A Gore Gets One-upped??????

[gettingold]

Here's a 34 second movie for you. It's called " dum dum gos to
washington. It stars barbara boxer, and she doesn't have to do
anything but " act naturally" as Buck would say.

Barbara Boxer has to be one of the dumbest creatures on the surface of our
planet. I can't believe she took the time to put this ridiculous
34 seconds into the congressional record.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJJB7zFsFFE&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Boxer: Greatest national security threat is carbon dioxide[/ame]





carbon will be a national security problem in years to come?


doesn't this progressive brain trust know that all life on earth is carbon based.

Can't you just see a veteran coming home from afghanistan, having been
shot at for months and calling his senator?

" Senator- you have to do something about carbon- in 20 years it will be the
cause of our troops being sent into harms way? It won't be because we need oil.
It won't be because the military complex needs to stay in business.

It will be that damn carbon. Please regulate everything that contains carbon.


What a piece of ignorant slime this woman is in our government.

the voters who sent her to us should

Hey boxer-

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[Old Rocks]

The affects of an adrupt climate change will involve enormous security problems for this nation, and every other nation on the globe.

http://www.envirosecurity.org/news/articles/environmentalSecurity.pdf

Security policies must be based upon strategic foresight,
of knowing where vulnerable systems and
regions exist before catastrophic changes occur in
the environment, and how to mitigate or avoid the
worst consequences. This study reviews the need
for new security definitions in regard to environmental
security, specifically the role of vulnerability and
risk in anticipating critical environmental changes.
In assessing the potential role of new, global intelligence
systems, the potential risks and impacts of
abrupt climate change in the Arctic are examined
as illustrative. In contrast to many past approaches
to climate change as an external force acting upon
state security, we emphasize that greater integration
of energy, environmental, economic, social and political
systems are necessary. Rather than attempting
to falsify or substantiate causal relationships between
climate change and one measure of insecurity
(eg violent conflict), risk assessment techniques can
be employed to help estimate potential areas of
insecurity in terms of plausible risk and severity of
consequences. It is this vulnerability foresight that
may prove of use to policymakers concerned about
abrupt climate change and security issues.

 

[del]

The affects of an adrupt climate change will involve enormous security problems for this nation, and every other nation on the globe.

http://www.envirosecurity.org/news/articles/environmentalSecurity.pdf

the effects of an abrupt stop by al gore will involve a broken nose for you, and every other brain dead warmer on the globe.

keep swinging

 

[Old Rocks]

Abrupt Climate Change: 'Imagine the Unthinkable'

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Published on Thursday, April 1, 2004 by the San Francisco Chronicle
'Imagine the Unthinkable'
by Ruth Rosen

THE PENTAGON has warned that global warming is a serious threat to our country's national security.

No, this is not an April Fool's Day joke, though it may seem like one.

Dryly entitled "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for U.S. National Security" (October 2003), the Pentagon report first appeared in the British press, Fortune magazine, a small number of American newspapers and then began circulating on the Internet.

Andrew Marshall, a highly respected 82-year-old defense adviser in the Department of Defense, commissioned the Pentagon study. He also led the sweeping review of the military ordered by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and runs a little known Pentagon think tank, the Office of Net Assessment, which has evaluated risks to national security for four presidents.

The authors of the study -- Peter Schwartz, a CIA consultant, and Doug Randall of the Global Business Network in California, are tough-minded analysts, not your stereotypical tree-hugging environmentalists.

Their report, however, reads like the script for a horror flick. "The purpose of this report," they begin, "is to imagine the unthinkable." To accomplish this goal, they "interviewed leading climate-change scientists."

Extrapolating from the present, they predict that dramatic climate changes may lead to rising seas, mega-droughts and famine within 20 years. Some European coastal cities, such as The Hague, could sink under the ocean, Britain could be plunged into a semi-Siberian climate, Bangladesh could become uninhabitable and drought could destroy the American breadbasket.

California would be especially hard hit. "Failures of the delta-island levees in the Sacramento River region in the Central Valley of California" could create an inland sea that would "disrupt the aqueduct system that transports water from Northern to Southern California because saltwater can no longer be kept out of the area during the dry season . . ."

In response to such catastrophic changes, the authors argue, some regions or countries will defend dwindling supplies of water, food and energy with all kinds of military strategies, including nuclear weapons. Widespread rioting and regional conflict could even push some areas of the planet to the edge of anarchy.

Global warming, they conclude, must "therefore be viewed as a serious threat to global stability and should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."

 

[Old Rocks]

The affects of an adrupt climate change will involve enormous security problems for this nation, and every other nation on the globe.

http://www.envirosecurity.org/news/articles/environmentalSecurity.pdf

the effects of an abrupt stop by al gore will involve a broken nose for you, and every other brain dead warmer on the globe.

keep swinging

Del, old boy, I hope you and the rest of the denialists are correct. However, thus far, reality is not shaping up that way.

 

[del]

The affects of an adrupt climate change will involve enormous security problems for this nation, and every other nation on the globe.

http://www.envirosecurity.org/news/articles/environmentalSecurity.pdf

the effects of an abrupt stop by al gore will involve a broken nose for you, and every other brain dead warmer on the globe.

keep swinging

Del, old boy, I hope you and the rest of the denialists are correct. However, thus far, reality is not shaping up that way.

i've never denied that the earth may be getting warmer, just that what you and your fellow cultists espouse as *settled acience* is a crock of shit as it isn't settled and it's barely science.

i realized that you've invested your whole self in this and now you're like a moonie; too embarrassed to admit you're wrong and too arrogant to at least STFU and learn something. fortunately, it's not my problem so rock on with your bad self.

 

[konradv]

doesn't this progressive brain trust know that all life on earth is carbon based.
------------------------

True, but irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[westwall]

The affects of an adrupt climate change will involve enormous security problems for this nation, and every other nation on the globe.

http://www.envirosecurity.org/news/articles/environmentalSecurity.pdf

the effects of an abrupt stop by al gore will involve a broken nose for you, and every other brain dead warmer on the globe.

keep swinging

Del, old boy, I hope you and the rest of the denialists are correct. However, thus far, reality is not shaping up that way.

old fraud you crack me up. Every piece of evidence you have ever presented has been proven false and yet you soldier on peddling the same old horse poop. Good for you!
Your continued faith in AGW is simply amazing.

 

[westwall]

doesn't this progressive brain trust know that all life on earth is carbon based.
------------------------

True, but irrelevant to the discussion.

Only to the brain dead.

 

[WillowTree]

Here's a 34 second movie for you. It's called " dum dum gos to
washington. It stars barbara boxer, and she doesn't have to do
anything but " act naturally" as Buck would say.

Barbara Boxer has to be one of the dumbest creatures on the surface of our
planet. I can't believe she took the time to put this ridiculous
34 seconds into the congressional record.



YouTube - Boxer: Greatest national security threat is carbon dioxide





carbon will be a national security problem in years to come?


doesn't this progressive brain trust know that all life on earth is carbon based.

Can't you just see a veteran coming home from afghanistan, having been
shot at for months and calling his senator?

" Senator- you have to do something about carbon- in 20 years it will be the
cause of our troops being sent into harms way? It won't be because we need oil.
It won't be because the military complex needs to stay in business.

It will be that damn carbon. Please regulate everything that contains carbon.


What a piece of ignorant slime this woman is in our government.

the voters who sent her to us should

Hey boxer-

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

She needs to do something about that damned hair.

 

[konradv]

The fact that life on earth is carbon-based DOES NOTHING to disprove AGW. If you think so, how so?

 

[westwall]

The fact that life on earth is carbon-based DOES NOTHING to disprove AGW. If you think so, how so?

Because man ingroduces roughly 35% of the carbon into the atmosphere on a daily basis. You can't control the other 65% so the theory is allready starting from an untenable position. You simply can't prevent CO2 from being introduced into the atmosphere. You can take the US back to an 1880's level of carbon production and the effect will be unmeasurable.

Furthemore every ice core that has been checked shows the warming came fist then the CO2 levels increased, with an approximate 800 year lag, so the carbon cycle operates independant of mankind.

 

[Old Rocks]

And you claim to be a geologist


CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

CO2 lags temperature

"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)

What the science says...
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.


Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both

 

[gettingold]

The fact that life on earth is carbon-based DOES NOTHING to disprove AGW. If you think so, how so?

Because man ingroduces roughly 35% of the carbon into the atmosphere on a daily basis. You can't control the other 65% so the theory is allready starting from an untenable position. You simply can't prevent CO2 from being introduced into the atmosphere. You can take the US back to an 1880's level of carbon production and the effect will be unmeasurable.

Furthemore every ice core that has been checked shows the warming came fist then the CO2 levels increased, with an approximate 800 year lag, so the carbon cycle operates independant of mankind.

don't know where you got your numbers. 95% of the greenhouse gases is water vapor.
only 5% is co-2

of that 5%, only .11% is contributed by man- the rest is naturally produced

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

 

[konradv]

The fact that life on earth is carbon-based DOES NOTHING to disprove AGW. If you think so, how so?

Because man ingroduces roughly 35% of the carbon into the atmosphere on a daily basis. You can't control the other 65% so the theory is allready starting from an untenable position. You simply can't prevent CO2 from being introduced into the atmosphere. You can take the US back to an 1880's level of carbon production and the effect will be unmeasurable.

Furthemore every ice core that has been checked shows the warming came fist then the CO2 levels increased, with an approximate 800 year lag, so the carbon cycle operates independant of mankind.

don't know where you got your numbers. 95% of the greenhouse gases is water vapor.
only 5% is co-2

of that 5%, only .11% is contributed by man- the rest is naturally produced

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

The values cited, while interesting, don't mean much as absolutes. What matters is the percentage increase over historical values, 25-30%. If CO2 helps keep the planet warm, what would an increase of that magnitude mean? In my book, more heat. Please explain how it works out any other way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Effects of global warming:

Greenland will melt, and become green again, net benefit, more arable land.
Sahara will get more rain, net benefit, more arable land.
Hague will sink, net benefit, less obnoxious, people making decisions to control my life.
Great plains will become arid, net benefit, more land for solar panels.

What exactly am I supposed to be worried about?

 

[Old Rocks]

The fact that life on earth is carbon-based DOES NOTHING to disprove AGW. If you think so, how so?

Because man ingroduces roughly 35% of the carbon into the atmosphere on a daily basis. You can't control the other 65% so the theory is allready starting from an untenable position. You simply can't prevent CO2 from being introduced into the atmosphere. You can take the US back to an 1880's level of carbon production and the effect will be unmeasurable.

Furthemore every ice core that has been checked shows the warming came fist then the CO2 levels increased, with an approximate 800 year lag, so the carbon cycle operates independant of mankind.

don't know where you got your numbers. 95% of the greenhouse gases is water vapor.
only 5% is co-2

of that 5%, only .11% is contributed by man- the rest is naturally produced

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

CO2 versus water vapor as greenhouse gases. Water vapor has a residence time in the atmosphere of less than ten days. That means that if you created 100% humidity in the atmosphere over the whole globe, in ten days most of the water vapor would be gone.

If you removed all the water vapor from the atmosphere, because the temperature of the atmosphere would still be the same, and the fact that the Earth is 3/4 covered in water, in just a few days the atmosphere would once again have the normal amount of water in it.

On the other hand, if you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is going to be there a long time. About two centuries. And, because it absorbs the outgoing infrared, it warms the atmosphere, causing it to absorb more water vapor, which absorbs even more outgoing infrared. You see, CO2 is a forcing agent, where water is a feedback agent.

Now we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by almost 40%. From 280 ppm, to 387 ppm. That is the highest that the CO2 level in the atmosphere has been in several million years.

Both the atmosphere and the oceans are warming. Which puts more H2O into the atmosphere. Which increases the heating. And comes out in heavier and more frequent storms.

 

[westwall]

And you claim to be a geologist


CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

CO2 lags temperature

"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)

What the science says...
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.


Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both

old fraud you're doing it again, you complain when I quote sceptical blogs and here you are quoting a warmist magazine. What gives? Either no one can do it or everyone can...so which is it? Oh yeah, I don't claim to be a geologist...I AM A GEOLOGIST and I have the degrees to back it up..what you got big mouth?

 

[westwall]

The fact that life on earth is carbon-based DOES NOTHING to disprove AGW. If you think so, how so?

Because man ingroduces roughly 35% of the carbon into the atmosphere on a daily basis. You can't control the other 65% so the theory is allready starting from an untenable position. You simply can't prevent CO2 from being introduced into the atmosphere. You can take the US back to an 1880's level of carbon production and the effect will be unmeasurable.

Furthemore every ice core that has been checked shows the warming came fist then the CO2 levels increased, with an approximate 800 year lag, so the carbon cycle operates independant of mankind.

don't know where you got your numbers. 95% of the greenhouse gases is water vapor.
only 5% is co-2

of that 5%, only .11% is contributed by man- the rest is naturally produced

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Hi gettinggold,

Actually CO2 accounts for less than 5%, more like 2% or there abouts. I was referring to the total amount of CO2 that is introduced into the atmosphere on a daily basis...we do introduce about 35% of the total...which as you pointed out is a pretty negligable amount.

 

[westwall]

Because man ingroduces roughly 35% of the carbon into the atmosphere on a daily basis. You can't control the other 65% so the theory is allready starting from an untenable position. You simply can't prevent CO2 from being introduced into the atmosphere. You can take the US back to an 1880's level of carbon production and the effect will be unmeasurable.

Furthemore every ice core that has been checked shows the warming came fist then the CO2 levels increased, with an approximate 800 year lag, so the carbon cycle operates independant of mankind.

don't know where you got your numbers. 95% of the greenhouse gases is water vapor.
only 5% is co-2

of that 5%, only .11% is contributed by man- the rest is naturally produced

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

CO2 versus water vapor as greenhouse gases. Water vapor has a residence time in the atmosphere of less than ten days. That means that if you created 100% humidity in the atmosphere over the whole globe, in ten days most of the water vapor would be gone.

If you removed all the water vapor from the atmosphere, because the temperature of the atmosphere would still be the same, and the fact that the Earth is 3/4 covered in water, in just a few days the atmosphere would once again have the normal amount of water in it.

On the other hand, if you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is going to be there a long time. About two centuries. And, because it absorbs the outgoing infrared, it warms the atmosphere, causing it to absorb more water vapor, which absorbs even more outgoing infrared. You see, CO2 is a forcing agent, where water is a feedback agent.

Now we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by almost 40%. From 280 ppm, to 387 ppm. That is the highest that the CO2 level in the atmosphere has been in several million years.

Both the atmosphere and the oceans are warming. Which puts more H2O into the atmosphere. Which increases the heating. And comes out in heavier and more frequent storms.

This is BS old fraud...only the IPCC claims a residence time that long. Dozens of peer reviewed papers fix the residence time at between 5 and 10 years.

This is a good analyisis of the IPCC report where they first say that there is a 100 year RT but later on in the report they report a RT of only 4 years and have supporting documentation for the 4 year RT.

Climate Research News Atmospheric Residence Time of Man-Made CO2