[valis]

here's a good post from noaa:

link

The Earth has a natural CO2 cycle that moves massive amounts of CO2 into and out of the atmosphere. The oceans and land vegetation release and absorb over 200 billion metric tons of carbon into and out of the atmosphere each year. When the cycle is balanced, atmospheric levels of CO2 remain relatively stable. Human activities are now adding about 7 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year,which is only about 3-4% of the amount exchanged naturally. But that's enough to knock the system out of balance, surpassing nature's ability totake our CO2 emissions out of the atmosphere. The oceans and land vegetation are absorbing about half of our emissions; the other half remains airborne for 100 years or longer. This is what is causing the rapid buildup of CO2, a buildup that dwarfs natural fluctuations.

neatly ties both ends of the argument together. Yes, our emissions to the total are small. Yes they are having an effect. What will that long-term effect be? Anybody's guess. Bottom line is that if all humans were gone tomorrow, the earth would still heat up. The sun is having the most sunspot activity in the last several hundred years (the LACK of sunspots played a surprisingly large role in the mini-ice age a few centuries back), and people frequenly overlook the fact that stuff like wildfires dump huge amounts of co2 into the atmosphere. The Alaskan wildfires a couple years ago put more into the atmosphere than humans did. It's give and take, and right now, the earth is in a warming cycle. Not a damn thing we can do about it, except prepare.

This is not to say driving suv's back and forth to work is a brilliant idea of course. This is just to say that preparedness may mean NOT driving the SUV to work to at least cut down the emissions per mile, and do what we can to limit our emissions.

[lotuseclat79]

How much fuel do you save with a hybrid SUV?
Article here.

Hybrids are getting heavier, but they seem to bear their weight better than conventional vehicles when it comes to fuel efficiency, according to a recent study. In the study, the scientists found that the trend toward higher-performing hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs) in the North American market is eroding the fuel consumption benefit of hybrid technology.

-- Tom

[lotuseclat79]

Global Warming Creates an Island
Article here.

An island has separated from mainland Greenland because of global climate change.

-- Tom

[lotuseclat79]

Walk the talk on global warming
Article here.

-- Tom

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Walk the talk on global warming
Article here.

-- Tom

Absolutely typical liberal solution. Got a problem? Tax it until it goes away - and label yourself as "courageous" for taking on the issue.
Call it a "bold plan" while the cost of doing business goes through the roof.

His plan calls for planting a million trees. That's a great idea. But the revenue intake might be enough to plant 100 million trees.
Does anyone think that the residents will get a refund?

Also ...
Typical liberal response to traffic .... simply make it too expensive for median income people to participate.
Real liberal compassion there, eh?

BTW, anyone who thinks Bloomberg is not a Liberal is living on another planet.

Walk the walk, indeed.

[xico]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Walk the talk on global warming
Article here.

-- Tom

Great! This solution adds to the commonwealth. Ain't nothing free . . . unless we want to pass it on to our children. But without the commonwealth Bill Gates would never have been able to make his "pile." If he had been born in Burma, he wouldn't have been able to accumulate that vast fortune. That's what self proclaimed conservatives forget . . . or are simply unaware of.

[LANMaster]

Pinko Commie.

[sy2]

A colleague just sent this to me at work:
Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.

Continued here:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f35...b5df10621.html

Boy would I be upset if my company shelled out tons of money just to find that we got scammed and that emissions cuts never really took place.

[aconstas]

This guy has it right. This was his comment on the original article posted.

Our Fallback Forecast
Duane Speight - Prosperity, S.C.

As weathermen for the U.S. Navy in the 1970s, we had a standby prediction when we were clueless about future conditions--which was sometimes necessary as our weather station, an aircraft carrier, moved and at times even wandered.

Our "we dunno" forecast was, "Fair to partly cloudy, occasionally cloudy, chance of precipitation, winds variable with occasional gusts." Taking into consideration the season and latitude, temperatures were fairly easy to guess.

We knew even then, when the majority of climatologists were actually predicting a looming ice age, that climate is a fluid ambiguity subject to personal interpretation based on special interest (ours being to not upset our lord and master, the captain of the ship).

Far left agendas demand "global warming?" No problem, I can prognosticate the earth roasting to cinders in a fortnight with the "proper" data at my disposal--any weather guy could. Meterorology is an exact science only so long as you are currently looking out a window. Climatology, on the other hand, is a science of motivated hunches.

[bill.aam]

A couple more "Global Warming" deniers...


Global warming debate 'irrational': scientists

Stephanie Stein / Standard-Freeholder
Local News - Thursday, April 26, 2007 @ 10:00

The current debate about global warming is "completely irrational," and people need to start taking a different approach, say two Ottawa scientists.

Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson said global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet.

Patterson said much of the up-to-date research indicates that "changes in the brightness of the sun" are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 19th century. Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate, he said.

"I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," said Patterson. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."

[lotuseclat79]

Here's a breath of fresh air from the past (circa 12/12/2004) by Bjorn Lomborg whom I just saw pitching approximately the same strategy about Global Warming the other night but couched as "long term investment" rather than spending a lot for little return now. Article Save the world, ignore global warming.

What I took away from the pitch the other night was that this fellow makes common sense - for all of us.

-- Tom

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Here's a breath of fresh air from the past (circa 12/12/2004) by Bjorn Lomborg whom I just saw pitching approximately the same strategy about Global Warming the other night but couched as "long term investment" rather than spending a lot for little return now. Article Save the world, ignore global warming.

What I took away from the pitch the other night was that this fellow makes common sense - for all of us.

-- Tom

Bravo!

Originally Posted by from your link

Global warming has become the obsession of our time. From governments and campaigners meeting for the climate summit in Buenos Aires right now we hear the incessant admonition: making global warming our first priority is the moral test of our age.

Yet they are wrong. Global warming is real and caused by CO2. The trouble is that the climate models show we can do very little about the warming. Even if everyone (including the United States) did Kyoto and stuck to it throughout the century, the change would be almost immeasurable, postponing warming by just six years in 2100.

Likewise, the economic models tell us that the cost is substantial. The cost of Kyoto compliance is at least $150billion a year. For comparison, the UN estimates that half that amount could permanently solve the most pressing humanitarian problems in the world: it could buy clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care and education to every single person in the world.

Caution, Tom, there may be some in this thread who would want to excommunicate you for posting such blasphemy.

[lotuseclat79]

Volcanic eruptions, ancient global warming linked
Article here.

A team of scientists announced today confirmation of a link between massive volcanic eruptions along the east coast of Greenland and in the western British Isles about 55 million years ago and a period of global warming that raised sea surface temperatures by five degrees (Celsius) in the tropics and more than six degrees in the Arctic.

-- Tom

[LANMaster]

Does this mean the Neandertals were all Free market Capitalists?

[lotuseclat79]

Climate catastrophes in the Solar System
Article here.

Earth sits between two worlds that have been devastated by climate catastrophes. In the effort to combat global warming, our neighbours can provide valuable insights into the way climate catastrophes affect planets.


From what scientists know now, it is possible that Venus and Mars started out a lot like Earth. At some point in time, each planet followed a path that changed its climate. The transition was from Earth-like to either a cloudy inferno (Venus) or a frigid desert (Mars). Data from Venus Express and Mars express is now helping scientists determine if, when and why each planet passed the point of no-return. Credits: USSR Venera 13 Camera II, ESA/DLR/FU Berlin (G. Neukum)

-- Tom