Global Warming Redux

[Moon The Loon]

Remember the various discussions about attempting to change the atmosphere so as to reduce global warming (UN Report on Climate Change) hence Saving The Earth

versus

The globe has been warming for 10,000 years, the atmosphere has been contaminated to an increased extent by the industrial revolution, and even with a future of zero global emissions, sea levels will continue to rise. So we should be doing something about the 50% of the world's population who live less than 50 feet above (current) sea level (including many major world airports - HA!)

??

Well, how about that:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home

Sea-level predictions more dramatic

M. OLSEN

Associated Press

March 10, 2009 at 12:18 PM EDT

COPENHAGEN — Top climate scientists warned today that sea levels could rise twice as much as previously projected as they presented the latest research on global warming.

A 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted a sea level rise of 18 to 59 centimetres by the end of the century. But scientists meeting in Copenhagen dismissed those estimates as too conservative, saying new data suggests that sea level rise could exceed one metre and is unlikely to be less than 50 centimetres.

“This means that if the emissions of greenhouse gases is not reduced quickly and substantially even the best-case scenario will hit low-lying coastal areas housing one-tenth of humans on the planet hard,” organizers said in a statement at the three-day congress hosted by the University of Copenhagen.

[Steam Driven]

"In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.

Still, the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures -- they're going down, not up."

"William Happer is hardly a climate change "denier." A physics professor at Princeton, he is a former director of energy research for the U. S. Department of Energy, where he supervised work on climate change between 1990 and 1993. He is also one of the world's leading experts on "the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases," and on carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect. Two weeks ago, he told the U. S. Congress, "I believe the increase of CO2 (in the atmosphere) is not a cause for alarm."

Claims that an increase of atmospheric CO2 will lead to catastrophic warming "are wildly exaggerated," according to Prof. Happer. While a doubling (we have seen about a 35% rise since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution) might lead to a 0.6C rise in global temperature, he told Congress, "additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 ... that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can."

30 Years of Warmer Temperatures go Poof

The Real Deniers

[Steam Driven]

There was a conference in New York pointing out the Politics of the "Climate Change" effort. Lot's of comments on the article further down page...

"Professor Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s leading climatologists, also stressed that climate alarmism was a political and not a scientific matter. Particular worrying, he said, was that various scientific bodies had been seized by alarmists, who now issued statements without polling the members. This played into the appeal to authority rather than science. He called climate modelling “unintelligent design” and global warming a “postmodern coup d’état.” He stressed that “Nature hasn’t followed the models” used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There has been no global warming for 10 or 15 years. Countering all the blather about Exxon’s (former) support for Heartland that appeared in coverage of the conference by climate-change cheerleaders at The New York Times and The Guardian, he noted that skeptics in fact had minimal resources to rectify the incipient policy horrors.

Asked why the skeptics had so much trouble in presenting a unified front, Professor Lindzen stressed that there was no “skeptical solidarity.” But Joseph Bast, head of the Heartland Institute, pointed out that such diversity was a sign of free inquiry, as opposed to bogus claims that the science was “settled.” "

The Crumbling Case for Global Warming

[Mitch Cronin]

Steam,

One of the down-sides to the internet is that there's almost as much false information, as there is true, valuable information.

I can easily find pages, like this: http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Richard_S_Lindzen.html , and this: http://dieoff.org/page82.htm

from which I clipped:

"Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC."

http://dieoff.org/page82.htm

...and this: http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm , from which I clipped:

"Well every major scientific society on the entire planet with relevant expertise disagrees with him."

...clearly, one of us is finding false information.

Cheers,

Mitch

[Guest woxof]

-42 in YEG yesterday. Beat theold record by 13 degrees.

[FireFox]

-42 in YEG yesterday. Beat theold record by 13 degrees.

Record cold temperatures in YVR yesterday as well.

woxof,

I'm not sure if you've seen this (rather long, but it gets pretty interesting round about 9.5 minutes:

Jim Coleman - July 12, 2008

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6763913684263458299

Great idea about suing Al Gore.

[Thebean]

Global Warming? Not where I am....

Mean Temperature

2006: 9.9c

2007: 9.3c

2008: 8.5c

Mean Temperature

Jan 2007: 2.5c

Jan 2008: 1.9c

Jan 2009: .7c

Mean Temperature

Feb 2007: 4.5c

Feb 2008: 3.5c

Feb 2009: 1.8c

Mean Temperature (MTD)

Mar 2007: 5.7c

Mar 2008: 4.6c

Mar 2009: 1.6c

Given this history, I can see demand for sun holidays from the west coast this summer to be higher than last year.

BTW, temps, esp overnight temps, in Hawaii are far lower than in recent years.

Ask anyone you know who was in Hawaii last week how the weather was....

[Steam Driven]

...clearly, one of us is finding false information.

Cheers,

Mitch

I put my "experts" up against your "experts" where does that leave us? An intelligent person would surmise that the "Science" is not settled, there is no consensus and one should not be spending BILLIONS of dollars because it might help, but most certainly will harm economy's and the people (Families) who depend on them...

As with anything one should consider the source...

[deicer]

Global Warming? Not where I am....

Mean Temperature

2006: 9.9c

2007: 9.3c

2008: 8.5c

Mean Temperature

Jan 2007: 2.5c

Jan 2008: 1.9c

Jan 2009: .7c

Mean Temperature

Feb 2007: 4.5c

Feb 2008: 3.5c

Feb 2009: 1.8c

Mean Temperature (MTD)

Mar 2007: 5.7c

Mar 2008: 4.6c

Mar 2009: 1.6c

Given this history, I can see demand for sun holidays from the west coast this summer to be higher than last year.

BTW, temps, esp overnight temps, in Hawaii are far lower than in recent years.

Ask anyone you know who was in Hawaii last week how the weather was....

I don't want to live where you live, you don't have any 'nice' temperatures

As always....

Climate is what you want, weather is what you get

Iceman

[Mitch Cronin]

An intelligent person would surmise that the "Science" is not settled, there is no consensus

[...]

one should consider the source...

Indeed, one should consider the source:

Among these groups, there is a consensus:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil

Royal Society of Canada, Canada

Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

Academié des Sciences, France

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany

Indian National Science Academy, India

Accademia dei Lincei, Italy

Science Council of Japan, Japan

Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia

Royal Society, United Kingdom

National Academy of Sciences, United States of America

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

...add some others to the consensus:

"A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for

Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of

Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists

Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy,

Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society

of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the

international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most

reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this

consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change,

doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change.

We do not consider such doubts justified."

http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619

I think an intelligent person, who lacks any greater knowledge than the aformentioned groups, would consider their consensus opinion worthy of attention. Certainly more worthy, I think, than a very small number of discredited scientists who are being paid by those who stand to lose most if such notions are taken seriously.

[Moon The Loon]

I tend to discredit any "science" that uses 200-500 years of climatic observations to form the basis of climatic predictions, other than for short term cycles.

Climatic change predictions require a period longer than that.

Who will oppose the science that 20,000 years ago, most of North America was covered in ice?

Who in science will oppose the Great Salt Lake has virtually dried up, as is currently happening to Lake Chad in northeastern Nigeria, or the Dead Sea?

Who in science will oppose the fact that sea levels are rising? Venice is being flooded; London's Thame's barrier was constructed when it didn't need to be and is now being deployed (if only rarely) from time to time; the Dutch storm surge barriers (http://park.org/Netherlands/pavilions/techno/svk/engels/werking/index.html) (They are incredibly interesting!) have been featured on Discovery Channel since their construction beginnings in 1987.

Who in science believes that when one scientist opposes the ideas of another scientist that both are wrong, or both are right, or none are right and the Truth has yet to be discovered?

I havta tell you folks - if you let your "beliefs" interfere with your decision making, the populists will take over the world. So, like Steam has suggested, rather than spending TRILLIONS of dollars based upon the cult based on The Sky Is Falling, why don't we get people out of the way of the hazard we KNOW to be occurring (rising sea levels, for What-Evvv-ERRRRRR reason), while objective and non-pre-dispositioned scientists continue to search for answers.

I know, I KNOW. I won't be re-elected with this platform.

Why don't I just conform and become Happy?

.

.

.

.

BTW - For those who claim TYPO! for my use of the word "climatic":

CLIMACTIC - 1. [a] consisting of or causing a climax ; "a peak experience";

Climatic - 1. [a] of or relating to a climate ; "climatic changes".

[Steam Driven]

"I think an intelligent person, who lacks any greater knowledge than the aformentioned groups, would consider their consensus opinion worthy of attention. Certainly more worthy, I think, than a very small number of discredited scientists who are being paid by those who stand to lose most if such notions are taken seriously."

"A Small number of discredited Scientists..." Discredited by whom? A website? The number of Scientists skeptical of Global Warming is actually quite large. Members of the IPCC in fact...

Forget the message shoot the messanger right?

Here is a series of articles on climate change. Prominent scientists are profiled. Their Science is presented.

You have your list...

Climate Change - The Deniers

[Mitch Cronin]

Alright, so I'm trying...

So we're left, again, with one of us buying false information.

What's the answer to that? .... if you're wrong, but we've done nothing, we're screwed. If I'm wrong, but we've cleaned up our act somewhat, where's the harm, on the same global scale?

Anyway, thanks for that link, I'll read those tomorrow.

Cheers,

Mitch

[Canus Chinookus]

Who in science believes that when one scientist opposes the ideas of another scientist that both are wrong, or both are right, or none are right and the Truth has yet to be discovered?

I mentioned a while back, the book, "The History of Nearly Everything", where the author describes how Egos typically have gotten in the way of most scientific achievements. It's really too bad that the scientific process can't be the final word, instead of whoever screams the loudest.

[mo32a]

Well we could all go out and join the religious right, then we wouldn't have to worry about science.

[mo32a]

So we're left, again, with one of us buying false information.

Not necessarily. The truth could be somewhere in the middle or none of the above.

Whatever the case is, man's contribution to whatever is happening is minuscule and any effort man takes to change it will have an infinitesimal effect.

It will certainly have an effect on pollution and I am all for doing whatever we can to improve the quality of our air and water but as far as correcting climate change we don't have any say in that. We can spend trillions of dollars and ruin our economies to effect a .02 degree reduction in global temperature over the next hundred years but whatever is going to happen is going to happen with or without us.

Like MTL said, spend money preparing for what we know will happen and reduce pollution, but don't think you are going to affect climate change.

[Moon The Loon]

Well we could all go out and join the religious right, then we wouldn't have to worry about science.

You're going to that hot, terrible place for that!

[Hadji Ramjet]

Certainly more worthy, I think, than a very small number of discredited scientists who are being paid by those who stand to lose most if such notions are taken seriously.

Small number? Over 400 scientists contributed to the 2007 US Senate Minority Report that challenged man-made global warming claims of the UN IPCC. Over 650 scientists contributed to the updated 2008 Report, including former members of the IPCC. That's twelve times the number of "scientists" (52) who authored the much-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

Discredited? I challenge you to find anyone who can discredit on a scientific basis (as opposed to the usual ad-hominem style):

1. Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner in Physics, "I am a skeptic...global warming has become a new religion";

2. Dr Joanne Simpson, formerly of NASA and the first women to ever receive a PhD in Meteorology and the author of over 190 studies;

3. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, PhD environmental physical chemist and UN IPCC Japanese Scientist, "Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…when people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived";

4. Dr. Pal Brekke, solar physicist and senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo, "“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time";

5. Stanley B. Goldenberg, U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist at the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, “It is a blatant lie that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming";

6. Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences, “I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science";

7. Hajo Smit of Holland, meteorologist and former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee, “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact";

8. Dr. Philip Lloyd, South Afican nuclear physicist and chemical engineer and UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author, “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said";

9. Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata, “The scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds";

10. Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO, “I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” ;

11. Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado, “Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’”;

12. Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, “Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period";

13. Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, environmental scientist and founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning";

14. Dr. Phil Chapman, geophysicist, astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, staff physicist at MIT, “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead";

15. James A. Peden, atmospheric physicist and formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined";

16. Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity";

17. Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, “So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming";

18. Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia, geologist at Punjab University and board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet, “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.”

Concensus?

1. The Canadian Academy of Sciences endorsed a "consensus" global warming statement that was never even approved by its governing board.

2. National Academy of Sciences and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view. Pity that both NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements.

3. James Spann, a certified meteorologist with the AMS, openly defied the organization when he said in January 2007 that he does "not know of a single meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype." In February a panel of meteorologists expressed unanimous climate skepticism, and one panelist estimated that 95% of his profession rejects global warming fears.

4. Daily Tech, August 29, 2007: "Of 539 total papers (peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004-2007) on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers 'implicit' endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no 'consensus.'

5. Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, Environment Canada scientist, "people seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the IPCC documents represents ‘scientific consensus.' Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process. An increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth's surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed."

6. Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and now with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a "sham." Reiter had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. "That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said on March 5, 2007. "It's not true," he added.

7. Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA's National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC's 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science.

Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN:

"I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns. I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

Concensus indeed.

[Mitch Cronin]

The discredited reference was to the few fella's mentioned as "experts" early on in the thread... I felt that they had been pretty much discredited by their peers, and their choice of employment... perhaps I was wrong. If so, fine.

I'm really not one to be arguing for or against, since I have no expertise in the relevant fields....

I know only that people I personally know who are more educated than myself, generally agree that climate change is a genuine and current phenomenon. And when you look at measurable things such as receding glaciers, arctic and antarctic ice levels, and overall more extreme weather on a global scale, I don't think any denial of climate change can be taken seriously.

Whether to call it "Global Warming, or "Climate Change", and whether or not human activity is a contributing factor, both don't seem as pertinent as whether or not we can help minimize it's impact on our species' chances for survival.

That some of you don't seem to recognize the obvious monetary interests at stake, and hence the obvious interest in steering public opinion, ....I find that a bit startling.

[Moon The Loon]

I can't believe I actually completely and totally agree with Hadji

[Guest rattler]

Found on the BBC but no data presented in the article to support their case. Has anyone see such data? However I still believe that there is no harm in doing what we can but unless the major polluters (not by per capita but by total tonnes) cut back, our contribution will not do a thing. Again though, no reason not to recycle, drive more efficient cars, upgrade our homes (insulation etc), do some gardening, ban plastic shopping bags in favor of fabric reusable bags etc. in the meanwhile.

Earth warming faster than thought 

By Matt McGrath

BBC environment reporter, Copenhagen 

Climate change endangers polar bears and the risks are growing for humans

The worst-case scenarios on climate change envisaged by the UN are already being realised, say scientists at an international meeting in Copenhagen.

In a statement outlining their six key messages to political leaders, they say there is an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climate shifts.

Even modest temperatures rises will affect millions of people, particularly in the developing world, they warn.

But most tools needed to cut global carbon dioxide emissions already exist.

More than 2,500 researchers and economists attended this meeting designed to update the world on the state of climate research ahead of key political negotiations set for December this year.

New data was presented in Copenhagen on sea level rise, which indicated that the best estimates of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made two years ago were woefully out of date.

Scientists heard that waters could rise by over a metre across the world with huge impacts for hundreds of millions of people.

There was also new information on how the Amazon rainforest would cope with rising temperatures. A UK Meteorological Office study concluded there would be a 75% loss of tree cover if the world warmed by three degrees for a century.  Business as usual is dead - green growth is the answer to both our climate and economic problems.

Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen

The scientists hope that their conclusions will remove any excuses from the political process.

Dr Katherine Richardson, who chaired the scientific steering committee that organised the conference, said the research presented added new certainty to the IPCC reports.

"We've seen lots more data, we can see where we are, no new surprises, we have a problem."

"Mass migrations"

The meeting was also addressed by Lord Stern, the economist, whose landmark review of the economics of climate change published in 2006 highlighted the severe cost to the world of doing nothing.

He now says the report underestimated the scale of the risks, and the speed at which the planet is warming.

He urged scientists to speak out and tell the politicians what the world would be like if effective measures against global warming were not taken. 

Lord Stern: ' The Economics of Climate Change' underestimated the risks

He said that if the world was to warm by 5C over the next century there would be dramatic consequences for millions of people. Rising seas would make many areas uninhabitable leading to mass migrations and inevitably sparking violent conflict.

"You'd see hundreds of millions people, probably billions of people who would have to move and we know that would cause conflict, so we would see a very extended period of conflict around the world, decades or centuries as hundreds of millions of people move, " said Lord Stern.

"So I think it's very important that we understand the magnitude of the risk we are running."

He said that a new, effective global deal was desperately needed to avoid these dramatic scenarios - and the current global economic slowdown was in some ways a help.

"Action is rather attractive, inaction is inexcusable. It's an opportunity, given that resources will be cheaper now than in the future, now is the time to get the unemployed of Europe working on energy efficiency."

Lord Stern's views were echoed by Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

"Business as usual is dead - green growth is the answer to both our climate and economic problems."

"I hope the whole world will join us and set a two degree goal as an ambition of a climate deal in Copenhagen," said Mr Rasmussen.

[Steam Driven]

"...And when you look at measurable things such as receding glaciers, arctic and antarctic ice levels, and overall more extreme weather on a global scale, I don't think any denial of climate change can be taken seriously."

Take a look at Arctic Sea ice Mitch... The levels of ice now are within percentages of the ice in 1980...

Arctic Sea ice back to previous levels

Disappearing Arctic Ice is Back

[Steam Driven]

However I still believe that there is no harm in doing what we can but unless the major polluters (not by per capita but by total tonnes) cut back,  our contribution will not do a thing.  Again though, no reason not to recycle, drive more efficient cars, upgrade our homes (insulation etc), do some gardening, ban plastic shopping bags in favor of fabric reusable bags etc.  in the meanwhile.

I agree, as I posted back in May...

"Regardless of which side of the global warming debate a person is on, I don't think it is a bad thing to take actions that reduce the pollution on our planet."

I agree 100% with this statement choc, the only problem is to define pollution... I don't believe a naturally occurring gas, C02 at the extremely low levels in our atmosphere, is a pollutant. As for the new buzzword "Carbon" it is a major building block of life and essential to our existence.

Carbon (pronounced /kɑɹbən/) is a chemical element with the symbol C and atomic number 6. It is a group 14, nonmetallic, tetravalent element, that presents several allotropic forms of which the best known are graphite (the thermodynamically stable form under normal conditions), diamond, and amorphous carbon.[7] There are three naturally occurring isotopes: 12C and 13C are stable, and 14C is radioactive, decaying with a half-life of about 5700 years.[8] Carbon is one of the few elements known to man since antiquity.[9][10] The name "carbon" comes from Latin language carbo, coal, and in some Romance languages, the word carbon can refer both to the element and to coal.

It is the fourth most abundant element in the universe by mass after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. It is present in all known lifeforms, and in the human body, carbon is the second most abundant element by mass (about 18.5%) after oxygen.[11] This abundance, together with the unique diversity of organic compounds and their unusual polymer-forming ability at the temperatures commonly encountered on Earth, make this element the chemical basis of all known life.

The physical properties of carbon vary widely with the allotropic form. For example, diamond is highly transparent, while graphite is opaque and black. Diamond is among the hardest materials known, while graphite is soft enough to form a streak on paper. Diamond has a very low electric conductivity, while graphite is a very good conductor. Also, diamond has the highest thermal conductivity of all known materials under normal conditions. All the allotropic forms are solids under normal conditions.

All forms of carbon are highly stable, requiring high temperature to react even with oxygen. The most common oxidation state of carbon in inorganic compounds is +4, while +2 is found in carbon monoxide and other transition metal carbonyl complexes. The largest sources of inorganic carbon are limestones, dolomites and carbon dioxide, but significant quantities occur in organic deposits of coal, peat, oil and methane clathrates. Carbon forms more compounds than any other element, with almost ten million pure organic compounds described to date, which in turn are a tiny fraction of such compounds that are theoretically possible under standard conditions.[12]

It's the S0x, V0c's and N0x that are causing our problems... I agree that we should be concentrating on and reducing the production and release of these compounds. Not, expending ridiculous sums of money on C02 capture and sequestration... Or denying permits for $8 Billion worth of investment because an operator can not ensure that C02 will not be created or contained...

I posted this back in June...

"The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres — enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year.

Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature’s fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients."

In Praise of C02

[Guest rattler]

Here is where we could make a very large personal contribution with very little effort.

11 March 2009 09:12:03

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

International coastal cleanup nets three million kilograms of trash

Most common item found? Cigarette butts

The Associated Press/Ariana Cubillos

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - About three million kilograms of debris was collected from waterways and shorelines around the world during a single day last year, illustrating that careless people are discarding trash just about everywhere, with much of it eventually finding an aquatic home, according to a report released Tuesday.

Nearly 400,000 volunteers scoured about 27,000 kilometres of coastline, river bottoms and ocean floors during the Ocean Conservancy's 23rd International Coastal Cleanup in September.

The group's report said more than 3.2 million cigarette butts were picked up during last year's efforts, making the items the most common found. That's followed by about 1.4 million plastic bags, 942,000 food wrappers and containers, and 937,000 caps and lids. Volunteers also collected 26,585 tires, enough for 6,646 cars - and a spare.

[DEFCON]

Is New York continuing to dump their garbage scows at sea?