DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

Greenland sharks are frickin weird animals ... they literally melt when they get up out of 32 degree water, and that little symbiote that lives in their eye. What a cool niche

jc

Quote:

---

Global warming changing birds' habits - Updated: 6:29 AM
WASHINGTON - When it comes to global warming, the canary in the coal mine isn't a canary at all. It's a purple finch.

As the temperature across the U.S. has gotten warmer, the purple finch has been spending its winters more than 400 miles farther north than it used to.

And it's not alone.

An Audubon Society study to be released Tuesday found that more than half of 305 birds species in North America, a hodgepodge that includes robins, gulls, chickadees and owls, are spending the winter about 35 miles farther north than they did 40 years ago.

The purple finch was the biggest northward mover. Its wintering grounds are now more along the latitude of Milwaukee, Wis., instead of Springfield, Mo.

Bird ranges can expand and shift for many reasons, among them urban sprawl, deforestation and the supplemental diet provided by backyard feeders. But researchers say the only explanation for why so many birds over such a broad area are wintering in more northern locales is global warming.
http://www.nbc-2.com/newswatch.shtml#4048 />

---

Yeah, urban development wouldn't be it, it has to be global warming. Because there's a huge temp difference over 35 miles.

That .2 difference in the average temp. over the last 50 years has had a huge impact. The birds must be able to read the digital now. They know when it's 33.2 degrees instead of 33.0 degrees.

Not that I disagree with you, but don't think that there aren't animals out there that can't sense a change as minute as that. They see, hear and sense things we couldn't even imagine. Especially birds ...

I believe it's possible, but I would think that 35 miles is not much of a difference to suspect anything, maybe if temperatures were constant, but they change almost by the minute.

Now, investigate why the finch is 400 miles farther north, that might be something of substance, heck it may be evolution.

I had to scrape some more global warming off my windshield for the 3rd time this year ... in San Diego.

I hear Arizona is doing the same thing.

At least I don't have to wash bird poop off my car now ... they're up in orange county.

Might lead to evolution, sure

EXCLUSIVE: Climate bill could trigger lawsuit landslide
Allows action from those 'expected to suffer'
By Tom LoBianco (Contact) | Friday, April 10, 2009


Self-proclaimed victims of global warming or those who "expect to suffer" from it - from beachfront property owners to asthmatics - for the first time would be able to sue the federal government or private businesses over greenhouse gas emissions under a little-noticed provision slipped into the House climate bill.

Environmentalists say the measure was narrowly crafted to give citizens the unusual standing to sue the U.S. government as a way to force action on curbing emissions. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sees a new cottage industry for lawyers.

"You could be spawning lawsuits at almost any place [climate-change modeling] computers place at harm's risk," said Bill Kovacs, energy lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The bill was written by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, and Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat. Both lawmakers declined repeated requests for comment.

The Waxman-Markey blueprint, including the lawsuit provision, has just been released, and the Senate is drafting its own energy bill. But Mr. Waxman has set an accelerated schedule for passing the bill through his committee by Memorial Day and President Obama lists an energy overhaul bill as one of his top priorities.

David Doniger, senior counsel with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the measure is similar to a landmark environmental ruling from the Supreme Court allowing states to sue the federal government for damages from climate change - largely on the basis of lost shorelines from rising sea levels - but did not set grounds for people to file lawsuits.

"The [Chamber of Commerce] is trying to say the global-warming legislation is scarier than global warming itself," Mr. Doniger said. "It's part of a menu of scare tactics they are compiling."

Under the House bill, if a judge rules against the government, new rules would have to be drafted to alleviate the problems associated with climate change. If a judge rules against a company, the company would have to purchase additional "carbon emission allowances" through a cap-and-trade program that is to be created by Congress.

The measure sets grounds for anyone "who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part," to government inaction to file a "citizen suit." The term "harm" is broadly defined as "any effect of air pollution (including climate change), currently occurring or at risk of occurring."

It would allow citizens to seek up to $75,000 in damages from the government each year, but would cap the total amount paid out each year at $1.5 million, committee staff said. It is unclear whether the provision would actually cap damages at $75,000 per person, because the U.S. law referenced does not establish payouts by the government.

The $1.5 million cap reflects a compromise reached with House Republicans in a 2007 version of the measure introduced by Mr. Waxman, committee staff said. Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey wrote the measure into a broader climate plan introduced last week, although it was left out of a bill summary that committee staff provided at the time.

Republican committee staff said the measure has the potential to muddle the judicial system.

"Perhaps a more accurate title of the bill would be 'The Lawyer Full-Employment and As-Seen-on-TV Global Warming Act of 2009,' " said Larry Neal, deputy Republican staff director for the House committee.

Democratic staffers said the measure provides guidance to the courts on how to apply existing Clean Air Act provisions. Private citizens can sue the government based on harm caused by pollutants currently regulated under the Clean Air Act - including nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide - but they lack standing to sue for damages resulting from climate change.

Regulating carbon dioxide has been a hard slog for environmentalists, and some energy analysts say that the Waxman-Markey bill and parallel efforts by the Obama administration constitute a multifaceted attempt to achieve the goal by regulation if legislative attempts fail.

The "citizen suit" would allow people to force government action on climate change, seemingly a redundancy in a bill that would achieve that goal if passed. But environmentalists have been cautious in their tack, arguing that many environmental protections on the books were not vigorously enforced under the Bush administration.

Environmental lawyers played down the significance of the provision.

The measure would not guarantee payouts from the government or successful lawsuits, Mr. Doniger said, but would set the bar for people seeking to force the government to act on climate change.

He likened the measure to tort laws regarding cigarette smoke or cancer-causing chemicals, in which the harmful effects are not seen for decades.

"If this pollution isn't curbed, it isn't just today or tomorrow you have problems, it's also 20 to 30 years from now," Mr. Doniger said.

Expansion of the Clean Air Act to allow "citizen suits" on climate change has been a goal among environmental groups and moderate to liberal Democrats for many years - although the measure has never succeeded.

But amending the Clean Air Act is "potentially a big gamble" because it opens other sections of the act to modification during the bill-drafting process, said a Democratic energy lobbyist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of ties to committee members.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/10/climate-bill-could-trigger-lawsuit-landslide/?page=2

What a croc.

Weather, one of mother nature's forces we have no control over, and now it's something we can hold the government liable for.

Damn this country is turning into a bunch of pansies.

not turning - it IS a bunch of pansies.

Quote:

---

Hey, I'm still a citizen of this country.

---

Dont you live in Florida?

I want to know at what point we can sue Al Gore and the scientific community for creating mass hysteria over a natural occurance ... and causing billions to be wasted.

We are going to hell in a handbasket in this country

You can afford a hand basket ?

It's a old one I was saving

You guys ARE old,...

Sorry, when scientists are finding what they are expected to find to keep the research money flowing in, then they need to share in the blame as well.. obviously not ALL scientists do this but certainly, some do.

So making a prediction based off past evidence is bad? Doctoring materials is one thing, finding that your theory is evidence based is what science is about. Observe, theorize, test, discuss.

Now, I take special exception to the climate modelers. What they do shouldn't be reported by the media at all, it's theory until it's proven in the real world, which for the most part they haven't yet.

Quote:

---

So making a prediction based off past evidence is bad? Doctoring materials is one thing, finding that your theory is evidence based is what science is about. Observe, theorize, test, discuss.

---

Nope, presupposing is the problem. Starting with the premise that global warming is man made and then running experiments to find out how and why is the problem.

No offense to you, I'm sure you are very intelligent, but if I start with the premise that you are stupid and then set up experiments designed to measure just exactly how stupid you are.. then with my results, what have I proven? I've proven to what degree you are stupid.. what I haven't done is given you the chance to prove you AREN'T STUPID... and that is what I see in the majority of global warming research... They start with the presupposition that it's real, they start with the presupposition that it's man made, they start with the presupposition that we can somehow control it, then from there they do research... They have the cart before the horse.

Good analogy

Quote:

---

They start with the presupposition that it's real, they start with the presupposition that it's man made, they start with the presupposition that we can somehow control it, then from there they do research... They have the cart before the horse.

---

And I agree. There's not enough strong evidence to support the notion that this increase in earth's temperature is caused by CO2 to include it in these models. And thats the problem with theoretics, they suppose and guess and prod the algorithm until it works (usually to their planned goal).

Before, I was mostly pointing out that it's not "the scientific community" at fault here. It's the failings of a group of people in science. If all science worked like they do, we would have nowhere near the amount knowledge about the universe as we do now.

And if you go back to the original article, and read the first sentence, it says: "Climate change is "largely irreversible" for the next 1,000 years even if carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be abruptly halted, according to a new study led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)."

Sounds like some of the scientists are in fact crying wolf, based on the assumption that global warming is man made, doesn't it?

Anyway, since we can't do anything about it for at least 1000 years, we may as well burn all the fossil fuels now so in 1000 years they won't have the temptation to use them, right?

Quote:

---

Sounds like some of the scientists are in fact crying wolf, based on the assumption that global warming is man made, doesn't it?

---

Never said they weren't. Again, my point was that making broad sweeping generalizations are bad for everyone :P The NOAA bases much of this doomsday stuff off of models, which as I stated before, are incomplete at best and heretical to science at worst. They rely on points input by the modeler, which usually uses data that is made up by said modeler. Which goes back to what DC was saying.

Yeah, I know.

J/C
Governmental immunity stops people from suing the government and government employees and officials in many cases. This policy makes it easier for the government to make decisions because it protects the government from interference from lawsuits. For example, you may not sue the state legislature for money if they pass a law that happens to harm you. Government immunity will stop any lawsuit where a judgment in favor of the plaintiff could control the actions of the state or subject it to liability.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/governmental-immunity-lawyers.html


I don't think this legislation would change anything. Because if a lawsuit over pollution that effected one's health can not garnish monetary gain for the plaintiff, AND the outcome of the lawsuit can not control the actions of the state there is no way that a plaintiff could sue and win anything. Unless there is some gray area that is a positive for a plaintiff, the only thing that would come out of an attempt to sue the government is media recognition of a "problem" and the citizens to demand their representatives to make changes.

That is my understanding and I admit it could be wrong. But that is just my interpretation of government immunity.

Quote:

---

The Earth has been in existence for billions of years, and now they're telling us this last 150 of CO2 emissions is causing these major changes ??

---

Wow, our climate models have trouble predicting the weather three days in advance and then, with absolute certainty, global climate models have irrefutably and accurately forecast an irrevocable change in our climate over the next 1000 years? Wow, now thats some science!

Anyone ever hear about the Milankovitch cycles? Check it out, a reasonable approach to cyclical climate change....

ArchBold Dawg,

Very concisely stated!

Here's a link that some may find pretty interesting....

TheClimateScam

Here's the article:

UN asked to admit climate change errors
by maggie

A group of four scientists has sent a letter to the UN’s IPCC asking them to “admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures.”

This is reprint of the letter sent to the IPCC on Monday, April 14


14 April 2008

Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC

We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.

If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it.

We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Ice-core data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.

More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically.
The up-dated temperature measurements have been released by the NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) [1] as well as by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature v. 3, variance adjusted - Hadley CRUT3v) [2]. In parallel, readings of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been released by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii [3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe D’Aleo [4], and are shown below.

[Note: the graph doesn't provide a link by itself... SunDawg]

These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade, and may now even be falling.

A third important observation is that contrary to the CO2 driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere (where most jets fly) have fallen over the past two decades. [Footnote 2]

IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food - maize as biofuel - has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops [5].

Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention?

We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.

Yours sincerely,

Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist, mMensa, hans@tech-know.eu

Piers Corbyn, Astrophysicist UK, Dir. WeatherAction.com, piers@weatheraction.com

Dr Don Parkes, Prof. Em. Human Ecology, Australia, dnp@networksmm.com.au

Svend Hendriksen, Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (shared), Greenland, hendriksen@greennet.gl

Cc: IPCC’s yu.izrael@g23.relcom.ru christy@nsstc.uah.edu spencer@nsstc.uah.edu dy.pitman@gmail.com

Tim Yeo MP (Chairman Environmental Audit Committee) Lord Martin Rees (President Royal Society)

Gordon Brown MP David Cameron MP Nick Glegg MP

Footnote 1: Two heavily publicised quotations which emerged from your organisation, respectively in February and December last year, are:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4).{2.4} [6] and


The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, has unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90% certain that this is mostly due to human activities. The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising very quickly due to human activity. If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in serious danger of extinction. (Summary statement, Bali Conference.) [7].

Footnote 2: “Data over the past two decades indicates that temperatures have actually declined in the upper troposphere, even though there has been some minor upward trends in temperature at sea level and lower altitudes. This completely contradicts conventional global warming models. Before we radically rearrange the political economy of the world because some scientists claim anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of climate change, it might be worthwhile for anyone taking a position on the topic to consider whether or not this is indeed “well settled science.” Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT, March 2008.

References:

1. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/msu.html

2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

3. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

4. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consultant Meteorologist,

Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), Executive Director Icecap.us

5. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0801.htm

6. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

7. http://www.climate.unsw.edu.au/bali/

hahahahahaha that's awesome!

The big yellow thing in the middle of the solar system is the reason for global warming and global cooling.

The end.

Quote:

---

Specifically the policy of burning food - maize as biofuel - has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops

---

Thats what trips my trigger ... who in their right mind ever thought this was a good idea?