What the global warming issue is really all about

[RanchHQ]

Look!

More Science!

From NASA, the Folks that put Men on the Moon!


Pollution controls caused Arctic ice melt: NASA
POSTED AT 12:18 PM ON APRIL 9, 2009 BY ED MORRISSEY


People have blamed the retreat of ice in the Arctic on carbon-dioxide driven global warming. However, new research at NASA suggests that environmental intervention in the 1970s could bear most of the blame. The elimination of aerosol particle emissions have removed a cooling element for the northern hemisphere, which has reduced a natural balance in the climate on the effect of human activities:

New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.

Dr Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s - particularly in the Arctic - may have resulted from changes in levels of solid “aerosol” particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level - of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.

Shindell’s research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:

Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates.

On NASA’s site, Shindell continues: LINK: NASA - Aerosols May Drive a Significant Portion of Arctic Warming

In the modeling experiment, Shindell and colleagues compiled detailed, quantitative information about the relative roles of various components of the climate system, such as solar variations, volcanic events, and changes in greenhouse gas levels. They then ran through various scenarios of how temperatures would change as the levels of ozone and aerosols — including sulfates and black carbon — varied in different regions of the world. Finally, they teased out the amount of warming that could be attributed to different climate variables. Aerosols loomed large.

The regions of Earth that showed the strongest responses to aerosols in the model are the same regions that have witnessed the greatest real-world temperature increases since 1976. The Arctic region has seen its surface air temperatures increase by 1.5 C (2.7 F) since the mid-1970s. In the Antarctic, where aerosols play less of a role, the surface air temperature has increased about 0.35 C (0.6 F).

That makes sense, Shindell explained, because of the Arctic’s proximity to North America and Europe. The two highly industrialized regions have produced most of the world’s aerosol emissions over the last century, and some of those aerosols drift northward and collect in the Arctic. Precipitation, which normally flushes aerosols out of the atmosphere, is minimal there, so the particles remain in the air longer and have a stronger impact than in other parts of the world.

Now we have a counterargument to cap-and-trade! Rather than pursue ridiculous and economically disastrous emission controls on naturally-occurring carbon dioxide, we can simply stop imposing aerosol controls. That would cost less and have more impact on the problem that climate-change activists claim to want to solve.

However, there are two things wrong with that argument. First, the modeling is as much unproven as is the CO2-climate-change models are. The latter completely missed the cooling trend of the last few years, which calls into question their entire premise. Until the modeling proves itself, the science remains unsettled — as it must for people attempting to extrapolate the future by looking at only the last few hundred years on a planet billions of years old.

Second, and probably more important, most of the activists are less concerned about actual climate change than they are about having an excuse to nationalize energy production, along with everything else. They stopped listening to “science” a long time ago, as soon as they heard enough to justify confiscatory government policies, and have tried to quash all other lines of inquiry with the same enthusiasm as the medieval Inquisitions, and with the same motivation — power. Don’t expect them to listen to NASA when the agency refutes part of their argument now.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Maximus

2112, do you agree with this statement:

“The average temperature of parts of the earth increases and decreases slightly over time and humans have nothing to do with it.”

What does your religion (science) tell you?

Let's try again. 2112, do you agree with the above statement?

[Smiley1]

"FYI - I don't have a religion. I don't worship or pray to or for anything or believe in the supernatural. I leave that to you guys.

I understand you think GW is a myth. The science is inconvenient for you I know.

I also notice none of you have posted anything about disappearing ice shelves in the Antarctic. Another myth propogated by the USGS - a psuedo science organization. "

GW being caused or affected by man-made influences is the myth. Most of the lefts GW "scientists" are not climatologists, geologists or studied in anything even remotely connected to earth studies. I've followed this crazieness for years. The original list of 2400 which was presented to the UN, only contained about a dozen or so actual scientists, the rest were mostly lay people of some prominence with no expertise.

GW, whether you want to admit it, or not, has reached a religious status among its followers, as has Darwinism. Don't you recall the Global Cooling scare of the '70's? Same retards started that money generating idea. Cap and Trade is not new. Scams like GW are not new either.

Mick

[Maximus]

A good point Smiley. Earth Day was started because of scientific concerns with global cooling. If 2112 was about 30 years older, he would be telling us that scientists have concluded the earth was cooling and that we didn't know what we were talking about.

Want to answer my question 2112, or is science letting you down on this subject?

[RanchHQ]

I guess there are some in The Obama Administration that figure a few hundred thousand Windmills off the Atlantic Coast can replace Coal and Oil Powered Power Plants.

Guess that kinda Plan hasn't quite worked out for Britain:

April 11, 2009
President Obama: About those Windmills
Larrey Anderson

The Obama administration needs to rethink its idea to build tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of windmills across the United States to provide “green” energy for America.

Obama might want to talk (though not bow) to the Queen of England about how those windmill farms across the pond are working out. So far, not so good.

The British is government is, you guessed it, bailing out the private companies that have invested heavily in non-proven and inefficient wind power technology.

Here is how the UK Times describes the situation:

Britain’s wind energy industry increased its call for state aid yesterday, after new figures showed that investment in the sector has collapsed by nearly 80 per cent.

The amount invested in British renewable energy schemes, including wind, solar and wave power, fell from £377 million during the first three months of last year to £79 million during the same period this year, according to figures from New Energy Finance, a research group that monitors industry trends. The figures have raised fresh questions over the Government’s ability to fulfill its pledge to slash Britain’s carbon emissions and produce more than one third of the country’s electricity from green energy by 2020.

There were signs yesterday that the Government was considering the inclusion of measures in the April 22 Budget to prevent the cancellation of large projects such as the London Array, a £3 billion scheme to build the world’s largest offshore wind farm in the Thames Estuary, which Gordon Brown has backed.

Its developers are already seeking a bailout from the European Investment Bank to allow the scheme to proceed. Its 341 turbines would produce enough electricity for 750,000 homes.

Paul Golby, chief executive of E.ON UK, one of Britain’s “big six” energy companies and one of the project’s backers, told The Times he now thought that it would be impossible for the country to meet its target of generating 15 per cent of total energy from renewable sources by 2020, which amounts to 35 per cent of its electricity. The target is a key part of Britain’s promise to cut its carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

Lord Smith of Finsbury, chairman of the Environment Agency, said that it was crucial to Britain’s future in the renewables sector that more funding, including public funding, was made available. “We’ve already seen some companies pull out. We will see more of these things happening if we don’t improve the funding,” he said. “Over the past 10-15 years we have tended to come too late to the table, as a country, when it comes to the development of renewable energy.”

The news comes as the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) prepares to publish a report next week that will warn that Britain must act now if it is to take the opportunity to build a thriving offshore wind energy industry that could employ as many as 70,000 people. The institute said that only 700 people were employed in the sector at present.

The BWEA is calling on Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, to introduce incentives and grants to support the industry in the Budget. It also urged the Government to accelerate planning decisions and reduce the cost to developers of hooking up schemes to the national grid.

Some companies, such as BP and Shell, have already left the wind industry, while others, such as Iberdrola Renovables, the world’s largest wind-farm operator, have cut their investment programmes.

As you can see in that last paragraph, the big money and the big energy businesses in Britain have already seen the writing on the wall and have pulled their money out of what is little more than an environmental Ponzi scheme.

Is anyone in America paying attention to the silliness and the utter futility of tilting at windmills in an effort to solve our future energy needs?

LINK: American Thinker Blog: President Obama: About those Windmills

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Maximus

“The average temperature of parts of the earth increases and decreases slightly over time and humans have nothing to do with it.”

2112, us conservative Christian types answer questions like these all the time because we have "thunk-em-through." You on the other hand rely on how other people (experts-scientists) tell you how to think. I asked you the most fundamental global warming question and you scare off because science hasn't thought it out for you. That must feel extremely frustrating for you.

You should really look at life from a different perspective. Like, Who created the earth and the universe that we know today. Who created the "bang." You should try a little introspective, as many of us others have. Just a suggestion. Happy Easter.

[2112]

I respond at my pace, not yours.

Happy spring goddess day! Another Christian holiday brought to you by Pagans.

[pingtheduck]

Originally Posted by 2112

I respond at my pace, not yours.

Happy spring goddess day! Another Christian holiday brought to you by Pagans.

How about Passover?

[RanchHQ]

"He says we should shoot a bunch of dirt into the upper atmosphere." - Jeff Jena

Messing with Mother Nature
by Jeffrey Jena

In the spirit of full disclosure I am a global warming/climate change denier. I’m not even sure what the term “climate change” means. The climate is changing all the time. Most of us out here in Flyover Land call it “the weather.”

I have often posed the follow question to my global warming alarmist friends.

Let’s just say for a minute that you are right and that the slight increase in the average temperature worldwide is caused by man and not a natural variation as seen throughout geological time. Why is this bad? What is the optimal temperature for the survival of the planet? What is the optimal temperature for human civilization to thrive? I live in the Midwest, does Florida have the copyright on good weather? If it heats up just a few degrees I could be wearing shorts and playing golf at Christmas.



Hotter weather would mean longer growing seasons in the upper Great Plains and southern Canada. Greenland didn’t get its name because the early Vikings were color blind, it was green. When I say green I mean green with foliage not “green’ as in taking a stupid canvas bag to the grocery store that won’t give you a plastic bag for your food but will be glad to sell you as many as you want. They’re back in aisle four between the Styrofoam cups and plastic knives and forks.

So, today I am reading my local paper and see an article where the President’s science advisor, John Holdren, has an idea about getting the temperature back down. He says we should shoot a bunch of dirt into the upper atmosphere. I don’t want anyone to get the wrong idea, I am not anti-science. I like science. But I like my science to have been field tested and verified by the scientific method. These guys who want to start shooting crap into the upper atmosphere are the same guys who wanted to spread coal dust and other dark material over the polar icecaps a few years back because they thought the Earth was getting to cold. The same enviro-maniacs who demanded we go out and buy a bunch of “green” light bulbs that turned out to be loaded with mercury.

These are the same kind of folks who don’t want us to eat foods made safer with irradiation and won’t eat a genetic engineered tomato. Geo-engineered weather is not like an ill-considered economic policy, you can’t go back and correct your mistake or hope inflation and future growth will rescue you. I am reminded of the Strother Martin line from Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid, “Morons, I am surrounded by morons!”

LINK: Big Hollywood Blog Archive Messing with Mother Nature

[pingtheduck]

Love that last article Ranch! Hilarious! And on target.