Tuesday, February 24, 2009

There was also an article in The New York Times, that is sad. And very "W"rong.


The precepts for the article are wrong. And this picture is a bell jar void of air to demonstrate how 'sound science' can measure the fact that sound only travels when there are 'particles' to carry it. So, the words 'sound science' isn't really the best terminology to go forward with, but, let me use the words 'appropriate science.'

There is a common thread that runs through the grossly inappropriate 'press' both in the NY Times and The Washington Post. They attempt to 'reach back in time' as if nothing in Climate Science has changed to sophisticate its perfection, which allows them to 'discredit' the concepts put forward by the current administration.

The article in the NY Times likes the 'idea' of changing the approach to Climate Change. They want to state, that to perfect Carbon Sequestration is to solve the world's problems in regard to Human Induced Global Warming. It implies that if more money went into 'coping' with carbon dioxide emissions rather than 'changing' the manner in the way and the amount of CO2 emitted that the answer would be learned that would qualify a better government program.

That is grossly flawed. That approach would advocate in the long view that humans could emit all the CO2 they wanted so long as they could capture it and store it. Do you know what the planet would look like? If humans continued to destroy the biotic content of Earth, disregarded species survival and simply sought to make a 'sterile' world where humans could burn carbon fuels of one kind or another forever without inhibitions; there would be no humans.

The 'ideas' put forward in this article are simplistic and an insult to the intelligence of an entire nation, yet alone its scientific community. I guess "Wall Street" is a bit bent out of shape over regulations, huh?

Now, in the defense of The New York Times, there have been articles that explored 'technological' answer to 'saving Earth' given the fact the 'failure to cope' with reducing CO2 emissions by the USA has royally been abandoned over the last decade due to Republican Political Rhetoric rather than Appropriate Science.

They advocated orbital 'Earth Shields' that would cut down on the solar radiation that results in 'infrared' coming from Earth. They discussed other issues such as seeding the oceans and carbon sequestration as well. It isn't as though they haven't also discussed loss of the ice on the Arctic Ocean or alternative energies, they have.

The 'problem' with this article is 'Appropriate Science' and 'Appropriate Priorities' and the 'Opportunists' that still exist within the Political Spectrum that would take such 'coping technologies' and label them as forever the answer to American Economic Policies.

Any 'technology' that is purported to be able to 'solve' the Climate Crisis is not an appropriate priority for the USA or the global community. They are 'temporary fixes' that in the long run will FAIL and put all the CO2 back into the troposphere. Temporary fixes have their place in the discussion, however, without a change in consumer habits and the habits of those that produce energy and automobiles there is no reason to discuss any 'fix' for the CO2 pollution levels we now are witnessing of Earth.

At issue is the 'manner' in which Carbon Dioxide is treated 'legally' in our legislature and the courts of law of the USA. It needs to be classified under The Clean Air Act and reported as a danger gas at high levels in The New Source Review. Dangerous levels need to be defined and enforcement to those levels needs to be established and NOT just enforcement that is over three decades old and amounts to a 'slap on the wrist.' Which is the case with most of our environmental laws and policies, including, The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act. What was significant enforcement 'back in the day' is virtually nothing now and in many instances is simply 'figured' into the cost of business.

When the NY Times reported on 'technologies' that could 'stem' the encroachment of Human Induced Global Warming, it was correct. The issue is dire and while the economy overshadows everything these days, the 'change' in energy sources and salvaging of Detroit are all part of an environmental initiative by this administration. There is going to be a change in energy sources in the USA to the economic boom of the American Consumer whom will have more disposable income. The new car market should reflect consumer demands for environmentally responsible vehicles and not just limited choices that burn fossil fuels.

To prove how 'dire' the issue of Climate Change has gotten there was a recent publication by one of the scientists that received the Nobel Prize as a member of the IPCC, Professor Chris Field (click here). There is just 'no way' a responsible President of the USA can look the other way.

In regard to 'exploring' all venues of intervention beyond the American Consumer issues is unrealistic. Choices have to be made and the ones that have the best return on investment in 'knowing' there will be change and not 'guessing' there will be change is the focus of the Obama Administration. Appropriately so.

Just as with the economic stimulus that is prioritizing the change in the country, these jobs that are being saved and created will contribute to increased wealth in the USA and will provide more of a Treasury in time that will allow for more exploration into 'Earth saving' technologies and venues. We are on a 'timeline' to change and not just a 'flash in the pan' dumping of money into the economy as has been the habits of Republican administrations in the recent past. This is change that will last and insure the futures of children and the sovereignty of their nation.

Global warming 'underestimated' (click here)
The severity of global warming over the next century will be much worse than previously believed, a leading climate scientist has warned.
Professor Chris Field, an author of a 2007 landmark report on climate change, said future temperatures "will be beyond anything" predicted.
Prof Field said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had underestimated the rate of change.
He said warming is likely to cause more environmental damage than forecast.
Speaking at the American Science conference in Chicago, Prof Field said fresh data showed greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2007 increased far more rapidly than expected.
"We are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we've considered seriously in climate policy," he said.
Prof Field said the 2007 report, which predicted temperature rises between 1.1C and 6.4C over the next century, seriously underestimated the scale of the problem.
He said the increases in carbon dioxide have been caused, principally, by the burning of coal for electric power in India and China.
Wildfires
Prof Field said the impact on temperatures is as yet unknown, but warming is likely to accelerate at a much faster pace and cause more environmental damage than had been predicted.
He says that a warming planet will dry out forests in tropical areas making them much more likely to suffer from wildfires.
The rising temperatures could also speed up the melting of the permafrost, vastly increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, Prof Field warns.
"Without effective action, climate change is going to be larger and more difficult to deal with than we thought," he said.

The negative 'press' in regard to Climate Change is due to this (click here - thank you)

The "Public Comment Period" closes on, February 27, 2009. It is amazing to realize the lies that the press is willing to purport in order to build a larger CONCENSUS 'in numbers' that would stop the Climate Change Initiative of the Obama White House.

Amazing the 'sleeze bags' that walk the halls of these press rooms, isn't it?

See, the press has already figured out that Barak Obama is a very popular President. They also know he is rather billiant. They know that if a President is 'untouchable' to fault, than perhaps the 'best way' to defeat him is to 'trash his programs' no matter what it takes.




Observations show that warming of the climate system is now unequivocal.
...The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily
to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions
come primarily from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with
additional major contributions from the clearing of forests and agricultural
activities.


Warming over this century is projected to be considerably greater than
over the last century. The global average temperature since 1900 has risen
by about 1.5°F. By 2100, it is projected to rise another 2 to 10°F. Temperatures
in the United States have risen by a comparable amount and are
very likely to rise more than the global average over this century. Several
factors will determine future temperature increases. Increases at the lower
end of this range are more likely if global heat-trapping gas emissions are
cut substantially, and at the upper end if emissions continue to rise at or
near current rates. Other important factors that affect the range are related
to the strength of the response of the climate system to human influences....

One is always a bit hesitant to share 'precise' information with biased media. Especially. When that information is alarming.

This is the Arctic Ocean. The North Pole, where the Sun does not always shine. What makes ANYONE think that California Snowpack is going to have a different result? Elevation? That won't change a thing. As the 'heat' of the planet is 'rising' in volume it travels vertically in the troposphere as well as horizontally. Snow fields and Ice fields are melting at elevations that are no different than that of the mountains of California.



Click here for a film loop of the 'Break Up' of the Beaufort Sea, Alaska that BEGAN on DECEMBER 8, 2007. Thank you.

CALIFORNIA CLIMATE WATCH (click here)
CURRENT ISSUE: January 2007
IPCC's Working Group I

Summary Released
By Laura EdwardsWestern Regional Climate Center
On February 2, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their report from the first of three Working Groups: "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis". This document states that there is "very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming". The report goes on to state that most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature during the last century "is very likely due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations". Over 2500 expert scientists reviewed the document which summarizes with confidence the burning of fossil fuels has led to the warming of our planet and the planet will continue to warm. What does this mean for California? Figure 1. From Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California. Reduced mountain snowpack is one risk outlined in the report....


Why would a 'journalist' place the very lives in California 'in danger' NOT 'at risk,' but, in danger to satisfy the 'old glory days' of the Republicans? Why? Scientists for decades have been invalidated by morons such as George F. Wills that are allowed to publish in newspapers that are suppose to have discretion and dignity. I guess this '? editorial ?' by Wills states more about the 'tabloid' aspect of "The Washington Post" than anything else.


Snowpack in the Sierra affects water resources throughout California's urban areas and Central Valley agricultural regions. Lake Tahoe is at center, right; San Francisco Bay and Monterey Bay are visible low on the coast.

Chu and Ahnold need to mean. Summit might be a good idea. A sustainability summit for California.


Steven Chu
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1997 (click here)

Steven Chu is a certifiable genius. Certainly, George F. Will OF "The Washington Post" is NOT !

But, why be hesitant? After all 'information' speaks for itself. It should stand up under the most intense examination of detail, right?

Well. Yes. And no. Precise information, when it doesn't 'suit' the political agenda of a hostile press, can be manipulated. Of course, the manipulation is justified by stating 'the public has to understand.' So, someone like George F. Will comes along and DECIDES. No different than Bush when he became THE DECIDER. So, Will comes along and DECIDES 'the public that leans to the right' needs to be supported in the media and write a column criticizing a SCIENTIST.

Where Will's credentials allow such a thing, no one asks. But, he does it just the same.

What would make ANY society 'look the other way' while heritage, climate and the future of generations are jeopardized for the 'sake' of ? energy ?


For DECADES now, people that 'lack conscience' but are afforded 'power' over the material available to the average public, are allowed to publish any darn negative opinion as VALID over that of profounding correct and compassionate scientists. Scientists that have dedicated their lives to achievement and recognition for those achievement, that risk reputation at the hand of such 'spectal' seeking journlists to warm the public of the dangers that await them.


The public needs to make choices about 'the intention' of such reporting and comment before a JOURNALISTS credentials can be counted on regardless of status within the profession.


California's snow pack is in DANGER and the people of that state have a water supply to be concerned about AS WELL as the LOSS of the impact of that snowpack on their CLIMATE.


End of discussion !

An Alaskan Inuit Girl (click here)


Vanishing Alaskan Ice Pack

No one cares about a one hundred year old boat?

The U.S. Geological Survey-led (click here for original journal entry) study reveals that average annual erosion rates along this part of the Beaufort Sea climbed from historical levels of about 20 feet per year between the mid-1950s and late-1970s, to 28 feet per year between the late-1970s and early 2000s, to a rate of 45 feet per year between 2002 and 2007. The study was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union....


A USGS researcher took a picture of this nearly century-old whaling boat in July 2007 along the Beaufort Sea coast near Lonely, Alaska. The boat washed away to sea just a few months later. Courtesy of Benjamin Jones, USGS




A cabin along the Arctic Alaska coastline was recently washed into the ocean because the bluff it was sitting on top of was eroded away. Courtesy of Benjamin Jones, USGS






Recent erosion along Alaska''s Arctic coast; note the collapsed block of ice-rich permafrost. Courtesy of Benjamin Jones, USGS




USGS researcher Benjamin Jones measures erosion along a part of Alaska''s Arctic coast. On the right side of the photo is an example of a collapsed block of ice-rich permafrost. Courtesy of Christopher Arp, USGS

The weather at Glacier Bay National Park (Crystal Wind Chime) as been ridiculously WARM.

Annually for the year 2008 the Average High Temperature at Glacier Bay was 46.5 F. The Average Low Temperature was 34.9 F.

In 1959, the MAXIMUM (that was maximum, NOT average) High Temperature at Glacier Bay was 28 F. The MINIMUM Low Temperature was 19F. Needless to say that when temperatures are no warmer than 28 F there wasn't much melting of glaciers or loss of Permafrost, now was there?

\

Date :: February 23, 2009

Local Time: 7:44 AM AKST (GMT -09)

Lat/Lon: 58.8° N 137.0° W

Elevation :: 33 ft.

Temperature :: High - 41 F

Low - 18 °F

Conditions :: Clear

Dew Point :: 9 °F

Humidity :: 68%

Wind :: Calm

Windchill :: 18 °F

Pressure :: 30.12 in (Falling)

Visibilty :: 10.0 miles

UV :: 0 out of 16

Clouds :: Clear -
(Above Ground Level)