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

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
369
Environmental expert Sergei Golubchikov, Vice President of Russia's National Geocryological Foundation, expressed skepticism of man-made global warming in 2007. "Humanity is focusing environmental efforts on the boogeyman of global warming," Golubchikov wrote in a November 8, 2007 article in RIA Novosti. "Environmental phobias go hand in hand with technological civilization. Anxiety over climate change is carried too far, to my mind," Golubchikov continued. "Anxiety easily turns to panic, forcing the world into hasty, and possibly wrong, steps. The Kyoto Protocol, for instance, was ratified even before the link between global warming and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had been proved," Golubchikov explained. "But is the gas [CO2] so bad? It is no poison, and plants need it as much as we humans need our daily bread. At present it makes up a mere 0.037% of the atmosphere. Greater concentrations cause plant life to flourish-especially forests, the greatest absorbers of greenhouse gases. If the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere were suddenly stopped, the earth's plant life would consume that remaining in a matter of 8-11 years. After that they would curl up and die. Every living thing on earth would be doomed with them," he wrote. "As 95% of the world's carbon dioxide is dissolved in saline water, global warming makes the sea the principal source of emissions, leaving industry far behind. To my mind, international agreements should instead seek to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, carbonic and nitric oxides, benzpyrene, soot, heavy metals and other toxic substances responsible for causing cancer and mutations. These are, in fact, the greatest environmental challenge to governments and the public," he added. (LINK)

Watts, who has posted pictures of the sensors on his Web site, SurfaceStations.org, says he believes that the location of the sensors renders their recorded temperatures inaccurate, which in turn brings some of the data behind global warming theory into question.

"It's asinine to think that this wouldn't have some kind of an effect," Watts told FoxNews.com.

But climate scientists who analyze the data say that they are able to account and adjust for the faulty locations by comparing warming trends they spot at bad sites to trends they see at good ones.

"If you use only the sites that currently have good siting versus those that have not-so-good siting, when you look at the adjusted data basically you get the same trend," said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch at NCDC.

Lawrimore admitted that Watts' volunteers had discovered real problems with sensor siting, but he said that even when those sites' heat readings were adjusted down, they still showed a steady overall rise in temperatures.

"The ultimate conclusion, the bottom line is that there really isn't evidence that the trends have a bias based on the current siting," he said.

And surface station data is only a small subset of information confirming the warming of the climate, Lawrimore said.

Changes in air temperature, water temperature, glacier melt, plant flowering, tree growth and species migration, among many others, show the same worldwide trend -- a 0.7 degree Celsius jump (1.2 degrees Fahrenheit) in the past century.

when you don't understand the science behind it, you aren't really building a case against it.

That post is absolutely silly, and if a serious scientist actually would try to express such stupidity in other scientific fields, they would be laughed out of the building. Essentially, you have the people in charge of this bogus crap claiming that since good stations show similar trends as bogus bad stations, we will continue to use the bogus crappy data and continue to claim it is approximately right.

Get serious, cyclops. You guys are becoming a laughingstock.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

when you don't understand the science behind it, you aren't really building a case against it.

The "science behind it" is apparently fraudulantly cherrypicking and skewing data, cyclops. Only a dummy hasn't figured that out yet. Or perhaps you have figured it out, but because it agrees with radical leftie idealogy, you accept it as serious science. I do not.

Does this thread ever end?

It seem likely we will have at least two warming and ice age cycles and this thread still will be going strong.

That post is absolutely silly, and if a serious scientist actually would try to express such stupidity in other scientific fields, they would be laughed out of the building. Essentially, you have the people in charge of this bogus crap claiming that since good stations show similar trends as bogus bad stations, we will continue to use the bogus crappy data and continue to claim it is approximately right.

Get serious, cyclops. You guys are becoming a laughingstock.

You're acting like a ******* idiot, Okie.

it's politics, pure and simple

It's a good thing for Humanity that nobody gives a **** what your uninformed opinion is, Okie.

It seem likely we will have at least two warming and ice age cycles and this thread still will be going strong.

As these cretans are using faulty data based on poorly sited weather stations and the mid point rather than the average, they could achieve the same result with a random number generator. How do you think they found a baseline to measure an increase ?

from now on the only response you will receive from me will be ridicule,

The mid-point between the high and low for the day IS the average

you know more about climate science then anyone

anything that takes more thought then that

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19034&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
CLIMATE CHANGE: DEVELOPING COUNTRIES CONTROL THE THERMOSTAT
It has long been recognized that no policies undertaken solely by Western countries can reduce future global warming, regardless of the developed world's past and current contributions to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Rather, fast-growing developing countries control the climate change thermostat, says H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

As early as 1995, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) recognized that most of the emissions in the 21st century would occur in the developing world:

The IPCC predicted that developing nations would account for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
The IEA stated that by 2025 China would emit more CO2 than the current combined total of the United States, Japan and Canada.
These predictions proved to be very optimistic. Since 2003, China has doubled its greenhouse gas emissions, surpassing the United States as the world's largest emitter. In fact, China already emits more CO2 than the United States and Canada combined, and will likely surpass the combined total of the United States, Canada and Japan by 2015.

Richard Muller, a physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, recently examined IEA data and found:

China's emissions intensity (CO2 per dollar of gross domestic product) is five times greater than that of the United States.
Even if China cuts its emissions intensity 45 percent, it will still surpass the United States in per capita annual CO2 emissions by 2025.
Indeed, every 10 percent cut in U.S. emissions would be negated by one year of China's growth.
Furthermore, Muller's calculations show:

Because China's economy is growing annually by 10 percent, a 4 percent cut in intensity is actually a 6 percent annual increase in emissions.
CO2 emissions are increasing at a similar rate in India and other developing countries -- far surpassing industrialized countries' output.
He concludes that even if China and India's goals are met -- and other developing countries make similar cuts -- total atmospheric CO2 would rise from 385 parts per million currently to 700 parts per million by 2080.

Source: H. Sterling Burnett, "Climate Change: Developing Countries Control The Thermostat," National Center for Policy Analysis, Brief Analysis No. 694, February 25, 2010.

If you have a station that is next to a parking lot, and has a 10 degree higher temperature then those stations near it; and the average temp in that station goes up by a degree, and the average temp goes up at the OTHER stations by a degree, then you have the same trend no matter what the starting point of either station was.Cycloptichorn