You can be green and save money... www.gonegreengal.com
You can be green and save money... www.gonegreengal.com
We give ourselves way too much credit that we can influence the weather like the global warming crowd seems to believe. As I understand, I was a toddler at the time, but in the 70's the general consensus was that the earth was cooling and there was a fear of the next ice age. Perhaps the global warming that we are seeing, and it may very well be happening, is a natural cycle of the earth, not one caused because you used incandescent bulbs instead of fluorescent. (Fluorescents are actually a hazard to the landfills - MERCURY in the bulb) My fear is that when the earth begins to cool (and it will naturally), the Al Gore's of the world will stand up to receive their 2nd bogus Nobel peace prize for saving the planet. I heard the storms and tornadoes in the midwest were actually caused because it was cooler than normal (how does that fit the global warming template!) in the north and that was causing a larger temperature difference between the 2 fronts causing unusually severe storms. Most of the warming predictions are set up on faulty models and assume that we knew what the ocean temps were one thousand years ago. We only have info maybe as far back as 1900 so to make huge assumptions on such a small sample is bad science. In actuality some of the warmest years in the past 100 occurred in the 1930's. Doesn't fit the template either does it?
I'm no scientist, although I hold a Bsc, but you have to understand that you are putting up a verbal argument based on what is probably an uninformed guess extrapolated from anecdotal experience. The scientists are not venturing opinions at all, they are presenting logical conclusions based on extremely precise measurements taken over several decades. Granted that there may be conflicting conclusions based on the same evidence, but THESE conclusions are the sensationalist fringe opinions, in the scientific community, not the global warming scenario. Scientists have been wrong before now, but can we afford to take the chance? The contemporaries of Noah, made that mistake, but he only heard a voice. Yes, Noah himself was a single, unscientific, voice, but this time the Lord has sent us a chorus of very distinguished voices, using what God gave them, their brains, for once. (See I'm coming at you from all sides. This is the religious argument.) Can you really be so reckless as to dismiss the scientific and the religious voices en masse?
"Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up. . . "Details like sea level rise will continue to be debated by researchers, but if the debate over whether or not humanity is contributing to global warming wasn't over before, it is now.... as the new IPCC Summary makes clear, climate change Pollyannaism is no longer looking very tenable" - Ronald Bailey, author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002),
Satilite pictures are showing the damages done. Not done in millions of years by Nature but by us in a short period of time.
It's amazing to me that global warming is capable of causing floods AND droughts at the same time! Maybe if they averaged out the floods and droughts together, they would find out it averages out to be perfectly normal. Just imagine, we are having thunderstorms, tornados and hurricanes during the middle of summer! Why, this has never happened before...since last summer. For crying out loud, it's so common, many sports teams are named after these weather events. Considering that CO2 makes up only a small fraction of 1% of our greenhouse gases, and that the sun and water vapor are the most powerful factors in global temperature, I think I'll go ahead and keep using fossil fuels with a clear conscience. Global warming supporters made up their minds long before facts were established to prove or disprove their theory. Then they point to every hot day, hail storm and rain cloud as proof of their theory. These people's lives must be so void of meaning that they grasp onto the concept that they can "save the world" by riding a bike! Here's a prediction... shut down all factories, cars and all motors of every type in the world, we'll still have hurricanes, droughts and flooding in the exact same amount and intensity as we do today. You people are just conceited and overflowing with misplaced self-importance.
This renews my faith in people's capability for intelligent and independent thought. Yes, we are spewing out carbon into the atmosphere, but it doesn't necessarily lead to the apocalypse because (Now, for that sect of global warming proponents that have made up their mind that the sky is falling and will not let things such as science or facts dissuade them, this is where you stick your fingers in your ears and say "Nyah, nyah, nyah! I can't hear you!") carbon dioxide has a paltry effect upon the global climate compared to other such evils as water and sunlight. The enthalpy of carbon dioxide (and if you don't know what enthalpy is, you really should look it up before debating climate change) is a fraction of that of water vapor. This is compounded by the fact that carbon dioxide is a much, much smaller part of the atmosphere than water vapor.
I'm not saying that we should just burn fossil fuels with reckless abandon because while I consider global warming dubious at best, I am sure that messing with the composition of the atmosphere is probably not the best idea and there are many other widely accepted reasons to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels such as air pollution, price volatility and a finite supply. I personally think America should increase renewables and alternatives until we only use coal/oil/natural gas that comes from America or is imported from Canada and maybe Mexico. There are plenty of reasons to reduce (yes, reduce not eliminate) our fossil fuel consumption, but we do not need pseudo-science and scare tactics from the Global Warming boogeyman. Acting on these false assumptions is just stupid when there are plenty of other good reasons.
The far left sickens me, first they claim the earth revolves around the Sun, then they push evolution on us, now man made global warming. This agenda of Science and Elightenment is revolting. This moment of sarcasm was sponsored by rational thought.
The Earth has been around for billions of years, exactly 4.5 B, but at least some are willing to admit it is millions. True, the forces of nature have caused different climate changes. THE PROBLEM IS THAT HUMAN POLLUTION IS DONE IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. Not stretched out in millions nor in thousands nor in a couple of hundred years but in a few years. Satellite pictures show the devastating consequence of this, Less than 100 years we had great forests now we have 1/3 of those forests. Nitrogen is filling our ocean and so on. We are polluting and it has caused damages now and especially for the future.
The following statement is not appropriate nor can it be supported by the referenced research:
???Atmospheric conditions that bring severe thunderstorms (with hail two inches across and wind gusts of at least 70 miles an hour) and tornadoes with a force of F2 or greater have been on the rise since the 1970s, occurring about 8 percent more often every decade. Get used to it, and don't blame Mother Nature.???
The basis for this comes from a paper by Harold Brooks and Nikolai Dotzek (2008), which can be found at: http://www.essl.org/people/dotzek/pdf/BroDot_Chap-Extremes.pdf
If you read this paper, you???ll find the conclusion reached in the Newsweek article is a gross misinterpretation of the findings in this paper. Here are a few quotes from the Brooks paper:
1) ???In the United States, there are currently over 10,000 reports per year each of hail and wind. This number has increased by an order of magnitude in the last few decades, as a result of efforts to improve data collection.???
2) ???Even in the United States, which has had an official collection effort since the 1950s, there are still obvious reporting problems. Verbout et al. (2006) show that the number of tornado reports increased by approximately 14 per year from 1954 to 2004. Brooks and Doswell showed that this increases comes from the increasing number of reported weak tornadoes over time, likely a result of factors such as improved public awareness, report collection procedures, increasing urbanization, or better radar identification of severe (and potentially tornadic) storms by the WSR-88D network.???
3) ???Studies of the historical distribution of severe thunderstorms and tornadoes and possible changes are necessarily limited by the data quality. However, efforts to date have not detected statistically significant changes.???
4) ???Severe thunderstorms and tornadoes are products of the juxtaposition of relatively rare conditions on sub-synoptic scales. Attempting to estimate likely changes with their occurrence associated with climate change scenarios is difficult, at best.???
5) ???Again, the reanalysis data can provide insight into historical behavior. The annual total of points that are identified as favorable for severe thunderstorms in the US, east of the Rocky Mountains, shows a minimum in the early 1970s. From the time of the minimum to 1999, the annual total increased by about 0.8% per year. There is a superficial similarity to the US annual temperature record, but it is not statistically significant. Unfortunately, the reanalysis does not extend back in the same format before 1958. Thus, we cannot be sure of the long-term relationship between surface temperature and favorable storm environments in the US.???
Green is the next profit frontier to make millions - welcome it and embrace it. Want to save money and be green at the same time? Support a company that has been carbon neutral since 2002 and will save you $3200.00 when you switch to their non-toxic, environmentally safe home care. You'll find information and links at www.gonegreengal.com It's the environmental equivalent of planting 15 trees.
When it rains, streams and rivers swell and some times overflow their banks. When towns built in the normal flood plane of a river build levees to keep the water out it just pushes more of the water downstream. This causes the areas down stream to get more water than they naturally would. As more cities build levees the result is that water that would have caused a little flood upstream gets pushed downstream to cause a larger flood than naturally would occur. From my point of view, these large floods are caused by peoples desire to live in low laying areas near the water and not want to get their feet a little wet every once and a while.
The Earth has been around for billions of years, exactly 4.5 B, but at least some are willing to admit it is millions. True, the forces of nature have caused different climate changes. THE PROBLEM IS THAT HUMAN POLLUTION IS DONE IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. Not stretched out in millions nor in thousands nor in a couple of hundred years but in a few years. Satellite pictures show the devastating consequence of this, Less than 100 years we had great forests now we have 1/3 of those forests. Nitrogen is filling our ocean and so on. We are polluting and it has caused irregular damages.
Another stupid scare piece by a non-scientist. Note she says some climatologists. In fact, the world has been cooling by a miniscule amount since 1998 and CLIMATOLOGISTS expect this trend to continue for the time being. This is right up there with the scare piece about the arctic ice cap maybe melting. There are 3 million more square feet of ice in the artic than there was this time last year. According to CLIMATOLOGISTS the severe weather in the midwest has been caused by unusually COLD air coming down from the north.
In response to BiB98.
The only people benefitting from this "cash cow" ,as you call it, are the emergency services people that go on overtime and miss time with their families to come help ignorant people like you after a disaster wipes them out.
And Al Gore ( China's whore ) and his friends. It is reported that Gore has made 100 million so far. I also understand from a local gov. sanctioned economic development group that all of the coal that Americans will no longer be able to burn is going to China where they are building coal fired power plants at record speed. The contracts have already been signed according to my source. Then there is Opec and there terrorist friends who are profiting a cash herd of cows and haven't even thanked the ones who are helping to make that possible. Ignorant people like yourself.
for everyone who screams at bush for using the "politics of fear" why can't you make the same connection in relation to this debate?
fear provides TONS of money to the scientific community, especially when we start predicting doomsday. some of our fears about global warming may be merrited...some of them may be manipulated.
that, to me, is the core of this debate.
Gotta Love all the armchair quarterbacks who say Scientists, Worldwide (A) Don't know what they are talking about... and (B) Even the Scientists from Communist Countries are part of a Left Wing agenda... (C) That all Scientists who disagree with armchair quarterbacks are Left Wing Conspirators...
There is obviously, to anyone (excludes armchair quarterbacks) using common observation, a price being paid for Global Pollution of Land, Ocean and Air... Connecting Global Events, and one specific event, is obviously the most difficult... Watching dominoes cascading and saying one specific domino is the culprit, or the cause, or the cascade, would be foolish... The bigger question to me with the Global Weather, is have we gone past a tipping point? Is there more than one tipping point, foreshadowing differing kinds of effects? Does it matter which type tree burns fastest, or the Forest is on Fire?
President Carter attempted to do something about the environment and dependence on oil by reducing the speed Limit to 55 MPH... Even done currently, that would end our need for Foreign Oil... But, but, people would have to slow down and that would be inconvenient... Better to pay $7.00 a Gallon... LOL...
Trickle down Reagan decided to support Corporations, over the USA and voters... We're still seeing the results and cascade from Reagan's decisions... And we will get Decider G W Bush's trickle, oops, I mean gushing results for years to come... Is Bush the "cause"??? NO! WE the People who keep a corrupt Democrat and Republicans Party in Office are to blame... POGO: WE have met the Enemy and IT is US...
lar...
just to clarify;
when it comes to idealogy, communism has always been considered to be the extreme left of the political spectrum. (and facism is considered to be the extreme right)
I can tell that you don't make your living on Wall Street, because you don't seem to understand that it is not the moment to moment data that the experts depend on for theri technical analysis, which is what we are doing here. It is the trend which can be easily seen on the charts which are much more predictable and harder to change. The longer the range of the data the bigger the catastrophe which would be required to change the long range trends. In the context of weather such a catastrophe would be like a world wide thermonuclear holocaust, a meteor or comet strike, a massive volcanic eruption, or a major shift in the tectonic plates. Any one of these catastrophes could cause an immediate change in weather patterns, for the worse. Barring these outside chances, the evidence for global warming, in spite of year to year differences is incontrovertible.
(To extend the explanation, we need to understand that we are deaing with convergence of many causative factors. Sometimes these cancel each other out; but on the other hand when most of them are pushing in the same direction, that is when we have these enormous effects. This means that a one degree increase in the temperature will sometimes be cancelled out by other factors, but at other times it will add a little to the effect of several factors in a variety of ways: ocean currents, surface winds, jet streams, tidal sun, tidal moon effects, ambient water temperature, point water temperature, and so on and so on. Imagine each of these factors instead of cancelling each other out all working together to create the perfect storm, which is no fiction.)
Note it says some climatologists. This is right up there with the claim that the ice might melt at the North Pole this summer. Fact is there is 3 million more square feet of ice this year than last year up there. It's also a fact that the weather we are seeing is, in fact, no worse than that of the historical past.. It's also a fact that the world temperature has been dropping a miniscule amount since 1998 and CLIMATOLGISTS expect this trend to continue for quite a while. This is a badly written scare piece.
As a meteorologist, this is one of the worst articles I've ever seen involving the weather! A warmer world shifting tropical storms into the Northern U.S? The real reason for the Western trough? A colder than normal North Pacific (called a negative PDO).
Thank you! That is the sort of factual information that is clearly lacking in this and many other articles.
Greetings: The last time this happened, Everyone said it was because of people in our country and companies have changed the natural flow ov our streams and rivers. We create lakes by damming up the rivers and sadly enough, we built a city below sea level on the gulf which naturally would eventual get a direct hit by a hurricane or any natural disaster causing levees to break. Guess you know by now
Oops, I just 'tooted'... More Global Warming...
tehehe
Note it says some climatologists. This is right up there with the claim that the ice might melt at the North Pole this summer. Fact is there is 3 million more square feet of ice this year than last year up there. It's also a fact that the weather we are seeing is, in fact, no worse than that of the historical past.. It's also a fact that the world temperature has been dropping a miniscule amount since 1998 and CLIMATOLGISTS expect this trend to continue for quite a while. This is a badly written scare piece.
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
Discuss