global warming

An effort to counter denier falsehoods .. and you get to play!! (I hope)

I'll keep this short. I found an excellent article on RealClearPolitics from the L.A. Times today concerning global warming. It contains numerous links to back up its clearly stated assertions. Some salient quotes:

.... from the dawn of human civilization until the 19th century, the concentration was about 275 parts per million, and that many scientists believe 350 parts per million is a sort of tipping point: Irreversible impacts and feedback loops start to kick in.

... as of January, the Earth's atmosphere contained 393 parts per million of carbon dioxide. And rising.

The Skeptic's Case Against the theory that CO2 Causes Global Warming

This linked article is a good summary of why skeptics do not believe the theory that CO2 is causing global warming. The key assumption built into this theory are the huge feedbacks that have been asssumed. As can be seen in this paper, those feedbacks do not match reality. The author does a good job of presenting the science in layman terms.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/

Oh they're real and they are spectacular

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/fake_fake_fake_fake.html#ixzz1iKz...

That funny line came from a Seinfield episode. Dr Singer discusses the result of the BEST research by Dr Muller. The results did show that there was a warming in the land based temperatures from the 1950s till 2000. However the ocean based temperatures and atmosphere showed no warming. Zero, none, nada, zilch.

"What the BEST result shows is that surface thermometers from the land area of the globe (about 29% of the earth's surface) show a warming trend. But this is not global warming. And BEST director Professor Rich Muller explicitly disclaims that his trend results indicate a human cause.

Time to Quit Wasting Policies and Research Money on Global Warming

If you look at the ocean temperature data, there are no temperature increases found. If you look at the satellite temperature data, there are not temperature increases. If you look at the land temperature data, the global temperatures have not increased since 1998. It appears now that the Artic is recovering its ice and is at normal levels, the Antartic never was a problem. The sea levels are going down not up. The only thing showing global warming are the climate modeling. The actual data does not show it.

Yet we continue to waste money and effort on global warming. The EPA continues to insist that we regulate CO2 emissions. Why?

I realize our government has good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would like the madness to stop.

The psychology of Climate Change denialism

On a recent Diane Rehm Show focused on the impacts of approaching Climate Change, the host was driven to ask "Why?" Why does a certain subset of individuals (and scientists) refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that atmospheric carbon levels have surpassed the danger point and are affecting climate on a global scale?

The answer to that question doesn't lie in the scientific data, it's in our heads. Both psychological and sociological triggers come into play, and we'll take a look at each.

Earthquakes and climate change

In September of 2009, just after back to back earthquakes in Samoa and Indonesia, I wrote an article entitled "Climate Change: A whole lot of shaking going on" where scientists have theorized that earthquakes are increasing due to an unlikely cause: Climate Change.

The theory is that while earthquakes on different tectonic plates do not cause others to occur, for instance the Samoan and Indonesian quakes happened within one day of each other, they can be correlated to other quakes and seismic activity, specifically to 'glacial quakes' caused by fast melting and moving multi-ton glaciers on Greenland.

Behold, waters shall rise up...

It ain't just a theory, it's happening now:

Water is rising three times faster on the N.C. coast than it did a century ago as warming oceans expand and land ice melts, recent research has found. It's the beginning of what a N.C. science panel expects will be a 1-meter increase by 2100.

Storms, Young said, are "the hammer" of rising seas. As storm surges pound ashore on a higher base of water, their damage multiplies. The Outer Banks, some scientists predict, could disintegrate into a string of high spots - Avon, Buxton, Ocracoke - reachable only by boat.

And almost completely ignored by the media is the continued warming of the 21st Century:

On what killed the dinosaurs, ... and you don't look so good yourself.

With apologies to Harlan Ellison, I shall begin this post by stating that what follows is very much speculation. The future is not set in stone.
Collisons can be very scary, and so are those moments just prior to the crunch of metal, moments when tires squeal, brakes burn and stomachs lurch. A collision is coming, and I just might know when.

Monster iceberg on the loose

And whatever gets in its way is going to have a bad day:

An island of ice more than four times the size of Manhattan is drifting across the Arctic Ocean after breaking off from a glacier in Greenland. Potentially in the path of this unstoppable giant are oil platforms and shipping lanes - and any collision could do untold damage.

Few images can capture the world's climate fears like a 100-square- mile chunk of ice breaking off Greenland's vast ice sheet, a reservoir of freshwater that if it collapsed would raise global sea levels by a devastating 20 feet.

Our Senators, the Climate Bill, and Tying Your Shoes with One Hand

Last Thursday, the Senate voted 53 to 47 to defeat the Murkowski resolution that would have undermined the EPA's ability to reduce global warming pollution. The vote provides a useful guide to how senators might act on a climate vote.

Of course, it is not a clear-cut comparison because some people voted against the flawed resolution to make a point about process or simply to support the science. It is significant to note that we have 10 more votes in favor of reducing carbon emissions than we did the last time climate change was discussed on the Senate floor two years ago.

Syndicate content