457 replies to this topic

[platypus]

Arctic Heat Wave Stuns Climate Change Researchers:

http://www.terradail...rchers_999.html

[struct]

I am tempted to post these again (this is different thread though). I find this anomaly in the arctic of the last three months (see below) as the turning point to impressive climate changes (in geological scale). It will be very interesting to see how the arctic ice is going to evolve this winter and beyond.





http://arctic.atmos....edu/cryosphere/

[biknut]

Arctic Heat Wave Stuns Climate Change Researchers:

The problem is we don't know why this is happening. The warming in the Arctic is higher than the CO2 theory of warming predicts.

Here's a study that thinks outside the box. Still caused by man, but not as dramatic. Global warming alarmists won't be to happy about this because fixing this problem won't require stopping progress or worldwide carbon taxes.


7 June 2007

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Greenhouse Gases Taking The Heat For Dirty Snow</span>

The global warming debate has until now focused almost entirely on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, but scientists at the University of California - Irvine, suggest that a lesser-known problem - dirty snow - could explain the Arctic warming attributed to greenhouse gases.

Dirty snow is created when particulate matter from exhausts, smoke stacks, land use and forest-fires enters the atmosphere and infuses snow. Because dirty snow is darker than natural snow, it absorbs more sunlight and heat.


Writing about their findings in the Journal of Geophysical Research, the researchers explained that dirty snow has had a significant impact on climate warming since the Industrial Revolution. UCI scientist Charlie Zender said that in the past 200 years, the Earth has warmed by about 0.8 degrees Celsius and he contends that up to 20 percent of this rise could be attributed to dirty snow.


The effect is more conspicuous in Arctic areas, where Zender believes that more than 90 percent of the warming could be attributed to dirty snow.

http://www.scienceag...trunc_sys.shtml

[biknut]

Quebec introduces carbon tax, Canada CEOs urge more

Mon Oct 1, 2007 6:39 PM BST

TORONTO, Oct 1 (Reuters) - Quebec province slapped the country's first carbon tax on energy firms on Monday, as Canadian business leaders urged "environmental taxation" to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions.

The tax, proposed more than a year ago, is expected to raise C$200 million ($202 million) a year to fund the province's plans to reduce emissions.

It includes a per-litre levy of 0.8 Canadian cent for gasoline, 0.9 Canadian cent for diesel fuel, 0.96 Canadian cent for light heating oil, and C$8 a tonne for coal.

It wasn't immediately known whether the oil companies, including Petro-Canada (PCA.TO: Quote, Profile , Research) and Imperial Oil (IMO.TO: Quote, Profile , Research), would pass along the cost to consumers.

Separately, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives said Canada should become "an energy and environmental superpower," and suggested higher energy prices to help cut emissions, the Globe and Mail newspaper reported on Monday.

Since 1990, greenhouse-gas emissions in Canada, a net exporter of energy, have risen more than in any other leading industrialized country, data submitted by the Group of Eight rich nations to the U.N.'s Climate Change Secretariat shows.

Quebec has pledged to meet its targets under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

Canada has signed on to the agreement, which calls for a 6-percent cut in emissions from 1990 levels by 2012, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said that target is impossible to achieve.

Instead, the minority Conservative government aims to cut emissions from greenhouse gases -- the key contributor to climate change -- by 20 percent from current levels by 2020.

($1=$0.99 Canadian)


http://investing.reu...-QUEBEC-TAX.XML

[biknut]

Plan Uses Taxes to Fight Climate Change

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
The Associated Press
Wednesday, September 26, 2007; 7:34 PM

WASHINGTON -- Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like _ a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.

"I'm trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it's going to have a measure of pain that you're not going to like," Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.

Dingell will offer a "discussion draft" outlining his tax proposals on Thursday, the same day that President Bush holds a two-day conference to discuss voluntary efforts to combat climate change.

But Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that will craft climate legislation, is making it clear that he believes tackling global warming will require a lot more if it is to be taken seriously.

"This is going to cause pain," he said, adding that he wants to make certain "the pain is shared in a way that is fair, proper, acceptable and accomplishes the basic purpose" of reducing greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

Dingell said he's not sure what the final climate package will include when the House takes it up for a vote. The taxes measures he's proposing, in fact, will be taken up by another House committee. And the Senate is considering a market-based system that would set an economy-wide ceiling on the amount of carbon dioxide that would be allowed to be released.

Dingell says he hasn't rule out such a so-called "cap-and-trade" system, either, but that at least for now he wants to float what he believes is a better idea. He will propose for discussion:

_A 50-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline and jet fuel, phased in over five years, on top of existing taxes.

_A tax on carbon, at $50 a ton, released from burning coal, petroleum or natural gas.

_Phaseout of the interest tax deduction on home mortgages for homes over 3,000 square feet. Owners would keep most of the deduction for homes at the lower end of the scale, but it would be eliminated entirely for homes of 4,200 feet or more.

He estimates that would affect 10 percent of homeowners. He says "it's only fair" to tax those who buy large suburban houses and create urban sprawl. Historic and farm houses would be exempted.

Some of the revenue would be used to reduce payroll taxes, but most would go elsewhere including for highway construction, mass transit, paying for Social Security and health programs and to help the poor pay energy bills.

In the interview Wednesday, Dingell acknowledged he's tackling some of the most sacred of political cows. He's not sure if they will end up in the climate legislation, but he wants to open them for discussion.

"All my friends tell me you can't do this, it's going to be political poison," said Dingell, 81, who has served longer in the House than any of his colleagues and heads one of the chamber's most powerful committees.

Widely known for protecting the automakers who are so prominent in his state, the Michigan Democrat first raised the tax ideas this summer. Some people immediately suggested he was offering proposals he knows won't pass to sidestep other issues such as automobile fuel economy increases.

Dingell rejects such criticism and said he wants to trigger "an intelligent discussion of the whole question."

Many economists have long maintained that a carbon tax is a more-efficient, less-bureaucratic way to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide than a cap-and-trade system, which could be difficult to administer.

A carbon tax would impact everything from the cost of electricity to winter heating and add to the cost of gasoline and other motor fuels. But economists say a cap on carbon also would raise these costs as burning fossil fuels becomes more expensive.

Such tax proposals have gained little traction.

Rep. Pete Starke, D-Calif., has been trying unsuccessfully to get a carbon tax for 16 years. In the early 1990s the House passed a modest "BTU" tax on the heat content of fuels, only to have it die in the Senate. Dingell acknowledged that there are still people who blame the Democrats' loss of Congress in 1994 on the ill-fated tax.

The federal 18.4-cent gasoline tax also has been a subject of discussion, but not about increasing it. As gasoline prices soared above $3 a gallon last year a chorus of lawmakers called for suspending the tax.

http://www.washingto...2602127_pf.html

[platypus]

[dannov]

The thing is, there is a massive amount of evidence that this is just a naturally occurring phenomena on Earth. I don't subscribe to either position, but DO realize that pro-Global Warming scientists, politicians, governments, corporations, etc. stand to make a GREAT deal of money should any worldwide taxes or even sovereign taxes be enacted to combat "global warming."

Fact of the matter is, there is no reason that we should still be using oil. It's not a fossil fuel by the way, oil is unlimited and produced within our Earth, as the Soviets have discovered decades ago. When they attempted to share their knowledge with the West in the 90s, they were laughed out of the house and not acknowledged. They now keep the information to themselves, and continue to use their far more successful drilling techniques based on their theories to put Russia as the #1 source for oil in the world (far more extracted than Saudi Arabia).

[platypus]

The thing is, there is a massive amount of evidence that this is just a naturally occurring phenomena on Earth.

What evidence exactly?

I don't subscribe to either position, but DO realize that pro-Global Warming scientists, politicians, governments, corporations, etc. stand to make a GREAT deal of money should any worldwide taxes or even sovereign taxes be enacted to combat "global warming."

Did you consider that unlimited polluting fattens the bottom lines of large corporations? Science funding is peanuts compared with that.

Fact of the matter is, there is no reason that we should still be using oil. It's not a fossil fuel by the way, oil is unlimited and produced within our Earth, as the Soviets have discovered decades ago. When they attempted to share their knowledge with the West in the 90s, they were laughed out of the house and not acknowledged. They now keep the information to themselves, and continue to use their far more successful drilling techniques based on their theories to put Russia as the #1 source for oil in the world (far more extracted than Saudi Arabia).

The abiotic-oil theory is not very believeable. Where's the evidence?

[JMorgan]

The hemispheric chart showing the ice disappearing this year would be more useful if it included an entire cycle, rather than simply showing mostly the summer. I'd like to see a chart that shows this over 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 50, 100 and so on. That would tell us much more.

[salesman]

Go to Google Video and type in "Global Warming Swindle".

[platypus]

Go to Google Video and type in "Global Warming Swindle".

That's a lot less accurate portrayal of the issues than the Inconvenient Truth for example, so don't take it as Gospel.

[platypus]

The hemispheric chart showing the ice disappearing this year would be more useful if it included an entire cycle, rather than simply showing mostly the summer. I'd like to see a chart that shows this over 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 50, 100 and so on. That would tell us much more.

[biknut]

Go to Google Video and type in "Global Warming Swindle".

That's a lot less accurate portrayal of the issues than the Inconvenient Truth for example, so don't take it as Gospel.

This is a totally idiotic statment. Says who?

A judge in England has ruled that schools that show An Inconvenient Truth must indicate to students that it is largely political propaganda drivel.

Any science coming from algore is mainly for the purpose of a left wing love fest.

[platypus]

Go to Google Video and type in "Global Warming Swindle".

That's a lot less accurate portrayal of the issues than the Inconvenient Truth for example, so don't take it as Gospel.

This is a totally idiotic statment. Says who?

I do. They both contain inaccuracies but the "Global Warming Swindle" is a lot worse.

[platypus]

It seems Greenlands crust in the southeastern sector is reacting to the rapid ice-mass loss since 2004:

http://technology.ne...ising-fast.html
http://www.agu.org/p...7GL031468.shtml

Elastic uplift in southeast Greenland due to rapid ice mass loss

Shfaqat A. Khan,1 John Wahr,2 Leigh A. Stearns,3 Gordon S. Hamilton,3 Tonie van Dam,4
Kristine M. Larson,5 and Olivier Francis4

Received 25 July 2007; revised 27 September 2007; accepted 5 October 2007; published 1 November 2007.

[1] The rapid unloading of ice from the southeastern sector
of the Greenland ice sheet between 2001 and 2006 caused
an elastic uplift of
35 mm at a GPS site in Kulusuk. Most
of the uplift results from ice dynamic-induced volume
losses on two nearby outlet glaciers. Volume loss from
Helheim Glacier, calculated from sequential digital
elevation models, contributes about
16 mm of the
observed uplift, with an additional
5 mm from volume
loss of Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier. The remaining uplift
signal is attributed to significant melt-induced ice volume
loss from the ice sheet margin along the southeast coast
between 62
N and 66
N. Citation: Khan, S. A., J. Wahr,
L. A. Stearns, G. S. Hamilton, T. van Dam, K. M. Larson, and
O. Francis (2007), Elastic uplift in southeast Greenland due to
rapid ice mass loss, Geophys.

[JMorgan]

Thanks Platupus. That chart is more helpful. Holds pretty steady with a slight dip in the last few years.

I wonder what the chart looks like before 1978. It would be useful to compare 2008 with 1908 for instance.

[Mind]

1908? I don't think accurate records go back that far Joel. Just estimates and reconstructions, but considering that Greenland warmed much faster and to a much great extent during the 1920s than what is happenning currently I would also imagine a possibility of less sea-ice during that time frame, or at least a temporary minimum.

Just another study detailing the complex interplay of natural cycles with theorized AGW.

[platypus]

1908? I don't think accurate records go back that far Joel. Just estimates and reconstructions, but considering that Greenland warmed much faster and to a much great extent during the 1920s and what is happenning currently I would also imagine a possibility of less sea-ice during that time frame, or at least a temporary minimum.

Got any references for that Greenland temperature in the 1920s'? The comments from Inuits don't support the view that the 1920s' were warmer, to my knowledge.

[platypus]

Thanks Platupus. That chart is more helpful. Holds pretty steady with a slight dip in the last few years.

I wonder what the chart looks like before 1978. It would be useful to compare 2008 with 1908 for instance.

That "slight dip" is six standard deviations off the normal behaviour, so it's actually massively huge. People are now predicting that the system is transitioning into a new quasi-stable state with a lot less sea-ice in the summer as before.

[Mind]

Greenland rate of warming from 1920 to 1930 50% greater than 1995 to 2005.

[platypus]

Greenland rate of warming from 1920 to 1930 50% greater than 1995 to 2005.

Ok, but was Greenland warmer than now in the 1920s and 1930s? Summer temperatures seem to be especially important for the behaviour of ice.

[platypus]

IPCC to warn of 'abrupt' warming

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7098902.stm

And Olav Mathis Eira, a Sami reindeer herder from Norway, said that his communities are seeing weather patterns unprecedented in their oral history.

"Winter is one and a half months later than it used to be," he said. "We observed birds and insects that do not have a name in Sami."

[platypus]

Please read the latest IPCC summary report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...ar4_syr_spm.doc

[biknut]

Please read the latest IPCC summary report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...ar4_syr_spm.doc

Platypus, you and a lot of other people need to realize that the IPCC report is mainly political report pushing a left wing agenda.

[Lazarus Long]

(biknut)
Platypus, you and a lot of other people need to realize that the IPCC report is mainly political report pushing a left wing agenda.

Biknut you and a lot of other people need to learn NOT to over simplify and treat this issue (and all too many issues IMHO) in a stereotypical fashion as a left/right one.

You risk lending credibility to the left that they do not necessarily deserve and discrediting the right as ignorantly disinterested in either global or developmental concerns. You also fail to realize that if the right continues to live in denial and come to this issue too late then the solutions chosen by the majority of the world will be the ones that least favor corporate right wing interests.

This issue is not going away and in fact one of the great production market options for US based technology is actually going to be in the area of environmental technologies over the coming decades. If the right misses the boat they will not only lose the opportunity for this market share and hand it to our competitors, like China; they will have even further crippled the US economy and jeopardized our security.

This is not a left/right issue of science, diplomacy, trade nor security and seeing it so simply further discredits those that do see it that way. However those that do see it that way create a self fulfilling prophecy and will convert the issue into one. If they insist on doing so, it becomes another competition for hearts and minds that they will lose and ultimately move much of the world further left as a consequence.

[platypus]

Please read the latest IPCC summary report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...ar4_syr_spm.doc

Platypus, you and a lot of other people need to realize that the IPCC report is mainly political report pushing a left wing agenda.

I think it's idiotic to claim that a scientific report has someting to do with a "right" or "left" agenda. Why is it a US thing to try to muddle science with politics?

[Lazarus Long]

Here is another issue regarding global warming and the *science* is coming from the US.

http://news.yahoo.co...MaeJPSU0owiANEA

Groundwater lost to rising sea levels greater than thought: study

by Mira Oberman Sat Nov 17, 1:00 PM ET

CHICAGO (AFP) - Rising sea levels could swallow up to 40 percent more potable groundwater than previously thought because of tricks of topography, a new study has found.

Many current predictions about the impact of global warming look at how much land would be lost to rising sea levels.

But researchers at Ohio State University have found that in many coastal regions sea water will leach into the water table and contaminate groundwater well beyond the shoreline.

The degree to which groundwater is contaminated depends on shoreline structure: sandy beaches allow for much greater subsurface mixing than solid cliffs.

"The complex structure of the soil can enhance mixing between salt water and fresh water and that area can extend more than the distance that the coastal line recedes," said hydrology professor Motomu Ibaraki, who designed the study.

"In most studies, people say if the coastline recedes 100 meters then freshwater recedes 100 meters. Well, our study shows that it's going to be extended (up to 40 percent) more by the mixing process."

Ibaraki and a graduate student built a computer simulation to study how different coastal soil structures would affect subsurface mixing of salt water and fresh water.

The next step is to take the model and apply it to specific geographical locations to determine how much freshwater would be lost as sea levels rise.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that global mean sea levels will rise by 14 to 44 centimeters (5.5-17 inches) by 2100 as a result of global warming. The impact would be far greater in low-lying coastal areas.

Since it takes relatively small amounts of salt water to render fresh water undrinkable, even nominal increases in sea levels can have dramatic effects on fresh water resources, Ibaraki said.

"The amount of water we have on the earth is constant. However, the amount of fresh water we can use is decreasing," Ibaraki said in a telephone interview.

"Only two percent of the earth's water is fresh water and most of it is contained in glaciers. We are losing glaciers but we don't know how much and because we have more demand for water, groundwater is also diminishing."

The study, which is being prepared for submission to a peer-reviewed journal, comes as world leaders prepare to meet in Bali, Indonesia to set down a "roadmap" for negotiations culminating in a deal to slash carbon emissions and help developing nations cope with climate change.

On Friday, UN experts agreed on a draft report that warns global warming may have far-reaching and irreversible consequences.

Human activities "could lead to abrupt or irreversible climate changes and impacts," the agreed text said.

That is unless now your point is that the scientists at Ohio State University are a bunch of *commie agents.*

[biknut]

I believe the whole issue will die a fast death in the next 10 years as the climate starts to cool. (it's already peaked) and then you won't be able to find a scientist who claims he ever believed in global warming, just like it's hard to find one now that claims to have believed in global cooling in the 70s. I was in my 20s then, and I remember that at the time there were a great many. Probably in 10 years even platypus will claim he never believed in it.

After reading everything I can find both pro and con, I've come to the conclusion man made global warming is total crap. The warming we see is natural and nothing out of the ordinary. We peaked in 1998.

As far as the economy goes, it's true, a lot of money has already been made by a lot of crap science. No matter how it goes America will come out on top. All those little children in China working for 67 cents an hour will be working for us. All of China's most skilled people are already here working for us now. Check out TI, Erricson, IBM. You can spot the chinese nationals because their pants are 3 inches too short and their shirts are all wrinkled. They talk real loud in the lunch room and they all have PHD's.

If you want to live forever you got to stop being worry wort's. At this time, life is the best it's ever been. Nothing is going to stop it from being that way in the future, even global warming. At least if you live in Texas anyway.