OK someone brought up crazy weather in April.

Back in 1978 here in good ol California it was 110 degrees in DECEMBER for two weeks! I know because usually I had to ride my bike wearing a jacket and a rain coat to get to school. The two weeks before the two week break from school I rod to school in a t shirt. Blistering hot weather in April? THAT'S NOTHING! TRY AN INDIAN SUMMER IN DECEMBER!

Still not buying the Global Warming BS!

The sky is NOT falling!

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/EU,+US+dash+hopes+for+new+climate+treaty+in+Durban.-a0254987637

A new, legally binding global climate treaty was unlikely to be agreed upon at this year's UN climate change summit in South Africa, dpa quoted officials from the EU and United States as saying Wednesday. The existing Kyoto Protocol is set to expire in late 2012. "There was nobody in the room who said, 'We won't do a legal agreement' ... But it would be highly implausible to have an agreement like that done in Durban,"

Todd Stern, the US special envoy for climate change, said in Brussels following a closed-door meeting of officials from major world economies. "The urgency of the issue is not always reflected in the speed at which things are moving," EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said. "It's not that things are not moving, but they're moving slowly."

At the 2010 UN climate change summit in Cancun, Mexico, ministers had pushed for a final, comprehensive deal on a global climate treaty to be hashed out in Durban at the end of this year. But the agreement reached in Cancun set no timeline for agreeing to the new treaty and left open whether a future deal would be legally binding on all countries.

Discussions over a second round of the Kyoto Protocol have been ongoing since 2005. Countries such as Russia and Japan have indicated that they are unlikely to join a new round of Kyoto commitments, preferring a system that would instead allow each country to set its own climate change agenda without any binding, international agreement.

"If the major players are not on board, then it does not make sense," Isaac Valero, a spokesman for Hedegaard, said. One of those, the United States - which did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol - is not opposed to a binding agreement in theory, but doesn't think it is pressing. "There are different views about the degree of necessity or not of a legally binding binding agreement," Stern said. "Our view in the US is that it's not a necessary thing to happen right away. "But we have always been supportive of a legal agreement if it has the right elements to it."

All Rights Reversed for Saudi Press Agency
Provided by Syndigate.info an Albawaba.com company

wierd, the EPA says something a little different, close to the same, but different...

Records from land stations and ships indicate that the global mean surface temperature warmed by about 0.9°F since 1880 (see Figure 1). These records indicate a near level trend in temperatures from 1880 to about 1910, a rise to 1945, a slight decline to about 1975, and a rise to present (NRC, 2006). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 2007 that warming of the climate system is now “unequivocal,” based on observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (IPCC, 2007).

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) 2008 State of the Climate Report and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) 2008 Surface Temperature Analysis:

Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1°F.
The Earth’s surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.29ºF/decade or 2.9°F/century.
The eight warmest years on record (since 1880) have all occurred since 2001, with the warmest year being 2005.


http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html

I imagine the inforamtion is much the same, we seem to have used some of the same sources. If you've noticed there are many ways by which science determines what is happening. So when all information starts to come together (putting the puzzle together) then all the sources are quoted and whether a paper is being written by the EPA or the Nationaltion Association of Geologists or whoever, you will see the same information quoted from the origniating sources.

(sorry it really late, I hope that made sense) Work, lawn work, studying for finals and then mingle to unwind - now I'm unwound, time beddy bye, have a good night everyone.

Just some food for thought. There are three schools of speculation about how fast the Ice Age came on.

The first group are the 'gradualists' who believe that the ice age took anywhere from 10 to 100 years to fully come on.

Then there are researchers who with ice core evidence from Greenland AND Siberia feel that it came on in the course of a few days as in COLDER, COLDER, BLAM you are frozen.

Then there is a sub faction of this group that looked hard at the evidence and said, "NOPE! It hit suddenly, everything froze damn near overnight, and it came suddenly and without warning at all!"

So far the gradualists have lost the argument based on current evidence but the argument goes on as to exactly how fast it happened. So far it is vassalating hard between the 'very fast' and the 'sudden no warning' crowds! The reason behind this is more than one mammoth was found frozen on its feet literally! Most of the finds do not indicate any animals fleeing anything. Likewise they do find other animals besides mammoths frozen in the ice from time to time.

A different side argument also emerged based on the evidence both from cores and frozen animals. The Ice Age did not hit in winter but came during SPRING!

So if everything suddenly starts getting colder its man's fault? Global Cooling as it may be called?

Can meat stay that fresh, even if frozen, for thousands of years? Millions of years? How old are the mammoths assumed to be?

If so, why is there a shelf life on the meat in my freezer?

Elephants and Mammoths I think, don't lay down to sleep. And I question how old the mammoths found really are. I don't know the particulars but can they prove those mammoths are as old as they should be? Perhaps they came up from the Hollow earth. I'm wondering if they just assumed they were old. Can meat stay that fresh, even if frozen, for thousands of years? Millions of years? How old are the mammoths assumed to be?

If so, why is there a shelf life on the meat in my freezer?

When you see someone post on a website that "global warming isn't true" or "the sky is falling" or any number of other comments designed to show their contempt that a massive problem identified and studied by the vast majority of the world scientists involved in that type of work, it shows the effectiveness of the misinformation campaign that has been waged for years. Significant changes to our lifestyles and economy to adjust for global warming hurts some big businesses.

The National Academy of Science, NASA, the top oceanographic institutes like Woods Hole and Scripts, NOAA, and hundreds of major universities are not saying the same thing because they are stupid. A very very small percentage of "experts" (and many are not) say this overwhelming group is wrong about Global Warming because they are paid do so.

When you see posted data that "proves" global warming is not happening it always contains data for a small part of the problem, like just the land temperature. The oceans are the Earth's heat sink and, not only are they warming, their chemistry is changing. The oceans' warm energy is released in the form of warm moist air which is what cause severe unstable weather. We are having a lot of that.

The cures for production of greenhouse gasses have been known for years but the technology hasn't caught up yet.

Politics always plays a major role in the solution or failure to solve the problem.

If, for example, the US would build 100 nuclear power plants and switch a majority of it's cars to electric and plug-in hybrid, there would no longer be a need for foreign oil imports but the 300 to 500 billion dollar cost is viewed as prohibitive. After Japan's recent experience, I doubt any new nuclear plants will be built.

The US has long had the technology to run cars on compressed natural gas instead of gasoline. Honda even produced the Civic CRX ready to go and congress never mandated the change. Many utilities have run their trucks on compressed natural gas for years. This one change alone would greatly reduce the need for foreign oil but would not reduce the burning of fossil fuel.

The technology was developed recently to clean up the smoke stacks of coal fueled power plants by two different methods. The first separates and liquefies the CO2 to be pumped underground for permanent storage. This method is easy but isn't free so it increases the cost of electricity produced by coal.

The other method bubbles the stack exhaust through sea water causing the CO2 to react with the minerals in sea water to produce cement, which we need and produce in huge quantities anyway. I understand a pilot plant is being built.

If you remove the evils of coal power and automotive fuel from the majority (not all) of the CO2 production, the problem is greatly minimized, perhaps to the point where natural processes can catch back up.

The biggest problem with global warming is disinformation.

We do not have enough information to make a evaluation whether or not man kind is contributing to global warming. It is exactly like Chicken Little running around freaking out cause an acorn bonked him on the head.

No I am not in total disagreement BUT there is not anywhere near enough evidence to prove it yet either. Everyone blows CO2 emission up our skirts like we are facing a recurrence of the black plague. ON top of that CO2 is consumed by plant life. METHANE IS NOT!

You want a real problem to face, try our use of Nuclear power. At least with an oil spill we can clean that up. We cannot effectively clean up after a melt down. How about being worried about a pollutant with a half life of MILLIONS OF YEARS?

Sorry but weather patterns change. The Earth constantly changes. Look at Japan. 1/4 of their eastern coastline on the main island sunk 2 feet and moved 13 feet to the North in that last earthquake! So are we going to blame mankind for increased Vulcanism too?

Ozone depletion by CFCs was proven and experiments likewise confirmed the evidence. That was more than just data accumulation. There are FAR too many variables the propeller heads do not take into account, solar activity, geological activity, historical evidence (geological and written), and other factors they seem to overlook or interpret to fit what THEY think is going on.

Global warming instigated by man does not have enough concrete proof to have me believe in it. Change is the only constant in life.

Putting Together a Pair of Pants
Wal-Mart orders a new production of pants from a manufacturer who then has China purchase:

>raw cotton from the U.S.A.
> Spandex from one of their local manufacturers

China makes the material, dyes it and sends it off to a cutter and sewer in Thailand. Thailand then purchases:

> A zipper from Japan
>>Zipper is tin mined is Chili
>>Aluminum made in the U.S.A.
>>Both alloys send to zipper factory in Japan
>Acrylic buttons for waist and on back pockets, ordered locally.

Unsustainable choices
Acrylic buttons - group 7 plastic not recyclable, can only be remolded if not too badly stressed.
They are not biodegradable and may be highly flammable (enotes.com). Since buttons are not recyclable take them off any material that you plan to throw away. Keep some in a small box of buttons to replace lost ones. Check on-line for hundreds of other suggestions.

When the products are finished they are labeled inside the pants and a plastic coated card with some kind of information on it, is attached to a little plastic bag that has a replacement button in it and they are attached to the pants together with a little plastic thread. (plastic – lot of plastic)

The pants are packaged and sent to a Wal-Mart warehouse in the U.S.A. someone sorts the product and repackages it for distribution throughout the country. At the local Wal-Mart Store they are unpacked again plastic tagged (plastic again) with a bar code and place on a plastic hanger. (oh yes more plastic)

The scenario I have presented could be any major retail chain store and any article of clothing, Just for a moment think about how much it would cost you to fly from the East coast of the United States to the West coast, now think what you paid for a pair of pants whose components have flown all over the world. Think about the non-renewable energy that was used to move all the products around and to make the components. Think about all the pollution from mining activities, chemical processes that mix with WATER, air emissions and unregulated waste.

I would guess that between the clothes that exist in every household in the United States, and all the clothes that exist in every warehouse and every retail and thrift store – that we have enough clothes in the United States at this very moment to clothe the entire U.S. Population adequately for the next twenty years – WITHOUT importing a single article of clothing nor unfinished material. That’s just a guess – and if that’s not enough we still have all the unfinished material in U.S. warehouses and at manufacturing sights in the U.S. for those who are handy with needle and thread.

Sadly, the greatest portion of all of those clothes will end up in a dump within the next few years – why? OUT OF FASHION. NOW – consider every other textile that’s purchased AND REPLACED in the U.S. long before it could be worn out, - carpets, rugs, tile, canvas and tarps, tents, material for furniture (that is thrown away instead of recovered).

AND THE PLASTIC - Sometime look around your house and imagine if you didn’t have everything that is wholly or partially made up of plastics. (remember to look in your refrigerator too).

Now look up what plastic is manufactured from, what goes into the process and what waste or pollution is generated in that process. Then, aside from climate warming, find out what happens to all that plastic that you throw it away? Finally, if you like to recycle (good) BUT consider how that recycling is accomplished – is it sustainable in the long run? Is it adding to the greenhouse effect?


While almost all other industrialized countries have agreed to lower greenhouse gasses—U.S. has not. The U.S. has four percent of the world's population and produces about 25 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. By contrast, India has almost five times as many people, emits only three percent of worlds anthropogenic carbon dioxide.