Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: And it continues - but recall Cap & Tax - let no good emergency pass unused... « previous next »
Page: 1

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46231
Online
: October 11, 2009, 07:46:09 AM

Search termExplore the BBC
BBC News Updated every minute of every day
ONE-MINUTE WORLD NEWS

BBC World Service
   
Page last updated at 15:22 GMT, Friday, 9 October 2009 16:22 UK

What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News


Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases
Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.
But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.
The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.
And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.
Ocean cycles
What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.
   

 In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down 
According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.
The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.
But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.
These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.
So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.
Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."
So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.
They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.
But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.
The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.
In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.
In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.
To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.
But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.
So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).
Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.
One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.


\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46231
Online
#1 : October 12, 2009, 09:04:06 PM

This one is going to make the headlines again in a few weeks...

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant



Guest
#2 : October 12, 2009, 09:39:56 PM

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

Did anyone else notice in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth' when he was showing how carbon dioxide levels coincided with temperature, that CO2 levels always lagged temperature change, suggesting that they were an effect, not a cause?

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46231
Online
#3 : October 12, 2009, 10:40:31 PM

I haven't reviewed anything from Gore.  I have watched as scientist after scientist moves away from the whole Global Warming thought - probably that data showing it isn't happening.  Scientists do like having data that supports their theories - I think it is the education....

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

2goodbucs

*
Starter
****
Posts : 883
Offline
#4 : October 13, 2009, 10:55:38 AM

Good read. These guys are persistent with Global Warming. They sure want to make a lot of money with this of course. I'm glad more scientists are stepping down from this fraud. Whats next? Global cooling scare?...

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#5 : October 13, 2009, 12:03:19 PM

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

Did anyone else notice in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth' when he was showing how carbon dioxide levels coincided with temperature, that CO2 levels always lagged temperature change, suggesting that they were an effect, not a cause?


That makes sense, too. There is a lot of CO2 trapped in glacier ice, and as temperatures rise, glaciers melt releasing CO2. Also CO2 in solution in sea water comes out of solution and into the atmosphere as water temp. rises. Warmer temps also mean more forest fires. Limestone will emit more gas as temp rises.

There are lots and lots of sources for atmospheric CO2 besides Human activity.

And there are natural mechanisms that reduce CO2. Instead of worrying about cars and fossil fuels used by the US and industrialized countries shouldn't more attention be put on all the forest destruction in 3rd world countries? An acre of forest reduces as much CO2 as a whole bunch of SUVs produce. How come there is no finger pointing at Brazil, Columbia, Venezuela, West African countries, or SE Asia?


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46231
Online
#6 : October 13, 2009, 06:59:16 PM

Because Al and B. Hussein would have one believe Brazil, Columbia, Venezuela, W. African countries and SE Asia are good, and the US is bad

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

kevabuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2241
Offline
#7 : October 13, 2009, 08:03:56 PM

dbuc, I think it is that and operating out of the guilt of being part of the 'have" countries and the politically correct perceived need to feel bad for the "have not" countries.

\"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.\" -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#8 : October 14, 2009, 10:56:25 AM


"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled." -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.


Talk like that will get your head and hands cut off.


kevabuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2241
Offline
#9 : October 14, 2009, 11:44:42 AM


"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled." -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.


Talk like that will get your head and hands cut off.

Even though there is nothing proper to it, they can have my hands when the pry them from my cold dead fingers!

\"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.\" -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46231
Online
#10 : October 14, 2009, 12:43:06 PM

dbuc, I think it is that and operating out of the guilt of being part of the 'have" countries and the politically correct perceived need to feel bad for the "have not" countries.
Turns my stomach

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46231
Online
#11 : October 15, 2009, 02:50:31 PM

A NEW Special ReportThe Climate AgendaExplore news and resources & debate policy with our expert panel. Full Report »
Cap-and-Trade Would Slow Economy, CBO Chief Says
 
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 15, 2009

A House-passed bill that targets climate change through a cap-and-trade system of pollution credits would slow the nation's economic growth slightly over the next few decades and would create "significant" job losses from fossil fuel industries as the country shifts to renewable energy, the head of the Congressional Budget Office told a Senate energy panel Wednesday.

This Story
Use of Forests as Carbon Offsets Fails to Impress In First Big Trial
Evaluating the Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project
Cap-and-Trade Would Slow Economy, CBO Chief Says
Debate: The Planet Panel Explores Doubt in Global Warming
Special Report: The Climate Agenda
View All Items in This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story
CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf emphasized that his estimates contained significant uncertainties and "do not include any benefits from averting climate change," but his message nevertheless contrasted sharply with those of President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders, who have suggested that a cap on carbon emissions would help revive the U.S. economy.

Elmendorf testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the cap-and-trade provisions of the House bill -- in which emitters of greenhouse gases would be able to buy and sell pollution credits -- would cut the nation's gross domestic product by 0.25 to 0.75 percent in 2020 compared with "what it would otherwise have been," and by 1 to 3.5 percent in 2050.

Elmendorf also pointed to disruptions that would occur as Americans sought employment with industries that would benefit under a carbon cap, such as solar and wind power.

"The shifts will be significant," the CBO director said. "We want to leave no misunderstanding that aggregate performance -- the fact that jobs turn up somewhere else for some people -- does not mean that there are not substantial costs borne by people, communities, firms in affected industries and affected areas. You saw that in manufacturing, and we would see that in response to changes that this legislation would produce."

Opponents of climate-change legislation seized on Elmendorf's comments, suggesting they meant the United States would be better off not curbing greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change.  Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who described himself as "a skeptic" on the issue, detailed how Kansans would likely face higher energy prices under a cap-and-trade system.


"Because while we're projecting these things, people are having to deal with their basic lives on it, and this is going to be very expensive," Brownback said.

But Elmendorf, who called the economic downside to the House climate bill "comparatively modest," noted that climate change could impose costs on Brownback's home state in other ways, by harming agriculture.

In light of those potential risks, the CBO director said, "many economists believe that the right response to that kind of uncertainty is to take out some insurance, if you will, against some of the worst outcomes."

 Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), co-author of the House bill with  Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), said that several independent analyses, including one by the CBO, had found their bill "would only cost about a postage stamp a day, and that's before you include thousands of dollars in savings from energy-efficiency gains. The harsh reality is that America's global warming and energy challenges are just too important for us to keep mailing it in by not enacting a comprehensive energy and global warming bill."

Daniel J. Weiss, a senior fellow at the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, pointed to a University of Massachusetts at Amherst study that concluded that the House bill would add jobs to the overall U.S. economy.

"We estimate this sustained expansion in clean-energy investments triggered by the economic stimulus program, and the forthcoming American Clean Energy and Security Act, can generate a net increase of about 1.7 million jobs," Weiss said.

For more coverage of climate-change legislation and related issues, go to http://washingtonpost.com/climate.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/14/AR2009101404054.html

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant
Page: 1
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: And it continues - but recall Cap & Tax - let no good emergency pass unused... « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools