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

The Canadian Mounted Policeman, in all his majesty and glory wrote:

quote
GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) -- Bottom fish and crabs washing up dead on Oregon beaches are being killed by a recurring ''dead zone'' of low-oxygen water that is larger than in previous years and may be triggered by global warming, scientists said.

There are signs it is spreading north to Washington's Olympic Peninsula.

Scientists studying the 70-mile-long zone of oxygen-depleted water, along the Continental Shelf between Florence and Lincoln City, conclude that it is being caused by explosive blooms of tiny plants known as phytoplankton, which die and sink to the bottom, then are eaten by bacteria which use up the oxygen in the water.

The recurring phytoplankton blooms are triggered by northerly wind, which generates a process known as upwelling in which nutrient-rich water is brought to the surface from lower depths.

''We are seeing wild swings from year to year in the timing and duration of the winds that are favorable for upwelling,'' Jane Lubchenco, professor of marine ecology at Oregon State and a member of the Pew Oceans Commission, said from Corvallis. ''This increased variability in the winds is consistent with what we would expect under climate change.''

end of quote:


Mr. Blotham, whose ignorance concerning Global Warming is only slightly more amazing than the confusion and wrongheadedness he exhibits on political topics shows clearly that his education in science was inadequate in the frozen Northwest outpost of Vancouver.

He does not know the basics.

l. Climate Changes. Yes, it does.

As recently as 800AD( that is not long ago in geologic terms), the earth went through the Medieval Warm Period--800 AD to 1200 AD. The Northern Hemisphere became so hot that the Vikings cultivated Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland. By the 1300's and 1400's, the CLIMATE CHANGED AGAIN. A widespread cooling had begun that had devastated Europe with shortened crop-growing seasons, and human life spans fell by 10 years. Yes, Climate Changes.

2. Oxygen depletion in shallow coastal waters may be caused by increased agricultural fertilization.

http://www.grida.no/geo2000/english/0036.htm

While fertilizer and consequent eutrophication costs the lives of certain organisms in local marine habitats( and provides life to others),it has also made it possible to grow much more food on the same agricultural land. In this respect, eutrophication is the price we let some marine organisms pay for our success in feeding humanity, while maintaining large forested habitats.


I would urge Mr. Blatham, who is apparently worried about pollution, to make sure that he collects the fecal matter expelled by his horse and dispose of it properly.

THOU SHALT NOT DRIVE A HUMMER !
________________________________
is god an environmentalists ?
are we good stewards of the riches god has allowed us to have ?
are we wastrels of the goods god has bestowed upon us ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
churches are beginning to question the wasteful and material life of the western world (see also pat robertson's pronouncements)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
from the TORONTO STAR - see link below :
"Maybe gas at $1.11 a litre is a punishment from God. Traffic jams, too. Those delays at Pearson? God again. He's quite the environmentalist."

are you a good steward ?
(i think i am not the best steward - should walk even more - but have always tried to keep resource comsumption down . drove a VW beetle/rabbit/jetta for about thirty years . cut down from driving 25,000 km a year to 12,000 km a year . right now the clothes lines are up for drying . keep the air-conditioner at 76 F ).
hbg

...GOD AN ENVIRONMENTALIST ?...

And my husband and I drive a Subaru Impreza and a Forrester that is classified as an SUV but gets better than 30 mpg. We both have to drive in our work and otherwise drive as we wish, but put less than 10,000 miles a year on our cars. (My Impreza was bought new on Halloween in 1995 and is just over 75000 miles.) We use an energy efficient swamp cooler that keeps the temperature at whatever it chooses.

Do we do this for the benefit of the environment? No, not really. We do it because it is efficient and practical for us.

Build things good for the einvironment that are both efficient and practical, and they will come.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/08/science/earth/08brfs-006.html

Britain is kept temperate by an ocean current called the North Atlantic Drift.

We are at the same latitudes as Labrador, where the sea freezes.

The current has reduced in volume (or strength), I heard this week, by 25%

If it stops, the effect here will be devastating. Paradoxically, the phenomenon called "global warming" will not have a warming effect everywhere.

(Just noticed your wonderful Wodehouse line)

One tactic used in the attempts to denigrate or minimize the consequences of global warming is of the following sort... "Vancouver will have a climate like Southern California...and you think that is bad?!" Which is about as thoughtful or honest as Cheney, when he spoke about conditions for Guantanamo prisoners, "Well, they are in the tropics."

We have a big problem in BC now due to the spread of the pine beetle (destruction of pine forests to the extent that it can be seen from space). Previously, the natural cycle of cold winters kept the critter's range relatively minimized but as winter's have become milder, that natural limiter no longer functions as before.

Manatee spotted in Hudson River

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/nyregion/07manatee.html?ex=1155182400&en=311d64b12f897ae1&ei=5087%0A

See also:

"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise" - NYTimes, March 27, 1933

and...several decades later:

"Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to be Inevitable" - NYTimes May 21, 1975.

If they're still around in another 42 years, what's the best guess on what their headlines will read then?



Source

http://www.claremont.org/about/staff/rusher.html

Just where you want to turn for your science education.

Can anyone name the warmest summer on record in North America? 2006? 2004?

mctag wrote :
"Britain is kept temperate by an ocean current called the North Atlantic Drift.
We are at the same latitudes as Labrador, where the sea freezes.
The current has reduced in volume (or strength), I heard this week, by 25%
If it stops, the effect here will be devastating. Paradoxically, the phenomenon called "global warming" will not have a warming effect everywhere."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
many european studies have been very much concerned about simultaneous warming and cooling of the earth - and particularly the oceans .
much was posted on this subject about two or three years ago on a2k .
woods hole oceanographic institute has done much work - rather quietly - in co-ooperation with european scientists and universities .
i understand that a cooling trend as well as a change in direction of the gulfstream has already been measured .
since i'm just an ordinary layperson , i don't think i'm qualified to make scientific predictions - but it sure looks as if something is brewing up .
perhaps like looking at the clouds , hearing the wind pick up and suspecting that a thunderstorm or tornado might be coming - but you usually have to depend upon a meteorologist to give you more than just a feeling for it - unless lightning strikes you first !
hbg

REPORT FROM WOODS HOLE O.I.

from the report (worthwhile reading imo):
"It is important to clarify that we are not contemplating a situation of either abrupt cooling or global warming. Rather, abrupt regional cooling and gradual global warming can unfold simultaneously. Indeed, greenhouse warming is a destabilizing factor that makes abrupt climate change more probable. A 2002 report by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) said, "available evidence suggests that abrupt climate changes are not only possible but likely in the future, potentially with large impacts on ecosystems and societies."2

The timing of any abrupt regional cooling in the future also has critical policy implications. An abrupt cooling that happens within the next two decades would produce different climate effects than one that occurs after another century of continuing greenhouse warming. "

The Learned Red Coated Mountie, Mr. Blotham, excoriates someone who uses National Review as a source, and yet, without batting an eye, the Mountie uses the Guardian. The Guardian---- a left wing piece of crap that should be used only for the bottom of bird cages!!!

The Royal Mounted Police Man, who thinks he knows about Global Warming but is, instead, almost completely ignorant on the subject, excoriates Sierra Song for his link to an article written by William Rusher, who was at one time, connected with National Review.

Instead of reading the article, Mr. Blotham, as is his wont, attacked the messenger.If the Mounted Policeman had read the article, he would have found that Mr. Rusher gave direct quotes( which are easy enough to check unless you are ignorant about research as Mr. Blatham seems to be) from such left wing sources as (gasp)- Time Magazine.

Sierra Song is indeed correct, there were articles in 1975 predicting another "little ice age"..

The Royal Mounted Policeman, is, I am sure, unable to give evidence that global warming is

l. going to be higher than it was at many times in the past such as the Medieval Warm Period when Iceland and Greenland were so warm that the Vikings cultivated the land.

2. coming ONLY from CO2, as opposed to solar energy. It is clear to everyone except perhaps the scientifically challenged Mr. Blatham, that there would be little we could do to shut out the solar enegry from the sun.

3. such a problem that we should divert our resources IMMEDIATELY to the cutting of one half of a degree C rise in the temperature world wide by 2050 instead of slowly and carefully making technological changes that would enhance our ability to cut even one degree of temperature from the 2050 scenario.

4. Something that can be handled by the US alone. If there is a slight degree of warming, the US cannot and should not be expected to strain our economy unless countries like China and India follow along/ There is little hope that they will.


If Mr, Blotham really wishes to learn about the alleged global warming, I urge him to go to

www.nap.edu/catalog.10139.html?onpi_newbooks_060801

That is the National Academy of Sciences Report.

Mr. Blatham may find it difficult reading since it does not appear that he knows a great deal about science, but he may be able to get through it if he has a science dictionary and reads slowly!!!

Make nice BernardR. (Though I don't entirely disagree here. Mr. Blatham also posts articles from Salon as authoritative without batting an eyelash or artistically arching a brow.)

USA Today is pretty generic politically, however, and features this piece today. Think about this the next time George Bush is made out to be the lone villain or at least obstructor-in-chief when it comes to saving the planet:

Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe
Updated 8/10/2006 10:44 AM ET
By Peter Schweizer
Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.
SOURCE

I don't presume to suggest that Schweizer is not biased on the subject. But I doubt very seriously anybody can dispute the facts he puts in here.

fOXFYRE WROTE:

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

**********************************************

The dipsomaniacal Ted Kennedy rants and raves about global warming but yet is outraged at any suggestion that windmills be placed in his idyllic Nantucket Bay!!


Put your money where your mouth is, Ted Kennedy!

You too, Al Gore!!!!
Gore is a hypocrite as are many on the left!

As executor of a trust why can't someone liquidate its assets?

Ever hear of the law? An executor can only do what the trust allows him to do. Without knowing the details of the trust it is pretty hard to criticize someone for not selling items held in that trust. Some trusts require that assets be held. An executor would have to violate his legal role to sell them.

Gore recieved yearly payments for mineral rights while there was no mine on his property. As near as I can tell Pasminco sold all their mines in Tennessee in 2003.
http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?section=10&screen=news&news_id=26602
It is now a rock crushing plant.

Mr Schweizer needs to check his facts before he makes statements. Gore has no zinc mine. He never had one. There is no zinc mine next door to Gore's home anymore. There hasn't been one there for over 3 years.

Lots of little problems in that piece Foxfyre. It uses innuendo while ignoring facts.

You got that, Foxfyre---Innuendo and no facts!!! Somehow I am sure that you can back up your facts, Foxfyre. But, You have been challenged by one of the masters--not of innuendo, but of deliberate intellectual blindness.

You see, Foxfyre( and you can prove this by going over the posts on the Global Warming controversy written by me and by Parados) Parados believes that if you don't take notice of a FACT buttressed by Scientific Evidence, it doesn't exist.

Well, here is a FACT for you, Mr.Parados--The "conscience" of the Senate, the philandering drunk who should have been charged with manslaugter for the drowning of Mary Jo Kopechnie, the man who was
abruptly thrown out of Harvard for cheating on a Spanish test, the MAN WHO HAS MOANED AND GROANED ABOUT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S LACK OF ATTENTION TO GLOBAL WARMING, IS ONE OF A GROUP WHO WILL NOT ALLOW WINDMILLS TO BE PUT IN NANTUCKET BAY.

It spoils the scenery and, seeing as how Kennedy is in his cups so often, he might run into one!!!

McTag wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britain is kept temperate by an ocean current called the North Atlantic Drift.

We are at the same latitudes as Labrador, where the sea freezes.

The current has reduced in volume (or strength), I heard this week, by 25%

If it stops, the effect here will be devastating. Paradoxically, the phenomenon called "global warming" will not have a warming effect everywhere.

************************************************************

You are certainly correct that if the current has been reduced in volume by 25% there is a problem, but you do not mind I hope if I ask you to provide evidence that such a thing is true?

I would also respectfully inquire if you are able to provide evidence that "global warming" caused by CO2 emissions is responsible for such a warming effect.

*******************************************************

You do realize, I hope, Mr. McTag, that England did at one time prosper from a rise in the temperature and then later suffer from a decline in the temperature.

Around 800 AD, the Vikings were able to farm Iceland and Greenland because the earth had warmed. In England, grapes were grown rivaling the French wine growers.

But, by 1200AD, a "Little Ice Age" set in and then it is said that England's crops suffered and the THAMES FROZE IN WINTER.

And,just think, Mr. McTag, all of this BEFORE the invention of the Steam Engine.

Climate Changes--Climate Changes--Climate Changes----

Hamburger wrote:

The timing of any abrupt regional cooling in the future also has critical policy implications. An abrupt cooling that happens within the next two decades would produce different climate effects than one that occurs after another century of continuing greenhouse warming. "


end of quote

Of course, climate changes. We may be at the end of a little Ice Age now.

There was an abrupt slight rise in the earth's temperature between 1910 and 1940 with no rise at all between 1940 and 1975 and then a slight rise between 1975 and today.

The controversy concerning the alleged "Global Warming" is very complex but there are certain basic questions that must be asked--

l. If Co2 does raise the temperature, just how much does Co2 raise it and what are the prospects for the future?

2. How much does Co2 affect the troposphere which must have a substantial rise in temperature if the surface temperature is really to be effected?

3. Are there other causes? Can it be proved that there are NOT other causes? Is Solar radiation one of the causes? If not, why not? If so, how much does solar radiation contribute to the earth's warming?

4. How is the future predicted? Are the computer models used by the climatologists accurate? Can they predict the future accurately if the data entered into the computer models are inaccurate?

5. And, finally, as the learned Dr. Lomborg stated in his book-"The Skeptical Environmentalist"

"WE SHOULD NOT SPEND VAST AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO CUT A TINY SLICE OF THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE WHEN THIS CONSTITUTES A POOR USE OF RESOURCES"

*******************************************************

All of the questions posed above have been answered to one degree or another by both sides in the controversy. There is not, however, at this time an answer which would stand up in court as PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!!!