FULL THREAD. PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY MORE OR IT WILL CRASH.

CC.Rob_3

It cuts both ways.

Carl Wunsch, who was featured in the "Swindle" video, had this to say about the experience:

<A HREF="http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.htm">Wunsch response</A>

Meanwhile, people are asking/advising Gore to cool it:

<A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?em&ex=1174017600&en=a1fd786aa4a2721f&ei=5087%0A">NY Times, Cool the Hype</A>

Mitch_4

Interesting how

he demands electric and fuel consumption reduction and then this...

Nothing wrong with his message, but I thought this interesting

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

Mitch

lchmb

It's about time

One would think it would be about time to "walk the walk". Incredible....

JimH

old news here...

Also, one needs to bear in mind that he was compared to the
national average, which includes apartments, mobile homes,
and guys like Perry. Compared to the local average in that hot, humid climate, he's about 3x normal. This includes a
live in secret service detail.

The "Tennessee Center for Policy Research", which nobody
had heard of before has only a PO box for an address.

Dissapointing, yes. He could buy enough PV panels for his
own spread and pick up the tab for his neighbors, but the
right wing could have launched a decent attack without shading the truth.

-JimH

Josh_10

I actually heard that he consumes more like 10 times the average!! However, regardless of Al Gore's hypocracy it doesn't change the facts about global warming.

Unknown

You're right! It doesn't change the facts. Just be sure that you are getting the facts. Most of what we hear is simply untrue.

Long Beach Ed

The Facts

Yes, as much as you may not want to believe that socialist politicians would lie to you consider that the global warming story may be more about accepting government's lowering of our standard of living than about saving the planet.

There are those who believe that America's standards must be reduced to more comfortably merge and accept control of a one world order.

While you may choose to believe that the polar ice caps will flood Manhattan, just be aware that almost all (can't find an exception) true researchers have debunked the warming theory.

Just keep an open mind. Look at the credibility of those championing the cause and open your mind to the side opposite Hollywood.

Fred Harwood_2

The facts, Maam, just the facts

One fact is that the reputed warming is less than one degree Kelvin (how was this ever calculated?), since about 1850, when the Little Ice Age ended, a very inhospitable few centuries, when spring fairs were held on the frozen Thames and the Dutch skated on their canals and ice buried Alpine villages. Another fact is that climate changes, all on its own, over centuries, for reasons yet to be pinned down. Imagine how much money we'll all save when we can drive to Minnesota rather than the Bahamas to escape winter! Better than buying carbon credits (a tax by any reckoning) to make us feel good about going to the Bahamas in our private jet!

Cosmo_3

Do you believe

I remember when I was in college and in my twenties, I wanted to believe everything about global warming, etc. I was very into learning about nature, and biology. I always wanted to be an explorer who got to see all the wild animals, and even become a protector of endangered species.

Now in my mid thirties, I see things a little differently. I see people struggling to make a living and feed there families. I see how much of what we earn is wasted by our government. I look back and see many of my professors as being extremely biased, towards left wing politics, and extremely liberal. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with someones right to an opinion, but why should I have been pommelled by it in a state university?

I see the global warming issue, and tell you the truth I don't buy it. I have read things on my own, and there are a lot of scientists out there that say that for humans to think that they can actually change the temperature of the Earth is simplistic. I do not condone pollution, whether it is from carbon emissions, or chemical pollution of our natural habitat, our fresh water, our oceans, even ourselves in what we eat.

It is proper for us to learn to live "green" and not waste our resources, and not pollute our environment as much as we do now. But to say that we can actually do anything to help prevent the warming of the Earth, and the natural disasters that happen I think if being a little too short sighted.

I think that everyone out there who feels that they can scream and force others to give up hard earned dollars in the name of global warming should really spend some time researching the subject themselves, without the help of the media, or of politicians. Ask the scientists themselves, read ALL the climate studies and not just the ones sponsored by the media, or politicians.

Yes it is time consuming, but lets not take someones word for it just because we hear it on the news.....

I am not a right wing, ultra conservative. We have to do what we can to stop polluting our Earth. But global warming? I am not so sure there is anything we can do about that anyway....

Cosmo

JimH

the case against fossil fuels

Yeah, Al is kind of a blowhard. Buying carbon credits is lame.

The case against fossil fuels, I think, is strong enough without even considering global warming. If I can buy a plug in hybrid that enables me to drive to work without giving any money to a 2-bit dictator who hates the US, I'm totally there.

As far as lowering lifestyles, does anybody think that if you add insulation, tighten up the cracks, and add a modcon/indirect to cut your heating bill by a third that you've lowered your standard of living?

The problem with applying a strictly financial analysis to evaluating various energy sources is that many things connected to using a particular source are not easily monetized. The science linking asthma and other respiratory ailments to fine particulates from diesel and coal is far more concrete than the science pointing to greenhouse warming. We know that there are healthcare costs incurred from these pollutants, we know the costs are large, but we can't monetize them on a per-ton basis.

And just what precisely (in dollars, or the currency of your choice) is the value of being able to take your child fishing several times a month, and then actually *eat the fish*, without having to worry about how much mercury is in them. I say it's priceless.

-JimH

Tom S._3

I can't let this one go. Al Gore admonishes everyone to save energy, alter their lifestyles, and CONSUME LESS. Frankly, I don't own three or four homes. I own one. Gore is a high priest of a new religion, and a hypocrite of the highest order. Anthropogenic global warming is BS. Why are there so many trying to squelch debate on climate change? Why does the UN release a global warming summary for political talking points, THEN MASSAGE THE DATA TO SUPPORT THEIR CONCLUSIONS? The actual "scientific" report hasn't been released yet, just the propaganda. It's all about control. Its like communism, which applied to everyone but communist party leaders. Regarding Gore: the guy lines his driveway with natural gas burning lamp posts. He flies all over the country in a chartered jet. Then he insults our (at least my) intelligence by telling me he purchases "carbon credits" to offset his consumption! And it appears that he purchases the credits from a company he owns, and the same company sells "carbon credits" to no one else! Why do the climate scientists at M.I.T., Cal Tech, U.C., etc. all state that (human created) global warming is a farce? I just got my utility bill for this past month. Just under $500. In NY, the state with the highest utility costs in the country. And I just spent the bulk of my tax refund on a $2000 indirect water heater. 90+% efficiency with my boiler. If Al Gore was so concerned, he'd only need 1100 of BP's 125 W panels to go "off grid" and support his electric consumption. With installation, figure $2,000,000 or so. Bump that up to replace his gas lamp posts. I 'm beginning to understand why he buys "carbon credits".

Brad White

Keep in Mind.... an Open Mind....

Having studied both sides but from a scientific not political viewpoint I have come up with a few constants:

1) There is no point discussing CO2 as a greenhouse gas unless you discuss water vapor, by far a more potent and plentiful greenhouse gas. Water vapor causes 95% of the effect, CO2 about 3.6% of the effect.

Leaving water vapor out of the discussion is like discussing aeronautics while ignoring gravity.

Don't forget the sun. Huge contributor. I like it.

2) Humans produce about 3.2% of all CO2. Nature does the rest. Nature produces 99.999% of all water vapor. The rest is partly ours. Atmospheric air contains about 0.038 percent CO2 (383 PPM call it 400-450 in cities). Taken together, mankind produces about 0.28% of so-called greenhouse gasses. If CO2 is taken alone, the man-made portion and effect is an insignificant 0.117%

3) Argon is a more effective greenhouse gas (reflector of IR radiation) than CO2. If CO2 were that good, it would be used to fill low-E glass interstices. So they use argon. Argon comprises about 1.4% of the atmosphere, about four times the concentration of CO2. Argon is naturally occuring.

4) The earth heats and cools with or without us. If we ceased to exist tomorrow, it would still occur. The earth is not a stable place and who can say what the "natural state" of the earth is? It is change people seem to fear but from what to what?

5) Suspension of physical principles. These work everywhere else but not in the discussion at hand. If the ice caps are melting, one has to ignore the freezing point of water. You have to suspend belief in sea ice melting at 29 degrees and fresh water ice melting at 32 degrees. Sure it once got to 64 degrees at the tip of Antarctica years ago. But the average summer temperature is well below freezing. You also have to suspend knowing that ice melting absorbs heat. It is an energy exchange. The first and second laws of thermodynamics must have been repealed somewhere..

6) We cannot predict the weather seven days from now but can predict the weather 100 years from now. The corellary of this is:

7) If our output of CO2 and other gasses has a known effect, what is the effect of cutting them back? No one seems to know. I need more information to convince me if you want me to act.

I tend to filter out anyone promoting anthropogenic (man-made) effects of global warming as having an agenda by following the money... the solution requires me to do something, more specifically, pay something.

Funny how natural occurances entitle some to collect a "Carbon Tax" and by what authority? I suppose because you cannot tax Mother Nature... I think tomorrow I will begin assessing a flatulance tax payable to me with the same authority as the carbon tax. Because I said so That and hypocrisy I can do without.

Respectfully,

Brad

Perry_3

Since I was named.... Here's my take..

I actually posted both this link and Al' rebuttal - complete with links earlier in the week.

The debate apparently got ugly and the thread was deleted (so PLEASE PLAY NICE...).

I had named my thread something along the line of "Hey Al, I've done my part.."

I am not concerned with the amount of energy consumption. Al does live in a Mansion after all - and they use more energy than small houses.

What bothers me is that all Al had to do was do something to actually reduce his energy usage. What if the utility bills showed a 20% energy reduction... Al would have credibility in spades about reduction.

There are a number of ways this could be done.

In my case I changed boilers (and paid a premium price to change to the most efficient system I could find) and cut my gas usage by about 45% the last time I looked. Now that also increased my electric usage a bit due the constant running cir pump.

This did not require extensive modifications to my house; adn the neighbors don't really see a change. It was just a decission to reduce energy by installing high efficiency equipment.

Instead; Al not only did nothing to reduce energy consumption... He actually increased energy usage.

And that final point is what really tells the story about where his true heart is.

Oh, I also do not think that the site that reported this is right wing... I think they are more centrist to leftist -and are upset about seeing Al's true colors.

Of course - it sounds better if they are labled as right wing in the public image rebuttal... That bothers me as well. But not as much as the increase in energy usage and no concrete steps to reduce energy usage.

Perry

Ken D.

I probably shouldn't say this..

But, a customer of ours is a huge tree hugger. Always in the newspapers about global warming, clean water, ozone layer, elimination of fossil fuels, at one point, said air conditioning should be banned, etc., etc.,.....They have however, oil heat (no problem there) with a 1000 gal UST. A heated 6 car garage, heated swimming pool, a hot tub (outdoor), Jacuzzi (indoor), drive and walkway snow melt, Corvette, Boxster, Caddy, Ford Excursion. a H U G E Winnebago,yacht, homes in the mountains and seashore, 4 air conditioners in their large house, sprinkler system. Who knows what else. We appreciate their business, I find it incredible to hear our business trashed in newsprint. Al Gore would be proud.

Maine Doug_52

Hopefully you also

sent this to Al so that he understands the real issues and how he is viewed by those that have an understanding of the forces at work.

Steamhead (in transit)

Has anyone even looked

to see who owns that website, who is paying the bills, and what THEIR agenda might be?

Anyone?

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Perry_3

Yes I looked:

It is actually a 503(C)3 "education/service" orginization that has been arround a while.

I read some of thers other articles and I feel that in general they are fairly centrist - expressing what I feel are some leftist tendencies. They do also tend to support free enterprise over goverment solutions for some things (but not all things).

There FAQ page answers a lot of questions:

www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/page.php?page_id=28

I also found links to a National Public Policy orgainization and a State Policy Network link. I have heard of the National Center for Public Policy before. The State Policy Network (SPN) orgainzation's link to my home state (Wisconsin) list several organizations that work on public policy that I have heard of for a decades.

A December 2005 Article on how the state of Tennessee gave a "hidden" $64 Million to Nissan (auto Mfr) list a comment on how "Perhaps someone like Drew Johnson at the Tennessee Center for Public Policy could find a donor willing to finance a study on tax incentives such as this, and if such incentives actually benefit the economy of the state employing such measures."

http://billhobbs.com/2005/12/how_to_take_64_million_from_th.html

There is no reason based on my research to think that the Tennessee Center for Public Policy has not also existed a long time as a Tennessee state public policy organization that is a member of the national orgainzations that focus on the same kind of work. It appears to be well respected in some areas as a source of reliable independent analysis.

In many ways this is one of the more refressing orgainzations I have seen in the last several years based on the several position or issue papers I read there. Not saying I agree with everything they said in the several topics I read. But they are well thought out and seem to address the concept of issues with public policies and what could be the best deal for the people of the state and the state in general.

They also limit their involvment to a select range of issues.

I encourage all to go to their home page and check them out.


Perry

Steamhead (in transit)

But they don't tell us

who their major contributors are. At least I couldn't find this on their site. I find it hard to take them seriously until I know just where their money comes from.


To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Perry_3

Steamhead...

Nor do a lot of 501c3 organizations. You cannot contact the American Canoe Association and get a list of their major doners either (and they are one of the oldest such entities arround - who represent paddlers of all kinds of boats). Nor the American Red Cross... 501c organizations do not owe anyone an explaination of their funding; and most don't list it.

In the end all we can judge them on is what kind of work they are doing - which is why I read some of their papers.

I also did sufficient research to verify that they just did not appear. The oldest internet paper published on the internet by them that I found was in 2002 - which is a lot earlier than many organizations got on the internet.

That paper also sounded exactly like a paper from a well established orginization - and again seemed very centrist to me (or at least the first couple of pages as I did not read the whole thing). They claim to be inclusionary and wanting input from all spectrums. It appears to me they do get such imput and try to represent - or at least consider such views.

I know that their are two many organizations that are funded only by an extreem group - and put out extreemist messages. But I can see such groups in the first page or so of their position papers. I do not see that here (Tennessee Center for Public Policy). These seem to be exactly the kind of people I could have a debate with on some issues.

I also know that there are people and companies who do in fact fund the more ballanced organizations. I wish there were more of that.

I would like to point out that no one has denied or challanged the accuracy of the utility bills reported - or the pattern of increasing usage.

The Utility company did say that they had not recieved a formal request for such records; but also admitted that such records could have been gotten legaly without a formal request (I got the usage records on the house I eventually purchased via just a phone call to the local utility - and was able to write down the numbers on a pad of paper).

It is now almost a week since the story broke. If the records or claims were not accuate - it would have been the easiest thing to state so and invalidate the credibility of the report.

So, It appears to me that the report was accurate. It also appears to me that the Tennessee Center for Public Policy Research is also what they claim to be. I can see that by what they write. I am not sure how anyone could claim they were right wing if they read some of there position papers - and also by the fact that they avoid certain favorate right wing subjects.

Perry

Singh_3

Another view

Not much any one can do anyway. That's the truth, and yes it's inconvienient.

We don't know why, just speculate 10-12 people in his house everyday, more now since his speeches and book, and movie hit the mainstream last year.
Secret service detail, publicists, and their assistants, maids, etc..
What If his water usage went down, perhaps he's a one shower a week type of guy, what if he recycles a ton of paper, geesh he must get a LOT of junk mail, hate mail, fan mail. No stories on that. I seen a report on what type of vehicles your congressman is driving, ALL had SUV's at the time, each one could walk within the capitol, none did.
My point is we are all hypocrites.
Remember that thread about what's in your basement/boiler room, not many responses.
But each of us go out everyday ,trying to sell/install the latest and greatest in heating equipment.
My electric use went up, I guess its from my increase time on the computer.

Should he done what the Bush's done in Crawford , TX. All geothermal HVAC system. Sounds great, don't it, until some offbeat organization then points out that well, even though geothermal systems are more efficient at point of use, his electricity has gone up with all those new GSHP and electric is produced by coal generating plants and they are actually adding more to green house gas.

I think its silly to think I can reduce climate change, if it exists, if its man made. But should we not all try to conserve , be more aware of the one planet we currently all call home, we owe it to our children, and there is no hypocrisy in that.

Forgive me, I can't sleep.

Unknown

cosmo, about the only real studies I've seen that don't support the idea that humans have a direct influence on things are funded by oil companies. Do you have any examples to the contrary?

Perry_3

In Part...

I have no doubt that mankind has affected the atmosphere and the weather.

How much... is where the question is at:

Are we collectively responsible for 5%, 50%, or 95% of the changes....

Hmmm... I'd bet that it would be closer to the 5% than the 95%.

I would also bet that deforistation and landfilling of swampy lands worldwide has had at least as much effect as the emmissions have had.

Dispite the disputes on all of this... The key is that there is no reason that we cannot make choices to reduce our energy and resource usage. If most people actually did that huge changes could be accomplished on things.

I would also like to point out that in the vast majority of cases... Air and Water polution causes significant health effects to people and the environement. The CO2 from coal fired power plants may not have much affect on global warming. But it can be tied to over 10,000 deaths per year and millions with respiratory aliments which shorten lives (over half of those deaths are mining accidents to get the coal).

Perry

Long Beach Ed

New Boilers Save the Polar Bears

Perhaps those of us in the heating business should look at the dribble that's being promoted by Hollywood about warming, polar bears and limiting of our energy freedoms, and think of how we can make money with it to market our services.

Jump on the bandwagon so to speak.

From a strictly capitalist (which all of we business owners are) point of view, the truth of this debate doesn't matter.

What matters is how we can use the public's enlightnment, or their deception to sell our stuff.

Energy efficient boilers will save the world!!

I will sell them.

I'm putting a polar bear in my ads.

Thanks, Al Gore for helping me pay the kids' tuition.

Disgusting, isn't it?


Long Beach Ed

JimH

human production of water vapor

Hi, Brad, always appreciate your angle on this, but a few questions spring to mind.

1. In regard to the amount of water vapor in the atmoshpere... human activity in the form of power generation and tailpipe emissions does not release a large amount of water vapor relative to natural sources, however planting millions of acres of corn and soybeans, which release substantially more water than the native prairie they replace could have a fairly large effect.

2. I've re-read your point 5 above, and still can't quite grasp your point. I do know that Lake Superior has warmed about 4 degrees in the last 25 years, and the reason for that is likely that it develops less ice in the winter, and
thus has less of the highly reflective snow on it. As we have seen also on Kilmanjaro and in the Alps, as the snow receeds the warming accelerates. Needless to say, when the
largest lake in the world warms up 4 degrees, it puts considerably more water in the air.

Another thing which must be considered is that massive amounts of tundra in Siberia which have been permafrost for a long time are thawing and bacterial activity is releasing large amounts of co2 into the air.

I still don't have my mind made up as to whether we can manage climate through carbon emissions. It is yet to be seen whether the placement and timing of our emissions is more important than the aggregate total.

As I've said before, I think the case for a transition away from fossil fuels is compelling even if one totally disregards the potential effects of the greenhouse effect.
Ceasing to use petroleum, and thus ceasing the purchase of it from regimes which hate us and everything we stand for is a Good Thing.

That said, Al Gore is lame for buying carbon credits. I could "warm up" to him, however, if he hears what people are saying and acts decisively.

Thanks to everybody who's kept the tone of this discussion civil and intelligent!

:-)

-JimH

Maine Doug_52

In case anyone

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)

(Thousand Barrels per Day)

Dec-06 Nov-06 YTD 2006 Dec-05 Jan - Dec 2005

CANADA 1,829 2,064 1,782 1,900 1,633


SAUDI ARABIA 1,471 1,444 1,421 1,438 1,445


MEXICO 1,245 1,462 1,576 1,707 1,556


VENEZUELA 1,045 1,088 1,139 1,183 1,241


NIGERIA 1,010 919 1,043 1,174 1,077


ANGOLA 610 505 513 433 456


ALGERIA 421 253 357 212 228


IRAQ 419 573 553 390 527


ECUADOR 254 243 272 340 276


KUWAIT 163 253 179 268 227


RUSSIA 139 16 108 50 199


BRAZIL 130 156 133 159 94


CHAD 114 118 95 31 74


NORWAY 110 81 98 66 119


UNITED KINGDOM 93 119 128 33 224

Maine Doug_52

In case anyone

is wondering what those countries might be, here is the list to post on the fridge of top suppliers to the US.


>>>>Ceasing to use petroleum, and thus ceasing the purchase of it from regimes which hate us and everything we stand for is a Good Thing.<<<<

Brad White

Jim

Thanks for checking in.

As far as water vapor (water in general), the amount of water on earth remains essentially constant. There is occassional electrolysis but ultimately a manage a trois occurs between an oxygen atom and a pair if adventurous hydrogen atoms. Interesting about soybeans, corn and water uptake. My read on that is that the water comes from somewhere and much of that has to be in the form of precipitation which is a removal of heat (condensing) begetting greater evaporation. In short, water is not being created that is not being otherwise absorbed. It is not "new" water. Same for the Phoenix AZ area. Used to be "dry" then irrigation hit. Calling Phoenix "dry" is a joke nowadays.

In my 5th point, I was noting that if the ice caps are melting, the prerequisite is that the temperatures are above freezing. They have not been as far as I can tell. Glacial diminishment typically is due to heat, but the heat of friction where the bottom of the glacier rubs against the earth. This lubricating film is what causes glaciers to more easily follow the other force which has them march to the sea: Gravity.

It has been stated that if all arctic and antarctic ice were to melt, the sea level would rise about 260 feet, which is true but it is not going to happen. Heck of an "if". If such were to happen, there would not be any polar regions. No pole, no spin. No spin, no turning to and fro relative to the sun. Forget sea ice melting as far as changing sea level. The displacement is the same. (Melting ice in your drink does not cause an overflow.)

As for Lake Superior (or Lake Inferior, it's insecure sibling), being warmer, it probably is the case. My thinking on any warming or cooling trend is just that, a trend.

Unless one can define the natural state of the earth, one cannot state with certainty what is normal and what is a departure from that. It may just not be what we are used to, but that is not to say it is a bad thing. The Great Lakes were glacially formed if I recall. They melted for reasons unrelated to dinosaurs driving Humvees.

I cannot see humankind's CO2 contribution being that significant. Marginal at best. But I am all for conservation of essentially non-renewable resources. All should be used wisely. I am just not ready to react based on thin junk science.

As for decaying tundra and CO2, yes a natural occurance much as the plant life and higher forestation today (compared to 1900 AD) absorbing more CO2 and producing oxygen.

The methane produced by decaying vegetation would be more of a concern but within that, it is part of the natural cycle and is still a minor player compared to indestructable water vapor. "Unless we start corking cow butts soon, the world as we know it will be a less pleasant place!" And-how. That is the new battle cry.

As near as could be measured (measurement technology progress being part of the gray area defining warming in the first place), most of the 0.6 degrees C. of warming in the last century was said to have occurred before 1940. I would say forestation played a role in that more than anything. Still an open gap in my mind how we could be totally responsible for contributing minor amounts of marginally effective gasses.

Fun discussion!

Brad

Maine Doug_52

I don't see how

that would happen. Why would the lack of polar ice stop the earth's spin? And the seasonal changes are caused by the earth's track around the sun, not the rotation about it's axis.

>>>If such were to happen, there would not be any polar regions. No pole, no spin. No spin, no turning to and fro relative to the sun.<<<

Unknown

Brad, say for example, we are responsible for a quarter of one percent increase in greenhouse gases.

Now, you could say, Hey, mother nature spews greenhouse gases all the time! Sometimes, volcanos erupt that eclipse our output for a year! Sometimes forest fires do the same.

But you know what? Those are periodic. and for the most part, if a natural process emits more greenhouse gases, it's counterbalanced in some way.. for a forest fire to burn, for example, a whole lotta trees had to grow first.

The problem here is, we are pumping sequestered carbon out of long-term storage... put there, as a part of nature's own feedback systems... and releasing it in mass quantities IN A SUSTAINED FASHION.

So this isn't an aberrant year. This is even a quarter of a percent, but it's a quarter of a percent year, after year, after year. And our rate of usage and emissions are growing. *Generally* at the expense of some of nature's control strategies (such as forestation).

I think you are downplaying how carefully balanced this planet is. If we end up trapping, say, 1% more heat every year.. well, you do heating, you do the math. What's the inevitable result? We warm up. Right?

If you were in a house with a heat loss of 100kBTUs/hr with a constant heat source putting out 100kBTUs/hr, and then suddenly you reduced heat loss by 1%, the room temp would climb.

Now... what if a portion of your heat loss was DIRECTLY RELATED to the temperature of the space, inversely, so that the warmer you got, the less loss you had? Think, "reflective polar ice" and "melting permafrost".

You're happy kicking off the feedback loop?

Tony Conner_2

From Powernews...

... an electronic newsletter I receive from the editors of "Power Magazine".

"Climate models don’t track Antarctica, says boffin
Global circulation models used to predict climate change, the bedrock of the international case for manmade global warming, don’t accurately reflect what’s happen in Antarctica, according to new research from a polar scientist at the Ohio State University.

David Bromwich of Ohio State’s department of geography and a researcher at the Byrd Polar Research Center presented a paper at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, noting the discrepancies between the models and the record on the ground at the world’s southernmost continent. Temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb, as predicted by many of climate models.

The Bromwich research comes after the well-publicized “Summary for Policy Makers” from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which argues strongly that human activity is warming the climate. “It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,” he said at the AAAS meeting in San Francisco. “Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It’s very hard at these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal.”

That’s in stark contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula (not actually a part of the continent), which Bromwich says is “one of the most rapidly warming part of the Earth.” Antarctica is vast, notes Bromwich, a large as the U.S. and Mexico combined. But there are only 100 weather stations on the continent and they date back only 50 years.

“The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica,” says Bromwich. “We’re looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment.”

Last year, Bromwich’s research group published an article in Science, the AAAS journal, that Antarctic snowfall hadn’t increased in the last 50 years. The models predict that both temperature and precipitation will increase over the continent with a planetary warming. Antarctica is an enormous frozen desert with little annual snowfall. “What we see now is that the temperature regime is broadly similar to what we saw before with snowfall. In the last decade or so, both have gone down.”

It would appear that there is at least some evidence to suggest that if there's a wad of data that doesn't fit a given, preconcieved notion regarding a particular situation (like manmade global warming), just "forget" to input that data on the spreadsheet. It sure looks like the old story - "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."

Brad White

I was being oblique, and tongue-in-cheek, Doug

My point is that there will always be polar regions because the earth has an axis and is tilted away from the sun as much as towards it. Thus there will always be polar regions colder than those areas more perpendicular to the sun. That's all.

[Deleted User]

Regardless of your politcal pleasures...

I think it is ALL of our jobs to conserve as much of our precious resources as we humanly can, and they ARE all finite in reserves.

I think Art Buchwald put it best when a reporter asked him what he was going to miss most on Earth, he said "Global warming. I want to see what you all are going to do!"

Regardless of whether you're a Gore, a Bush, or a Travolta, we ALL need to conserve. Ma nature is going to do what she had done forever, and there isn't anything man can do to stop her. Other than adapting to the changes she throws at us...

Just my earthly $.02 worth

ME

JimH

Brad, I'm guessing you don't live in the midwest....

Hey, thanks for the correction on the thawing tundra. You're right, methane release is the largest potential effect there. Among the the tree-hugging dirt worshippers I generally discuss these things with methane is frequently described as 30x more potent as a greenhouse gas than co2. Maybe it's really more like 20x?

As far as the agricultural impact on water in the air, the best way to appreciate it is to first walk through a freshly cultivated Iowa soybean field in June the morning after a thunderstorm. Admire the beautiful rich, black life-giving topsoil (product of a carbon sequestration project that spans many millenia), and draw in a breath off suffocating humidity as you notice the exposed black dirt steaming in the bright sunlight. Much of the rain is going right back into the air. When it doesn't rain, ancient water from deep wells is sprinkled on this black evaporation pad.

Now take a walk through a chunk of native prairie, and observe that there is practically no exposed black dirt. The rain here is sucked up by the dense mat of roots, and what's not used by the water-thrifty prairie plants goes down into the subsoil to recharge the aquafer. The silver colored dead foliage prevents evaporation.

Research currently being done at the University of Minnesota suggests that the most prolific producers of biomass suitable for use in cellulosic ethanol are in fact these native prairie plants. No chemicals, no hybrid seeds, drought resistant, you just come and mow it from time to time.

You haven't really addressed my contention that even excluding greenhouse warming from the argument, a compelling case exists for cessation of fossil fuel use,
for reason of how it exacerbates geopolitical tensions and results in non-co2 related environmental degradation.

-JimH

Brad White

Not a matter of being happy, Rob

It is a matter of proportion and effect. Regardless of anthropogenic contributions the earth will warm and cool with or without us. We are not raising the temperature 1 percent per year but rather heat and cool cyclically.

Sure, volcanoes erupting are dramatic but open limestone, bubbling from the ocean depths, deep lake emissions etc. dwarf our contributions. Our greater forest area loves the stuff and gives back some good stuff.

Proponents of the so-called and now discredited "hockey stick graph" noting an uptick in global temperature at an exaggerated pace (vertical scale amplified), specifically deleted the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) which in itself is disingenuous and masked the natural order of cycles in the pre-industrial world. Thus I have to question their motivation. The graph was based on the rings in a single tree by the way. Heck of a tree.

As for notions of what CO2 was actually present so many years ago is in doubt due to the veracity of our measurement ability. Ice core data shows far less CO2 so many thousands of years ago (in the 220's PPM versus 350-380 today) but the cores also showed CFC's and other gasses unknown at that time, in trace amounts. CO2 decays over time regardless of where it is. IOW, we have no real baseline that I would consider to be definitive. Our ability to measure temperature in hindsight is conjecture also, thus we rely on fossil data of plant life and how it translates into growth patterns of plant life we know today. More recently we use tree rings but that is one measurement point.

As for reflecting polar ice or melting permafrost, that too is part of the natural cycle. Siberia was farmed 1,000 years ago. The mini-ice age put a stop to that and turned prime farm land into a great place for a gulag.

The notion of reflective ice caps in polar regions does not sway me. Reflection and absorbtion is proportional to the angle of incidence. The more oblique the radiation (light, IR, UV, Cosmic, what have you) the more it will bounce. The more perpendicular the more it will be absorbed. Polar areas are uniquely situated for "bounce", the tropics for absorbtion.

Antarctica has fossils of plant life found only in tropical regions. The North American Glacial Ice Cap is, well, gone last time I looked

In short, the earth is not a stable place. Never was, never will be. I would be swayed if the natural state of the earth could be defined -What is Normal? If it could even be stated, then I have to ask what effect cutting back would have. No one seems to know... too many unknowns and what we do know in terms of physics seems to contradict the so-called conventional wisdom.

Unknown

I'm not saying it's stable.. I am saying though that nature *tends* to balance out its own systems. There are a few examples of rapid events causing drastic changes, but generally, things seem to happen slowly. Slowly, we can handle.

Rapid, not so much. I guess you can take a Darwinistic arguement.. time to weed out the people/structures etc that cannot adapt.. but personally, I'm not comfortable with that.

I find it interesting that conservatives (in general, and I'm not saying you are since I don't know, but it's related so I'm posting it), who are all about not messing with status quo situations, line up to play this big game of russian roullette we're playing right now with climate change (not necessarily warming, by the way) and other things like GM foods.

When the stakes are this high, isn't that the time to be MOST conservative?

Shouldn't the question be "Can you prove that we will NOT cause runaway climate change", as opposed to "Prove we are"?

I'm all for radical experimentation, but I have limits. This is one of them.

Brad White

Midwesterner? You betcha

I am not... But I am a New Englander.

Thanks for the aggie report, seriously. I can almost feel the humidity the way you describe it. Interesting stuff!

I took your last point as more rhetorical as opposed to needing comment. But the way I figure it, the geopolitical tensions preceded oil. Petroleum has only been commercially considered since 1859 and in the mid-east only since the 1930's when the British pioneered the Arabian Oil Reserves. It is a relatively new business and thanks to British Petroleum, empires were created out of nomad-roamed sand pits. Otherwise they have been hating infidels since 832 AD

Brad White

Actually

I am concerned about the environment, always have been. I believe in metering out renewable resources, not wasting them. I own condensing boilers, a modest solar panel (PV), and live modestly because it is my nature I suppose.

I prefer not to label people by political stripe but always respect rational argument based on facts versus action based on conjecture. I fully believe the earth is warming, sure, as it has in the past. And it will cool again.

What I cannot reconcile for one example is being charged a tax (carbon tax) for no reason of prevention but based on what is largely (not entirely but largely) a natural occurance. That big business is now on board with Carbon Credits, in reading those stories, they see it as participation in a new political reality. Buy buying them now when the price is low, they become a business commodity. Follow the money...

No, I am not into conspiracy theories. Rather I am well grounded in reality both in terms of physics and economics, how the world works and how systems work. That is the reason I enjoy discussing this so much. It is how I learn.

Respectfully,

Brad

Unknown

I'm with you. I'm just saying, you believe what you like... you don't know. I have my doubts you are a closet climatologist.

I'm not so sure BELIEF is enough for things this big. I like things like PROOF to tell me "yeah, we're not jacking up the latent energy and causing abnormally strong weather patterns" or things like that.

Absent that proof, then I think we should set a bar that takes into account more than pure economics, and tread cautiously. In general. We most certainly are not doing that, however. ESPECIALLY when there are other factors involved, like there are here with energy independance, that further balance the equation, but even without it, I think things like risking mass upheaval and such is a tad glib for casual readers to throw up as a reason why it's ok for us to burn mass amounts of carbon that has been locked out of the cycle for millions of years.

Brad White

Exactly as you say, Rob,

we do not know. Postulates that say "humans are the cause" do not hold up against what I consider more compelling evidence that says we are not. I cannot ask others to act a certain way absent reasonable proof. In the end, there is no certainty that humans are the cause and I am not about to ask others to act while trying to prove a negative.

I will admit to being a closet meteorologist though not a climatologist per se. I was a weather watcher for years as part of a local TV station and had a National Weather Service station on my property as part of micro-climate grid reporting. So I do have some interest and background.

With revalations about the energy use of a certain Academy Award winner from Tennessee, I have to conclude that at a deep level even he knows that there is a lot of BS in what he has been saying.

chilly

brad and water vapor

Adding a note about Brad's water vapor point. And the point is very important and not being properly discussed in the global warming news reports.

If you have more water vapor in the atmosphere, you will have more clouds. Clouds reflect sunlight back into space. Less sunlight less heat so if the some of the polar ice caps do melt, then you have more clouds which then could cause the Earth to cool down. Crazy I know, but entirely possible.

Climates are extremely complicated, with a whole bunch of checks and balances built in. I do not promote that human beings can run crazy and everything will stay in equilibrium, but over the scale of the Earth's existence, our time upon it is very small.

And as far as forecasts go, last year there was sand from the Sahara Desert blown into the upper atmosphere which caused the Atlantic Ocean to cool that's one reason given for why the hurricane count was lower last year.

NO ONE CAN FORECAST CLIMATE CHANGE!!! There are way too many factors, conserve yes. Buy carbon credits? NO!

Build wind farms by the Cape, Yes explore new energy options Yes. But signing Kyoto protocols on kowtowing the UN NO!

I just had to get that out. Now I feel better.

visitor_2

Therein lies the rub...

I read these remarks and can't think but that unless the arrogant-in-denial open their minds we are but doomed...