Posted on 08/03/2007 7:51:12 AM PDT by cogitator
I’m sorry, I didn’t understand that post.
I’m not sure it is a separate. Have you followed the tracking at NASA?
On your post 17, that was sent out by moveon-correct?
If so, this is their battle plan against Bush. Here is the invitation sent out by the WH.
Invitation to Meeting of Major Economies on Energy Security and Climate Change
August 2, 2007
Dear Prime Minister:
In recent years, science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it. I was pleased to join the other G-8 Leaders in June in recognizing the vital need for the major economies to work together to achieve the common objectives of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, increasing energy security and efficiency, and sustaining economic growth. The G-8 Leaders also welcomed my proposal, announced on May 31, 2007, that the United States convene the major economies to further these objectives. The United States is committed to collaborating with other major economies to agree on a detailed contribution for a new global framework by the end of 2008, which would contribute to a global agreement under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change by 2009.
To this end, I have asked Secretary Rice to host a meeting of major economies in Washington, D.C., on September 27 - 28, 2007. I intend to address the conference. At this meeting, we would seek agreement on the process by which the major economies would, by the end of 2008, agree upon a post-2012 framework that could include a long-term global goal, nationally defined mid-term goals and strategies, and sector-based approaches for improving energy security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, we expect to place special emphasis on how major economies can, in close cooperation with the private sector, accelerate the development and deployment of clean technologies, a critical component of an effective global approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We plan to follow this initial session with a series of meetings throughout 2008 to further refine our plans and accelerate our progress on this important challenge.
I am pleased to invite your country, along with other major economies and the U.N., to participate in this meeting. To assure a focused and productive discussion, I ask that you kindly designate a senior official who will personally represent you in this process and a delegation of up to three additional senior officials able to address the environmental, energy security, and economic aspects of climate change. This could include representatives from your energy, transportation, environment, finance, commerce, or foreign ministries. James L. Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, will serve as my personal representative, and our delegation will consist of senior officials responsible for economic, energy, and climate policy. The U.S. delegation will be in contact with your representatives in the coming weeks to finalize the agenda.
I look forward to working together to find a global solution to these critical challenges.
Sincerely,
George W. Bush
What I'm trying to say-and failing miserably at, the email from moveon is to pressure Bush into agreeing with the upcoming conference on climate control. We, the US, according to them, are a thorn in the side of the enviro wackos.
I will be on tender hooks waiting for the conclusion of this conference to see what comes out of it.
I see this move by Bush as a move to join world opinion when it comes to the environment.
The moveoner's hate Bush so much they can't see straight. If he capitulates to any part of the Kyoto agreement, I see a carbon tax somewhere down our road.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, is here on vacation and will be at the conference. It was reported in June that Sarkozy would travel at the invitation of U.S. President George W. Bush to New York and Washington at the end of September.
Just an fyi. :)
Yes, MoveOn sent out that email to endorse Avaaz.org’s efforts.
Thank you. I’ve never heard of them before this. I googled them just now and-wow.
First, the SCOTUS decision on regulating tailpipe CO2 is a tipping point, even tho Bush has delayed it til the next prez.
Second, political consensus will be reached by the Senate this fall. Either Bingaman's bill, Lieberman-Warner's, or some combination of the two.
That editorial you found from Adil Najam, if you through him in the google machine with them and voice of america, you will see some of the positions he takes on for them too.
Bingaman's buy carbon credit scam?
No matter which way this turns, the American tax payer is gonna get skrewed.
Thanks. From scanning his hits, they are a perfect match made in hell.
If you're referring to what I think you're referring to (some clarity would be nice), that document has a clear emphasis on UARS because one of the main reasons for UARS was to investigate, well, the upper atmosphere. [Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite.] A couple of the UARS instruments were cryo-cooled and so didn't have long datasets. In terms of more recent data, there has been continuing ozone hole monitoring from a few currently orbiting sensors, but UARS and aircraft investigations pretty much sealed the deal on the cause of the ozone hole.
Does that answer address the question I think you were asking, or were you asking something else?
I'm not sure what you mean, and no, I don't regularly track dust storms. However, for more on the Asian brown cloud, check the links below:
INDOEX studies aerosols over the Indian Ocean
Part I: The South Asian Haze: Air Pollution, Ozone and Aerosols PDF, slow to load (note images on page 13 of the PDF, 19 according to document pagination) from this site: Impact Study: The Atmospheric Brown Cloud : Climate and other Environmental Impacts
And for more on Asian dust storms, check
Checking the Wikipedia links, there is some media (and Wikipedia) confusion of the two. The term "Asian brown cloud" primarily refers to the smoke/pollutant aerosol haze from India and China that is usually found over the Indian Ocean, Indonesia and the related seas, the Chinese mainland, and extending over Taiwan, Japan, and Korea. Asian dust storms are usually Gobi and Taklimakan (Mongolia) storms that can travel over Japan, Korea, Siberia, and the Pacific Ocean. Pollution from the Asian brown cloud can get mixed with the dust storms, but they are mostly separate phenomena.
Oh I see! I’m sorry, I always assumed they were the same. Thank you for the clarification.
You know, either way, that doesn’t look good at all.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1875804/posts?page=52#52
Look at post 52. This really needs to be kept in mind for imported vegetables and fruits.
More crap-and-trade, the refuge of morons...
This is one example of why I don't pay attention to cogitator's posts anymore. Frankly, he does not appear to be an honest broker of information. If he were, then he might have noted that the ozone hole grew to a record size in 2006 which was years after the CFC ban was put into place and half a decade after CFCs apparently peaked in the atmosphere above the Antarctic in 2001. Of course, cogitator will respond that it takes years for CFCs to breakdown, but someone with a little intellectual curiosity might at least wonder about the theory given that the Antarctic ozone hole has grown to a record size years after CFCs were banned.
I don't pretend to be an expert on this subject, but I find it very curious that there has been hardly any discussion in the media about the record ozone hole that occurred in 2006. Presumably, if the size of the hole was the problem, then the record hole that appeared in 2006 should have set off alarm bells allover the world. On the other hand, given that we apparently didn't start getting accurate measurements on the size of the annual Antarctic ozone hole until the mid-1970s, maybe scientists are becoming a little more humble in their attempts to explain how events such as the annual Antarctic ozone hole actually occur.
"The Antarctic ozone hole's recovery is running late. According to a new NASA study, the full return of the protective ozone over the South Pole will take nearly 20 years longer than scientists previously expected. ... Scientists from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., have developed a new tool, a math-based computer model, to better predict when the ozone hole will recover."
Rather than accusing me of dishonesty, if you have a question, JUST ASK. (There's also a thing called Google; I found this with 30 seconds of searching on the three words "ozone", "hole", and "recovery".)
Regarding 2006: NASA and NOAA Announce Ozone Hole is a Double Record Breaker
"The temperature of the Antarctic stratosphere causes the severity of the ozone hole to vary from year to year. Colder than average temperatures result in larger and deeper ozone holes, while warmer temperatures lead to smaller ones. The NOAA National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) provided analyses of satellite and balloon stratospheric temperature observations. The temperature readings from NOAA satellites and balloons during late-September 2006 showed the lower stratosphere at the rim of Antarctica was approximately nine degrees Fahrenheit colder than average, increasing the size of this year's ozone hole by 1.2 to 1.5 million square miles."
(Stratospheric cooling is caused by global warming. Check Google to confirm.)
Beware of the “Black Swan” fallacy.
Deductive logic is tautological; there is no way to get a new truth out of it, and it manipulates false statements as readily as true ones.
If you fail to remember this, it can trip you with perfect logic.
The designers of the earliest computers called this the “Gigo Law,” i.e., “Garbage in, garbage out.”
Inductive logic is much more difficult, but can produce new truths.
Robert Anson Heinlein
AHEM. Stratospheric cooling is a predicted and observed consequence of both ozone depletion (the primary cause) and global warming* (the secondary cause). So the record holes caused by colder stratospheric temperatures -- which was clearly stated in the link I provided -- are not (in any way) contradictory to the scientific understanding of both ozone depletion and global warming.
*Please reply if you don't know why and you would like it politely explained to you.
When information comes up that doesn't jibe with your beliefs on global warming and the ozone depletion theory you appear to ignore it and/or explain it away.
Any actual information that appears to contradict the scientific understanding of global warming/climate change I examine carefully, and this has nothing to do with "belief" of any kind. Rather than "explain it away", I seek to determine if there is either a proposed or actual explanation. Frequently, to the surprise/dismay/consternation of skeptics who are looking for support for their internally-biased POV, I find such explanations. This frequently bothers those who didn't expect that such an explanation might exist.
The year-to-year fluctuations of the ozone hole are not a problem for the scientific understanding of why it happens, nor are they a problem for the theoretical basis of anthropogenic climate change.
Whether or not you "believe" I am an honest broker of information on this topic is irrelevant to the fact that I am.
For an in-depth treatment of ozone depletion, you might try this:
Chapter 10: Pollution of the Stratosphere
Chapter 11: The Antarctic Ozone Hole
as is the information that has been reported in the past few weeks which calls into question the basic validity of the temperature measurements upon which the global warming theory is, at least in part, based.
The above is a nice example of bias. Jumping from the observations of a very small subset of weather stations, and without any examination of whether or not the data from a particular station or set of stations has a significant (rather than trivial) effect on global temperature calculations, you state with certainty that this "calls into question the basic validity of the temperature measurements upon which the global warming theory is, at least in part, based." (Whereas RealClimate says, "Sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees in the US rankings and no change in anything that could be considered climatically important (specifically long term trends)".
In the world of real science, there has not been enough data presented nor has a scholarly/scientific effort been made to elucidate the effects, let alone call the "basic validity of the data" into question. It is a typical pattern of skeptical thinking (on any subject) to seize upon the latest touted "refutation" of the theory to which one is opposed, without waiting for critical examination of it. This is what I suggest be done.
By the way, the link below explains what "global warming theory" is really based on.
The CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps
You will find no reference in this simple explanation to global temperature measurements of any kind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.