Clouds From Chinese Coal Cast a Long Shadow

[Anonymous]

There is a conspicuous over-urgency in the pitching of global warming. It seems pretty obvious that it is difficult to get people riled up over fraction of a degree temperature rise over the course of 100 years. So to help with the riling up, every conceivable bad thing that can happen or is happening is being linked global warming as the cause.

Last night I was informed by the networks that the western fires were likely being caused by global warming. Tonight they told me again. They also told me tonight that gobal warming is a fact, and no longer debatable. ABC has a website where you can go and report how global warming is affecting you. I wonder if you can go there and debate whether gobal warming is happening. Probably not since it is no longer debatable.

One thing is for sure: Whatever the pain of the supposed effects of global warming, it will be nothing compared to the pain that will result if everybody agrees that it is happening.

[Anonymous]

From the National Academy of Sciences:

Date: June 22, 2006

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

'High Confidence' That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years;
Less Confidence in Temperature Reconstructions Prior to 1600

WASHINGTON -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council. Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for that time frame are sparse, the committee added.

Scientists rely on proxies to reconstruct paleoclimatic surface temperatures because geographically widespread records of temperatures measured with instruments date back only about 150 years. Other proxies include corals, ocean and lake sediments, ice cores, cave deposits, and documentary sources, such as historic drawings of glaciers. The globally averaged warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) that instruments have recorded during the last century is also reflected in proxy data for that time period, the committee noted.

The report was requested by Congress after a controversy arose last year over surface temperature reconstructions published by climatologist Michael Mann and his colleagues in the late 1990s. The researchers concluded that the warming of the Northern Hemisphere in the last decades of the 20th century was unprecedented in the past thousand years. In particular, they concluded that the 1990s were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year. Their graph depicting a rise in temperatures at the end of a long era became known as the "hockey stick."

The Research Council committee found the Mann team's conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies -- in fewer locations -- provide temperatures for periods before then. Because of larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions for decades and individual years, and because not all proxies record temperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team's conclusions about the 1990s, and 1998 in particular.

The committee noted that scientists' reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures for the past thousand years are generally consistent. The reconstructions show relatively warm conditions centered around the year 1000, and a relatively cold period, or "Little Ice Age," from roughly 1500 to 1850. The exact timing of warm episodes in the medieval period may have varied by region, and the magnitude and geographical extent of the warmth is uncertain, the committee said. None of the reconstructions indicates that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades, the committee added.

The scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence for temperatures before 1600, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, is the main reason there is less confidence in global reconstructions dating back further than that. Other factors that limit confidence include the short length of the instrumental record, which is used to calibrate and validate reconstructions, and the possibility that the relationship between proxy data and local surface temperatures may have varied over time. It also is difficult to estimate a mean global temperature using data from a limited number of sites. On the other hand, confidence in large-scale reconstructions is boosted by the fact that the proxies on which they are based generally exhibit strong correlations with local environmental conditions. Confidence increases further when multiple independent lines of evidence point to the same general phenomenon, such as the Little Ice Age.

Collecting additional proxy data, especially for years before 1600 and for areas where the current data are relatively sparse, would increase our understanding of temperature variations over the last 2,000 years, the report says. In addition, improving access to data on which published temperature reconstructions are based would boost confidence in the results. The report also notes that new analytical methods, or more careful use of existing methods, might help circumvent some of the current limitations associated with large-scale reconstructions.

The committee pointed out that surface temperature reconstructions for periods before the Industrial Revolution -- when levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases were much lower -- are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence.

The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows.

Copies of Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years will be available from the National Academies Press; tel. [phone] or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. Reporters may obtain a pre-publication copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

http://nationalacademies.org/

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/science/22cnd-climate.html?

Dave

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

You obviously have never heard of TVA, Hoover dam, the Grand Coulie dam, etc. etc. The TVA dams displaced more people than live in the state of RI. You must of been home sick that day in school.[#oops]

None of those ***s misplaced that many people. (Do you have Info??? I make a habit of not believing every thing I hear. I done learnt that in school. [:D])

Also, the U.S. government wasn't out bulldozing cities flat so boats could pass above them after the river filled out. If they did, I am sure there would be a lawsuit or two (don't you think??). The neat thing about communist China is that they can just decree that is what will be done. End of story. Kiss your belongings good-bye. Thank God for the U.S.A.

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

PS the Glen Canyon dam did block a canyon some considered equal in granduer to the Grand Canyon, and its still there....also the Snake, Columbia,Colorado and innumerable western rivers have huge HUGE hyrdo-electric dams all up and down the rivers bottling millions of acres of water behind them covering old towns, roads, RR's etc. The 3 Rivers project in China is just on a bigger scale, and it would never happen here because no one in our government is willing to spend the money on it unless they are getting thier palms and their supporters palms greased in return, either that or it needs a huge wealthy lobbiest group behind it....

or it just isn't economically viable......

[vsmith]

PS the Glen Canyon dam did block a canyon some considered equal in granduer to the Grand Canyon, and its still there....also the Snake, Columbia,Colorado and innumerable western rivers have huge HUGE hyrdo-electric dams all up and down the rivers bottling millions of acres of water behind them covering old towns, roads, RR's etc. The 3 Rivers project in China is just on a bigger scale, and it would never happen here because no one in our government is willing to spend the money on it unless they are getting thier palms and their supporters palms greased in return, either that or it needs a huge wealthy lobbiest group behind it....

[rrandb]

You obviously have never heard of TVA, Hoover dam, the Grand Coulie dam, etc. etc. The TVA dams displaced more people than live in the state of RI. You must of been home sick that day in school.[#oops]

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

Has anyone mentioned that the Chinese consume one third the amount of coal that we do per capita? That they have a program that currently is bringing 120,000 people on line for 100% renewable (solar) energy. We should clean up our own house before we point fingers at anyone else. Not to mention the most aggressive Hydro-Electric program of any nation? [?].

HEE HEE HEE I saw China's new 'hydro-electric' project on TV. They basically threw a dam in on the end of the Chinese version of the Colorado river (except it is a lot bigger and I think it is called the Yang See river and yes, I am sure that is spelled wrong) and let the canyons fill up with water. tens of thousands, no, maybe hundreds of thousands of people were displaced. Villages were bulldozed and sacred shrines plowed under the earth so they wouldn't scrape the hulls of boats that would be moving on the new river. Such a project would NEVER occur here in the US due to enviromental regulations. Imagine filling in the grand canyon with a lake so we could have hydro-electric power. Talk about ruining the enviroment in the name of progress.

[rrandb]

Has anyone mentioned that the Chinese consume one third the amount of coal that we do per capita? That they have a program that currently is bringing 120,000 people on line for 100% renewable (solar) energy. We should clean up our own house before we point fingers at anyone else. Not to mention the most aggressive Hydro-Electric program of any nation? [?].

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dsktc

From today's New York Times:

"NEW SMYRNA BEACH, Fla. — When scientists consider the possible effects of global warming, there is a lot they don't know. But they can say one thing for sure: sea levels will rise."

Sounds like rock solid science to me. I think we should start litigating insurance settlements imediately. [:D]

Also, as I read through the article I began to notice a distinct bias - scientists don't know everything for sure but they know the sea levels will rise (begs the question a little bit doesn't it?); when discussing the ramifications of coastal flooding who do we interview: a lawyer; the article also seems to indicate that the truly 'prepared' towns will have contingency plans for global warming and rising sea levels (which of course means the town would have to subscribe to the theory of global warming, which according to the article, there is a lot they don't know about.)

I began to think to myself, hmmmm. What author or editor would write such an article where the conclusion presupposes the cause? Ah yes, I give you the NEW YORK TIMES, ladies and gentlemen!

[Anonymous]

From today's New York Times:

"NEW SMYRNA BEACH, Fla. — When scientists consider the possible effects of global warming, there is a lot they don't know. But they can say one thing for sure: sea levels will rise.

"This rising water will be felt along the artificially maintained beaches of New Jersey, in the vanishing marshes of Louisiana, even on the ocean bluffs of California. According to a 2000 report by the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, at least a quarter of the houses within 500 feet of the United States coast may be lost to rising seas by 2060. There were 350,000 of these houses when the report was written, but today there are far more.

"If it is as bad as people are saying, at some point it will be a crisis," said Thomas Tomasello of Tallahassee, Fla., a lawyer who represents many owners of coastal property. But he does not dwell on it. "I cannot deal with sea level rise," he said. "That's such a huge issue."

"Though most of the country's ocean beaches are eroding, few coastal jurisdictions consider sea level rise in their coastal planning, and still fewer incorporate the fact that the rise is accelerating. Instead, they are sticking with policies that geologists say may help them in the short term but will be untenable or even destructive in the future."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/science/earth/20sea.html

Dave

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Soo-760

The main cause of this so called "Global Warming" is Al Gore. All this hot air that he is spewing has to be doing something. And since he is promoting Global Warming, eventually it will happen. It could be in 10 years or 1000 years. If I remember from school that the ice age happens in cycles in about 10,000 years, and the last one was a few thousand years ago, doesn't that mean we are still coming out of the most recent ice age?

FYI-gas consumption in the US only increased .4% while china and india increased around 15%.

China wants global domination. They can't do that by military so they are trying to do it with domination of the global market. Look at oil, look at scrap metal, look at copper, and soon, look at gold. Buy now. China wants to buy a years worth of mined gold, which would leave nothing to everybody else.

Surely not Al Gore?!!![(-D][(-D][(-D]

[Anonymous]

Yes China is going to suck all the oxygen out of the room so to speak, with respect to nautural resources. Within the next few years millions and millions of Chinese are going to start driving cars for the first time. They have an impossibly cheap labor base that is going to suck manufacturing out of the western countries until their standard of living and wages equalize with the west. And with the size of China's labor force, they will take over all of U.S. manufacturing before that equalization occurrs.

[Anonymous]

The main cause of this so called "Global Warming" is Al Gore. All this hot air that he is spewing has to be doing something. And since he is promoting Global Warming, eventually it will happen. It could be in 10 years or 1000 years. If I remember from school that the ice age happens in cycles in about 10,000 years, and the last one was a few thousand years ago, doesn't that mean we are still coming out of the most recent ice age?

FYI-gas consumption in the US only increased .4% while china and india increased around 15%.

China wants global domination. They can't do that by military so they are trying to do it with domination of the global market. Look at oil, look at scrap metal, look at copper, and soon, look at gold. Buy now. China wants to buy a years worth of mined gold, which would leave nothing to everybody else.

[Hugh Jampton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Hugh Jampton

Here's a thought. Global warming is caused by excessive CO2 in the atmosphere (allegedly). Where does this CO2 come from? It's a product of combustion. Take 1 atom of carbon from coal or oil combine it with 2 atoms of oxygen and you get heat which we use to do work and CO2. Where does the oxygen come from? The atmosphere I suppose. So, if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing then the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere must be decreasing as there's only a finite amount of oxygen on the planet. So at what point do we all suffocate?

Except oxygen isn't finite. It is created by plants. Plants take in CO2 and produce O2. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more plants producing more O2.

But it's the same oxygen atoms, no new ones are being made, that requires fusion in a star.
Then why is the amount of CO2 rising? If the CO2 content of the atmosphere rises there must be less oxygen in the atmosphere.

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by EUCLID TRAVIS

Tonight 60-Minutes will run a story about the reason why sharks are getting meaner. I wonder if the reason could be global warming. We'll have to wait and see.

See my previous post....it's the Venusians using infrared waves to heat our water so more evaporates which in turn causes an increase in water vapor which in turn warms the planet via greenhouse effect which causes more water to evaporate and so on and on until earth becomes just like Venus and then they will invade our planet.
[alien][alien][alien]
See, Vic...my foil hat works quite well.

[Anonymous]

Tonight 60-Minutes will run a story about the reason why sharks are getting meaner. I wonder if the reason could be global warming. We'll have to wait and see.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Hugh Jampton

Here's a thought. Global warming is caused by excessive CO2 in the atmosphere (allegedly). Where does this CO2 come from? It's a product of combustion. Take 1 atom of carbon from coal or oil combine it with 2 atoms of oxygen and you get heat which we use to do work and CO2. Where does the oxygen come from? The atmosphere I suppose. So, if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing then the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere must be decreasing as there's only a finite amount of oxygen on the planet. So at what point do we all suffocate?

Except oxygen isn't finite. It is created by plants. Plants take in CO2 and produce O2. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more plants producing more O2.

[Anonymous]

Agreed, dsktc. I'd just rather put effort into buying 7th Generation or Earth Friendly instead of Joy or Dawn, and let the windbags find a vacuum elsewhere. I think it's a better action to take.

Better get back to trains.

[Hugh Jampton]

Here's a thought. Global warming is caused by excessive CO2 in the atmosphere (allegedly). Where does this CO2 come from? It's a product of combustion. Take 1 atom of carbon from coal or oil combine it with 2 atoms of oxygen and you get heat which we use to do work and CO2. Where does the oxygen come from? The atmosphere I suppose. So, if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing then the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere must be decreasing as there's only a finite amount of oxygen on the planet. So at what point do we all suffocate?

[Anonymous]

Which will be followed by George W. Bush's
new book on evolutionary biology, "Intelligent
Design and the Origins of - My Political - Life."

Dave

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

You haven't heard that the Mars faction can no longer pull in "My Favorite Martian" on 'Nick at Nite' on their antennae. Their agitators say that there's no place like home, and global warming is the cause. They're pushing for inclusion in the Kyoto Treaty. It'll all be revealed in Al's forthcoming book, "I invented the Universe".

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

I read recently that the increase in the number of UFO sightings has gone up at about the same rate as the global temperature. D'ya think there's a connection? Space Aliens beaming infrared waves at our sky causing temps to rise! They are trying to melt all the ice and flood the lands. That's what happened when Noah built his ark. Soon the inhabitants of Venus will arrive in full force to claim the earth as their own, forcing us to do their bidding. They already messed up their own planet with carbon dioxide emissions, so now they need the earth. The Venusians already have their spies installed as the political leaders of the major countries, and they have secret meetings where they decide their strategies. Those citizens that disobey will be taken away in boxcars equipped with shackles and taken to the alien's secret bases which are now cleverly disguised as old military facilities.[alien]

Keep that foil hat handy!

[Anonymous]

You haven't heard that the Mars faction can no longer pull in "My Favorite Martian" on 'Nick at Nite' on their antennae. Their agitators say that there's no place like home, and global warming is the cause. They're pushing for inclusion in the Kyoto Treaty. It'll all be revealed in Al's forthcoming book, "I invented the Universe".

[MichaelSol]

Recent articles about Mars undergoing a global warming trend similar to Earth's were interesting, but no one has figured out a political angle on that one yet, so not much about it in the MSM.

[zardoz]

I read recently that the increase in the number of UFO sightings has gone up at about the same rate as the global temperature. D'ya think there's a connection? Space Aliens beaming infrared waves at our sky causing temps to rise! They are trying to melt all the ice and flood the lands. That's what happened when Noah built his ark. Soon the inhabitants of Venus will arrive in full force to claim the earth as their own, forcing us to do their bidding. They already messed up their own planet with carbon dioxide emissions, so now they need the earth. The Venusians already have their spies installed as the political leaders of the major countries, and they have secret meetings where they decide their strategies. Those citizens that disobey will be taken away in boxcars equipped with shackles and taken to the alien's secret bases which are now cleverly disguised as old military facilities.[alien]

[Anonymous]

Notice that in an attempt to boost the stature of the threat of global warming, every kind of malady is being linked to it as the cause. The other night I heard on NBC that poison ivy is going out of control from all the excess carbon dioxide. Not only is it getting bigger, but it is getting itchier too. The next thing you know, bird flu will be the result of global warming.

One of the most obvious candidates for linkage to global warming as a cause is hurricanes. Yet hurricane scientists seem to be steadfast in their position that the apparent upsurge in hurricanes is not the result of global warming. I have heard that there is great political pressure being applied to these scientists to get onboard the global warming bandwagon. Therefore, I predict that within one year, there will be a universal consensus that hurricanes are increasing not only in number, but also in destructive ability as a direct result of man’s use of fossil fuels.

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

QUOTE: [i]...everyone was sooooooo shocked by the flooding of New Orleans, everyone except the ones who were warning of it for YEARS before it finally happened, they just said 'we did warn you, you wouldnt listen, so there you are'

Sounds like the scientist today warning of the coming flood....

how was the flooding of New Orleans the result of global warming? The hurricane didn't even hit the city head on.

Where did I say that? I was using the NO flooding as an example of a warning that went unheaded for years until it was too late. the powers that be at the top of the food chain were happy to believe that everything was Ok even though they were being warned by the minnows at the bottom of the food chain that the dikes were weak in several places. It also demonstrated how when push comes to shove and they repaired the dikes they did it the cheapest way possible instead of the best way possible. that doesnt bode well for how our government would handle a large serious long term emergency like increasing coastal flooding for the forseeable future and rising tempuratures everywhere else.

My point was that New Orleans was the result of human error. Also, the scale of science involved with determining the structural integrity of a levee is much more precise than the science involved with the global atmosphere. There is not a consensus on the scope and depth of global warming. Shall we go into crisis mode when no one can say for sure what the crisis is? Past history has shown us that the heating and cooling of the earth is cyclical. Since the earth appears to be heating, do we have any reason to believe that this cycle is any different than the others? Also, the consensus seems to be that the last ice age was caused by greenhouse gases cooling the earth to the point that glaciers reigned supreme in North America as far south as Wisconsin. Question: Since there were no hydrocarbon emissions in pre-historic times how did this bring about the greenhouse affect required to produce the ice age? Was it volcanic activity? If so, how will human beings reducing the use of fossil fuels make any difference if only a volcano can trigger global cooling? I find it hard to believe that if we all drove hybrids we would somehow stave off ice age #2. Certainly there is no scientific proof of this.

As for relying on the government to solve our problems - this is an iffy proposition at best. Governments by nature are slow to respond because even the best run government will have to follow the proper bureaucratic channels or choas will reign supreme. FEMA's disaster guidelines for local governments state that the local government should prepare for a 96 hour period of time in which FEMA will mobilize their assets to the proper locations (in other words - the local government is on their own for 96 hours and they better have a plan to cope. New Orleans did and they did not execute their plan. This is due to a lack of leadership at the local and state level). In the Katrina situation they met these guidlines. Unfortunately the local government didn't know which way was up and they were foundering even before the wind stopped blowing. These facts were conveniently over-looked in the desparate search for a scapegoat.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

QUOTE: [i]...everyone was sooooooo shocked by the flooding of New Orleans, everyone except the ones who were warning of it for YEARS before it finally happened, they just said 'we did warn you, you wouldnt listen, so there you are'

Sounds like the scientist today warning of the coming flood....

how was the flooding of New Orleans the result of global warming? The hurricane didn't even hit the city head on.

Where did I say that? I was using the NO flooding as an example of a warning that went unheaded for years until it was too late. the powers that be at the top of the food chain were happy to believe that everything was Ok even though they were being warned by the minnows at the bottom of the food chain that the dikes were weak in several places. It also demonstrated how when push comes to shove and they repaired the dikes they did it the cheapest way possible instead of the best way possible. that doesnt bode well for how our government would handle a large serious long term emergency like increasing coastal flooding for the forseeable future and rising tempuratures everywhere else.

[Anonymous]

The global warming believers say that it would be fooli***o ignore the threat, because if it materializes, it will be too late. They contend that it would only be prudent to assume the threat is real and act accordingly. But I doubt that many people realize just what level of sacrifice is called for as the proper reaction to global warming if you believe in it.

Certainly there is no reason to question the global warming science if you don’t realize how much sacrifice it requires. Most people think they can do their part to combat climate change by recycling, keeping their cars tuned up, buying special light bulbs, combining car trips, and saying they care. But those things are tiny compared to the actual fare that will be collected once everybody gets onboard the global warming train with the signing of the Kyoto treaty. This will require a large portion of your income and it won’t be voluntary.

The cost will not be apparent until after the Kyoto treaty is signed. Then the cost will become the law of the land. The Kyoto treaty is like a purchase order that requires payment for the cure to a problem that might or might not be real. But the payment is very real, and very large.

Judging by the outcry over the price of gasoline going up by $1.50 per gallon, I can assure you than virtually nobody would believe in the threat of global warming if they realized what it will cost them.

[Anonymous]

Either Hewlett or Packard said, when asked whether the garage they started their company in should be made an historic preservation site, that he didn't think it should be. He thought the site should be used by someone else with a better idea for it.

As I understand it, the Mississippi River deposited the soil that exists south of Missouri. With something that powerful, maybe we should adapt to it. Let it flow where it's gonna flow, and create new land. I've read that satellite data indicates that at current rates of erosion, NO will be an island in the Gulf before the end of the this century (and that's with no consideration of the effects of any change in atmospheric temperatures).

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith
Better to get used to some of these possibilities so they wont be such a huge shock if they come to pass...everyone was sooooooo shocked by the flooding of New Orleans, everyone except the ones who were warning of it for YEARS before it finally happened, they just said 'we did warn you, you wouldnt listen, so there you are'

Sounds like the scientist today warning of the coming flood....

Vic,
Do you ever get the feeling that we would have better success talking to a wall?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEMO
From: those of us "Chicken Littles" that see that the sky is falling

To: those of you that have your heads firmly planted in the sand (or wherever):

re: global climate change due to human influence


Message: Only time will tell which school of thought was correct.