This is a rough draft of a message board at the New York Times. I'll download the satellites when I get a chance.
There is at least a victory there. Kyoto Protocol was the pinnacle of the realization 'Houston, We Have A Problem.
Climate Change is in full swing, ladies and genlemen. We need someone to champion the cause. If Jeffrey Immelt wants to be our champion then we follow his lead.
WE CAN DO THIS !!
I know we can.
Today on Earth:
There are two vortices dominating Earth's tropsphere and lower stratisphere. They are highly ionic and powerful systems powered by HEAT. That heat is directly from the sun but no one can pull the blinds. What we can do is reduce grossly the carbon dioxide in the tropsphere and watch these monsters slow to a stop.
Now these satellites need imagination to understand and see what I am saying BUT the UNISYS satellites to not.
This is the Europe - Africa Satellite. There is a clear dividing line at the equator with circulating peripher circulation off the Arctic Ocean to the Equator. There will be no hurricanes from Africa to North America this year.
http://www.weather.com/maps/maptype/satelliteworld/europeafricaglobalsatellite_large.html
There will be hurricanes but on the West Coast of Central America and out of The Gulf, possibly one that hits Southern California but that would be a strong storm and surprise.
HERE IS CASE IN POINT:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/05/18/tropical.storm.ap.ap/index.html
This is the Pacific Global Satellite. There is clearly far diminished volitility since February 4th when there was a maximum 'heat dump' into Antarctica off the Equator via the mechanism that is chronic now coming off the equator. The capacity is diminished right now because the solar radiation has gone north. THAT IS HOW I KNOW THIS IS ALL HEAT DRIVEN AND NOT due to Solar Flairs. Solar flair activity has escalated but these vortices have not in the face of that escalation.
http://www.weather.com/maps/maptype/satelliteworld/pacificglobalsatellite_large.html
There is a rare satellite and only at CNN that shows any aspect of China and Russia. I don't know if they object to that but if they do they need to get over it and let those of us who care to put together a complete puzzle rather than a partial one.
http://www.cnn.com/WEATHER/Asia/sat.anim.html
See, that vortex isn't seen on the other satellites.
and
http://www.cnn.com/WEATHER/Australia/sat.anim.html
The final GLOBAL satellite is the North and South American Satellite.
http://www.weather.com/maps/maptype/satelliteworld/westernhemisphereglobalsatellite_large.html
I'LL BE FRANK. The reason the Atlantic Ocean is seeing all this ACTION is because the USA is the biggest Carbon Dioxide polluter on the planet and it saturates in this location. Europe is second. Britain. Come to understand this now?
I KNOW IT'S CARBON DIOXIDE. No one has to hit me over the head with this fact. Earth speaks all too loud and clear. I have even witnessed 'heat shadows' with the shape of the EASTERN USA move off into the Atlantic. Where do you think that heat goes? It goes directly to the Arctic Ocean by the vortices in this region of the globe. The Arctic Ocean is the 'ICE CUBE' to the oceans of this entire planet. That followed by WAIS and Greenland. Greenland has been taking a very, very heavy hit because it is at lower latitudes.
The icefields are disasters and the snow lines are moving up at incredible rates. The overall surface areas of the snow capped mountains are grossly diminished and shrinking quickly. In order to reclaim them you'd have to add AT LEAST 10,000 feet in height to Mr. Everest.
UNISYS, watch the spin.
Partial Northern Hemispheric View. I prefer water vapor for overall view and the 'infrared or enhanced infrared' for the HEAT CONCENTRATION view.
http://weather.unisys.com/satellite/sat_wv_hem_loop-12.html
It is easily seen there is a 'heat injection' from the equator to the Arctic Ocean through the middle of North America in the satellite above.
The GOES WEST view shows very, very clearly the hemispheric vortex that dominates the Northern Hemisphere.
http://weather.unisys.com/satellite/sat_wv_west_loop-12.html
The current 'enhanced infrared' satellite shows the heat concentration and explains the current turbulence and storms in Ohio and near the Great Lakes.
The GOES EAST Satellite shows the continuation of the Arctic Ocean Vortex and the much higher turbulent Atlantic Ocean. There is higher degree of 'mingling' of 'heat budgets' between the equator and the Arctic Ocean Vortex here because of the increased density of carbon dioxide and the equilibrium between the 'atmospheric environments' of the equator and that trapped under the carbon dioxide of the Atlantic Ocean. Remember the wind blows ALL the carbon dioxide from the west coast of the USA to the east coast and then out to sea.
http://weather.unisys.com/satellite/sat_wv_east_loop-12.html
The 'enhanced infrared' shows the much large concentration of carbon dioxide in the Atlantic Ocean that KEEPS THE HEAT under it.
http://weather.unisys.com/satellite/sat_ir_enh_east_loop-12.html
WE ARE IN TROUBLE. We cannot afford to lose the Arctic Ocean. I promise you that. Earth loves us, but, we don't love it back as we should. We need to be better stewards. NOW.
Welcome, Mr. Jeffery Immelt.
Please, by all means, go on....
......................
The New York Times editorial.
May 19, 2005
Climate Signals
Hardly a week goes by without somebody telling President Bush that his passive approach to global warming is hopelessly behind the times, that asking industry for voluntary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions won't work and that what's needed is a regulatory regime that asks sacrifices of everyone. He's heard this from his political allies here and abroad - from Tony Blair, George Pataki and Arnold Schwarzenegger, to name three - and now he is hearing it from the heaviest hitters in the business world, including, most recently, Jeffrey Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric.
Mr. Immelt runs the biggest company in America, and for that reason some environmental groups hailed his speech last week on climate change as a tipping point in the global warming debate. Mr. Immelt chose his words carefully and did not directly criticize Mr. Bush. But he left no doubt that he believes mandatory controls on emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, are necessary and inevitable. And he said he would double investments by G.E. in energy and environmental technologies to prepare it for what he sees as a huge global market for products that help other companies - and countries like China and India - reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
Mr. Immelt's speech is not the only sign of impatience among Mr. Bush's business allies. In New York, two dozen leading institutional investors managing more than $3 trillion in assets recently urged American companies to address the risks of climate change and to invest more heavily in strategies to reduce those risks. They met under the auspices of the United Nations Foundation and Ceres, a coalition of investors and environmental interests.
Perversely, the administration insists that all this voluntary activity will eliminate the need for a national strategy. Yet these gestures represent only a small slice of the economy; industry as a whole will not spend money to reduce emissions as long as the rules (or, more precisely, the absence of rules) confer a competitive advantage on the businesses that do nothing. Indeed, it is precisely to achieve a level playing field that more and more big utilities - the very companies Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney thought they were letting off the hook - are now calling on Congress to consider mandatory controls.
Absent a response from the administration, which still maintains, incredibly, that there is insufficient scientific understanding to justify mandatory limits, the country's best hope for meaningful action at the national level rests with the Senate, which will shortly take up an energy bill.
The bill by itself would not impose limits on emissions, although there is some talk that Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman may offer a bill imposing industrywide caps as an amendment on the Senate floor. But a properly drawn energy bill has the potential to do much good, especially if it avoids rewarding the old polluting industries, as the House version does, and focuses instead on putting serious money behind cleaner fuels, cleaner power plants and cleaner cars. That these measures would also ease the country's dependency on overseas oil is, of course, a persuasive side benefit.
