How many times are you going to ask the same question, which has already been answered?
Until you are able to answer directly. You have claimed that you are not an expert but won't admit YOUR assertions on this subject are your opinion and not fact.
I want to know if you think that your beliefs on this subject are no more or less valid than anyone elses as you are basing them on what you are reading and trusting and not from some sort of imagined expertise.
Until you are able to answer directly. You have claimed that you are not an expert but won't admit YOUR assertions on this subject are your opinion and not fact.
I want to know if you think that your beliefs on this subject are no more or less valid than anyone elses as you are basing them on what you are reading and trusting and not from some sort of imagined expertise.
Napolitano Says DHS to Begin Battling Climate Change as Homeland Security Issue
At an all-day White House conference on "environmental justice," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that her department is creating a new task force to battle the effects of climate change on domestic security operations.
Speaking at the first White House Forum on Environmental Justice on Thursday, Napolitano discussed the initial findings of the department’s recently created "Climate Change and Adaptation Task Force."
Napolitano explained that the task force was charged with “identifying and assessing the impact that climate change could have on the missions and operations of the Department of Homeland Security.”
According to the former Arizona governor, the task force would address specific questions, including:
“How will FEMA work with state and local partners to plan for increased flooding or wildfire or hurricane activity that is more serious than we’ve seen before? What assistance can the Coast Guard bring to bear to assist remote villages in, for example, Alaska which already have been negatively affected by changes up in the Arctic?”
The findings from the Homeland Security Department (DHS) also asked: “(H)ow can we focus on how climate change is going to affect our rural citizenry including those who live along our boarders both northern and southern?”
Napolitano did not elaborate on the new task force and the Department of Homeland Security has yet to respond to requests by CNSNews.com for additional information on the task force.
The conference did not define “environmental justice,” and the only reference to the task force that can be found is on the DHS Web site. The June 2010 Department of Homeland Security Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan states “climate change has the potential to accelerate and intensify extreme weather events which threaten the nation’s sustainability and security.”
This plan also noted: “Many USCG [Coast Guard] and Customs and Border Protection facilities, by their mission, are located in the coastal zone which will be adversely impacted by sea level rise. Costs will increase for protecting existing facilities from the impacts of sea level rise and some facilities might have to be abandoned in the longer term.”
The all day White House Forum on Environmental Justice also included talks by White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.
Our tax dollars at work.
------------------
"THE GREAT GOD AND MASTER OF THE CUT AND PASTE WORLD"
Until you are able to answer directly. You have claimed that you are not an expert but won't admit YOUR assertions on this subject are your opinion and not fact.
I want to know if you think that your beliefs on this subject are no more or less valid than anyone elses as you are basing them on what you are reading and trusting and not from some sort of imagined expertise.
It's not what I say, think or believe, it's about the articles I post.
Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the Government's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, said last week.
Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the Government's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, said last week.
He said the Earth was entering the "first hot period" for 60 million years, when there was no ice on the planet and "the rest of the globe could not sustain human life". The warning - one of the starkest delivered by a top scientist - comes as ministers decide next week whether to weaken measures to cut the pollution that causes climate change, even though Tony Blair last week described the situation as "very, very critical indeed".
The Prime Minister - who was launching a new alliance of governments, businesses and pressure groups to tackle global warming - added that he could not think of "any bigger long-term question facing the world community".
Yet the Government is considering relaxing limits on emissions by industry under an EU scheme on Tuesday.
Sir David said that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - the main "green- house gas" causing climate change - were already 50 per cent higher than at any time in the past 420,000 years. The last time they were at this level - 379 parts per million - was 60 million years ago during a rapid period of global warming, he said. Levels soared to 1,000 parts per million, causing a massive reduction of life.
"No ice was left on Earth. Antarctica was the best place for mammals to live, and the rest of the world would not sustain human life," he said.
Sir David warned that if the world did not curb its burning of fossil fuels "we will reach that level by 2100".
As Colorado braces for epic snowfall, Great Britain literally comes to a halt because of record blizzards, and the whole northern hemisphere enters what is predicted to be an especially harsh winter, some climate change experts are blaming the cold spell on global warming.
Earlier this month, the website reportingclimatescience.com reported that warmer temperatures in the Arctic actually cause colder temperatures everywhere else.
“The Atlantic pressure system that controls the gateway that allows cold northern air to flow south into Europe has been stuck in the same ‘open’ position for a record 14 months, while the Arctic pressure system is amplifying the effect by driving even more cold air south,” the website reported.
According to the theory, as cold air leaves the Arctic and the polar bears scramble to find the few remaining ice caps, that cold air hovers over Europe and the U.S. According to the report, the same phenomenon occurred in 1942, a phenomenon that, coincidentally, helped the Soviet Union repel the Nazi invasion.
The argument is relatively simple: The atmospheric pressure system at the top of the globe, known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), is either positive or negative. When it is positive, the difference between the highness and lowness of the two pressure systems coming from the mid-Atlantic and Iceland is big, causing warmer weather. Colder weather occurs when the difference is smaller and NAO is negative.
Some call this phenomenon the Arctic Paradox: that as the Arctic gets warmer, the cold air doesn’t necessarily disappear, it just shifts south. In other words, there isn’t any weather, hot or cold, that can’t be explained with global warming theory. Unsurprisingly, some are not convinced.
“You can make up any analogy you want, but the fact is that computer models don’t show that change,” Pat Michaels, a climatologist and senior fellow at the Cato Institute told The Daily Caller. “If you can’t model it, you don’t have any evidence for it.”
It is, said Michaels, the “core problem of climatology:” “It is attempting to explain everything even when everything becomes contradictory.”
“They make this stuff up as they go along,” said Myron Ebell, director of the Center of Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “If this theory is true, a necessary consequence is that there will be less severe winter storms because arctic air masses will not be as cold.”
According to Ebell, if the Arctic was getting warmer, the air rushing south would also be warm. This would reduce the difference between the two meeting pressure systems, leading to less severe winter weather. This hasn’t happened.
Sir David said that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - the main "green- house gas" causing climate change - were already 50 per cent higher than at any time in the past 420,000 years. The last time they were at this level - 379 parts per million - was 60 million years ago during a rapid period of global warming, he said. Levels soared to 1,000 parts per million, causing a massive reduction of life.
"No ice was left on Earth. Antarctica was the best place for mammals to live, and the rest of the world would not sustain human life," he said.
I say, unless he has pictures and videotape, in the immortal words of the great Neal Boortz, " Yak squeeze."
Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the Government's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, said last week.
As the satellite photos show, the Northwest Passage has been closed to traffic for some time. There is no body of water for polar bears to drown in, and in fact, the polar bear count has been growing yearly.
Even the pro Global Warming press sources admit the bear population is healthy and in no danger.
As for the "the gateway that allows cold northern air to flow south into Europe" what allot of poppycock. What "gateway"? It is the highly fluctuating Jet Stream that is influencing allot. They just don't want to admit that when there is too much cold air it spills southward. If the Jet Stream allows it, it spills. And it is spilling big time.
When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since.
[This message has been edited by TommyRocker (edited 12-22-2010).]
Yup, a great example how the media can lock onto things and scare monger while the scientific community are usually more apt to try and come up with real answers.
From the selected article
quote
Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-22-2010).]
Uh...OK...it looks like you missed the point of that article completely. It was about a scientist in 2004 predicting that by the end of this century, the warming would make everywhere by Antarctica uninhabitable. I posted it to show the arm waving going on about warming, not about any possible returning ice age.
I assume you objected to the byline of the article being from back in 2004? It was about what he was predicting for the next century.
As the satellite photos show, the Northwest Passage has been closed to traffic for some time. There is no body of water for polar bears to drown in, and in fact, the polar bear count has been growing yearly.
Even the pro Global Warming press sources admit the bear population is healthy and in no danger.
As for the "the gateway that allows cold northern air to flow south into Europe" what allot of poppycock. What "gateway"? It is the highly fluctuating Jet Stream that is influencing allot. They just don't want to admit that when there is too much cold air it spills southward. If the Jet Stream allows it, it spills. And it is spilling big time.
Arn
Do you even bother reading the site that you link?
What are you saying here? That there is ice in the artic in December?? Ummm yeah it has a tendency to be ice covered in going into the coldest months but it's less covered than previous years. Did you notice the graph that shows the CONTINUED DOWNWARD TREND OF ARTIC SEA ICE EXTENT over the last 30 years.
You are using satellite images from a site and then discounting everything that they are saying. Did you read the associated articles where they say things like "Arctic sea ice grew more slowly than average in November, leading to the second-lowest ice extent for the month. At the end of November, Hudson Bay was still nearly ice-free."
You might want to take a look around and see who is doing all the arm waving, this thread is a great example, or almost any one that involves weather on this site. Who are the usually first to bring up Climate Change?
The scientists rarely "arm wave" IMO, usually it's the media that locks onto something to try and create some kind of fear.
On the other side you have conspiracy theorists that arm wave that the science is a scam/lies to take control of your pocketbook and freedom.
There's definitely dis-information and fear mongering by both sides of the debate but normally the science speaks for itself and the personalities/media are the ones who get involved, cherry pick and prognosticate.
My deduction, from all the articles posted, is: Nobody knows for sure what is going to happen weather wise. The best they can do is to say it might get very hot or it might get freezing cold and they have a 50:50 chance of being right or wrong. No one knows what the tipping point is or if one really exists or what would cause it. There are too many variables that they don't include in their formulas or models to predict the weather. They can't even predict the weather a few days into the future with any certainty, so what makes anyone think they can predict it for years, decades or centuries away? The whole climate change thing is a political tool for global wealth redistribution. They are using it to create a non existing crisis so they can cash in on it. Hot or cold does not matter, as long as the public is kept in a panic.
Uh...OK...it looks like you missed the point of that article completely. It was about a scientist in 2004 predicting that by the end of this century, the warming would make everywhere by Antarctica uninhabitable. I posted it to show the arm waving going on about warming, not about any possible returning ice age.
I assume you objected to the byline of the article being from back in 2004? It was about what he was predicting for the next century.
Geez, man.
My point is that any "Climate Science" more than 36 hours old is garbage. That article was 6 years' worth of trends behind. Antarctica has already thawed, frozen, thawed, been inhabited by South Africans, frozen again, thawed and been the only inhabited land mass on Earth, re-frozen, disappeared entirely, and re-appeared as it was 20 years ago since that article was published. Theories change every day, the only constant is that the end of the world is fast approaching, and the only way we can stop it is with more taxes, more restrictions, less freedom, electric cars that magically don't use coal to get electricity or petroleum products for the massive amounts of plastic they are made with, and praying to Al Gore.
These talks are pointless. On one hand you have people showing scientists in their corner supporting their views, on the other hand you have people showing more scientists in their corner, supporting their views. Group A stands to make a lot of money from the oil and car companies, group B stands to make a lot of money from the governments of the world, who stand to make money by taxing the peoples of the world into oblivion based on "facts" presented by said scientists.
Both groups discount the other group as crackpots who are just out to make money.
Of course...sensationalism is easy money. Always has been, always will be. Generally the most sensational story you hear is BS.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: I remember the Global Iceage scare well. We had scientists claiming Canada would be covered in ice year round.
They were no more correct than the current Global Warming scaremongers. Nice reference piece.
That was during the 1970s. They were concerned about air pollution in the form of particulate matter (soot) from various human activities. If the atmosphere had continued to be loaded with particulate matter, there would have been a "global ice age" because airborne particles reflect heat energy away from the earth. But stricter air pollution controls that went into effect in the 1970s and 1980s cleared the air of much of that particulate matter. So you can't say that those predictions of a "global ice age" were entirely unfounded.
I think you missed the main point of that article. That is... there was a 30 year Global Cooling, however, as always a period of Global Cooling is followed by a period of Global Warming. This is a continual cycle up and down with fluctuation in the pattern. Once in a while it fluctuates into an Ice Age. We have never had a desert age. The particulate matter, don't forget, was much more a problem in the age of steam. In the 1800's there was a real problem with particulate matter from factories and homes were all fired from wood and coal.
The period in the 1940's to 1970's was the period when the fuel system converted to gas, hydro and nuclear. There is no justification to blame particulate matter for the weather in 1970 just the same as there is no justification to blame the weather on CO2. It is all quack science.
My deduction, from all the articles posted, is: Nobody knows for sure what is going to happen weather wise. The best they can do is to say it might get very hot or it might get freezing cold and they have a 50:50 chance of being right or wrong. No one knows what the tipping point is or if one really exists or what would cause it. There are too many variables that they don't include in their formulas or models to predict the weather. They can't even predict the weather a few days into the future with any certainty, so what makes anyone think they can predict it for years, decades or centuries away? The whole climate change thing is a political tool for global wealth redistribution. They are using it to create a non existing crisis so they can cash in on it. Hot or cold does not matter, as long as the public is kept in a panic.
I can see people thinking having that opinion.
My thoughts are more that climate and weather are different and the formula and models have been pretty good and getting more accurate all the time. Think of how one predicts weather for you as an individual? I can tell you it will rain in your city tomorrow and your particular section of that city may not see a drop, however did it still rain in your city? Was the Meteorologist wrong? Maybe for you as an individual but maybe he was right for almost everyone else in your city. Now if they tell you the sun will rise at a certain time and it doesn't I would start to get concerned.
In regards to Climate the science is not pointing to some kind of abrupt cataclysm but a change over many years that will effect the globe and make significant changes to it from what I've read. The idea that Governments are using the facts to try and curb mans effect on the environment is a good thing IMO, I doubt many would recycle much or companies would have stopped dumping toxic chemicals in landfills if not for people being educated and regulations about such matters being implemented.
I see the media as the major panic inducers not the scientists.
Can the scientists get something wrong? Hell yes. But in this case the overwhelming majority of science seems to point in the same direction and if the effect of that science is the lessening of mans polluting and negative effect on the environment. I say good.
When they charge an extra amount on tires or batteries or whatever to pay for their safe disposal I have no problem with it in fact it makes sense that we should pay for the disposal of the items we use IMO.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-22-2010).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: I remember the Global Iceage scare well. We had scientists claiming Canada would be covered in ice year round.
They were no more correct than the current Global Warming scaremongers. Nice reference piece.
Comparing the reliability of today's thinking about AGW to the "ice age" predictions of the 1970s is like comparing apples to oranges.
In the 1970s, climate science was in its infancy, compared to what is available today. I can only cite a few examples of what has changed in the last 40 years: New measurement platforms, especially satellites; more powerful computer models; forty more years of research in paleoclimatology; new insight gained from closer observations of Venus and Mars; forty more years of solar observation--all off the top of my head. I'm sure there is more.
I think that global warming skeptics tend to confer way too much significance on what climate scientists were saying in the 1970s.
Much of what they were saying as far back as the 1970s has become completely irrelevant to the current situation.
The idea that Governments are using the facts to try and curb mans effect on the environment is a good thing IMO, I doubt many would recycle much or companies would have stopped dumping toxic chemicals in landfills if not for people being educated and regulations about such matters being implemented.
We aren't talking about toxic chemicals, and we're not talking about recycling. We are talking about governments in the industrialized world (that includes the U.S. and Canada) regulating CO2. You keep talking about toxins, pollution, and so on. It's about CO2, newf. THAT'S what AGW is all about. I've also shown, in their OWN WORDS, that they are interested not just in the environment, but redistribution of wealth from our countries to lesser developed countries.
If you are OK with the following:
1. Taxing CO2, which will increase the cost of energy, heating, gasoline, food, and everything you buy 2. Taxing you and sending the money to 3rd world countries
...then we don't have much to talk about. I don't approve.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-23-2010).]
We aren't talking about toxic chemicals, and we're not talking about recycling. We are talking about governments in the industrialized world (that includes the U.S. and Canada) regulating CO2. You keep talking about toxins, pollution, and so on. It's about CO2, newf. THAT'S what AGW is all about. I've also shown, in their OWN WORDS, that they are interested not just in the environment, but redistribution of wealth from our countries to lesser developed countries.
If you are OK with the following:
1. Taxing CO2, which will increase the cost of energy, heating, gasoline, food, and everything you buy 2. Taxing you and sending the money to 3rd world countries
...then we don't have much to talk about. I don't approve.
The science shows that the CO2 that man is producing is upsetting the natural balance and affecting the earths climate, that's a big part of it and what we are indeed talking about.
I know you don't believe that CO2 can negatively effect the earth as you don't consider it pollution. To make a comparison water is not toxic to the human body but why not try and see how much water you can drink and if it effects your body. Will it become harmfull when your kidneys can't cope with the amount being taken in? It's only water not something that can do any harm, right?
The developed nations are not just interested in the environment? I'll buy that but the redistribution of the "wealth" you refer to is about the environment. They are trying to curb developing nations from using cheaper and dirtier energy like coal for instance. Ever see any of the pollution and air quality in China? And they seem to be bringing in greener technologies more than many other countries.
Originally posted by newf: The science shows that the CO2 that man is producing is upsetting the natural balance and affecting the earths climate, that's a big part of it and what we are indeed talking about.
And I believe the science is flawed at best or cooked up at worst (which I've backed up with 35 pages of posts here).
quote
I know you don't believe that CO2 can negatively effect the earth as you don't consider it pollution. To make a comparison water is not toxic to the human body but why not try and see how much water you can drink and if it effects your body. Will it become harmfull when your kidneys can't cope with the amount being taken in? It's only water not something that can do any harm, right?
CO2 isn't anywhere near toxic levels, and won't be in our lifetime.
quote
The developed nations are not just interested in the environment? I'll buy that but the redistribution of the "wealth" you refer to is about the environment. They are trying to curb developing nations from using cheaper and dirtier energy like coal for instance.
Neither of us can prove their true intent. I've read enough quotes from the 3rd world countries talking about my country having to pay them to be confident in the conclusion that it's about money, not the environment.
quote
Ever see any of the pollution and air quality in China? And they seem to be bringing in greener technologies more than many other countries.
The science shows that the CO2 that man is producing is upsetting the natural balance and affecting the earths climate, that's a big part of it and what we are indeed talking about.
What is your definitive source on this? And please don't quote Al Gore or the IPCC.
quote
They are trying to curb developing nations from using cheaper and dirtier energy like coal for instance. Ever see any of the pollution and air quality in China? And they seem to be bringing in greener technologies more than many other countries.
The developing nations are in fact working overtime to convert out of coal fired electricity where it is practical, and even where it is not. Look at Canada as an example. The Labrador hydro project, Ontario's wind energy project, Quebec's hydro electric project.
Now look at China. Do you remember how they nearly had to cancel the Olympic Games due to pollution and smog in China? Do you remember how they had to shut down their factories for close to a month to clear the air for the Olympics? Where did you read that China is bringing in greener technologies than many other countries? This appears to be propaganda.
The developing nations are in fact working overtime to convert out of coal fired electricity where it is practical, and even where it is not. Look at Canada as an example. The Labrador hydro project, Ontario's wind energy project, Quebec's hydro electric project.
Now look at China. Do you remember how they nearly had to cancel the Olympic Games due to pollution and smog in China? Do you remember how they had to shut down their factories for close to a month to clear the air for the Olympics? Where did you read that China is bringing in greener technologies than many other countries? This appears to be propaganda.
I certainly do remember the olympics and the pollution problems, in fact that's a big reason why they are trying to change. I wonder what made them do so? I mean man can't affect the environment, right?
quote
In view of China's closure of small and inefficient coal-burning power plants with a total generating capacity of 70 GW during the past five years and local authorities' all-out efforts during recent months to meet their green goals for the 11th Five Year Plan period, the London-based Financial Time carried a report in September speaking highly of Beijing's serious attitude toward emissions cuts.
In 2009, China surpassed the United States as the country with the largest investments in clean energy, according to the 2010 Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment report released by the UN Environment Programme.
The report noted that last year, China saw its private and public investment in key clean energy fields, namely new reneable energy, biofuels and energy efficiency, leap 53 percent from the previous year, and its renewable energy generation capacity increase by 37 GW.
A new gold rush in China is actually a green rush — an urgent drive to develop green technologies. One group of Western companies, the Cleantech Initiative, suggests China's market for renewable energy could eventually be worth as much as $500 billion to $1 trillion a year.
Now, Obama administration officials are warning that the U.S. could risk losing the race in green technologies.
China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world’s largest maker of wind turbines, and is poised to expand even further this year.
These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China.
One thing that is even more impressive than China’s nuclear history is its emerging green energy future. “China has set ambitious targets for developing its… renewable energy resources with a major push of laws, policies and incentives in the last few years,” according to a new report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service.
“The wind power sector is illustrative of China’s accomplishments, as installed wind power capacity has gone from 0.567 GW in 2003 to 12.2 GW in 2008. Plans already exist to grow China’s wind power capacity to 100 GW by 2020. A similar goal exists for the solar photovoltaic power sector which China intends to increase from 140 MW as of 2009 to over 1.8 GW by 2020.”
“Renewable energy is subsidized by a fee charged to all electricity users in China of about 0.029 cents per kilowatt-hour,” the CRS report noted.
Innovative green technologies help China's drive to save energy, cut emissions
quote
The Chinese government's investment in research and development of green technologies has exceeded 10 billion yuan (1.47 billion U.S. dollars) for the 2006-2010 period. Zhang Laiwu, vice minister of science and technology, made the remark Thursday at a press conference in Beijing, also saying that China had developed key technologies that could cut greenhouse emissions.
China has applied energy-saving technologies to traditional industries including steel, power, building materials, chemicals and agriculture, which have enhanced their competitiveness, he said.
China has also issued supportive policies for new-energy industries. For instance, the pilot program of energy-saving and new-energy vehicles has been implemented in 25 cities, and the government has provided subsidies for the purchase of 5,000 vehicles, he said.
Also, more than 1.6 million LED lights were being used in 21 cities in a pilot program to promote the use of LED lights, which will save more than 164 million KWH of electricity annually, he said.
Let's see, pretty much every recognized major Scientific Organization in the world.
You ducked the question. "pretty much every" is kind of nebulous. When take out the IPCC, it's directly funded agencies, the East Anglia University, and the AL Gore organization which promotes their corporate agenda of cap and trade, who do you quote?
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You ducked the question. "pretty much every" is kind of nebulous. When take out the IPCC, it's directly funded agencies, the East Anglia University, and the AL Gore organization which promotes their corporate agenda of cap and trade, who do you quote?
The news article quotes Xinhuanet the official news arm of the Chinese government. Notice the $1.47 Billion is over 5 fiscal years which is about $300 million per year when the Gross Domestic Product is going to reach $5.5 Trillion this year
Canada's GDP is about $1.3 Trillion and we are spending about $640 million per year. Now who is leading whom?
NASA has to satisfy the Obama administration's requirements for funding. Do you really trust their numbers? And, he did not state NASA he made a more general comment.
