The North Pole could melt this year

[Chris]

Wildfires
What causes a wildfire?
Common causes of wildfires include lightning, human carelessness, arson, volcano eruption, and pyroclastic cloud from active volcano. Heat waves, droughts, and cyclical climate changes such as El Niño can also have a dramatic effect on the risk of wildfires. Although, more than four out of every five wildfires are caused by people.

It seems you have inhaled a little too much of the enviromental wacko smoke....most wildfires are caused by careless people...

One of the consequences of global warming is more drought. Drought leads to wildfires. I am not an enviromentalist, but is obvious what is going on.

 

[Chris]

Global CO2 emissions

 

[nomdeplume]

Who gives a shit. CO2 in the greenhouse effect is like me pissing in the ocean and someone worried New York is going to flood.

We have been warming for hundreds of years now. We are still coming out of the little ice age. Give it a couple years and we may be talking about global cooling and everyone will be saying we need more CO2 in tha air to keep as warm when we dip into another little ice age.

Gllobal warming reminds me of those "population bomb" morons of several decades ago. In fact, I think the global warming morons and the population bomb morons are a bran of the same retards. They needed some doom and gloom scenario for them to worry about.

 

[Chris]

Who gives a shit. CO2 in the greenhouse effect is like me pissing in the ocean and someone worried New York is going to flood.

We have been warming for hundreds of years now. We are still coming out of the little ice age. Give it a couple years and we may be talking about global cooling and everyone will be saying we need more CO2 in tha air to keep as warm when we dip into another little ice age.

Gllobal warming reminds me of those "population bomb" morons of several decades ago. In fact, I think the global warming morons and the population bomb morons are a bran of the same retards. They needed some doom and gloom scenario for them to worry about.

The rate of warming is accelerating and if the methane locked in the permafrost is released, it will accelerate the warming further because methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gase than CO2. Dought will be the first result of the warming, and if Antarctica melts then that is the nightmare senario. Luckily Antarctic ice is hard to melt because it is largely landlocked.

 

[jreeves]

One of the consequences of global warming is more drought. Drought leads to wildfires. I am not an enviromentalist, but is obvious what is going on.

Yet, of all the wildfires only 1 out of 5 derive from other sources other than carelessness by man.

 

[jreeves]

The rate of warming is accelerating and if the methane locked in the permafrost is released, it will accelerate the warming further because methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gase than CO2. Dought will be the first result of the warming, and if Antarctica melts then that is the nightmare senario. Luckily Antarctic ice is hard to melt because it is largely landlocked.

Looks as though we are safe right now, peculiar isn't it?

An important article appeared in the literature recently with some surprising results given the predictions of the climate models. Konstantinos Andreadis and Dennis Lettenmaier of the University of Washington have published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters entitled “Trends in 20th century drought over the continental United States,” and the results are peculiar—in light of climate model projections—to say the least. In the abstract, they write “Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a small portion of the country over the last century.”
World Climate Report Where are the Droughts?

 

[Chris]

Looks as though we are safe right now, peculiar isn't it?

An important article appeared in the literature recently with some surprising results given the predictions of the climate models. Konstantinos Andreadis and Dennis Lettenmaier of the University of Washington have published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters entitled “Trends in 20th century drought over the continental United States,” and the results are peculiar—in light of climate model projections—to say the least. In the abstract, they write “Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a small portion of the country over the last century.”
World Climate Report Where are the Droughts?

That report is two years old. This is a little more current...

US Drought Monitor

 

[jreeves]

That report is two years old. This is a little more current...

US Drought Monitor

This is why you should read your posts before you submit them. My post spans a hundred years, your post spans 5 days.

The NWS forecast products utilized include the HPC 5-day QPF and 5-day Mean Temperature progs, the 6-10 Day Outlooks of Temperature and Precipitation Probability, and the 8-14 Day Outlooks of Temperature and Precipitation Probability, valid as of late Wednesday afternoon of the USDM release week. The NWS forecast web page used for this section is: Climate Prediction Center - Forecasts & Outlook Maps, Graphs and Tables.

 

[jreeves]

Global CO2 emissions

Good looks as though trees will be healthier than ever.
National Policy Analysis #334: Carbon Dioxide is Good for the Environment - April 2001
Carbon dioxide is good for the environment.

That simple fact must be restated to counter environmentalists' baseless allegations that the accumulation of man-made carbon dioxide, produced by cars, power plants and other human activities, is causing dangerous global warming.

Indeed, far from being a poisonous gas that will wreak havoc on the planet's ecosystem, carbon dioxide is arguably the Earth's best friend in that trees, wheat, peanuts, flowers, cotton and numerous other plants significantly benefit from increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Dr. Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, one of the nation's leading carbon dioxide research centers, examined records of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and air temperature over the last 250,000 years. There were three dramatic episodes of global warming that occurred at the end of the last three ice ages. Interestingly, temperatures started to rise during those warming periods well before the atmospheric carbon dioxide started to increase. In fact, the carbon dioxide levels did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Concludes Dr. Idso, "Clearly, there is no way that these real-world observations can be construed to even hint at the possibility that a significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will necessarily lead to any global warming."1

 

[editec]

I can't believe people are still debating this issue.

Denial is a serious mental disease, I guess.

 

[Foxfyre]

I can't believe people are still debating this issue.

Denial is a serious mental disease, I guess.

So is the 'Chicken Little' syndrome. Some seem to thrive on doom and gloom end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it scenarios not even considering the huge profits being raked in by those successful in keeping the gullible convinced that we are in anthropogenic crisis.

The record shows that the Arctic has been ice free in the past before humans had ability to affect anything and it will likely be ice free in the future as we will no doubt be unlikely to affect the cyclical patterns of the universe. (Ice caps on other planets in our solar system have also been observed shrinking - I wonder if they also drive Hummers there?)

It is a given that humans can manipulate their immediate environment for their own advantage or detriment, but on a global level? Even with six billion people on Earth, that is not a conclusion drawn by even most scientists who have actually studied this.

And even if we could, the fact remains that in the grand scheme of things, warmer is better than cooler for both humans and many other species on Earth. Some of the greatest recorded famines have not occured because of excessive heat, but rather from unusual cold.

 

[editec]

Foxfire opines:

So is the 'Chicken Little' syndrome

If you define accepting the best evidence of our scientific community over the inane blatherings of somebody talking out his ass on the internet as suffering the Chicken little syndome, then I guess I'm suffering from that disease.

Your scientifc credentials are what, exactly?

I tend to believe experts in fields in which I am unqualified to arrive at my own conclusions.

Call me crazy, but that's just how I deal with the fact that I know I don't know everything.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfire opines:
Your scientifc credentials are what, exactly?

I tend to believe experts in fields in which I am unqualified to arrive at my own conclusions.

My scientific credentials are limited strictly to being able to read and/or listen to and understand scientific opinion. And I have read (or listened to) very few qualified climate scientists who have actually done studies or reviewed in depth studies on AGW who are convinced that humans are much of a factor at all in causing global warming. I am seeing reports from hundreds of scientists who were once AGW believers now defecting from that camp and going on the record as saying that the science simply is at least not sufficient to support a conclusion of AGW and at most does not support a conclusion of AGW at all.

I also tend to at least pay attention to experts in fields in which I lack expertise, and then I prefer to arrive at my own conclusion based on the preponderance of available information and evidence rather than just believe what somebody tells me I am supposed to believe. In the case of AGW you can have two 'experts' taking absolutely opposing points of view.

 

[BrianH]

Foxfire opines:



If you define accepting the best evidence of our scientific community over the inane blatherings of somebody talking out his ass on the internet as suffering the Chicken little syndome, then I guess I'm suffering from that disease.

Your scientifc credentials are what, exactly?

I tend to believe experts in fields in which I am unqualified to arrive at my own conclusions.

Call me crazy, but that's just how I deal with the fact that I know I don't know everything.

Not everything is as it seems editec. I agree that global warming is happening, but it's not because of humans. The IPCCs credibility is being questioned, as well as the information in its reports....

[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=zfafW_3oJ3Q&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Chris]

Good looks as though trees will be healthier than ever.
National Policy Analysis #334: Carbon Dioxide is Good for the Environment - April 2001
Carbon dioxide is good for the environment.

That simple fact must be restated to counter environmentalists' baseless allegations that the accumulation of man-made carbon dioxide, produced by cars, power plants and other human activities, is causing dangerous global warming.

Indeed, far from being a poisonous gas that will wreak havoc on the planet's ecosystem, carbon dioxide is arguably the Earth's best friend in that trees, wheat, peanuts, flowers, cotton and numerous other plants significantly benefit from increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Dr. Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, one of the nation's leading carbon dioxide research centers, examined records of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and air temperature over the last 250,000 years. There were three dramatic episodes of global warming that occurred at the end of the last three ice ages. Interestingly, temperatures started to rise during those warming periods well before the atmospheric carbon dioxide started to increase. In fact, the carbon dioxide levels did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Concludes Dr. Idso, "Clearly, there is no way that these real-world observations can be construed to even hint at the possibility that a significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will necessarily lead to any global warming."1

The group you quoted is funded by Exxon....

On it's website Sherwood B. Idso writes that "our typical response is that we never discuss our funding. Why? Because we believe that ideas about the way the world of nature operates should stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the source of support for the person or organization that produces them ... It is self-evident, for example, that one need not know from whence a person's or organization's funding comes in order to evaluate the reasonableness of what they say, if - and this is a very important qualification - one carefully studies the writings of people on both sides of the issue."[2]

The Center states on its website that it "accepts corporate, foundation and individual donations" and that "all donations are kept confidential".[3]

Sherwood Idso confirmed that Exxon "made some donations to us a few times in the past" but attributed this to the fact that "they probably liked what we typically had to say about the issue. But what we had to say then, and what we have to say now, came not, and comes not, from them or any other organization or person."[2]

ExxonMobil's 2001 list of groups it funded listed a $10,000 contribution to the CSCDGC in 2001. Center for Science in the Public Interest, "Center for the study of carbon dioxide and global change", Integrity in Science, undated, accessed March 2004. [4]

StopExxon.org reports CSCDGC has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005 comprising: [5]

1998: $10,000
2000: $15,000
2003: $40,000
2005: $25,000

 

[Chris]

So is the 'Chicken Little' syndrome. Some seem to thrive on doom and gloom end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it scenarios not even considering the huge profits being raked in by those successful in keeping the gullible convinced that we are in anthropogenic crisis.

The record shows that the Arctic has been ice free in the past before humans had ability to affect anything and it will likely be ice free in the future as we will no doubt be unlikely to affect the cyclical patterns of the universe. (Ice caps on other planets in our solar system have also been observed shrinking - I wonder if they also drive Hummers there?)

It is a given that humans can manipulate their immediate environment for their own advantage or detriment, but on a global level? Even with six billion people on Earth, that is not a conclusion drawn by even most scientists who have actually studied this.

And even if we could, the fact remains that in the grand scheme of things, warmer is better than cooler for both humans and many other species on Earth. Some of the greatest recorded famines have not occured because of excessive heat, but rather from unusual cold.

When was the Arctic ice free? Do you have a link to that information?

 

[Foxfyre]

Exxon/Mobile as well as other energy producing companies give contributions to various foundations and research groups, yes. But do they do it to influence the outcome of scientific studies? There is no evidence that this is the case. Do they do it because the research reports being produced are not slanted against the oil and coal companies? That would be reasonable to assume though so far as I know there is no evidence for that either.

Don't you give contributions to those organizations that you believe are doing good work? If you are the National Hula Hoop champion or spokesperson for Tiddlywinks Anonymous, should that be a consideration when evaluating those organizations that you support? If so, would your contribution automatically disqualify the work of the receiving organization? If not, then why shouldn't oil companies also be able to provide funding for what they believe to be good science especially if such science correctly absolves the oil companies for responsibility for global warming?

 

[Foxfyre]

When was the Arctic ice free? Do you have a link to that information?

Given some time, I can probably come up with at least some reference sources, but this article in the NYT, while not specifically mentioning an 'ice free' Arctic ocean, does mention year round temperatures that would preclude the presence of ice:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/science/earth/01climate.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

 

[AllieBaba]

It's a non-issue.
The climate changes. Get over it.

 

[Chris]

Exxon/Mobile as well as other energy producing companies give contributions to various foundations and research groups, yes. But do they do it to influence the outcome of scientific studies? There is no evidence that this is the case. Do they do it because the research reports being produced are not slanted against the oil and coal companies? That would be reasonable to assume though so far as I know there is no evidence for that either.

Don't you give contributions to those organizations that you believe are doing good work? If you are the National Hula Hoop champion or spokesperson for Tiddlywinks Anonymous, should that be a consideration when evaluating those organizations that you support? If so, would your contribution automatically disqualify the work of the receiving organization? If not, then why shouldn't oil companies also be able to provide funding for what they believe to be good science especially if such science correctly absolves the oil companies for responsibility for global warming?

More info....

The Center has means of disseminating information, their magazine and website CO2 Science, includes articles both questioning the existence of climate change as well as touting the benefits to the biosphere from carbon dioxide enrichment. All aspects of climate change and its predicted effects - from melting ice caps to species extinction, to more severe weather - are criticized by the Center and either refuted or presented as beneficial. Fred Palmer, head of Western Fuels, said about the center: "The Center's viewpoint is a needed antidote to the misleading and usually erroneous scientific claims emanating from the Federal scientific establishment and adopted by leading politicians, such as Vice President Al Gore." The Center has since tried to distance itself from the Western Fuels Association, however, the Center is run by Keith and Craig Idso, along with their father, Sherwood. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another. Keith Idso, then a doctoral candidate at the University of Arizona, was a paid expert witness for Western Fuels Association at a 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities commission hearing in St. Paul, MN, along with MIT's Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, and Robert Balling (The Heat is On). According to news from Basin Electr ic, a Western Fuels Association member, Craig Idso produced a report, "The Greening of Planet Earth." Its Progression from Hypothesis to Theory," in January 1998 for the Western Fuels Association (Basin Electric Latest News no date given).