Fox News is in on the Global Warming conspiracy!

C

cyberbri

Banned
...now that I have your attention:


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200590,00.html

Congressional Scientific Commission: Global Warming Is Real, Caused by Humans
Thursday, June 22, 2006

WASHINGTON — It has been 2,000 years and possibly much longer since the Earth has run such a fever.

The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming."

Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.

This is shown in boreholes, retreating glaciers and other evidence found in nature, said Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University who chaired the academy's panel.

The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.

Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.

Boehlert said Thursday the report shows the value of having scientists advise Congress.

"There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change," he said.

Other new research Thursday showed that global warming produced about half of the extra hurricane-fueled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005, and natural cycles were a minor factor, according to Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a research lab sponsored by the National Science Foundation and universities.

Their study is being published by the American Geophysical Union.

The Bush administration has maintained that the threat is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs.

Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years.

Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.

The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member.

The conclusions from the '90s research "are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.

The panel looked at how other scientists reconstructed the Earth's temperatures going back thousands of years, before there was data from modern scientific instruments.

For all but the most recent 150 years, the academy scientists relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps.

Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the academy said.

Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.

The scientists said they had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600. But they considered it reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.

Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, it said.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters.
 
Rock&Roll Ninja

Rock&Roll Ninja

Audioholic Field Marshall
I think most people have known for the last 30 years or so.....
 
C

cyberbri

Banned
Except for the people in denial who say there's still debate, the jury's still out, etc. Look at the furor over Al Gore's movie. :confused: :eek: :D
 
b_panther_g

b_panther_g

Audioholic
The jury is still out…But not for the reason some people think.

Scientists agree that the Earth is heating up and that pollution is a bad thing.

But they can’t agree about exactly how pollution is heating up the Earth.

Carbon Dioxide is usually blamed for the warming. But, according to many top scientists in the field, that’s wrong. They say that during the last ice age, CO2 levels were many times higher than they are now.

Soooooooo. Humans are screwing things up…but exactly how we’re screwing things up is still being debated.

On the other hand pretty much everyone agrees on the solutions…Except big oil companies and their bedfellows (like the carmakers).

Enjoy,
Panther
 
C

cyberbri

Banned
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060627_inconv_truth.html

Scientists Give Gore Movie Five Stars for Accuracy
By Seth Borenstein
Associated Press
posted: 27 June 2006
04:34 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth,'' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie -- replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets -- mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"Excellent,'' said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right.''

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate,'' Corell said. "After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error.''


Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right.''

The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue,'' said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.

One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.

"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus,'' said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.

Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit -- such as changing light bulbs -- the world could help slow or stop global warming.

While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list.

"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth,'' Gore said. "Because if you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere every day.''

As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair.''
 
Last edited by a moderator:
warhummer

warhummer

Junior Audioholic
Carbon Dioxide and global warming...

One thing I haven't been able to get a consensus on is how carbon dioxide levels affect the actual warming of the planet. The issue is that carbon dioxide is such a good reflector of radiant enery (the "warming" kind) that is doesn't matter whether there is a thin layer or thick layer.

It's like trying to get a gnat through a concrete wall. It doesn't matter if the wall is 2 feet or 10 feet thick, the gnat ain't going through.

So if carbon dioxide levels increase, there should be no net effect on warming of the earth.

I'm in a somewhat lackadaisical search for an answer to this one.
 
C

cyberbri

Banned
The more there is in the air, the more it traps in heat in the atmosphere. Basically. At least that's my understanding of it.

I guess I just need to check out this movie! :p
 
Tomorrow

Tomorrow

Audioholic Ninja
With Hillary Clinton front and center, I have no idea why there is still global warming! ;)
 
warhummer

warhummer

Junior Audioholic
cyberbri said:
The more there is in the air, the more it traps in heat in the atmosphere. Basically. At least that's my understanding of it.
My point was that more carbon dioxide does not increase the reflection of radiant energy. The stuff that's already there now does it all.
 
V

Vynilforlife

Audioholic Intern
To think that humans have an effect on global warming is pure arrogance on our part. One minor volcanic eruption puts out more greenhouse gas than everything we have ever made.
 
C

cyberbri

Banned
Vynilforlife said:
To think that humans have an effect on global warming is pure arrogance on our part. One minor volcanic eruption puts out more greenhouse gas than everything we have ever made.
You just convinced me. All the scientists in the world must not know what they're talking about. They're just being arrogant. Because you're the real expert, right? :confused:
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Vynilforlife said:
To think that humans have an effect on global warming is pure arrogance on our part. One minor volcanic eruption puts out more greenhouse gas than everything we have ever made.

You seem to be pretty sure of your supposition? Based in fact or what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

This tells me otherwise.

The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity; this was essential for a warm and stable climate conducive to life. Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year. Volcanic releases are about 1% of the amount which is released by human activities.


Maybe you should do a bit of research?

Try a google for atmospheric carbon dioxide. Might learn a few things. I just love that google.:D
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
cyberbri said:
You just convinced me. All the scientists in the world must not know what they're talking about. They're just being arrogant. Because you're the real expert, right? :confused:

Not to worry. His knowledge base just took a dive:D
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
warhummer said:
One thing I haven't been able to get a consensus on is how carbon dioxide levels affect the actual warming of the planet. The issue is that carbon dioxide is such a good reflector of radiant enery (the "warming" kind) that is doesn't matter whether there is a thin layer or thick layer.

It's like trying to get a gnat through a concrete wall. It doesn't matter if the wall is 2 feet or 10 feet thick, the gnat ain't going through.

So if carbon dioxide levels increase, there should be no net effect on warming of the earth.

I'm in a somewhat lackadaisical search for an answer to this one.

Not sure if this will explain enough for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Or, you could google atmospheric carbon dioxide and a bunch of links will come up. Some bound to satisfy your curiosity?

The major atmospheric constituents (N2 and O2) are not greenhouse gases, because homonuclear diatomic molecules (eg N2, O2, H2 ...) do not absorb in the infrared as there is no net change in the dipole moment of these molecules.

A quote from the link. This would indicate that the greenhouse gases then absorb IR and traps heat in, not reflect more from coming in. More gas, a bigger trap, like a sponge. Bigger sponge, more it will hold. But, this is not my forte:)
 
warhummer

warhummer

Junior Audioholic
Another issue is the relative lack of accurate modeling on the effect that the world's oceans play in this process. The report from the Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change brings this up within the body of its report, but seems to ignore it when it presents its conclusions. Most of the "We're all going to die tomorrow!" bell ringers don't seem to acknowledge this.

Unfortunately having Big Al leading this global warming charge doesn't help convince the skeptics who automatically dimiss his mouth-foaming tirades.

Of course each side in the debate will (and does) cherry-pick pieces of data to support their pre-conceived opinions. What's needed is a serious look at this whole process, unecumbered by the "George Bush and Big-Oil want to kill the world" and their couterparts on the other side of the argument. An "all or nothing" mentality will not help this country encorporate reasonable and sustainable changes to the way industry and the public do business.
 
C

cyberbri

Banned
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-greenhouse28jun28,0,3775036.story?coll=la-home-nation

U.S. Emits Half of Car-Caused Greenhouse Gas, Study Says
Americans drive more in vehicles with lower fuel standards, says an environmental group.
By Janet Wilson, Times Staff Writer
June 28, 2006

American cars and pickup trucks are responsible for nearly half of the greenhouse gases emitted by automobiles globally, even though the nation's vehicles make up just 30% of the nearly 700 million cars in use, according to a new report by Environmental Defense.

Cars in the U.S. are driven more miles, face lower fuel economy standards and use fuel with more carbon than many of those driven in other countries, the authors found. According to the report by the environmental group, due out today, U.S. cars and light trucks were driven 2.6 trillion miles in 2004, equal to driving back and forth to Pluto more than 470 times.

The report's authors hope their findings will bolster efforts in Congress to require federal regulators to raise fuel economy standards for vehicles and set a mandatory cap on greenhouse gases from all sources. Numerous studies have linked carbon dioxide emissions from burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline to global warming.

One surprising finding was that small cars emitted more carbon dioxide than SUVs, 25% of the total compared with 21%. That is because there are more older small vehicles with higher emissions still in service, said lead author John DeCicco, a mechanical engineer specializing in automobile research.

"Even though SUVs get worse fuel economy and burn more gas, there's roughly twice as many small cars in operation," he said.

That will change in a few years based on car scrapping rates, he predicted, with SUVs bought over the last 10 to 15 years taking the lead, even if consumers begin buying small cars again because of sharply higher fuel prices.

"As Americans we're going to be living down the SUV boom for a long time," he said. "The implication is that we can't turn the emissions problem on a dime…. It takes a generation."

The study concludes that vehicles manufactured by the nation's Big Three automakers — General Motors, Ford and DaimlerChrysler — produce the most emissions, with Toyota ranked fourth.

Nearly one-third of the emissions came from vehicles made by GM.

GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss said he had not seen the report and did not know whether the company's cars created the highest percentage of greenhouse gas emissions. But he added that if it was true, it would make sense because GM sold the most cars.

"Certainly the fact that we have the most cars on the road contributes, I'm sure, to these findings," he said. "As the world's largest automaker it's no surprise."

He said the company was committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions through continued research and development of alternative fuels and technologies to replace gasoline and the internal combustion engine. He said the company would like to see greenhouse gases completely eliminated eventually with the development of hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles that could be available for commercial sale within 10 years.

Automakers said they were surprised to hear that small cars emitted more carbon dioxide than SUVs. In addition to the fact that there were more on the road, Barthmuss said, "if you get 30 miles to the gallon … people will drive more, drive farther. The more fuel efficient the vehicle, the more inclined you are to drive. And the more you drive, the more fuel you burn. It's almost a Catch-22."

DeCicco said: "We're not trying to paint a bull's-eye on GM's hide…. Everyone has a role to play, from the auto manufacturers to Joe the consumer buying a new car."

He said the study was designed to show for the first time the huge amount of carbon dioxide released by American cars and to stimulate passage of tougher laws and policies aimed at reducing it. The Senate last year passed a nonbinding resolution to cap emissions, but bipartisan efforts to pass a law have thus far failed.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) last week introduced a version that would freeze allowable levels of greenhouse gas emissions in 2010, reduce them by 2% each year through 2020, then reduce them further by 5% annually through 2050.

The act would achieve the targets through a cap-and-trade program along with measures to advance renewable energy, energy efficiency and cleaner cars.

Auto industry spokesmen did not respond to requests for comment on such a cap. The companies have fought efforts to pass tougher federal fuel economy standards and is suing California and several other states to block state-by-state tailpipe emission laws.
 
AverageJoe

AverageJoe

Full Audioholic
cyberbri said:
You just convinced me. All the scientists in the world must not know what they're talking about. They're just being arrogant. Because you're the real expert, right? :confused:
I guess YOU are.
I'm curious though. When did you interview every scientist in the world?

There are more than a few with dissenting viewpoints, so some of them really don't know what they're talking about.;)
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
AverageJoe said:
I guess YOU are.
I'm curious though. When did you interview every scientist in the world?

There are more than a few with dissenting viewpoints, so some of them really don't know what they're talking about.;)

Probably not, or they would not be dissenting.
There are many issues where some scientists dissent. So what. Does that make them right?
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top