Re: What's Really Heating Up the Planet?

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:08:12 -0400, "Lee K" <lee_kee***@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"chatnoir" <wolfbat359a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1188179185.245244.120270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


So, now Conservos are saying CO2 causes Global warming??????


"Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038 percent),"
said meteorologist Joseph D'Alea, the first director of meteorology at The
Weather Channel and former chief of the American Meteorological Society's
Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecast.

"Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic (man-made) in origin.
The amount we emit is said to be up from 1 percent a decade ago. Despite the
increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at
Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (plus 0.45 percent per
year)," he said. "We are responsible for just 0.001 percent of this
atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic
CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
floor."



A new peer-reviewed scientific study shows the impact of carbon dioxide
emissions on worldwide temperatures is largely irrelevant, and one top
scientist has concluded, "You can go outside and spit and have the same
effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

That comment comes from Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of
Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, who said the temperature of the
earth is increasing, but it's got nothing to do with what man is doing.

"Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the
Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not
because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air."

Bryson's comments were among a long list of doubters of "global warming"
assembled by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and posted on a blog site for the
U.S. Senate committee on environment and public works.

Another leader, Ivy League geologist Robert Giegengack, chair of the
Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of
Pennsylvania, said he doesn't even consider global warming among the Top 10
environmental problems.

"In terms of [global warming's] capacity to cause the human species harm, I
don't think it makes it into the top 10," he said. "[Former Vice President
Al Gore] claims that temperature increases solely because more CO2 in the
atmosphere traps the sun's heat. That's just wrong . It's a natural
interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa. It's hard for us
to say CO2 drives temperature. It's easier to say temperature drives CO2."

However, the studies assembled by Inhofe's team said that's not necessarily
so, according to the scientists.

"If we were to stop manufacturing CO2 tomorrow, we wouldn't see the effects
of that for generations," Giegengack said.

"Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038 percent),"
said meteorologist Joseph D'Alea, the first director of meteorology at The
Weather Channel and former chief of the American Meteorological Society's
Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecast.

"Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount
we emit is said to be up from 1 percent a decade ago. Despite the increase
in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa
remains the same as the long term average (plus 0.45 percent per year)," he
said. "We are responsible for just 0.001 percent of this atmosphere. If the
atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution
today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor."

"Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust," declared
astronomer Ian Wilson after reviewing the newest study, now accepted for
publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

The project, called "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of
Earth's Climate System," was authored by Brookhaven National lab scientist
Stephen Schwartz.

"Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend
trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of (about) 1.0 K by 2100
A.D." Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate committee Sunday.

He was referring to the massive expenditures that would be required under
such treaties as the Kyoto Protocol.

"Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for
temperature increase associated with a double of CO2 were far too high i.e.
2-4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K
increase," he added.

Former Harvard physicist Lubos Motl added those promoting the fear of
man-made climate changes are "playing the children's game to scare each
other."

"By the end of the (CO2) doubling i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) expected
slightly before (the year) 2100 - assuming a business-as-usual continued
growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time - Schwartz and others would
expect 0.4 C of extra warming only - a typical fluctuation that occurs
within four months and certainly nothing that the politicians should pay
attention to," Motl explained.

Joel Schwartz, of the American Enterprise Institute, said, "there's hardly
any additional warming 'in the pipeline' from previous greenhouse gas
emissions. This is in contrast to the IPCC, which predicts that the Earth's
average temperature will rise an additional 0.6 degrees C during the 21st
Century even if greenhouse gas concentrations stopped increasing," he added.

"Along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, [this] new
study belies Al Gore's claim that there is no legitimate scholarly
alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if Schwartz's results are
correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC's
scientific 'consensus,' the environmentalists' climate hysteria, and the
political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so
popular with the world's environmental regulators, elected officials, and
corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?"
AEI's Schwartz concluded.

The Senate committee assessment said 2007 could go down in history "as the
'tipping point' of man-made global warming fears."

Meteorologist Joseph Conklin, of the website Climate Police said "global
warming" is disintegrating.

"A few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global temperatures
have leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that this whole global
warming thing is a farce, a group of British scientists concluded that the
real global warming won't start until 2009," Conklin wrote.

However, a United Nations scientist, Jim Renwick, recently conceded that
climate models to not account for the variability in nature, and so are not
reliable. And Conklin noted the U.S. National Climate Data Center has
compiled data that shouldn't be used, because its reporting points are
located on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels and even attached
to hot chimneys, a methodology that is "serious flawed."

WND previously has reported on the significant doubts cast on the process of
global warming.

Last September, a leading U.S. climate researcher claimed there's a decade
at most left to address global warming before environmental disaster takes
place, but the federal government issued a report showing the year 1936 had
a hotter summer than 2006.

"The average June-August 2006 temperature for the contiguous United States
(based on preliminary data) was 2.4 degrees F (1.3 degrees C) above the 20th
century average of 72.1 degrees F (22.3 degrees C)," said the NOAA report.
"This was the second warmest summer on record, slightly cooler than the
record of 74.7 degrees F set in 1936 during the Dust Bowl era. This summer's
average was 74.5 degrees F. Eight of the past ten summers have been warmer
than the U.S. average for the same period."

WND also reported on NASA-funded study that noted some climate forecasts
might be exaggerating estimations of global warming.

The space agency said climate models possibly were overestimating the amount
of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms.

The theory many scientists work with says the Earth heats up in response to
human emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, causing more
water to evaporate from the ocean into the atmosphere.

WND also reported that Dr. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental
sciences at the University of Virginia, maintains there has been little or
no warming since about 1940.

"Any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely to be minor,
difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the climate, and
therefore inconsequential," Singer wrote in a climate-change essay. "In
addition, the impacts of warming and of higher CO2 levels are likely to be
beneficial for human activities and especially for agriculture."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57253

Here's some more food for thought:

April 12, 2007
Fuzzy Climate Math
By George Will

In a campaign without peacetime precedent, the
media-entertainment-environmental complex is warning about global warming.
Never, other than during the two world wars, has there been such a concerted
effort by opinion-forming institutions to indoctrinate Americans, 83 percent
of whom now call global warming a "serious problem.'' Indoctrination is
supposed to be a predicate for action commensurate with professions of
seriousness.


For example, Democrats could demand that the president send the Kyoto
Protocol to the Senate so they can embrace it. In 1997, the Senate voted
95-0 in opposition to any agreement which would, like the protocol, require
significant reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions in America and some other
developed nations but would involve no "specific scheduled commitments'' for
129 "developing'' countries, including the second, fourth, 10th, 11th, 13th
and 15th largest economies (China, India, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico and
Indonesia). Forty-two of the senators serving in 1997 are gone. Let's find
out if the new senators disagree with the 1997 vote.


Do they also disagree with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical
Environmentalist''? He says: Compliance with Kyoto would reduce global
warming by an amount too small to measure. But the cost of compliance just
to the United States would be higher than the cost of providing the entire
world with clean drinking water and sanitation, which would prevent 2
million deaths (from diseases like infant diarrhea) a year and prevent half
a billion people from becoming seriously ill each year.


Nature designed us as carnivores, but what does nature know about nature?
Meat has been designated a menace. Among the 51 exhortations in Time
magazine's "global warming survival guide'' (April 9), No. 22 says a BMW is
less responsible than a Big Mac for "climate change,'' that conveniently
imprecise name for our peril. This is because the world meat industry
produces 18 percent of the world's greenhouse-gas emissions, more than
transportation produces. Nitrous oxide in manure (warming effect: 296 times
greater than that of carbon) and methane from animal flatulence (23 times
greater) mean that "a 16 ounce T-bone is like a Hummer on a plate.''


Ben & Jerry's ice cream might be even more sinister: A gallon of it requires
electricity guzzling refrigeration, and four gallons of milk produced by
cows that simultaneously produce eight gallons of manure and flatulence with
eight gallons of methane. The cows do this while consuming lots of grain and
hay, which are cultivated by using tractor fuel, chemical fertilizers,
herbicides and insecticides, and transported by fuel-consuming trains and
trucks.


Newsweek says most food travels at least 1,200 miles to get to Americans'
plates, so buying local food will save fuel. Do not order halibut in Omaha.


Speaking of Hummers, perhaps it is environmentally responsible to buy one
and squash a Prius with it. The Prius hybrid is, of course, fuel-efficient.
There are, however, environmental costs to mining and smelting (in Canada)
1,000 tons a year of zinc for the battery-powered second motor, and the
shipping of the zinc 10,000 miles -- trailing a cloud of carbon -- to Wales
for refining and then to China for turning it into the component that is
then sent to a battery factory in Japan.


Opinions differ as to whether acid rain from the Canadian mining and
smelting operation is killing vegetation that once absorbed carbon dioxide.
But a report from CNW Marketing Research ("Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of
New Vehicles from Concept to Disposal'') concludes that in "dollars per
lifetime mile,'' a Prius (expected life: 109,000 miles) costs $3.25,
compared to $1.95 for a Hummer H3 (expected life: 207,000 miles).


The CNW report states that a hybrid makes economic and environmental sense
for a purchaser living in the Los Angeles basin, where fuel costs are high
and smog is worrisome. But environmental costs of the hybrid are exported
from the basin.


We are urged to "think globally and act locally,'' as Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger has done with proposals to reduce California's carbon dioxide
emissions 25 percent by 2020. If California improbably achieves this, at a
cost not yet computed, it will have reduced global greenhouse-gas emissions
0.3 percent. The question is:


Suppose the costs over a decade of trying to achieve a local goal are
significant. And suppose the positive impact on the globe's temperature is
insignificant -- and much less than, say, the negative impact of one year's
increase in the number of vehicles in one country (e.g., India). If so, are
people who recommend such things thinking globally but not clearly?

You're preaching to the choir, but for the acolytes of CO2 there will
always be Chinese and Indian coal fires. (-8
.

Loading