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

According to the NCDC

Quote:

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for May was the fourth warmest on record, 0.95°F/0.53°C above the 20th century mean. The global surface temperature for the combined January-May period tied with 1998 as the warmest January-May on record.

Any idea why broken glass is unacceptable for recycling?

Here, when they collect the glas, they break it in the process of collecting (= it's smashed in the collecting containers).
Biggest business in recycling .... besides paper, of course.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Any idea why broken glass is unacceptable for recycling?

Here, when they collect the glas, they break it in the process of collecting (= it's smashed in the collecting containers).
Biggest business in recycling .... besides paper, of course.

I don't know, Walter, I wondered that too. Maybe it has something to do with the practicality of separating broken glass from other materials during the collection process. Just a theory.

Maybe everybody else sees a distinct trend since 1998 in the following graph except me? To me, it seems maybe very weakly upward on average, but really more like a plateau, and the peaks still do not surpass 1998. Based on the current trends, it does not appear to be conclusive at all which way the graph will go in the future.

Let us be absolutely clear about this.

Mike Lockwood original's research showed that in the past the sun's activity level has influenced climate.

But the point that the climate change deniers refuse to take on board is that the change from solar activity is swamped by man made green house gas emissions.

Lockwood himself never disputed this and was outraged when his data was deliberately misused in order to present a misleading picture of the science to the general public.

The programme The Great Global Warming Swindle cut off graphs[/b] showing sunspot activity and temperature rise in the 1980s when the two trends started to go in the opposite[/b] direction.

Dr Mike Lockwood Rutherford Appleton Laboratory wrote:

The trouble is that the theory of solar activity and climate change was being misappropriated to apply to modern day warming. The sceptics were taking perfectly good science and bringing it into disrespect[/b]

The Royal Society is the oldest and most respected scientific body in the world.

this is what they say

The Royal Society wrote:

There is a small minority which is seeking to confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day[/b]

In other words the sceptics are not being honest.

Studies now show conclusively that global warming continues despite solar activity pushing in the opposite i.e. cooling[/b] direction.

The sceptics are frauds and cheats and motivated by concerns other than science. Lets hear no more from them about the sun causing the global warming phenomenum that we observe.

apologies for the italics and bolded type but sometimes you have to shout to make some people listen.

Climate Change Debate Hinges On Economics
Lawmakers Doubt Voters Would Fund Big Carbon Cuts

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 15, 2007; Page A01

Here's the good news about climate change: Energy and climate experts say the world already possesses the technological know-how for trimming greenhouse gas emissions enough to slow the perilous rise in the Earth's temperatures.

Here's the bad news: Because of the enormous cost of addressing global warming, the energy legislation considered by Congress so far will make barely a dent in the problem, while farther-reaching climate proposals stand a remote chance of passage.

Despite growing public concern over global warming, the House has failed to agree on new standards for automobile fuel efficiency, and the Senate has done little to boost the efficiency of commercial office buildings and appliances. In September, Congress is expected to start wrestling with more ambitious legislation aimed at slowing climate change; but because of the complexity of the likely proposals, few expect any bill to become law. Even if passed by Congress and signed by President Bush, the final measure may not be tough enough to slow global warming.

How very considerate of others to outline for us that the United States should reduce its GHG emissions by more than all the other G8 ciountries combined. None of the Kyoto signatories is anywhere close to meeting the goals they have alrteady so proudly and solemnly set for themselves. Perhaps they should spend more time looking inward..

No plan to reduce GHG emissions in any of the major industrial countries that fails to address a significant increase in the use of nuclear power production deserves to be taken seriously by an informed person.

The "science" announced with such fanfare and authority that purports to outline practical solutions to GHG reductions, is not science at all if it does not include a suubstantial increase in nuclear power production.

The self-contradictory positions of most of the AGW advocates, and the credulity with which they blandly accept unprovable "tipping point" scenarios continues to amaze me.

Cites Tuvalu, Polynesia, as a place where rising sea levels force residents to
evacuate their homes. In reality, sea levels at Tuvalu fell during the latter
of the 20 th century and even during the 1990s, allegedly the warmest decade
of the millennium.

Veu Lesa, a 73-year-old villager in Tuvalu, does not need scientific reports to tell him that the sea is rising. The evidence is all around him. The beaches of his childhood are vanishing. The crops that used to feed his family have been poisoned by salt water. In April, he had to leave his home when a "king tide" flooded it, showering it with rocks and debris.

For Tuvalu, a string of nine picturesque atolls and coral islands, global warming is not an abstract danger; it is a daily reality. The tiny South Pacific nation, only four metres above sea level at its highest point, may not exist in a few decades. Its people are already in flight; more than 4,000 live in New Zealand, and many of the remaining 10,500 are planning to join the exodus. Others, though, are determined to stay and try to fight the advancing waves.

The outlook is bleak. A tidal gauge on the main atoll, Funafuti, suggests the sea level is climbing by 5.6mm a year, twice the average global rate predicted by the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

There is not enough data yet to establish a definitive trend but that figure is alarming, implying a rise of more than half a metre in the next century. Most Tuvaluans live just one to two metres above sea level.

miniTAX wrote:

Cites Tuvalu, Polynesia, as a place where rising sea levels force residents to
evacuate their homes. In reality, sea levels at Tuvalu fell during the latter
of the 20 th century and even during the 1990s, allegedly the warmest decade
of the millennium.

Today's Independent has this on the fronpage today and a very ineresting report

Quote:

Veu Lesa, a 73-year-old villager in Tuvalu, does not need scientific reports to tell him that the sea is rising. The evidence is all around him. The beaches of his childhood are vanishing. The crops that used to feed his family have been poisoned by salt water. In April, he had to leave his home when a "king tide" flooded it, showering it with rocks and debris.

For Tuvalu, a string of nine picturesque atolls and coral islands, global warming is not an abstract danger; it is a daily reality. The tiny South Pacific nation, only four metres above sea level at its highest point, may not exist in a few decades. Its people are already in flight; more than 4,000 live in New Zealand, and many of the remaining 10,500 are planning to join the exodus. Others, though, are determined to stay and try to fight the advancing waves.

The outlook is bleak. A tidal gauge on the main atoll, Funafuti, suggests the sea level is climbing by 5.6mm a year, twice the average global rate predicted by the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

There is not enough data yet to establish a definitive trend but that figure is alarming, implying a rise of more than half a metre in the next century. Most Tuvaluans live just one to two metres above sea level.

As an aside: if miniTAX and Foxfyre left for ever, we will miss something.

This may be an oversimplification but who has the vested interest in discrediting global warming; industries that pollute. It will cost them money to clean up their act. Who supports industries that pollute in America; the Republicans. So it's not surprising that we see the conservatives coming out against global warming, claiming it's a fraud or it's the sun's fault and we can't do anything about it.

Faux Noise is famous for this.

I find Walter's graphs too humorous. I thought it was "over" if we did not reduce our emissions? Now that Kyoto is apparently a failed little experiment, apparently the motto is simply to reduce the rate of growth of emissions. Does anyone else smell a rat here?