A different Climate change / Global warming thread [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : A different Climate change / Global warming thread

Pages : 1 [2]

Fraggle145

10/22/2009, 01:19 PM

Wow, whales and dolphins know more about nuclear fission than man. I saw a horse once count with its hoof. About man is better, as I said before, it is a God thing. You may think you are no better than a microbe, but I for sure as *ell am.

And remind me again why dolphins and whales need nuclear fission...

SCOUT

10/22/2009, 01:58 PM

And remind me again why dolphins and whales need nuclear fission...

If they had better power supplies, they could develop better weapons to defend against whalers. ;)

I Am Right

10/22/2009, 02:23 PM

And remind me again why dolphins and whales need nuclear fission...

Remind me again why whales and dolphins are smarter than man, because they don't use nuclear fission?

SCOUT

10/22/2009, 02:24 PM

On a more serious note, I saw a webpage that lists links to articles about the affects of global warming. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm It would be funny if they weren't serious, but they are. These links illustrate why I am still not convinced. It seems that anything and everything can be linked to global warming a.k.a. climate change. Here are some of may favorites. Global warming will cause:
Cannibalism (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/04/02/turner-iraqi-insurgents-patriots-inaction-warming-cannibalism)
Beer Shortage (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23505712-23109,00.html)
Smaller Brains (http://www.brainbasedbusiness.com/2007/03/expect_smaller_brains.html)

I Am Right

10/22/2009, 02:46 PM

KABOOKIE

10/22/2009, 07:34 PM

I'm pretty sure my yellow lab is smarter than the average Obama supporter.

I Am Right

10/22/2009, 07:40 PM

If they had better power supplies, they could develop better weapons to defend against whalers. ;)

Good Call.

I Am Right

10/27/2009, 06:15 PM

Story #6: Nutcase Leftists: How Cats and Dogs Kill the Planet

RUSH: From the UK Daily Express: "A medium-sized dog has the same carbon impact as a Toyota Land Cruiser driven 6,000 miles a year," according to a new book. Now, folks, as I say, I do not understand how it is that any sane person can still support any of this. "Time To Eat The Dog: The Real Guide To Sustainable Living also suggests a cat," my little Punkin, "is equivalent to running a Volkswagen Golf. The findings are based on the amount of land needed to grow food for pets. Even a pair of hamsters do the same damage as running a plasma television, say the book’s authors Robert and Brenda Vale. But rabbits and chickens were eco-friendly because they provide meat for their owners, while a canary or a goldfish does little harm to the planet, the authors said." Can you believe this? I do. Nutcase leftists are running around, I mean, they want no living thing on this planet, other than them. How dogs damage the planet like a four-by-four... Sheesh.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I Am Right

10/27/2009, 06:16 PM

Story #7: Vegetarians: Stop Eating Meat to Control the Climate

RUSH: From the UK Times this morning: "People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming. Lord Stern of Brentford said: 'Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.'" Now, these are the people all trying to gain control of a worldwide government to implement this stuff. "Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases." Folks, I'm going to explain something to you about vegetarianism. Snerdley, you tell me. What is the primary source of protein for vegetarians? Don't give me that protein powder stuff. Don't give me that. Beans. Exactly right. You can run around and do these powder mixes, put it in your water out there, you can fool yourself, but beans are it, and we all know from the Blazing Saddles scene what happens.

So we're going to get rid of all the livestock, we're going to get rid of beef, going to get rid of cattle and all that to be replaced by a bunch of… Sigh. It's going to end up that vegetarians are causing global warming. What, Snerdley? I don't care. Beans do. I don't care what tofu makes you -- beans do. Chickpeas, white beans, black beans, black-eyed pea beans, whatever they are, try it. Navy beans... Why not kill all the elephants and hippopotamuses and gazelles and deer and buffalo and bears, everything else? They all expel gas, too! Where does this end? Why stop at domestic livestock? Besides, folks, there was no global warming when the buffalo were out there roaming around. It's truly inane.

I Am Right

10/27/2009, 06:18 PM

Story #5: Environmentalists Scale Back Copenhagen Hopes

RUSH: From a disappointed Associated Press: "Just weeks before an international conference on climate change, the United Nations signaled it was scaling back expectations of reaching agreement on a new treaty to slow global warming. Janos Pasztor, director of the secretary-general's Climate Change Support Team, said Monday 'it's hard to say how far the conference will be able to go' because the U.S. Congress has not agreed on a climate bill, and industrialized nations have not agreed on targets to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions or funding to help developing countries limit their discharges. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has made a new climate treaty his top priority, hosting a Sept. 22 summit on climate change to spur political support. ... Pasztor told a news conference 'there is tremendous activity by governments in capitals and internationally to shape the outcome' of the climate change conference in Copenhagen ... But he indicated that Copenhagen most likely won't produce a treaty, but instead will push governments as far as they can go on the content of an agreement." They're losing momentum out there, if this is to be believed, scaling back expectations. I think to the extent that this is accurate it is because Dingy Harry and his boys are nowhere near getting crap and tax here before the end of the year. Obama's not going to go over there with a bill in hand. He may not have his health care done by then, which is early December.

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 06:29 PM

Wow...RLiMC's troll sure can copy and paste things that Rush Limbaugh has said.

woo

freakin'

hoo

:rolleyes:

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 06:29 PM

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/science/human_activity.aspx

How do we know humans are responsible?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/science/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/sci_responsible_large.ashx
Scientists have measured greenhouse gases in the atmosphere steadily increasing over recent decades. The more that human activities emit, the more we find around us. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s, we’ve added 500 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere. Other greenhouses gases are increasing too.

Scientists can tell the extra carbon dioxide around the Earth comes from fossil fuels by looking at the type of carbon. The carbon atoms in fossil fuels are lighter, on average, than those in air. Scientists can measure increasing numbers of lighter carbon atoms in the atmosphere over time. So we know the extra carbon dioxide comes from fossil fuels.

The climate change we are experiencing cannot be explained by natural causes. It is only when we allow for increases in temperature caused by human greenhouse gas emissions that the current warming can be explained.

Natural effects may in fact be having a cooling effect on the Earth at the moment. Without them, warming caused by humans would be even greater.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a collaboration between thousands of scientists and governments from 130 countries. They are considered the most trustworthy group of experts on climate change in the world. Every six years they produce a report reviewing all the latest research into climate change. In 2007 they concluded that it’s very likely the global warming in the last 50 years was caused by humans.

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 06:34 PM

What is the evidence that the climate is changing?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/science/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/sci_evidence_large.ashx
Image: www.photo.antarctica.ac.uk (http://www.photo.antarctica.ac.uk/)

Human-caused climate change has already begun. We are feeling the effects now.

The world is getting warmer. The UK’s Met Office holds temperature records dating back to 1659. Today scientists use satellites and thousands of thermometers around the world to measure global temperature. Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s, the average world temperature has risen by 0.75 °C. Some areas have got even hotter. Eleven of the last 13 years were the warmest ever recorded.

By drilling vast cores of ice from as far as 3.5 km down inside the Antarctic ice sheet, scientists can work out what the temperature was up to 1 million years ago. Ice cores reveal that carbon dioxide and temperature have been tightly linked throughout history.

Tree rings, soil sediment on lake beds, fossilised pollen and coral can all tell hidden secrets about historical temperatures. Scientists piece together this evidence and build a detailed historical record of the Earth’s climate. It’s hotter now than at any time in the past 1000 years.More.

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 06:35 PM

What is causing climate change?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/science/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/sci_cause_large.ashx

Fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – are huge stores of carbon formed underground over millions of years from dead plants and animals.

Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s humans have burned fossil fuels to produce energy. This releases the carbon stored within them into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide – a greenhouse gas.

Burning fossil fuels isn’t the only way humans are putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gases. Livestock, especially cows, produce the gas methane, a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Nearly one-fifth of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock. Growing rice also produces methane when organic material rots underwater in the flooded rice fields.

Landfill sites release methane as their rubbish breaks down. And destroying rainforests and burning the wood releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide
Human greenhouse gas emissions are upsetting the natural balance of the greenhouse effect. Extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap in more heat than can escape. This causes the planet to warm up.

In 1824 the French scientist Joseph Fourier became the first person to realise small amounts of gases in the atmosphere cause the planet to warm up. Since then, the greenhouse effect has become one of the most well-studied theories in atmospheric science.more

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 06:40 PM

What effects are already being felt?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/science/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/sci_effects_large.ashxImage: NASA

Earth's rising temperature is causing knock-on effects. Rainfall patterns are changing. After three centuries of stability, sea level is now rising. Ice in the Arctic is melting further back year on year. Extreme weather, such as droughts and hurricanes, is becoming more common or more intense.

The changing weather patterns are causing plants to flower earlier in the year and species to migrate as the climate in their habitats changes.more

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 06:41 PM

What is climate?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/science/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/sci_what_is_cc_large.ashx

Climate isn’t the same as weather which changes from day to day. Climate describes the average weather over a long time in a particular place. This means temperature, rainfall, wind, frost, snow, humidity, fog and many other factors.

The things that determine the climate are extremely complex. Physical, chemical and biological processes all interact to make a finely balanced system.

The Earth is just right for us to live on. That’s because of the greenhouse effect. When sunlight passes through the atmosphere it strikes the Earth and warms it up. Some heat bounces back and escapes into space. But small amounts of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, act like a blanket around the Earth. They trap some of the reflected rays in our atmosphere. This keeps the Earth warm.

The natural greenhouse effect is vital. Without it, the world would be 30 oC colder. But now we have started to push the greenhouse effect out of balance.

The climate has changed naturally in the past. Changes in our planet’s orbit take it closer to, or further away from, the Sun. This changes the amount of heat reaching the Earth. Bursts of activity in the Sun, or sunspots, send extra heat towards the Earth and warm it up. And volcanic ash in the atmosphere reflects energy into space, briefly cooling us down.

The Earth’s climate is prone to natural changes. But now, for the first time in its history, humans are making the climate change as well.more

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 06:41 PM

What should Copenhagen deliver?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/science/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/ec_copenhagendeliver_large.ashx

Urgent action is required if the world is to avoid the worst effects of climate change. From the perspective of climate scientists, Copenhagen must deliver a deal which:
Builds on the scientific evidence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Recognises climate change is happening and helps people already being affected
Acknowledges every country is contributing to, and will be affected by, climate change.more

KABOOKIE

10/27/2009, 06:48 PM

.75 of a degree.

You think someone in 1659 measured to within a hundreth of a degree? Ha.

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 06:57 PM

.75 of a degree.

You think someone in 1659 measured to within a hundreth of a degree? Ha.Heh...you REALLY don't understand science. :D

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 06:58 PM

Who will be hardest hit?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/equity/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/hr_hardest_hit_large.ashx

Developing countries are most vulnerable to change. They have less money to adapt their lifestyles and buildings to changing temperatures, frequent floods or droughts, or extreme weather.

For many people, these changes are already happening. Effects vary by region.

Drought is leading to crop failure and starvation in the Sahel belt in Africa. Extreme weather, likely intensified by climate change, is destroying homes in southeast Asia. Inhabitants of the low-lying Carteret Islands in the south Pacific are finding their livelihoods increasingly threatened as the rising sea level floods farmland, uproots trees and contaminates fresh water.
more

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 06:58 PM

How should responsibility be shared?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/equity/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/hr_shared_large.ashx

Energy from fossil fuels has given Europe and the USA a high standard of living. Clean water, food production and convenient transport all require energy.

The poorest nations want to build infrastructure and lift their populations out of poverty. Fossil fuels are the cheapest way to power this, especially for countries with abundant coal and oil. These countries fear emissions targets will restrict their growth.

Human rights experts believe that instead of placing the burden on the poor, sustainable development should be a global challenge. And that rich countries need to curb their own emissions and help poorer nations grow without causing climate change.

China, India and Brazil are developing fast. New factories, buildings and infrastructure are making them wealthier. These nations need increasing amounts of energy to power their development. As their economies grow, so do their emissions.

Clean technologies can help meet some of their energy needs. But fossil fuels are cheap. The wealthy nations developed using inexpensive coal, oil and gas. Growing countries want their slice of the cake.more

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 07:00 PM

What help do developing countries need?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/equity/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/hr_help_large.ashx

There is already a lot of knowledge and existing technologies that can be used to reduce emissions. Wind turbines and solar panels cut fossil fuel consumption. Carbon capture and storage removes greenhouse gas from the atmosphere and stores it underground.

Sharing innovations such as these with poorer nations could help them achieve clean development. But if technologies are copied, then inventors and businesses can lose out on profits. Technology transfer needs to be carefully regulated to make sure that it benefits everyone.

Poor countries need financial aid to deal with the effects of climate change. Adaptation funds could finance flood defences and irrigation systems to make the developing world more resilient to impacts.

The alternative is emergency funding for flood and famine relief. As the climate changes and disasters become more frequent, richer countries will be called upon more regularly to contribute aid. Human lives could be saved more effectively by planning and foresight. It would also be more economically sustainable.more

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 07:00 PM

Why are rainforests important?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/equity/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/hr_rainforest_large.ashx

Rainforests store carbon dioxide. There is twice as much carbon locked up in forests and their soils as there is in the atmosphere. Over the next 40 years forests will soak up a further 10% of our carbon dioxide emissions.

The world has already lost 80% of its forests through deforestation. An area the size of England is destroyed each year. Cutting down forests releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Around 20% of emissions are caused by deforestation.

There are advantages to deforestation. Cutting down forests provides farmland to grow food. Selling logs generates income. These benefits can help to increase the wealth and standard of life for remote communities in developing countries.

However, these benefits can backfire. Deforested soil rapidly becomes infertile and is easily eroded. Such unexpected effects can leave people living in these regions worse off than before.

Financial compensation for these communities and legal restrictions on businesses wanting to exploit forests are necessary to halt deforestation and encourage regeneration.more

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 07:02 PM

How do scientists predict future climate?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/future/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/mod_predicting_large.ashx
Image: European Communities, 1995 - 2005

Complex computer models can predict how greenhouse gas emissions will affect the climate in the future. Based on well-understood physical laws, they recreate the interactions between many processes that affect the climate. This allows scientists to simulate changes in elements of the climate such as rainfall, humidity, the rate of glacier melt and many others.

Models split the world into millions of points on a 3D map, and divide time into thousands of intervals for each century. The state of the climate is calculated at a particular place from one point in time to the next. This builds up a detailed picture of the future climate around the world.

Before making predictions, the computer models are used to simulate the past. This shows how accurately they can recreate the processes that determine the climate. If these simulations of the past accurately match what really happened, scientists can be confident about the models’ predictions of the future. Models can forecast the climate for hundreds of years to come.

Calculating a century of climate change on some of the world’s fastest supercomputers can take months. Scientists run lots of models together to get a range of predictions.more

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 07:02 PM

How hot will it get?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/future/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/mod_how_hot_large.ashx

No matter what we do, the world is likely to heat up by about 0.6 oC over the next 40 years. Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a long time. The warming we are experiencing now is a result of greenhouse gases emitted since the 1960s. Even if we stop emitting tomorrow there will still be enough carbon in the air to keep warming us for another 40 years.

The world has warmed 0.75 oC since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s. If we don’t reduce global emissions, the world is likely to warm by 2–5 oC by 2100 compared with the end of last century. The temperature difference between today and the last ice age is only about 3–4 oC.more

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 07:03 PM

What are the effects of climate change?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/future/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/mod_effect_cc_large.ashx

The warmer it gets, the worse the effects will be. Rainfall patterns will change. Wet areas are likely to get wetter and dry areas drier. Glaciers will melt faster than they do today. A sixth of the world’s population rely on glaciers and melt water from snow for water. Smaller glaciers mean less drinking water for these people.

Sea level will rise as the oceans warm up and expand, putting low-lying areas at risk of flooding and coastal erosion. Some small islands are already making plans to evacuate their populations. Many major cities, including London, are under threat.

Ecosystems will be disrupted. Some species will be wiped out as they struggle to survive such rapid climate changes. Disasters such as floods and droughts will become more common or more extreme. Infectious diseases including malaria are likely to spread more widely as disease-carrying insects move into new areas.

Changing rainfall and rising temperatures will affect crops. Combined with droughts and heat waves this could cause food shortages. Some scientists predict that hundreds of millions of people could be affected, though social and economic factors will also be critical.

Models show rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions will avoid the most severe impacts. However, some climate change is inevitable and we will need to adapt. Roads and railways might need to be designed with materials that can withstand extreme heat and downpours. Buildings will require better cooling to make them more pleasant in the heat. And coastal defences will have to be built to stop land being lost to the rising sea.

New ways of storing water can reduce the number of people going thirsty during periods of drought. Farmers could have to change their crops to suit the new climate better. Prices for some foods may go up as they become harder to grow locally.more

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 07:04 PM

How do we avoid the worst?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/future/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/mod_avoid_worst_large.ashx

Any temperature rise will have some negative effects. Scientists and governments agree that we should try to avoid a global temperature rise of more than 2 oC since the Industrial Revolution. This is referred to as dangerous climate change. Temperature rises above 4 oC would be disastrous.

We’ve already had 0.75 oC of warming. Our current emissions will cause a further 0.6 oC. That doesn’t leave us much room to avoid the worst.

Eventually we may reach ‘tipping points’ that could trigger rapid, irreversible changes.
Heat-carrying currents in the north Atlantic could slow, causing a sudden temperature drop in Europe. The polar icecaps could start to melt uncontrollably. The Amazon rainforest might disappear, taking its wildlife with it.

Huge amounts of greenhouse gases stored in frozen ground may be released into the atmosphere as the ground melts. This extra greenhouse gas would cause further warming, with catastrophic consequences.

This doesn’t have to happen. There’s still time if we act urgently.more

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 07:05 PM

How long has the world got to act?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/future/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/mod_how_long_large.ashx

Computer models suggest that to have a good chance of keeping warming below 2 oC, greenhouse gas emissions need to start declining around 2015. Global emissions need to be halved by 2050.

Failing to reduce emissions by 2015 will make it extremely difficult to keep warming below 2 oC. Cuts at a later date would need to be bigger and happen even faster.more

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 07:07 PM

How is economics linked to climate change?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/economics/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/ec_climate_link_large.ashx

Humans started changing the climate when they began burning fossil fuels for energy. People first used coal, oil and gas to power machines during the Industrial Revolution. Since 1750, farming, manufacture and transport have become increasingly mechanised.

Fossil fuels are inexpensive. Cheap energy has transformed our lives for the better. Without it, we would have no clean water, food, transport or cities. Because of it, we are richer, healthier and happier. Countries that use more energy have higher standards of living.

Until about 60 years ago, most people found the idea that humans could change the climate implausible. Now we know burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These gases warm the Earth. So almost everything we do, buy and consume contributes to climate change.

The world’s population has doubled in the last 40 years and is still growing. The extra people need more food, buildings and goods. This means higher demand for energy, more greenhouse gases and accelerating climate change.

Governments and scientists agree that we need urgent action on climate change. But the proposed action must be economically sound to bring the required benefits.

There are many different ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and each has its own price tag, positive or negative. For example, replacing old light bulbs with energy saving ones is likely to save money. But with current technology, generating electricity with solar panels works out more expensive than fossil fuels in most places.more

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 07:08 PM

Can tackling climate change make economic sense?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/economics/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/ec_sense_large.ashx

We can’t live without energy. So to stop causing climate change, we need a clean alternative to fossil fuels. Replacing our energy system will be expensive. Economists agree that changes must be made as cheaply and efficiently as possible.

Given the urgency of climate change, some of the infrastructure changes will have to be funded by governments. But experts also think that the right policies can help keep costs down.

Economists believe markets can help reduce emissions cheaply. They recommend ‘putting a price on carbon’, which means charging companies or individuals for generating greenhouse gases. This could be a straightforward tax, so you pay for what you emit. Another option is a ‘cap and trade’ system which allows businesses to buy and sell emissions permits.

Either way, companies would benefit from investing in clean technologies. And money from such schemes could be used to reduce other types of tax. Economies could still grow, but greenhouse gas emissions would not.more

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 07:09 PM

What will climate change cost?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/economics/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/ec_climatechangecost_large%20jpg.ashx

Even if emissions are reduced as cheaply as possible, there will still be a net cost to the economy. However, the potentially catastrophic consequences of unchecked climate change could work out even more expensive.

Regions hit by hurricanes will require disaster relief. Drought-decimated farmland will destroy farmers’ profits. And a flooded world city could send the economic system into freefall. Doing nothing isn’t the cheap option.more

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 07:10 PM

Is economic growth sustainable?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/economics/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/ec_growthsustainable_large.ashx

Conventional economics assumes that our prosperity depends upon economic growth. Recently, some experts have begun to question this. They argue growth, which relies on a society producing and buying ever more stuff, cannot be sustained forever. Crucial resources such as fossil fuels and metals will eventually run out.

Instead, these experts propose a sustainable economy which doesn’t measure success by growth. Although people would consume less, they could still flourish. Wealth could be more fairly shared between people. And importantly, our prosperity would not come at the expense of the environment.more

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 07:10 PM

How do economists calculate the price of climate change?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/economics/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/ec_calculate_large.ashx

To help governments decide whether and how to cut greenhouse gas emissions, economists compare the costs of different policies. This is difficult because the benefits may not be felt for many years.

People tend to place more value on benefits now than benefits in the future – they’d rather receive £100 today than £100 tomorrow. So economists try to factor this into their calculations. But how much more do we value our own wealth and wellbeing over that of future generations? And what are the ethical implications?

As the calculations are so complex, economists don’t all agree about the costs of unchecked climate change. The influential Stern Review from 2006 estimated that 1 tonne of carbon dioxide causes $85 of damage in the long term. However, a study by Yale economist William Nordhaus predicted only $7.40 of damage per tonne.

So, although economists agree that action on climate change is necessary, exactly what should be done, and how soon, depends on their analysis.more

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 07:11 PM

What about the recession?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/economics/%7E/media/Images/ProveIt/ec_recession_large.ashx
The world faces an economic crisis. Right now, governments have little money spare to invest in new technologies.

But tackling climate change could boost economies. Upgrading our energy and transport infrastructure is a huge task. We need effective renewable technologies, efficient transport systems and energy-saving building materials. Governments can invest in the green businesses that can produce those technologies. This could help beat the recession as well as cutting emissions.done

now cue a snow report from I Am Troll.

Sooner_Havok

10/27/2009, 07:32 PM

duh why for sigs longer dan posts?

Sooner_Havok

10/27/2009, 07:33 PM

Mmmmmmmmm, cigs...

Frack, going to 7-11 need anything?

I Am Right

10/27/2009, 07:59 PM

more

79.73 ▲0.18 0.23% Oil Price

Woo, Woo

I Am Right

10/27/2009, 08:00 PM

done

now cue a snow report from I Am Troll.

79.73 ▲0.18 0.23% Oil Price

Woo, Woo

I Am Right

10/27/2009, 08:01 PM

more

79.73 ▲0.18 0.23% Oil Price

Woo, Woo

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 08:05 PM

Sorry...OIL report (cause that like...means something) AND another miraculous greenification by his RLiMC master.

At least TRY and hide the fact that you're a Troll handle.

Or be interesting, like the Penguins. :rolleyes:

Sooner_Havok

10/27/2009, 08:18 PM

I miss my troll :(

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 08:28 PM

I wish yours would come back and his would die a horrible death.

Sooner_Havok

10/27/2009, 08:33 PM

mine got to make one fracking post! WTF!?!?

LosAngelesSooner

10/27/2009, 08:37 PM

And yet that one post was most ASSUREDLY a better post than ANY that I Am Troll has made in his entire Trolling career. LOL

Sooner_Havok

10/27/2009, 09:08 PM

yeah, probably

I Am Right

10/28/2009, 09:03 AM

3

2

1

Weather observers could be measuring snowfall in feet in parts of Colorado over the next two days, with as much as 18 inches expected in parts of metro Denver.

The alarming early-season forecast placed local governments and airlines at Denver International Airport on notice. City vehicles were fitted with plows Tuesday in advance of the storm, and some airlines offered limited fee waivers to travelers worried about possible flight cancellations.

In the foothills, up to 24 inches of snow is possible. Higher elevations could get 3 feet.

"We'll be working around the clock if it occurs the way it has been predicted," said Charlie Blosten, public services director of the city of Littleton. "We'll be out there whether

Colorado Weather

Colo. weather warnings & watches

Colorao Weather Forecast + Conditions
Colorado Weather Alert Map
Colorado Weather Radar
Colorado Weather News
School Closings, Delays
Colorado Ski Resort Snow Totals
Weather Photos + Video

Share your weather video
Share your CO weather photos, and view them online
Denver Webcams
Weather on Twitter

Follow Denver Weather on twitter
More Colorado Weather twitterers
Travel Information

Denver Traffic Conditions
CDOT Advisories, Cameras
DIA Flight Information
DIA Parking Space Availability
DIA update:
This airport has been deicing aircraft since 28/05:46.

School closures and delays

Participating schools and districts
Submit a closure or delay (previous registration required)
Other closures and delays (9News.com)
it snows or not to hit the ground running; we've got workers showing up before midnight to get crews ready to move to the streets. We'll be as ready as you can get before Mother Nature really tells us she's in charge."

If road conditions are as bad as predicted, Denver will deploy all 68 of its heavy plows, said Ann Williams, spokeswoman for Denver Public Works.

"The plows are being mounted this afternoon," she said Tuesday. "Right now we have to monitor conditions; when the snow starts to accumulate, we will start plowing."

The Colorado Department of Transportation has about 75 trucks mounted with plows ready to remove snow in the Denver area, said spokeswoman Stacey Stegman. "We will see how the storm progresses," she said.

More CDOT crews will work the Interstate 70 mountain corridor.

Snow crews were expected to show up at work at midnight Tuesday in Aurora, said Lynn Center, Aurora capital projects manager for street services. By midafternoon Tuesday, Aurora's plows were ready, sand trucks loaded and chemical trucks filled.

"We will run however long it takes until the snow is gone," Center said.

At Denver International Airport, crews started preparing hundreds of pieces of equipment Tuesday afternoon, said DIA spokesman Chuck Cannon.

"We do what we do for any sizable storm. We get all of our equipment ready, and then we stand by and wait and see what happens," Cannon said.

United, Southwest and Frontier airlines will grant travel waivers to allow passengers to change their flights to avoid bad weather without paying fees. There are limitations on the waivers, and people should check the airlines' websites for more information.

Xcel Energy had crews on standby, Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz said. "A lot will depend on the type of snow we get. What always kills us is that wet, heavy snow that sits on trees and pulls the branches down" onto power lines, he said.

A winter storm warning in October isn't out of the ordinary, said Kyle Fredin, a National Weather Service meteorologist.

"It's pretty normal when you start getting snowfalls into October and early December, then it dries out December through February, then ramps up really fast with the snowiest month of the year, March. It's just Colorado climatology," Fredin said.

While local drivers may not muster much enthusiasm for the snow, skiers across the country are abuzz with news of Colorado's first significant snow, said Amy Kemp, a spokeswoman for Vail Resorts.

"Skiers and snowboarders are excited and tweeting about the first big snowstorm in Colorado," she sa

I Am Right

10/28/2009, 12:45 PM

http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/New/globalwarmingwonderland.asx

StoopTroup

10/28/2009, 01:17 PM

http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/New/globalwarmingwonderland.asx

SPAMMER! :D

Is it hot in here?

kdz555JBIwY

LosAngelesSooner

10/28/2009, 06:35 PM

I love it.

Snow reports...IN WINTER...in the MOUNTAINS. :rolleyes:

What's next?!?! In 6 months will there be, GASP, reports of sunshine and high temperatures?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!!??!!?!? GLOBAL COOLING BE DAMNED!!!! Gary Engle's got mah back!!!

I Am Right

10/28/2009, 06:50 PM

I Am Right

10/28/2009, 06:51 PM

I Am Right

10/28/2009, 06:52 PM

I Am Right

10/28/2009, 06:55 PM

And yet that one post was most ASSUREDLY a better post than ANY that I Am Troll has made in his entire Trolling career. LOL

http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/New/inconveniental.asx

LosAngelesSooner

10/28/2009, 10:41 PM

You contribute nothing to this board.

Curly Bill

10/28/2009, 10:46 PM

You contribute nothing to this board.

Where you been you freakin rabble rouser?

Don't tell us you have a life or something. ;)

:D

LosAngelesSooner

10/28/2009, 10:51 PM

Nah. :D

Sooner_Havok

10/29/2009, 09:33 AM

You contribute nothing to this board.

Except making me want to go back to the /b/ forum for some intelligent conversations.

I Am Right

10/29/2009, 05:39 PM

http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/shanklin_archives/Timber_Update.asx

LosAngelesSooner

10/29/2009, 05:53 PM

I smell Troll spam.

I Am Right

10/29/2009, 06:07 PM

You contribute nothing to this board.

I've got your ire up, huh!

I Am Right

10/29/2009, 06:10 PM

I smell Troll spam.

Crude Oil and Commodity Prices
October, Thursday 29 2009 - 18:52:14
Crude Oil

$80.10 ▲0.23 0.29%

How is that electric or wind powered car working out for you LAS?

LosAngelesSooner

10/29/2009, 06:17 PM

I've got your ire up, huh!Hardly, Troll.

SicEmBaylor

10/29/2009, 06:57 PM

I've got your ire up, huh!

I think it's more pity and annoyance than ire.

LosAngelesSooner

10/29/2009, 07:26 PM

^^^ This.

I Am Right

11/1/2009, 10:23 AM

Ryan N. Maue's Seasonal Tropical Cyclone Activity Update

North Atlantic Hurricane Season slowest since 1997 -- Figure

Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity remains near 30-year historical lows -- three years in a row now of considerably below-average activity globally. -- Figure
Consequence of the transition from La Nina to El Nino during the past year

The best of 2009: Hurricane Bill, Hurricane Fred, Hurricane Rick, Super Typhoon Melor, Typhoon Parma

Oct 29: The North Atlantic hurricane season has not produced a storm in over 3-weeks and, if no more develop, the season overall would rank as the slowest since the El Nino year of 1997. Hurricanes Bill and Fred accounted for over 82% of the Accumulated Cyclone Energy [ACE**] -- a metric that combines intensity, duration, and frequency of hurricanes and tropical storms during a year. The remaining storms were weak, rather short-lived and unremarkable. Indeed, the Accumulated Cyclone Energy [ACE] of 44 ranks among the slowest during the past half-century. Elsewhere, the Northern Hemisphere and Global ACE when calculated either with 12- or 24-month running sums, remains just above historical 30-year lows. Indeed, the global ACE sunk to record low levels during the early summer prior to the typhoon activity in the Western Pacific and the hurricane activity in the Eastern Pacific. While it may seem like the world has experienced considerable tropical cyclone activity lately, 2009 as a whole is still well behind normal or climatology. The previous Southern Hemisphere cyclone season including the Southern Indian and Pacific Oceans along with the Australian region produced historically low levels of ACE (from Oct 2008 - Apr 2009). So a global sum during the past 12 or 24 months will simply show the depressed tropical cyclone activity experienced.
This is a natural consequence of the rather unusual flip from strong La Nina to El Nino conditions during the past calendar year, which did not happen at all during the period of 1976-2006 as indicated by the MEI-ENSO INDEX (LINK). It is expected by NOAA and others that the current-El Nino is locked in for the rest of winter 2009-2010 and may indeed strengthen. This would suggest enhanced typhoon activity in the Western Pacific throughout the rest of the fall and winter which will necessarily increase the NH ACE. The Southern Hemisphere TC season may begin at any time now, but most activity is experienced between January and March.

**Note: The Accumulated Cyclone Energy metric combines frequency, duration, and the intensity of tropical cyclones into one value that can be calculated from historical storm records as well as current operational center (i.e. NHC) advisories. The ACE is simply the wind speed squared (times 10^4 kts^2) for each 6-hour storm location and intensity estimate -- added up for an entire season or whatever period you wish to define. CLIMO based upon 1979-2008 climatology.

Important Links
2007-2009 Great Depression
2008 TC Year in Review
2007 TC Year in Review
About Me: Ryan Maue

IM me: RyanMaue
National Hurricane Center
Navy/NRL Tropical Cyclone
Forecast Model Maps
Joint Typhoon Warning Center

Great Depression ! Global tropical cyclone energy remains near 30-year lows !
Figure: 12-month running sums of Accumulated Cyclone Energy for the entire globe during the past 31-years -- 1979 to October 29, 2009 (current). Average is 769.
With the Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone (TC) seasons winding down in the Eastern Pacific and North Atlantic, it is as good as time as any to take account of what the Earth has offered during the past 12-months in terms of TC Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE). Since the last Southern Hemsiphere season was quite uneventful with well-below normal ACE, and the continued Northern Hemisphere inactivity, the sum of the two = global ACE reached record low values in the early summer of 2009 and has slightly recovered only just recently.
The Raw Data -- Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) valid October 29, 2009 06Z
The current ACE represents the tropical cyclone activity from January 1, 2009 until the date indicated. This is readily compared to the YEARLY value which is the previous 30-year average from Jan 1 - Dec 31 or the calendar year. The values through October 31 and November 30 represent the previous 30-year average as well with the average October ACE indicated in the last cell. There is considerable year-to-year variability across the basins, of which understanding motivates the updating and maintainance of this site.
BASIN 2009 CURRENT 30-YR AVG
ALL YEAR 30-YR AVG
THRU OCT 31 30-YR AVG
THRU NOV 30 30-YR AVG
OCTOBER
N Hemisphere 397 563 494 543 90
N Atlantic 44.3 106 99 105 14
W Pacific 220 309 255 292 57
E Pacific + CPAC 127 132 130 132 18
N Indian 5 17 10 15 2
S Hemisphere 107 ~200-230 Season About To Begin ---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparisons through October 29

FIGURE: What is the current state of tropical cyclone activity compared to the same date during the past 30-years? The bar-chart shows the calendar-year-to-date Northern Hemisphere ACE experienced from January 1 - October 29 during the past three decades. The 2009 value is 397 and is clearly among the less-active years. Since the North Western Pacific accounts for 51% of the Northern Hemisphere total on average, it is well-correlated with the NH total since 1979 (r=0.81). However, the North Atlantic ACE since 1979 is not well-correlated with the NH total (r=0.24).

The following comparison table highlights the GLOBAL, SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE, and NORTHERN HEMISPHERE totals for the previous 12 and 24-months, respectively.
BASIN CURRENT 12 [24] MONTH TOTAL 30-YR AVG 12 [24] MONTH TOTAL
NORTHERN HEMISPHERE 422 [882] 563 [1126]
SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE 103 [296] 206 [412]
GLOBAL TOTAL 525 [1178] 769 [1538]

Note: The Accumulated Cyclone Energy metric combines frequency, duration, and the intensity of tropical cyclones into one value that can be calculated from historical storm records as well as current operational center (i.e. NHC) advisories. The ACE is simply the wind speed squared (times 10^4 kts^2) for each 6-hour storm location and intensity estimate -- added up for an entire season or whatever period you wish to define. CLIMO based upon 1979-2008 climatology

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Global Tropical Cyclone News & Updates
October 29: With October over in 3-days, here is another look at the North Atlantic ACE-to-date compared to previous calendar-year values from 1948-2008. The ACE of 44, if the season ended today would be the lowest since 1993, 1994, and 1997 and among the slowest years in the past half-century. Here is a quick listing: LISTING

October 21: Hurricane Neki in the Central Pacific has slowly gained strength and may become the next major tropical cyclone in the Northern Hemsiphere during this rather active October. NH ACE numbers have gained considerably and come off the 30-year lows experienced during the past 2-3 years at various times. The NH ACE of 375 through October 21 puts 2009 ahead of 1981, 1983, and 2007. The 30-year average ACE for the NH is 467 with 50% coming from the Western Pacific. The North Atlantic is still very quiet and it appears that the ACE of 44 will rank as one of the least active years overall.

October 19: Northern Hemisphere and Global Tropical Cyclone activity metrics have come off their 30-year lows a bit with extremely powerful Category 5 Rick and SuperTyphoon Lupit. With the ongoing developing El Nino, additional Central Pacific activity like Neki is expected as well as more powerful SuperTyphoons in the Western Pacific.

October 15: With October nearing half over, here is a quick look at the North Atlantic ACE-to-date compared to previous calendar-year values from 1950-2008. The ACE of 44, if the season ended today would be the 13th slowest or weakest since 1950. According to the bar chart, years with less ACE include 1983, 1977, 1982, 1994, 1987, 1991, 1962, 1972, 1986, 1993, 1970, and 1997 -- in respective order beginning with weakest. Here is a quick listing: LISTING

October 11: With the departure of Melor into the midlatitudes, Parma continues to linger on and Nepartak has joined the recent Western Pacific cyclone parade. The burst of ACE has slowed down to a trickle with the Northern Hemisphere total sitting at 320. The average of the past 30-years was 435, so about 74% of "normal".

October 5: Long-lived typhoons Parma and Melor will combine for over 60 ACE points this week, which will account for almost one-fifth of the overall 2009 Northern Hemisphere output. Thus, it is important to consider the impact of individual storms on the overall TC energy budget of the hemisphere, especially such large Super Typhoons as Melor. Coincidentally, as the 2009 NH ACE has ticked up to 303 -- the current year-to-date ACE back in 2007 was also rapidly increasing (it was 304). Since the Eastern Pacific and North Atlantic are unlikely to produce much in the way of ACE during the rest of 2009, it is the Western Pacific that will be the place to watch for more tropical cyclones.

September 30 - October 3: End of month global update. The Western Pacific is very busy with powerful Typhoon Parma rapidly intensifying to 100 kts+ Major Status. Parma will likely become a SuperTyphoon. The Northern Hemisphere ACE total is 258 through the end of September. This is the lowest value since 1977 for calendar-year-to-date NH ACE and the average is 403 (1979-2008). However, with Parma and Melor at typhoon intensity, it is expected that the NH ACE will catch up a bit as October progresses (no thanks to the North Atlantic, which looks a lot like November out there).

September 28: The Western Pacific has become active with 3-systems, one a typhoon, one a tropical storm and one a tropical depression. The latter two are expected to slowly gain strength and become typhoons over the next 3-5 days. Meanwhile, the Eastern Pacific and North Atlantic are very quiet with no active INVESTS or tropical cyclones. A major cold front will chill the continental United States this week.

September 25: With the dissipation of weak Eastern Pacific tropical storm Nora, the global tropics are again without a named system. A new depression has formed in the WPAC and an Invest 99L near the Cape Verde Islands of the far eastern Atlantic are the only places with potential for activity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24-Month Running Sums of Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE)

Global tropical cyclone activity remains near 30-year + lows

Figure: 24-month running sum of tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy for the entire globe (top black squares / time series) and the Northern Hemisphere only (bottom green squares / time series). The difference between the two time series is the Southern Hemisphere total. Data is shown from January 1979 - October 29, 2009 mainly because intensity estimates of SH cyclones are often missing in the JTWC best-tracks prior to 1980. See notes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2009 Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclones
Maximum Wind Speed & ACE per storm
Western Pacific
Kujira (115 ACE = 12.0925)
Chan-hom (85 ACE = 6.3575)
Linfa (75 ACE = 4.7425)
Nangka (45 ACE = 2.2975)
Soudelor (35 ACE = 0.1225)
Molave (65 ACE = 3.38)
Goni (45 ACE = 1.0925)
Morakot (85 ACE = 8.4675 )
Etau (40 ACE = 1.2625)
Vamco (115 ACE = 24.37)
Krovanh (60 ACE = 4.79)
Dujuan (55 ACE = 4.7375)
Mujigae (30 ACE = 0.000 )
Choi-wan (140 ACE = 33.4875 )
Koppu (75 ACE = 2.2925 )
Ketsana (90 ACE = 6.12)
18W (35 ACE = 0.3675)
Parma (130 ACE = 22.655*)
Melor (140 ACE = 39.495)
Nepartak (55 ACE = 3.0375)
Lupit (135 ACE = 31.0625)
Mirinae (90* ACE = 6.4125* )
Nida Omais Conson Chanthu
Total Tropical Storms+ = 21
Total Typhoons+ = 13
Eastern Pacific
Andres (65 ACE = 2.9475)
Blanca (45 ACE = 1.215)
Carlos (90 ACE = 8.92)
Dolores (45 ACE = 0.8475)
Enrique (50 ACE = 2.205)
Felicia (125 ACE= 19.5875)
Guillermo (110 ACE = 12.2375)
Hilda (55 ACE = 3.5175 )
Ignacio (45 ACE = 1.54 )
Jimena (135 ACE = 24.0175 )
Kevin (45 ACE = 1.135 )
Linda (75 ACE = 5.4425 )
Marty (40 ACE = 1.5725 )
Nora (50 ACE = 1.3425 )
Olaf (40 ACE = 0.9325)
Patricia (50 ACE = 1.7675)
Rick (155 ACE = 21.705)
Sandra Terry Vivian
Waldo Xina York Zelda
Total Tropical Storms+ = 17
Total Hurricanes+ = 7
North Atlantic
TD 01(30 ACE=0.0)
Ana (35 ACE=0.98)
Bill (115 ACE = 26.47)
Claudette (45 ACE = 0.405)
Danny (50 ACE = 2.285)
Erika (50 ACE = 1.4275)
Fred (105 ACE = 10.07)
TD 08 (30 ACE = 0.0)
Grace (55 ACE = 1.4125)
Henri (45 ACE = 1.215)
Ida Joaquin
Kate Larry Mindy Nicholas
Odette Peter Rose Sam
Teresa Victor Wanda

Total Tropical Storms+ = 8
Total Hurricanes+ = 2
Central Pacific
Lana (55 ACE = 2.7)
Maka (45 ACE = 1.175 )
Neki (105 ACE = 12.44)
Omeka Pewa
Unala Wali
Total Tropical Storms+ = 3
Total Hurricanes+ = 1
Northern Indian
Bijli (50 ACE=2.38)
Aila (65 ACE=1.84)
03B (35 ACE = 0.3675)
Phyan Ward Laila
Bandu Phet
Total Tropical Storms+ = 3 & One Cyclone+

Northern Hemisphere Tropical Storms during Calendar Year 2009 = 52

Northern Hemisphere Hurricanes + during Calendar Year 2009 = 24

The 13 Tropical Cyclones that had an ACE > 10 Account for almost 3/4 of the total Northern Hemisphere ACE. 7 (ACE > 24) account for more than 1/2 of the total NH ACE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes on Data and Methods and citation
This page can be cited as ongoing research related to my dissertation and publications resulting from it.
Maue, R. N., 2009: Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L05805, doi:10.1029/2008GL035946. Abstract

Climatology is based upon the past 30-years of tropical cyclone activity (1979-2008). Historical tropical cyclone tracks are obtained from two sources: National Hurricane Center (NHC) for Eastern Pacific and North Atlantic basins and the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) for the Western Pacific, Northern and Southern Indian Oceans, and the South Pacific including the Australian region. Best-track data when cyclones are in an extratropical phase are disregarded, where this is included in the datasets.

While there are several other sources of best-track hurricane data for the different basins around the globe, it is not apparent which source of tropical cyclone intensity estimates is the best, most correct, or most consistent throughout the past 30-years. Until that research is completed, it is my policy to use NHC and JTWC data for global tropical cyclone data. I will attempt to use RSMC (Tokyo) and the IBTrACS merged database for comparison purposes in the near future. (Update: June 24, after calculating ACE using the IBTrACS mean intensity, which can include from 1-4 different reporting centers, the differences are negligible. Therefore, it is appropriate to use the NHC+JTWC for global studies on yearly time scales. Naturally differences crop up when examining storm by storm and observation by observation differences. This is a disasterous complication when doing count/frequency studies such as Webster et al. (2005) but is mitigated with accumulated cyclone statistical studies (i.e. Emanuel 2005; Maue 2009).

Visits since September 1, 2007
© Research Property of Ryan N. Maue who is solely responsible for content on this page. The Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306
Questions or Comments | Privacy Policy | Copyright

I Am Right

11/1/2009, 10:57 AM

By Paul Chesser on 10.28.09 @ 6:07AM

Fresh from controversial, unuttered racist remarks that spurred sports businessman Dave Checketts to drop him from his bid to buy the NFL's St. Louis Rams, talk radio magnate Rush Limbaugh last week steamed environoiacs with a riff about New York Times global warming alarmist Andrew Revkin.

The king of EIB expounded on a theme suggested by the editors of Investor's Business Daily, who wondered -- based upon Revkin's comments at conference panel discussion about "the population part of the climate and energy challenge" -- whether we are headed toward a "cap-and-trade for babies." Revkin explained his remarks at his "Dot Earth" blog:

So I mused on whether the next logical step, in a world increasingly fixated with carbon markets, would be carbon credits for avoided kids. This is something particularly relevant in the United States, which -- nearly unique for rich countries -- has a fast-growing population and very high rates of emissions per person….

As I put it…: "Should you get credit -- if we're going to become carbon-centric -- for having a one-child family when you could have had two or three. And obviously it's just a thought experiment, but it raises some interesting questions about all this."

It's just unfathomable to propose carbon credits for avoided children, if we are to believe Revkin. Too radical an idea for him, you know…heh, heh…but hey, somebody else might just propose it! It's just a "thought experiment."

And what a beaker in that brain! To come up with such crackpottery you need to start with the following premises: that CO2 is pollution rather than a life-giving gas; that human-generated CO2 is more destructive than that of the rest of the mammal population; and because of the first two premises, a reduction in the number of humans is needed to solve the "pollution" problem. While The Amazing Revkin may dismiss the last idea as a mind exercise, he certainly embraces the first two principles. In fact, he's written books that support the idea.

That's where Rush comes in. After a long monologue Tuesday about the philosophical beliefs about overpopulation by environmentalists, including some in the Obama administration, the battered (by some) yet beloved (by others) talk host said:

This guy from the New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on earth, Andrew Revkin, Mr. Revkin, why don't you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?

Isolating that out of context, as Media Matters for America and the Center for Environmental Journalism's Tom Yulsman intentionally did, and you've got red meat remarks for leftists. But Limbaugh's point was simply an "align your actions with your beliefs" challenge -- part of a long monologue -- to hypocritical environmental activists:

See, liberals always come up with these laws, these plans, these solutions, and they're always for everybody else. You go and limit the number of kids you have. You go drive a Yugo. You go get rid of your big house. You go turn your thermostat up or down, you go do this, you go do that….

If I may get serious with you for a moment, the left, if you believe them, believes that there's one species on the planet destroying it. Now, all mammals exhale carbon dioxide. But somehow only man, only human beings' carbon dioxide is destroying the planet. It's only man in all of his endeavors, particularly Capitalist Man, Western Culture man. Those are the culprits! We are the real culprits. We are destroying the planet. We are the one species on the planet that's destroying it.

While Revkin hoped Limbaugh's "kill yourself" suggestion was itself a "thought experiment," the Times reporter gave other evidence that his own views on child cutbacks were more than just an idea. For example, Revkin's response characterized a Worldwatch Institute blog post as an appropriate context for his statements:

At a Wilson Center discussion on Wednesday, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin considered this idea and stated that having fewer children was one of the best ways that individuals could reduce their carbon footprints. Humans reproduce exponentially, and having two children instead of three could reduce energy consumption that would otherwise occur for generations.

Was it just an idea, or something more? Then there's this nugget from Revkin in September:

I recently raised the question of whether this means we'll soon see a market in baby-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation. This is purely a thought experiment, not a proposal. But the issue is one that is rarely discussed in climate treaty talks or in debates over United States climate legislation. If anything, the population-climate question is more pressing in the United States than in developing countries, given the high per-capita carbon dioxide emissions here and the rate of population growth. If giving women a way to limit family size is such a cheap win for emissions, why isn't it in the mix?

Conclusion: Revkin may have a lot of thought experiments, but he sure is pushy about them.

I Am Right

11/10/2009, 06:53 PM

National Overview:
Temperature Highlights - October
The average October temperature of 50.8°F was 4.0°F below the 20th Century average and ranked as the 3rd coolest based on preliminary data.
For the nation as a whole, it was the third coolest October on record. The month was marked by an active weather pattern that reinforced unseasonably cold air behind a series of cold fronts. Temperatures were below normal in eight of the nation's nine climate regions, and of the nine, five were much below normal. Only the Southeast climate region had near normal temperatures for October.
Statewide temperatures coincided with the regional values as all but six states had below normal temperatures. Oklahoma had its coolest October on record and ten other states had their top five coolest such months.
Florida was the only state to have an above normal temperature average in October. It was the sixth consecutive month that the Florida's temperature was above normal, resulting in the third warmest such period (May-October).
The three-month period (August-October) was the coolest on record for three states: Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Five other states had top five cool periods: Missouri (2nd), Iowa (3rd) , Arkansas (5th) , Illinois (5th) and South Dakota (5th) . Every climate division in Kansas (nine) and Nebraska (eight) recorded a record cool such period.
For the year-to-date (January - October) period, the contiguous U.S. temperature ranked 43rd warmest. No state had a top or bottom ten temperature value for this period.
Precipitation Highlights - October
The U.S. recorded its wettest October in the 115-year period of record. The nationwide precipitation of 4.15 inches was nearly double the long-term average of 2.11 inches.
Regionally, two of the nation's nine climate regions (the East North Central and South) saw their wettest October. The Central region had its second wettest October, while the West North Central had its fourth wettest. This was the first month since December 2007 that no region had below normal precipitation.
Three states (Iowa, Arkansas, and Louisiana) saw their record wettest October. Fourteen other states had precipitation readings ranking in their top five category. Only three states (Florida, Utah, and Arizona) saw below normal precipitation.
Arkansas continued its remarkable run of wetness in 2009. The state has seen four months with top three precipitation ranks this year (May, 1st wettest; July, 3rd wettest; September, 2nd wettest; October, 1st wettest). As a result, the state's year-to-date average is the wettest in 115 years of record keeping. This contrasted with persistent dryness in Arizona, which saw its second-driest year-to-date period.
The three-month (August-October) rainfall was record-setting for many adjacent divisions within Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. It is noteworthy that this occurred despite only one tropical cyclone (Claudette, in August) making landfall in the region during this period.
By the end of October, moderate-to-exceptional drought covered 12 percent of the contiguous United States, the second-smallest drought footprint of the decade, based on the U.S. Drought Monitor. Major drought episodes in California and South Texas improved significantly. Drought conditions emerged across much of Arizona.
About 45 percent of the contiguous United States had moderately-to-extremely wet conditions at the end of October, according to the Palmer Index (a well-known index that measures both drought intensity and wet spell intensity). This is the largest such footprint since February 2005.
Other Items of Note
According to the NOAA Midwest Regional Climate Center in Champaign, Illinois, more than half of the long-term stations in the Midwest had one of their five wettest Octobers on record, with one out of five observing its wettest. Combined with the cold, this delayed crop planting and stunted crop maturity. Corn development was as much as four weeks behind in places, and the soybean harvest was well behind schedule throughout the region.
Two major snow storms hit the contiguous United States during October. The first struck the Upper Midwest October 9th through 13th, while the second blanketed the western Plains States October 27th through 30th. By month's end, 13.6 percent of the nation was under snow cover, according to NOAA's National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center.
Unusually cold and wet conditions across the middle of the country led to several snowfall records. Cheyenne, Wyoming observed 28 inches of snow during October, making this the city's snowiest October on record. North Platte, Nebraska recorded 30.3 inches of snowfall, making October 2009 the snowiest month of all months on record for the city. The previous record was 27.8 inches, in March 1912.
October, like September, saw below-normal fire activity in all respects. A total of 3,207 fires burned about 158,000 acres in October, according to the National Interagency Coordination Center. Each of these values is below this decade's average for October.

LosAngelesSooner

11/10/2009, 07:45 PM

9 days between useless posts that nobody reads because they contribute nothing to the boards, to thought and also do absolutely nothing whatsoever to either confirm or deny the ALREADY PROVEN FACT of man made climate change.

QUICK, I Am Troll! Go post an oil price report!

I mean...you just LOVE wasting time and giving us more idiotic posts to neg you to Bolivia... :D