown in a flood and later die in a horrible fire.) The reason, among several, that this idea has traction is that it is alarmist by nature, and so can generate grant monies that will allow them to continue to keep working. The truth (which is found in moderation on this issue) is not compelling enough to bring in the bucks, sell book, nor help Gore get elected.

This man’s ideas are correct --even The UN report started that there would only be an increase of less than 1 degree over 100 years. Now, that is not good. But answer these basic questions with the idea of global warming -- that any person, even a kid should understand. 1. The last global warming period which was substantial that wiped off many species from the face of the earth was not caused by man – then what was the cause? You guessed it; it had to be a natural cycle. The other very simple concept to understand in all of this is that we are only (from a percentage standpoint) very minor contributors of carbon emissions, if the earth farts once – like it did with Mount Saint Helen -- years worth of incremental gains are wiped away by such an event. So, yes get a more fuel efficient car, yeah turn off the lights when leaving a room, but no don’t swallow the new consensus-religion, that is prohibiting real debate on the subject and saying there is a consensus among scientists when there is not.

[frerottenextelway]

There is not a consensus because people beleive in the science. Scientist are looking at this at a lot of angles and not all agree on their results, theories, etc. Stop talking about a consensus and spinning it. For every article you refer people to, there is another one with a different look, outcome, spin, etc.

For example, read this article...blah.blah.blah

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

Yes, Roy Spencer, the one who doesn't believe in evolution (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I)either. He's one of the 5 or 6 people that are quoted in just about every anti-AGW piece.

I think the Oreskes (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) study that I mentioned earlier comes to a pretty clear and compelling conclusion on the consensus debate.

[Dempsey Dog]

Anyone who suggests a concensus exists, is blind. This debate is not over. We have along way to go before rational people will sucumb to this retoric.

consensus= end of debate
end of debate= population of fools > rational & thoughful population
population of fools thus must think there is a concensus.

I will not subscribe to foolishness when there is not concensus. Leaders rise when most are against them. You are a foolish follower when there is still much to be resolved.

[Bob]

Any takers as to why there was a huge increase in temp at the end of the last ice age -- any one? Gorg?

[snowspot66]

let the brain washing begin

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=f7806f79-bf1f-4bd1-8d33-c904feb71047



So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing?
Even climate change experts say many of the claims in Al Gore's film are wrong.
Kevin Libin, National Post
Published: Saturday, May 19, 2007
First it was his world history class. Then he saw it in his economics class. And his world issues class. And his environment class. In total, 18-year-old McKenzie, a Northern Ontario high schooler, says he has had the film An Inconvenient Truth shown to him by four different teachers this year.

"I really don't understand why they keep showing it," says McKenzie (his parents asked that his last name not be used). "I've spoken to the principal about it, and he said that teachers are instructed to present it as a debate. But every time we've seen it, well, one teacher said this is basically a two-sided debate, but this movie really gives you the best idea of what's going on."

McKenzie says he has educated himself enough about both sides of the climate- change controversy to know that the Al Gore movie is too one-sided to be taught as fact. Even scientists who back Mr. Gore's message admit they're uncomfortable with liberties the politician takes with "science" in the film. But, McKenzie says most of his classmates are credulous. His teachers are not much more discerning. "They don't know there's another side to the argument," he says. McKenzie's mother was outraged to find out that Mr. Gore's film was being presented as fact in her son's classroom. "This is just being poured into kids' brains instead of letting them know there's a debate going on," she says. "An educational system falls down when they start taking one side."

But Mr. Gore's filmed climate-change lecture is showing up in classrooms across Canada, frequently unaccompanied by critical analysis or a discussion of competing theories. "One of the teachers at my kid's school showed it and he even said ahead of time, 'There is some propaganda in this,' " says Tim Patterson, a Carleton University earth sciences professor. "I said to him, 'You even knew this was a propaganda film, and you still showed it in your classroom?' " The weirdest part: It was the gym teacher.

If you have children in junior or high school, there is a good chance they have been shown An Inconvenient Truth in school--or they will be soon.

Last month, Vancouver's Tides Canada Foundation and a local eco-friendly courier firm teamed up to buy DVD copies for every public high school in B.C. Climate Learning, a non-profit Vancouver outfit, is a third of the way to raising the $68,000 it needs to buy copies of the film for every high school in the country, after just weeks of campaigning.

"I think it's important for high schools to have this film," says Will Cole-Hamilton, the group's director.

"Our objective is to get them into schools by September."

Two weeks ago, 900 students from grade 7 to 12 in Ontario's Halton Region were treated to a screening -- sponsored by ethanol producer SunOpta Inc. -- with a second showing scheduled at a Georgetown high school this Wednesday.

SunOpta has donated 60 copies of the DVD and the book version of An Inconvenient Truth to public and Catholic schools as a resource.

After showing the film to students, a London, Ont., board launched a contest for kids to win tickets to hear Mr. Gore address a fundraiser this month, by making their own environmental videos.


Earthcare Canada, an energy consultant sponsored group, is working with the Ottawa-Carlton school board and one in Belleville, Ont., to raise awareness about energy conservation. The Gore movie is one of the materials it suggests as a teaching resource.

"We would definitely recommend it and make them aware that it is there, and then how to use it," says Earthcare's executive director Rose-Marie Batley.

"I get e-mail from parents all across the country about this, in Calgary, B.C., Ontario," says Albert Jacobs, the founder of Friends of Science, a Calgarybased group that promotes alternative theories to climate change.

"They say my kid has been exposed to this stuff which is totally one-sided and totally wrong and we want them to see the other side."

Hand it to Paramount, the studio behind An Inconvenient Truth, for tapping the classroom market in a way skeptics cannot.

In addition to a companion book written for school-aged children, producers have created a lesson plan, "AIT in the Classroom," for teachers to download.

In England, the government has made the movie part of the public curriculum.

In Spain, the government is buying copies of the movie for all of its schools. In Australia, private donors are buying copies for schools.

Politicians and educators may accept on face value filmed warnings of a world tumbling toward catastrophe if we don't dramatically cut back on our greenhouse gas emissions.

But some of Mr. Gore's allies have acknowledged glaring inaccuracies in the film.

Though Mr. Gore was right for "getting the message out," University of Colorado climatologist Kevin Vranes told The New York Times last month that he worried about the film "overselling our certainty about knowing the future."

James E. Hansen, a NASA scientist and one of Mr. Gore's advisors, agreed the movie has "imperfections" and "technical flaws."

About An Inconvenient Truth's connection of rising hurricane activity to global warming -- something refuted by storm experts -- Mr. Hansen said, "We need to be more careful in describing the hurricane story than he is."

Among other things, since the film's release last year, scientists have rejected Mr. Gore's claims that 2005 was the warmest year on record (temperatures have been receding since 1998), that polar bears are heading for extinction (their numbers are growing), that Antarctica is warming (interior temperature readings show cooling) and that sea levels will "rise 18 to 20 feet," swamping coastal cities (the International Panel on Climate Change predicts a few inches).

Last year, when producer Laurie David offered to donate 50,000 DVDs to the National Science Teachers Association, the group refused, citing a policy "prohibiting product endorsement."

In the U.K., one parent is taking the Department for Education and Skills to court to stop it from using the film in science, geography and citizenship classes.


A Washington-state school board now requires that any teacher showing the film must ensure a "credible, legitimate opposing view will be presented" as well.

In B.C., a Surrey school trustee, Heather Stilwell, has been fighting for a policy to ensure teachers in the Vancouver suburb also present a balancing viewpoint.

Meanwhile, Vancouver-based businessman Michael Chernoff, says his charitable foundation will provide to high schools DVD copies of the new British documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, featuring interviews with scientists who dissent from Mr. Gore's claims, as soon as the producer is ready to ship the discs.

"And if they start sending [An Inconvenient Truth] to all Canadian schools, then I'll buy a copy of Swindle for all the schools, too," Mr. Chernoff says. "I think showing it is fine, but they should present the other side as well."

But even with Mr. Chernoff 's gift, there's no requirement teachers to show both sides of the argument unless school boards demand it.

"We've gone to school boards offering to provide them with materials that present the other side," says Mr. Jacobs.

"You get the same answer, that the teacher has to teach a certain curriculum and how he does it is his business." Some teachers are open to alternative theories, he says.

But others, like Mr. Gore, have an agenda.

On a discussion board on the CBC Web site last month, readers debated the Surrey controversy. One commentor, who identified himself as a teacher, wrote this:

"Yes students should look at both sides on an issue and learn to judge for themselves. But there are times to do this and times to stop."

He is certain Mr. Gore is right. Now, he wrote, "It is time for action."

[frerottenextelway]

Anyone who suggests a concensus exists, is blind. This debate is not over. We have along way to go before rational people will sucumb to this retoric.

consensus= end of debate
end of debate= population of fools > rational & thoughful population
population of fools thus must think there is a concensus.

I will not subscribe to foolishness when there is not concensus. Leaders rise when most are against them. You are a foolish follower when there is still much to be resolved.

Ha, I'm a believer based on an actual understanding of the science behind it. Something, btw, that most people tend to ignore in here.

What did you think of Oreskes' study? Why is it that if there is such a strong disagreement by so many scientists that there is so little peer-reviewed material published against it?

[Circle Orange]

perpetuation of selected data = political agenda

[Spider]

I would like to see the USA fund any energy source that would allow us to fill our tanks with water as a way to make hydrogen. See other thread on the subject.

The only problem is that when we switch we will find problems with burning Hydrogen like some desert critter will become endangered because of all the water that we a making is ruining the ecosystem in the Arizona dessert.

The tree hugger wackos will never be happy until we go back to being cave men and cave women prior to the use of fire.

Long and short of it , it isnt no dessert critter , I know in ignorance it is easy to blame something convenient , But the real problem is getting the power from the explosion that you get from Fossil fuel , Hydrogen and electric may work in alot of countries or here in America in some cases , But America is Big , Spread out , you need Fossil fuels for the power it gives to deliver goods , rescue operations ...... as soon as we can find something that gives the same performance as fossil fuels , we will switch .........

[chrisp]

Personally, whilst I am skeptical about some of the claims relating to global warming, I am perfectly prepared to accept the possibility that man-made emissions are contributing to it to an extent that is problematic for us and needs to be dealt with. Nevertheless, there are a couple of ideas that are often presented as inescabable logical conclusions of this that I am NOT prepared to accept:

1) That curbing certain aspects of individual behavour (eg travel, power use etc) is the only way to beat the problem

2) That any significant change to the earth's climate is morally wrong REGARDLESS of whether or not it results in any ill-effects for humanity

I happen to believe that human beings have the capacity to formulate technical and scientific solutions to the problem of global warming. I also believe that the primary mouthpieces of the environmental movement such as Al Gore do NOT accept this possibility becuase they see global warming as a moral issue, not a technological one. if you look closely at what Gore says you will see that he's quite open about that. Ask organisations like Friends of the earth and Greenpeace about various theoretical scientific solutions that have been postulated, (such as the use of salt crystals to deflect the sun's energy) and they will refuse to even consider them. this is important - they don't just question the validity of the theory (which anyone can do), they refuse to even CONSIDER a broader, technical, man-made solution to the problem. That is precisely the language they will use in dismissing them.

I happen to believe that social and technological progress go hand in hand with the extension of human liberty, and these are all good things. that used to mark me out as a liberal, and put me at odds with the establishment. Now, the supposed 'liberals' want to spend all their time measuring our carbon footprints, taxing our travel to the point where we can't afford it and fining us heavily if we don't recycle our rubbish properly. This has NOTHING to do with the science of global warming and everything to do with a political elite that is entirely bereft of ideas and is simply seeking a modern language with which to justify good old authoritarian repression.

..and whilst I may be at odds with this new environmental agenda, neither do I line up with the traditional conservatives who just seem to be saying "its all a lie, everything's OK". These people are just apologists for a stagnant society. I applaud the environmentalist movement for using the language of change, just as I decry them for using that language of change as a cloak to wrap around a repressive authoritarian agenda. I would lke to see us question things more, to look for new energy sources, or to look at different and better forms of propulsion, but all with the view of trying to make human beings lives better, rather than from the point of view of 'saving the planet'.

The thing is, the only way that the science can be any good is if it is divorced from any political agendas and allowed to plough its own furrow, free of political interference. These days, even scientists who agree that man-made global warming is a problem, are uneasy with some of the statements and claims made about the future of the planet by campaigners. We have to see the politics of global warming for what they are: as something that has nothing to do with the science, and everything to do with a society who's leaders have lost all sense of vision, direction and purpose.

By the way, I'm referring to BOTH Bush AND Gore (and Blair and Brown for that matter) in that last sentence.....

[alkemical]

Clean energy claim: Aluminum in your car tank (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18700750)

Professor says Energy Department ‘egos’ blocking hydrogen breakthrough
MSNBC
Updated: 7:54 p.m. ET May 18, 2007
A Purdue University engineer and National Medal of Technology winner says he's ready and able to start a revolution in clean energy.

Professor Jerry Woodall and students have invented a way to use an aluminum alloy to extract hydrogen from water — a process that he thinks could replace gasoline as well as its pollutants and emissions tied to global warming.

But Woodall says there's one big hitch: "Egos" at the U.S. Department of Energy, a key funding source for energy research, "are holding up the revolution."

Woodall says the method makes it unnecessary to store or transport hydrogen — two major challenges in creating a hydrogen economy.

"The hydrogen is generated on demand, so you only produce as much as you need when you need it," he said in a statement released by Purdue this week.

So instead of having to fill up at a station, hydrogen would be made inside vehicles in tanks about the same size as today's gasoline tanks. An internal reaction in those tanks would create hydrogen from water and 350 pounds worth of special pellets.

"No extra room would be needed," Woodall said, "and the added weight would be the equivalent of an extra passenger, albeit a pretty large extra passenger."

The hydrogen would then power an internal combustion engine or a fuel cell stack.

"It's a simple matter to convert ordinary internal combustion engines to run on hydrogen," Woodall said. "All you have to do is replace the gasoline fuel injector with a hydrogen injector."

How it works
Here's how it all happens: Hydrogen is generated spontaneously when water is added to pellets of the alloy, which is made of aluminum and a metal called gallium.

"When water is added to the pellets, the aluminum in the solid alloy reacts because it has a strong attraction to the oxygen in the water," Woodall said. "No toxic fumes are produced."

This reaction splits the oxygen and hydrogen contained in water, releasing hydrogen in the process.

An electrical and computer engineering professor, Woodall first discovered the basic process while working as a researcher in the semiconductor industry in 1967.

"I was cleaning a crucible containing liquid alloys of gallium and aluminum," Woodall said. "When I added water to this alloy — talk about a discovery — there was a violent poof. I went to my office and worked out the reaction in a couple of hours to figure out what had happened. When aluminum atoms in the liquid alloy come into contact with water, they react, splitting the water and producing hydrogen and aluminum oxide."


That research led to advances in cell phones, solar cells, optical-fiber communications and light-emitting diodes, and earned Woodall the 2001 National Medal of Technology from President Bush.

In recent years, Woodall built a team of Purdue electrical, mechanical, chemical and aeronautical engineering students to fine-tune the process.


Cost speed bumps
The Purdue Research Foundation holds title to the primary patent. And a startup company, AlGalCo LLC, has received a license for the exclusive right to commercialize the process.

But there are some speed bumps on the highway to hydrogen.

With internal combustion engines, the cost of recycling the aluminum oxide must be reduced to make the process competitive with gasoline at $3 a gallon.

"Right now it costs more than $1 a pound to buy aluminum, and, at that price, you can't deliver a product at the equivalent of $3 per gallon of gasoline," Woodall said.

That cost could come way down, he figures, if the recycling is done with electricity from nuclear power plants, wind turbines or even solar power plants if economically viable. The aluminum oxide and gallium would be shipped to such plants, using electrolysis to break the oxide back down to aluminum, Woodall said, "and we start the cycle all over again."

If used in fuel cells, the process would be economically competitive with gasoline, Woodall noted. "Using pure hydrogen, fuel cell systems run at an overall efficiency of 75 percent, compared to 40 percent using hydrogen extracted from fossil fuels and with 25 percent for internal combustion engines," Woodall said.

But the fuel cell systems themselves are still much more expensive and less reliable than internal combustion engines. "When and if fuel cells become economically viable, our method would compete with gasoline at $3 per gallon even if aluminum costs more than a dollar per pound," Woodall said.

Funding speed bump
For Woodall, the biggest speed bump lies elsewhere. "The egos of program managers at DOE are holding up the revolution," he told MSNBC.com.

"Remember that Einstein was a patent examiner and had no funding for his 1905 miracle year," Woodall added. "He did it on his own time. If he had been a professor at a university in the U.S. today and put in a proposal to develop the theory of special relativity it would have been summarily rejected.

"Likewise, since I won my National Medal of Technology for compound semiconductors and not making hydrogen, DOE does not recognize me as a member of the club." As evidence, Woodall said DOE last summer rejected two "pre-proposals" for funding, "i.e., I was not invited to send in full proposals on my work."


Patrick Davis, who heads the DOE hydrogen program, said he could not immediately comment. "We are in the middle of our annual program review (offsite, with 1000 attendees), so a vetted response through our press office is not possible until next week," he told msnbc.com in an e-mail.

Woodall said that his "bottom line" is that "it will take me a little longer to launch the revolution."

MSNBC.com will update this story with DOE's response when it is available.

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18700750/

[RocBronc]

I posted on the other thread about this Aluminum/ Hydrogen producing apparatus.

It's simple electrochemistry... Yes, Aluminum (with Gallium) will produce hydrogen from water but the problem is, the Aluminum (which becomes Aluminum Oxide after reacting with water) needs to be regenerated to be able to convert more water to hydrogen (and oxygen). What is needed to regenerate the Aluminum Oxide??? Well, some source of chemical energy like say... electricity, which comes from, you guessed it, some CO2 producing hydrocarbon. So there's nothing gained in this process (at least environmentally).

[Rohirrim]

Oh, BTW, the latest news from the real world (you know, that place where actual scientists do actual experiments?) provides us with this news: The Antarctic sink, which is the largest carbon sink on the planet Earth, is full. Scientists thought that it wouldn't be full until at least 2050, but they've discovered that's not the case. It's full now. What does this mean? Well, that depends on whether you're a Righty, or a Lefty, doesn't it? If you're a Lefty, it's probably bad news. If you're a Righty, it doesn't matter at all because, hey, we're all in the End Times anyway, so who gives a ****?

[RocBronc]

My question is to the environmental crowd is this... If you're concern is slowing down the amount of CO2 put into the environment why is your focus the U.S. when I have not heard ONE environmentalist talk about the country who will be the largest producer of CO2 by the end of this year and who's CO2 emission levels are projected to be so high as to make irrelavent any possible CO2 savings we might have by outlawing SUV's or any of the suggested plans of our environmental friends. (BTW, China was exempted from any CO2emission reduction by the Kyoto Treaty)

Focusing on the U.S. (a capitalist country) while ignoring the real culprit for future CO2 emissions (China, a socialist country) lends huge evidence that this is really a political issue not a scientific/environmental one.

[Dedhed]

Problem is that the scientist are spit down the middle on this one. We do not hear the other side due to the bias of the media outlets.

I would like to see the USA solve the need for fosal fuels due to the health risks of having to breath that crap. When I search google I find more research that sujest the sun is the major cause not mankind. this sujests it is a naturual cycle.
Scientists certainly are not split down the middle on this. I love the fact the you reference some joe schmoe from a discussion board to back your take. That's like taking everything Mock says as gospel. A little short sighted if you ask me.

I don't get why right wing wackos think that global warming somehow threatens them. Is it because they want to continue using huge amounts of petroleum and supporting the middle east? Do they love being at war so much that they're afraid if we create alternative energy sources we won't have reasons to fight for oil, and our war pool will dry up? I don't get it.

[Dedhed]

My question is to the environmental crowd is this... If you're concern is slowing down the amount of CO2 put into the environment why is your focus the U.S. when I have not heard ONE environmentalist talk about the country who will be the largest producer of CO2 by the end of this year and who's CO2 emission levels are projected to be so high as to make irrelavent any possible CO2 savings we might have by outlawing SUV's or any of the suggested plans of our environmental friends. (BTW, China was exempted from any CO2emission reduction by the Kyoto Treaty)

Focusing on the U.S. (a capitalist country) while ignoring the real culprit for future CO2 emissions (China, a socialist country) lends huge evidence that this is really a political issue not a scientific/environmental one.

So, pass the buck is your solution? A huge chunk of those emissions are from industry, and who do you think those industrial plants are producing for? It's no big mystery that the Co2 increase has gone up in direct proportion to the amount of production the US outsources to China.

But it's all the crazy Asians fault now, right?

[RocBronc]

Ha, I'm a believer based on an actual understanding of the science behind it. Something, btw, that most people tend to ignore in here.

What did you think of Oreskes' study? Why is it that if there is such a strong disagreement by so many scientists that there is so little peer-reviewed material published against it?

One potential reason for why there si so little peer-reviewed material is that I know there is a prominent Canadian scientist who is a global warming "skeptic" who received death threats after doing so.

Also, the Tennessee group that published the publicly available data about Al Gore's energy usage at his Tennesse home also received death threats.

[RocBronc]

So, pass the buck is your solution? A huge chunk of those emissions are from industry, and who do you think those industrial plants are producing for? It's no big mystery that the Co2 increase has gone up in direct proportion to the amount of production the US outsources to China.

But it's all the crazy Asians fault now, right?

I'm not saying pass the buck, I'm pointing out huge hypocrisy here... If you really are concerned about CO2 emissions, why are you focusing absolutely no attention on the country who will make the amount of CO2 produced by the United States seem like a cow farting next to a coal fired electric plant in only a couple of years? Where are the protesters outside the Chinese embassy or the Rockstar/hollywood actor/politician calling on the chinese to curb there their emissions. There aren't any, which tells me they really aren't interested in CO2 emission levels. The evidence of their actions point to some other motivation.

[Rohirrim]

One potential reason for why there si so little peer-reviewed material is that I know there is a prominent Canadian scientist who is a global warming "skeptic" who received death threats after doing so.

Also, the Tennessee group that published the publicly available data about Al Gore's energy usage at his Tennesse home also received death threats.

Now Al Gore is a hit man for the global warming mafia? :rofl:

[Spider]

Scientists certainly are not split down the middle on this. I love the fact the you reference some joe schmoe from a discussion board to back your take. That's like taking everything Mock says as gospel. A little short sighted if you ask me.

I don't get why right wing wackos think that global warming somehow threatens them. Is it because they want to continue using huge amounts of petroleum and supporting the middle east? Do they love being at war so much that they're afraid if we create alternative energy sources we won't have reasons to fight for oil, and our war pool will dry up? I don't get it.

;D I am not a right winger , but my concern is Power ....... if you eat it , wear it , use it , it was brought to you by truck , it is hard enough with the power we have now , cut that power and we have more trucks o nthe road to make up for the loss in time ........... Dont need that , roads àre crowded enough .........

[RocBronc]

Now Al Gore is a hit man for the global warming mafia? :rofl:

Yeah, that's exactly what my point was... You're really showing everyone your amazing reasoning skills.

[Spider]

Now Al Gore is a hit man for the global warming mafia? :rofl:

LOL

[Spider]

I'm not saying pass the buck, I'm pointing out huge hypocrisy here... If you really are concerned about CO2 emissions, why aren't you focusing absolutely no attention on the country who will make the amount of CO2 produced by the United States seem like a cow farting next to a coal fired electric plant in only a couple of years? Where are the protesters outside the Chinese embassy or the Rockstar/hollywood actor/politician calling on the chinese to curb there their emissions. There aren't any, which tells me they really aren't interested in CO2 emission levels. The evidence of their actions point to some other motivation.

you re full o shít .Clean up your own backyard first .......... 1 big problem today , everyone wants to but in while their own yard is a mess ............

[Dempsey Dog]

Ha, I'm a believer based on an actual understanding of the science behind it. Something, btw, that most people tend to ignore in here.

What did you think of Oreskes' study? Why is it that if there is such a strong disagreement by so many scientists that there is so little peer-reviewed material published against it?


"Science is not about consensus. The consensus has been spectacularly wrong before, as when everyone believed the Earth was flat, to take only the most obvious example."

I thought the study was interesting. However, I am not entirely sold. Some have questioned it. Maybe not many, but as a result of just one dispute, there is not a concensus.

As for Oreskes, there are some very talented and intelligent scientists and thought leaders who have disputed her notion of a consensus. One of them being Dennis Bray of Cambridge (previously of GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany) Roy Spencer of U of Alabama, and Benny Peiser of Liverpool. You can easily find there research and credentials on the internet. It is just unfortunate that some of the leading science publications have refused to publish their writing because they do not go along with the popular viewpoint. Perhaps, the opposition has been censured to a degree and that is why a minimum amount of anti Oreskes peer-review material is available?

[RocBronc]

you re full o shít .Clean up your own backyard first .......... 1 big problem today , everyone wants to but in while their own yard is a mess ............

nice language... it really shows your class and your level of intelligence.

I'll spell it out one more time for you. Even if we do clean up our own backyard as you want, it will be for nought because of the amount of CO2 that will be produced by China if it's left unchecked. It's like worrying about a fire in a wastepaper basket on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg.

If I believed that CO2 was a threat to our world, I would certainly want the U.S. to curb it's emission levels but please explain to me why what's going on in China is being completely ignored while the U.S. is treated by far as the biggest CO2 villain?

[Spider]

nice language... it really shows your class and your level of intelligence. Kiss my ass , screw PC , yo usee someone full of Shít , tell them so ........ dont beat around a bush

I'll spell it out one more time for you. Even if we do clean up our own backyard as you want, it will be for nought because of the amount of CO2 that will be produced by China if it's left unchecked. It's like worrying about a fire in a wastepaper basket on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. Well since you like analogy's , Kind like your Dad with a can of Beer telling you not to Drink , but it is ok for him cause it is just beer , not as bad as whiskey .........

If I believed that CO2 was a threat to our world, I would certainly want the U.S. to curb it's emission levels but please explain to me why what's going on in China is being completely ignored while the U.S. is treated by far as the biggest CO2 villain?

dont give a damn what you would or wouldnt do about Co2 emissions , whats going on in Chinia ? dont give a damn if I did I would move to China .....If you want China to curb down Co2 , quit voting republican , stop shopping Wal Mart , buy American .. get it ? got it ? goooooooooood.....

[Rohirrim]

I don't know. Now that Gore has beefed up a bit, he's starting to get that Soprano look to him...

The all powerful global warming mafia, led by the dapper don himself, Alphonse Goreleone, is shutting down all dissent. They're putting the muscle on poor anti-global warming forces, led by Exxon Mobil, who are not allowed a vehicle for their plaintive cry in the wilderness. It's a conspiracy!

[Dedhed]

I'm not saying pass the buck, I'm pointing out huge hypocrisy here... If you really are concerned about CO2 emissions, why are you focusing absolutely no attention on the country who will make the amount of CO2 produced by the United States seem like a cow farting next to a coal fired electric plant in only a couple of years? Where are the protesters outside the Chinese embassy or the Rockstar/hollywood actor/politician calling on the chinese to curb there their emissions. There aren't any, which tells me they really aren't interested in CO2 emission levels. The evidence of their actions point to some other motivation.

Last time I checked, I don't live in China, nor am I Chinese. Combating environmental issues is about doing what you can, where you can, and right now. Saying it's hypocritical that Americans are focusing on their own country and not on China is ridiculous. We have no impact on Chinese environmental policy. What you're saying is "someone is worse than us, so we aren't the problem". Passing the buck.

[frerottenextelway]

"Science is not about consensus. The consensus has been spectacularly wrong before, as when everyone believed the Earth was flat, to take only the most obvious example."

I thought the study was interesting. However, I am not entirely sold. Some have questioned it. Maybe not many, but as a result of just one dispute, there is not a concensus.

As for Oreskes, there are some very talented and intelligent scientists and thought leaders who have disputed her notion of a consensus. One of them being Dennis Bray of Cambridge (previously of GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany) Roy Spencer of U of Alabama, and Benny Peiser of Liverpool. You can easily find there research and credentials on the internet. It is just unfortunate that some of the leading science publications have refused to publish their writing because they do not go along with the popular viewpoint. Perhaps, the opposition has been censured to a degree and that is why a minimum amount of anti Oreskes peer-review material is available?

I'm very familiar with Peiser. Science Magazine didn't publish his article against Oreskes because it was junk. His argument was that he went through the same sample as Oreskes and found 34 abstracts that rejected AGW. In fact, only 1 did, which was not a peer reviewed piece, but was an opinion piece from petroleum geologists. Don't just take my word for it though, look at them yourself (http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/).

In fact, Peiser himself has retracted his prior statements against Oreskes stating "I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm)".

In fact, Peiser now believes this:

I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.

It's okay though, contrians can keep faith, his new work is to show that warming is a good thing.

[Dedhed]

Consensus science sucks!

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had". -Michael Crichton

The crossroads of public policy and science has always been a slippery slope. The global warming debate is no different. There are lots of scientists who are skeptical. The problem is that the liberal left, who is suppose to be the "all-inclusive party", tends to muffle those who disagree and chastise them.

A great speech by Michael Crichton that talks about using science to back public policy and how it fails can be read at the below link. It is very provocative:


http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
Only problem is that until recent studies, global warming as a natural phenomenon was the consensus. Can't have it both ways.

[Dedhed]

There is not a consensus because people beleive in the science. Scientist are looking at this at a lot of angles and not all agree on their results, theories, etc. Stop talking about a consensus and spinning it. For every article you refer people to, there is another one with a different look, outcome, spin, etc.

For example, read this article...blah.blah.blah

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

Roy W. Spencer is also a skeptic of evolution. He's nothing more than a shock jockey who gets press by being a contrarian. He's a faith based scientist, who writes for the Interfaith Alliance. He's looking for science that supports faith, not science that seeks the truth.

[Dempsey Dog]

I'm very familiar with Peiser. Science Magazine didn't publish his article against Oreskes because it was junk. His argument was that he went through the same sample as Oreskes and found 34 abstracts that rejected AGW. In fact, only 1 did, which was not a peer reviewed piece, but was an opinion piece from petroleum geologists. Don't just take my word for it though, look at them yourself (http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/).

In fact, Peiser himself has retracted his prior statements against Oreskes stating "I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm)".

In fact, Peiser now believes this:

I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.

It's okay though, contrians can keep faith, his new work is to show that warming is a good thing.



I appreciate your thoughts and opinions. You seem well versed on the issue and certainly are aware of many of the key players.

I would suggest there is a concensus that the earth is warming. I do not believe there is a concensus on why, how, what can be done about it, etc.
My personal take is that why should we not recycle, try lowering the rate in which we use our finite resources, make less of an impact, and see if it does help. At least if in 100 years we can say we tried and made an attempt. On the hand, things will not change until they have to. Necessity is the mother of invention to use a cliche. As long as there is wiggle room, we won't change.

We also have to balance economic concerns and not take on a holier than thou approach. Kyoto is a bad deal for us. It will hurt the US and the next thing we know more companies are either closing or moving overseas (to non-Kyoto participants) due to the extra cost of doing business here, forcing our employment rate to rise.. Al Gore is a hypocrit and his motives are questionable. We need to open up more refineries in the US, using modern environmental technology.

The idea of a concensus bothers me. With that said, that is my stance. Yeah, I am sketical of "experts", I am a church-going, gun-totting, right-winger, whose dad was an engineer for Exxon and worked overseas. As a result, Exxon allowed me to be educated with a MBA, loves camping, hiking, the oceans, and nature. How many people have gone to the Amazon and picked up trash, visited and donated to an oragutan sanctuary on Borneo, or wants to go back to Kenya to help AIDS victums and preserve the animal parks? Those are important to me.

Now, I do my part, and it would be great to see others as well. Yet, I will not pretend I am better than somebody else and expect everyone to make the same sacrifices. Until, I have walked in their shoes, I will take care of my garbage first.

[Haroldthebarrel]

Personally, whilst I am skeptical about some of the claims relating to global warming, I am perfectly prepared to accept the possibility that man-made emissions are contributing to it to an extent that is problematic for us and needs to be dealt with. Nevertheless, there are a couple of ideas that are often presented as inescabable logical conclusions of this that I am NOT prepared to accept:

1) That curbing certain aspects of individual behavour (eg travel, power use etc) is the only way to beat the problem

2) That any significant change to the earth's climate is morally wrong REGARDLESS of whether or not it results in any ill-effects for humanity

I happen to believe that human beings have the capacity to formulate technical and scientific solutions to the problem of global warming. I also believe that the primary mouthpieces of the environmental movement such as Al Gore do NOT accept this possibility becuase they see global warming as a moral issue, not a technological one. if you look closely at what Gore says you will see that he's quite open about that. Ask organisations like Friends of the earth and Greenpeace about various theoretical scientific solutions that have been postulated, (such as the use of salt crystals to deflect the sun's energy) and they will refuse to even consider them. this is important - they don't just question the validity of the theory (which anyone can do), they refuse to even CONSIDER a broader, technical, man-made solution to the problem. That is precisely the language they will use in dismissing them.

I happen to believe that social and technological progress go hand in hand with the extension of human liberty, and these are all good things. that used to mark me out as a liberal, and put me at odds with the establishment. Now, the supposed 'liberals' want to spend all their time measuring our carbon footprints, taxing our travel to the point where we can't afford it and fining us heavily if we don't recycle our rubbish properly. This has NOTHING to do with the science of global warming and everything to do with a political elite that is entirely bereft of ideas and is simply seeking a modern language with which to justify good old authoritarian repression.

..and whilst I may be at odds with this new environmental agenda, neither do I line up with the traditional conservatives who just seem to be saying "its all a lie, everything's OK". These people are just apologists for a stagnant society. I applaud the environmentalist movement for using the language of change, just as I decry them for using that language of change as a cloak to wrap around a repressive authoritarian agenda. I would lke to see us question things more, to look for new energy sources, or to look at different and better forms of propulsion, but all with the view of trying to make human beings lives better, rather than from the point of view of 'saving the planet'.

The thing is, the only way that the science can be any good is if it is divorced from any political agendas and allowed to plough its own furrow, free of political interference. These days, even scientists who agree that man-made global warming is a problem, are uneasy with some of the statements and claims made about the future of the planet by campaigners. We have to see the politics of global warming for what they are: as something that has nothing to do with the science, and everything to do with a society who's leaders have lost all sense of vision, direction and purpose.

By the way, I'm referring to BOTH Bush AND Gore (and Blair and Brown for that matter) in that last sentence.....

That is a great post. I feel the same way, not only because I have gone from being a liberal to a half liberal, half libertarian centrist due to the hideous moral veil that the left is putting on us.

I think you hit the nail that this issue isnt a moral issue as it appears more to be a scientific/technological topic, at least the solution to this is technological as both you and Alec point out.
Expanding on this a bit, what I personally find puzzling is how come global warming has become a political issue with both sides on each fence denying each others view. Or rather, finding the science that supports their established belief.
I fail to see the "liberal" proposition that to save the planet we need to stop manufacturing and create markeds, as well as the "conservative" proposition that to save the marked and economy we cannot manufacture our products in more environmentally progressive methods.
I dont see objectively how one point of view have to exclude the other.

It is also interesting looking at this in a epistemological perspective.
In logical deductions affirming the consequent
(If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.)
is obviously a logical infallacy. So please tell me, how can each side pick and choose from the theoretical universe that already supports their conclusion?
I suspect Karl Popper would be rolling in his grave over both sides on this matter.

[Bob]

Still waiting for an explanation for the last major warming trend we had at the end of the last ice age? Can we admit to natural increases of CO2? or were those pesky fire-starting cavemen to blame?

[Rohirrim]

Still waiting for an explanation for the last major warming trend we had at the end of the last ice age? Can we admit to natural increases of CO2? or were those pesky fire-starting cavemen to blame?

This is a great site to visit if you'd like to get educated on the subject.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Still waiting for an explanation for the last major warming trend we had at the end of the last ice age? Can we admit to natural increases of CO2? or were those pesky fire-starting cavemen to blame?Of course their is. And there is basically no doubt in the majority of scientific community that we are contributing to global warming, so what's your point?

[Bob]

This is a great site to visit if you'd like to get educated on the subject.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

Thanks I will take a look.

[ayjackson]

Still waiting for an explanation for the last major warming trend we had at the end of the last ice age? Can we admit to natural increases of CO2? or were those pesky fire-starting cavemen to blame?

or perhaps, relatively speaking, it was a minor trend.

[Bob]

Of course their is. And there is basically no doubt in the majority of scientific community that we are contributing to global warming, so what's your point?

I suspect that we see the world very differently, but that is ok...

My point is simple, there have been other periods in our earth's history where there have been dramatic temp changes where man did not have any impact. So if we all started riding bycles tommarow, shut down the power plants etc -- what would be the impact in slowing down the increasing temp. Also, if we are looking at a .7 increase in 100 years, what would a monster effort on the USA's part do, to negate the over-all "problem" if aother countries are not on board. So I say we should do our part -- as I do care, and like breathing clean air (China right now is horrible in thier bigger cities) But I see inconsistancies on how this "sceintific" issue is being played out.

If people who say they care about C02 emissions really wanted to be intellectually consistant and if they really thought we were in grave danger, they would do the things that would have the biggest impact in human caused c02 emmisions -- they would become vegitarians -- this is in the UN report I believe -- PETA also backs up this notion. The Hollywood folks would stop flying personal jets everywhere...

If folks belive it they should live it, and use scenence and common sense to back thier claims rather than "mass persuasion campains" as Gore puts it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I suspect that we see the world very differently, but that is ok...

My point is simple, there have been other periods in our earth's history where there have been dramatic temp changes where man did not have any impact. So if we all started riding bycles tommarow, shut down the power plants etc -- what would be the impact in slowing down the increasing temp. Also, if we are looking at a .7 increase in 100 years, what would a monster effort on the USA's part do, to negate the over-all "problem" if aother countries are not on board. So I say we should do our part -- as I do care, and like breathing clean air (China right now is horrible in thier bigger cities) But I see inconsistancies on how this "sceintific" issue is being played out.

If people who say they care about C02 emissions really wanted to be intellectually consistant and if they really thought we were in grave danger, they would do the things that would have the biggest impact in human caused c02 emmisions -- they would become vegitarians -- this is in the UN report I believe -- PETA also backs up this notion. The Hollywood folks would stop flying personal jets everywhere...

If folks belive it they should live it, and use scenence and common sense to back thier claims rather than "mass persuasion campains" as Gore puts it.The estimates range up to a few degree increases which would be devastating. But do we really have any reason to continuing sh*tting all over the planet we live on?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Schwarzenegger Accuses Government on Warming (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070521/pl_nm/climate_schwarzenegger_rell_dc_4;_ylt=AtDda3uULjCa i4CxTj4fmaIE1vAI)

Mon May 21, 11:19 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and fellow Republican Gov. Jodi Rell of Connecticut accused the U.S. government on Monday of on global warming." Arnold Schwarzenegger (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Arnold+Schwarzenegger) of California and fellow Republican Gov. Jodi Rell of Connecticut accused the U.S. government on Monday of "inaction and denial" on global warming.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20070521/2007_05_21t110812_450x259_us_climate_schwarzenegge r_rell.jpg?x=380&y=218&sig=gGAPzpBhZP8If2VOwQpG4g--
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell listen as President George W. Bush speaks during a meeting with the National Governors Association in the State Dinning Room of the White House in Washington February 26, 2007. Schwarzenegger and Rell accused the U.S. government on Monday of 'inaction and denial' on global warming. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

"It's bad enough that the federal government has yet to take the threat of global warming seriously, but it borders on malfeasance for it to block the efforts of states such as California and Connecticut that are trying to protect the public's health and welfare," the governors wrote in The Washington Post.

These two states and 10 others have approved plans for tougher standards than those imposed by the government to limit vehicle emissions of the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change.

But the states can't put the new standards into practice without a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency, which has not yet granted one, 16 months after California first requested it." Environmental Protection Agency (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Environmental+Protection+Agency), which has not yet granted one, 16 months after California first requested it.

The governors also criticized President George W. Bush for an executive order he issued last week giving federal agencies until the end of 2008 -- near the end of Bush's term -- to continue studying what to do about greenhouse gas emissions."

President George W. Bush (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=President+George+W.+Bush) for an executive order he issued last week giving federal agencies until the end of 2008 -- near the end of Bush's term -- to continue studying what to do about greenhouse gas emissions.

"To us, that again sounds like more of the same inaction and denial, and it is unconscionable," they wrote.

"California, Connecticut and a host of like-minded states are proving that you can protect the environment and the economy simultaneously," Rell and Schwarzenegger wrote. "It's high time the federal government becomes our partner or gets out of the way."

EPA officials have said they are considering options after the Supreme Court ruled in April that greenhouse gases can be regulated as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act, which supports the states' case. An EPA hearing on the topic is scheduled for Tuesday in suburban Washington.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Schwarzenegger is proof that there are SOME good Republicans out there.

[alkemical]

Schwarzenegger is proof that there are SOME good Republicans out there.

Straight from the horse's mouth. Check out these quoteS from Arnold Schwarzenegger (http://www.arnoldexposed.com/quotes.html)


"My relationship to power and authority is that I'm all for it." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger at 44 to US News and World Report in 1990.



"People need somebody to watch over them... Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger at 44 to US News and World Report in 1990.



"My friends don't want me to mention Kurt's name, because of all the recent Nazi stuff and the U.N. controversy, but I love him and Maria does too, and so thank you, Kurt."
Arnold Schwarzenegger on his friend and fellow Austrian Kurt Waldheim, a Nazi war criminal


"I was born to be a leader. I love the fact that millions of people look up to me."

I was always dreaming about very powerful people, dictators and things like that. I was just always impressed by people who could be remembered for hundreds of years, or even, like Jesus, be for thousands of years remembered."
Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 1977 film Pumping Iron



"I saw this toilet bowl. How many times do you get away with this, to take a woman, grab her upside down, and bury her face in a toilet bowl? I wanted to have something floating there ... The thing is, you can do it, because in the end, I didn't do it to a woman, she's a machine! We could get away with it without being crucified by who-knows-what group."
Arnold Schwarzenegger describing a scene in Terminator 3

[Bob]

The estimates range up to a few degree increases which would be devastating. But do we really have any reason to continuing sh*tting all over the planet we live on?

No, but you are not addressing the questions/concerns that I have...

Not saying their shouldn’t be standards, but I am wondering about the “science” behind the issue, and the religious zeal that is being shown by some. What percentage of CO2 gases in the atmosphere that is man made, what is caused by the earth? What are the facts on this? I have not spent the time yet to learn all of the facts, but I am working on it as it is interesting to me. My understanding that a single volcanic event can spew out some many of these harmful gasses in a matter of days as to negate the “positive effect” of humans changing their behavior for many years. So is that a reason to crap on all environmental issues, and conservation – of course not, but I do think that folks should be thoughtful about applying religious zeal to worshiping the earth, ignoring some serious concerns about how some of the logic doesn’t seem to fit, and demonizing those that question – sounds like some weird form of scientific inquisition. It is intellectually consistent to admit that a ton of money can be made on selling fear, and there is money to saved/made by doing nothing. What do environmentalists really want to do to address the problem? What would it cost? What good would we likely see (if a handful of nations implement it, and other do not.?) I have heard that the best way we could curb our production in CO2 emissions is to stop eating meat (UN report) So if you believe we are all going to die in a flood, and then a fire really feel that way, are you walking the walk?, or are folks just using it as another platform to distract, and demonize the opposition politically? Those that are not convinced their is an ulterior motive behind SOME that promote global warming is not a radical notion. I think there may be SOME truth behind global warming, but a moderate view will not help Gore get elected, will not sell a book, will not make good headlines, will not create an impetus for raising taxes, will not generate grant income, and is not sexy, so that likely correct view of the subject will be buried.

In the 1970’s there was talk about a global cooling period that we needed to be very concerned about. Humans live for our speck of ecological time, and we “see” trends.

No one has answered why there have been very naturally occurring cooling and heating trends in the past when man was not a factor – some of which were a lot more than 1 degree. Someone explain why there were these huge changes wiping out many species, and how this less drastic change in our time HAS to be man made?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

No, but you are not addressing the questions/concerns that I have...

Not saying their shouldn’t be standards, but I am wondering about the “science” behind the issue, and the religious zeal that is being shown by some. What percentage of CO2 gases in the atmosphere that is man made, what is caused by the earth? What are the facts on this? I have not spent the time yet to learn all of the facts, but I am working on it as it is interesting to me. My understanding that a single volcanic event can spew out some many of these harmful gasses in a matter of days as to negate the “positive effect” of humans changing their behavior for many years. So is that a reason to crap on all environmental issues, and conservation – of course not, but I do think that folks should be thoughtful about applying religious zeal to worshiping the earth, ignoring some serious concerns about how some of the logic doesn’t seem to fit, and demonizing those that question – sounds like some weird form of scientific inquisition. It is intellectually consistent to admit that a ton of money can be made on selling fear, and there is money to saved/made by doing nothing. What do environmentalists really want to do to address the problem? What would it cost? What good would we likely see (if a handful of nations implement it, and other do not.?) I have heard that the best way we could curb our production in CO2 emissions is to stop eating meat (UN report) So if you believe we are all going to die in a flood, and then a fire really feel that way, are you walking the walk?, or are folks just using it as another platform to distract, and demonize the opposition politically? Those that are not convinced their is an ulterior motive behind SOME that promote global warming is not a radical notion. I think there may be SOME truth behind global warming, but a moderate view will not help Gore get elected, will not sell a book, will not make good headlines, will not create an impetus for raising taxes, will not generate grant income, and is not sexy, so that likely correct view of the subject will be buried.

In the 1970’s there was talk about a global cooling period that we needed to be very concerned about. Humans live for our speck of ecological time, and we “see” trends.

No one has answered why there have been very naturally occurring cooling and heating trends in the past when man was not a factor – some of which were a lot more than 1 degree. Someone explain why there were these huge changes wiping out many species, and how this less drastic change in our time HAS to be man made?It has been discussed "answered" many times in the WRP forum. W*GS (a climate professional) has commented many times on it. Many, many links and references have been provided in various threads there.

[frerottenextelway]

No, but you are not addressing the questions/concerns that I have...

What percentage of CO2 gases in the atmosphere that is man made, what is caused by the earth? What are the facts on this?



The current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 390ppm (parts per million), up from 280ppm from before the industrial days. This increase is almost entirely from man, and this is one of the best understood aspects of climate science.

Here's a link (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160) explaining it, but I'll summarize the 2 big points on why we know the increase is from humans:

* According to all studies, CO2 levels are increasing in the oceans. If the atmospheric CO2 increase was caused, even in part, by carbon emitted from the oceans, we would measure a carbon decrease in the oceans. The oceans cannot be a source of carbon to the atmosphere, because we observe them to be a sink of carbon from the atmosphere.

* Carbon is composed of three different isotopes. CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has a different isotopic composition than that of what's naturally in the atmosphere. As CO2 from burning fossil fuels or burning forests are released in the atmosphere, the isotopic ratio of the atmosphere changes.

Note, those are just two ways. Data from tree rings, ice cores, and other methods have all validated this as well.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Straight from the horse's mouth. Check out these quoteS from Arnold Schwarzenegger (http://www.arnoldexposed.com/quotes.html)


"My relationship to power and authority is that I'm all for it." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger at 44 to US News and World Report in 1990.



"People need somebody to watch over them... Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger at 44 to US News and World Report in 1990.



"My friends don't want me to mention Kurt's name, because of all the recent Nazi stuff and the U.N. controversy, but I love him and Maria does too, and so thank you, Kurt."
Arnold Schwarzenegger on his friend and fellow Austrian Kurt Waldheim, a Nazi war criminal


"I was born to be a leader. I love the fact that millions of people look up to me."

I was always dreaming about very powerful people, dictators and things like that. I was just always impressed by people who could be remembered for hundreds of years, or even, like Jesus, be for thousands of years remembered."
Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 1977 film Pumping Iron



"I saw this toilet bowl. How many times do you get away with this, to take a woman, grab her upside down, and bury her face in a toilet bowl? I wanted to have something floating there ... The thing is, you can do it, because in the end, I didn't do it to a woman, she's a machine! We could get away with it without being crucified by who-knows-what group."
Arnold Schwarzenegger describing a scene in Terminator 3

Thats funny, because those things seem to be most nearly the opposite of how I perceive him.

[snowspot66]

The current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 390ppm (parts per million), up from 280ppm from before the industrial days.

I don't have time to read the link atthe moment so this may or may not have been addressed. How do we know it's from man? How do we know what a "normal" ppm level is for CO2? My biggest issue with a lot of this is I see people running around shouting out numbers like they mean something. They mean nothing without the correct context. Are the answers to those questions well established? I've never seen it mentioned if so but I admit I've never done enough research on it to actually know one way or another.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I don't have time to read the link atthe moment so this may or may not have been addressed. How do we know it's from man? How do we know what a "normal" ppm level is for CO2? My biggest issue with a lot of this is I see people running around shouting out numbers like they mean something. They mean nothing without the correct context. Are the answers to those questions well established? I've never seen it mentioned if so but I admit I've never done enough research on it to actually know one way or another.Hundreds of scientists mentioned it and more in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report...

-------------------------------------------------------------
Blame for global warming placed firmly on humankind (http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11088)
* Updated 12:00 05 February 2007
* NewScientist.com news service
* Catherine Brahic, Paris

The 2nd of February 2007 will one day hopefully be remembered as the day the question mark was removed from the debate on whether human activities are driving climate change, said the head of the UN Environment Programme at the launch of the most authoritative scientific report on climate change to date.

The new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report says there is 90% certainty that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are driving climate change. Read the global reaction to the report here.

“The word unequivocal is the key message of this report,” said Achim Steiner, executive director of UNEP, adding that those who have doubts about the role of humans in driving the climate “can no longer ignore the evidence”.

The IPCC report says the rise in global temperatures could be as high as 6.4°C by 2100. The report also predicts sea level rises and increases in the intensity of hurricanes. It is the work of 1200 climate experts from 40 countries, who have spent six years reviewing all the available climate research. It was released in Paris, France, on Friday (read the 21-page summary here, pdf format). Listen to audio from today's press conference.

The last IPCC report, issued in 2001, predicted that temperatures would rise by 1.4°C to 5.8°C by 2100, relative to 1990 temperatures.

But the new report says temperature rises by 2100 could, in the most extreme scenarios, range from 1.1°C and 6.4°C. The most likely range is 1.8°C to 4.0°C (see figure 1, right), with the report predicting that 4°C is most likely if the world continues to burn fossil-fuels at the same rate (read the The impacts of rising global temperatures).

Melting, moving ice

Rises in sea levels are predicted by the new report, threatening low-lying areas of land around the world. As the oceans warm, their waters expand, while rising temperatures also increase the melting of the ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica.

CONT.

[frerottenextelway]

I don't have time to read the link atthe moment so this may or may not have been addressed. How do we know it's from man? How do we know what a "normal" ppm level is for CO2? My biggest issue with a lot of this is I see people running around shouting out numbers like they mean something. They mean nothing without the correct context. Are the answers to those questions well established? I've never seen it mentioned if so but I admit I've never done enough research on it to actually know one way or another.

Dude, I answered the "how we know" in that same post!

Think of it like this, you have a box of blue marbles. You dump a can of red marbles in it. Now in the box you have blue and red marbles and you can physically see that. The same principal holds true with CO2, but instead of colors it's isotope composition. What we pump in the air is a different composition than what is there naturally.

Another way we know is that the largest natural resevoir of CO2 is the ocean. If the ocean was leaking CO2 in the atmosphere, it's concentration of CO2 would obviously be decreasing. But it's concentration of CO2 according to every study is increasing (also due to fossil fuels).

Other ways include looking at the isotope composition (think the colored marbles analogy) of tree rings and ice cores. Another way is by having a good estimate of the total CO2 we've released in the atmosphere and how much would ''stay'' there.

Like I said before in here, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is one of the most well understood aspects of climate science.

[alkemical]

Thats funny, because those things seem to be most nearly the opposite of how I perceive him.

Imagine that.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Schwarzenegger is proof that there are SOME good Republicans out there.

If you become wiser, you will loosen your adherance to identification with a particular group of people with certain perceived opinions that you think you agree with.

I realize that you are 21 and have a long way to go. In another 7 years, you will look back on these types of statements with the same eyes that you look on your statements as a 14 year old. Especially if you plan on going to grad school like you say you are. If you learn anything in grad school, it will be that you dont know very much and that it takes alot of effort to know anything, and that even then you dont really know very much.

[Rohirrim]

Yeah, Smurf. You'll also learn not to take advice from people like Llama. ;D

[Spider]

If you become wiser, you will loosen your adherance to identification with a particular group of people with certain perceived opinions that you think you agree with.

I realize that you are 21 and have a long way to go. In another 7 years, you will look back on these types of statements with the same eyes that you look on your statements as a 14 year old. Especially if you plan on going to grad school like you say you are. If you learn anything in grad school, it will be that you dont know very much and that it takes alot of effort to know anything, and that even then you dont really know very much.

Dont bullshít younger ones , thats just wrong ..............

[epicSocialism4tw]

Dont bullshít younger ones , thats just wrong ..............


Come on Spider...I could be getting somewhere with this. Dont derail a train before it hits the track ;D

But truely...

Liberal Arts education is designed to teach a person to work even in their pursuit of technical or philosophical knowledge.

Graduate education is designed to take that to the next level. At MIT, the purpose of the first two years of grad school is to beat the ego trip out of everyone there. Suicide is common. It's rough. People get there and are forced to realize that they dont really know anything, and that the only way they can contribute intellectually or technically is to become proficient at their WORK, not their perceptions.

[Spider]

Come on Spider...I could be getting somewhere with this. Dont derail a train before it hits the track ;D

;) point is people are Republicans or Democrats cause they believe the same way ..........me I am on the left , cause I am for Unions and the labor movement , the middle class ....... though I have voted Republican in the past

[Hotrod]

I think we should tax the hell out of truck drivers. Goofy bastards are pollutin the air bringing my cheap made in China **** to my local Walmart.

[houghtam]

Taking care of the environment is not a moral issue? Since when?

When you look at the fact that cancer caused by pollution has risen exponentially in the last few decades, how does that not strike a moral chord with you? When you see animals covered in oil because some tanker carrying thousands of gallons of a dying non-renewable resource crashed into something and leaked out into a natural habitat, how can one sit on their couch and not feel some sort of empathy? When deforestation ruins the habitats of wild animals and either endangers them or destroys them all together, how can someone who claims to be "human" not be outraged?

IMO, God (or whatever created us and everything we know) may have created certain animals for us to eat, use as clothing, and so on, but the environment was not created for us to sit back and take a big steaming PILE on it and not even have the decency to cover it up and wipe.

I wonder if the same people who think it's morally okay to ruin our environment because a few skeptics say it's no big deal also believe it's morally okay for gays to marry and raise children because there are a few people who believe that homosexuality is a biological issue, not a free choice.

This thread may be about global warming, but IMO it's about a lot more. Global warming, deforestation, endangered species, the rape of natural habitats, it's all one in the same. And some people are okay with all of the above because it conveniences them. Then there are the rest of us with some semblence of moral fiber and empathy and respect not only for our fellow creatures, but our fellow man as well. To those who don't care, I don't think I'll ever understand how you can live with yourselves, and it's not even worth trying to convince you otherwise. Those of you on the fence about this, you're smarter than that. Don't let someone tell you that taking care of the environment is not a moral issue. Become a responsible human being. Do what you can to take care of our planet, and even if we get covered in some cataclysmic global ice age, you'll KNOW that it wasn't your fault.

[Swedish Extrovert]

;) point is people are Republicans or Democrats cause they believe the same way ..........me I am on the left , cause I am for Unions and the labor movement , the middle class ....... though I have voted Republican in the past

I consider myself a center-left moderate. Maybe a democrat with libertarian views...

I don't follow everything any one party says. I just despise everything the Republican party stands for. I'm all for small government, which the Republicans claim to be... but they aren't.

The Democrats are more about small government these days than the Republicans are.

[RocBronc]

Taking care of the environment is not a moral issue? Since when?

When you look at the fact that cancer caused by pollution has risen exponentially in the last few decades, how does that not strike a moral chord with you? When you see animals covered in oil because some tanker carrying thousands of gallons of a dying non-renewable resource crashed into something and leaked out into a natural habitat, how can one sit on their couch and not feel some sort of empathy? When deforestation ruins the habitats of wild animals and either endangers them or destroys them all together, how can someone who claims to be "human" not be outraged?

IMO, God (or whatever created us and everything we know) may have created certain animals for us to eat, use as clothing, and so on, but the environment was not created for us to sit back and take a big steaming PILE on it and not even have the decency to cover it up and wipe.

I wonder if the same people who think it's morally okay to ruin our environment because a few skeptics say it's no big deal also believe it's morally okay for gays to marry and raise children because there are a few people who believe that homosexuality is a biological issue, not a free choice.

This thread may be about global warming, but IMO it's about a lot more. Global warming, deforestation, endangered species, the rape of natural habitats, it's all one in the same. And some people are okay with all of the above because it conveniences them. Then there are the rest of us with some semblence of moral fiber and empathy and respect not only for our fellow creatures, but our fellow man as well. To those who don't care, I don't think I'll ever understand how you can live with yourselves, and it's not even worth trying to convince you otherwise. Those of you on the fence about this, you're smarter than that. Don't let someone tell you that taking care of the environment is not a moral issue. Become a responsible human being. Do what you can to take care of our planet, and even if we get covered in some cataclysmic global ice age, you'll KNOW that it wasn't your fault.

Who are you to impose your idea of morality on us? I thought everything was relative...

[Spider]

I think we should tax the hell out of truck drivers. Goofy bastards are pollutin the air bringing my cheap made in China **** to my local Walmart.

LOL tax more ? we already pay a 1,000 a month just for Road use , not including IFTA tax , state tax , tax on plates , but something could be worked out ...... and I am proud to say the trucking industry is the only industry that doesnt receive any money from the government , and to be brutally honest we could afford to chip in more , my pay check for running out ot PA and back is around 3,500 , the truck made 10,300 ...........

[RocBronc]

LOL tax more ? we already pay a 1,000 a month just for Road use , not including IFTA tax , state tax , tax on plates , but something could be worked out ...... and I am proud to say the trucking industry is the only industry that doesnt receive any money from the government , and to be brutally honest we could afford to chip in more , my pay check for running out ot PA and back is around 3,500 , the truck made 10,300 ...........

Hey, we agree on something...

[epicSocialism4tw]

I don't follow everything any one party says. I just despise everything the Republican party stands for. I'm all for small government, which the Republicans claim to be... but they aren't.

You have to understand the terminology.

The Democrats are more about small government these days than the Republicans are.

Both of them are about increasing their power and wealth in the international economy. Everything else is window dressing.

[Spider]

Hey, we agree on something...

not to sure about that , in alot of cases , what we pay in taxes is coming up short , or someone is pocketing alot of cash , I -80 in wyoming is a death road , and yet , we are told not enough money to fix it , and i have done my share of damage , 120k 150k payloads up and down the road in winter ........either we need to cut back on the weight , or up the 1,000 a month to 1,300 a month ..... and the 300.00 is nothing ........... My motto is , we are the ones tearing up the roads , we should pay to fix them , but that isnt a rep or a dem motto ...reps would just as soon not fix it , and the dems want everyone to pay for it .....

[ton80]

I consider myself a center-left moderate. Maybe a democrat with libertarian views...

I don't follow everything any one party says. I just despise everything the Republican party stands for. I'm all for small government, which the Republicans claim to be... but they aren't.

The Democrats are more about small government these days than the Republicans are.

Once again smurf you prove that you are the dumbest poster on this website. Yes, $ hit for brains, you are even dumber than even bob. You claim the republicans are the party of big gov't. That statement was actually somewhat intelligent. Under Bush, the republicans have behaved like a bunch of big government liberals. Bush proves your contention every time he passes some sort of spending bill. Bush actually is to the left, politically speaking, of the liberal icon president Kennedy. At no level can I defend Bush's spending practices since he has been president. What emphasizes and underscores your stupidity is your statement about democrats being the party of small governement. For your information, the democrat party, under the likes of George Soros, Hitlery Clinton (mrs universal health care herself), John Edwards and the like have shifted the democrat party to the level of downright socialism. Basically, the democrats have moved to the left and the republicans have filled the vacuum created by the democrats. That leaves a void where the republican party once stood.

FYI, my political belief is that I purely hate 99.9 percent of all politicians. I wish the terrorists on 9/11 would have hit congress while in session so that the entire political class would have to be replaced. I fn hate politicians with all my heart. I can't overstate how much I hate all them bastards, political party be damned. With that in mind, your statement that the democrats are the party of small gov't puts you in the exclusive company as the dumbest poster on this website.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Once again smurf you prove that you are the dumbest poster on this website. Yes, $ hit for brains, you are even dumber than even bob. You claim the republicans are the party of big gov't. That statement was actually somewhat intelligent. Under Bush, the republicans have behaved like a bunch of big government liberals. Bush proves your contention every time he passes some sort of spending bill. Bush actually is to the left, politically speaking, of the liberal icon president Kennedy. At no level can I defend Bush's spending practices since he has been president. What emphasizes and underscores your stupidity is your statement about democrats being the party of small governement. For your information, the democrat party, under the likes of George Soros, Hitlery Clinton (mrs universal health care herself), John Edwards and the like have shifted the democrat party to the level of downright socialism. Basically, the democrats have moved to the left and the republicans have filled the vacuum created by the democrats. That leaves a void where the republican party once stood.

FYI, my political belief is that I purely hate 99.9 percent of all politicians. I wish the terrorists on 9/11 would have hit congress while in session so that the entire political class would have to be replaced. I fn hate politicians with all my heart. I can't overstate how much I hate all them bastards, political party be damned. With that in mind, your statement that the democrats are the party of small gov't puts you in the exclusive company as the dumbest poster on this website.I don't know, I'd have to say you are giving anyone in that category a run for their money.

[Spider]

FYI, my political belief is that I purely hate 99.9 percent of all politicians. I wish the terrorists on 9/11 would have hit congress while in session so that the entire political class would have to be replaced. I fn hate politicians with all my heart. I can't overstate how much I hate all them bastards, political party be damned. With that in mind, your statement that the democrats are the party of small gov't puts you in the exclusive company as the dumbest poster on this website.


you can eat shít ........... alot of Americans in congress , aids , reporters , maintenance people , janitors ........ you are the dumbest poster on the board , wishing a successful terrorist attack on American soil is wrong no matter the target , but this is America so we will tolerate assholes like you ..........

[Rohirrim]

Once again smurf you prove that you are the dumbest poster on this website. Yes, $ hit for brains, you are even dumber than even bob. You claim the republicans are the party of big gov't. That statement was actually somewhat intelligent. Under Bush, the republicans have behaved like a bunch of big government liberals. Bush proves your contention every time he passes some sort of spending bill. Bush actually is to the left, politically speaking, of the liberal icon president Kennedy. At no level can I defend Bush's spending practices since he has been president. What emphasizes and underscores your stupidity is your statement about democrats being the party of small governement. For your information, the democrat party, under the likes of George Soros, Hitlery Clinton (mrs universal health care herself), John Edwards and the like have shifted the democrat party to the level of downright socialism. Basically, the democrats have moved to the left and the republicans have filled the vacuum created by the democrats. That leaves a void where the republican party once stood.

FYI, my political belief is that I purely hate 99.9 percent of all politicians. I wish the terrorists on 9/11 would have hit congress while in session so that the entire political class would have to be replaced. I fn hate politicians with all my heart. I can't overstate how much I hate all them bastards, political party be damned. With that in mind, your statement that the democrats are the party of small gov't puts you in the exclusive company as the dumbest poster on this website.

God, am I getting tired of right wing morons painting George Soros as some kind of evil force in the universe. Do they know anything about Soros? No, of course not. They just dribble out whatever Faux Noise pours into their empty little heads. I know! Let's have a history lesson for the troglodytes. Ever hear of Solidarity? The revolts in Poland? Remember Lech Walesa? You know who his biggest funder was? That's right. Soros. You know who many historians credit with helping bring down the USSR by his continuous support of anti-Soviet movements in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc.? That's right. Soros. You know who almost single handedly funded the Rose Revolution that overthrew the corrupt dictatorship of Georgia and replaced it with a democratic government? Soros. Did you know that led the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine? Did you know that Soros entire organization is dedicated to destroying dictatorships around the world and replacing them with democracies? Yes, Soros spent a ton of money trying to keep George Bush from getting elected. Too bad it didn't work, eh? He also spent a ton of money trying to stop the invasion of Iraq. Guess he was wrong there too, eh? Is it any wonder he saw Bush and the neocons as a threat to democracy?

I'm surprised that the Righties paint Soros as some kind of evil; A man who has dedicated his life on the front lines of worldwide democracy, whose life has been threatened numerous times by the KGB, who has poured more of his personal wealth into worldwide democratic causes then just about anybody else on the planet.

And yet they love Rupert Murdoch, a man who has almost single-handedly destroyed the level of political discourse in the United States, who has almost single-handedly destroyed the profession of journalism in the United States, an Australian who only accepted U.S. citizenship when he discovered he couldn't buy U.S. TV stations without it, a man whose control of Tony Blair is considered one of the chief instigating factors in the Iraq War, a man who is now setting his sights on destroying the venerable Wall Street Journal.
Murdoch is the Righties hero, and Soros is their enemy. That's says a lot.

[Spider]

God, am I getting tired of right wing morons painting George Soros as some kind of evil force in the universe. Do they know anything about Soros? No, of course not. They just dribble out whatever Faux Noise pours into their empty little heads. I know! Let's have a history lesson for the troglodytes. Ever hear of Solidarity? The revolts in Poland? Remember Lech Walesa? You know who his biggest funder was? That's right. Soros. You know who many historians credit with helping bring down the USSR by his continuous support of anti-Soviet movements in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc.? That's right. Soros. You know who almost single handedly funded the Rose Revolution that overthrew the corrupt dictatorship of Georgia and replaced it with a democratic government? Soros. Did you know that led the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine? Did you know that Soros entire organization is dedicated to destroying dictatorships around the world and replacing them with democracies? Yes, Soros spent a ton of money trying to keep George Bush from getting elected. Too bad it didn't work, eh? He also spent a ton of money trying to stop the invasion of Iraq. Guess he was wrong there too, eh? Is it any wonder he saw Bush and the neocons as a threat to democracy?

I'm surprised that the Righties paint Soros as some kind of evil; A man who has dedicated his life on the front lines of worldwide democracy, whose life has been threatened numerous times by the KGB, who has poured more of his personal wealth into worldwide democratic causes then just about anybody else on the planet.

And yet they love Rupert Murdoch, a man who has almost single-handedly destroyed the level of political discourse in the United States, who has almost single-handedly destroyed the profession of journalism in the United States, an Australian who only accepted U.S. citizenship when he discovered he couldn't buy U.S. TV stations without it, a man whose control of Tony Blair is considered one of the chief instigating factors in the Iraq War, a man who is now setting his sights on destroying the venerable Wall Street Journal.
Murdoch is the Righties hero, and Soros is their enemy. That's says a lot.

;D this ton 80 guy is real piece of work .........

[DenverBrit]

Once again smurf you prove that you are the dumbest poster on this website. Yes, $ hit for brains, you are even dumber than even bob. You claim the republicans are the party of big gov't. That statement was actually somewhat intelligent. Under Bush, the republicans have behaved like a bunch of big government liberals. Bush proves your contention every time he passes some sort of spending bill. Bush actually is to the left, politically speaking, of the liberal icon president Kennedy. At no level can I defend Bush's spending practices since he has been president. What emphasizes and underscores your stupidity is your statement about democrats being the party of small governement. For your information, the democrat party, under the likes of George Soros, Hitlery Clinton (mrs universal health care herself), John Edwards and the like have shifted the democrat party to the level of downright socialism. Basically, the democrats have moved to the left and the republicans have filled the vacuum created by the democrats. That leaves a void where the republican party once stood.

FYI, my political belief is that I purely hate 99.9 percent of all politicians. I wish the terrorists on 9/11 would have hit congress while in session so that the entire political class would have to be replaced. I fn hate politicians with all my heart. I can't overstate how much I hate all them bastards, political party be damned. With that in mind, your statement that the democrats are the party of small gov't puts you in the exclusive company as the dumbest poster on this website.

That's one angry little hamster you have running around in your head.

[Hotrod]

That's one angry little hamster you have running around in your head.

LOL

I will agree with ton 80 on one thing. Both sides of the isle pretty much suck.

[Spider]

LOL

I will agree with ton 80 on one thing. Both sides of the isle pretty much suck.

That they do , but ton80 is an asshole for wanting Congress attacked by terrorist ...........Thats just so wrong on so many levels .......you know how much I hate Bush , but I never wished the terrorist got the whitehouse ...

[Swedish Extrovert]

Once again smurf you prove that you are the dumbest poster on this website. Yes, $ hit for brains, you are even dumber than even bob. You claim the republicans are the party of big gov't. That statement was actually somewhat intelligent. Under Bush, the republicans have behaved like a bunch of big government liberals. Bush proves your contention every time he passes some sort of spending bill. Bush actually is to the left, politically speaking, of the liberal icon president Kennedy. At no level can I defend Bush's spending practices since he has been president. What emphasizes and underscores your stupidity is your statement about democrats being the party of small governement. For your information, the democrat party, under the likes of George Soros, Hitlery Clinton (mrs universal health care herself), John Edwards and the like have shifted the democrat party to the level of downright socialism. Basically, the democrats have moved to the left and the republicans have filled the vacuum created by the democrats. That leaves a void where the republican party once stood.

FYI, my political belief is that I purely hate 99.9 percent of all politicians. I wish the terrorists on 9/11 would have hit congress while in session so that the entire political class would have to be replaced. I fn hate politicians with all my heart. I can't overstate how much I hate all them bastards, political party be damned. With that in mind, your statement that the democrats are the party of small gov't puts you in the exclusive company as the dumbest poster on this website.


Wow thanks for the compliment. I like the name **** for brains... if I'm **** for brains then your brains must be that acidic anal ooze that you get after trying the special sauce.

Of course I was talking about Bush.

The spending that Bush has introduced with the help of the republican-controlled 109th congress reflects big government.

So do the proposed limits on stem-cell research, homosexual marriage, abortion... that the democrats oppose.

Oh yeah, and the Patriot Act too.

Oh and also.... the democrats haven't progressed towards socialism. The spectrum kept shifting to the right... and said politicians were the ones who are are keeping it from becoming centrism.

[Dedhed]

Still waiting for an explanation for the last major warming trend we had at the end of the last ice age? Can we admit to natural increases of CO2? or were those pesky fire-starting cavemen to blame?

Large increases in are natural, as long as they take place over millions of years. The increases we've seen in the history of Humanity is absolutely unprecedented.

[Dedhed]

If you become wiser, you will loosen your adherance to identification with a particular group of people with certain perceived opinions that you think you agree with.

I realize that you are 21 and have a long way to go. In another 7 years, you will look back on these types of statements with the same eyes that you look on your statements as a 14 year old. Especially if you plan on going to grad school like you say you are. If you learn anything in grad school, it will be that you dont know very much and that it takes alot of effort to know anything, and that even then you dont really know very much.
If you become wiser, you will loosen your adherence to preconceived notions of particular age groups.

[Swedish Extrovert]

And yet they love Rupert Murdoch, a man who has almost single-handedly destroyed the level of political discourse in the United States, who has almost single-handedly destroyed the profession of journalism in the United States, an Australian who only accepted U.S. citizenship when he discovered he couldn't buy U.S. TV stations without it, a man whose control of Tony Blair is considered one of the chief instigating factors in the Iraq War, a man who is now setting his sights on destroying the venerable Wall Street Journal.
Murdoch is the Righties hero, and Soros is their enemy. That's says a lot.

Rep