The Abiding Faith Of Warm-ongers

[Peikko 1,575]

We are all in favor of what the UK is doing with UK citizen's money. Hooray for UK! Send them a check, maybe. I am sure you will.

The EPA will be shut down economically by the congress which must provide their funding if they try to unilaterally enforce regulations that the congress does not agree with. Simple as that. It is not a matter of if they coulda, shoulda, woulda. It is not a matter of "science" It is politics, pure and simple. GW lost the political battle in the US and therefore lost its funds to continue to exist. The EPA cannot operate at all without funds. The EPA could be eliminated by congress in its entirety. Simply cease to exist. -0- out the line item. Congress has the checkbook and the legislation to fund them has to come from the Republican controlled House of Representatives.

You want someone to blame? Your Boy Obama. He could have acted on Environmental protections during two years in which he had a majority congress and couldn't get it done. He couldn't keep the seats of very influential Senators or even his own former seat in Illinois. His actions have blown the opportunity of a lifetime for liberals. Blame the Repubs if you will but your guy was driving for the last two years and went nowhere. Time's up.

What are you blathering on about? More party political bullshite? Where have I blamed anyone for anything? All I have said is that denying the reality of climate change and disruption as a result the man's activity vis a vis fossil fuels is party political idiocy and has nothing whatsoever to do with science. Outside of the US, this sort of song and dance routine gets short shrift - politicians are not using it as their go to football.

Personally I don't care about party politics I really don't, everyday life goes on regardless and for most of us who seek practical solutions to real problems, our world is not driven by rigid definitions of political ideology. All kinds of decisions are based on probabilities that are derived from trend data and every day planning decisions are being made based on predictions derived from date relating to global warming, yes, even in Vermont. Your tax dollars are being spent on accommodating the problems caused by climate change every day.

[Boiler 45,927]

Get real, a quick search will find you that this is not true, just google Germany Coal and Power Stations.

And just look at the UK Media and the comments section.

The game is over.

[Peikko 1,575]

Get real, a quick search will find you that this is not true, just google Germany Coal and Power Stations.

And just look at the UK Media and the comments section.

The game is over.

I'm very real. Science isn't a game, global warming isn't a hoax and planning for its effects and reducing these effects is going on every where every day. I didn't make that up

[one...two...tree 2,762]

from NASA's website: (Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect)

Given that CO₂ has such a major role in the natural greenhouse effect, it makes intuitive sense that changes in its concentration because of human activities might significantly enhance the greenhouse effect. However, calculating the impact of a change in CO₂ is very different from calculating the current role with respect to water vapor and clouds. This is because both of these other substances depend on temperatures and atmospheric circulation in ways that CO₂ does not. For instance, as temperature rises, the maximum sustainable water vapor concentration increases by about 7% per degree Celsius. Clouds too depend on temperature, pressure, convection and water vapor amounts. So a change in CO₂ that affects the greenhouse effect will also change the water vapor and the clouds. Thus, the total greenhouse effect after a change in CO₂ needs to account for the consequent changes in the other components as well. If, for instance, CO₂ concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4 W/m², but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorption increases by almost 20 W/m² — demonstrating that (in the GISS climate model, at least) the "feedbacks" are amplifying the effects of the initial radiative forcing from CO₂ alone. Past climate data suggests that this is what happens in the real world as well.

What happens when the trace greenhouse gases are removed? Because of the non-linear impacts of CO₂ on absorption, the impact of removing the CO₂ is approximately seven times as large as doubling it. If such an event were possible, it would lead to dramatic cooling, both directly and indirectly, as the water vapor and clouds would react. In model experiments where all the trace greenhouse gases are removed the planet cools to a near-Snowball Earth, some 35°C cooler than today, as water vapor levels decrease to 10% of current values, and planetary reflectivity increases (because of snow and clouds) to further cool the planet.

Despite being a trace gas, there is nothing trivial about the importance of CO₂ for today, nor its role in shaping climate change in the future.

http://www.giss.nasa...efs/schmidt_05/

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I'm very real. Science isn't a game, global warming isn't a hoax and planning for its effects and reducing these effects is going on every where every day. I didn't make that up

Man made global warming is a hoax. We have had no warming since 1998. Why can't you admitt that? You go along with your false premise that we are getting warmer. It just isn't true!

[JohnSmith2007 353]

from NASA's website: (Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect)

http://www.giss.nasa...efs/schmidt_05/

They have no way of proving those claims. None! Those are theories based on faulty computer models. Every year they make a prediction and every year they are wrong. CO2 is a trace gas and the tiny contribution that man gives us is nothing compared to the natural sources.

Bottom line:

1. The earth isn't getting warmer. Since 1998 the temps have gone down or stayed the same. So much for Global Warming.

2. Every prediction about the future rise in temps have been wrong. The computer models haven't been right once.

3. The rise is sea levels that were predicted haven't happened. Again, the computer models were wrong.

4. The drastic changes in tropical storms that were predicted didn't happen. In fact the storms are fewer and less powerfull than previous years.

Conclusions:

No one, not NASA or any university in the world has had any accuracy in predicting what will happen. It is too complicated for us to figure out or to make an accurate computer model. Global warming is kept alive because it is politicly benificial to the left to gain control. If all the money were taken out of the picture Man Made GW would drop off the world stage and never be heard from again.

[Peikko 1,575]

As I said, only in the US is GW denial a mainstream political football.

[Boiler 45,927]

There has been lots of warming, and cooling.

2,000 years ago the Romans grew grapes in England.

In the Elizabethan period they had ice fairs on the River Thames.

Climate change is with us all the time, some time it warms, sometimes it cools.

I know in London they have had the worst winter since 1890, where I am not so bad, 2 years ago we had the worst winter in a generation.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

from NASA's website: (Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect)

http://www.giss.nasa...efs/schmidt_05/

This is so good I will post it here as well.

NASA Warns Global Warming Models Wrong -Don't Account for Cooling Factors

December 09, 2010

Top NASA experts say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.

According to Lahouari Bounoua of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and other scientists from NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), existing models fail to accurately include the effects of rising CO2 levels on green plants. As green plants breathe in CO2 in the process of photosynthesis – they also release oxygen, the only reason that there is any in the air for us to breathe – more carbon dioxide has important effects on them.

Most current climate models don't account for green plants can be expected to grow as they find it easier to harvest carbon from the air around them using energy from the sun: thus introducing a negative feedback into the warming/carbon process, according to Bounoua. Some do, but they fail to accurately simulate the effects – they don't allow for the fact that plants in a high-CO2 atmosphere will "down-regulate" and so use water more efficiently.

The NASA group concluded that the increase in precipitation contributes primarily to increase evapotranspiration rather than surface runoff, consistent with observations, and results in an additional cooling effect not fully accounted for in previous simulations with elevated CO2.

The NASA and NOAA experts used their more accurate science to model a world where CO2 levels have doubled to 780 parts per million (ppm) compared to today's 390-odd. They say that world would actually warm up by just 1.64°C overall, and the vegetation-cooling effect would be stronger over land to boot – thus temperatures on land would would be a further 0.3°C cooler compared to the present sims.

International diplomatic efforts under UN auspices are currently targeted to keep global warming limited to 2°C or less, which under current climate models calls for holding CO2 to 450 ppm – or less in many analyses – a target widely regarded as unachievable. Doubled carbon levels are normally viewed in the current state of enviro play as a scenario that would lead to catastrophe; that is, to warming well beyond 2°C.

If Bounoua and her colleagues are right, and CO2 levels keep on rising the way they have been lately (about 2 ppm each year), we can go a couple of centuries without any dangerous warming. There are lots of other factors in play, of course, but nonetheless the new analysis is very reassuring.

"As we learn more about how these systems react, we can learn more about how the climate will change," says Bounoua's colleague Forrest Hall, in a NASA statement accompanying the team's scholarly paper. "Each year we get better and better. It's important to get these things right."

The NASA/NOAA boffins' paper Quantifying the negative feedback of vegetation to greenhouse warming: A modeling approach is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

As I said, only in the US is GW denial a mainstream political football.

That is the only place it needs to be a "football" but it no longer is. GW is done. It is nothing now but an un-funded discussion that will be using older and older data because no one is paying for new data.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

As I said, only American makes this into a party political issue.

BTW, liberalism is essential for scientific thinking. Political ideology is not.

American liberals have an irrational fear of commercial nuclear power which has not killed a single person in the USA.

Explain that.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This is so good I will post it here as well.

NASA Warns Global Warming Models Wrong -Don't Account for Cooling Factors

December 09, 2010

Top NASA experts say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.

According to Lahouari Bounoua of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and other scientists from NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), existing models fail to accurately include the effects of rising CO2 levels on green plants. As green plants breathe in CO2 in the process of photosynthesis – they also release oxygen, the only reason that there is any in the air for us to breathe – more carbon dioxide has important effects on them.

Most current climate models don't account for green plants can be expected to grow as they find it easier to harvest carbon from the air around them using energy from the sun: thus introducing a negative feedback into the warming/carbon process, according to Bounoua. Some do, but they fail to accurately simulate the effects – they don't allow for the fact that plants in a high-CO2 atmosphere will "down-regulate" and so use water more efficiently.

The NASA group concluded that the increase in precipitation contributes primarily to increase evapotranspiration rather than surface runoff, consistent with observations, and results in an additional cooling effect not fully accounted for in previous simulations with elevated CO2.

The NASA and NOAA experts used their more accurate science to model a world where CO2 levels have doubled to 780 parts per million (ppm) compared to today's 390-odd. They say that world would actually warm up by just 1.64°C overall, and the vegetation-cooling effect would be stronger over land to boot – thus temperatures on land would would be a further 0.3°C cooler compared to the present sims.

International diplomatic efforts under UN auspices are currently targeted to keep global warming limited to 2°C or less, which under current climate models calls for holding CO2 to 450 ppm – or less in many analyses – a target widely regarded as unachievable. Doubled carbon levels are normally viewed in the current state of enviro play as a scenario that would lead to catastrophe; that is, to warming well beyond 2°C.

If Bounoua and her colleagues are right, and CO2 levels keep on rising the way they have been lately (about 2 ppm each year), we can go a couple of centuries without any dangerous warming. There are lots of other factors in play, of course, but nonetheless the new analysis is very reassuring.

"As we learn more about how these systems react, we can learn more about how the climate will change," says Bounoua's colleague Forrest Hall, in a NASA statement accompanying the team's scholarly paper. "Each year we get better and better. It's important to get these things right."

The NASA/NOAA boffins' paper Quantifying the negative feedback of vegetation to greenhouse warming: A modeling approach is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Here is an abstract of the research indicated by the article. Anybody have access to the full article?

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL045338.shtml

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

American liberals have an irrational fear of commercial nuclear power which has not killed a single person in the USA.

Explain that.

My mother in law, who lived through horrors of WW2 no American could even imagine, the Soviet Union collapse and the complete financial collapse of her country TWICE, claims she cried only once in her life. When the government finally admitted what had happened at Chernobyl.

If there is no global wamring (and ther is not) then we do not need nuclear power. Fossil fuel will do just fine, thank you. Not to mention how much cheaper it is in the long run. The infastructue needed to make nuclear power safe is simply not effective.

Edited January 4, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[Peikko 1,575]

American liberals have an irrational fear of commercial nuclear power which has not killed a single person in the USA.

Explain that.

Explain what? Some people don't like nuclear power because of the problems associated with the byproducts and no one having actually come up with a non toxic solution to the problem. The best option currently is storage in 'safe' storage sites. However, there is no ideological fear of nuclear power, that's insane.

There's also a small problem of cost associated with nuclear - requires a lot of government funding

[james&olya 1,121]

This is so good I will post it here as well.

NASA Warns Global Warming Models Wrong -Don't Account for Cooling Factors

December 09, 2010

Top NASA experts say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.

According to Lahouari Bounoua of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and other scientists from NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), existing models fail to accurately include the effects of rising CO2 levels on green plants. As green plants breathe in CO2 in the process of photosynthesis – they also release oxygen, the only reason that there is any in the air for us to breathe – more carbon dioxide has important effects on them.

Most current climate models don't account for green plants can be expected to grow as they find it easier to harvest carbon from the air around them using energy from the sun: thus introducing a negative feedback into the warming/carbon process, according to Bounoua. Some do, but they fail to accurately simulate the effects – they don't allow for the fact that plants in a high-CO2 atmosphere will "down-regulate" and so use water more efficiently.

The NASA group concluded that the increase in precipitation contributes primarily to increase evapotranspiration rather than surface runoff, consistent with observations, and results in an additional cooling effect not fully accounted for in previous simulations with elevated CO2.

The NASA and NOAA experts used their more accurate science to model a world where CO2 levels have doubled to 780 parts per million (ppm) compared to today's 390-odd. They say that world would actually warm up by just 1.64°C overall, and the vegetation-cooling effect would be stronger over land to boot – thus temperatures on land would would be a further 0.3°C cooler compared to the present sims.

International diplomatic efforts under UN auspices are currently targeted to keep global warming limited to 2°C or less, which under current climate models calls for holding CO2 to 450 ppm – or less in many analyses – a target widely regarded as unachievable. Doubled carbon levels are normally viewed in the current state of enviro play as a scenario that would lead to catastrophe; that is, to warming well beyond 2°C.

If Bounoua and her colleagues are right, and CO2 levels keep on rising the way they have been lately (about 2 ppm each year), we can go a couple of centuries without any dangerous warming. There are lots of other factors in play, of course, but nonetheless the new analysis is very reassuring.

"As we learn more about how these systems react, we can learn more about how the climate will change," says Bounoua's colleague Forrest Hall, in a NASA statement accompanying the team's scholarly paper. "Each year we get better and better. It's important to get these things right."

The NASA/NOAA boffins' paper Quantifying the negative feedback of vegetation to greenhouse warming: A modeling approach is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

So what you are saying is that if we let potentially fertile land world-wide grow plants and trees without being inhibited we can decrease the impact of rising CO2. Anybody spot a problem here?