Committee aides from both parties have been frustrated with the White House Council on Environmental Quality for not providing documents the committee has sought for months as part of an investigation into suspicions that the Bush White House has edited scientific reports to downplay the effects of global warming.
But at a Feb. 20 meeting with committee staff, CEQ aides agreed to provide the committee roughly one box of documents weekly, according to a letter sent Monday to CEQ Chairman James Connaughton from House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and ranking member Thomas Davis, R-Va.
Now that the Democrats have subpoena power over these Republican pricks maybe we'll get everything.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Well, many theories have arised concerning global warming. The true is that our present level of CO2 is not a new situation in a geologic scale. Anyway, the true is that the present CO2 level is a consequence of human activity. There seems to be several factors afecting the temperature, and that include CO2 levels, Air particules, sun radiation intensity. Some weeks ago I saw in National Geographic a documentary in which it was proved that suspended particules in the air could block sun rays causing an imediate ( some days) temperature drop. In teh days after the Spetember 11th, the absence of jet trails caused a temperature increase of about 0,5 ºC in a few days. So the final theory is that the CO2 warmup is being valaced by the amount of suspended particules in the air. As we are now reducing the pollution, the CO2 influence is becaming bigger than ever.
The true is that in the past huge volcanic eruptions have coolled the climate in a matter of a couple of years. Maybe we should not reduce pollution until we solve the CO2 emissions problem. At least we know a way to cool down the planet, in a very short time.
john wrote:What would the other variable be? Or variables. Your version of Maxwell's demon, please.
john
Actually I was in a state of denial when I said "no we're not". But since you brought it up:
Just as every debate has two sides, so does every equation. Its startling and misleading to look at emissions curves and argue that the rate is excessive without looking at the absorption side of the equation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration
There are models (since on a global scale these things are difficult to quantifiably measure) which describe, for example, the absorption rates of forests and oceans (the two largest CO2 consumers). So the questions to some extent becomes will the current rate of emissions overwhelm the consumption? This is is still unknown and debated. For example, here is an oceanic absorption model which disputes another model. It is very mathematically charged but at the end concludes:
Some researchers have recently claimed that the capacity of the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide is limited. My calculations of oceanic chemical equilibrium chemistry do not support this statement.
After the equations are written and agreed, comes the problem of looking at the bottom line and saying, now how much is too much? Now begins the process of more models and more arguments and politics. btw, look at the politics of the Kyoto Accord. Forests and emissions rates are being traded off in a strange game of political credits and debits (see the wikipedia link above).
Emissions of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels are relatively small compared to carbon dioxide emissions and absorption from natural processes. As noted in Chapter 1, natural processes in the oceans and biomass are responsible for the majority of carbon dioxide absorption and emissions on a global scale. This is also true of methane and nitrous oxide. Most methane and nitrous oxide are created by bacteria in soils and wetlands. Although these facts demonstrate that the most important natural processes affecting greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are not subject to human control, modifications in land use can influence their concentrations in amounts that are still significant.
Annual world carbon flux is difficult to measure but is thought to be close to zero; in other words, sequestration and respiration are roughly in balance worldwide.(111) In the United States, however, the live components of forests and the wood products produced from them (including paper and wood-based construction materials) sequestered a net of approximately 111 million metric tons of carbon (407 million metric tons of carbon dioxide) in 1992, including 12 million metric tons of carbon sequestered in wood products and 15 million metric tons of carbon sequestered in landfilled wood product waste.(112) A further 127 million metric tons of carbon were believed to be sequestered in forest soils and the forest floor in 1992. For purposes of comparison, this estimated amount of sequestered carbon offset approximately 17 percent of the 1,381 million metric tons of carbon (or 5,068 million metric tons of carbon dioxide) emitted in the United States in 1992 from the burning of fossil fuels (see Chapter 2).
Albino Berenguer wrote:Maybe we should not reduce pollution until we solve the CO2 emissions problem. At least we know a way to cool down the planet, in a very short time.
Hi Albino,
Thanks for your comments. The above statement is hard for me accept however. Why not set off a couple of nuclear bombs. We could cool the earth and possibly meet some politcal objectives at the same time?
John, did you read this link when I posted it earlier?
Note the questions on cloud formation.
What is your opinion on the notes about atmospheric temperatures?
Looking at the graph I posted how do you explain the previous variations if you believe that man is the primary cause of GW?
What happens if you are wrong and the graph's curve repeats previous variations and drops dramatically?
Are you of the opinion that if we do not cut emissions the temps will continue to rise?
What do you think will happen if we do cut emissions?
What Albino says is apparently correct from what I have read etc.
What bothers me more than anything else is the cycling of previous hot and cold temps. Till we know the reasons for those changes we do not have a way of telling whether current GW is man made or not.
Hi Albino,
Thanks for your comments. The above statement is hard for me accept however. Why not set off a couple of nuclear bombs. We could cool the earth and possibly meet some politcal objectives at the same time?
Ah yes, FM. Now that's the first rational approach to global warming I have heard so far ... I have a few detonation points in mind should you be interested but if we need global cooling, that's the way to do it. Just keep setting off nukes until we achieve the desired temperatures. Having to replace nukes is good for the economy also, a side benefit. That, in addition to awesome sunsets!
Hi Albino,
Thanks for your comments. The above statement is hard for me accept however. Why not set off a couple of nuclear bombs. We could cool the earth and possibly meet some politcal objectives at the same time?
excellent idea
I'm thinking Paris and Washington
was that what you had in mind
marduk wrote:Brussels would die a lingering death from radiation exposure
what would you prefer
Why do i get the feeling you dont like Brussels.....
I think its a wonderfull place, although i have never been there and since marduk wants it to die from radiation exposure, i wont go there just in case i get caught in the middle.......
I think it was something along the lines that you agree that if anything gets nuked it should be the Axis of Evil thats currently threatening the earth with terrorism
thats
France
Belgium
and most of the rest of Europe
try to give us decimalisation will ya
take this
bloody foreigners
