Climate correspondent, BBC News
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.
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.
T
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.
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.
There's a lot of confusion about this issue, and I think most of it is deliberately being made by media run by corporations pushing an agenda related to the fossil fuel industries.
The temperature spike of 1998 is understood to have resulted from an El Nino, a regional event. NOT global warming. The next temperature peak was at 2005 and DID result from global warming.
After 2005, solar activity dropped and global temperatures dropped with it.
CO2 levels since the 1950s have risen steadily. Solar activity from the 1950s to 2005 have not.
Dear Lynn and dear Dale,
This is an issue that, IMO, cannot be allowed to be lost and ignored among the other important and urgent issues of the day.
Internationally, many are trying to focus their governments to deal with climate change.
Note the article below:
Obama Urged to Intensify Push for Climate Measure
Backers Fear Administration Is Giving Issue Short Shrift
By Juliet Eilperin and Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, October 12, 2009
President Obama is coming under renewed pressure internationally and in the United States to throw his weight behind climate-change legislation, which advocates fear has suffered in light of the president's sweeping domestic agenda.
The Nobel committee's announcement Friday that Obama won the Peace Prize was a fresh reminder that much of the world expects him to lead the way toward a global climate pact. The committee cited his "more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges."
And in Washington, advocates are clamoring for more evidence that Obama will make good on his campaign promise to impose the first-ever national cap on greenhouse gases. Last week, the leading author of Senate climate legislation sought personal assurances from Obama during an Oval Office meeting, saying he wanted to "hear it from him directly" as he pushed ahead.
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) told Obama he needs to direct his administration to be more aggressive in order to get Congress to take steps to limit pollution that contributes to global warming. But Kerry emerged from the meeting saying Obama had pledged closer coordination between the White House and its congressional allies on the issue.
"The bottom line is there's no way to negotiate a bill like this without the involvement of the administration that they've promised -- and they've been producing," Kerry said in an interview. "If we're going to talk about oil and gas, we need to know what the administration will sign off on."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/11/AR2009101102108_pf.html
October 12, 2009
Graham joins Democrat John Kerry on climate change
State business group supports senator’s efforts
By Paul Alongi
U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina broke ranks with Republicans on Sunday, announcing that he is working with a Democratic colleague on climate change legislation.
Graham co-authored an op-ed in The New York Times with Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts that said they believe they have found a “framework for climate legislation” that can pass Congress, despite conventional wisdom to the contrary.
The senators warned that if Congress doesn’t act, the Obama administration will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations that would likely be tougher and lack job protections.
Graham and Kerry called for an “aggressive” reduction of carbon gases, financial incentives for “clean coal,” a streamlined permit process for nuclear power plants and a border tax on items produced in countries that don’t accept environmental standards.
They would minimize the impact on major emitters through a “market-based system” that would give them time to comply with carbon-gas reductions.
The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce threw its support behind Graham, saying his leadership on climate change is critical for success.
Chamber President Frank Knapp Jr. warned that rising sea levels due to global warming could hurt the state’s tourism industry, destroying beaches and barrier islands.
He said that EPA action would result in higher energy costs without the benefits of investments and regulatory changes protecting jobs.
GOP's Graham gets it right on climate change
By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
Showing political courage, Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham has spoken out in favor of passing a climate change bill. Unfortunately, that may not be good enough.
Graham joined Democratic Sen. John Kerry in calling for action.
"We refuse to accept the argument that the United States cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change," they wrote in The New York Times on Sunday.
"We are also convinced that we have found both a framework for climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a clean-energy future."
This all sounds very good, but I can't help but comment on this!!!:
"Chamber President Frank Knapp Jr. warned that rising sea levels due to global warming could hurt the state’s tourism industry, destroying beaches and barrier islands."
Oh dear! Species become extinct, the very existence of mankind is threatened, but hey! Let's just make sure we make some money out of the tourists! TOP priority.
Here are THREE different graphs documenting global warming over the past few decades:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn14527/dn14527-4_629.jpg
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn14527/dn14527-3_652.jpg
http://climate.uah.edu/maps/28yeartemps.jpg
Now you can blabber all you want about what's causing or not causing climate change, but consider this: ALL the arguments made against the man-made global warming hypothesis could just as easily be used against ANY environmental issue. We know, for example, that mass extinctions occured naturally before man evolved, but that does not mean we can dismiss the idea that man is causing a mass extinction now!
Oh, and also, global warming denialists assert that the hockey stick graphs made in reference to global temperatures are highly questionable, if not faked outright. But I wonder if such claims could be justified about world population, which is certainly a factor in global warming. Check these out:
Compare those with the hockey stick graphs made in reference to past global temperatures:
One must wonder, if denialists are so eagar to prove the hockey stick graphs of global average temperatures wrong, why they do not also attack population graphs in the same way.
If you want more, just ask me. I stand ready to answer all questions.
This post was modified from its original form on 12 Oct, 21:37
Love ya graphs Dale (but not what they show). I can't see why people are still denying that climate change is being influenced by humans.
"Since 1950, we have consumed more resources than in all of previous history combined!" Scary thought: I read the other day that in the next 50 years humans will consume more food than we have in our entire history.
I think it is important for governments to act on climate change, but they need to use their brains and consult more than just greenies. The way they are going about it over here is going to force many people out of farming. Good luck feeding the people then! Luckily they are still considering some changes to their plans.
Comment:
We hear alot about Global Warming.
But what about this article from the Christian Science Monitor?
(see below)
Biggest news you’ve never heard: Earth isn’t warming
By Patrik Jonsson | 10.10.09
How do you reconcile the early snow in Minneapolis, ski resorts already opening in Nevada, and that August chill in North Dakota with expert warnings about a warming climate?
You don’t. Why? The Earth isn’t warming right now, is why. It may even be cooling down somewhat.
Five major climate centers around the world agree that average global temperatures have not risen in the past 11 years, according to the BBC. In fact, in eight of those years, global average temperatures dipped a tad.
Yes, there have been several record heat spikes during that time period. The Southern Hemisphere this summer saw the highest land and water temperatures ever recorded, for instance. But overall? Steady as she goes.
Reasons cited range from a slightly cooling Pacific — a major global heat trap — as well as renewed questions about the sun’s role in warming (about which there is much debate). Also, it’s possible, some say, that warming itself causes CO2 levels — which are associated with warming — instead of the other way around.
As a result, “The depth of the cold of the coming winters will change the social and political climate in ways that only nature can orchestrate,” predicts meteorologist Art Horn.
(continued)
To be sure, it’s way too early to close one’s ears to those who predict more global warming and sea level rises. The UN’s climate agency predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record, which was 1998. And as most of us know, the Earth warmed at historic rates in the latter half of the 20th century, leading to ice cap melts and ecological implications around the globe.
But the warming stall, some experts say, is giving at least some credence to the contrarian (and not always scientifically sound) notion that it may be natural and solar forces contributing as much, or more, than man-made CO2. At the very least, a delay in warming even as total CO2 emissions increase, throws some doubt on the cause-and-effect relationship between mankind’s activities and mean global temperatures.
Climate specialists say their models incorporate all this, and insist their predictions for continued warming will still hold true. (Here’s some data from the Guardian about why the “global warming is taking a break” theme may be off-base.)
Meteorologists at the UK’s Hadley Centre, for instance, point out that global temperatures aren’t linear, and that all data sets — including solar phenomenon and ocean temperatures — indicate that warming will soon pick up again.
But as Paul Hudson, the BBC’s environment reporter, points out, Mojib Latif, a member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, agrees that the Earth may, in fact, continue to cool for another 10 to 20 years. Mr. Latif says that doesn’t make him a climate change skeptic, just a scientist. Eventually, he says, “the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself,” according to the BBC.
Obviously, climate change has global ecological and political implications. The cap-and-trade bill and new auto emissions rules in the US are direct responses to climate implications of CO2. December’s Copenhagen climate conference will try to seek renewed global commitment to CO2 reduction.
Taken together, what does it all mean?
“Climate change — no matter how benign or severe a course it takes — makes legislating during the 21st century one of the most complicated and complex tasks for elected officials in human history,” writes Morgan Josey Glover in the Greensboro, N.C., News-Record newspaper.
There are TWO factors in global climate change that must be considered:
1. Solar Output (SO).
2. Greenhouse Gas Amounts (GGA).
So what happens when those two factors are either changed or remain the same?
1. SO same, GGA increased: Slight global warming.
2. SO same, GGA same: No global warming or cooling.
3. SO same, GGA dropping: Slight global cooling.
4. SO rising, GGA same: Slight global warming.
5. SO rising, GGA increased: HOTHOUSE EARTH!
6. SO rising, GGA dropping: Minimal temperature change.
7. SO dropping, GGA same: Slight global cooling.
8. SO dropping, GGA rising: Minimal temperature change
9. SO dropping, GGA dropping: ICE AGE EARTH!
From the 1970s to 2005, we were in situation 1. Since 2005, we are in situation 7 or 8. Which is exactly what we need, but there is no guarantee that the Sun will remain quiet.
We are still suffering some of the aftereffects of the warming we had from situation 1, and that's mainly due to the oceans being such a vast store of heat that they are now releasing. When we reach a state of thermal equilibrium with the oceans, land, atmosphere and polar caps, then the balance will be naturally established, but our continuing to produce greenhouse gases makes that equilibrium hard to determine.
Some of our Canadian scientists took a second look at this and are now saying it is bull .... But there is a lot of money to be made by spreading this fear .... Do we need to start being enviromentally aware? Absolutely and recycling is a good idea but do we have to raise our kids in fear? That is all this is about -
Interesting that Al Gore has become a gazillionaire as the pied piper of global warming doom ..... as well he has invested in over one hundred law firms that only deal in enviromental issues - when challenged on his false preaching debate is not allowed as he is the preacher of all truths with regards to his fable .... But there is money to be made on many fronts so it will be pushed at the expense of all of us ....
Northern, since Al Gore is a product of America's political and economic culture, including capitalism, what else would you expect him to do? A person who does not make money in a capitalist system is considered a failure. One of Gore's goals is to convince corporations that adapting to efforts to fight global warming is profitable. Yet you criticize him for that?
Some of our Canadian scientists took a second look at this and are now saying it is bull.
And I found some references to them:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nathan-burchfiel/2008/02/08/canadian-scientists-fear-global-cooling
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/?a=f
But here is a story about other Canadian scientists who support the man-made global warming hypothesis:
Happy reading!
This post was modified from its original form on 13 Oct, 1:31
Dear Northern,
I do not believe Glabal Warming is a scam. I know it is a fact.
But I also know the climate scenario is very complex. Climate change as is now occurring means different areas of the globe will experience different patterns. Some will cool, some will heat up, And we will have a global dance between Global Warming and Global Cooling.
The earth is a highly-complex environment - some say a highly-complex being - and we cannot reduce what is occurring to a simple sentence or two.
However, the vast majority of scientists agree on the trend of the patterns - and I think, just because I do not happen to like Al Gore, to reject what is scientific knowledge is a big, big mistake.
"The Southern Hemisphere this summer saw the highest land and water temperatures ever recorded" Some days it was like on oven here during summer this year. Not to mention the 10 year drought and the horrific bush fires.. (Not that warming was solely responsible for these) But then we had an early start to the snow season... hmmm?
Personally I think the term "global warming" is a bit misleading.. As I understand it overall global temperatures are rising, but that it is not getting hotter everywhere. As the above article mentioned, some places have been colder. I also understand that the climate fluctuates naturally over time, but not as rapidly as it has in recent years. For these reasons I think that the term "climate change" makes more sense. Maybe thats just me?
I also find it interesting that most of the debate on this topic centers around CO2 when methane is the worst of the greenhouse gasses... I guess because CO2 is easier to control.?
Although I don't agree with the skeptics on this topic, I really think that their views are important in slowing down any rash actions to combat this problem which is so complex and ever-changing. (I don't really know much about this Al Gore bloke so I won't weigh in on that part of the topic!)
Christian Science Monitor says,
"Five major climate centers around the world agree that average global temperatures have not risen in the past 11 years, according to the BBC. In fact, in eight of those years, global average temperatures dipped a tad.
Yes, there have been several record heat spikes during that time period. The Southern Hemisphere this summer saw the highest land and water temperatures ever recorded, for instance. But overall? Steady as she goes."
Isn't that ignoring they fact that the past "11 years" compared to the past 150 years temps have relatively skyrocketed, as depicted in this graph Dale posted?
Is the argument really about how much temps have fluctuated over the past "11 years" ???
"Some of our Canadian scientists took a second look at this and are now saying it is bull .... But there is a lot of money to be made by spreading this fear .... Do we need to start being enviromentally aware? Absolutely and recycling is a good idea but do we have to raise our kids in fear? That is all this is about"--?Northern
I have a few questions about these Canadian scientists.
1. Have any of them published any research in scientific journals to substantiate their claim that it's "bull"?
2. Are these scientists actually the type of scientists who have expertise in the subjects relevant to global climate change?
3. Do these denialist scientists make up a significant portion of the relevant scientists?
The reason I ask is because every time I read about the topic and it comes up as a "controversy," denialism is never backed by actual peer-reviewed research and in science if you can't substantiate it with peer-reviewed evidence, then it is not a legitimate claim. So far, I have never heard of nor seen a citation to an actual published scientific study that refutes the basic consensus that the climate is changing and human activity contributes significantly to it.
It is often common for denialist think tanks to push forward "scientists" who have no experence in climate science as some kind of experts on the subject and they have no more legitimacy in their opinions on global climate change than I do, but they'll take the checks for speaking engagements.
And, usually even when these are legimitate critics, they are just a single or a couple of scientists but they are given attention despite the fact that the vast majority of experts agree that the climate is changing and humans are significantly contribute to the problem.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092404797.html
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 25, 2009
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) may be grappling with health care, but in Montana a new advocacy group opposed to climate legislation called C02 Is Green is taking aim at the next big battle for Congress.
The group is already running television ads: "This will cost us jobs," one says. "There is no scientific evidence that CO2 is a pollutant. In fact higher CO2 levels than we have today would help the Earth's ecosystems." It urges voters to contact Baucus, who in the past has backed bills to cap emissions and allow companies to trade pollution allowances.
The man behind the latest entry to the climate legislation wars is H. Leighton Steward, a veteran oil industry executive, co-author of the "Sugar Busters!" dieting books, and winner of an Environmental Protection Agency award for a report on damage being done to Mississippi wetlands. Now retired, he says he wants to "get the message out there" that carbon dioxide, which the Supreme Court has ruled a pollutant and which most scientists regard as a dangerous greenhouse gas, "is a net benefit for the planet."
Steward has joined forces with Corbin J. Robertson Jr., chief executive of and leading shareholder in Natural Resource Partners, a Houston-based owner of coal resources that lets other companies mine in return for royalties. Its revenues were $291 million in 2008. They have formed two groups -- CO2 Is Green designated for advocacy and Plants Need CO2 for education -- with about $1 million. Plants Need CO2 has applied for 501(c)(3) tax status, so that contributions would qualify as charitable donations, said Natural Resource Partners general counsel Wyatt L. Hogan, who also serves on the group's board.
Fractious Debate
The new groups join an increasingly fractious debate over climate legislation that has roiled corporate and environmental groups alike. Earlier this month, Duke Energy, Alcoa and Alstom all pulled out of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, an industry group whose ads have asserted that the House climate bill would make energy unaffordable. "We thought [the bill] had evolved in ways to be affordable for our customers," said Duke spokesman Tom Williams.
This week, a group of large corporations -- including New Mexico utility PNM Resources, California utility PG&E, power generator Exelon and Nike -- denounced the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's opposition to climate legislation.
PNM said it would let its membership in the Chamber lapse at the end of the year. "At PNM Resources, we see climate change as the most pressing environmental and economic issue of our time," the company said in a statement.
Earlier in the week, PNM took aim at a Chamber official who had suggested holding a climate change trial like the 1925 Scopes "monkey" trial over evolution. "We strongly disagree with the chamber's position on climate change legislation and particularly reject its recent theatrics calling for a 'Scopes Monkey Trial' to put the science of climate change on trial," said the company, whose chief executive, Jeff Sterba, is a former Chamber board member. "We believe the science is compelling enough to act sooner rather than later."
The head of the Chamber, Thomas J. Donohue, said earlier this week that the group opposed the EPA's potentially far-reaching regulatory power over CO2, but asserted that "we have not ruled out all cap-and-trade systems or a carbon tax."
Exelon, which has paid as much as $100,000 in dues to the Chamber, said Thursday it also objected to the group's participation in town hall meetings organized to oppose the House's climate bill.
"They have asked us to increase our presence or contribution for years," said Elizabeth A. Moler, Exelon's executive vice president for government and public policy. "We have never done that because of the position they have taken in opposition to competitive electricity markets and particularly wouldn't increase our contribution in light of what they're doing on climate."
The town hall meetings were organized over the summer by Energy Citizens, a coalition that received substantial financial and organizational support from the American Petroleum Institute. Shell and BP declined an API request to assist the effort.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092404797.html
Assumptions Challenged
For much of the early part of the year, climate debate centered on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and there was little challenge to the widely accepted notion that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are responsible for climate change. But some independent groups and associations are now questioning those assumptions, and they are clamoring to be heard.
"We thought that the debate had moved from the science of global warming to what to do about it," said Josh Dorner, spokesman for Clean Energy Works, a recently formed coalition lobbying for climate legislation.
In addition to the ads aimed at Baucus, the CO2 Is Green group has taken out television ads in New Mexico, home to Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D), and a half-page ad ran in Monday's Washington Post. The group's founder, Steward, said that higher carbon dioxide levels would spur more growth of plants and trees. He said that past temperature changes had preceded changes in levels of CO2 and sometimes did not correlate with them at all.
Dorner charged that the group's position was linked to Steward's financial interests. Steward, former vice chairman of Burlington Resources, received more than $600,000 in fees, stock and options for being a director of another oil firm, EOG Resources.
"I'm not getting a penny for this," said Steward, who said he owned oil company stocks but no coal stocks. "It's just something I thought people should know."
I will be back to add more to this topic.....
I believe global warming is happening. I'm a big into living green but Colorado had it's coldest summer in recorded history this year, the snow is already falling and two ski resorts have open. I'm not feeling very warm at this time.....
Peace ~ T
Arctic ice cap to disappear in 20-30 years: study
It is likely to be largely ice-free during the warmer months within a decade, the experts added.
Veteran polar explorer Hadow and two other Britons went out on the Arctic ice cap for 73 days during the northern spring, taking more than 6,000 measurements and observations of the sea ice.
The raw data they collected from March to May has been analysed, producing some stark predictions about the state of the ice cap.
"The summer ice cover will completely vanish in 20 to 30 years but in less than that it will have considerably retreated," said Professor Peter Wadhams, head of the polar ocean physics group at Britain's prestigious Cambridge University.
"In about 10 years, the Arctic ice will be considered as open sea."
Starting off from northern Canada, Hadow, Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels skied over the ice cap to measure the thickness of the remaining ice, assessing its density and the depth of overlying snow, as well as taking weather and sea temperature readings.
Across their 450-kilometre (290 mile) route, the average thickness of the ice floes was 1.8 metres (six feet), while it was 4.8 metres when incorporating the compressed ridges of ice.
"An average thickness of 1.8 metres is typical of first year ice, which is more vulnerable in the summer. And the multi-year ice is shrinking back more rapidly," said Wadhams.
"It's a concrete example of global change in action.
"With a larger part of the region now in first year ice, it is clearly more vulnerable. The area is now more likely to become open water each summer, bringing forward the potential date when the summer sea ice will be completely gone."
Doctor Martin Sommerkorn, senior climate change adviser for the World Wide Fund for Nature's international Arctic programme, said the survey painted a sombre picture of the ice meltdown, which was happening "faster than we thought".
"Remove the Arctic ice cap and we are left with a very different and much warmer world," he said.
Loss of sea ice cover will "set in motion powerful climate feedbacks which will have an impact far beyond the Arctic itself," he added.
"This could lead to flooding affecting one quarter of the world's population, substantial increases in greenhouse gas emission from massive carbon pools and extreme global weather changes."
"Today's findings provide yet another urgent call for action to world leaders ahead of the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen in December to rapidly and effectively curb global greenhouse gas emissions."
This post was modified from its original form on 14 Oct, 20:45
Global warming has indeed stopped, due to the Sun. Ironically, the excess CO2 that has been produced by man and contributed to global warming when the Sun was roaring is causing a thermal backlash due to the Sun going quiet now. The reason is because of the other component involved in climate change: water vapor.
One of the most commonly held misconceptions about the man-made global warming hypothesis is that temperatures must increase every year and evenly over the world. No one knowledgable about climate issues would seriously claim that, so it’s an obvious strawman. The question is, why do temperatures fluctuate so much and does global warming explain this? Indeed it does!
The process begins with the slight increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere known to be caused by human emissions. Because CO2 traps slightly more heat, it also causes more water to evaporate. Water vapor (H2O) is also a greenhouse gas, so that causes a feedback loop, in which the temperature increases further, causing more water to evaporate. In the summer months, the result is much hotter weather than you might expect from CO2 alone.
But H2O has an opposite effect in winter. As temperature drops, the increased amounts of H2O forms clouds, which block sunlight and thus cool the earth further. Winters will be even colder than one would expect, plus there would be increased precipitation, including snow.
As long as the average temperature over the course of a year at a certain place or region is below the melting point of water, then global warming actually has the paradoxical effect of causing colder winters, more snow and thus increased ice in certain places. It is where the average annual temperatures have risen above the melting point of water that we see glaciers retreating. And the hotter summers at the northern ice cap are nothing to ignore, for its melting away will still have a tragic effect on polar bears.
In the southern hemisphere, global warming has had less of an effect, and this can be explained by geography. There is far more land up north than down south. Land radiates heat, while oceans absorb it. Also, the Arctic Ocean is water surrounded by warmer land, while Antarctica is frigid land surrounded by cold oceans that insulate it from warmer regions. So it stands to reason that the Arctic Ocean will melt long before the Antarctic does, and that there may even be some increase in Antarctic ice for the reasons I explained above.
If there was no CO2, or any other greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, the average temperature on Earth would actually be below the freezing point of water, thus the oceans would be frozen solid and life on Earth would be impossible. And if there was no H2O to form oceans and absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, then CO2 would have accumulated so greatly in the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions over billions of years that we would have experienced temperatures too high for carbon based life forms to survive, thus we would already be like Venus. The abundance of water on Earth, plus the small amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, provide the delicate balance that maintains life on Earth. But too much CO2 can be as much a problem as too little, hence our concern about how much longer it may be before we reach a tipping point in the climate change problem.
The solar activity has dropped, while the CO2 levels have remained high AND the H2O levels are also high. The end result: Warm summers and VERY COLD WINTERS!
But wait until the Sun roars again. When that happens, we will get: Mild winters and VERY HOT SUMMERS!
It is too long to post it all here, this is the link for anyone who wants to read the whole thing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8345501.stm
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Barcelona
The UK government says it is highly unlikely that a new legally binding climate treaty can be agreed this year - and a full treaty may be a year away.
Two years ago, the world's governments vowed to finalise a new treaty at next month's climate summit in Copenhagen.
Climate Secretary Ed Miliband has until now said it could be done - but now he says only a political deal is likely, echoing some other senior figures.
Developing countries reacted with frustration and disappointment.
"When we left (UN talks in) Bali two years ago, we all expected that would be agreeing on a legally binding outcome to respond to the urgency... that we were on the verge of catastrophic climate change, so we're very disappointed," said Selwin Hart from Barbados, speaking for the group of small island developing states.
"If we don't take urgent and ambitious action, the reality is that some small island developing states will not be around within a couple of decades - certainly not by the end of the century."
This is thought to be the first time that UK ministers have acknowledged the slim chances of achieving anything legally binding.
In the middle of October, Mr Miliband said a new treaty looked "more do-able" following a meeting of the Major Economies Forum in London.
His comments now echo warnings from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Denmark's Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen and US chief climate negotiator Todd Stern that only a "politically binding" agreement can now be achieved.
Officials then warned it could take up to a full year to finalise the treaty.
Climate change is inevitable. The contributions by man toward that change are minimal, and not worth the monetery investment thought to be needed to counteract an anthrogogenic effect that will be negated by the next volcanic eruption. The earth has not warmed in 11 years. The computer models used by the IPCC are heavily weighted for the results that they desire. Independent scientists who do not depend on the handouts from those who have vested interests in shilling 'man-made climate change' have come up with very different conclusions. BHObama's science advisor was touting a coming new ice age in the 1970s.
Climate change is happening and anthropogenic activities are a driving force. All of this, is there, isnt there crap reminds me of the tobacco lobbies campaigns. After all seven out of ten doctors smoke camels.
Dang tang it, now I want a cigar.
Smoking camels is cruel........I shall inform PETA. 
Robert. The climate is changing.....ask the Island nations that soon will not exist.
I agree that the climate is continually changing and that some of what is happening may well be a natural phenomena, I don't disagree with that.
However, what mankind is doing is most certainly exacerbating the situation, even if it isn't actually causing it as you would argue. Therefore isn't it just common sense that we stop making matters worse???? Or are you going to sit on your mountain top dangling your feet in the water??
Climate change is inevitable.
So is cancer and other diseases, but we should reduce any risk factors for those diseases to lower their rates. Same with climate change. The man-made factors must be dealt with.
The contributions by man toward that change are minimal, and not worth the monetery investment thought to be needed to counteract an anthrogogenic effect that will be negated by the next volcanic eruption.
This is a falsehood. Man made greenhouse gases are constantly emitted, building up over time, adding to anything nature does. Volanic eruptions are brief and rare and their effects do not last long.
The earth has not warmed in 11 years.
Lie! Temperatures peaked in 1998 due to an El Nino that exceeeded the global warming trend from the 1960s onward. Then temperatures fell again, rose once more until 2005 (following the actual warming trend this time), and fell again due to the Sun. So in fact, Earth has not warmed in FOUR years.
The computer models used by the IPCC are heavily weighted for the results that they desire.
Nonsense. Laws of chemistry and physics do not depend on what people desire but on what can be supported by clear experimental data.
Independent scientists who do not depend on the handouts from those who have vested interests in shilling 'man-made climate change' have come up with very different conclusions.
Because they get their funds from Exxon and other special interests opposed to the efforts to stop climate change.
BHObama's science advisor was touting a coming new ice age in the 1970s.
Really? Well, what is he saying now? Most scientists ARE willing to change their minds in the light of new evidence.
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/greenhousegas.asp
Project methodology overview
Consensus is growing among scientists, policy makers, and business leaders that concerted action will be needed to address rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States. The discussion is now turning to the practical challenges of where and how emissions reductions can best be achieved, at what costs, and over what periods of time.
The central conclusion
The United States could reduce GHG emissions in 2030 by 3.0 to 4.5 gigatons of CO2e using tested approaches and high-potential emerging technologies. These reductions would involve pursuing a wide array of abatement options with marginal costs less than $50 per ton, with the average net cost to the economy being far lower if the nation can capture sizable gains from energy efficiency. Achieving these reductions at the lowest cost to the economy, however, will require strong, coordinated, economy-wide action that begins in the near future.
Starting in early 2007, a research team from McKinsey worked with leading companies, industry experts, academics, and environmental NGOs to develop a detailed, consistent fact base estimating costs and potentials of different options to reduce or prevent GHG emissions within the U.S. through 2030. The team analyzed more than 250 options, encompassing efficiency gains, shifts to lower-carbon energy sources, and expanded carbon sinks.
Read the full report (PDF - 4.11 M
Launch the video presentation
Launch the slideshow (PDF - 7 M
But what would a bunch of climate scientists know about the issue with their peer-reviewed research from the top research centers in the world? A weatherman from Dubuque and some 27-year-old on Sen. Inhofe's blog said it's not happening. That should be good enough.
Sorry, this is quite a big post, but I think it is very interesting indeed.
There are just over four weeks to go before the Copenhagen conference intended to agree a new international framework for controlling greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The final round of preparatory talks in Barcelona has revealed deep divisions between some of the key participants. Use this table to study their positions.
Sorry, not posting properly, will see if I can format it somehow and post again!
This post was modified from its original form on 07 Nov, 8:47
China
"Developed countries should support developed countries in tackling climate change." President Hu Jintao, 22/9/09
Wants rich countries to reduce emissions to 40% below 1990 level by 2020
Says they should pay 1% of their GDP per year to help other countries adapt
Promises to emit "notably" less CO2 per unit of GDP by 2020
Wants West to provide low-carbon technology
May be ready to name a date when China's emissions will peak
The world's biggest GHG producer (20.7% of global emissions, 8,106mt of CO2 equivalent)
Emissions per head: 30th in the world (6t of CO2 equivalent)
GDP (2008): $4.3tn Amount of GHG emitted per $1m of GDP: 1,152t
Kyoto: Signed as a developing country so not obliged to cut emissions
United States
"We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations." Barack Obama, US president, 22/9/09
Resisting demands to pledge quantified emissions cuts
Against Kyoto-style treaty imposing international legal obligations Insists China, India, South Africa and Brazil must commit to slow growth of emissions
Climate bill - which would bring cuts of 4% from 1990 levels by 2020 - is bogged down in Senate
The world's second-biggest GHG producer (15.5% of global emissions, 6,087mt of CO2 equivalent)
Emissions per head: Fifth in the world (20t of CO2 equivalent)
GDP (2008): $14.2tn
Kyoto: Signed, but never ratified
EU
"We are going to over-achieve our Kyoto targets." Stavros Dimas, EU environment commissioner, 27/10/09
Aspires to play "leading role" at Copenhagen Will cut emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020, or 30% if other big emitters take tough action Wants rich nations to make 80-95% cut by 2050 Wants poorer nations to slow emissions growth Says they face costs of $150bn per year by 2020, of which EU will pay $7bn- 22bn from public finances The world's third-biggest GHG producer (11.8% of global emissions, 4,641mt CO2 equivalent) Emissions per head: 17th in the world (9t of CO2 equivalent) GDP (2008): $18.3tn Amount of GHG emitted per $1m of GDP: 315t Kyoto: Signed - has to get average emission emissions for 2008-2012 8% below 1990 level India Agrees to limit growth of GHG emissions but will not commit to binding targets Says rich countries are to blame for climate change and points to big gap in per capita emissions Wants deep cuts in rich country emissions, firm funding pledges and technology transfer Keen on preserving Kyoto-style legal obligations for developing countries The world's sixth-biggest GHG producer (5% of global emissions, 1,963mt of CO2 equivalent) Emissions per head: 66th in the world (2t of CO2 equivalent GDP (2008): $1.2tn Amount of GHG emitted per $1m of GDP: 655t Kyoto: Signed as a developing country, so not obliged to cut emissions Japan "We think developing countries are also required to make an effort to reduce greenhouse gases." Yukio Hatoyama Japan's prime minister, 7/9/09 Will cut emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, if other countries show similar ambition This amounts to a cut of 30% in 10 years, and is opposed by industry "Hatoyama initiative" will increase financial and technical assistance to developing countries Backs proposals in which each country would set its own commitments The world's seventh-biggest GHG producer (3.3% of global emissions, 1,293mt of CO2 equivalent)
The world's seventh-biggest GHG producer (3.3% of global emissions, 1,293mt of CO2 equivalent)
Emissions per head: 15th in the world (10t of CO2 equivalent)
GDP (2008): $4.9tn
Amount of GHG emitted per $1m of GDP: 301t
GDP (2008): $4.9tn
Amount of GHG emitted per $1m of GDP: 301t
Kyoto: Signed - has to get average emissions for 2008-2012 6% below 1990 level
African union
"We are prepared to walk out of any negotiations that threaten to be another rape of the continent." Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, 3/9/09
The African Union is a grouping of 52 African states
Like China, wants rich countries legally bound to cut emissions to 40% below 1990 level by 2020
Describes 20 to 30% cuts as "unacceptable"
Wants rich countries to pay 0.5% of GDP to help developing countries tackle climate change
Wants $67bn per year for adaptation in Africa
Threatening to walk out if demands are not met
The AU accounts for 8.1% of global emissions (3,164mt of CO2 equivalent)
Emissions per head: 4t of CO2 equivalent
GDP (2008): $34bn
Amount of GHG emitted per $1m of GDP: 1,361t
Kyoto: African nations signed as developing countries so are not obliged to cut emissions
Gulf states
"We are among the most economically vulnerable countries." Mohammad S. Al Sabban, Saudi Arabia's lead negotiator 8/10/09
Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE
Opec and Saudi Arabia seeking financial aid for oil-producers if new agreement requires cuts of fossil fuels
Keen on a deal that would advance use of carbon capture and storage
In 2007 Opec members pledged $750m to fund climate change research
Qatar and Abu Dhabi investing heavily in clean energy technology
Gulf states account for 2.3% of global emissions (894mt of CO2 equivalent)
Emissions per head: 25t of CO2 equivalent
GDP (2008): $468bn
Amount of GHG emitted per $1m of GDP: 875t
Kyoto: Gulf States signed as developing countries so are not obliged to cut emissions
Small islands
"The days of little money in the face of big problems are over." Dessima Williams, head of the Alliance of Small Island States (Aosis), 9/10/09
Aosis is a bloc of 42 island and coastal states mostly in the Pacific and Caribbean
Regard rising sea level as threat to their existence
Seek to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees above preindustrial levels
Want concentration of CO2 in atmosphere lowered from 380 to 350 parts per million Want global emissions to peak by 2015 and fall 85% below 1990 level by 2050
Want at least 1% of rich country GDP spent on "climate-inflicted damage"
The small island states account for 0.6% of global GHG emissions (246mt of CO2 equivalent)
Emissions per head: 4t of CO2 equivalent
GDP (2008): $46bn
Amount of GHG emitted per $1m of GDP: 551t
Kyoto: Aosis members signed as developing countries so are not obliged to cut emissions
It would be a simple matter for most of the Arab states, being mostly desert, to replace their dependence on oil with millions of solar panels. We just need to help them manufacture the panels. Indeed, we can establish solar panel arrays all over Earth, anywhere there is land and plenty of sunlight.
We can also set up windmill arrays, hydroelectric dams, and geothermal stations anywhere there is wind, flowing water, or volcanic activity.
Why are we still so hooked on fossil fuels, anyway???
Robert, Australia are supporters of the Kyoto agreement and seem to have a very positive attitude; South America I don't know about, and info on the African Union is above.
Dale.............I don't think tha Arab nations need any help at all from anyone else to build solar panels!!! They are more than capable of doing that. But it issn't in their interest to do so. They are not dependent on oil in the same way that America and the UK are, for transportation, they are dependent on oil for MONEY. That ans that alone, therefore there is absolutely no way they are going to do anything to devalue their ONLY resource.
Many countries are already doing a lot to use environmentally friendly sources of energy, but obviously not enough or quickly enough.
Why are we still hooked on fossil fuels? You probably know more about that than me (being serious, no digs or anything intended) because it seems the USA is the biggest junkie when it comes to fossil fuels, Europe much less so.
Australia on Monday said crunch climate change talks in December would fail if a "one size fits all" approach was adopted, instead suggesting a compromise deal aimed at developing nations.
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said that under the scheme, developing countries would agree to binding goals in areas such as deforestation or renewable energy, rather than signing up to economy-wide emissions targets. Ahead of December's UN-sponsored talks in Copenhagen, Wong said flexibility was needed to break the deadlock between developed and developing nations. "A one-size-fits-all is not going to get the agreement we need," she told public broadcaster ABC from Washington, where she presented the compromise proposal to a meeting last week of the world's 17 biggest carbon polluters. "We simply won't get the broad participation from major developing economies that the climate needs." The Australian compromise seeks to find a formula acceptable to developing nations, who argue their economic advancement should not be hobbled to fix a climate problem largely created by rich countries. Wong said participants in the US talks, which move to New York this week, had shown interest in her proposal. "It's certainly been one of the issues that's been the subject and focus of discussion as one of the ways forward," she said. Local media said US climate change envoy Todd Stern had described it as "useful" and "constructive". Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said time was running out to find a compromise before Copenhagen and he hoped this week's G20 summit in Pittsburgh could advance the talks. "There's a danger, speaking absolutely frankly, that options for final decision in Copenhagen are left too late, because we are now I think less than 80 days away from Copenhagen," he told reporters in New York.
"There are big questions and big decisions to be made on targets for developed countries, on verifiable commitments for developing countries, about bringing down greenhouse gas emissions."
Australia has pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to 25 percent of 2000 levels by 2020 if a comprehensive agreement is reached in Copenhagen.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.9773a6028cbfd3f93a04aa1f37c2801f.271&show_article=1
I love these arguments about Global Warming and Global Climate Change.
It's just my opinion, but maybe we'd get a bit more agreement if we, instead, focused on what we know is pollution - and focused on ways to reduce pollution - and let go of the Global Warming debate sometimes.
Just an idea.
<<...it seems the USA is the biggest junkie when it comes to fossil fuels, Europe much less so.>>
Sadly, the US has seen Jane Fonda warn us of total devastation from nuclear power plants via the movie "The China Syndrome". Europe has a much saner approach to them, hence the need in the US for coal and oil fired electric generation. Also, every country in Europe is much smaller than the USand the rail system is superb there, while we have destroyed the rail and trolley system that worked so well to move people and goods in favour of a massive interstate road system.
I'm in agreement Knate. It's just the fish-slapping dance over and over.
video:http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=fish+slapping+dance&docid=1088998146079&FORM=VIRE5#
I understand that Australia signed the Kyoto protocol just recently. Our government is currently trying to make up a carbon trading scheme that limits cabon emissions from industry and also requires that they be offset. Hopefully the final outcome is something that is workable and has a positive effect. At the moment it will reduce emissions, but mostly by putting a lot of people out of business. On a world wide scale finding the right balance seems almost impossible. Especially because big business isn't willing to sacrifice some profit for the good of the world.
As for "green" energy, we have some hydro and wind power... Hydro power has destroyed many rivers and ecosystems while the wind farms have been heavily opposed by greenies and nobody wants those windmills on their land. BUT everyone wants to reduce carbon emissions...?
I believe, rachel, we have to kove away from carbon-based fuels.
But I also believe, the choices we make have to be good choices. We shouldn't be choosing alternatives that present their own serious problems and side-effects.
I do not believe in change for the sake of change.
I believe in change that is better.
Sadly, the US has seen Jane Fonda warn us of total devastation from nuclear power plants via the movie "The China Syndrome".
A totally irrelevant point. Nuclear fuels are nonrenewable and can also cause pollution, as well as the power plants being waaaaaaaaaay too expensive and dangerous to operate. No one needs Jane Fonda (I despise that traitorous b!tch too, BTW) for that to be understood!
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
CLIMATE CHANGE
EPA wraps up emissions report
The Environmental Protection Agency has sent its final scientific finding on greenhouse gases to the White House, agency officials said Monday, a step that could trigger regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
Sources said the document concludes that emissions pose a threat to the public's health and welfare. The agency did not release its finding, which was issued as a draft in April. The Office of Management and Budget has 90 days to sign off on it.
Environmentalists embraced the move as a sign that the Obama administration is moving ahead on global warming policy less than a month before U.N.-sponsored climate-change talks begin in Copenhagen. An official with the National Association of Manufacturers said his members are worried that the administration would put in place rules on greenhouse gases before Congress had a chance to pass climate legislation.
The endangerment finding was prompted by a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that ordered the EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases constituted a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
-- Juliet Eilperin
The report is crap. CO2 was added as a dangerous emission as a political move. CO2 is a pollutant? From what sources? If it is a pollutant then ALL sources must be defined, quantified and regulated. That includes you and me.
Robert...I risk being shouted at by Kneight, I risk having my posts deleted, I risk being ostracised by other members of this group, I risk being chucked out of this group. And guess what.....................it's worth it just to say................Robert, stop talking completely out of your arse, you idiot.
Dear Lynn, you will not be tossed out, your post won't be deleted, you won't be ostracized, and I won't shout at you....but you know what I am going to say so I won't. 
Robert............how do you know that? Do you even have a passport? Yep; I was rude first, that is fair enough. But you just say the most ridiculously, illogical, deliberately inflamatory things it really makes me wonder. What has my knowledge of the United States got to do with climate change anyway??? To say Co2 is NOT a pollutant is simply crass, whatever side of the Atlantic you live on..
Lynn, I know you have in the past been very respectful of group rules. I realize it can be a real challenge at times to not question someone's intelligence, but maybe it will help to remember that some people, while being very intelligent, take part in group discussions merely for the pleasure of playing Push Peoples' Buttons.
Katii..............sorry! I have a temper sometimes. Anyway, I am going away because Robert irritates me too much. I will come back when a) he has gone b) he has shut up or, more likely, c) I have calmed down and am rational!
To say Co2 is NOT a pollutant is simply crass, whatever side of the Atlantic you live on..
So how can it be controlled? At what cost? Don't be pissed at me for your inability to answer questions.
The Environmental Protection Agency's decision to classify rising carbon-dioxide emissions as a hazard to human health is the latest twist in a debate that has raged for decades among politicians, scientists and industry: whether a natural component of the earth's atmosphere should be considered a pollutant.
The EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant -- it is, after all, a gas that humans exhale and plants inhale. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that concern the agency.
Carbon-dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere have fluctuated wildly for millennia; at one point billions of years ago, it was the dominant gas in the atmosphere.
However, the EPA ruled that today's higher concentrations are the "unambiguous result of human emissions." Concentrations of carbon dioxide and other gases "are well above the natural range of atmospheric concentrations compared to the last 650,000 years," the agency said.
Over the years, many pro-business groups have discouraged regulation of carbon-dioxide emissions by arguing that CO2 is an essential ingredient of life. In its decision, the EPA stressed that it considers CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases to be pollutants because of their role in propagating climate change, not because of any direct health effects.
In 1998, the Clinton administration EPA studied the question and determined that the Clean Air Act was "potentially applicable" to CO2 and other greenhouse gases. But despite continued pressure from environmental groups, the administration never moved to regulate the gases.
According to the bulk of scientific research, such as that assembled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the more greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide, the more heat is trapped. That leads to rising temperatures. The EPA endorsed the IPCC research and specifically said that "natural variations" in climate, such as solar activity, couldn't explain rising temperatures.
The EPA lumped carbon dioxide with five other gases -- methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride -- into a single class for regulatory purposes. That's because they share similar properties: All are long-lived and well-mixed in the atmosphere; all trap heat that otherwise would leave the earth and go into outer space; and all are "directly emitted as greenhouse gases" rather than forming later in the atmosphere.
Alternatively, tropospheric ozone wasn't included in the class, even though it creates smog and contributes to global warming. But that gas isn't emitted directly; rather, it is created in the atmosphere when sunlight reacts with greenhouse gases emitted by human activity such as engine combustion and industrial processes.
Similarly, the EPA declined to consider regulating water vapor or soot, also known as "black carbon," both of which are big contributors to the greenhouse effect but which don't share common properties with the six greenhouse gases.
The EPA did acknowledge some positive impacts from higher CO2 concentrations.
One is faster-growing trees in tropical forests, which helps offset deforestation. Another is marshes that can more quickly grow above rising sea levels, providing an insurance policy of sorts for some low-lying areas against the potential ravages of rising sea levels resulting from warmer global temperatures.
The EPA also acknowledged some positive aspects of rising temperatures, but concluded that on balance, the negative impacts of climate change outweigh the positive.
Write to Keith Johnson at keith.johnson@wsj.com
Oh Dear! Care2 not letting me post again! I just replied to you, rationally, Robert, but it disappeared. Sorry about that.
I will just say, please do not accuse me of being unable to answer questions. If you would care to actually ASK me a question, I will endeavour to reply.
I can't be bothered to retype the whole of my last post because I think I was probably wasting my breath anyway! Suffice it to say I totally disagree with your stance on this subject so we will just have to live with that.
CO2 can be defined at a pollutant for the same reason any other waste made by industrial processes can be classed as such: Because in excessive amounts, or in the wrong places, it can indeed be harmful. Try living in an atmosphere of mostly CO2 and you will be dead in a few minutes.
Even WATER in excessive amounts can be dangerous and destructive. That's what a flood is.
So how can it be controlled? At what cost?
We could start planting billions of trees over the next several decades and let them grow, storing away the excess carbon.
So Robert, what are the cost of not controlling excessive CO2 emissions?
At what cost to our species do we continue living an unsustainable existence?
So I just attempted to post 3 times, and each post disappeared. Luckily i copied and pasted but the time for typing is about 10 seconds per letter. I''ve run into the same problem on the RL&B site was well. Both have the same format, both have the same problems with posting, with no attempt to have the problems fixed. . I'm taking a week off from both here here and there to see if things are fixed.
Just want to say, I'm not opposed green energy sources.. Although my earlier post may seem to come across that way. It just isn't working how they have been doing it here. So far...
I am opposed to excessive CO2 in the atmosphere!
Dale suggests planting billions of trees. A great idea/plan and its starting to happen. Last year at uni I learnt about carbon offset programs. The uni was trying to become carbon neutral, and started planting trees all over the campus (not the main on in the city where the pollution is, but on the campus farm 3 hours away). They told us that the guidelines for these things counted the trees as offsetting carbon until they reached a certain height and age, after that you have to plant more trees. So for those trees that keep growing the carbon isn't counted. Then, apparently, they have to "dispose" of the dead trees without releasing any carbon for it to have been worth it so they were reconsidering the program. A bad way of looking at it I think. Just plant the trees and let them do their thing!
