News


Scientist sees dire climate-change impacts

Talk addresses threats in California

Editor's note: An earlier version of this story had incorrect information. The story quoted the scientist as saying that if worldwide carbon emissions continue to rise at the present rate, rising temperatures could cause the Sierra Nevada to lose 80 percent of its winter snowpack in just 40 years. The correct numbers are that the Sierra Nevada could lose 80 percent of its winter snowpack by the end of the century (not 40 years), according to Leslie C. Gordon, a spokesperson for USGS in Menlo Park.

By Chris Cooney

Bay City News Service

If worldwide carbon emissions continue at the present rate, rising temperatures could cause the Sierra Nevada to lose 80 percent of its winter snowpack by the end of the century, a U.S. Geological Survey scientist said Thursday in a Menlo Park talk.

The decrease in snowfall is among several grim impacts that climate change could have if current carbon emissions go unabated, said USGS climate change coordinator Tom Suchanek in a talk at the USGS campus in Menlo Park.

He said that some effects of climate change are already impacting life in the Bay Area and across the country, such as year-round high temperatures that are "breaking records right and left."

"Temperatures are climbing all the time and climbing rapidly," he said.

Higher temperatures -- between 3 and 6 degrees higher depending on projection models -- carry a barrage of side effects, including heat waves that are longer-lasting and more intense, increased fire danger, and winter storms that are stronger, more violent and more frequent.

Mr. Suchanek said that "1,000-year storms" are already 10 times more frequent now than they were in the 1920s. "We now have multiple 1,000-year storms per decade," he said.

Climate change is also expected to usher in a significant rise in sea levels, he said. With no change in current carbon emissions, sea levels are projected to rise at least 1.4 meters in Northern California by the year 2100.

Higher sea levels will bring higher wave heights, which will lead to increased beach erosion, cliff failures and coastal flooding, he said. Cities, beach towns and every coastal ecosystem from marshland to redwood forest would be impacted.

There is still hope to curb carbon emissions if countries that burn the most fossil fuels -- China, the U.S., India and Russia -- continue to develop alternative energy sources and work through the United Nations Framework on Climate Change to draft a treaty that would reduce emissions worldwide, he said.

But for the U.S. to join any treaty, it first has to be ratified and approved by both houses of Congress, which in the current political climate does not seem likely at all, Mr. Suchanek said.

■ A video of the talk is expected to be posted online about a day after the lecture in the USGS video archives.

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by We Need Adina
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Mar 23, 2012 at 9:58 am

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bradley
a resident of Atherton: Lloyden Park
on Mar 23, 2012 at 12:46 pm

Fix the transcontinental pollution from China. Else, it is only the sky that is falling, take cover.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 23, 2012 at 12:53 pm

Bradley -
Huh?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bradley
a resident of Atherton: Lloyden Park
on Mar 23, 2012 at 1:08 pm

With the universe's constant expansion, the earth's climate has been in constant change for 100's of millions of years. Humans are surprised every time a 'natural disaster' occurs, because we have built things in mother nature's way. Wishful thinking that a treaty will have a sufficient impact when human rights issues can't even be resolved elsewhere. We are the fly on the bull's horn in Aesop's fable.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 23, 2012 at 1:38 pm

Bradley -
Aside from the fact that expansion of the universe has nothing to do with the earth's climate, your prognosis that any efforts to limit global warming are doomed to failure is way too defeatist for both me and my kids - especially my kids, the ones who will have to live with all the negative effects that a warming climate will produce.
To give up and do nothing is not only unacceptable, it's practically un-American. If the greatest generation had rolled over & played dead on the face of German and Japanese aggression, where would we be now? They didn't and neither should we, especially when this country, as the 2nd biggest user of fossil fuels, could have a significant impact in reducing GHG emissions and in encouraging other countries to follow our lead.
Myself,
* I've recently installed solar panels on my home, which should reduce my fossil-fueled electrical needs by 75%.
* My next car is going to be a hybrid.
* I vote for politicians who support increasing the fuel efficiency standards alternate forms of energy.
* I contribute to the Sierra Club and the California League of Conservation Voters, both of which are active in campaigning to fight global warming.
What are you doing to help?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bradley
a resident of Atherton: Lloyden Park
on Mar 23, 2012 at 2:47 pm

Steve, I will be glad to see your American flag on a Hybrid. But tell me, where you live as the majority of CA electricity is generated from hydroelectic generators, not fossil fuels? Tell me what you will do with all the batteries in your hybrid as the recycling technology for those is still in the infancy stages. Are you aware of the Sierra Club's law suit against the Army Corps of Engineers stopping the upgrades of the levee system in Lousianna PRIOR to Katrina?

Why contribute to organizations that do nothing to stop the human trafficking on the peninsula or women's rights in the middle east? How many hours have you read to children in lower income schools whose parents speak no English? Help the planet by stopping 'the fighting' and start loving your local neighbors. Equal education is the answer not exclusive, aloof affiliations.

Exercise caution if interchanging climate change (in the article) with global warming.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 23, 2012 at 4:30 pm

Editor -
Here is the link to last night's talk at USGS on "Projected Climate Change Impacts in California". The speaker is Tom Suchanek, USGS Western Ecological Research Center Lead Scientist and Climate Change Coordinator. The talk runs about an hour with another 30 minutes of Q&A.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 23, 2012 at 4:54 pm

Bradley -
I'm a PG&E customer so, at your suggestion, I looked at what their fuel mix is for the electricity they provide. I found that for PG&E hydro provides only about 16% of their electrical generation - not 50% as you claim. This is roughly the same amount as their renewable energy program (wind, solar, biomass, etc.). Nuclear is 24% and fossil fuels about 22%. Fossil fuel is actually probably much greater than that since they lump the remaining 22% under "unspecified source", which is probably power they buy from out of state and don't control as to generation. Full info at Web Link
You're right that global warming and climate change are not the same thing, though in this context it's largely a semantic issue. Global warming occurring today - largely because of human use of fossil fuels - is causing climate change. Or, as EPA summarizes: "Global warming can be considered part of climate change along with changes in precipitation, sea level, etc." Web Link
If you weren't at the talk last night you should watch the video linked above. Then let's talk.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bradley
a resident of Atherton: Lloyden Park
on Mar 23, 2012 at 6:14 pm

Strange how a simple graph can be partially reported. The PG&E Website clearly shows on the graph, COAL 1.0% and Other Fossil Fuels 1.2%, but those graphs are tricky. To opine 'unspecified' goes toward a failing point is reckless and blows the dialogue. Of the Eligible renewable 18.3% was small hydro, oh my!

Leave statistical analysis to the professionals, unless the stats were interpreted by a supported politician. Glad see the solar panel industry made money, regardless of facts. Exert as much energy helping your neighbors.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Mar 23, 2012 at 6:50 pm

Here we go again.

Feel free to talk past each other for the next few days.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tom Croft
a resident of Atherton: other
on Mar 23, 2012 at 10:07 pm

There are two distinct things being mixed here. Science & history tell us global temperature has gone up & down during and before humans. Such changes are normal. Coldness begets cold & hotness begets heat. People are not the cause; they are not involved
The second thing is human impact. Clearly burning fuel releases CO2 which inhibits infrared radiation. This speaker thinks burning is the cause of the current warming trend. This is unproven. Citing evidence of warming does not prove burning is its cause.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 24, 2012 at 12:11 am

Tom -

The speaker showed one slide that should give you pause. It showed CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere for the past 1,000 years.
For the first 850 years the concentration was stable at around 280ppm. Then in the early 1800's, coinciding with the beginning of the industrial revolution, the concentration started increasing and it has continued to increase at accelerating rates ever since, reaching the current level of 395ppm. To put it another way, the EPA reports that "In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution." Web Link
Coincident with the increase in CO2, the average global temperature has increased nearly 1 degree Centigrade. As with the CO2 concentrations, the rate of temperature change is increasing such that by the year 2100, the temperature is projected to be between 2 and 4 degrees C warmer than it was in 1850, depending on what steps nations of the world take to limit GHG emissions.
The relation between the increased burning of fossil fuels and the increased CO2 concentrations since the industrial revolution seems clear to me, as is the increased temperatures in response to increased CO2. What part of these well documented observations doesn't make sense to you? The evidence is conclusive pretty much everywhere you look.
As for the scientific controversy, there really is none. As reported in USA Today, a recent study of nearly 1400 scientists found that "97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity. . . As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates." Web Link
Let's get on with fixing the problem and stop sticking our heads in the sand while pretending to believe that 97% of the experts are wrong. If we don't control global warming, he consequence to my kids and all future generations are too dire to contemplate.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mitch Insomniac
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Mar 24, 2012 at 6:33 am

The controversy goes back and forth as to whether carbon dioxide causes global warming. I came across this controversial web site that may be of interest to many.

Web Link

Enjoy


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Mar 24, 2012 at 6:52 am

As anyone who has taken the most basic science course knows, there is a difference between correlation and causation. Causation must be proved.

There is little dispute about the existence of climate change although time durations that demonstrate major climate changes are probably best measured over decades versus years.

While the data give me pause, citing man as the principal cause of climate change is unproven. That does not mean we shouldn't take actions to reduce man's impact. But the United States has done a tremendous amount of mitigation and has lost its unenviable position as the principal contributor (per capita or absolute) to man-made pollution. Our skies and shores are pristine compared to those developing nations in Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa.

At a time when our economy is so fragile, it's hardly a time to handicap our businesses by imposing new taxes and costs that competitors will simply ignore.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by conservationist
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 24, 2012 at 12:01 pm

This argument is about the wrong thing - how much of climate change is caused by humans.
The real point is that mankind might be able to save itself from extinction by conserving scarce natural resources. Actions that do so also should minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Yes, current lifestyles might be affected, but we and future generations will benefit if we take conservation seriously.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jody
a resident of Atherton: other
on Mar 24, 2012 at 12:10 pm

Look, I believe the majority of the science community when they say the earth is warming because of CO2 and that man is the cause; you have to be a conspiracy theorist of the highest order to believe Heartland and the big oil thinktanks to be convinced otherwise.

But statements like this "The real point is that mankind might be able to save itself from extinction"

are INSANE!!!!

Extinction??????

Lots of pain for certain populations, sure. Greater hunger in poor countries, yes. Rising sea level being quite a problem, almost unimaginable that we'd have to build a levy around the bay, okay.

Shifting agricultural areas due to climate change won't lead to extinction. Hunger, huge costs, but we will grow food where we can.

The hyperbole on both sides is off the charts. As Pogo stated - here we go again.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by acomfort
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Mar 24, 2012 at 1:00 pm


This has been a typical discussion of global warming. Here are a few thoughts on why we will never agree on a solution or even an answer to "did we cause global warming?"

We use the precautionary principle when:
We purchase health insurance because there is a potential for us to get sick.
We purchase car insurance because there is a potential that we will have an accident.
We purchase fire insurance because there is a potential that our house will burn.
We fund a military because there is a potential that another country will attack us.

We don't use the precautionary principle when:
We spend/fund little to stop the biggest potential disaster ever faced by humans and all other species on this planet. (Global Warming)

We do use the precautionary principle when:
We have the health insurance industry using their $ to tell us over and over that we need their insurance.
We have the auto insurance industry using their $ to tell us over and over that we need their insurance.
We have the fire insurance industry using their $ to tell us over and over that we need their insurance.
We have the military industrial complex using their $ to tell us over and over that we need more defense.

We don't use the precautionary principle with global warming when:
We have the fossil fuel industries all using their $ to tell us over and over that not to worry.
And telling us that whatever the current big problem is (lack of jobs) will get worse, if we use less fossil fuel.
In other words:
The precautionary principle doesn't apply if it hurts the bottom line of the 1 percent.

On one hand we have the:
Main Stream Media that takes the fossil fuel industries $ and promotes their claims and there is little moneyed interests to contradict them. Also the fossil fuel industries message is more positive therefore more socially acceptable.

On the other hand we have approximately:
"97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity." but with little influence and it's a negative message.

In other words: "Money/profit now" wins over sustainability, pollution, even over all life on earth if it should come to that point. Are we there yet? Isn't capitalism grand?

Note:
When I say "$" I am including advertisements, buying pundits, paying for scientists and their publications, and payoffs/bribes to politicians.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by conservationist
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 24, 2012 at 1:16 pm

Please re-read what I wrote. It isn't insane at all.

Natural resources are finite. Humans are consuming finite resources at an alarming rate. If humans don't change behavior and think about long-term sustainability, yes humans will go extinct. Sure not soon, but problems of scarcity can arise quickly and probably already have begun. So, whether you believe in human role in exacerbating climate change, it's still a good idea to conserve resources.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Mar 24, 2012 at 8:09 pm

One question that no one ever answers is what is the "ideal" temperature of the earth?

What makes us think that our current climate should be maintained at all costs? What harms some forms of life (polar bears) is undoubtedly a blessing to others (alligators). What floods beaches in the tropics is a boon to the northern regions of the world. They are probably celebrating the warmer weather in Siberia.

Yes, this is a theoretical question because there is no answer.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 24, 2012 at 9:28 pm

Pogo -
For a guy who just wrote "At a time when our economy is so fragile, it's hardly a time to handicap our businesses by imposing new taxes and costs that competitors will simply ignore." you seem awfully cavalier about the tremendous costs that will be incurred as consequences of global warming.
There was just an article in the NYT today about the projected costs to San Francisco in the Ocean Beach area from the expected 14-inch rise in sea level by 2050. They're estimating costs of $650 million for just this one area of the city if nothing is done to protect it from the expected erosion and storm wave surge. And that's just one small part of one city. Multiply that by all the towns along the coast and around the Bay and you'll have some idea of what "tremendous costs" really are.
And those are just some of the costs we'll all be paying to try to cope with the consequences of global warming(or more accurately, the costs all our kids & grandkids will be paying; we'll mercifully be dead by then).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 24, 2012 at 10:34 pm

POGO -
You ask "what is the "ideal" temperature of the earth?"
How about the average temperature that has persisted since the end of the last ice age. You know, the temperature that allowed human civilization to develop from the hunter gatherer of the stone age to what we have today. This temperature hadn't varied by more than +-0.5 degree for almost 10,000 years - until the industrial revolution upset the system by introducing steadily increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere (280ppm at the end of the ice age and more or less constant until the mid-1800's; 395ppm today and rising fast).
Once again you are being awfully cavalier in supposing that things will be hunky-dory if the temperature is allowed to rise a little bit. Well, science shows us that this average temperature has risen only about 0.9 degrees since the industrial revolution began and just this small increase has had numerous measurable (mostly bad) consequences:
- Decimation of the lodgepole pine forests throughout the west.
- The Arctic Ocean is likely to be ice free within a few decades for the first time in 100,000 years. Why is this bad? Without Arctic ice to reflect the sunlight even more heat will be added to the system.
- The pH of the world's oceans have declined by 0.1 unit, which doesn't sound like much but translates into an increase in acidity of about 30%. Like oysters? Too bad - they won't survive in oceans that are much more acidic.
. . . and literally hundreds of other measurable impacts, mostly deleterious to the current ecosystems.
Scientists tell us further that temperatures can be expected to rise another 3 to 5 degrees within the next 90 years if we don't get CO2 emissions under control. Add in sea level rise of between 3 and 5 feet and we'll be looking at a very different world than we've ever known.
You may be right that Siberia becomes the next Miami Beach. It better because all those folks in Florida are going to need some place to go - most of the state will be underwater.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mitch Insomniac
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Mar 25, 2012 at 9:00 am

To borrow the words from the Bard of Baltimore H.L Mencken

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

It wasn't that long ago on Christmas Eve 1979 when the darling of the liberal left -- Time Magazine had a cover article on global cooling. This is when Jimmy Carter was president and the liberal establishment was swooning over the revelation of global cooling. IT GAVE THEM ANOTHER EXCUSE TO CONTROL OUR LIVES.

Web Link



Now the latest scare is Carbon Dioxide. Yes carbon dioxide without which every single tree in Menlo Park would die. But we have to promote the United Nations "Agenda 21"-- the latest kool aid promoted by international socialists like George Soros to subvert capitalism.

The global warming Hoax is becoming more apparent. "The science of global warming has been unraveling for years, but one of the most glaring revelations came in 2007, when a UK High Court judge considered the science behind the 2006 Academy Award winning movie "Inconvenient Truth." The judge ruled the movie contained nine significant errors and ruled it was a "political" movie, not a science movie".

To read more on the United Nationals and America's liberal left subterfuge read this

Web Link

and read this:
Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 25, 2012 at 12:30 pm

Mitch -
You wrote: "The science of global warming has been unraveling for years".
You obviously didn't watch the public lecture Web Link which clearly shows just the opposite. The evidence from all related fields of science shows global warming is not only happening, it is accelerating.
But I guess you aren't particularly interested in getting at the facts, else you wouldn't be getting your science from Time Magazine cover articles (which arguably could be said to "keep the populace alarmed" in order to sell more magazines).
So Mitch, how do you explain that tens of thousands of scientists around the world, National Science Academies from all countries, and almost all scientific organizations support the conclusion that global warming is occurring and is caused largely by human activity?
Oh right - they're all part of a vast conspiracy to "subvert capitalism" and "CONTROL OUR LIVES".
Talk about Paranoid. Any evidence to support this nonsense? Oh right - you're not into facts & evidence.
The good news Mitch is that you'll likely be dead before the worst effects of global warming occur so you won't have to apologize to your kids & grand-kids for being such a fool.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Norman
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 25, 2012 at 12:34 pm

Funny, I went to US Geo. a couple of years ago and this same guy showed that global warming would raise temperatures but (much to his chagrin) the models showed that it would have no effect on our water. In fact, out into the distant future it would help.

I have to guess that the 'no disaster' scenario didn't sit well so he had to 'rejuggle' his models.

Also, when I pointed out to him that in the 'hot urban zone' of Chicago the temperature graph over 100 years showed no increase in temperature he just sluffed it off as an 'anomaly'. I've later found out that the temperature in North America hasn't increased in 75 years. What is their explanation for this?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 25, 2012 at 12:40 pm

Norman -
First, I have to say I don't understand what you mean when you say that global warming "would have no effect on our water". Do you mean precipitation would not be affected in California? Or sea level? or what?
As to the temperature graph of Chicago for that past century, it's hard to answer unless I know the source of your information. Do you have any references?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 25, 2012 at 1:06 pm

Norman -
You wrote "I've later found out that the temperature in North America hasn't increased in 75 years. What is their explanation for this?"
Again, I have to ask what your source was? A quick Google search came up with an EPA summary of the effects of global warming and found, among other things, that
"Average temperatures have risen across the lower 48 states since 1901, with an increased rate of warming over the past 30 years. Seven of the top 10 warmest years on record for the lower 48 states have occurred since 1990"


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 25, 2012 at 1:10 pm

Link to above EPA summary pages: Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mitch Insomniac
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Mar 25, 2012 at 1:55 pm

Time magazine had a double issue abour global cooling which it has conveniently purged from its archives. That's what liberals do when they contradict themselves-- they bury the evidence. But Time was n ot good enough. Click here to see the cover of the infamous double issue

Web Link

There has been global cooling since 1998

Web Link

But liberals have a way out. They just call it global climate change. Guess what the climate is always changing. Always has and always will. THAT PESKY SUN JUST WON'T COOPERATE WITH LIBERALS.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 25, 2012 at 3:00 pm

Mitch -
TIME magazine is not a scientific publication. It's a news magazine that puts controversial topics on its cover to sell more copies. If you think a 30-year old Time magazine article tells us anything about the state of science, you've got your head firmly buried in the sand.
But then I guess I can tell you're not serious about science by the link you provided that supposedly supports your statement that "There has been global cooling since 1998". The link takes you to PrisonPlanet.net and an article written by Paul Joseph Watson, a 30-something Brit and founder of PropagandaMatrix.com. Nuff said!
If this is is where you get your "facts", no wonder you're confused.
For a link that scientifically addresses the question of what the climate's been doing since 2000, try NOAA where they (gasp!)actually show the data: Web Link Looks like it's been a pretty warm decade to me.
But since the data don't fit your preconceived world view, I guess you'll try to convince me that NOAA is just part of Mitch's international socialist conspiracy to subvert capitalism, or some such paranoid claptrap.
Dare I ask what your thoughts are on evolution?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 25, 2012 at 3:13 pm

Mitch -
If you want to find out the facts behind the 1977 Time article, read this paper from Skeptical Science Web Link where they actually looked at all the scientific papers published from 1965 to 1979 that dealt with the question of cooling vs warming. They found only 7 papers that predicted global cooling while during the same period there were 42 papers predicting global warming. So even at the time, the majority of scientists were convinced that global warming was likely.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Thrush
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 25, 2012 at 3:35 pm

Mitch,

Someone has duped you .. Your link is hawking a photoshopped version of the April 2007 Time cover. The April 1977 cover highlights Jimmy Carter and energy choices.

Web Link

Web Link

Your other link points to a website that fabricates false conclusions based on legitimate source materials.

Maybe you can do better and less biased research for us next time.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 25, 2012 at 3:50 pm

Thrush -
Thanks for the link to the real 1977 Time Magazine cover.

Interesting that they had an article on the crisis in the US Post Office, predicting they'd have to end Saturday deliveries. It could almost have been written today:

""The Postal Service is going to cost more and provide less service, with larger subsidies. There isn 't much happy about it from now to the end of the century."

That was the somewhat despairing word last week from David Minton, the executive director of a blue-ribbon commission that Congress set up last year to determine what, if anything, could be done to increase the efficiency of the U.S. Postal Service and reduce the burden it places on taxpayers. The commission will transmit its findings to Congress this week."

The more things change, the more they stay the same!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Thrush
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 25, 2012 at 7:56 pm

Steve,

I find the main Time story to be prophetic as well - The coming battle over energy policy in a time of short supplies vs. growing demand. Not so different from today.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 26, 2012 at 11:11 am

One last comment for POGO if he's still tuning in.
You wrote: "citing man as the principal cause of climate change is unproven"
If you go fastforward to 12:45 in the talk Web Link you'll see a slide that shows global carbon emissions measured since 1960 showing emissions increasing from less than 3 billion tons/yr in 1960 to 9 billion tons/yr in 2010. It's a generally uniform increase with a few deviations where emissions flatten and even decline for a while. It turns out that these deviations correspond to global financial crises where fossil fuel declined because of reduced economic output. If the carbon emissions were due to some natural cycle, these declines would not have occurred or at least would not have correlated with economic activity.
This seems to me to be convincing evidence that man's activities are the principal cause for carbon emissions and, hence, for global warming/climate change.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R.Gordon
a resident of another community
on Mar 26, 2012 at 12:54 pm

Why is it so easy to spot Republicans?
They are like creationists............more cartoonish


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Mar 27, 2012 at 9:05 am

There was most definitely a Time Magazine article on this subject titled "Another Ice Age?": Web Link

There was also a Newsweek article titled "The Cooling World":Web Link

I'm not saying they are right or wrong... but they most definitely existed and were published back in the mid-1970's.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by conservationist
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 27, 2012 at 10:07 am

Regardless of what is causing climate change, there is a chance humans can lessen the impacts through conservation and wise planning to mitigate impacts on lives and livelihoods. Why wouldn't we do that?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 27, 2012 at 10:25 am

POGO -
Yes, no one's denying that there were short articles in both magazines about global cooling back in the 70's. The problem was that Mitch was claiming Time had put out a double issue on global cooling which was bogus. Someone had Photoshopped the April 2007 double-issue on global warming to give the impression that scientists were strongly divided on the issue, which they're emphatically not.
The more interesting thing is that both 70's articles on cooling were based on only a handful of papers that had come to this conclusion. Even at the time they were outnumber by 6:1 in the numbers of papers concluding that global warming was more likely. But we all know how the media likes to milk the controversy to sell more copies.
So if you're not willing to say it, I will: scientists in the 70's who predicted future global cooling WERE WRONG then and have been shown to have been DEFINITELY WRONG in the years since as more and more data has been collected that shows just the opposite.
To repeat myself: "As reported in USA Today, a recent study of nearly 1400 scientists found that "97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity. . . As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates." Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 27, 2012 at 10:39 am

Conservationist -
You wrote: "Regardless of what is causing climate change, there is a chance humans can lessen the impacts through conservation and wise planning to mitigate impacts on lives and livelihoods. Why wouldn't we do that?"
I agree with you completely. I'd go further and suggest that every policy decision made today should be considered in terms of it's impact on climate change. Climate change is one of those hidden costs that we can ignore but that will come back to bite future generations big time.
The Keystone pipeline is one of those issues. It appalls me that the main environmental issue being discussed is the potential impact it will have on the Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska, though that is a valid concern.
At least as important is the oil that pipeline would carry is incredibly dirty in that it comes from tar sands and requires much more energy to extract than conventional crude oil. It is estimated that recovery of oil from tar sands generates between 10% and 45% more greenhouse gasses.
I'm not saying that the oil should or shouldn't be extracted but that the discussion should be considering this important negative aspect.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Mar 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm

Please read enclosed Wall Street Journal Article about the global warming myth written by William Happer a Princeton University Professor of Physics. Princeton has the top rated physics department in the United States and is where Albert Einstein taught.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jody
a resident of Atherton: other
on Mar 27, 2012 at 4:29 pm

"written by William Happer a Princeton University Professor of Physics."

Why is it a seemingly inordinate amount of skeptics are in Physics?

"Princeton has the top rated physics department in the United States and is where Albert Einstein taught."

Huh? Which means what, exactly?

Happer said "CO2 is not a pollutant"

'nuff said.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Mar 27, 2012 at 6:49 pm

If Co2 is a "pollutant" then I guess the early earth was "polluted." From what I have read, the reason the oceans are salty is because of the high concentration of Co2 in the earths's early atmosphere which caused the rain to be acidic, thus washing mineral salts into the ocean. Hardly a "pollutant." Just a natural component of our earth.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Norman
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 27, 2012 at 8:10 pm

Those that believe in GW are only believing the believers. Remember, all of us actually 'know' nothing about GW. We have no personal experiences either in feeling temperature changes or in knowing the data ourselves or in knowing how good the computations are.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Thrush
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 27, 2012 at 8:48 pm

Maybe Mr. Happer and Norman should try refuting the work of over 6,000 scientists embodied in the IPCC Fourth Assessment before inflicting their opinions "that there really isn't any evidence of global warming" on the world.

Web Link

Mr. Happer has been challenged to do so for some time, and has shied away from offering anything but opinion.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Norman
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 27, 2012 at 10:22 pm

As far as I can see the "IPCC Fourth Assessment" came out in 2007, probably developed in 2006 so its at least six years old and was co-authored by the guy who won the Nobel Prize with that great scientist, Al Gore.

Lots has happened since then, almost all of the new data coming in below the declarations of the GW folks at that time. I'll take your word for it that 6,000 scientists agreed with it but they are still just believers, I still say you and I actually know nothing but what the believers tell us and I don't care how many of them there are. After all, hundreds of millions believed in the dotcom boom.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Mar 28, 2012 at 7:17 am

To read more on the unethical behavior by the global warming zealots please click here

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Mar 28, 2012 at 8:17 am

I'm not saying we shouldn't reduce pollution (and in the United States, we certainly do!)... but I'm still not sure why today's climate must be maintained at all costs.

Our earth is in a constant state of change. As I said before, what's bad for polar bears is good for alligators.

So?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jody
a resident of Atherton: other
on Mar 28, 2012 at 9:17 am

"what's bad for polar bears is good for alligators."

And if the sea levels rise a foot or two, hundreds of millions of refugees will wish they could swim like either the bear or the gator.

But no worries, we're all well above sea level around here, so yippee-skippy!!

Frosty: any comment on the actual CONTENT of the Gleick documents, or are you just terribly, terribly offended that they became public?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Mar 28, 2012 at 9:37 am

For more enlightenment on the hypocrisy of the AGW disciples read this

Web Link



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jody
a resident of Atherton: other
on Mar 28, 2012 at 10:05 am

[Post removed. Please refrain from attacking other posters.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Mar 28, 2012 at 10:40 am

Jody -

Maybe people shouldn't build houses on beaches. I do know that we shouldn't pay to rebuild them with our tax subsidies. All it will do is create "new" beachfronts a little further inland. So?

We have people in our nearby towns who have lost their homes to mudslides and landslides. So?

Look at the window as you fly across our country. There is more empty land than we could possibly fill.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Mar 28, 2012 at 11:09 am

[Post removed. Please comment on the topic rather than on other posters.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jody
a resident of Atherton: other
on Mar 28, 2012 at 12:14 pm

Pogo-

I was referring to the hundreds of millions around the world who will be displaced by any significant sea level rise.

Locally, you and I are a safe. We can even tell others close to sea level to make it their own personal responsibility to to move to Kansas.

Of course, there's the little matter of building a levee around the bay just to keep our transit systems intact so you and I can make it up to the occasional Giants games. Highway 101 is a little low.

Oh! So is PacBell Park.

Who cares if someone else has to build a levee to keep Embarcadero 1 through 4, and scores of other office buildings from getting wet feet?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 28, 2012 at 1:45 pm

"There will always be those who challenge disturbing facts no matter how good the science. Many Americans don't believe in evolution; some geologists don't accept plate tectonics, and some think the NASA Moon missions were a hoax.
Self-interest can also create cogitative dissonance between what one wants to believe and what is. Some smokers kept insisting smoking doesn't cause cancer or heart disease after the Surgeon General's Report. An African leader who perhaps can't afford proper drugs holds that the HIV virus doesn't cause AIDS.
Should people die from disinformation and delusions? So what if some don't believe in global warming? They're wrong. Survival of high tech civilization is at stake. Time to stop dithering and get serious about policies that could make a difference."

MARTIN HOFFERT, interview, Aug. 22, 2007


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 28, 2012 at 1:49 pm

One more quote:
"We have many advantages in the fight against global warming, but time is not one of them. Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring.
We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge."

JOHN MCCAIN, speech, May 12, 2008


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Mar 28, 2012 at 4:27 pm

Again, no one seems to answer my question. What makes today's climate and average temperature so ideal? Our earth has been hotter and colder and we seemed to do fine.

By the way, Steve, our civilization is most assuredly doomed. It would take a pretty arrogant scientist to think we are immune to extinction.

That said, I'm certainly not trying to speed it up. I think we should take all REASONABLE steps to reduce pollution... and I believe we do. We can always do more, of course, but the damage overregulation may do to our economy today - in terms of unemployment, poverty, loss of revenues, etc. - outweighs the benefits that may - MAY - come later. I oppose the unilateral imposition of new costs on American industries that are finding themselves increasingly noncompetitive.

Jody - I'm well aware of other people on this earth who live in low lying areas and would suffer with raised sea levels. Every year, millions of people find their homes inundated by floods or ravaged by storms (or even tsunamis) and their societies manage to survive.

And so will we. There will still be waterfront property, it will just be in a different place. By the way, it was in a different place before we arrived, too.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jody
a resident of Atherton: other
on Mar 28, 2012 at 5:04 pm

Pogo: "What makes today's climate and average temperature so ideal?" Not sure I've heard it praised as ideal. If anything, it's 'ideal' in that our cultures have adapted to, and built and grow to, this climate. We grow in certain areas because we can. We built on shores that we weren't expecting to rapidly rise (such as downtown San Francisco.)

I fully expect you to argue that we will continue to adapt. Isn't that a pretty expensive proposition?
- if hundreds of millions must relocate (think of the misery in India, Bangladesh and others come to mind)
- if we must build levies around SF , Manhattan, etc..
- entire areas of agriculture must change (seem to recall talk that Napa Valley would be potentially at risk of changing crops, etc..)

My deleted post talked about the Glieck memos that document how Heartland, the Kochs, Exxon, ALEC, etc.. literally purchase 'biostitutes' to deny climate change, finding a willing platform to preach to the conspiracy theorists on Fox, AM talk radio, etc..

Like Anthony Watts, a tv weather guy turned pseudo expert funded by Heartland to preach denial.Web Link

Steve: re McCain's flip flop - he must be the guy that taught Romney how to shake the etch-a-sketch!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Mar 28, 2012 at 7:22 pm

Jody -

First, I'm hardly a "denier." Climate change is real and undeniable. With regard to man's contribution to this change, I'm less certain. I said LESS certain, not uncertain.

Second, you still didn't answer my question. A thousand years ago, it was far warmer than it is today. Did people survive? Do people survive in climates that are 1 or 2 degrees warmer than ours. Yes, of course. And we will, too.

Climate patterns change for a variety of reasons, not all man-made. In our lifetimes, the "pollution" from at least two volcanic eruptions dramatically changed the sunlight exposure (and temperature) over huge parts of the world for months. Stuff happens.

We didn't always grow grapes in Napa. Now Chile and Australia are huge producers. We base our economy on convenience. If it's easier to grow grapes in Canada, so what. It'll be easier to grow avocados here. Stuff changes.

And I wouldn't bet on building levees around San Francisco or New York to try to preserve them unless you're filming a James Cameron film. Fortunately, there is plenty of space for us to relocate and plenty of time to do it. People who own property inland may benefit economically and those on beaches may get hurt. It may take a couple of hundred years and, in the meantime, perhaps an unexpected earthly or cosmic event (think Krakatoa, major earthquake, unexpected comet, etc...) may reverse or exacerbate the impacts of our warming problem.

Who knows?

For now, I'd focus on getting our economy back on it's feet so we can afford our elected officials.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Thrush
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 28, 2012 at 8:06 pm

POGO,

You asked a good question about the "optimum setting for the global thermostat". There's another important consideration beyond the melt/sea level issues that Jody raises. Photosynthesis and accompanying plant growth takes place at the highest rate around 25 degrees C and falls off sharply with increasing temperature. If median growing temperatures get much above 80 degrees F, where they are for much of our most productive land, there will be a major falloff in crop production. Add in reduced growing areas due to oceanic innudation, and you have a less optimum thermostat setting, at least for 7B human lives.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Mar 29, 2012 at 9:14 am

Thrush -

But it's been both warmer and colder during the past century and we survived just fine. Again, what makes today's mean temperature so ideal? (Hint: it's a rhetorical question, there is no answer.)

In the worst case, it would seem that farm land would move South where it would be a few degrees cooler or we would develop strains of crops that more tolerant to heat.

Inconvenient, yes. But not insurmountable.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by conservationist
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 29, 2012 at 9:28 am

What does "we survived just fine" mean? Many people perished when the climate changed in the past. Now there are multiples more people than before, and scarce resources. Turmoil is to be expected, and the lifestyle enjoyed by many Americans certainly is at risk.
Too much talk is about alternative energy sources and not nearly enough about conserving energy and other resources. Doing nothing just kicks the can down the road.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Mar 29, 2012 at 10:52 am

It is not only a matter of conservation it is also a matter of developing more energy efficient automobiles and devices.

The electric car is not the answer until we build up the electric grid to handle higher outputs of electricity; build grids in parallel so if one grid goes down the others will stay up; safeguard the grid against terrorist attacks; build nuclear power plants to provide energy for electric cars that will soon be on the highway; bring to market cars that use compressed natural gas; and develop safe battery technology so when they reach EOL and go to the landfill we aren't trading one source of pollution for another.

LED lights are very promising. I have some in my home. I also have CFLs. But how can we justify trading Hg(heavy metal) pollution for more energy efficiency?

The USG was mistaken in its mandate for the incandescent light bulb. It should have just mandated energy efficiency standards for light bulbs and impose a energy tax, much like the gas guzzler tax, for light bulbs that don't meet the energy standards. Government can never be as efficient as private industry.

Every advance the Government has made with the exception of the atomic bomb is due to private industry contractors and I am not so sure there weren't ptivate contractors involved in that as well. There would have been no space program without private industry contractors


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jody
a resident of Atherton: other
on Mar 29, 2012 at 11:28 am

Frosty:

1. "Government can never be as efficient as private industry." Blanket statements detract from your point, especially when they are demonstrably false.

2. What light bulb mandate are you talking about? "It should have just mandated energy efficiency standards for light bulbs" Have you read/listened to anything about the 2007 law on anything other than Fox or AM radio? Go shopping - you can still get incandescent bulbs! The 2007 law doesn't do anything except mandate " energy efficiency standards" (as you just posted!!)

Web Link "The standard would not ban incandescent light bulbs altogether, but it would prevent manufacturers from making less efficient models."

3. I missed your post on the actual content of the Gleick documents - any thoughts on what was released rather than crying about making the documents public? Which, by the way, Heartland was in favor of only a couple years ago - in the name of transparency.

Pogo: given your status as one of the more reasonable posters here, I find it interesting that you don't seem to be concerned about the potential catastrophe in climate change. Just because the example of sea level rise doesn't directly effect those of us elevated in west A or up in the hills in Woodside doesn't mean it won't have huge effects on all our lives.

Seems odd to lump it all in to the meme set by some about what we are leaving for our grandchildren - some scream about deficit and the perils to future generations yet have no issue kicking the can down the road on climate change.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 29, 2012 at 12:36 pm

POGO -
Your question about the optimum temperature was answered in the talk - did you even watch it?
Dr. Suchanek showed a slide of the average global temperature since the end of the last ice age that showed a very narrow range of variability - no more than +/-half a degree - up until the industrial revolution when average temperatures started rising sharply along with CO2 levels. Wherever did you come up with the "fact" that "a thousand years ago, it was far warmer than it is today.?" Any references? Yes, the Medieval warming period raised the average temp by 0.2 degrees, followed by the little ice age that saw it drop by about 0.5 degrees - both within the range of variability that's been observed since the glaciers retreated. This is different than the nearly 1.0 degree increase seen since the mid-1800's and vastly different than the 3 to 6 degree increase forecast over the next 100 years if greenhouse gas emissions aren't more quickly brought under control.
And to answer your question (again). It seems to me that yes, that was the optimum setting for the global thermostat - a temperature range that existed on the planet through the 10,000 years that saw humans establish civilizations around the world without serious climatic variability - not to mention the millions of other species that adapted to the relatively stable climate & sea levels.
Suggesting that average global temperatures varied widely in recent times is flat out wrong. And further suggesting we can simply adapt to a climate that is 3 to 6 degrees warmer than it has been in the past 10 years is simply pollyannaish and ignores the vast suffering and extinctions that will result.
You also ignore the increased acidification of the world's oceans as CO2 levels rise and the stress this places on all the ocean critters with CaCO3 structures, not mention those that feed on them.
Get real man! This is not an academic exercise.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ethan
a resident of Menlo Park: University Heights
on Mar 29, 2012 at 12:56 pm

What seems to have been overlooked here is the unprecedented speed of the current warming event. When something like this happens quickly in geological terms--in a matter of decades rather than centuries or millennia--many species do not have an opportunity to adapt. During what's called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum 56 million years ago, greenhouse gases were released at only 10 percent of the rate they are being released today. That major event was caused by geological activity and lasted some 200,000 years, which gave most animals and plants time to acclimate. Today we pump 9 petagrams of carbon into the atmosphere every year, increasing the CO2 level 40% in just decades. Given this rapidity, we really have no idea what the effects will be on the biosphere. Because, as far as we know, it has never happened before.

See the Scientific American article "The Last Great Global Warming," July 2011 (unfortunately the entire text is behind a pay wall). There is also a lot of material about climate change accessible on the SA website.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 29, 2012 at 12:59 pm

Correction:
The line should read: "And further suggesting we can simply adapt to a climate that is 3 to 6 degrees warmer than it has been in the past 10 THOUSAND years is simply pollyannaish and ignores the vast suffering and extinctions that will result."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Mar 29, 2012 at 2:54 pm

Jody,

Show me one instance where the USG and Private industry manufacture the same item where the USG is more efficient than private industry?

Government can't compete with private industry because private industry is accountable to a bottom line and the USG isn't.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Mar 29, 2012 at 3:09 pm

Steve -

With all due respect, you are arguing against points that I'm not making. As you know, temperatures vary widely on our planet - arctic, tropics, high mountains, low desert. We seem to have adapted to all. No, it would not be convenient, but it's difficult for me to believe a change of a degree or two will be fatal. It is more likely to make New Hampshire more like New Jersey. (Then again, maybe that would be fatal! <- joke) Six degrees? That would probably be a very major problem, but that's a worse case projection which could be impacted by other unanticipated events (such as aerosols which mitigated the impacts of Mt. Pinatubo's eruption).

Again, I do not deny climate change. I do have doubts about man being the principal cause and I do understand the CORRELATION of CO2 emissions. As you know, correlation isn't CAUSATION.

A final note. Although it was quite some time ago, my undergraduate degree was in chemistry so I so have a vague familiarity with the sciences. I think it was twelfth grade physics teacher that said skepticism should never be ridiculed and responding to it with proof is the hallmark of good science. So just because a lot of people believe something is true doesn't make it right - there are other very well credentialed, serious scientists (admittedly a minority) who have doubts. Majority opinions do not equate to proof.

I suspect we are in more agreement than disagreement. The principal area of dispute appears to be what we need to do to remedy the situation. I say the United States does MORE than it's fair share. I seem to recall an administration official (from the EPA, I think) who recently said that even passing the most stringent "cap and trade" law will not impact the current climate change a bit. Without China, India and the rest of the developing world on board, it is useless.

That doesn't mean we can't do more, but we need to weigh the benefits with the harm it may cause to our economy. Try telling people who are unemployed and can't pay for their gasoline that you want to raise prices or you want to increase taxes to subsidize Chevy Volts so their great grandchildren will live in a climate that's a quarter degree cooler.

Get China and India on board and you'll really move the needle (literally).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dr. A. Cannara
a resident of Menlo Park: University Heights
on Mar 29, 2012 at 3:46 pm

The problem for climate "deniers" is they must avoid at all costs, talking about things anyone can go our and measure, such as sea rise and acidification. Ok, you need a High School pH meter to do the latter, but the numbers are clear. And the isotopes identify the Carbon as ours.

The other discussion ;'deniers' must avoid is of their motivations & funding, such as The Heartland Institute, whose patrons include all the major combustion-fuel folks making $ as quickly as possible before the reality of environmental tragedies around the world turns off their subsidies.

One suggestion for folks who claim honest climate 'skepticism' is to simply be honest that they might be wrong, and that the grown-up thing to do is to set up a trust or a bond for their descendents to use to defray costs if the deniers are actually wrong.

Unfortunately, the common theme for combusters & deniers is simple selfishness.

Our descendents are looking back at us from the future. What are they thinking & saying about us?

Some refs: Web Link
www.ocean-acidification.net/
Web Link
www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Portola Valley: Brookside Park
on Mar 29, 2012 at 4:33 pm

None of the area covered by this paper is more than a few miles away from Stanford, one of the best schools in the world, and with very strong programs in geosciences, climate, energy. The Woods Institute has regular events open to the public, who can attend, listen to world-class experts and learn. Web Link

Very few other places in the world have such a concentration of knowledgeable and accessible experts.

Sometimes Nobel physicists like Burt Richter give great talks like Gambling the future, Web Link
He gave a shorter version ~2005 at P.V. Ranch. That was fun: in Q&A 2 guys confidently repeated some of the same wrong ideas mentioned here. Burt kept answering them then finally got tired and said something like "You're repeating junk created by physicists I know personally and don't think much of."
The 2 guys cringed in their chairs and then slunk out, having made fools of themselves in front of their neighbors.

Burt would have been referring to Seitz, Jastrow, Nierenberg of the George Marshall Institute, of which Will Happer, mentioned earlier, is Chairman. Happer and his friends in 2009 petitioned the American Physical Society to change its position on climate change from standard to ~"we know nothing." They got less than 0.5% of the membership, heavily skewed towards older males. Most physicists know better, including almost everyone in the fine Princeton physics department. Of 60+ faculty, 3 {Austin, Happer, Torquato} signed the silly petition,

Of course, real conservatives of the old sort (not the ersatz modern flavor) actually accept science and worry about real problems.
Whether one agrees with Hoover Institution in general, one might listen to an effort with George Shultz, William Perry, Burt Richter, Larry Goulder, etc. Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jody
a resident of Atherton: other
on Mar 29, 2012 at 5:53 pm

Pogo,

Frosty's statement and your staement are not the same:

"Government can never be as efficient as private industry" vs your "Show me one instance where the USG and Private industry manufacture the same item where the USG is more efficient than private industry?"

I said Frosty's was a blanket statement, demonstrably false.

The first example that comes to mind is healthcare. The inherent overheard in the 3 forms of healthcare in our country is quite wide; private for-profit vs single payer (Medicare) vs socialized/nationalized medicine (the VA.)

Generally, the VA operates with an overhead below 1 or 2 percent, Medicare overhead is around 3 percent and for profit insurers tack on 20-30% overhead.

The VA is a far more efficient provider. The VA owns the patient files, systems, doctors, staff, equipment and buildings. It doesn't tack on a profit, nor does it have buildings full of expensive employees whose sole job is to deny claims, make life miserable for the insured, etc..

Ask any vet who uses the VA if they would prefer going into either Medicare or the private insurer market - they would object vociferously. While the VA could improve in any number of areas, it is a great example of government doing a better and more efficient job at providing a service than the private marketplace.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Mar 29, 2012 at 8:34 pm

Jody -

Despite the fact that your post is way off subject and has zero to do with my questions (consistent, at least!), I'll respond briefly.

Having worked in healthcare for the past 35 years, I do know a little about this space. The VA is different from the commercial market in several key respects. The VA is (1) the insurer, (2) the provider, (3) tax exempt, (4) non-profit and (5) pays employees - including on-staff physicians and surgeons - on government graded wage scales. Those five elements give them a huge cost advantage over almost every other provider. I suppose that if I could run a business like that, I would have a cost advantage over my competitors, too. And while the VA system has improved greatly over the years, there are still many VA hospitals that are in deplorable condition where care isn't quite as state-of-the-art as our lovely VA Palo Alto. Web Link

That said, I do think that private business GENERALLY provides more efficient services than government. I tend to be libertarian and think that government should only do things that people cannot do (or easily do) for themselves - defense, police, fire, infrastructure, dispute resolution to name the obvious. I don't they should be responsible for feeding our children, entertaining us or providing for our retirement. But that's just me.

But, as I said, this is hardly on topic.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jody
a resident of Atherton: other
on Mar 30, 2012 at 8:46 am

Pogo -

Chiding one for being off topic, when one is just responding to false statements?

Frosty wrote: "Show me one instance where the USG and Private industry manufacture the same item where the USG is more efficient than private industry?" as a response to my identifying as false his "Government can never be as efficient as private industry".

I find that Pogo's points 1-5 (along with other reasons) support the example of Frosty's falsehood - the VA, as a nationalized healthcare system offers greater cost efficiency than private, for-profit healthcare that includes for-profit insurers.

Thank you for the examples of how a government system can indeed run with "a cost advantage over" the a private sector system.

Back to climate!



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hawkeye Pierce
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Mar 31, 2012 at 6:39 am

Jody,

I beg to disagree with you regarding the quality of VA health care.

Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the hospital complex in the nation's capital long seen as the crown jewel of military health care, is where allegations of mice-infested buildings and neglected patients first surfaced.

The lugubrious wife of a wounded National Guardsman testified before Congress that her husband received "treatment ... a dog wouldn't have deserved". Another wounded soldier described how Army officials ignored his complaints about black mold in his room for months -- until photos of his mildewed walls appeared in the Washington Post.

The scandal at Walter Reed Hospital, and similar contretemps at other VA facilities across the nation, are a national embarrassment.

Rather than being honored for their sacrifice overseas, some veterans and their families now face financial and psychological suffering, as their claims sit in a pile while they try to figure out a complex system of benefits.

Lawmakers noted that injured soldiers and veterans are flooding their offices with phone calls and e-mails complaining of similar conditions at military medical facilities and veterans' hospitals nationwide.

While some VA facilities have made gains over their aptly described "hell hole" status, the scandal at Walter Reed Hospital revealed the limitations of a government-managed health care system.

As I said on my TV show "Come on stupid, don't play dumb with me!"


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jody
a resident of Atherton: other
on Mar 31, 2012 at 9:44 am

Hawkeye,

If your argument about the quality of VA healthcare rests on "Walter Reed Army Medical Center".... first, lets start with it's proper name - Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.

Please note the fourth word (the third word with your incorrect moniker.)

Military. Or your, "Army".

As in the DoD.

WR is not part of the VA system. Web Link

Let me know where your statement "Come on stupid, don't play dumb with me!" applies. Am guessing ol' Hawkeye can explain what he meant with that comment.

Besides that, I had noted that the VA needs improvement. I also noted that few vets have chosen Medicare of the private insurance marketplace over the VA. Most would fight tooth-n-nail to retain their access to the VA. Besides, the argument was about efficiency of a government system versus free market system. The VA is well documented in providing high quality healthcare with the lowest overhead of the the three main healthcare delivery systems in the US (see my 'socialized medicine vs single payer vs insurance company' comment.)

- "BusinessWeek, July 17, 2006 "The Best Medical Care in the Nation
How Veterans Affairs transformed itself -- and what it means for the rest of us""

- "Robert Bazell, Chief science and health correspondent, NBC News Updated: 6:33 p.m. MT March 15, 2006 "We report a story tonight that is going to turn a lot of heads. The Veterans Administration Health Care System, once famously known for horrendous medical care, now offers what many consider the best health care in the nation."

- The VA wields quote a bit of purchasing clout, able to drive down drug prices more than Medicare was allowed in the 2003 Part D law, and far lower than "free" market prices: "A report released Tuesday (December 2006) by the consumer group Families USA says Medicare's prices for seniors' most frequently used drugs are about 58% higher than those provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs."

That's efficient use of our government. We need Congress to rewrite the Medicare Part D law to allow Medicare to negotiate volume discounts the same way the VA does and we can save taxpayers billions of dollars. That's not an example of "inefficient big government" rather an example of the majority party in 2003 writing a law that essentially gives corporate welfare to Big Pharma (but I digress.)

Back to climate!!

Or at least, weather: boy oh boy, sure is raining out there this morning, eh?

Stay dry, Hawkeye.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Just tired
a resident of Portola Valley: Ladera
on Mar 31, 2012 at 11:00 am

Really tired of the politicizing of science. Yes, humans are responsible for climate change. To what degree is just guesswork. What really bothers me is the right wingers view that climate change science is a liberal conspiracy, no doubt fueled by big money from the oil companies. The liberals exemplified by the Sierra Club are not innocent either shown by their hysterical opposition to nuclear power, the only technology that is carbon free with the potential to replace fossil fuel power.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Mar 31, 2012 at 12:03 pm

Just tired -

I'm not sure where you draw your conclusions. Certainly not from this thread.

There is no conspiracy being alleged. The point I've been trying to make is that there is a cost-benefit relationship to any program.

We can always do more to reduce pollution and I don't question pollution plays a role in climate change. I just don't know how much of a role and apparently neither does anyone else WITH CERTAINTY.

Some would say, who cares about certainty, let's do something. But we already do more than any other society on earth - our air and water are the cleanest of any developed country on earth. The cost of increasing our 90% effort (just an illustration to make my point, there is no number) to a 95% effort will be incredibly high and have little benefit. I also think it will sink our economy, which is fragile enough right now. But the cost of increasing China and India's meager 10% effort at reducing pollution to just a 50% effort is low and it will have tremendous benefits.

So where do we put our focus? Where do we get the biggest bang for our buck? Do we gain more by imposing even more cost and regulation on our industries that are already non-competitive and already taking incredible measures? Or are we justified in asking our neighbors to stop belching pollution into the atmosphere at rates that are many multiples of ours?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hawkeye Pierce
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Mar 31, 2012 at 12:35 pm

Chronology of Veterans Administration Hospital Abuse

2008

The brachytherapy program at the VA Medical Center in Philadelphia was shut down, after it was learned that many veterans had received incorrect radiation doses over a six-year period.

2009

VA centers in three cities were accused of reusing colonoscopy and endoscopy equipment without properly sanitizing the equipment. At least 50 veterans tested positive for blood borne pathogens.

The VA sent letters to about 600 veterans with potential neurological diagnoses, but who do not have ALS—Lou Gehrig's disease—telling them they were diagnosed with this debilitating and deadly disease.


VA Infections
In November 2008, the VA Medical Center in Augusta, Georgia sent a letter to more than 1,200 patients who were treated for ear, nose and throat, warning them they may have been exposed to infections.

Following a December 2008 investigation at the VA clinic in Murfreesboro, TN, officials discovered that clinic workers were not properly maintaining the medical equipment used to conduct colonoscopies. More than 6,000 patients were notified and offered free testing.

In March 2009 VA officials announced that veterans in South Florida may have been exposed to Hepatitis and HIV after being examined with contaminated medical equipment.

According to reports, more than 3,200 veterans who received colonoscopies at the Miami VA medical clinic between May 2004 and March 12, 2009 are at risk of exposure to both Hepatitis and HIV.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jody
a resident of Atherton: other
on Mar 31, 2012 at 12:55 pm

Hawkeye,

You neglected to explain the "don't play dumb" remark about Walter Reed being part of the VA. Am curious.

For the third time, I will say that the VA needs to get better. For the third time, I declare that our Vets would fight tooth-n-nail to retain their access to the VA, over Medicare or private insurers. Are you disputing that?

Are you disputing that the VA is the most efficient provider of healthcare in the country?

You provide anecdotes against the VA such as: 4 years ago "... more than 1,200 patients who were treated for ear, nose and throat, warning them they may have been exposed to infections. " Shall we compare those anecdotes against other healthcare systems in this discussion of providing efficiency?

How about this one describing the efficiency of private for-profit insurance system? 50% of the bankruptcies filed in this country are due to medical payments. 75% of those were for people covered by medical insurance.

The VA was brought up as an example to disprove the notion that our government cannot provide efficient service versus the private sector - are your examples, the mistaken notion about Walter Reed or your examples above, listed with intention to disprove that claim?

Also find it interesting that your examples listed appear to be cut and pasted from an ambulance chaser website: Web Link

Did not peg Hawkeye to be a big fan of the lawyers.

Back to weather - it cleared up! for a few minutes at least!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hawkeye Pierce
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Apr 1, 2012 at 7:46 am

For the recent VA Hospital scandal in Dayton Ohio please click below

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mac Farm
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Apr 1, 2012 at 11:28 am

Wow - Hawkeye can't answer the questions but sure can search for anecdotal bad news!!

Let me concur with Jody - I've rarely met a Veteran who would like to leave the VA for 'greener pastures'!!

Hawkeye - good link, better than the trial lawyer website. I like the photo of Sherrod Brown fighting for the Dayton Vets. Also a good link on tea bagger chickenhawk Deadbeat Joe Walsh belittling American Hero Tammy Duckworth at the same website Web Link

yo Hawkeye, answer the lady's question - "Are you disputing that the VA is the most efficient provider of healthcare in the country?"

Medicare has overhead of 5%, insurance companies tack on 30-40% and make a greater profit denying claims. As a Vet (one assumes with your non de plume you are a Vet, not a chickenhawk like Deadbeat Joe Walsh) tell us of your experience with the VA.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by AGW Sceptic
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Apr 1, 2012 at 5:21 pm

The Sun has a far greater impact than man. After the sun comes Earth's volcanoes. Greenland was once green. There have been periods of warmth in our planet's history that have been far warmer than what we have now.

Mars and Jupiter's relative warming and cooling is highly correlated with Earth's. The only common variable is the sun, unless you count all those pesky Martians creating Global warming. AGW has a minor effect. But the AGW disciples of Al Gore (who happens to be one of the largest creators of a carbon footprint) got caught with their pants down when the University of East Anlia was caught trying to manipulate the numbers. In other words LYING!

The Earth has not seen any Global Warming since 1998. Now the latest craze is to try to limit Carbon Dioxide, the most necessary ingredient for photosynthesis. You AGW crackpots need to provide proof.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Apr 2, 2012 at 9:45 am

AGW Sceptic -
So much misleading information and outright lies in just 3 paragraphs. You've really outdone yourself here. To respond to just a couple:
I think you're referring to the University of East Anglia (not Anlia) when you bring up an old charge by the denialist community that's been thoroughly debunked. Eight separate committees investigated the supposed fraud and all eight reported no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. Full summary of bogus charge is at Web Link
You claim "The Earth has not seen any Global Warming since 1998" but provide no links to any evidence that would support that claim. Probably because there is no such evidence. 1998 was indeed a record hot year at the time but it was matched in 2002 and exceeded in 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2009. The evidence is from NASA using publicly available data. Web Link
You say us AGW crackpots need to provide proof. Well, the link provides proof to refute your statement. If you want more I refer you to the free public lecture mentioned in the Almanac that generated this thread. Have you even bothered to look at the lecture?! My guess is that you didn't, else you wouldn't be spouting this nonsense.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:53 pm

To see the 35 errors in Al Gore's Movie :An Inconvenient Truth" click here

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Santa San
a resident of Atherton: West of Alameda
on Apr 2, 2012 at 1:11 pm

"To see the 35 errors in Al Gore's Movie :An Inconvenient Truth" click here"

Sigh. Frosty, do you have a list of errors for Gone with the Wind, or Wizard of Oz, too? How about Atlas Shrugged?

btw, here's a list for you - thousands of scientists that recognize reality: Web Link

First post since your statement was disemboweled by Jody? "Government can't compete with private industry because private industry is accountable to a bottom line and the USG isn't."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Apr 2, 2012 at 1:20 pm

You have got to be kidding. Jody is full of beans. There is no business that can get by with a 5% overhead. This is sheer liberal fantasy. She put out a bunch of claims and did not substantiate one of them. Occasionally she would reference a leftist fantasy web site that has about as much credibility as Barack Obama. I can't wait until the voters give him the old heave ho.

I have got to go. talk to you tomorrow.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Santa San
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:02 pm

Frosty - well played!

Fantastic - just declare Jody is full of beans. Then call it fantasy and offer no evidence to support any thing you've said.

Well played, grasshopper, you certainly have The Force with you Obi-wan. You are a master!

/snark




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Apr 2, 2012 at 10:00 pm

Frosty -
Would you consider the opinion of Business Week just another leftist fantasy reference? Check out their July 17, 2006 article "The Best Medical Care in the Nation - How Veterans Affairs transformed itself -- and what it means for the rest of us"
They make the point that overhead is indeed much lower in the Government single payer VA system:
"Cost of overhead and administration is another issue that makes VA a better system. Our country's private insurance model results in insurers eating up a great deal of their premium income in unproductive overhead costs. It is estimated that private insurers spend anywhere from 20% to 30% of their premium income on advertising, agent commissions, insurance administrative oversight costs, expensive claims and records tracking systems, taxes, profit, and dividends for shareholders. VA has none of these additional cost burdens except for administrative costs associated with maintaining the system."
I hear crow goes down better with a little mustard.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Apr 3, 2012 at 7:30 am

The VA 's quality of medical care is below what privately runs hospitals give. Recently in Miami there was a colonoscopy scandal. Given how much we have been taking it from the Obama Administration and where we have been taking it emphasizes the need for clean colonoscopies.

For the latest in a series of medical disasters at the VA read this

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Santa San
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Apr 3, 2012 at 9:13 am

Jody predicted Frosty's only defense of his baseless claim - he would keep heaping anecdotal stories as proof. She could see it coming a mile away.

Frosty: we could swap horror stories of medical mishap all day.

Jody made several claims you haven't disputed:

1. Vets, as much as they would like to see improvement, love the VA, and as she said, would fight for it. They have, in fact:

2. The VA is more cost effective and efficient than Medicare and the for/profit insurance systems, rebutting your claim that free market solutions are always more efficient that government systems.

Someone else mentioned that the VA has negotiated drug costs, Medicare does not because a GOP congress forbid Medicare from getting volume discounts in the Medicare part D bill ten years ago as a payoff for GOP political contributions.

I do love one thing though - your anecdote that you called "the latest in a series"? It's five months old. How many medical mishaps do you think Jody could find in the last five months worth of news form for-profit, community or training hospitals?

Seriously, really.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Apr 3, 2012 at 10:26 am

This is a quote from a veteran:

"I've been in a VA hospital. I've also been graced with 32 years of single payer medicine. Would you prefer I discuss the sergeant whose surgeon replaced the wrong knee? Or the disability rating that took three days to confirm and twelve months to receive because the paperwork was lost four times? Or the cancer that wasn't caught until it became inoperable? Or the sergeant who was cleared for deployment despite being treated for headaches, who subsequently died on deployment of an undetected aneurism?

Whatever system is proposed, it cannot be a step backward. The VA will have to progress much farther than it has before it even reaches minimum acceptability."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Santa San
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Apr 3, 2012 at 10:46 am

Holy Toledo, Frosty!!

Lowering yourself now to 6 year old anonymous blog posts on dormant libertarian blog sites?

"Posted by: drlivipr on November 13, 2006 6:18 PM" Web Link

Your anonymous blogger you use as an expert responds to a post that starts:

"Since the Veterans Administration, since its reform under Bill Clinton, now has the best medical-records system going and produces high-quality health care at a reasonable cost... "

Given all the pablum and random anecdotes you use over studies and fact, one has to wonder - do you hate our Veterans? Hate the medical profession? Or just hate America in general?

Frosty, go back to rightie Gore bashing. He's a very successful man in the private sector, with a successful background in the public sector, a millionaire many times over since the Google boys recognized his ability and brought him on board. He can take your lies, innuendo and the rest.

Quit picking on our Vets and their support system/safety net.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Apr 3, 2012 at 1:15 pm

You libs are Truth denyers. I am a Viet Nam Era Vet and there are a lot of vets working at my company, including Navy and Air Force retirees and not a single one of them has opted for VA coverage. They are all on one of the company's Health Care Plan. Why is that? Because medical care under private health insurance is:
1. Better
2. Quicker
3. No run arounds

Even Kaiser is better than VA coverage.

When it comes to hating Veterans, nobody exemplifies it more than Bill Clinton who did away with voting places on military bases. You know the one who is quoted as saying "I loathe the military" and weaseled his way out of his military commitment. We have a word for those who avoid military service and that word is coward. You libs don't know what you are talking about. We also have a phrase for presidents who pardon draft dodgers and that phrase is "He hates the military." And that award goes to the Peanut Farmer.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Apr 3, 2012 at 1:49 pm

Frosty -
Perhaps your opinion of the VA was formed before the system was reformed under Clinton. When was the last time you visited the VA for any treatment? All recent reports indicate it's achieved amazing improvements, including surveys of vets themselves who have received VA care.

Here's a couple items from a CBS news story on recent studies Web Link:
"In studies, including one by Harvard, and in six straight years of patient satisfaction surveys, the VA earned the highest health care quality rating in the country. It's also the least expensive."

"The VA is also a bargain for taxpayers, and not just because of the computers. Doctors are salaried employees, which saves on labor. Drugs are cheaper because of negotiated discounts. Even with its older population, VA care overall costs 30 percent less than the national average."
Seems to me that you really owe it to yourself to try it again


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Santa San
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Apr 3, 2012 at 1:54 pm

Frosty - happy to see you no longer using 6 year old anonymous blogger psots as your 'experts'.

Now you just make things up that cannot be verified.

Glad the Vets you describe are (if they are real) getting their healthcare subsidized by their employer. That still doesn't deny the fact that the VA is a more efficient provider of healthcare services than Medicare and for/profit insurance companies who, as Jody & Pogo previously stated, have to build in inefficiencies such as profit, along with buildings full of (private sector) bureaucrats to deny claims, slow down payments, etc..

Also - good deflection going to the standard rightwing echo chamber tactic of bashing Clinton. Bravo!

Have you ever even seen the letter that you lift the out-of-context quote from?

Taking three words from a 1300 word letter written written 40+ years ago, completely out-of-context - a new low for Frosty.

Heck, the sentence alone was 55 words - have you read that far? Care to share any 55 word sentences that you wrote in 1969?

"I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give."

40 years ago, and you bring THAT up?!?!?!?

And this: "We also have a phrase for presidents who pardon draft dodgers" What about the supreme draft dodgers? Bush? 5 deferment Cheney, who when he couldn't get another one finally got his wife pregnant?

What are your thoughts on the service of Romney and his kids? I can't recall where they all served.

Go back to bashing Gore - at least some of the things you quote from Fox have a small basis in reality. Not a lot, but far better than the slime you are reverting to now.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Santa San
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Apr 3, 2012 at 1:57 pm

Steve - there ya go again, posting facts.

Colbert said it a long time ago, you know damn well that facts have a well known liberal bias.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Apr 3, 2012 at 2:16 pm

Libs,

Do you know why Clinton banned voting on Military bases. Its because most military people are patriotic and would not vote for the Coward in Chief.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Santa San
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Apr 3, 2012 at 2:42 pm

Well, there ya go again. (love Ronnie's line!)

Get your point slammed and just reached deeper to dig out another Clinton era claim. Honestly, I don't know about that one - always thought overseas deployment used absentee ballots and service members voted where they were registered, but frankly, am not aware of current election restrictions, if any, on our military. Have any links? A quick search on "Clinton banned voting on Military bases" doesn't refer to much else except DADT and abortion.

Want to go down the path of military voting, then start a new thread - otherwise let's get back to Climate Change, now that Jody, Pogo, Steve and others have debunked your claim about government *always* being inefficient.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Apr 3, 2012 at 4:31 pm

Yes, back to climate change.
Now that we're more or less all agreed that climate change is happening and that it's largely due to increased CO2 emissions caused by combustion of fossil fuels, let's start a discussion of possible solutions to reduce CO2.
First suggestion: a Gover Norquist-type pledge for voters. "I pledge to never vote for or financially support any politician who denies AGW is real or who will not commit to working to reduce the emissions of GHG into the atmosphere".
Second suggestion: Pass a California (or better yet, national) law that, over the next 5 years, will impose a carbon tax on all carbon based fuels. The tax will be proportional to the amount of carbon generated by both the production and combustion of the fuel, such that coal would be more heavily taxed than gasoline, which would have a greater tax than natural gas. Possible target price of gasoline at the end of five years would be $7.00/gallon, the current price of gas in Japan. Too aggressive?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Santa San
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Apr 3, 2012 at 4:51 pm

"Too aggressive? "

April first was a couple days ago.


Not a bad post but I just don't see how you can make progress given the state of today's GOP: anti-science, doesn't believe in facts like, oh, say, evolution, nor have the cajones to consider moving in the right direction. Evidence?

How many GOP candidates would answer yes about a question on deficit reduction, with the spending cuts/tax increase ratio at 10/1?

None raised their hand for a ten to one deal.

ten to one = no go; in a time when taxes on the wealthiest Americans are lower than they've been in fifty years, and our deficit is higher than ever.

ten to one.

How does a sane person work with that kind of insanity?

Gotta run. Good luck with Frosty.

And the earth.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Apr 3, 2012 at 5:54 pm

Santa San -
You ask "How does a sane person work with that kind of insanity?"
By getting enough people, Republicans included, to sign the pledge that they won't vote for politicians who deny the obvious about AGW.
-Three out of four Americans believe our planet has been warming as the result of human activity
-84 percent favored the federal government offering tax breaks to encourage utilities to use more alternative energy sources, such as making electricity from water, wind and solar power
-4 out of 5 respondents favored the government requiring or offering tax breaks to encourage the production of cars that use less gas (81 percent), appliances that use less electricity (80 percent) and homes and office buildings that require less energy to heat and cool (80 percent)
-only 14 percent said that the United States should not take action to combat global warming unless other major industrial countries, such as China and India, do so as well
Clearly Americans as a whole support efforts to combat AGW. The politicians need to be made aware of this support in a way that gets their attention. A pledge like this might begin to underscore the importance of this issue over most (all?) other issues confronting us (except maybe jobs - this for POGO):>)




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Apr 4, 2012 at 9:48 am

Great article in the WSJ about AGW. The liberals desparately want you to believe theat AGW is significant whereas the smart money is on the sun. These eco-control freaks want to:

1. Control your lives, and

2. Want to crush capitalism

For the WSJ article click here

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Apr 4, 2012 at 9:52 am

The pledge that most Republicans would sign with great gusto is the one to vote that Socialist out of office and repair the near irreparable damage he has done to this country. The ghost of Saul Alinsky lives on through Obama. It is time for Habitat for Humanity to sign up another loser president. Perhaps helping build homes is within his skill set. Governing this country certainly isn't.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mac Farm
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Apr 4, 2012 at 10:54 am

"that Socialist out of office and repair the near irreparable damage he has done to this country. "

Incredible. Hey Frosty didja hear? Mitt's new talking point is that Obama is, imagine the horrors - a secular atheist! Guess Mitt never got the Fox talking points of Kenyan Socialist Fascist Muslim Radical Christian, blah blah blah....

Frosty has no memory of what it was like in January 2009 when the President Obama took office. Consecutive months of 700,000 job losses per month under Bush. 3 or 4 million jobs lost in a year. Negative GDP. Obama needed a year to turn that around and now we've had 2 years of consecutive monthly private sector job growth.

The horrors!

Regarding your 3 month old WSJ opinion piece and the 16 skeptics who signed it - it's well refuted with actual data.

The 16 skeptics are the usual group: Happer, already discussed above as being funded by Heartland to deny on behalf of Exxon and the Kocks; de Claude Allègre, laughed at in his country Web Link ; six of them have never even published climate research: Armstrong Cohen David Happer Schmitt and Nichols - yet all six take Heartland or Exxon money. Two others on that list have also taken Exxon money. Someday we'll find out how much the others are funded by big oil.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:05 pm

Mac Farm -
Thanks for responding to Frosty's rants. You can tell he's not operating in the real world when the only reference he can provide to support his position comes from 3-month old propaganda piece from the WSJ. Sad that that once proud leader of conservative thought has been reduced to just a mouthpiece for the ethically challenged conservative Rupert Murdoch.
Fortunately, most Americans are smarter than that, can evaluate the science rationally, and recognize that AGW poses a very serious threat to all life on earth.
It will be interesting to see if the issue is brought up in the coming presidential election. It would be both tragic and sad if the most important issue facing the world today wasn't actively debated in the country so that American's can have a say in how the US responds to AGW in the coming years. Tragic in that we are likely to reach a tipping point in the next 5 years and a delay in acting may mean we'll be too late to stop the effects. Sad because I would expect the US to be better at confronting and dealing with these real problems. Instead Europe, Japan, Australia, etc. have taken the lead in dealing with the issue and are wondering what's wrong with this country that we can't seem to get our act together.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:41 pm

Hey Libs,

Did you notice how cool it was outside today. You should read this book:

Watermelons: How the Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future.

Here is a book review synopsis by someone who did not have a liberal crapfastic epiphany:

The shocking story of how an unholy mix of junk science, green hype, corporate greed and political opportunism led to the biggest and most expensive outbreak of mass hysteria in history. Watermelons explains the Climategate scandal, the cast of characters involved, their motives and methods. He delves into the background of the organisations and individuals who have sought to push global warming to the top of the political agenda, showing that beneath their cloak of green lurks a heart of red. Watermelons shows how the scientific method has been sacrificed on the altar of climate alarmism. Delingpole mocks the green movement s record of apocalyptic predictions, reveals the fundamental misanthropy of green ideology, and gives a refreshing voice to widespread public skepticism over global warming, emphasising that the crisis has been engineered by people seeking to control our lives by imposing new taxes and regulations. Your taxes will be raised, your liberties curtailed and your money squandered to deal with this crisis, he writes. Delingpole argues that climate change is an ideological battle, not a scientific one. Green on the outside, red on the inside, the libertyloathing, humanity-hating watermelons of the modern environmental movement do not want to save the world. They want to rule it.

Libs, do not fret. There is only 27 days until May Day. You can all celibrate it. I understand theat the SEIU is trying to move the labor day holiday from the first Monday in September to May 1. Workers of the world unite!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mac Farm
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Apr 4, 2012 at 1:36 pm

Debunking Frosty's random claims seems to be a full time job - he gets each claim destroyed by fats, ignores that 'repudiation' and launches (lurches?) off in another direction.

Steve: Climate Change can't be an issue in the Presidential because Mitt(etch a sketch) Romney is on too much film speaking out of both sides of his mouth, often in the same conversation.

Must drive Frosty crazy when he thinks of voting for Multiple Choice Mitt!! Which version is he voting for, one wonders.....

Yo, Frosty, where did you get the SEIU fantasy from, Glen Beck? Or Mark Levine?

Or just make it up?




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mac Farm
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Apr 4, 2012 at 1:37 pm

fats = faCts


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Apr 4, 2012 at 2:18 pm

Mac -

I'm disappointed. I went to the Obama-Biden camaign website Web Link
and can't even find the words "climate change" or "global warming" anywhere. He seems to be trying to finesse the issue by subsuming it under "Energy & Environment".
He's got it exactly backwards to my way of thinking: energy & environmental policies should be defined within the context of the more important concern of Climate Change. He seems to be afraid to mention the problem, which tells me he sees it, politically, as a loser. I have to disagree. Even if it were to cause some initial loss of support, a leader truly concerned about more than his own re-election would take this flag and begin to rally the people around this issue.
Maybe he's thinking that if doing so were to cause his defeat, then we (the country & the world) would really be up the creek for the next 4 or 8 years as Romney could be pretty much guaranteed to do nothing positive.
Even so, he still should lead the charge - I think the American people would be behind him; certainly young people would be, along with us watermelons.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Apr 4, 2012 at 2:35 pm

Baby its cold outside

Climate change forecasts have for years predicted that carbon dioxide would trap heat on Earth, and increases in the gas would lead to a planetwide rise in temperatures, with devastating consequences for the environment.

But long-term data from NASA satellites seems to contradict the predictions dramatically, according to a new study.

"There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans," said Dr. Roy Spencer, a research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. science team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer -- basically a big thermometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," he said. The planet isn't heating up, in other words.

James Taylor, a senior fellow for environment policy at conservative think-tank The Heartland Institute, wrote at Forbes that the meaning of the new research is clear -- and it compromises what he called a "central premise of alarmist global warming theory."

"Real-world measurements … show far less heat is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict," Taylor wrote.

Baby its cold outside.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mac Farm
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Apr 4, 2012 at 2:58 pm

Frosty, now you're just copying and pasting articles from Fox news?????

Terms for the forum require attribution and request you just provide a link Web Link

Giving up?

Ignoring the Mitt Romney jab? Going to be pretty easy to identify the voting booths the fringe right visits in November - they'll be the ones with the mess on the floor from when you up-chuck your lunch as you pull the lever for Multiple Choice Mitt.

Would you like links to Romney's varying position on global warming?

I love the ones where he says definitively that global warming is man-made......


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Apr 4, 2012 at 3:02 pm

For a moment I thought Frosty might actually have a link that would support the claims he's making. No such luck. His link takes you to YouTube video of Bing singing "Baby it's cold outside".
Wishful thinking on the part of Frosty, given the real data still show mean global temperature hovering around 0.8 degrees C above what it was less than 100 years ago. No sign of any cooling here. Web Link
Frosty - aren't you bothered that your claims don't seem to have any facts behind them?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Apr 4, 2012 at 5:46 pm

Frosty -
You wrote: ""Real-world measurements … show far less heat is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict," Taylor wrote."

Then why is the average global temperature continuing to rise?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Apr 5, 2012 at 11:12 am

Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973, resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears.

In addition to Dr. Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming.

Dr. Giaever was featured prominently in the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of (then) Over 700 Dissenting International Scientists from Man-made global warming. Now more than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal -- which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists -- detonated upon on the international climate movement. "I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple," said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other.

The Earth's temperature has changed from ~288.0 K to ~288.8 K in about 150 years, which means that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this so called 'warming' period'.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mac Farm
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Apr 5, 2012 at 11:37 am

Oh, Frosty.... this is tiring. This fella was addressed years ago. Have anything new?

One old Norwegian resigns when the majority of his club agree with the consensus of the scientific community about man's effect on climate change.

"Ivar Giaever, 82 year old Norwegian who worked for General Electric, won a Nobel in PHYSICS 40 years ago. Resigned from a physics society because the scientists there agreed with the international consensus."

One old retired has-been physics guy disagreed about climatology studies. What about the rest of the society that does support the international consensus? This guy is more important than the much larger, current, active membership that have looked at the issue?

He worked for GE so he has a good retirement plan - does that mean he is making a few bucks on the side from Exxon? Or is it the Kocks and Heartland that send him a couple bucks a month?

Frosty: please list the peer-reviewed climate papers by Ivar Giaever. Or the last guy you tried - Claude Allegre.

We'll wait....

Sorry, now I'm being mean, sending you on a wild goose chase - here's the answer for the both of them, combined for a total of....

Zero peer-reviewed climate papers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Apr 6, 2012 at 8:07 am

Dear Mac Farm,

It seems as if some of your colleagues disagree with you with regard to AGW.

"We‟re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years." -- UN IPCC's Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors.

Sorry there has been no global warming since 1998 and man's contribtion to what we previously had is a gnat on a Donkey's ass.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pointless
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 6, 2012 at 8:44 am

Trying to change a hard-core climate change denier's mind is like arguing with someone who believes the moon landings were faked, or Obama was born in Kenya. No amount of information presented will ever result in movement. If anything, it makes them feel special and deepens their belief.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mac Farm
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Apr 6, 2012 at 9:29 am

Pointless -

You're correct, no matter how many times the erroneous claims of deniers like Frosty are pointed out, they just paste another one they find from another website. No check or simple research, just a quick paste and they guffaw and hit 'submit'.

And neverr bothers refuting the proof showing he was wrong, just pastes another baseless rant.

That's playing exactly into the strategy that Exxon and big oil use in funding denier thinktanks like Heartland and the rest, knowing that the Frosty's of the world are so committed, with their blinders on... then the marketing pukes at Exxon and Heartland have a REAL laugh at the expense of the Frosty's of the world, doing their work for them.

Yes Frosty, the guys that paid for the noise you post are laughing at you, too. Unless you're getting a paycheck from big oil or big coal, they're laughing at you. All the way to the bank.

That's what compels me to answer his baseless, unsubstantiated claims with a link or two exposing the absurdity of his position.

It's not for him, he's got his blinders on and will until he's underwater, wondering what happened.

It's for someone who may be inclined to believe his drivel and may not spend the time to google about facts.

whooaaaa.... ya mean Obama WASN'T born in Kenya?!?!?!!? Shall I google that?

;-)




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Apr 6, 2012 at 11:40 am

The AGW cult is getting its nose bent out of shape. Yes there is global warming and cooling. There was also a time when Greenland was green, much to liberals consternation.

Now what these arrgoant AGW acolytes would like yopu to believe is that Man has a greater effect on the climate than the sun; which of course is pure hogwash.

NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist and is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace had this to say:

"Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory (AGW) is wrong!!" --

So libs you can cry me a river while listening to this:

Web Link

You have got to love Norah Jones & Willie Nelson.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mac Farm
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Apr 6, 2012 at 1:13 pm

Geez, Frosty, ya didn't even copy the quote correctly.

Who's next, Mike Hulme?

You're really grasping at straws. Also from your probable source of denier drivel...

"Contrarian scientists, fossil-fuel corporations, conservative think tanks and various front groups have assaulted mainstream climate science and scientists for over two decades. The blows have been struck by a well-funded, highly complex and relatively coordinated denial machine."

From yesterday's CS Monitor: Web Link

"Ice age study delivers blow to global-warming skeptics

A new study finds that rising levels of carbon dioxide drove rising temperatures at the end of the last ice age. The findings contrast with previous studies, which skeptics of human-triggered global warming said showed that CO2 levels weren't an important factor. "



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Apr 6, 2012 at 1:22 pm

You libs were the same people who warned about global cooling in the seventies.

This time I have a quote from Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

"Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself".

So,

I am going to put another log in the fireplace and create some AGW in my home. Have a happy Good Friday and Passover. Will pick this up on Monday.

Baby its cold outside. Just ask Anne Murray and Michael Bublé

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mac Farm
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Apr 6, 2012 at 1:32 pm

And a wonderful Passover and Good Friday to you, as well... not addressing the study released yesterday? Web Link

You post yet another denier, this one doubts the existence of black holes.

Odd that you copy a denier quote "Climate is beyond our power to control" and then you say you are going to effect AGW by "going to put another log in the fireplace and create some AGW"

<smiley face>

Spend more time on music selection - it's clearly your best contribution to this thread.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Apr 6, 2012 at 2:36 pm

Frosty -
This nobel laureate you link to won his prize for physics. He has no special expertise in climate studies so his opinion, perhaps, should not be held in the same regard as those who make their career of it. And it's not even that Lauglin doesn't believe in AGW. It sounds like he's actually a firm believer in it. He's just doesn't think people can actually do anything to control it. With denialists like you in Congress, he may well be right.
To quote from Wikipedia about the good doctor:
"Laughlin's view of climate change is that it may be important, but the future is impossible to change. He writes "The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we're gazing into the energy future, not because it's unimportant, but because it's beyond our power to control."" Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Apr 9, 2012 at 6:37 am

"In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn't happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data" -- Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems and has published peer-reviewed papers.

Baby its cold outside

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Apr 9, 2012 at 10:52 am

Frosty -
You're getting your climate information from a Mechanical Engineer now? And not even a full professor of Mechanical Engineering, only an associate.
Give us a break!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mac Farm
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Apr 9, 2012 at 11:08 am

"has published peer-reviewed papers"

Great!

Mechanical Engineering???

Care to list any of his published peer-reviewed papers on CLIMATE?

Steve's already addressed the alleged fraud, it's been reduced now to just another rightie fantasy without facts.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Apr 9, 2012 at 12:21 pm

Heads up!
Talk this afternoon at USGS at 3:15 (Monday, 4/9)

Diane McKnight, University of Colorado at Boulder

Title: Climate Change and Surface Water Quality: The Challenges of Too Much Summer
Time: Monday, April 9 at 3:15 PM (PDT)
Live video stream at: Web Link

archive of the talk should be available later this week if you can't catch the live stream.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Apr 11, 2012 at 2:31 pm

"The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet‟s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions." -- Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences who has published numerous peer-reviewed studies about the interaction of solar radiation with the Earth's magnetic field.

Baby its cold outside

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mac Farm
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Apr 11, 2012 at 3:21 pm

Repeat: "has published peer-reviewed papers"

Great!

Mechanical Engineering??? Terrestrial Magnetism??? Care to list any of his published peer-reviewed papers on CLIMATE?

-----

Stay tuned, and see what random quotes Frosty will unearth, possibly from a Brazilian geologist, the aviation/space pioneer, the atmospheric physicist, the 'Earth' scientists, or lord knows what pile he digs under.....


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Apr 16, 2012 at 1:01 pm

Frosty -
The first comment from your quote shows this "expert" doesn't understand global warming: "The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate".
No one's arguing that it's mankind's input of energy that causes global warming - everyone knows that the energy that drives the climate system comes from the Sun. It's the production of excess greenhouse gasses that increasingly traps this energy within the atmosphere that is causing the temperature rise that we call global warming.
Like most of the experts you quote, this guy isn't addressing the problem.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Apr 17, 2012 at 5:13 pm

As if rising temperatures aren't bad enough, it looks like the CO2 is also making the oceans more acidic, even more quickly than scientists predicted. The evidence comes from the oyster farms along the Washington coast where the oysters have failed to reproduce for 4 years straight. Web Link
While the evidence so far is not conclusive, it's beginning to look like the upwelling waters from off the coast are becoming corrosive enough to kill baby oysters.
"Just last month, Smithsonian scientists published a paper suggesting that in the next century more acidified oceans will threaten the world's shellfish. Oyster larvae, they pointed out, are particularly susceptible. Their early shells are made from an easily eroded form of calcium carbonate . . . it all suggests significant ocean changes are coming fast, if they're not here already."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Apr 24, 2012 at 7:20 am

All you "Chicken Littles" take notice. Yesterday, April 24 Somerset County, PA had a record 14 inches of snow. The record for this date. Yet the Global Warming hysteria continues unabated. This is much like the hysteria that took place in 1692 that led to the Salem Witch trials. Liberals, get a grip! The sky is not falling and the Sun is responsible for all but an insignificant amount of global warming

Check out this web link

Web Link

Baby its cold outside

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mac Farm
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Apr 24, 2012 at 10:16 am

Yawn.

Out of pseudo experts, Frosty?

Steve already addressed your "sun is causing warming" notion with his 4/16 post.

All winter long, with the lack of snowfall around the country, nary a peep from the ostrich-head-in-sand guys, but a late season storm hits and bingo! out of the sand!!!!

Pretty funny, and very predictable.

Snore.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Apr 24, 2012 at 11:14 am

"Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming ("AGW") theory that is not supported by physical world evidences...AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks." -- Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino.

For more please click on this link

Web Link

Baby its cold outside

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mac Farm
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Apr 24, 2012 at 2:12 pm

Poor Frosty, really scraping the bottom of the barrel with another geologist. Out of mechanical engineers?

You are running out of your couple hundred deniers/conspiracy theorists, as opposed to the rest of the science community with the thousands who understand facts and are not funded by Heartland, Koch, Exxon, etc...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Apr 25, 2012 at 2:12 pm

The earth's climate has constantly gone through periods of warming
and cooling. Scientists have extracted ice core samples from Antarctica dating back 650,000 years. Using these samples, they have been able to estimate temperatures in the past. The recent warming trend is not outside the range of natural variability. The latest scientific data, in fact, suggests that we may be entering a period of global cooling.

CO2 is likely not the major cause of global warming. The same Antarctic ice core shows a relationship between CO2 levels and temperature that's the opposite of what environmentalists would expect: temperature changes precede increases in CO2 by 100 to 1000 years. Even if carbon dioxide was the cause, there isn't much we could do about it. Man made CO2 accounts for a very small percentage of atmospheric CO2. There is a much stronger correlation between solar output and global temperatures. Solar output is influenced by radiant heat energy and solar winds, both of which appear to have natural cycles.

There is not a scientific consensus that man is the primary cause of
global warming. A group of scientists and researchers recently gathered in New York to sign a declaration stating that there is no convincing evidence to suggest that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity cause climate change and called upon world leaders to abandon all efforts to reduce emissions. Over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gases activity is causing global warming. And John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, calls global warming the "greatest scam in history".

Proposed global warming "solutions" will not make a difference and will have tremendous costs, especially on the poor. There is no scientific proof that proposed global warming "solutions" will have any impact upon the climate. These proposed "solutions" rely upon extremely intrusive government controls designed to reduce our energy consumption, thereby significantly increasing the cost of energy and the price of nearly all goods and services produced within our economy, as businesses pass these costs onto consumers. The poor would be the hardest hit by increases in gas, utilities, food and other essentials.

History shows that periods of warming have been healthier for mankind.
Global warming alarmists warn of cataclysmic changes including dramatic sea level increases, fierce storms and devastating drought. But history shows a different story. During the Medieval warm period which was warmer than today, there were record harvests, few major storms, and a thriving of the human population. Many of the pre-dictions of the alarmists have been shown to be false.

Baby its cold outside.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mac Farm
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Apr 25, 2012 at 2:21 pm

Frosty, just copying and pasting without attribution is against the rules.

Let's not get into the lack of ethics.

Don't worry though, we are not expecting original thought at this point.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Apr 27, 2012 at 4:16 pm

Frosty -
You wrote: "There is not a scientific consensus that man is the primary cause of global warming."
That statement is demonstrably false. To quote from Wikipedia on this subject:
"Scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. . .
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frosty the Snowman
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on May 2, 2012 at 8:58 am

George Carlin says it best regarding the Global Warming freaks and their weird religion that states that man's influnece over the planet's weather is greater than the sun's. Remember it was these idiots that warned about global cooling in the seventies.

Web Link


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Early Decision Blues
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 2,250 views

One night only: ‘Occupy the Farm’ screening in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 1 comment | 2,135 views

What Are Menlo Park’s Priorities?
By Erin Glanville | 37 comments | 1,501 views

Water Torture
By Paul Bendix | 1 comment | 494 views

Are you considering a remodel?
By Stuart Soffer | 0 comments | 136 views