More Snow!

[dholt]

Anyone care to tell us how much money the Bush family has made from the spike in oil prices from his made up war and "search for WMD's?"

And since McCain originally voted against MLK day...then suddenly realized the error of his ways and changed his vote years later...does that mean he cannot be trusted either?

[ricochet112]

The "Inconvenient Truth" and "The great global warming swindle" are both propaganda films.

Ed, read my link;http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/14560/6189
it explains mid century cooling.

As for those that thinks the sun is causing it, educate your selfs' ;
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...glob-warm.html

"Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most. During the initial discovery period of global warming, the magnitude of the influence of increased activity on the Sun was not well determined."

[14-H]

Anyone care to tell us how much money the Bush family has made from the spike in oil prices from his made up war and "search for WMD's?"

***

Not nearly as much as the Clintons, apparently.

Clintons Made $109 Million Since 2000
Saturday, April 05, 2008

By JIM KUHNHENN and DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer

E-Mail Print Share:
DiggFacebookStumbleUpon
WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Clinton made nearly $109 million since they left the White House, capitalizing on the world's interest in the former first couple and lucrative business ventures.

***[remainder of article deleted]
___

Associated Press writers Nancy Benac, Charles Babington, Nedra Pickler and Pete Yost in Washington and Beth Fouhy in Grand Forks, N.D., contributed to this article.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Merc1]

Ricochet112, your not understanding one important factor. Global warming is BS! The sun, CO2, Big Al's jet, and anything else you want to talk about will have an effect on climate changes. You must believe everything you read on Al Gore's interlink, newspapers and see on T.V.

[14-H]

***
Ed, read my link;http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/14560/6189
***d."

Read it. I suggest an immediate increase in deforestation to combat the high CO2 levels since that's where most of it comes from in the first place. Eddie.

[Merc1]

now that's funny!

[14-H]

now that's funny!

Makes about as much sense as Algore's suggestions.

[ricochet112]

Ricochet112, your not understanding one important factor. Global warming is BS! The sun, CO2, Big Al's jet, and anything else you want to talk about will have an effect on climate changes. You must believe everything you read on Al Gore's interlink, newspapers and see on T.V.

Global warming is BS??? Not one scientist says that, every one with a brain knows the planet is warming, it's been warming up since the last ice age.To say it's BS proves your ignorance, (IE; lack of the facts).

ADD; The only debatable part of global warming is, what's driving the rapid increase recently.


No, I listen to what the overwhelming majority of scientists are reporting then draw a conclusion myself. This isn't a "Oh My God Were All Going Die Situation", but we need to look at the facts and act accordingly.

[ricochet112]

Read it. I suggest an immediate increase in deforestation to combat the high CO2 levels since that's where most of it comes from in the first place. Eddie.

Do you enjoy lying to TRY prove a point. That's the most insane comment you have ever made.

[ricochet112]

Read it. I suggest an immediate increase in deforestation to combat the high CO2 levels since that's where most of it comes from in the first place. Eddie.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1901661.htm

Narration:The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere right now is at its highest for at least 650,000 years.

Photosynthetic plants are crucial for converting CO2 to oxygen and regulating the climate.

It’s tempting to hope that the Earth’s forests can soak up our excess carbon and solve our greenhouse problems.

Mark Horstman: Forests should be carbon sinks, because trees take carbon out of the air and store it in their woody trunks and roots. In fact, there’s nearly as much carbon in terrestrial plants as there is in the atmosphere.

[ricochet112]

[QUOTE=Merc1;103287]Declairing you have a brain doesn't prove you use it. You say " it's been warming up since the last ice age" From that statement I can only come to the conclusion that you were in the time machine with BIG AL and the boys handing out thermometers to the cavemen. The lack of oxygen would contribute to your brain cells not functioning, come down from the mountains and join civilization. I won't let anyone call you the village idiot.

Please post a link to the data that supports your claim on the Earth's temp millions of years ago.

No, scientists are measuring the CO2 levels (and other elements) of ice to back up their data. I didn't like Al's movie The Inconvenient Truth, too much propaganda and fact stretching. The village idiot is akin to the one sole outcast, kind of like the 1% of scientists that claim that global warming is BS.

http://nsidc.org/research/projects/G...tionships.html

[14-H]

Do you enjoy lying to TRY prove a point.

Which part is the lie? This part?

October 19, 2004
Air Pollution From Trees Increasing Rapidly
A number of factors have combined to increase volatile organic compounds (VOCs) air pollution from trees faster than VOC pollution from humans has declined.

They calculated that vegetal sources of monoterpenes and isoprene rose by up to 17% from the 1980s to the 1990s – equivalent to three times the industrial reductions.

The three major contributing factors are the natural reversion of abandoned farm land to forested land, the invasion of sweetgum trees, and the growth of large forests of pine trees for lumber.

Princeton University post doc Drew Purves got to the bottom of the tree pollution problem.

Further studies at Princeton and the federal Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab at Princeton are using sophisticated computer models to estimate the changes in ozone caused by the changes in tree-produced VOCs. Purves noted that interactions between VOCs, NOx and ozone are complex -- some may actually lower pollution -- so it would be premature to base environmental policy on studies of VOCs alone.

Purves, a postdoctoral fellow, wrote the article in collaboration with Stephen Pacala, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton, as well as John Casperson of the University of Toronto, Paul Moorcroft of Harvard University and George Hurtt of the University of New Hampshire. The article is scheduled to be published later this fall in the journal Global Change Biology.

The scientists conducted the study by analyzing data collected by the U.S. Forest Service, which measured and cataloged 2.7 million trees on 250,000 plots of land across the country. They calculated the VOC emissions for each tree and each plot and used their findings to map VOC levels nationally. The scientists compared survey data taken in the 1980s with those taken in the 1990s to determine how levels were changing over time.

They found that areas where farmland has been abandoned during the last century have early generations of trees that produce higher levels of VOCs than older growth forests. In the South, pine plantations used for their fast-growing supplies of timber have proven to be havens for sweetgum trees, which are major producers of VOCs. Indeed, virtually every tree that grows fast -- a desirable quality for forestry production -- is a heavy emitter of VOCs.

"It's just one of those biological correlations," said Purves. "What you want is a fast-growing tree that doesn't produce a lot of VOCs, but that doesn't seem to exist."

The truth is plain to see: Nature is dangerous and needs to be brought under greater human control so that we can have a safer and cleaner environment. This shouldn't be surprising. After all, where does typhoid come from? Nature. Where does the Ebola virus come from? Nature. Where do cholera, diphteria, malaria, and tuberculosis come from? Or tidal waves? Earthquakes? Rattlesnakes? Tornadoes? Floods? Avalanches? Black widow spiders? The asteroids that probably wiped out the dinosaurs? You already know the answer to all those questions. And what about air polluting volcanoes? They aren't operated by the petroleum industry.

Consider the irony for construction. If you build with concrete, steel, plastic, and other less natural materials you will reduce the need to plant trees and therefore fewer polluting trees will be planted.

Polluting trees also call into question the idea of using various kinds of biomass as energy sources. If we grow more stuff then that disgusting and dirty (hey, plant roots have dirt all over them) plant matter is going to release all kinds of pollutants into the atmosphere.

The findings also could raise questions about potential strategies for developing "green" fuels. One idea for cutting greenhouse gas emissions is to create "biofuels" from renewable tree plantations; however, these plantations may lead to increased ozone levels, the authors note.

What to do? Technology can provide the answer: plants used for biomass and trees grown for lumber need to be genetically reengineered to be less polluting. If better engineering designs can make cars less polluting then why can't better engineering clean up trees and other natural polluters as well?

Ronald Reagan came in for a lot of criticism when he warned of the dangers of letting trees run amok and ruin our air.

Noting President Ronald Reagan's notorious 1980 reference to trees causing pollution (Reagan said: "Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation."), the authors conclude: "The results reported here call for a wider recognition that an understanding of recent, current and anticipated changes in biogenic VOC emissions is necessary to guide future air-quality policy decisions; they do not provide any evidence that responsibility for air pollution can or should be shifted from humans to trees."

But obviously Ronnie was on to something. Where others have been lured into looking at towering Redwoods and seeing ancient stately majestic beauties reaching serenely into the sky Ronnie saw right through them like he saw through communist fronts. While the real effects of trees were invisible to the rest of us Ronnie clearly saw that trees were waging a silent war on Western civilization.

Update: One other point: The older trees in older forests pollute less. Tree population aging is a good thing.

By Randall Parker at 2004 October 19

That's the most insane comment you have ever made.

Now THAT IS a lie!

I should ask you, do you try to prove a point with rhetoric and name-calling?

April 09, 2008
Ted Nordhaus on the Politics of Personal Destruction
Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Environment | Science + Politics

Ted Nordhaus eloquently characterizes a disturbing pattern in debate among those calling for action climate change -- avoid debating the merits of policies, and instead smear the character of those making arguments that you disagree with.

Here is an excerpt: [rest of article omitted]
It appears the pattern is contagious! Eddie.

[14-H]

[***
Photosynthetic plants are crucial for converting CO2 to oxygen and regulating the climate.

It’s tempting to hope that the Earth’s forests can soak up our excess carbon and solve our greenhouse problems.

***.

Photosynthesis also CREATES carbon dioxide!

The greenhouse phenomenon is not a problem. Without it, we would not be having this conversation.

The suggestion that human consumption is the cause of climate changes is the point for which the support is clouded by political ambition.

The argument that "global warming is supported by 99% of scientists" is misleading. Of course there is global warming. There used to be a glacier where I am sitting and where most of our boat races are held here in the mid-west.

It is whether there has been a man-made contribution to global warming that is the issue.

Let the rhetoric fly...

[bob37ce]

come on guys, global warming is bs . 14 000 years ago , there was an ice age, there was no plane in the skys , no boats on the lake , no nuclear plants. And we had an ice age , the earth is healing itself , thats it thats all.
Regards
Bob

[ricochet112]

Ed, to say that tree's put out more CO2 than they absorb is false. All decomposing organic matter emit CO2.

"It is whether there has been a man-made contribution to global warming that is the issue."

YES! That's the only part of global warming that's debatable.