Tag: Climate Change

Drill Baby Drill (Will It Ever Cease?)

Before the prez made his much maligned African trip he gave a climate speech….which touched on coal fired plants, Keystone, emissions, and a partridge in a pear tree…..and after he was finished his laundry list the GOP was gearing up for their retort to his speech……and vasically, it was the same tried old dog whistle that they have been using for decades….Drill Baby drill.

The GOP response……

……….. less than a month after it was introduced, the House passed H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, by a vote of 235 to 186. The bill reads like Big Oil’s Christmas list. It would open virtually all of the U.S. Atlantic coast, the Pacific coast off Southern California, and much of Alaska’s offshore space to new drilling; require the Obama administration to create a new Five-Year Plan for offshore operations; and generally perpetuate an energy agenda driven by climate deniers.

The Committee website describes the legislation as “a contrast to President Obama’s no-new-drilling, no-new-jobs plan.” But the truth in this statement ends with the word “contrast.” In fact, earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal described the offshore oil and gas industry under President Obama as “booming.”

Almost from the first day of this blog I have been writing about Drill Baby Drill…..and still NO one is listening……let me talk slowly so that the issue gets firmly implanted……

Drill Baby Drill is a dog whistle….it will NOT….let me say that again for those that are slower than others…….will NOT bring the price of gas down in any significant way…..

Let me ask the question for you so that no one hurts themselves trying to figure it out…….why not?

First…..NOW Pay Attention!  Oil is drilled on a lease…..the oil that comes out of the ground belongs to the company that drills it…..NOT the country.  Am I moving too fast for you?  The oil is then sold on the spot market by the company, not the country, and sold at whatever price the going rate is on that day.  If you think that the oil company will significantly lessen their profits because the oil is drilled in the US then you have moved beyond dense to stupid!

Second…..the Keystone…now here is a good one……what benefit will the pipeline do for the country…..the jobs created will be temporary with the exception of a few full time after completion.  The oil will belong to Canada, not the US and Canada will sell it to whoever they want and at the going rate…once again NO significant drop in the price of oil or gas……

But I see that the DLC has its mouthpiece out and pushing for the passing of the pipeline…….Harold Ford, Jr…….this from his piece in the Wall Street journal…..

… The president has announced that he will open more of U.S. federal land and offshore areas to oil exploration and development. This is an important step, but he needs to do more—specifically, he should reconsider his Keystone pipeline decision.

Despite several years of study and a favorable State Department analysis, the administration has rejected Keystone XL’s application for a construction permit. This pipeline could bring an additional 500,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to the U.S. Instead, the project is in limbo.  (The oil will be owned by the oil companies not the country)

Mr. Obama should also work with our leading energy companies instead of fighting them. Domestic energy companies contribute to our economy, support millions of American jobs and retirement accounts, and some, like Exxon Mobil, are investing in the energy solutions of tomorrow like fuel from algae. Yet the president continues to use them as his rhetorical foil. Calling for higher taxes may bring applause at partisan political events. But it won’t lower energy prices.  (DLC sole purpose is to see the corporate America gets more breaks and less taxes while average Americans suffer)

We can’t wave a magic wand to bring gasoline prices down. But increasing domestic crude oil development will reduce our reliance on energy from unstable parts of the world. That, and a healthy petroleum refining sector, will help mitigate price spikes that hurt our economy.  (More crap!  All oil will be sold on the spot market…prices are controlled there not by a healthy refining industry)

This from a guy that is on the payroll of large banking firms……..this is a guy who is part of the outrageous bonus program…where would you think his loyalties would lie?

This is typical of the bullshit spread by Clintonians and the DLC……..these twats are nothing by Repubs in Dem clothing……there biggest concern is the creation of wealth not the preservation of the “American Dream”……

Third…..you want cheaper gas?  NO! Really!  Is that what you want?

There is only ONE way for that to occur.  And none of the Right wing “Experts” will like the answer.  If you pea brains really want cheaper gas then I suggest that you consider the alternative.  Your dog whistle slogans will do nothing to achieve the one thing that we all desire.

As my grandfather use to say…..”wish in one hand and shit in the other and let me know which one fills up first”.

Good News For Everybody

Weekend and my small attempt to distance myself from emotional bullsh*t and post on things sciencey…….

This could be good news for climate change proponents!  Wait!  This could be to climate deniers!  Wait!~

(Newser) – One of the most infamous symbols of man’s assault on the planet is actually diminishing: The ozone hole over Antarctica was smaller in 2012 than it has been in 10 years, reports LiveScience. Scientists credit the improvement to the worldwide ban on chlorofluorocarbons, which cause the hole to appear each September through November. Experts believe the hole should close altogether within a few decades. (In other ozone news, drones are now studying the ozone layer.)

No matter which side of the climate debate you choose to embrace….this is good news……

So You Really Want Me To Write About Climate Change?

This post will be different than just about every post you have ever read on the subject of climate change………why?  I will give both sides of the argument…..and will allow the reader to employ their minds to determine the truth……I am assuming that the reader will actually do some thinking and not just reader the part they like……..

For this post it will be the most highly contested accusation….Human Causation…….if one cannot reader this with an open mind then please move on………if you would like to check the accuracy of this….please go to ProCon.org…………..

PRO Human Causation

  1. 75% of the 20th century increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gas CO2 is directly caused by human actions like burning fossil fuels. CO2 levels were 389ppm (parts per million) as of Apr. 2010 – the highest they have been in the past 650,000 years. [6] This increase in CO2 was a substantial contributor to the 1°F (4 KB) to 1.4°F (249 KB) warming over the 20th century. [1][43]
  2. Human-produced CO2 is warming the earth, not natural CO2 released from the ocean and other “carbon sinks.” CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has a specific isotopic ratio (6.5 MB) [48] that is different from CO2 released by natural “carbon sinks.” 20th century measurements of CO2 isotope ratios in the atmosphere confirm that the rise results from human activities, not natural processes. [3]
  3. Human produced greenhouse gases will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere causing climate change because the earth’s forests, oceans, and other “carbon sinks” cannot adequately absorb them all. As of 2009, these carbon sinks were only absorbing about 50% of human-produced CO2 (19 MB) . [3] The other 50% is accumulating in the atmosphere.
  4. Human greenhouse gas emissions, not changes in the sun’s radiation, are causing global climate change. Measurements in the upper atmosphere from 1979 – 2009, show the sun’s energy has gone up and down in cycles, with no net increase. While warming is occurring in the troposphere (lower atmosphere), the stratosphere (upper atmosphere) is cooling. If the sun was driving the temperature change there would be warming in the stratosphere also, not cooling. [7]
  5. Computer models show that increased levels of human produced greenhouse gases will cause global warming and other climate changes. Although these climate models are uncertain (4 KB) [8] about how much future warming will occur and how it will affect the climate, they all agree that, to some degree, these changes will happen. The reality of climate change is not contradicted by this uncertainty.
  6. Although the amount of human-produced greenhouse gases may seem small to some people, their warming potential is amplified by the water vapor positive feedback loop (51 KB) [49], allowing them to cause significant warming and climate change. As greenhouse gases heat the planet, increased humidity (water vapor in the atmosphere) results. Since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, it can double the warming effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. [9]
  7. Human greenhouse gas emissions are heating the planet, and climate models (885 KB) [50] consistently show that this warming causes an increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones. [10] The fact that 1975-1989 had 171 category 4 and 5 hurricanes while 1990-2004 had 269 (267 KB) [51] of them (a 57% increase) validates these climate models and the reality of human-induced climate change.
  8. Human-produced CO2 is changing the climate of the world’s oceans. As excess CO2 is absorbed, oceanic acidity levels increase. Oceans have absorbed 48% of the total CO2 (550 KB) [52] released by human activities and acidity levels are 25-30% higher (397 KB) [53] than prior to human fossil fuel use. [11]
  9. An 8″ rise in the ocean level has occured (1961-2003) due to human-induced global warming. Global sea levels rose an average of 1.8 mm (.07 in) per year between 1961 and 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 mm (.1 in) per year from 1993 to 2003. [3] This sea level rise is the result of warming waters and the melting of glaciers, ice caps, and polar ice sheets. From 1870-2004, a “significant acceleration” of sea-level rise occured, an important confirmation of climate change models. [12]
  10. Warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases is changing the earth’s hydrologic climate. Rainfall is increasing in many areas due to increased evaporation stemming from global warming. Higher temperatures are also causing some mountainous areas to receive rain rather than snow. According to researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, up to 60% of the changes in river flow, winter air temperature, and snow pack in the western US (1950-1999) were human-induced. [13]
  11. Warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases is changing the rate of glacial melt and altering the local climate of many regions. Since 1850, records show a “strong increase” in the rate of glacial retreat (1 MB) . [54] From 1961-2004 glaciers retreated about .5mm per year in sea level equivalent. [3] According to the World Glacier Monitoring Service, since 1980, glaciers worldwide have lost nearly 40 feet (12 meters) in average thickness (measured in average mass balance in water equivalent). [14]
  12. Warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases and soot (black carbon) produced from burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, [16] is reducing the size of the Arctic ice cap. A smaller ice cap reflects less of the sun’s energy away from the earth. This energy is absorbed instead, causing air and water temperatures to rise. From 1953–2006, Arctic sea ice declined 7.8% per decade. Between 1979 and 2006, the decline was 9.1% each decade. Climate models predict that Arctic sea ice will continue to retreat through the 21st century further disrupting the global climate. [15]
  13. Many organizations believe that human activity is a substantial cause of global climate change. These groups include: the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the InterAcademy Council, the Network of African Science Academies, the European Science Foundation (ESF), the European Space Agency (ESA), the Royal Society (UK national academy of science), the US National Academies of Science, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
  14. Nearly all climate change studies show humans as the main cause, and studies which contradict this claim are often funded by petroleum companies, making their conclusions suspect given the obvious conflict of interest. From 2004-2005, ExxonMobil gave $2.2 million (260 GB) [55] in grants for climate change research to organizations that deny human caused climate change. In 2006 US Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) chastised ExxonMobil (78 KB) [56] for providing more than $19 million in funding to over 29 “climate change denial front groups.”

CON Human Causation

  1. The 20th century warming of 1-1.4°F is within the +/- 5°F range of the past 3,000 years. [19] A 2003 study (660 KB) [44] by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics shows temperatures from 1000-1100 AD (before fossil fuel use) that are comparable to those from 1900-1990 (845 KB) . [45]
  2. Rising CO2 levels are a result of global warming, not a cause of it. As temperatures increase, CO2 is released from “carbon sinks” such as the oceans or the Arctic tundra. [20] Measurements of ice core samples show that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years) periods of global warming preceded global increases in CO2 (208 KB) . [57]
  3. Human releases of CO2 cannot cause climate change as any increases in CO2 are eventually balanced by nature. CO2 gets absorbed by oceans, forests, and other “carbon sinks” that increase their biological activity to absorb excess CO2 from the atmosphere. 50% of the CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, has already been absorbed. [21]
  4. Global warming and cooling are caused by fluctuations in the sun’s heat (solar forcing), not by the minor greenhouse effect of human-produced gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4). [17] Between 1900 and 2000 solar irradiance increased .19% (3 MB) . [19] This increase correlates with the rise in surface temperatures in the US.
  5. Due to the inherent unpredictability of climate systems it is impossible to accurately use models to determine future weather. Climate models have been unable to simulate major known features of past climate (199 KB) [58] such as the ice ages or the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous periods. If models cannot replicate past climate changes they should not be trusted to predict future climate changes.
  6. Rising temperatures are caused primarily by water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, not by CO2. Water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere are driven by natural storm systems and ocean currents. According to a Mar. 5, 2010 study by researchers at NOAA, water vapor in the stratosphere was responsible for increasing the rate of warming during the 1990s by 30%. [22] [23]
  7. The increased hurricane activity over the past decade (1995-2005), including hurricane Katrina, is not the result of human-induced climate change; it is the result of cyclical tropical cyclone patterns, driven primarily by natural ocean currents, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) testimony in the US Senate on Sep. 20, 2005 (792 KB) . [59]
  8. Deep ocean currents cause climate warming and cooling in long term cycles. The minor greenhouse effect of human produced CO2 pales in comparison. [18] Global cooling from 1940 to the 1970s, and warming from the 1970s to 2008, coincided with fluctuations in ocean currents and cloud cover driven by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) – a naturally occuring rearrangement in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. [39]
  9. Ocean acidity levels have risen over the 20th century, but they are not out of the ordinary considering the fluctuations of the past 7,000 years. [24] Average ocean surface water pH is 8.1 and has only decreased 0.1 (989 KB) [60] since the beginning of the industrial revolution (neutral is pH 7, acid is below pH7).
  10. Changes in ocean currents are primarily responsible for the melting Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice, and Arctic permafrost. Over the 20th century there have been two Arctic warming periods with a cooling period (1940-1970) in between. According to a peer-reviewed Apr. 19, 2009 study (453 KB) [61] in Geophysical Research Letters, natural shifts in the ocean currents are the major cause of these climate changes, not human generated greenhouse gases.
  11. The general consensus that the earth has warmed during the 20th century is based upon flawed temperature measurements. These measurements, taken from surface monitoring stations set up by the National Weather Service (NWS), are often contaminated by the “heat island effect.” According to a Mar. 2009 study published by the Heartland Institute, 89% of NWS monitoring stations are too close to artificial heat sources (4 MB) [62] such as large asphalt parking lots, air conditioners, heaters and other sources of artificial heat.
  12. Many organizations believe that nature, not human activity, is primarily responsible for climate change. These groups include: the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, the CATO Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Institute for Energy Research, the National Center for Policy Analysis, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
  13. Theories of naturally caused climate change are often ignored by “mainstream” scientists and organizations because many research scientists are more interested in maintainining the flow of federal grant money for climate change research than in questioning the basic theory of human causation. From 1998-2009, nearly $25 billion (4 MB) [46] in federal funds was allocated for climate science research. Researchers who question human-induced climate change often do not receive grant money for research projects. [41]

I am hoping that everyone will read all the data and not just that which reinforces their own limited view…..that is probably wishful thinking on my part…….if one wants the PDFs then go to ProCon.org and knock yourself out….

Why Have We Evolved?

Sciencey stuff is always a joy to write about……and I look for the topic of climate change to find its way back into the political discourse……and this article was a good find….it may help the debate (something I doubt very seriously)…….what causes climate change?  Will it effect humans in a good way?  Maybe a bad way?

A recent piece of research has found a possible link to why we, as a species, evolved to the point we are at today……

(Newser) – Early humans evolved in fits and starts due to rapid environmental changes—not gradually as scientists used to think, according to a new study. Analyzing lake sediments in northern Tanzania, scientists from Penn State and Rutgers University concluded that climate change altered the landscape back and forth from grassland to woodland five or six times over 200,000 years, the Telegraph reports. That would have changed food availability, diet, and means of acquiring good—which “can trigger evolutionary mechanisms,” says Penn State professor Katherine Freeman.

“The result can be increased brain size and cognition, changes in locomotion and even social changes—how you interact with others in a group.” Several factors may have triggered the climate changes about 2 million years ago, including changes in sea temperature and the Earth’s movement around the sun. Any change in the amount of sunshine, for example, would have altered rain patterns that in turn affected plant patterns. “The research points to the importance of water in an arid landscape like Africa,” says a graduate student on the project. The findings conflict with the “Great Drying,” the view that Africa gradually dried out over 3 million years.

Will we evolve again into abetter species?  Or will we totally destroy our chances of continuing?

It’s The Climate, Stupid!

AS 2012 roars to an end, I have been writing about a few issues that I see will be more in the public’s eye than in the past…….issues like immigration,debt, spending and the one that should get some play…..climate change.

I have been to a couple of seminars with scientists from LSU, U of Miami and a few others and the subject was this mystical thing called climate change…..you know these people gave a good presentation of what and why this was happening…..and the one thing that had been missing from these seminars were the deniers…..why is that?

But yet the nay-sayers are everywhere in the media.  Explain that…..why not go to these scientific inquiries and present the data and have a real discussion….but NO they had rather run to a camera and spout their crap and then slink away without being challenged…..is there a good reason for that?

Demos.org has a piece……

Can you think of any other topic in which the opinions of 0.17 percent of experts is given equal time and weight? Desmogblog posted the chart that shows of 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles, just 24 reject the idea of global warming — a mere 0.17 percent.

Yet, as we highlighted a few months ago, the U.S. gives a significant amount of media attention to climate deniers — far more than any other country. Over one-third of articles on climate change in 2009-2010 contained viewpoints from climate deniers, even though only a fraction of the scientific community questions the existence of climate change.

There is no scientific uncertainty about whether or not climate change is occurring and there is no scientific disagreement that climate change is caused by humans. The fact that so much of our media is unable to grasp this reality is embarrassing and a real indictment of the quality of media in the U.S. today.

Personally, I want to believe that this is just a natural thing that is happening…..but so far I have seen NO real evidence that the deniers are correct…….and you?

Are We Safe?

We have been told time and time again about the hole in the Ozone that could be fatal if we continue to lose it……..and the Maya told us that we would need a new calendar in 2012……and then there are the Nostradamus freaks that find a prediction of everything in some coded writings of a dude about 500 years ago……and then we have all those that deny anything is happening to our climate….whether you would like to call it global warming or climate change or……well here is something else to consider……

Our planet’s protective magnetic bubble may not be as protective as scientists had thought. Small breaks in Earth’s magnetic field almost continuously let in the solar wind — the stream of magnetic, energized plasma launched by the sun toward the planets — new research has found.

“The solar wind can enter the magnetosphere at different locations and under different magnetic field conditions that we hadn’t known about before,” Melvyn Goldstein, an astrophysicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, said in a statement.

Charged particles in the solar wind can interrupt GPS signals and power systems, as well as create dazzling auroras.

The magnetosphere is the planet’s first line of defense against the solar wind.Read More…

No matter what you care to believe….the fact is something is happening and the question should be……can we do anything about it?

2012 Election Issues #7–Global Warming

It is Sunday and I was gonna post something besides politics but Sandy, that weird storm that hit the Northeast, has because of all the damage , reawakened the dialogs on global warming….and since neither candidate seem to have much to say on the subject, I thought I would help the voter out in a small way…..

In 2009, President Barack Obama proposed a bill that would have capped power plant carbon dioxide emissions and allowed trading of credits for the right to emit greenhouse gases, but the measure died in Congress. An international treaty effort failed. Obama since has taken a different approach, treating carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the law. He doubled auto fuel economy standards, which will increase the cost of cars but save drivers money at the pump. He’s put billions of stimulus dollars into cleaner energy.

Mitt Romney’s view of climate change has varied. In his book “No Apology,” he wrote, “I believe that climate change is occurring” and “human activity is a contributing factor.” But on the campaign trail last year he said, “We don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet.” He has criticized Obama’s treatment of coal power plants and opposes treating carbon dioxide as a pollutant and the capping of carbon dioxide emissions, but favors spending money on clean technology. Romney says some actions to curb emissions could hurt an already struggling economy.

I realize that this was a very simplistic look at the candidates and thanx to the AP for their breakdowns……..I suggest that the voter do a little research if the idea of global warming is on their minds……..remember no matter the issue it is a great day when ALL Americans can go to the polls and vote for their chosen candidate..3 days and counting……some will be happy and others will just have to get over it and move on to finding real answers to the problems this country has…..