Global Warming ?

[flyboy]

Re: Global Warming ?

Yep and the patent on R-134 is up shortly, I'm more than certain they have thier next cash cow crapy refrigerent in line to take over its spot.

 

[Queequeg]

Re: Global Warming ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: flyboy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yep and the patent on R-134 is up shortly, I'm more than certain they have thier next cash cow crapy refrigerent in line to take over its spot. </div></div>

I like the way you think!

 

[eleaf]

Re: Global Warming ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JRose</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's cold as hit here, and this area isn't used to getting freezing temps... It has nothing to do with the rain in my AO, it's just COLD.

Global Warming is just the trend, a trend that is loosing steam. In a few years, it will be something different... </div></div>

There is no doubt that global temps are rising on average, it's whether it's caused by us and whether we can/should take drastic measures which is in question.

I agree with you, however, that it is the Liberal trend to scare people in to compliance.

All politicians do it. Bush had us believe that interracial gay couples would take over America and "infect" our children if we didn't vote for him and his ass backwards views on homosexuality (as if government or general public should have any say in who can/ cannot get married). Liberals want us to believe the world is about to end if we don't act on global warming now (which happens to coincide with massive tax hikes and drastic measures).

I'm all for environmental stewardship (yes I do scoff at those who drive big assed SUVs and directly blame them for gas price hikes), but at some point we need to be realistic.

 

[eleaf]

Re: Global Warming ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300snipe</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ArcticLight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Anyone old enough to remember "We have to ban CFC's otherwise the planet will cool down!" ???

I do remember that, everyone's big fear was that we would cause an ice age by using too many chemicals in the atmosphere.

Didn't happen. </div></div>

Oh yeah, I remember that. I was a youngin but I do recall... I did see the change from just about everything containing CFCs now not containing CFCs as well. Whether or not that had anything to do with anything changing - no idea but it was another one of those scares in use.

Society is about progress (ideally and usually) - so if scaring people into using less oil and using alternate renewable energy helps keep the environment cleaner then the end fits the means. I am a big proponent of keeping public use areas open to dirtbiking and 4x4s - something the Sierra Club absolutely hates - but people need their outlets. Therefore if someone comes up with an alternate energy dirtbike that's as fun to ride as my gasoline burning carb'd 250 is... I'll ride it. I want to be able to USE the lands around me, not have them closed off. The same goes with whatever the hell these scientists decide about global climate change, I take "the newest fad" with a grain of salt, but it does make sense that the less oil we use as a society the cleaner our environment is and the longer we can enjoy it. If you've ever seen the results of oil processing and/or shale oil production it's absolutely disgusting how it harms the wilderness areas we could be enjoying in other ways. So surely there is a compromise somewhere here. </div></div>

It's hard to compromise with stupid.

GW has become a political topic, and therefore anyone opposed to Liberal thinking will avoid GW, and any good that could come as a result of the conversation, simply because they are more concerned with proving GW wrong than what the conversation represents (better environmental stewardship).

If it doesn't directly impact wild game herds, I've found that most conservative thinking people couldn't give a shit about the environment. It seems that those who are against the idea of GW now go out of their way to flaunt their insensitivity to nature just to rub it in.

 

[300snipe]

Re: Global Warming ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I'm all for environmental stewardship (yes I do scoff at those who drive big assed SUVs and directly blame them for gas price hikes), but at some point we need to be realistic. </div></div>

Agreed, we do need to be realistic - there has to be a balance somewhere to be reached. In regard to wilderness usage: if we close it all off to just hikers and horse packers (like the sierra club wants) then we end up pushing all of the dirtbikers and four-bys onto the same small patches of multi-use land where they basically destroy it from overuse as a result of not having enough land to recreate on. Advocacy groups are not going to stop people from wanting to use the land in their own ways but their methods of driving people out of wilderness areas proves their agenda by pointing the finger at the muti-use land and saying "look how they abuse it!". You can see it going on in Calif. where they're in the process of closing several OHV areas and pushing users into the fewer remaining OHV access areas. It's sickening. Not everyone wants to hike (although I do love to on occasion).

The same goes for GW - there needs to be a balance in how quickly we can improve our waste output vs the cost and inconvenience - it can't happen overnight and using scare tactics like they do doesn't help, it just leads to gullable people buying Priuses - and where are they going to dispose of those batteries by the way?!

How much humanity is to blame for the rise in temps is arguable but looking at charts that show a temperature progression that follows the rise of technology and population since the industrial revolution - it's pretty clear we have had an impact. Whether or not that is the cause of changing weather patterns or any catastrophes is something else but I don't think anyone can say we don't create a shit ton of waste on the whole and use a ton of non-renewable resources.

 

[300snipe]

Re: Global Warming ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hannibal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Asking questions is too difficult and might interfere with television time or game time. Nope, don't want to question authority when Oprah or American Idol are on the box.

Han </div></div>

100% with you on that. It's the crowd mentality to fall in line and believe whatever is on tv, get riled up by loud noises, and blame whoever their party tells them to blame. People want to be led.

 

[eleaf]

Re: Global Warming ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hannibal</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">that it is the Liberal trend to scare people in to compliance </div></div>

More than scare people into compliance- it's a power thing, to force them into compliance. Orwell wrote about it in "1984". The power to make 2+2=5. Plenty of Kool-aid drinkers out there that believe everything they hear/read is the truth- especially if the idiot talking is rich, famous, or in office. Asking questions is too difficult and might interfere with television time or game time. Nope, don't want to question authority when Oprah or American Idol are on the box.

Han </div></div>

Liberals aren't the only ones that use scare tactics to try and force compliance. Let's not be naive here.

 

[300snipe]

Re: Global Warming ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Liberals aren't the only ones that use scare tactics to try and force compliance. Let's not be naive here. </div></div>

Every party uses scare tactics. Points to whoever can identify the writing of this passage about getting people to respect the resources we do have and making the world a better place to live;

"because of the human tendency, for most people, there are exceptions, to take the path of least resistance...The big problem is that people don't believe a revolution is possible, and it is not possible precisely because they do not believe it is possible... The real revolutionaries should separate themselves from the reformers… And I think that it would be good if a conscious effort was being made to get as many people as possible introduced to the wilderness. In a general way, I think what has to be done is not to try and convince or persuade the majority of people that we are right, as much as try to increase tensions in society to the point where things start to break down. To create a situation where people get uncomfortable enough that they’re going to rebel. So the question is how do you increase those tensions?"

 

[yotechsr]

Re: Global Warming ?

global warming is good for the economy psuedo or not. Utilizing people for design, manufacturing and, installation of products linked to wind energy, solar or even high speed trains gets people and money moving.

 

[Queequeg]

Re: Global Warming ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> There is no doubt that global temps are rising on average, it's whether it's caused by us and whether we can/should take drastic measures which is in question.
</div></div>

But there is Blanche, there is doubt.

A palpably large and growing range of doubts. A mass reaction to wholsale bullshit forced on a cross section of people who include thoughtful, well intended folks, perhaps like yourself, as well as venal bullies and utter saps who want to bloviate scientifically when in fact they typically can neither add nor subtract, let alone grasp the vast complexities of applied calculus, geology, chemistry, physics or the other tools used to understand and appreciate earth's many wonders.

The answer to our problems is innovation not suppression of people. The unspoken worry of "visionaries" who sureptitiously pretend to guard the climate is in fact a racist-cultural-classist cabal living in dread of the impact another 2 billion people emerging from poverty into prosperity will have on their own little slice of paradise. Thus the answer, as has so often been the case when elites view the boats of their lessers rising with the tide, is to concoct structures of barrier to them.

Hence the absurd mantra of the antebellum south that slavery was ordained by God.

Technology, innovation and the labor of bold individuals hold the key to global energy needs and the many problems associated with fossil fuels. Ironically, the growing demand for energy will drive further innovation.

We have far more to fear from aspiring domestic tyrants, extraterestrial objects impacting our planet, massive volcanic/seismic events like that posed by the Yellowstone caldera and nuclear war than we do from climate change.

In that order...

 

[cjgemm]

Re: Global Warming ?

John Coleman founder of the Weather Channel

 

[The Mechanic]

Re: Global Warming ?

Local guy here on KUSI channel 9. He is sharp as a tack. Has a short program he released about 2 months ago that was very well done.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cjgemm</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> John Coleman founder of the Weather Channel </div></div>

 

[300snipe]

Re: Global Warming ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> There is no doubt that global temps are rising on average, it's whether it's caused by us and whether we can/should take drastic measures which is in question.
</div></div>

But there is Blanche, there is doubt.

A palpably large and growing range of doubts. A mass reaction to wholsale bullshit forced on a cross section of people who include thoughtful, well intended folks, perhaps like yourself, as well as venal bullies and utter saps who want to bloviate scientifically when in fact they typically can neither add nor subtract, let alone grasp the vast complexities calculus, geology, chemistry, physics or the other tools used to understand and appreciate earth's many wonders.

The answer to our problems is innovation not suppression of people. The unspoken worry of "visionaries" who sureptitiously pretend to guard the climate is in fact a racist-cultural-classist cabal living in dread of the impact another 2 billion people emerging from poverty into prosperity will have on their own little slice of paradise. Thus the answer, as has so often been the case when elites view the boats of their lessers rising with the tide, is to concoct structures of barrier to them.

Hence the absurd mantra of the antebellum south that slavery was ordained by God.

Technology, innovation and the labor of bold individuals hold the key to global energy needs and the many problems associated with fossil fuels. Ironically, the growing demand for energy will drive further innovation.

We have far more to fear from aspiring domestic tyrants, extraterestrial objects impacting our planet, massive volcanic/seismic events like that posed by the Yellowstone caldera and nuclear war than we do from climate change.

In that order...
</div></div>

Well said.

 

[flyboy]

Re: Global Warming ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ttam</div><div class="ubbcode-body">global warming is good for the economy psuedo or not. Utilizing people for design, manufacturing and, installation of products linked to wind energy, solar or even high speed trains gets people and money moving. </div></div>

Forcing policy changes base on a idea that has been more than proven as a fact is in no was good for an economy. I'm not sure what cave you just came out of but for the last number of years a host of industries have been adversely affected by polices to change "global warming". For instance, trucking, You think for two seconds that the companies that run the lines wouldn't want a more efficient truck? it would save them money, Make fewer fuel stops on a trans con, etc. But instead, regulations are forced on these industries about fuel economy and the kinds of fuels and prices of these fuels based solely on a false idea that it will create "global warming."

How bout the autos. Every two or three years congress and the asses in the white house come up with the idea that they can run on the fact that "They saved the ENVIROMENT" by mandating better fuel economy in cars. So all the $$$ that Detroit for instance has put into R&D making the cars to meet last election cycles mandates is now just a wasted bunch of time that will no longer meet the new regulations. They only did that to them really starting in the 70's and they wonder why they didn't survive.

On the flip side there are a FEW industries that have popped up because of the GW scare. The windmill idea has already been shot all to hell cus nobody wants them in there backyards and the transmission lines from the windmills to the cities that need the power cost money that the "FREE" energy doesn't make up for. Not to mention the "Carbon Footprint." I wonder how much CRAP makes it into the atmosphere when they make ONE of the blades on the windmills. They are carbon fiber and resin, are they not.

To further hurt that argument. Who's money is being spent on these GREEN projects against there will. Mine and Yours, assuming you pay taxes. These things aren't fueled by a need manufactured by the market. That's your money, that I'm sure you have a better use for than this GREEN crap.

I could go on but I'm outta patents for people that are so naive to believe that any good can come from a government that forces an idea on its people. If you trust them, you have a lot to learn.

 

[shootist68]

Re: Global Warming ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vinconco</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nice and warm here in WV

</div></div>

Wonderful part of the state. Are you near Caanan Valley? There is absolutely no warming going on up there...

 

[flyboy]

Re: Global Warming ?

I hear its supposed to snow 2" in north Houston tomorrow.

Is Al in town?

 

[300snipe]

Re: Global Warming ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: flyboy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
To further hurt that argument. Who's money is being spent on these GREEN projects against there will. Mine and Yours, assuming you pay taxes. These things aren't fueled by a need manufactured by the market. That's your money, that I'm sure you have a better use for than this GREEN crap.

I could go on but I'm outta patents for people that are so naive to believe that any good can come from a government that forces an idea on its people. If you trust them, you have a lot to learn. </div></div>

I'm certainly with you on not automatically trusting the gov when they force things on the populace! Infuriating but that's why we vote (assuming the electoral college doesn't screw things up) right? But aside from mandating the car companies to have more efficient cars with less harmful waste... what other stuff is the gov forcing that we go green on? I'm sure there are some - I just don't personally know of them.

One thing I do like learning about and seeing first hand is the vast amount of geothermal plants we have in the great state of nevada and the incredible potential for utilizing that as a resource does give me hope that we will one day be leaving less waste to get the energy we need. In addition, solar is a great technology and the vast deserts in the USA can provide so much energy if it was able to be rolled out without a negative cost-benefit ratio. I'm not an expert on this of course but I can't understand why some people are opposed to green energy. Do they just not like or want change? Do they not care about future generations being able to appreciate nature that isn't polluted? Do they just not like the cost associated with it? I'm not sure. It doesn't have to be party associated either - I know dems and reps that don't like the green ideas.

Maybe I haven't been partial to the news on it but I can't remember the last time washington or the state government forced me to "go green" ... just bought a dodge ram a couple years ago actually and it gets kinda bad milage but it fits the needs that I have in owning a truck (otherwise I'd have saved myself some money and bought a diesel car)... no one is forcing consumers to buy electric cars or anything just like we're not being forced to buy green resources from our energy providers.

 

[300snipe]

Re: Global Warming ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: flyboy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hear its supposed to snow 2" in north Houston tomorrow.

Is Al in town? </div></div>

It was in the 50s and 60s all month until this past weekend and now I'm staring at 2 feet of snow in my yard here in Reno. Who knows what the hell is going on. Warm then cold then warm, etc. I remember several years ago I went skiing at a resort in Tahoe in June because they had a massive snow storm and opened for a totally random weekend.. then the next couple years were practically a drought. Harumph.

 

[Lt. Arclight]

Re: Global Warming ?

You have to remember Global warming was created to develop another commodity for the rich to be richer. "Carbon credits" would be traded like all the others. Cap and trade will kill the private sector. Its just another step toward socialism and a new World order with one currency and one ruling group. IMO, it is a disturbing trend that the sheeple believe.

The sun has cycles that effect climate more than "greenhouse" gasses. Al Gore-is the biggest source of hot air. They want to fly around in their Gulfstreams and tell us what we are to drive.

I'm trying to INCREASE my carbon footprint-ONE shot at a time.My AMG Mercedes has 452 horsepower- I couldn't care less how much gas it burns. They can all kiss my ass.I you notice-now the buzz word is GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. Yeah,right.

 

[ScottyS]

Re: Global Warming ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300snipe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

It was in the 50s and 60s all month until this past weekend and now I'm staring at 2 feet of snow in my yard here in Reno. Who knows what the hell is going on. Warm then cold then warm, etc. I remember several years ago I went skiing at a resort in Tahoe in June because they had a massive snow storm and opened for a totally random weekend.. then the next couple years were practically a drought. Harumph. </div></div>

Kid, once you've been around Nevada for a few decades, you will be used to it. It's called Great Basin natural range of variability.

If you followed the NOAA reports on this episode or took a close look at the radar feeds (when it was working), you would have seen a great example of a mesoscale meteorological freakshow - every once in a while we at these mid latitudes get to see interesting interactions between regional air masses and jet flow.

Just because we can now monitor and record local variables at a sub-minute timescale does not mean that everything you see is an anomaly....

 

[Arch]

Re: Global Warming ?

The issues of weather and/or climate get beat to death but I'll just be glad when they start cleaning some of the more rural neighborhood streets like my own.

 

[flyboy]

Re: Global Warming ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300snipe</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: flyboy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
To further hurt that argument. Who's money is being spent on these GREEN projects against there will. Mine and Yours, assuming you pay taxes. These things aren't fueled by a need manufactured by the market. That's your money, that I'm sure you have a better use for than this GREEN crap.

I could go on but I'm outta patents for people that are so naive to believe that any good can come from a government that forces an idea on its people. If you trust them, you have a lot to learn. </div></div>

I'm certainly with you on not automatically trusting the gov when they force things on the populace! Infuriating but that's why we vote (assuming the electoral college doesn't screw things up) right? But aside from mandating the car companies to have more efficient cars with less harmful waste... what other stuff is the gov forcing that we go green on? I'm sure there are some - I just don't personally know of them.

One thing I do like learning about and seeing first hand is the vast amount of geothermal plants we have in the great state of nevada and the incredible potential for utilizing that as a resource does give me hope that we will one day be leaving less waste to get the energy we need. In addition, solar is a great technology and the vast deserts in the USA can provide so much energy if it was able to be rolled out without a negative cost-benefit ratio. I'm not an expert on this of course but I can't understand why some people are opposed to green energy. Do they just not like or want change? Do they not care about future generations being able to appreciate nature that isn't polluted? Do they just not like the cost associated with it? I'm not sure. It doesn't have to be party associated either - I know dems and reps that don't like the green ideas.

Maybe I haven't been partial to the news on it but I can't remember the last time washington or the state government forced me to "go green" ... just bought a dodge ram a couple years ago actually and it gets kinda bad milage but it fits the needs that I have in owning a truck (otherwise I'd have saved myself some money and bought a diesel car)... no one is forcing consumers to buy electric cars or anything just like we're not being forced to buy green resources from our energy providers. </div></div>

You buy electricity right? So does pretty much everyone else, businesses included. Back in the 70's a movie came out, "china syndrome" or something like that then 3 weeks later they actually had a nuclear plant have a real problem. The masses and rightfully so, were worried about the effects of their world being wrecked by nuclear waste. That's fine and good, instead of fix problems and find new solutions, what did the GOV do about it. Stop all future nuclear power plants from being built. Whats it been 40 years now, the fear has gone from most and a new generation that didn't live it is now OK with the idea of the clean nuclear energy. GOV finally got outta the way this year and is actually going to let the nation get on with life. Now for how many years have we been burning fossil fuels to make electricity when we could have had nuclear. You think by chance we would also not be so reliant on the prices of those fuels had we broaden our horizons back then. As for solar and wind. Watch the news and look to recent political proponents of it. When it was suggested for there states, most didn't want it, didn't want to mess up there back yards. That's the case with the oil industry to. There are more examples in may other Industries but that will have to wait for another time.

 

[eleaf]

Re: Global Warming ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300snipe</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: flyboy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
To further hurt that argument. Who's money is being spent on these GREEN projects against there will. Mine and Yours, assuming you pay taxes. These things aren't fueled by a need manufactured by the market. That's your money, that I'm sure you have a better use for than this GREEN crap.

I could go on but I'm outta patents for people that are so naive to believe that any good can come from a government that forces an idea on its people. If you trust them, you have a lot to learn. </div></div>

I'm certainly with you on not automatically trusting the gov when they force things on the populace! Infuriating but that's why we vote (assuming the electoral college doesn't screw things up) right? But aside from mandating the car companies to have more efficient cars with less harmful waste... what other stuff is the gov forcing that we go green on? I'm sure there are some - I just don't personally know of them.

One thing I do like learning about and seeing first hand is the vast amount of geothermal plants we have in the great state of nevada and the incredible potential for utilizing that as a resource does give me hope that we will one day be leaving less waste to get the energy we need. In addition, solar is a great technology and the vast deserts in the USA can provide so much energy if it was able to be rolled out without a negative cost-benefit ratio. I'm not an expert on this of course but I can't understand why some people are opposed to green energy. Do they just not like or want change? Do they not care about future generations being able to appreciate nature that isn't polluted? Do they just not like the cost associated with it? I'm not sure. It doesn't have to be party associated either - I know dems and reps that don't like the green ideas.

Maybe I haven't been partial to the news on it but I can't remember the last time washington or the state government forced me to "go green" ... just bought a dodge ram a couple years ago actually and it gets kinda bad milage but it fits the needs that I have in owning a truck (otherwise I'd have saved myself some money and bought a diesel car)... no one is forcing consumers to buy electric cars or anything just like we're not being forced to buy green resources from our energy providers. </div></div>

It's simple. GW, and everything in the conversation that stems from it, like being better environmental stewards, has turned in to a political topic. It is no longer about the environment, but about which party endorses what.

On this issue, both Republinuts and Libertards have shown themselves as sheep so eager to be part of the flock. One buying in to the idea that our world will end tomorrow unless we elect democrats who will tax the hell out of us and address the "problem" of GW; the other so eager to prove the theory wrong that being <span style="font-style: italic">bad</span> environmental stewards in en vogue just so they can rub it in how much they oppose the idea of GW. I know of various "conservative" thinking people who went and bought gas guzzling SUVs simply to spite those who would scoff at them. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: most conservatives couldn't care less about the environment unless it directly affects game herds, and its sad.

Both sides have fallen into madness over the issue, and both sides are full of shit.

 

[flyboy]

Re: Global Warming ?

The funny thing about the newer SUV's is they have lower emissions than some 10 year old gas sipping Honda's. Either way, you'll find the right stand in the middle ground were people that genuinely care about the environment but not get caught up in the hype about how bad people are for it.

It comes down to personal responsibility, some have it, some don't.

 

[Tuna921]

Re: Global Warming ?

Gore is at it again

Al Gore's defense of global-warming hysteria in Sunday's New York Times has many flaws, but I'll focus on just one whopper -- where the "Inconvenient Truth" man states the opposite of scientific fact.

Gore wrote, "The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere -- thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States."

It's an interesting theory, but where are the facts?

According to "State of the Climate" from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Global precipitation in 2009 was near the 1961-1990 average." And there was certainly no pattern of increasing rain and snow on America's East Coast during the post-1976 years, when NOAA says the globe began to heat up.

So what was it, exactly, that Gore's nameless scientists "have long pointed out"? A 2008 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Climate Change and Water," says climate models "project precipitation increases in high latitudes and part of the tropics." In other areas, the IPCC reports only "substantial uncertainty in precipitation forecasts."


In fact, recent research actually contradicts Gore's claims about "significantly more water moisture in the atmosphere."

In late January, Scientific American reported: "A mysterious drop in water vapor in the lower stratosphere might be slowing climate change," and noted that "an apparent increase in water vapor in this region in the 1980s and 1990s exacerbated global warming."

The new study came from a group of scientists, mainly from the NOAA lab in Boulder. The scientists found: "Stratospheric water-vapor concentrations decreased by about 10 percent after the year 2000 . . . This acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25 percent."

Specifically, the study found that water vapor rising from the tropics has been reduced, because it has gotten cooler there (another inconvenient truth). A Wall Street Journal headline summed it up: "Slowdown in Warming Linked to Water Vapor."

Moisture in the lower stratosphere (about 8 miles above the earth's surface) has been going down, not up.

Aside from clouds, water vapor accounts for as much as two-thirds of the earth's greenhouse-gas effect. Water vapor traps heat from escaping the atmosphere -- but clouds have the opposite effect (called "albedo") by reflecting the sun's energy back into space. And snow on the ground from the IPCC's predicted precipitation in high latitudes would have the same cooling effect as clouds.

What the new research suggests is that changes in water vapor may well trump the effect of carbon dioxide (only a fraction of which is man-made) and methane (which has mysteriously slowed since about 1990).

This raises an intriguing question: Since the Environmental Protection Agency declared that it has the authority to regulation carbon emissions because of their presumed effect on the global climate, why hasn't the EPA also attempted to regulate mist and fog?

 

[Queequeg]

Re: Global Warming ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuna921</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This raises an intriguing question: Since the Environmental Protection Agency declared that it has the authority for regulation of carbon emissions because of their presumed effect on the global climate, why hasn't the EPA also attempted to regulate mist and fog? </div></div>

The scientific answer to that question is that...
























They are lazy, lying assholes.