Study: Northeast winters warming fast

[Paradox]

The difference is spending for research vs spending for a PR campaign.
Follow this link http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/09pch15.pdf provided by SPPI. (the demons are slain by thier own weapons)

I concur. I just glossed through the "Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress May 2007" Much of the spending is on defence and agriculture for researching how to deal with the climate changes they are observing. These institutions don't seem to care if CC is human induced or not, as long as they get their questions answered and problems solved. But if you need to blurr the distinction between dealing with climate change and promoting human induced climate change then as the navy says "Any port in a storm."



"Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress May 2007"
4 OMB, Fiscal Year 2008. Report to Congress on Federal Climate Change Expenditures, Table 8 and Table 7.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legisl...ate_change.pdf.

 

[Barbarossa]

I did not make it to the end of the PDF. The standard is to either have in text citations or footnotes.

Like this? "In total, over the last 20 years, by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government will have
poured in $32 billion1 2" <== Like this?

Anything else is slopppy and suspect.

 

[Puck]

Like this? "In total, over the last 20 years, by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government will have
poured in $32 billion1 2" <== Like this?

Thanks...I see it now. To be honest I didn't make it past the first page, which actually is pretty good for me on a denier website. My time is limited and I choose my sources very carefully. If I fid the organization is coming from a funded bias or if I catch them in a gross misrepresentation or if thier citations contradict thier claim I don't look back.

 

[Barbarossa]

How do I know your telling the truth about this 79 billion figure.

That's why I posted the link to the article.

Back to my original bone of contention: Dr D posted that the skeptics, funded by oil money, are out spending the non-skeptics by a wide margin. He did nothing to back his assertion. I called hijinx.

$79 billion dollars, a concrete number. If you want more precision, read the Appendix.

What is your figure? Show me the money, Jerry Maguire.

 

[Paradox]

That's why I posted the link to the article.

Back to my original bone of contention: Dr D posted that the skeptics, funded by oil money, are out spending the non-skeptics by a wide margin. He did nothing to back his assertion. I called hijinx.

$79 billion dollars, a concrete number. If you want more precision, read the Appendix.

What is your figure? Show me the money, Jerry Maguire.

Close to zero. I looked over your reference (4 OMB, Fiscal Year 2008. Report to Congress on Federal Climate Change Expenditures, Table 8 and Table 7.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legisl...ate_change.pdf. ). Claiming that the U.S. government is funding a non-skeptic agenda because it supported research to the tune of many billions is the hijinx. Claiming that research that might prevent sailors from sliding overboard is promoting a human induced GW agenda is hyjinx. Show me where some windmill company is spending the kind of money Exxon/Mobil is and then you have a parallel.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

This thread is taking a decidedly uncivil turn - seems to fit in with the general tone of today's society.

Barbarossa's position on GW is clear, and attempts to convince him, and vice versa, is now reduced to lobbing footnotes and appendices at each other.

Maybe a time-out is in order?

 

[Nutsosa]

This thread is taking a decidedly uncivil turn - seems to be fit in with the general tone of today's society.

Barbarossa's position on GW is clear, and attempts to convince him, and vice versa, is now reduced to lobbing footnotes and appendices at each other.

Maybe a time-out is in order?

But, I was just about to print out all 430 pages of whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/spec.pdf

I've only made a couple of posts, but its clear that this isn't going anywhere productive. Sorry about the tinfoil hat remark. It was meant to be humor, albeit at somebody else's expense.

I'll agree to disagree, and bow out of this one. Barbarossa, PM me if you want to continue the discussion. I'll be nice if you will be too

 

[Paradox]

Sorry about the tinfoil hat remark. It was meant to be humor, albeit at somebody else's expense.

About time. Zippy just said to me that she thought it was over the top.

 

[Chip]

01-17-2008, 07:50 AM

Ironically this thread illustrates my main concern regarding the Global Warming Argument/Discussion perfectly;
We've solved nothing, answered nothing, upset members (I'm sure there are members reading this who feel so strongly about the issue that their heads are about to explode) AND we all would have done more good for the environment if we had turned off our computers a week ago and went outside to pick up garbage.

This thread has come full circle a couple times. I'm going to go recycle something.

 

[Little Rickie]

This thread has come full circle a couple times. I'm going to go recycle something.

What do they call doing (saying) the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

 

[Stash]

What do they call doing (saying) the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

If one drinks enough one can get a different result every time..

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Arctic ice melts to third-smallest area on record

"By Steve Gorman Steve Gorman – Thu Sep 17, 8:16 pm ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – The Arctic's sea ice pack thawed to its third-lowest summer level on record, up slightly from the seasonal melt of the past two years but continuing an overall decline symptomatic of climate change, U.S. scientists said on Thursday."

For the complete Yahoo article, click here -

 

[Chip]

"
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – The Arctic's sea ice pack thawed to its third-lowest summer level on record, up slightly from the seasonal melt of the past two years but continuing an overall decline symptomatic of climate change, U.S. scientists said on Thursday."
-

Now I don't want to get no fights started in here , but doesn't that sentence contradict itself ? Just asking.

 

[Chip]

Now I don't want to get no fights started in here , but doesn't that sentence contradict itself ? Just asking.

National Geographic article refers to this past year as "a one-year reprieve" not expected to continue. It does clarify my question about the apparent contradiction to the quoted Steve Gorman article, however.

The scientists involved do seem to want to use the short term data to extrapolate longer trends, regardless. This years measurements seem to have changed projections of an ice-free arctic from this past summer to 2030 to 2040. I guess we'll see what happens next year.

 

[Stash]

And what is really being done about it?

Much talk of (and arguments about) how billions are being spent to predict when "the end" will come or who is responsible or if GW exists. How about talk of what is actually being done to reduce power usage and thereby reduce emissions contributing to this and a few other problems caused by emissions of all sorts?

• Taking advantage of melting to use the North Passage for shipping. Melting bad? Obviously. Making the best of the situation and reducing the amount of fuel ships are burning? Why not? Maybe enough similar acts will make it so they can't anymore. A good thing.
  
  
• Hundreds of companies with large computer data centers are spending billions to reduce energy usage. I spend 90% of my time planning and implementing server changes for a large corporation to reduce by a very large margin data center energy usage. Why? A large data center uses 2,500kw or more of electicity. A huge amount that needs to be generated by predominantly fossil fuels. Huge expense for energy. Even bigger expense if they need to build a bigger data center for a few billion. Google has built a 1.6MW solar installation to help out with their tremendous energy needs. Yes evil corporations are doing it to save money but the result is still positive.
  
  
• Don't laugh at this one... Estimates of man-made greenhouse gases that come from livestock (methane) are from 5 to 18% of the total. Methane warms the planet 20 times faster than CO2. Additives are being developed for commercial livestock feed to reduce gas in livestock leading to reduced methane emissions. A 20:1 bang for the buck if you look at it from the right angle.

Hand wringing will only get you so far. Blame will get you so far. Identifying, promoting and contributing to things that will help the situation is time and money better spent.

 

[SteveHiker]

Mark Twain summed this whole discussion up best when he said,
"In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. Therefore ... in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period the Lower Mississippi River was upward of one million three hundred thousand miles long... seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long... There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."

 

[Kevin Rooney]

...[*]Don't laugh at this one... Estimates of man-made greenhouse gases that come from livestock (methane) are from 5 to 18% of the total. Methane warms the planet 20 times faster than CO2. Additives are being developed for commercial livestock feed to reduce gas in livestock leading to reduced methane emissions. A 20:1 bang for the buck if you look at it from the right angle.

I've read several articles on bovine methane, but I also read a research article recently which stated that bovine methane has been overstated by 800%. Perhaps more research needs to be done, with the usual peer review, before conclusions can be accepted re: the contributions bovine methane makes to GW.

 

[Neil]

Speaking of sea ice, this is from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4):

 

[Stash]

I've read several articles on bovine methane, but I also read a research article recently which stated that bovine methane has been overstated by 800%. Perhaps more research needs to be done, with the usual peer review, before conclusions can be accepted re: the contributions bovine methane makes to GW.

Maybe the number is smaller. But a small change here, a small change there. Every bit will add up. Kind of like that big jar of pennies. That's likely how we got here in the first case. One factory. One car. One cow eating corn?

My assumption is that there is no single answer to this complex problem. No silver bullet. You can only discuss which route you're going to take up that hill for so long. Eventually you have to pick one if you're going to bag it or get back in your car and and go home. Or maybe get back on your bicycle??

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Multiyear Arctic ice is effectively gone: expert

Here's an interesting article on sea ice. Apparently the Arctic sea ice is disappearing in ways not anticipated by scientists.

Any thoughts on this article, Dr. Thom?