Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Heatwave with a global grip

IT looks like being the hottest July on record but Britain is not alone in experiencing extreme conditions, write Jonathan Leake and Alex Delmar- Morgan.
Hot, arid weather is afflicting millions in America and in dozens of countries across Europe and parts of east Asia.

The phenomenon has surprised meteorologists who are used to seeing drought as a regional, not global, problem. This weekend they said early analysis of the hot weather, together with the size of the areas affected, suggested it was linked to global climate change.

"Greenhouse gas emissions raise the likelihood of heatwaves like this one," said Dave Griggs, a Met Office representative on the Joint Scientific Committee for the World Climate Research Programme. "By 2040 this will be just an average summer and by 2060 it will be a relatively cool one."

Data on the global heatwave have been collated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in America. Its maps show that most of the US is 3-7C above the average for the time of year and several western states have been more than 9C higher...

Mr. Kuvasz. You are correct. You did not claim such a thing. Perhaps it was Parados or some one else but I must post a statement which I think is very pertinent. You may not believe it, but I DO.

"But this is a 100,000-year cycle, whereas global warming is happening a thousand times faster.""

Since you throw a lot of exrement at the wall at one time to see if any will stick , Mr. Kuvasz, I will take your statements one at a time. Please be so good as to rebut them, if you can, ONE AT A TIME!!!

kuvasz wrote:

First of all,
And none of these have been done to any extent by your hero George Bush. He has stagnated or actually reduced in real dollars the US government's efforts to bring these things about. yes indeed, and an oil man.

wrong( and you do know -falsus in unum, falsus in omnia)

According to the Chicago Tribune--July 26, 2006, the world's first virtually pollution-free coal fired electric power plant will be built( perhaps in Illinois) and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL CONTRIBUTE 730 MILLION OF THE MONEY(TOTAL-930 MILLION-THE RESOT FROM ENERGY COMPANIES)

Policies to improve energy efficiency can reduce oil imports, improve the reliability of the U.S. electric grid, save consumers money, reduce air pollution, create jobs and reduce prices. But, since 2001, Federal DOE funding for EERE R&D programs not included in the hydrogen initiatives has decreased by 13 percent.

DOE's FY 2004 budget requests would cut spending on energy efficiency research and development, which is the core of the efficiency program's mission, by 8%. Compared to the 2002 budget, which is the level at which the agency is operating today because of delays in the FY 2003 appropriations legislation, the Administration's request is effectively a 12% cut in efficiency R&D. This is presented as a reduction of "only" 4% energy efficiency compared to the FY 2003 request, because of increases in grants for weatherization and other state and community programs.. It is also worth noting that when inflation is taken into account, the overall efficiency funding cut is 6%.

Of the individual efficiency R&D program budgets, the only significant increase is in fuel cell technologies, consistent with the President's announced hydrogen initiative. The largest cuts come in the industrial (30%) and federal energy management (15%) programs. Larger cuts were requested in the biomass and climate control budgets, but these are not primarily aimed at energy efficiency.

The total DOE budget would drop 2.0 percent under President Bush's FY 2006 budget request, from $23.9 billion in FY 2005 to $23.4 billion. For DOE's civilian research, the Office of Science (SC) would see its budget reduced by 3.8 percent from FY 2005 funding of $3,599.6 million to $3,462.7 million. The FY 2006 requested amount is, in fact, also 2.0 percent lower than the office's FY 2004 funding. According to DOE documents, much of the reduction comes from the elimination of $79.6 million in congressionally directed earmarks to Biological and Environmental Research,

The FY06 budget request for the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) energy efficiency and renewable energy (EE/RE) programs envisions reductions totaling nearly $50 million - an overall cut of roughly 4 percent. This includes a 6 percent cut in Distributed Energy programs ($60,416 to $56,629); an 8 percent cut in the Geothermal Energy program ($25,270 to $23,299); an 18 percent cut in the Biomass/Biofuels program ($88,099 to $72,164); and a 90 percent cut in the Hydropower program ($4,862 to $500).

In fact, the Bush budget proposes to phase out DOE's hydropower program altogether and all support for the Advanced Hydropower Turbine, a joint program between DOE and the hydropower industry exploring fish-friendlier turbines, just at the time when full scale testing is about to begin at multiple locales.

Adding insult to injury for at least some of these programs, the cuts come on top of earlier reductions. The geothermal program, for example, had been funded at $28.4 million in FY03 and steadily reduced since then.

Less severely impacted is DOE's solar R&D budget which faces a reduction of only 1.3 percent, from $85.07 million in FY 05 to $83.95 million in FY 06. The solar industry has sought to put a positive spin on its reduction calling the budget request "essentially status quo funding" while applauding a "promising new initiative to advance the development of crystalline silicon solar power."

Overall, among DOE's core renewable energy programs, only wind energy is proposed for an increase - 3.4 million (from $40.8 million to $44.2 million), a relatively large expansion of nearly 9 percent.

In addition, funding for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) program (which provides public power systems and rural electric cooperatives with a counterpart to the tax incentives that are available to for-profit utilities for renewable generation) would be just $5 million - an increase of $1 million but well below the cumulative $70+ million estimated as needed to fully fund past obligations under the program.

On the energy efficiency side of the ledger, DOE's funding would be cut back by nearly $21 million. Moreover, this decrease comes on top of earlier reductions. Since FY02, DOE research and development spending on efficiency has fallen by $50 million. Corrected for inflation, this represents a 15 percent drop in federal support for energy efficiency even though studies suggest that every dollar invested in DOE-administered energy-efficiency R&D returns $20 to the nation's economy.

The bottom-line reduction in DOE's EE/RE programs appears less drastic primarily because of significant increases for the hydrogen program (5%: $94,066 to 99,094) and the fuel cells program (12%: $74,944 to $83,600). And the hydrogen program, which has grown from $38,113 in FY03, is not a truly renewable energy program inasmuch as a portion of the budget supports hydrogen production from fossil fuel and nuclear sources.

On the tax side, the Bush Administration budget proposal for 2006 calls for extending the wind energy production tax credit (PTC) for two years, through the end of 2007. The two-year PTC for wind, biomass (other than agricultural livestock waste nutrients), and landfill gas would continue at 1.8 cents/kWh and would be adjusted annually for inflation. However, the proposal appears to not include geothermal energy in the extension even though it was incorporated into the program last year -- arguably one of the few advances made in federal support for renewables in 2004.

Even if broadened to include geothermal and other renewables, a mere two-year extension would continue the stop-and-go unpredictability of the PTC which has hampered renewable energy development over the past decade - a problem not faced by fossil fuel technologies which are granted long-term incentives.

February 20, 2006
Volume 84, Number 8
pp. 27-32
2007 R&D Budget Lacks Balance

Sizable funding increases in a number of research areas are negated by cuts in other programs

Research and development funding proposed in President George W. Bush's federal budget for fiscal 2007 is somewhat of a change from his previous submissions. Instead of simply focusing on defense and homeland security spending, there is a conscious effort to improve R&D at several research agencies and to hold back spending at a number of others. The outcome is an uneven patchwork of funding changes in civilian R&D that results in a very small overall increase.

As previewed in his State of the Union address, Bush has proposed increases in physical sciences funding at several agencies, notably the National Science Foundation, National Institute for Standards & Technology, and Department of Energy. These increases, however, are offset by reductions in science and technology spending at the Departments of Defense, Agriculture, and Commerce and by proposing no increase at the National Institutes of Health.

The Administration claims that much of the budget trimming comes from eliminating approximately $2.4 billion worth of R&D earmarks added to last year's budget by members of Congress. For example, the proposed budget for medical research at Defense is cut for 2007, because the Administration says that $900 million in projects was inappropriately added in 2006. USDA's R&D budget would also be cut by 16%, primarily because of the elimination of earmarks.

Congress faces this budget with some trepidation. Bush has asked for budget cuts in a number of politically sensitive areas, such as veterans' benefits, Medicare spending, and education programs. Because R&D funding is a purely discretionary item in the budget, it is always in danger of further reductions. Science Committee Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.), whose committee held the first hearings on the R&D proposal last week, said he is generally pleased with the effort to boost physical science, but he has concerns about cuts in research at the National Aeronautics & Space Administration and about insufficient spending on science education

Funding increases proposed for the Department of Energy for fiscal 2007 could be a bonanza for scientists. Chief among programs benefiting from the Administration's largesse is DOE's Office of Science, proposed for a jump of $506 million, or 14%, over last year's appropriation.
The increase would take the science office's funding to $4.1 billion. And the Administration's plan is to increase funding to some $7.2 billion in 10 years, which Office of Science Director Raymond L. Orbach called an "historic opportunity" for a "renaissance" in U.S. science and global competitiveness.

This was the first budget prepared by Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman, a former chemical engineering professor and chemical company chief executive officer. Bodman echoed the energy emphasis in the President's State of the Union address in which the President proposed a 22% increase in "clean energy research." The President's clean energy definition was broad, however, and included nuclear and coal as well as wind, solar, and renewable energy sources.

The DOE proposal would increase research in solar energy and biofuels by about $60 million each, bringing each to about $150 million, 70% more than current funding. In contrast, the department's R&D efforts to support coal-generated energy would be cut by $46 million. At $330 million, however, coal research funding would still exceed solar and biofuels combined. Nuclear spending would increase by 18% to $632 million, more than half for R&D, which increased by 50%.

At $23.6 billion, the DOE proposed budget is flat compared with last year's congressional appropriation, so to fund new energy programs the Administration proposes several deep cuts. Largest are $750 million in reductions to the environmental cleanup budget, $200 million in mostly R&D cuts to the fossil energy program, and nearly $100 million removed from programs to encourage installation of conservation and energy efficiency technologies in homes and businesses. These programs are popular with many members of Congress, states, communities, and industries, however, and are unlikely to be reduced without a fight.

Concerning Office of Science programs of particular interest to the chemical sciences, Basic Energy Sciences (BES) is proposed to receive 25% in new funding, bringing its total to $1.4 billion.

Proposed increases include $51 million in new nanoscale science research funds, for a $253 million total. The BES budget also includes funds to complete the last of five nanoscale research centers in 2007. Brookhaven would join operating nanoscale research centers at Argonne, Lawrence Berkeley, Oak Ridge, and Sandia/Los Alamos National Laboratories, DOE said.

BES proposed funding also includes $100 million in operational funds for the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and $105 million for engineering and construction at Stanford University's Linac Coherent Light Source.

Wording in BES's budget proposal also urges its "communities of scientists" to propose research to overcome short-term "showstoppers" in nuclear, solar, and hydrogen energy technologies. The budget proposes $34 million in new funding for solar projects, $12 million in new nuclear R&D funds, and an increase in hydrogen-related R&D dollars of $18 million.

Another Office of Science program of particular interest to chemists is the Biological & Environmental Research program. The budget appears to shrink, but that is because the Administration's proposal has deleted $129 million in congressionally specified projects or earmarks that are in the 2006 appropriation. Funding for the BER base program, without the earmarks, would increase by $59 million to $510 million in 2007.

New funds would be directed to the imaging and characterization of microbial communities in energy and environmental applications, including hydrogen and ethanol applications. BER also continues a history of human genome research ($75 million) and climate- change science ($135 million). Other BER R&D areas are smaller, and their proposed budgets are similar to previous years'.

Most of this year's DOE budget presentation was devoted to a far-reaching program that would overhaul the U.S.'s and world's nuclear energy regime. Called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, the $250 million proposal would encourage nuclear power use in the U.S. and throughout the world. The focus is largely on R&D to develop the technology to establish an international system to reprocess nuclear fuel-research to improve fuel-recycling technologies as well as to develop advanced burner reactors to better use reprocessed fuel.

Clean Air and Climate

Renewable Energy
The proposed budget includes $354 million for the Department of Energy's (DOE) from the proposed 2005 budget. Under the administration's proposal, hydrogen and wind would receive a boost, with five and seven percent funding increases, respectively. The overall decrease in DOE renewable energy funding, however, reflects a reduction in spending on other renewable technologies such as solar, geothermal, and bioenergy. Unfortunately, the mature, polluting fossil fuel industry continues to receive more than 30 percent additional DOE funding than the struggling renewables industry, despite the fact that investing more in renewable energy would improve our energy security, save consumers money, boost rural economies, and cut global warming pollution. UCS calls for a doubling of the DOE renewable energy budget to help our country shift to a smarter, cleaner energy future.

The budget also proposes cutting more than half of the $23 million in renewable energy and energy efficiency funding that Congress included in the 2002 Farm Bill (HR 2646, sec. 9006). The proposed cut would hurt farmers, ranchers, and small rural businesses by minimizing a grant and loan program that supports energy efficiency improvements and the purchase of renewable energy systems such as wind turbines, solar electric panels, and biomass production equipment. At a time when many people in rural communities face economic challenges, funding these projects would help establish an additional income source for landowners, create jobs, and lower energy costs for rural consumers. When the Bush administration made similar attempts to slash this program last year and in 2003, UCS worked with coalition partners to successfully restore the full $23 million during the congressional appropriations process. We will push for full funding of the program again this year.

Energy Efficiency
The proposed funding for all energy efficiency programs is $847 million, 2.3 percent lower than the administration's 2005 proposed funding. The budget proposes funding cuts for important energy efficiency programs such as low-income weatherization, building and industrial technologies, and federal energy management. As our nation faces soaring natural gas prices and over-reliance on unstable and polluting energy sources, UCS believes that now is the time for across-the-board increases in efficiency funding that will save consumers money, create jobs, and cut pollution.

Climate Change
Several programs supporting climate change research are slated for cuts in the administration's budget. Among the cuts is the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), which coordinates federal research on climate change across 13 federal agencies. The CCSP funding is set at to $1.9 billion, down from the $2 billion it has received for the last several years. For NASA's Earth Systematic Missions to study climate change, the administration proposes a 40 percent ($118 million) reduction in funding. UCS will work hard to restore this funding.

A brief summary of the budget request for each of the Office of Science program areas. More information on each of these areas is given in the DOE FY 2006 Budget Highlights document, available at: www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/06budget/Content/Highlights/06_highlights.pdf under Section 3, Science (starting on page 72).

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS: Down 3.1%, or $22.5 million, from $736.4 million to $713.9 million. Run times would be increased over FY 2005 levels at the Fermilab Tevatron (6% more operating hours) and SLAC (54% more hours). Construction funding is continued for the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Europe, which Orbach expects to begin operations in 2008. The BTeV project at Fermilab would be cancelled. An amount of $30 million would be transferred to BES for operation of the SLAC linac.

NUCLEAR PHYSICS: Down 8.4%, or $34.0 million, from $404.8 million to $370.7 million. Run times would be drastically reduced from FY 2005 levels at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (29% fewer hours) and the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (61% fewer hours). R&D funding would be reduced for the proposed Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA).

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES: Up 3.7%, or $41.4 million, from $1,104.6 million to $1,146.0 million. Construction of the Spallation Neutron Source would be completed, and operations started, in FY 2006. Construction would also be completed and operations started on four of the five Nanoscale Science Research Centers, while construction would continue on the fifth. Funding would be increased for the President's Hydrogen Initiative, and there would also be an increase for engineering, design and construction of the next-generation Linac Coherent Light Source at SLAC.

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES: Up 6.1%, or $16.7 million, from $273.9 million to $290.6 million. Funding would increase for U.S. participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER); FY2006 would be the first year of equipment fabrication for the U.S.'s contribution. Two of the three primary U.S. facilities (DIII-D and Alcator C-Mod) would operate at below FY 2005 levels, while the third facility, the National Spherical Tokamak Experiment would not operate in FY 2006. Fabrication of the National Compact Stellarator Experiment would continue.

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH: Down 21.7%, or $126.2 million, from $581.9 million to $455.7 million. Funding would increase for the Genomics: GTL program, while funding for the Human Genome and Climate Change programs would be maintained at near FY 2005 levels. Funding of $79.6 million for congressionally-directed projects would be eliminated.

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH: Down 10.9%, or $25.4 million, from $232.5 million to $207.1 million. Funding would be reduced for the Next Generation Computer Architecture initiative, while new activities would allow evaluation of new computer architectures as tools for science, and two SciDAC institutes at universities.

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS: Down 5.4%, or $0.4 million, from $7.6 million to $7.2 million. The number of teachers supported by the Laboratory Science Teacher Professional Development program would increase over FY 2005, while the number of faculty participating in the Faculty Sabbatical Fellowships and students participating in the Pre-Service Teacher program would be reduced. Support for Science Bowl Teams would also be reduced.

Mr. Kuvasz wrote:( and I am sorry to take things one at a time but your agrument is so rammbling and disconnected that it must be done that way)

kuvasz wrote:

I assume from your distortions you are willfully ignorant of the English language and common word usage. The "enormous uncertainties" I remarked and delineated upon included both manmade actions as well as the climate. As I said in May, we might be saved by massive volcanic activity screening the sunlight too, but it is not the kind of uncertainty anyone wants to count upon.

However, there is less uncertainty that if nothing is done now to reduce greenhouse gases, bad things will come upon us shortly. One can declare that little will be helped by grenhouse gas reductions over the next few decades, but no legitimate climatologist is uncertain that doing nothing helps the solve the problem for the next several generations. You are, of course, one who appears willing to gamble with the species and help murder tens of millions so you can drive your SUV. I am not.

An "enormous uncertainty" is clear. In fact the IPCC echoed your words. They said, IN THE VERY FIRST PAGE OF THE IPCC STUDY--

Quote:

Because there is TREMENDOUS UNCERTAINTY in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments

THAT IS THE IPCC'S STATEMENT!!!

No, that is not "the" IPCC statement. It is merely a part of it. Without the rest of the remarks and conclusions what you posted presents a selective and deceptive impression. Did you forget to post the rest, or willfully leave out the other parts that call for action to be taken even with such pronouncements of uncertainty

When my mother put me to bed when I was a child she told me about "bad things" in the night. I am now old enough that I do not believe in "bad things" unless they are explained thoroughly.

You say, Mr. Kuvasz( see above) that "bad things" will come upon us shortly. Can you tell us precisely what those "bad things" are and exactly what the circumstances will be that will cause those bad things?

I am not a scientist but I do think if I could change some of the parameters that go into some of the MODELS, I could really make things look bad.

I am taking things one at a time so that you can answer them one at a time. I am sorry but I find your writing style so convoluted and disorganized that I cannot follow your argument. Please answer one question at a time. Thank You.

Kuvasz wrote:

However, there is less uncertainty that if nothing is done now to reduce greenhouse gases, bad things will come upon us shortly. One can declare that little will be helped by grenhouse gas reductions over the next few decades, but no legitimate climatologist is uncertain that doing nothing helps the solve the problem for the next several generations. You are, of course, one who appears willing to gamble with the species and help murder tens of millions so you can drive your SUV. I am not.

You may have convinced me, Mr. Kuvasz. I would not under and circumstances want to gamble with the species. That is why I favor sharpt reduction of Nuclear Arms, However, I do not( and perhaps you can give specific evidence and focused proof) that I would be gambling with the species and murder TENS OF MILLIONS.

PS- I drive a BMW to help Germany get out of its horrible Unemployment mess.

Kuvasz wrote:

Then you agree to push for and advocate a "Manhattan Project-like" effort for new, renewable, non-greenhouse energy sources, conservation, tax credits for wind, solar and fusion, tuition tax credits for the education of American scientists and engineers, loans to citizens to remodel their homes and businesses their facilities to reduce the usage of greenhouse energies. Doing this kick-starts entire industries that can produce new jobs, and increase domestic exports as the new technologies spread world-wide.

For Christ's sake, the United States of America sent men to the moon 37 years ago. We are the strongest, wealthiest nation ever to arise on Earth. We have the collective might and strength to do this. All we require is the will to do it. It is time for this nation to be great once more.

I already referenced the clean power plant project. That is one step. I think that wind power may help if we can get lardo Ted Kennedy to agree tto put wind power in his precious Nantucket sound( you do know about that, I hope).

Yes, I do know, that the entire Kennedy family wants to have their rich folks retreat unsullied by the sea wind mills. I want clean air. and don't give a $hit about the view rich people want while sailing their yachts.


You say you are pro-nuclear power. SO AM I. And there are articles that describe safer Nuclear plants which will produce a great deal of electricity.

But, Mr. Kuvasz, can you reference Right Wing Groups who have adamantly opposed Nuclear Power? I am quite sure that you can't. Do you dare me to find many references which show that left wing environmentalist greenie organizations have fought Nuclear Power over and over?

Kuvasz wrote:

Good God, man. What are you talking about? you just posted Samuelson's essay on the hypocrisy of the EU nations for not reducing their greenhouse gases and it was due to their own economic pressures. Yet your talk about the free market solution to this issue? What type of logic resides in your head. The alleged "free" market will not move quickly enough to solve this problem. Collective, international actions will be necessary both for money and innovations to solve the problem.

I read the book Utopia but dismissed it as fanciful. Would you please describe the "Collective, international actions" that you think can be put into place.

I don't see how a book written as a religous allegory in the sixteenth century is relevent to the post-modern world of the Twenty-First Century. would you care to share with us your ideas of More's relevance?

Do you think Kofi Annan could take a strong hand?( if we could persuade him and his son to keep their hands off the graft, of course).

Shall we discuss graft and not global warming now? Okay, we can engage in that misdirection if you want. You started, and now I go next then if the discussion is graft. The Annan graft does not smear Annan himself as a dishonest man. Now its my turn and I get to talk about Haliburton, or Bechtel. Kofi's kid did not steal by graft anywhere as much as the company Dick Cheney used to run did over in Iraq. The UN-oil money swiped did not come directly from the US coffers as did the graft purpetrated by Haliburton or Bechtel against DOD programs.

Your anger ought to be directed towards those US based companies who stole from you and me. And the reason you don't is that such manipulation of accounting practices for financial gain is within standard ethical boundaries of the typical conservative right winger and is neither a sin nor crime in the eyes of conservatives; its "bidnezz". Those who run large companies with huge UD DOD contracts virtually steal money from every American with their over-charges, waste, fraud, and inferior services. In Iraq, between $8-10 Billion is missing from the funds allocated to rebuild Iraq. The money has simply vanished and the Bush administration has gone to court to prevent independent investigations into the disappearence of the money, for "security" reasons. At least with the UN the problems were investigated.

So, back to Global Warming then; Kyoto is the very first step. It is not the last. Any model will have to be politcal and problems will happen. The only way any progress can occur is by consensus. The strong hold all the cards and can direct the action. It is crazy to sit on the sidelines and let others lead the way. When the goals are finally hashed out and tied in with trade and aid, the answers will be derived from new technologies that facilitate attainment of the set goals

In the chemical business in which I dip my beak an important feature of the mechanism of market survival is to have the employees of companies serve on public and industrial technical committees that advise government regulators in the implimentation of codes and standards. The people who sit on those committes can influence directly the market place and steer the regulations to directions that advance their company's bottom line. But the only way it is done is by participating in the process by which the regulations are shaped.

You do not appear to have any idea concerning the effect that China and India( developing countries that were left out of the Kyoto Agreement) would have on the dreaded rise in CO2.

www.net.org/warming.docs/technology_and_emissions.pdf


The chart from the NEt clearly shows that by 2025, the CO2 emissions from China and India added together will be approximately 90% of US emissions.

Now, my question, Mr. Kuvasz is, If China and India continue to increase their emissions( You do know, of course that their emissions are growing rapidly) even if we put the best anti Co2 technology into play( which we should do) our efforts will be for naught>

Perhaps we could Nuke them into submission? I don't think the Chinese will sit still for anything which will slow down their development.

Do you have a solution?

PERHAPS, AS YOU MENTION--COLLECTIVE INTERNATIONAL ACTIONS( snicker)

Kuvasz wrote:

Most certainly the polar ice and the Greenland Ice Sheet are melting faster than predicted even five years ago, so is that a sign making the models so erroneous that we should abandon them when they say the temperature will go up 0.33C per decade, or should we by more highly concerned? You method would be not to care at all and let your grandchildren worry about it.

Wow! 0.33 per decade!! That must be some real good scenario.

But since Mr. Kuvasz is the master Enviromentalist, perhaps he can tell us why temperature went UP .10C per decade from 1910 to 1950 when the Co2 emissions only increased by One billion tons per year as compared to an increase in emissions of FIVE billion tons per year from 1950 to 2000.

A simple answer will do, Mr. Kuvasz. No need to obfuscate!!

Since Mr. Kuvasz has taken the high ground as Master Environmentalist, I ask him the following question.

If, the horrendous scenario of .33C per decade is possible, as you said, Mr. Kuvasz, DOES ALL OF THE INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE GIVEN BY THE MODELS COME FROM ANTHROPOGENIC CAUSES?

Is any of the increase, even one tenth of a percent, caused by NATURAL causes, such as Solar Activity?

We went over this in May. No evidence of global temperature increases caused by solar effects have been registered to have occured for several decades. The sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.


If not, how is it PROVEN that other causes are not complicit and if they are complicit HOW ARE THE EFFECTS OF SOLAR ENERGY AS OPPOSED TO CO2 DISENTANGLED?

What "other" causes do you allude to, your own hot air bloviation? You are asking to prove the lack of affect from something you cannot describe. How stupid are you? Disenetangled? Why are they tangled? Who said they were? Did you actually read these links I posted in May?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/

The suggestive basis for the solar claims as presented by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen are misleading graphs from the data theeir work has been successfully rebutted.

http://www.realclimate.org/damon&laut_2004.pdf

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=171

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=153

Please answer in 200 words or less..No obuscation, if you please>

Kuvasz wrote:

You are not so dense as to consider this a problem that is like fixing a flat tire; you do it once its flat then drive on. In this case we have no spare tire. We have one planet, once its fukked up we are done.

I agree and that is why it is necessary to spend more money to assure that a more immediate and deadly threat will not "fukk" up the world-The possession of Nuclear Weapons by the insane North Koreans and the religiously fanatic Iranians among others!

Kuvasz wrote:

Good God, man. What are you talking about? you just posted Samuelson's essay on the hypocrisy of the EU nations for not reducing their greenhouse gases and it was due to their own economic pressures. Yet your talk about the free market solution to this issue? What type of logic resides in your head. The alleged "free" market will not move quickly enough to solve this problem. Collective, international actions will be necessary both for money and innovations to solve the problem.

I am suprised, I always heard that the Countries in the EU were very green and willing to sacrifice for the good of the world.

Please name the EU countries whos governments are lead by the Green Party.

Are you telling me that they are as greedy and as materialistic as the USA? I don't believe it. I know if I asked Mr. Walter Hinteler whether he would agree to let the German Unemployment Rate go up from 11% to 13" when the heavy pollution of the coal fired power plants in Germany are closed down, HE WOULD AGREE--BECAUSE ALTHOUGH HE IS A GERMAN, HE IS ALSO A CITIZEN OF THE WORLD!!!