Republicans will eliminate the House committee created by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to highlight the threat of climate change, Representative James Sensenbrenner, the top Republican on the panel, said today.
In one of her first acts as speaker in 2007, Pelosi, a California Democrat, created the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to draw attention to climate-change science and showcase how a cap on carbon dioxide needn’t be a threat to economic growth.
Republicans, who won control of the House in the Nov. 2 election, have opposed legislative efforts to regulate carbon emissions as a tax on energy. When the panel convened today, Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, said that the hearing “will be the last of the select committee.”
Sensenbrenner had advocated extending the panel as a forum to scrutinize Obama administration actions. In an opinion column on Nov. 8 in the Washington newspaper Roll Call, he wrote that the committee was “more qualified than any other” to challenge Obama environmental initiatives that he said may threaten the economy. He acknowledged that other Republicans thought the panel should be eliminated to save money.
“We are going to get rid of waste and duplication in terms of how we run the Congress,” House Republican Leader John Boehner, who is slated to become speaker in January, told reporters today. “We believe the Science Committee is more than capable of handling this issue and in the process save several million dollars.”
‘Very Disappointing’
Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi, said it’s “very disappointing” that House Republicans will shut the committee and won’t make energy independence and climate change a priority in the next Congress.
“Disbanding the select committee does not diminish the urgent need to act on these very critical issues,” Hammill said in an e-mailed statement.
The election increased the ranks of Republican climate- change skeptics in both the House and Senate, according to ThinkProgress, an arm of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a Washington research group allied with Democrats.
Committee Chairman Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, criticized the attitude among many Republican lawmakers.
“While members of Congress may question the science of global warming, the rest of the world does not,” he said in his final statement as chairman.
The panel held 75 hearings, creating a record of evidence showing that humans are causing the planet to warm and that the United States is in danger of falling behind in the race for clean-energy technologies, Markey said. China plans to invest $738 billion on clean-energy technologies, he said.
“The politics may change but the problem isn’t going away,” Markey said.
Hahahahaha! Hey, remember all the hype about the Copenhagen global warming party...er...cough...important climate conference? Remember all the politicians who went over there last year? This year, the politicians can't seem to get far enough away from Cancun and the latest global warming bullshit party...
Scams die hard, but eventually they die, and when they do, nobody wants to get close to the corpse. You can get all the hotel rooms you want this week in Cancun.
The global-warming caravan has moved on, bound for a destination in oblivion. The United Nations is hanging the usual lamb chop in the window this week in Mexico for the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, but the Washington guests are staying home. Nobody wants to get the smell of the corpse on their clothes.
Everybody who imagined himself anybody raced to Copenhagen last year for the global-warming summit, renamed "climate change" when the globe began to cool, as it does from time to time. Some 45,000 delegates, "activists," business representatives and the usual retinue of journalists registered for the party in Copenhagen. This year, only 1,234 journalists registered for the Cancun beach party. The only story there is that there's no story there. The U.N. organizers glumly concede that Cancun won't amount to anything, even by U.N. standards.
Rep. Henry A. Waxman of California, who wrote and sponsored the cap-and-trade legislation last year, says he'll be too busy with congressional business (buying stamps for the Christmas cards and getting a haircut and a shoeshine) even to think about going to Cancun. Last year, he joined Speaker Nancy Pelosi and dozens of other congressmen in taking staffers and spouses to the party in Copenhagen. The junket cost taxpayers $400,000, but Copenhagen is a friendly town and a good time was had by all. This year, they're all staying home, learning to live like lame ducks.
The Senate's California ladies, cheerleaders for the global-warming scam only yesterday, can't get far enough away from Cancun this year. Dianne Feinstein says she's not even thinking about the weather. "I haven't really thought about [Cancun], to be honest with you," she tells Politico, the Capitol Hill daily. She still loves the scam, but "no - no, no, no, it's just that I'm not on a committee related to it." She's grateful for small blessings.
Barbara Boxer, who was proud to make global warming her "signature" issue only last year, obviously regards that signature now to be a forgery. She would like to be in Cancun, but she has to stay home to wash her hair. She's not even sending anyone from her staff, willing as congressional staffers always are to party on the taxpayer dime. "I'm sending a statement to Cancun." (Stop the press for that.)
This is another lesson that Washington's swamp fevers inevitably subside. Who now remembers Smoot-Hawley, Quemoy and Matsu, and the Teapot Dome? But these were once issues on which the survival of the known world rested. The only global-warming news of this week was the announcement that the House Select Committee on Global Warming would die with the 111th Congress. Mrs. Pelosi established the committee three years ago to beat the eardrums of one and all, a platform for endless argle-bargle about the causes and effects of climate change. The result was the proposed job-killing national energy tax, but with the Republican sweep, there's no longer an appetite for killing jobs.
Rep. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, the chairman of the doomed committee, organized one final event this week, a splashy daylong exercise in gasbaggery starring the usual suspects assigned to drone on for most of the day about the coming global-warming disasters, the melting of the North Pole and the rising of the seas that would make Denver, Omaha and Kansas City seaside resorts. Wesley Clark was the only former presidential candidate to accept an invitation, and he was a no-show. The star witness of the afternoon session was Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an "environmental attorney" who talked about how "clean energy" is nicer than the other kind. Mr. Markey himself, as bored as everyone else, didn't bother to return after lunch.
The members of the committee can now retire with their scrapbooks of clippings to recall the happy days of hearings about global warming (some of them before "global warming" became "climate change" and "liberals" became "progressives"), about how clean energy could replace smelly oil wells and provide Democrats with the means to enact sweeping climate-change legislation. Who could have foreseen that the only "sweeping" would be the sweeping out of so many Democrats?
When the thrill is gone, the thrill is gone, as star-crossed lovers have learned through the ages, and when a scam collapses, it stays collapsed. The thought is enough to warm hearts all across the globe.
Yes the Conservative Senators killed the climate bill. Yes the leftist press made a big deal out of it. Of course they conveniently forgot that the Liberal Senators were guilty of killing the bill to crack down on child pornography, and stronger sentences for rapists and murderers.
The Conservatives almost have a majority, and with the attendance of the Liberal Senators being so poor, they have been able to have an effective majority. Hence the latest coup killing the climate bill.
A year ago tomorrow, just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident prediction. The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, 'is expected to be 14.58C [58.1 F], the warmest on record' -- a deeply worrying 0.58C above the 1961-1990 average.
World temperatures, it went on, were locked inexorably into an everrising trend: 'Our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far -- 1998.' . . .
Never mind that Britain, just as it was last winter and the winter before, was deep in the grip of a cold snap, which has seen some temperatures plummet to minus 20C, and that here 2010 has been the coolest year since 1996.
The usual myopic point of view "it's cold here right now so there's no climate change or warming". Feel free to look at the data for the entire earth and see what the temperature data shows....oh yeah, I forgot we can't trust the scientists we should trust the internet experts and know-it-alls instead.
quote
This year is set to be among the three warmest since records began in 1850 and caps a record-warm decade that is a new indication of man-made climate change, the United Nations said on Thursday.
"The trend is of very significant warming," Michel Jarraud, head of the World Meteorological Organization, told a news conference on the sidelines of a meeting of almost 200 nations in the Caribbean resort of Cancun trying to curb global warming.
He said 2010 so far was slightly warmer than both 1998 and 2005, the previous top two, but could slip if December is a cool month.
Re-read my post, not just the headline. The question in the headline is referring to temperatures in Britain, not the World. The article says "The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, 'is expected to be 14.58C [58.1 F], the warmest on record' -- a deeply worrying 0.58C above the 1961-1990 average.
World temperatures, it went on, were locked inexorably into an everrising trend: 'Our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far -- 1998.' . . ."
“We're not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” -- UN IPCC's Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.
“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” -- NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein, is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.” -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn't happen...Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” -- Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.
“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate...The planet's climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” -- Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences...AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” -- Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”
"I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” -- Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic's View.”
“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today,” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what 'science' has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed...Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring,
“Those who call themselves 'Green planet advocates' should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere...Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content...Al Gore's personal behavior supports a green planet - his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” -- Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named "100 most influential people in the world, 2004" by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him "the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer."
“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith...My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” -- Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia's CSIRO's (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.
“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” -- Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens' Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.
“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity...In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” -- Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences
“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” -- Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”
“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC's Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it's fraud.” -- South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.
Since our friend newf likes numbers of scientists, I have some numbers for him:
I see you have a new site to copy and paste from, good for you.
Really FieroBear when you quote these sites it's a little sad, some of the others you have shown with legitimate questions or points of view are interesting. Seems you are using the throw as much crap against the wall theory like someone else on here that likes to copy and paste whatever they come accross that supports their views, regardless of it being reputable or based on facts.
Anyways here's another of their selections from their "scientists".
quote
"Meteorologist Larry Cosgrove said on Fox News Channel on January 19, 2007, "I do not espouse the global kool-aid line of the American Meteorological Society. Now, I like many people, believe in global warming. You can't refute that. Temperatures are warming around the globe. But, the question is what's causing it. Is it purely man made as the American Meteorological Society and [the Weather Channel's Dr. [Heidi] Cullen espouse or is it a combination of events, namely what's happening on the earth and ‗some help' so to speak, from man kind?"
I'm sure lots of scientists don't agree fully with every part of Climate Change theories or computer models but as far as I have seen the vast majority are in agreement that pollution is a contibuting factor and should be something that man is very aware of.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-09-2010).]
Shouldn't that read "chickencrap against the wall"--from the chicken that runs around screaming "the sky is falling--the sky is falling"?
If you are talking about the alarmists you have a point.
If you're talking about me I doubt you have evidence of me saying that the world is in immediate peril due to Climate Change, in fact I doubt you'd find many scientists that say anything of the like. Almost as foolish "ostriches" with their heads in the sand about the effects of pollution and man on the environment.
It's part of a U.S. Senate report, with scientists as signatories. It's not crap against a wall.
A minority report headed by Jim Inhofe. How many times has that earmark specialist been proven wrong? And yeah that site is filled with flinging crap that reeks of desperation.
I don't care if you hate the cap and Tax stuff or the idea that the countries of the world see this as a problem that needs addressing and are proposing an economic based solution (you probably should be very suspect of it) but pretty much every noted scientific body and even the political regimes of most nations have accepted that pollution is detrimental to humans in one way or another and have realized that action needs to be taken. Amazing how some are crying over leaving debt to their kids and grandkids but could care less what kind of environment they might inherit.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-09-2010).]
A minority report headed by Jim Inhofe. How many times has that earmark specialist been proven wrong? Do you believe everything someone says because they are Republican or do you actually question for yourself?
James Inhof is a Senator who deals with scientists because he's on the EPW (Environmental and Public Works) committee. The document is supported by SCIENTISTS, not just some bloviating Senator. I wouldn't bother just quoting a senator. Try fricken reading.
quote
And yeah that site is filled with flinging crap that reeks of desperation.
The only goddamn desperation is by the warmist scientists who fear their cash cow is slipping away. Global warming is DYING. Deal with it.
quote
I don't care if you hate the cap and Tax stuff or the idea that the countries of the world see this as a problem that needs addressing and are proposing an economic based solution but pretty much every noted scientific body and even the political regimes of most nations have accepted that pollution is detrimental to humans in one way or another and have realized that action needs to be taken. Amazing how some are crying over leaving debt to their kids and grandkids but could care less what kind of environment they might inherit.
CO2 is NOT pollution, newf. Get that through your head.
CO2 is NOT pollution, newf. Get that through your head.
You're kind of correct, in lesser amounts in may not be.
"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form."
We commonly think of pollutants as contaminants that make the environment dirty or impure. A vivid example is sulphur dioxide, a by-product of industrial activity. High levels of sulphur dioxide cause breathing problems. Too much causes acid rain. Sulphur dioxide has a direct effect on health and the environment. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is a naturally occuring gas that existed in the atmosphere long before humans. Plants need it to survive. The CO2 greenhouse effect keeps our climate from freezing over. How can CO2 be considered a pollutant?
A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem. Over the past 10,000 years, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained at relatively stable levels. However, human CO2 emissions over the past few centuries have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has some direct effects on the environment. For example, as the oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, it leads to acidification that affects many marine ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer temperatures
Rising CO2 levels causes an enhanced greenhouse effect. This leads to warmer temperatures which has many consequences. Some effects are beneficial such as improved agriculture at high latitudes and increased vegetation growth in some circumstances. However, the negatives far outweigh the positives. Coast-bound communities are threatened by rising sea levels. Melting glaciers threaten the water supplies of hundreds of millions. Species are becoming extinct at the fastest rate in history.
How we choose to define the word 'pollutant' is a play in semantics. To focus on a few positive effects of carbon dioxide is to ignore the broader picture of its full impacts. The net result from increasing CO2 are severe negative impacts on our environment and the living conditions of future humanity. http://www.tos.org/oceanogr..._2/20.2_caldeira.pdf
You're kind of correct, in lesser amounts in may not be.
"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form."
We commonly think of pollutants as contaminants that make the environment dirty or impure. A vivid example is sulphur dioxide, a by-product of industrial activity. High levels of sulphur dioxide cause breathing problems. Too much causes acid rain. Sulphur dioxide has a direct effect on health and the environment. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is a naturally occuring gas that existed in the atmosphere long before humans. Plants need it to survive. The CO2 greenhouse effect keeps our climate from freezing over. How can CO2 be considered a pollutant?
A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem. Over the past 10,000 years, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained at relatively stable levels. However, human CO2 emissions over the past few centuries have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has some direct effects on the environment. For example, as the oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, it leads to acidification that affects many marine ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer temperatures
Rising CO2 levels causes an enhanced greenhouse effect. This leads to warmer temperatures which has many consequences. Some effects are beneficial such as improved agriculture at high latitudes and increased vegetation growth in some circumstances. However, the negatives far outweigh the positives. Coast-bound communities are threatened by rising sea levels. Melting glaciers threaten the water supplies of hundreds of millions. Species are becoming extinct at the fastest rate in history.
How we choose to define the word 'pollutant' is a play in semantics. To focus on a few positive effects of carbon dioxide is to ignore the broader picture of its full impacts. The net result from increasing CO2 are severe negative impacts on our environment and the living conditions of future humanity. http://www.tos.org/oceanogr..._2/20.2_caldeira.pdf
Except that the CO2 isn't having any measurable effect, and all the computer models and projections for the last 20 years are WRONG. Relax, CO2 isn't going to cause any catastrophes, large or small.
James Inhof is a Senator who deals with scientists because he's on the EPW (Environmental and Public Works) committee. The document is supported by SCIENTISTS, not just some bloviating Senator. I wouldn't bother just quoting a senator. Try fricken reading.
I did read, and as I said these "scientists" they quote have many different issues that they bring up, many don't deny Climate Change but just have issues with certain specifics while others are hardly scientists as I showed with the quote from the weather man from FOX. I heard there was a list of 31,000 scientists as well .
Except that the CO2 isn't having any measurable effect, and all the computer models and projections for the last 20 years are WRONG. Relax, CO2 isn't going to cause any catastrophes, large or small.
Well now I'm convinced. The amount of expertise about such matters on this site is astounding.
Well now I'm convinced. The amount of expertise about such matters on this site is astounding.
I gave you the Lindzen paper which showed EVERY one of the climate models WRONG, it was a published and peer reviewed paper, and it undermines one of the major bases for the warming scenario. You just skipped over it.
I gave you the Lindzen paper which showed EVERY one of the climate models WRONG, it was a published and peer reviewed paper, and it undermines one of the major bases for the warming scenario. You just skipped over it.
Fine, newf. Believe. Knock yourself out.
From what I know of this Lindzen paper it was a study based on 14 years of data from the tropics ONLY. Somehow it shows every climate model wrong? Wow must have been huge in the scientific community to show everyone else wrong.
GW supporters are big on saying people aren't looking at a big enough picture, but they don't want them to look at Too big of a picture either. The larger the slice of time, the more global changes are shown to be naturally cyclic, and GW supporters do not like that to become common knowledge. They like to show slices of time just large enough to indicate that only man has an adverse influence on climate change. Very few people buy that bill of goods any more, and it is one of the reasons Cancun is going so badly for the alarmists. I'll be surprised if they leave Cancun with even a renewed Kyoto Accord.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 12-09-2010).]
I don't pretend to understand these highly technical blog entries from the RealClimate website, but they do suggest that Lindzen's conclusions are anything but widely accepted.
So the technical controversies continue.
I look with favor upon innovative projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially when the projects can be shown to have additional benefits. Like FutureGen, for example.
From what I know of this Lindzen paper it was a study based on 14 years of data from the tropics ONLY. Somehow it shows every climate model wrong? Wow must have been huge in the scientific community to show everyone else wrong.
But that's part of the point - his paper is based on ACTUAL DATA, and the climate models are just that - models, NOT real data.
By the way, that is how you prove your point in the scientific community, with data. And yes, one person and a paper with real data CAN prove everyone else wrong. That's the point I've been trying to get through to you all this time, as opposed to how many scientists agree or vote on something.
Lindzen? His paper(s) have not emerged above the fray as "the last word" by any means..
I never said it was. It simply shows the real data proves the models wrong, and is a significant proof that a big portion of AGW is wrong.
quote
I don't pretend to understand these highly technical blog entries from the RealClimate website, but they do suggest that Lindzen's conclusions are anything but widely accepted.
Ah, realclimate.nonsense, the blogsite for warmists like Michael "hockey stick crap" Mann and Gavin Schmidt, who works with James Hansen on cooking the numbers to make them look hotter.
quote
I look with favor upon innovative projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially when the projects can be shown to have additional benefits. Like FutureGen, for example.
That's about as far as my thinking takes me.
If AGW is false, then reducing greenhouse gases is a waste of time and money.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-09-2010).]
GW supporters are big on saying people aren't looking at a big enough picture, but they don't want them to look at Too big of a picture either. The larger the slice of time, the more global changes are shown to be naturally cyclic, and GW supporters do not like that to become common knowledge. They like to show slices of time just large enough to indicate that only man has an adverse influence on climate change. Very few people buy that bill of goods any more, and it is one of the reasons Cancun is going so badly for the alarmists. I'll be surprised if they leave Cancun with even a renewed Kyoto Accord.
Actually the science I've seen they take into account the earths history for millenia and have shown the rates of CO2 in the atmoshphere are unprecedented and likely the case for the Current Climate change . The Kyoto, Copenhagan, and Cancun summits seeme to be more held up about economic policy over the science of climate change. Many of the newer industrialized nations believe it is unfair for those countries who have gotten rich while polluting the atmoshpere to say that they can't do the same.
Be sure to mention that to the asthma sufferers, children and elderly when they have to stay inside on smog days.
I didn't know smog was made up of CO2 (sarcasm), it isn't even one of it's components.
quote
In the 1950s a new type of smog, known as photochemical smog, was first described. This forms when sunlight hits various pollutants in the air and forms a mix of inimical chemicals that can be very dangerous. A photochemical smog is the chemical reaction of sunlight, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere, which leaves airborne particles (called particulate matter) and ground-level ozone.[2]
Nitrogen oxides are released by nitrogen and oxygen in the air reacting together under high temperature such as in the exhaust of fossil fuel-burning engines in cars, trucks, coal power plants, and industrial manufacturing factories. VOCs are released from man-made sources such as gasoline (petrol), paints, solvents, pesticides, and biogenic sources, such as pine and citrus tree emissions.
This noxious mixture of air pollutants can include the following:
Aldehydes (RCHO) Nitrogen oxides, such as nitrogen dioxide Peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN) Tropospheric ozone Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) All of these chemicals are usually highly reactive and oxidizing. Photochemical smog is therefore considered to be a problem of modern industrialization. It is present in all modern cities, but it is more common in cities with sunny, warm, dry climates and a large number of motor vehicles.[3] Because it travels with the wind, it can affect sparsely populated areas as well.
Maube you are confusing it with Carbon Monoxide.
quote
Smog is a serious problem in many cities and continues to harm human health.[4] Ground-level ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide are especially harmful for senior citizens, children, and people with heart and lung conditions such as emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma.[5] It can inflame breathing passages, decrease the lungs' working capacity, cause shortness of breath, pain when inhaling deeply, wheezing, and coughing. It can cause eye and nose irritation and it dries out the protective membranes of the nose and throat and interferes with the body's ability to fight infection, increasing susceptibility to illness. Hospital admissions and respiratory deaths often increase during periods when ozone levels are high.[6]
The U.S. EPA has developed an Air Quality Index to help explain air pollution levels to the general public. 8 hour average ozone concentrations of 85 to 104 ppbv are described as "Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups", 105 ppbv to 124 ppbv as "unhealthy" and 125 ppb to 404 ppb as "very unhealthy".[7] The "very unhealthy" range for some other pollutants are: 355 μg m−3 - 424 μg m−3 for PM10; 15.5 ppm - 30.4ppm for CO and 0.65 ppm - 1.24 ppm for NO2.[8]
The Ontario Medical Association announced that smog is responsible for an estimated 9,500 premature deaths in the province each year.[9]
A 20-year American Cancer Society study found that cumulative exposure also increases the likelihood of premature death from a respiratory disease, implying the 8-hour standard may be insufficient.[10]
Do you know what would happen if we eliminate CO2 from the air? What do plants need so that photosynthesis can occur? What is the lower limit of CO2 levels that would be acceptable?
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 12-09-2010).]
I didn't know smog was made up of CO2 (sarcasm), it isn't even one of it's components.
Never said it was, if you look at FieroBears post he said Greenhouse gases. As far as I know many Greenhouse gases do make up smog.
Level of CO2 that is acceptable? I'm not sure but probably an amount at which the earth can absorb it, I'll leave that to the scientific community to research and decide what they think. If you look at what they are saying the measurements have shown that much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is Man Made due to it's chemical signature.
Smog and green house gas are two very different things. Smog is ground level pollution. Green house gas is for the most part water vapour and nitrogen.
Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is not man made. Who wrote that little piece of fiction? Most CO2 is produced by the oceans, more correctly the algae in the oceans. It dwarfs man's output of CO2 by a whole lot.
If we want to talk about asthma, you have to know what you are talking about. CO2 has no bearing on asthma. The pollutants in smog do directly affect asthmatics as does smoke of any type.
The fact is that after 10 years of reduced sun output, the earth is reacting with weather extremes, both cold and hot but more cold than hot. The gulf stream is oscillating and bringing some pretty severe winter weather to most of the Northern Hemisphere right now.
In my area, the Great Lakes do not normally freeze over solid until later in December, and we tend to get more snow before the New Year. This year it is more extreme. The amount of Arctic air blowing across the lakes is pretty aggressive and we are getting record snowfalls as a result.
This is not due to Global Warming. It is due to the stronger Arctic air movement southward and the results are pretty impressive.
Smog and green house gas are two very different things. Smog is ground level pollution. Green house gas is for the most part water vapour and nitrogen.
Arn
Not sure where I said smog and CO2 were the same. Burning of hydrocarbons contributes to both however.
quote
greenhouse gas Any of the atmospheric gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect by absorbing infrared radiation produced by solar warming of the Earth's surface. They include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (NO2), and water vapor. Although greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, the elevated levels especially of carbon dioxide and methane that have been observed in recent decades are directly related, at least in part, to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and the deforestation of tropical forests.
smog (smg, smôg) n. 1. Fog that has become mixed and polluted with smoke. 2. A form of air pollution produced by the photochemical reaction of sunlight with hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides that have been released into the atmosphere, especially by automotive emissions.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:
Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is not man made. Who wrote that little piece of fiction? Most CO2 is produced by the oceans, more correctly the algae in the oceans. It dwarfs man's output of CO2 by a whole lot.
Never said most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man made at all. The chemical signature part that I mentioned we've discussed before.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:
If we want to talk about asthma, you have to know what you are talking about. CO2 has no bearing on asthma. The pollutants in smog do directly affect asthmatics as does smoke of any type.
I never said CO2 effects asthma in anyway, my assertion is that the burning of hydrocarbons effect people with lung problems and reducing the emissions would be a good thing.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:
The fact is that after 10 years of reduced sun output, the earth is reacting with weather extremes, both cold and hot but more cold than hot. The gulf stream is oscillating and bringing some pretty severe winter weather to most of the Northern Hemisphere right now.
In my area, the Great Lakes do not normally freeze over solid until later in December, and we tend to get more snow before the New Year. This year it is more extreme. The amount of Arctic air blowing across the lakes is pretty aggressive and we are getting record snowfalls as a result.
This is not due to Global Warming. It is due to the stronger Arctic air movement southward and the results are pretty impressive.
Arn
This is merely opinion that probably has many contributing factors some of which you may be correct about but as usual you seem to find many other reasons for such extremes but discount the effect of incrreased levels of CO2 and it's effects. The real experts seem to have a more open mind when they study Climate.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-09-2010).]
You continue to miss the point entirely. CO2 increase in the atmosphere is an effect not a cause. And, it is mostly caused by the oceans, not anthropologically produced CO2 due to burning fuels. It is also the smallest component of the greenhouse effect.
Even the huge forest fires in various parts of the world produce a tiny fraction of CO2.
Originally posted by newf: Never said it was, if you look at FieroBears post he said Greenhouse gases. As far as I know many Greenhouse gases do make up smog.
You're cherry picking. Or did you seriously not know what I meant?
quote
Level of CO2 that is acceptable? I'm not sure but probably an amount at which the earth can absorb it, I'll leave that to the scientific community to research and decide what they think. If you look at what they are saying the measurements have shown that much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is Man Made due to it's chemical signature.
Perhaps you'll like this article, which raises the possibility that doubling of CO2 won't be a disaster...
'Important to get these things right', says scientist
A group of top NASA boffins says 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.
In particular, 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. Most current climate models don't account for this at all, 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.
Bounoua and her colleagues write:
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 boffins 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 devoted to keeping 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.
It now appears, however, that the previous/current state of climate science may simply have been wrong and that there's really no need to get in an immediate flap. 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 (subscription required).
Wow, that seems like a very important study into the intricacies of Climate projection and the fact that the scientists are constantly trying to more fully understand and fine tune their modeling. I do notice however the OPINION piece you provided seems to have edited the original statements by the authour of the study (some may say cherrypicked )
Maybe you sill soon realize how much of that cherrypicking goes on by both sides of many arguements especially on the web, it's hard to avoid sometimes. I am including both sides on this deniers and alarmists about this particular subject.
The article you referenced seems to have omitted this...
quote
Bounoua stressed that while the model's results showed a negative feedback, it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend that is expected. In fact, the present work is an example of how, over time, scientists will create more sophisticated models that will chip away at the uncertainty range of climate change and allow more accurate projections of future climate.
"This feedback slows but does not alleviate the projected warming," Bounoua said.
and...
quote
The modeling approach also investigated how stimulation of plant growth in a world with doubled carbon dioxide levels would be fueled by warmer temperatures, increased precipitation in some regions and plants' more efficient use of water due to carbon dioxide being more readily available in the atmosphere. Previous climate models have included these aspects but not down-regulation. The models without down-regulation projected little to no cooling from vegetative growth.
Scientists agree that in a world where carbon dioxide has doubled – a standard basis for many global warming modeling simulations – temperature would increase from 2 to 4.5 degrees C (3.5 to 8.0 F). (The model used in this study found warming – without incorporating the plant feedback – on the low end of this range.) The uncertainty in that range is mostly due to uncertainty about "feedbacks" – how different aspects of the Earth system will react to a warming world, and then how those changes will either amplify (positive feedback) or dampen (negative feedback) the overall warming.
An example of a positive feedback would be if warming temperatures caused forests to grow in the place of Arctic tundra. The darker surface of a forest canopy would absorb more solar radiation than the snowy tundra, which reflects more solar radiation. The greater absorption would amplify warming. The vegetative feedback modeled in this research, in which increased plant growth would exert a cooling effect, is an example of a negative feedback. The feedback quantified in this study is a result of an interaction between all these aspects: carbon dioxide enrichment, a warming and moistening climate, plants' more efficient use of water, down-regulation and the ability for leaf growth.
This new paper is one of many steps toward gradually improving overall future climate projections, a process that involves better modeling of both warming and cooling feedbacks.
"As we learn more about how these systems react, we can learn more about how the climate will change," said co-author Forrest Hall, of the University of Maryland-Baltimore County and Goddard Space Flight Center. "Each year we get better and better. It's important to get these things right just as it's important to get the track of a hurricane right. We've got to get these models right, and improve our projections, so we'll know where to most effectively concentrate mitigation efforts."
The results presented here indicate that changes in the state of vegetation may already be playing a role in the continental water, energy and carbon budgets as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases, said Piers Sellers, a co-author from NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas.
"We're learning more and more about how our planet really works," Sellers said. "We have suspected for some time that the connection between vegetation photosynthesis and the surface energy balance could be a significant player in future climate. This study gives us an indication of the strength and sign of one of these biosphere-atmosphere feedbacks."
Originally posted by fierobear: Perhaps you'll like this article, which raises the possibility that doubling of CO2 won't be a disaster...
Perhaps. But perhaps not. What if I remark this article, which raises the possibility that doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would actually be double the disaster that current climate models are predicting? The report closes with this:
quote
If our model results prove to be representative of the real global climate, then climate is actually more sensitive to perturbations by greenhouse gases than current global models predict, and even the highest warming predictions would underestimate the real change we could see ...
I heard there was a list of 31,000 scientists as well 
