…concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC assumes. […]
According to Schwartz’s results, which are based on the empirical relationship between trends in surface temperature and ocean heat content, doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would result in a 1.1oC increase in average temperature (0.1–2.1oC, two standard deviation uncertainty range). Schwartz’s result is 63% lower than the IPCC’s estimate of 3oC for a doubling of CO2 (2.0–4.5oC, 2SD range).Right now we’re about 41% above the estimated pre-industrial CO2 level of 270 ppm. At the current rate of increase of about 0.55% per year, CO2 will double around 2070. Based on Schwartz’s results, we should expect about a 0.6oC additional increase in temperature between now and 2070 due to this additional CO2. That doesn’t seem particularly alarming.
[…]
Stephen Schwartz is a pretty mainstream climate scientist. Yet along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, his new study belies Al Gore’s claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism.
Indeed, if Schwartz’s results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC’s scientific “consensus”, the environmentalists’ climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world’s environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?
More.
Stephen E Schwartz is in the pay of the well known oil giant, Brookhaven National Lab – Atmospheric Science Division.
Click here for the math geek pron. (pdf)
Global Warming (TM) is IMHO in exactly where gun control was right before the 2000 election. It looks strong to the uninterested eye, but sappers have been at work on the foundation. Its getting ready to fall down.
My Official Phantom Prediction is that 2008 is the last year Global Warming will be a credible election issue in the USA. The DemocRats will push it for all its worth, they will either lose or win by a whisker and hence forth abandon the issue as politically useless.
The economic damage will hang around like a bad smell for years though.
Good mental exercise going over the math… actually the math model is simple.
It’s the data models that are complex … and highly questionable.
Now if only the MSM would start pinning down the hucksters.
Now if only he could tell this to the disappearing sea ice:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=0dc4d39e-01d0-41ab-8a58-53611f27099c&k=34371
I wonder if Dr. Schwartz used one of them thar computer models you guys hate so much, or if he has some other theory to test his theories?
Is he wrong? Is he right? No matter… let’s just keep dumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and see what happens!
It’s funny how conservatives no longer believe in conserving eh?
Now if only he could tell this to the disappearing sea ice:
And there’s more disastrous results of the 1 degree warming we have had in the last 150 years. It is so scary. Just think what another .6 degree will do. We are just ending what has to be the coldest, wettest summer I can remember, if it warms up some more I may have to buy some sunscreen.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
John: “It’s funny how conservatives no longer believe in conserving eh?”
Funny, I think conservatives are naturally responsible for fewer CO2 emissions than liberals. The Dr. Fruitflys, celebrities etc. jetting around, with numerous mansions will be responsible for more emissions in a decade, heck, a year, than most of us will be in a lifetime. It’s the nature of the beast. The day someone like Oprah lives in ONE 1200 sq. ft. house, takes MAYBE one flying trip a year, is the day she can tell me how to live my life.
I’m just saying.
Attention: Global warming cultist clean up in Aisle Gore.
John, its funny that every time Kate posts something substantive on the issue all you’ve got is whinge, and re-cycled whinge to boot.
I’m going to laugh my a$$ off when the Liberals drop you morons like a hot rock.
The Niagara Escarpment is my constant reminder that the site of my house used to be under a mile of ice.
Now, that’s funny John.
My first thought was “Oh crap, another unfounded theory!”
Since we are currently acting in an irrational manner on one set of unfounded and unproven thereoms, then it shouldn’t be any stretch to act in the same manner about another set of the same.
But what is happening is that the disciples of “the sky is falling” theory of climate change. rather than the much more widely held belief of natural variation cannot and will not allow any view which is contrary to their own little money making schemes.
So, I don’t say “Here it is, proof positive that global warming is not occuring.” I will. however, say that it’s reassuring to see that the studies which show that it may not be “settled science” are showing up, from credible people on a far more frequent basis.
AND, if computer models work for one side of the theory, thwn they can certainly work for the other. If they don’t work for the “warming” side, then…oh yeah. then THEY HAVE NO CASE! Even if they do work however, IMHO, the case for global warming is weak at best.
Mississauga Matt, Al Gore & his acolytes won’t be happy until the site of your house is under a mile of ice again
Holy crap! Did you guys hear? Evolution is wrong too! Smoking is good for you, and gravity is a conspiracy!
translated:
“Holy crap! LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA! …”
The media is in the business of ‘dumbing-down’ the news.
That is why articles such as; “HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH’S
CLIMATE SYSTEM, by Stephen E. Schwartz, gets no play.
Gore tells lies but the fearmongering sells dead trees. So pathetic.
Al Gore and the rest of the AGW crowd would be alot more credible if they weren’t making so damned much money off of it. I’m surprised that so many people have so little natural skepticism about a man who stands to make billions off his cause.
Nature is resilient…it has persevered and rebounded through earthly cataclysms and cosmic catastrophies for eons….only the advent of the confused self-loathing hysteria we know as modern progressivist thought would challenge such a well established self evident universal truth.
and more news . .
GLOBAL WARMING OR COOLING?
An email from Peter R Odell, Professor Emeritus of International Energy Studies, Erasmus University, Rotterdam
The UK’s Metereological Office research centre has now had to confirm a fall in average global temperatures since 1998 (The Guardian, 10 August 2007, pp1/2). This clearly opens to challenge the widely-held view that it is primarily the growth in carbon dioxide emissions, released by mankind’s use of carbon fuels, that cause global warming. Indeed, since 1998 there has been a record near-25% increase in the production and use of coal, oil and natural gas – totalling an additional 2000 million tons of oil equivalent over the nine year period. Two-fifths of this has been coal, the most polluting of the three carbon fuels, so generating voluminous additional carbon dioxide for the atmosphere.
Yet, in spite of an all-time peak period of carbon fuels’ use, it seems that no overall global warming phenomenon has been generated! Thus, instead of the Met Office’s think-tank apparent acceptance of the concept of a demonstrable relationship between global warming and carbon dioxide emissions for its future forecasts, should it not first be held responsible for an explanation as to why this has not happened over the past nine years – and why it will not happen for at least the next three years?
3w.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/10/weather.uknews
More later, a bit pressed for time today, but James already had a good response for this one so I thought I would post it.
Regards,
John
Re:Record lose of Arctic sea ice.
Undoubtedly, there soon will be major news coverage and press releases on this. When they appear, it is important to recognize this is a regional climate issue. As seen on the University of Alabama monitoring of lower tropospheric temperature anomalies in the (see) the north pole region are well above average (+1.67C in June). This warmth is certainly consistent with the large melt of the sea ice.
However, in terms of relating to the global average lower tropospheric temperature changes, in June 2007 (which is the latest data posted), the global average anomaly is +0.22 after being as high recently as +0.51C in January. Thus, it is regional warming, not “global warming” that appears to be the reason for this melting (Indeed, if it were global warming, we should see a similar reduction in Antarctic sea ice coverage, which, however, is not occurring) .
Roger Pielke sr
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/08/page/2/
Trolls and moonbat jerks take note of John Cross at 12:05 pm.
This is dissent with the post that forwards the conversation.
I look forward to seeing how this moves along.
Don’t get too excited. This is more of a clarification. That’s what science does.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5834/28a
In the meantime… is it such a bad idea to conserve energy? Note the word “conserve”… which is a part of the word “conservative”.
Funny dat.
No John, it is not a bad idea to conserve energy.
Lying as a way to coerce others into conserving, that’s a much different proposition.
Over-the-top fearmongering,personal attacks aimed at anyone who dares to have questions,lies,blatant hypocrisy,blind acceptance of questionable scientific methods,squelching of any contrary data or opinion….
Even if manmade global warming were true,who could believe these arrogant leftist chuckleheads with their divisive,dishonest and arrogant tactics.They are too f*cking stupid to even recognize the further damage they are doing to their own cause by posting at sites such as this with no more than childish insults as their arguments.
I have tried to keep an open mind throughout this debate and have come to an interesting conclusion.
My absolute skepticism on MMGW is not born of anything any ‘denier’ has told me.
No sir,I do not believe in MMGW simply because of the utterly abysmal job the ‘left’ has done in substantiating it.
John. I see James is “predicting” climate change. Well ladeedah. I predict the goreacle is going to suck you leftie moonbats out of all your money,whilst he buys himself another jet and mansion! Wonder whose predictions are going to pan out?
While Schwartz’s study is directed at the intelligent, Al Gore’s pseudo science is directed at the gullible.
SDA should do a study on Al Gores stock portfolio, and find the rate of change of
d$ = dsmoke x dH
dt dmirrors dt
The inflection point is achieved by introducing more smoke than mirrors which absorbs more solar radiation than is reflected.
Thus Global Warming will be solved when
dC02 = 0
dt
In short AGW is solved when Al Gore stops public speaking.
Cheers
John:
Personally, I have recycled most of my life.
I drive a Honda Civic and an Acura Integra, with 1.6 and 1.8-litre engines.
If self-righteousness is the only thing you have to offer, accusing others of being wasteful and uncaring about the environment because we will not buy into the Goracle’s fabrications, it starts to wear thin after a while.
Most conservative people I know act responsibly and living a minimalist lifestyle comes with the territory.
Not sure which boogiemen you’re fighting, but the answer always lies within yourself.
If you can articulate what your fear is, many compassionate conservatives would help you through it.
“and gravity is a conspiracy!
Posted by: anon at August 20, 2007 11:24 AM ”
No anon.Actually it proves the Earth sucks,much like dips**t leftards who are afraid to even use a nick. Liberal/Dipper troll,are you??
————————
“Not sure which boogiemen you’re fighting, but the answer always lies within yourself.
If you can articulate what your fear is, many compassionate conservatives would help you through it.
Posted by: set you free at August 20, 2007 2:37 PM ”
SYF
His fear is that he will be shown for the fool he is for following and believing in the Koyoto Kult. Not a problem,as long as it is his money he is sending to Gore! Help him through it? They are beyond help.
SYF…disregard my “they are beyond help”. Some are,but unfortunately it usually takes a shock for them to wake up,like being robbed or mugged.
Kate…I know this is a bit off topic…but…Liberalspeak…
By Rachel Marsden…http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Marsden_Rachel/2005/04/21/1543303.html
Social Justice:Spreading the misery of socialism equally throughout society.
Enlightened: A person who refuses to accept that socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried.
God: Pierre Trudeau
The Resurrection:Justin Trudeau leading the Liberal Party’s new youth task force.
Read it all. It is hilarious.
THE EARTH IS NOT FRAGILE its only in the minds of enviromentalists wackos and the usial bunch of tree hugger wackos
Long Live Global Warming … bring it on baby!!!
Warm periods in the earth’s history were rich periods both in species proliferation and in human activity. Warm is good.
Now consider a major cooling … ice sheets all the way to the Cypress Hills and Moscow … much of the world’s prime agricultural land frozen out … much of the world’s domesticated crops useless … and rich, nuke-armed northerners displacing third world peoples in the southern zones … the world’s billions of humans squished into already overcrowded regions and destroying what few animal species are left. Give me Global Warming any day.
Like one commentor on here said once … if this debate were occuring 20,000 years ago, the IPCC would be calling for giant mammoth rugs to be placed over the icesheets to preserve them.
Personally, I have recycled most of my life.
Don’t know if life would be any better the second time around 🙂
If people like Dr. Schwartz keep publishing such studies, the greenie Left will have only one alternative…
Blame America! (Specifically, ‘American science’.)
If people like Dr. Schwartz keep publishing such studies, the greenie Left will have only one alternative…
Blame America! (Specifically, ‘American science’.)
the rest of the story which you can find here at stephen schwartz’s site.
stephen e. schwartz: homepage
It should be emphasized that one should not take any comfort with the fact that the aerosols may be negating much of the greenhouse gas forcing–in fact just the opposite. Because the atmospheric residence time of tropospheric aerosols is short (about a week) compared to the decades-to-centuries lifetimes of the greenhouse gases, then to whatever extent greenhouse gas forcing is being offset by aerosol forcing, it is last week’s aerosols that are offsetting forcing by decades worth of greenhouse gases. Because the greenhouse gases are long-lived in the atmosphere, their atmospheric loadings tend to approximate the integral of emissions. Because the aerosols are short-lived, their loading tend to be proportional to the emissions themselves. There is only one function that is proportional to its own integral, the exponential function. So only if society is to make a commitment to continued exponential growth of emissions can such an offset be maintained indefinitely. And of course exponential growth cannot be maintained forever. So if the cooling influence of aerosols is in fact offsetting much of the warming influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, then when society is unable to maintain this exponential growth, the climate could be in for a real and long-lasting shock.
Because uncertainties associated with aerosol forcing are the major source of uncertainty in climate forcing over the industrial period, it is crucial in my opinion to focus on the aerosol forcing if any progress is to be made in understanding anthropogenically induced climate change. Consequently much of our research is directed to developing such improved understanding.
In a number of studies we have tried to provide estimates of the uncertainty budget associated with the aerosol forcing. Much of the uncertainty arises from the fact that unlike the long-lived greenhouse gases, whose concentrations are rather uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, the loadings of aerosols are highly variable in space and time, as a consequence of highly localized sources and of sporadic removal, mainly by precipitation. Additionally aerosol microphysical properties are not a universal constant, but depend on sources and composition and evolve as a consequence of chemical and physical processes occurring in the atmosphere. The mass loading, composition, and the microphysical properties of aerosols such as number concentration and size distribution directly affect their direct and indirect radiative forcing of climate.
he’s saying that his research might indicate that things are actually a whole lot worse.
John,
You are correct there is less ice at the north pole. Oddly there was more ice at the peak of the season in 2007 than there was in 2006 or 2005.
I coauldnt tell you why either of these is the case. I can also tell you there is more ice coverage in 2007 at the southe pole than there was in 2006…..I have no idea what causes this either nor do most scientists, it is a highly complex system.
All I can say is that the predictions of the global warming theorists havent been accurate.
1) Why did they not predict the growth in ice from 2005 t0 2006…why did they miss this sudden dop, which seems to be caused by some odd flow from the Bearing Sea to the Arctic Ocean
2) Why did they mis predict the 2006 hurrican season
3) Why does it look like they’ll get 2007 Hurrican season wrong
4)Why is it sweater weather in southern onario in August
5) Why the sudden drop in ocena temps from 2005 to 2006
6)Why cold we go through 30 years of dumping CO2 (from 40 through to 70) and yet temps dropped
I am not saying that AGW is wrong, it jsut seems that it sure isnt right in its current form….too many holes, no useable predictions…
The best answer right now is we really dont know.
Justthinkin: From context I assume it was me you were addressing your John comment to (note “John” and “John Cross” are different people). Yes, climate will change, it always has and will for the next several billion years. That has nothing to do with Jame’s points. (By the way Gore has never gotten a nickel from me – never say him talk, never watched AIT, etc.)
Regards,
John Cross
I’m saying Dr. Schwartz’s research would go a whole lot better if people stopped putting thermometers next to air conditioners.
“he’s saying that his research might indicate that things are actually a whole lot worse.”
When the word “might’ is the largest qualifier in the whole statement, the statement itself is not worth much.
When looking at Schartz’s chart of cooling and warming factors note the qualifiers at the bottom.
The greenhouse (perfectualy natural) effect of CO2, Methane, ect (which is very small compared to water vapour) is well understood. Level of understanding: high.
On the other hand, the level of understanding of ‘aerosol indirect effect’ is: very low.
In other words;
“No matter how the uncertainties are calculated, they are quite large relative to the estimated total forcing over the industrial period. In view of these uncertainties, which are due largely to uncertainty in aerosol forcing, it cannot be stated with certainty that the warming influences of CO2 and other GHGs exceeds the cooling influences due largely to aerosols, although this is likely to be the case.”
Likely To Be The Case.
In other words the AGW alarmist crowd is now hanging their hat on the “hope” that other factors are masking (slowing down) dramatic climate temperature rise that would (but is not) taking place if the maskers were not there.
Would. If.
But, like with all kults, they work on the fear factor. As Patrick Moore says, the best hoaxes and scams are the ones that are hard to prove true or false. At least initially.
The ‘back-to-the-cave-Dave’ crowd wants us to take no chance, no mater how small, and forget all the good things in life. Starting with room-temperature. Pathetic.
John Cross….sorry…not you…the other John.
It’s The Sun Stupid!!
@Jeff Davidson:
In and of itself, perhaps, but you don’t seem to realize that his research, if it in fact has shown a counteractive force to global warming (period), does suggest a way of containing any future global heating episodes through deliberate harnessing of the effects he’s been studying. The key phrase in this regard is “opposite sign.”
It would be too simple-minded of me to say that his research harbinges a “Spray A Spraycan To Combat Global Warming Day,” but he has pinpointed a factor that is:
a) counteractive to global warming;
b) under human control.
To any grizzled greenie with the common sense that comes with age, this implies that Dr. Schwartz’s research is edging towards a “technological fix” that might very well be workable and would be popular, and thus would send the greenies to the back of the shop again.
OK, I had a look at (Joel) Schwartz’s article and (Stephen) Schwartz’s paper. The review by Joel Schwarts is not all that strong. In one of his points he talks about an increase of 2.7 watts/cm2 YIKES!! That is 27,000 W/m2 or about 20 times the strength of the sun.
In regards to Stephen Schwartz’s paper, I think that James has hit the nail on the head (which is to be expected, this is his area of expertise). The main problem seems to be that he comes up with a very short climate response time. This leads to a low climate sensitivity.
I will add my own observation that for some reason Schwartz uses de-trended data to get his time response. As he notes in the paper if he uses the non de-trended data he gets a much longer time constant. He argues that it is reasonable to reject it as an autocorrelation effect, but I am not sure it is.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see what comes out in the next issue of JGR.
John
Daniel M. Ryan: The effect he is talking about is sulphate aerosols which are well known. They do provide a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight and are the reason volcanoes can cause cooling. The problem is that they also cause acid rain so they come with their own problems.
Regards,
John
Acid rain! That’s crazy talk. Everybody knows that acid rain doesn’t exist! Oh wait… because we did something to stop it. I guess I was thinking about the hole in the ozone… er… I guess we stopped that too, no thanks to the deniers.
Schwartz it must be noted hasn’t said that we are not causing climate change. In fact if he’s right. at best he is suggesting that we may have a bit more time to move towards a more sustainable model… something you guys reject outright.
I now return you to your John-bashing rants.
” and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world’s environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations.”
You don’t need AGW as a pretext to start seriously conserving fossil fuel energy. We better do it because we use the stuff at an unprecedented rate and there is only so much of it.
To those who say ‘technology will save our a$$’ I say we haven’t yet found ANYTHING that even remotely can replace fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is the next best thing, but good luck flying a plane, or running your combine on that.
There is only ‘so much oil”
Seems like there is a LOT of only-so-much oil.
[Dr. Gold strongly believes that oil is a “renewable, primordial soup continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attached by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs.”]
[About 80 miles off of the coast of Louisiana lies a mostly submerged mountain, the top of which is known as Eugene Island. The portion underwater is an eerie-looking, sloping tower jutting up from the depths of the Gulf of Mexico, with deep fissures and perpendicular faults which spontaneously spew natural gas. A significant reservoir of crude oil was discovered nearby in the late ’60s, and by 1970, a platform named Eugene 330 was busily producing about 15,000 barrels a day of high-quality crude oil.
By the late ’80s, the platform’s production had slipped to less than 4,000 barrels per day, and was considered pumped out. Done. Suddenly, in 1990, production soared back to 15,000 barrels a day, and the reserves which had been estimated at 60 million barrels in the ’70s, were recalculated at 400 million barrels. Interestingly, the measured geological age of the new oil was quantifiably different than the oil pumped in the ’70s.
Analysis of seismic recordings revealed the presence of a “deep fault” at the base of the Eugene Island reservoir which was gushing up a river of oil from some deeper and previously unknown source.
Similar results were seen at other Gulf of Mexico oil wells. Similar results were found in the Cook Inlet oil fields in Alaska. Similar results were found in oil fields in Uzbekistan. Similarly in the Middle East, where oil exploration and extraction have been underway for at least the last 20 years, known reserves have doubled. Currently there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 680 billion barrels of Middle East reserve oil.
Creating that much oil would take a big pile of dead dinosaurs and fermenting prehistoric plants. Could there be another source for crude oil?]
What if the oil companys knew this all along ?? Ah, like, are they just playing along with the peak-oil fearmonger enviro fanatics thing ?? Knowing there is a hell of a lot more petroleum down there. At high “scarce” prices !!??
[“There has not been any ‘debate’ about the origin of hydrocarbons for over a century,” he stated. “Competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological material since the last quarter of the 19th century.”]
http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=tech&main=479514&type=post
Ron,
You’re quoting that cornucopian claptrap verbatim, but all those claims have long been dismissed by serious geologists.
Yeah, Dr. Gold. The same guy who predicted the Apollo astronauts would sink in lunar dust. A noted gadfly.
There is no solid evidence for that ‘abiotic oil’ and experimental drillings have consistently failed to find it. Geologists, who actually do find real oil, look for it in sedimentary rocks, using the biotic theory as a basis.
And Eugene island? That’s not ‘renewable’ oil at all, just oil that seeped from another nearby field. And even at that, the ‘renewed’ production was just a fraction of previous peak, and did not last long.
If you’re right, there would be no need to extract oil from hellholes like Nigeria, or depend on the Middle East. We could extract it from our own backyards.
The reality is that US oil production keeps declining in spite of the high price and advanced technology. Same now with major producers like Norway, the UK and Mexico. Very few countries are left, that can actually increase their production (Canada is one of them). Worldwide production has been flat for the last 2 years in spite of higher demand, hence prices staying high (notice how Pollyannas like Mike Lynch, who predicted oil would be at $45 now, are quiet these days).
And you’re wrong about oil companies pushing the peak-oil ‘fearmongering’; on the contrary, most of oil executives deny it. They know admitting it would be bad for their stock value.
So, hang on to your dream of endless oil if you want – it’s a pure act of faith. I for one stick with reality.
One more thing:
“Similarly in the Middle East, where oil exploration and extraction have been underway for at least the last 20 years, known reserves have doubled. Currently there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 680 billion barrels of Middle East reserve oil. ”
Actually, there is hardly any real ‘new’ oil discovered nowadays, a few billion barrels a year at most (we burn 30 billion). Most additions to reserves result from better extraction practices (this is called Enhanced Oil Recovery, or EOR).
Traditional wells may extract only 30% of the oil in place; EOR can increase that to 50-70%. So we don’t ‘grow’ that oil at all; it was there to start with.
For example, Saudi Arabia boosted its reserves from 170 to 260 billion barrels in 1990. Just like that. That sudden spike was not due to exploration (most of their fields were discovered in the 1945-1965 period); it’s all EOR projections.
OMG the sky falls upon us!!!
That is what I hear from the global warming camp, and that is what I don’t want or need to hear. That is the big LIE.
Should we learn to be more conservative with our resources and strive for better ways to live? ABSOLUTELY!!! And Mr. Gore’s people won’t find a soul who will (credibly) disagree with that.
But this group of activists are about SCARE tactics – intimidation – reach the “kids” (which I find most dispicable).
Indeed, now that a bit of contrary but real science is rearing it’s (ugly) head, this is what they resort to. “But my God people, what can be wrong with reducing carbon emissions? What is the matter with you?”
Well … nothing. Most of us were probably thinking and doing before youre people latched onto the ability to “scare up millions of dollars” if you can just scare the masses.
And THAT is what is wrong with your program. I have an idea … work with the REAL world, without the promise of quick mega-dollars, and maybe then we can collectiviely deal with the problems we DO have. Like pollution and over-harvesting – like deforestation and , dare I say, wasteful uses of our resources.
But somehow I don’t see a reconciliation yet between your “going to fry your kids” rhetoric and the real job that needs to be done … responsibly.
Rick
AL GORE wants to visit antartica and the penguens and artic terns will oppose his visit and the skuas will oppose him as well SQUAWK SQUAWK ARISE FELLOW BIRDS AL GORE IS COMMING SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK
Nope. Probably just a coincidence…
“Previously unknown islands are appearing as Arctic summer sea ice shrinks to record lows, raising questions about whether global warming is outpacing UN projections, experts said.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070820.wnorice0820/BNStory/International/home
To all the global warmer folks who worry about the melting ice packs, I’ll go check for you, okay? I’m headed to the coast later this week and I’ll check how much flooding has occurred…I’ll then calculate how many weeks you have until Canada is submerged.
You should be able to sell your houses to us deniers and move to Katmandu where you’ll be safe forever!
The world sure is a funny place…a 0.6 degree rise in temperatures over 100 years (nah…couldn’t be that we have more and better temperature monitoring sites than 100 years ago and couldn’t be that we seem to be placing them in the middle of paved areas over air conditioner units) and we all drown. Amazing how civilization flourished hundreds and hundreds of years ago during the MWP without drowning…maybe we SHOULD do as Dr. Fruitfly says and start living like we’re in the medieval age…THEY survived, so maybe “living off the land” (in caves) is the key to survival.