Global Warming News

[20 20]

If you can say what the best temperature is, and explain why, I'd sure apreciate it. Right now, I think the planet would be better off if it was about five degrees warmer. We'd have more farmland, more growing days, less energy needed to warm homes and more rain water because of more evaporation.

Eddie

A best temperature to a human would be only of their personal opinion. I personally like the cold winters, snow and warm summer{75F tops}. The reason being is that with the cold we get rid of bugs and I personally like snow. With the warmth things can come to life plants animals etc. The north doesn't have all the nasty little critters{fire ants poison spiders etc.} you have south because of cold climate. We do get black flys{nasty little monsters, usually only last a few weeks} but once it warms and DRIES out they disappear until the next circle of temps goes around.

So to answer your question with MY honest opinion, no I do not want the climate to warm up by 5 degrees. Don't forget a warm up of 5 degrees will flood out most coastal cities. What is the perfect temp? I don't think that is up to the government or any other human. The planet will change with or without us.

My question/concern is not with all the hype or garbage being used for money scams, but has to do with our {human society} waste. We say we are getting greener but we live in a throw away world . We say cars are being built better and stronger{bwahahahahaha} but a majority of folks buy new every 2 years{imagine grandpa doing that?}. We say use less energy but we keep inventing crap that eats energy for no reason other then making us lazy. We say we're eating better and live longer{this is far from truth} but obesity is a huge{no pun intened} problem. The list goes on but I don't want to get off topic{ what is the topic again } I just wanted to answer your question with my opinion and give a couple of reasons why.

 

[Bird]

help me out here....don't federal government retirees receive a pension?

Yes, they do. And in many cases, they've also worked other jobs for many years, paying into social security, so they would be entitled to full social security benefits base on their own record. In other cases, they'd be entitled to social security benefits based on their spouse's record.

In either case, their benefits may be reduced if they receive a government pension (not only federal government, but state and local governments as well). Depending on the size of the government pension and the size of the otherwise social security benefits, the reduction may be such that the pensioner receives no social security payments at all, as in my case.

If you'd like to learn details, go to social security's website.

 

[Barton]

I'm a firm believer in climate change. Well, at least here in southwest Georgia, umm, for today. Pics attached... Poor azaleas...

 

[mostly_gas]

So to answer your question with MY honest opinion, no I do not want the climate to warm up by 5 degrees. Don't forget a warm up of 5 degrees will flood out most coastal cities. What is the perfect temp? I don't think that is up to the government or any other human. The planet will change with or without us.

That is the kind stuff the IPCC put out but cannot prove. Others repeat it as fact but no body has the slightest idea as to fact or fancy. Saw some research the other day that was looking into if the oceans capacity was changing due to the movement of the Teutonic plates. Just remember the "hockey stick" has not happened, and no one forecasted the moderation in the warming trend. I have yet to hear about any coordinated effort to clean or repair the temp data and models can not be debugged on faulty data.

 

[Pilot]

There was the assertion that melting of the Greenland icecap and the glaciers would raise the ocean levels by several feet, flooding many coastal cities. That was another "oops!"

Calculations show melting of all that ice would only have a minimal impact on ocean levels. Warming of the oceans, however would have a bigger impact as the water expanded as it warmed. Total rise according to the 2007 IPCC prediction is between 7 and 82 centimeters--less than 3 feet at maximum by the year 2100. Another overstatement to get the folks churned up about global warming.

 

[keegs]

The governor has some common sense ideas for healthcare reform IMO. Could be the basis for a compromise. Thought I'd pass on:

washingtonpost.com

 

[IH3444]

U.N. climate panel admits Dutch sea level flaw | Reuters

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/12/utah-climate-alarmists

And this one.....whoooooo-weeeee! It's a bit scary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...ebt-bailout-EU-leaders-split-euro-crisis.html

 

[Loren49]

Just a short recap of the following:

U.N. climate panel admits Dutch sea level flaw | Reuters

1) 55% of Netherlands is prone to flooding - 26% below sea level and 29% prone to river flooding.

2) Instead of stating in the report that rising sea level could effect 26% of the country, it was stated it could effect all of the flood prone area.

Quote from article:
"The United Nations has said errors in the 2007 report of about 3,000 pages do not affect the core conclusions that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, are warming the globe."

The other obvious error was 2035 when 2300 was intended.

Just because lazy or careless or overzealous people have restated these errors has little to do with the other 2998 pages of the report. Those errors in conclusions are not rational reasons to invalidate the entire report.

Also a 3 ft increase in sea level over the next 90 years would cause enormous damage to property world wide and affect millions of people.

Its lots easier to tear something down than it is to build it.

Loren

 

[Pilot]

Their proposed restatement is also misleading: 'because 55 percent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding', is an accurate statement but is implies that the flooding potential is related to climate change, when only a portion, the area near or below sea level is.

It's more than errors on a couple pages. Their data base is poor (see: Home for how poor their database is and how it is biased to state warming that isn't there) and has been manipulated. Everything is based on models that involve numerous assumptions, many of which if wrong could lead to major changes in conclusions. They are asking, no, demanding major financial concessions in our way of life and in our economy to effect a "cure" that will have minimal benefit.

Our way of life and our place in the world is a result of a strong economy. Complying with IPCC proposals would be a huge cost to our economy, the second "great recession" but much longer lasting and would likely elevate China to a greater status as a world power. The US might become #2.

Before they ask for that, they need to get the "science" right and they haven't done so.

 

[Axe Man]

Large corporations can influence government driven agendas and institutions such as the IPCC through the use of lobbyists and funding.
In 2005 members of the IPCC met with Shells international climate change team to discuss a stratigic partnership to fund a program. In these meetings the climate change team let it be known they were not interested in the basic science.Any work they support must have clear and immediate relevance to " real world activities " They are particularly interested in emmissions trading and CDM ( clean development mechanism )
CDM is a subset of flexible mechanisms controlled by the world trade organization. Why would Shell be interested in this?
The CRU produces data saying we're going to die. Then works on policies to keep us alive. Then the CRU accepts funding from corporations, in this case Shell, that want to affect how those policies are written.
So yes big oil and big business want to influence the AGW issue just not in the way AGW believers would have you believe.
There's billions of dollars to be made by the oil companies in the trading of carbon credits.

 

[piller]

We continue to learn about more and more "embarassing" errors contained in the IPCC report. Each time it turns out that the case to support global warming has been over stated or exaggerated. Where are the errors that understate the case for global warming? If the report is accurate and objective should we not also see an equal amount of "embarassing" errors which understate the case for global warming?

 

[SpringHollow]

Any time new science states that one part of the problem is worse than originally thought, it is then dismissed as bad science. But if it states that it is better than what was thought, then it is as though it were written by god. hmmmm

 

[IH3444]

Earth orbital fluxuates from very circular to elliptical, the shift to elliptical moves the earth approximately 3 million miles futher from the sun on the outer curves of the elliptical orbit. This leads to the ice ages. Hmmm, no tax revenue possibility on the earth orbital changes.

Earth tilt fluxes...nada on that one also.

Tectonic plate movements, Oh we tried sending a bill to Vulcan, god of the deep earth. He sent back earthquakes. That's a no go on that idea.

The sun has times of sun spots, and little or no sun spots. Darn, no tax revenue on that one either.

The sun also has times of fluxuation of just plain energy output. Ahhhh....tough one collecting tax from the sun.

Cosmic rays causing water vapor clouds.....ummmm no address to send the tax bill to. Bummer!

Now how in the world can we collect some taxes on this "climate change"?
I've got it, "green house gases" Now we're getting somewhere!

Study that stuff, and see what you can come up with that sounds plausible, so we can generate some tax revenue on that "science". Brillant!

People exhale CO2, .... I knew it, sooner or later the goverment would find a way to tax the air that we breath in and out. Smashing!

 

[keegs]

IH,

You're getting all worked up about sun spots and carbon taxes ...I thought the legislation was for a cap and trade system to reduce CO2 concentrations.

But to your concern....certainly a plain old carbon tax makes more sense no? I mean after all, how much will it cost to relocate Miami, Galveston, Charleston, Mobile, Beaufort, New Orleans, San Jose............?

Maybe you think another tax cut will pay for it?

 

[Loren49]

IH3444 - you're statement:
"Earth orbital fluxuates from very circular to elliptical, the shift to elliptical moves the earth approximately 3 million miles futher from the sun on the outer curves of the elliptical orbit. This leads to the ice ages. Hmmm, no tax revenue possibility on the earth orbital changes."

Some facts:
"The earth's orbit around the sun is not a circle. The earth's orbit around the sun is slightly elliptical. Therefore, the distance between the earth and the sun varies throughout the year.
At its nearest point on the ellipse that is the earth's orbit around the sun, the earth is 91,445,000 miles (147,166,462 km) from the sun. This point in the earth's orbit is known as perihelion and it occurs on January 3.

The earth is farthest away from the sun on July 4 when it is 94,555,000 miles (152,171,522 km) from the sun. This point in the earth's orbit is called aphelion."

This 3,000,000 mile difference is about a 3% difference and puts the northern hemisphere closer during our winter. Happens every year - nothing to do with ice age IMHO.

Looks like the variations that matter work on from 26,000 to 100,000 year cycles.

global warming (Earth science) :: Variations in Earth's orbit -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

"The slight ellipse in the earth's orbit does have a slight impact on the amount of solar energy being received by the earth. This 3.3% difference in distance does not impact the earth as much as the seasonal variations, however.
On timescales of tens of millennia, the dominant radiative forcing of Earth痴 climate is associated with slow variations in the geometry of Earth痴 orbit about the Sun. These variations include the precession of the equinoxes (that is, changes in the timing of summer and winter), occurring on a roughly 26,000-year timescale; changes in the tilt angle of Earth痴 rotational axis relative to the plane of Earth痴 orbit around the Sun, occurring on a roughly 41,000-year timescale; and changes in the eccentricity (the departure from a perfect circle) of Earth痴 orbit around the Sun, occurring on a roughly 100,000-year timescale."

Is there some over enthusiastic denying going on. Is this a reason to invalidate everything posted. (comparison to throwing out the 3000 page multi year research.)

Loren

 

[Loren49]

Weird weather report:
Vero Beach, Florida 37 degrees
Vancouver, BC, Canada 48 degrees, lowest temp forecast for next week is 34F with high 40s to mid 50s during the day. Hopefully it is colder on the slopes. Not good for Winter Olympics

Loren

 

[RedRocker]

I always like Walter Williams' take on things.
Walter E. Williams : Global Warming Update - Townhall.com

 

[IH3444]

3000 pages of what? Don't forget to read the comments...they are finger licking good!


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece


CNSNews.com - Sen. Inhofe?s Family Builds Igloo for Global Warming Spokesman Al Gore in Snow-laden D.C.

 

[Loren49]

A little background on John Coleman-weatherman since he was 19 - not a scientist - seems to believe most scientists are dishonest

"Here, Coleman advises that scientists - virtually all scientists, including members of his own family - are isolated, agenda-driven, single-minded and corrupt."

Richard Littlemore | The Skeptic John Coleman: Charming, Grandfatherly - and not the least credible

A couple pieces from article:
"That's not the case with the general criticism of Coleman. You can fairly dismiss his views because he has no expertise. He's a weather forecaster and has been since he was 19. He has never studied atmospheric science and, even as a self-proclaimed expert, he seems not to know the difference between being a meteorologist and a climate scientist.

If you want the whole backstory on Coleman, it's available here in an excellent article by the Columbia Journalism Review."

"Coleman shows no such restraint and one can only imagine how he faces his brother - who actually HAS a science PhD - when they get together over the holidays.

But that's pretty much all Coleman's got - a vast conspiracy theory. If you look at his actual argument - the literacy-challenged essay or the sometimes-stumbling TV presentations like this one - you'll see a nice man, past his prime as a news-caster and well past his best-before date as a scientific source. You will see some carefully manipulated graphs that are not sourced and that are cut off to prevent us from having to consider that the recent global warming is, indeed, more severe than anything seen in a thousand years and is moving more quickly than any climate change in many thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of years."

Loren

 

[texbaylea]

You can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time.

P. T. Barnum or maybe A. Lincoln.

It seems as the last thought may be happening. A. Gore take notice

Vernon