Senators Tell Exxon To Stop Denying Global Warming Exists
lkgeo1
2006-11-01 00:41:34
Posted By: Intellpuke
(Read 16 times || 0 comments)
ExxonMobil should stop funding groups that have spread the idea that
global warming is a myth and that try to influence policymakers to
adopt that view, two senators said today in a letter to the oil
company. In their letter to ExxonMobil chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson,
Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia,
appealed to Exxon's sense of corporate responsibility, asking the
company to "come clean about its past denial activities."
The two senators called on ExxonMobil to "end any further financial
assistance" to groups "whose public advocacy has contributed to the
small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth".
(story continues below) http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=9097
Joe Fischer
>Senators Tell Exxon To Stop Denying Global Warming Exists
>2006-11-01 00:41:34
>Posted By: Intellpuke
Is that your nickname?
>(Read 16 times || 0 comments)
Wide distribution really means a lot. :-)
>ExxonMobil should stop funding groups that have spread the idea that
>global warming is a myth and that try to influence policymakers to
>adopt that view, two senators said today in a letter to the oil
>company. In their letter to ExxonMobil chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson,
>Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia,
>appealed to Exxon's sense of corporate responsibility, asking the
>company to "come clean about its past denial activities."
Exxon should not even respond, while socialism is
rampant in the US under the banner of federalism, gag
orders must come from a court.
>The two senators called on ExxonMobil to "end any further financial
>assistance" to groups "whose public advocacy has contributed to the
>small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth".
There seems to definitely be a climate change here,
the rest of the week will be 20 degrees below normal, and
it will take a lot of days of 3 or 4 degree days (72 degree hours)
above normal to balance to balance the 100 degree days
(2400 degree hours) of just these 5 days of below normal
temperatures here.
I doubt if Exxon denied any global anything,
but there has to be convincing data to show that the
temperatures are substantially different over the whole
world than the 100 year average for the last 30 or
50 years.
One year, or even 2 or 3 years, do not make
an average, and there just are not enough temperature
data points to reach a conclusion.
Satellite false color temperature sensors may be
fairly dependable, but none exist for before 1960, so
more time is needed.
No matter what Exxon or anybody else claims,
purchasing habits of individuals are unlikely to change
very much, people need heat, and people must go to
work, and food must be grown, otherwise there will
be a lot of people freezing or starving.
Rather than spending all the money on trivial
research and demonstration projects, pipelines to sell
waste heat energy from power plants to business and
homes would be far more productive.
Waste heat from a power plant is even much
better than geothermal energy.
Waste heat from automobile IC engines is also
something that could be utilized to distill ethanol,
and use it directly to power the engine.
But it is up to power plant companies and
auto makers to take the steps needed to put the
waste heat to work, because it is the only way to
reduce the CO2 emissions by 50 percent in the
short term.
Am I suggesting something crazy, like
a power company selling heat so that they don't
have as many customers for electricity?
Joe Fischer
lkgeo1
schmuck: 2006-11-01 00:41:34
T.Keating
Sooo.. your getting a minor cold snap, big deal..
You're fairly close to normal.
The monthly Mean temp for Fort Knox, Ky in November is 45F.
http://www.wunderground.com/US/KY/Fort_Knox.html
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=ICAO:KSDF&almanac=1
Yesterday, Nov 1.. (one day) was 4 heating degree days above normal.
So far delta degree days (July 1 to Nov 1 ) is a grand total of 78.
(Average delta from normal around 1 degree per day).
So far this year.. Fort knox's cooling degree days has been 2% above
normal.. (so subtract out 24 of those degree days..)
======
Some of your cooler climate could be the result of the hurricanes
stripping flora from large areas of land and leaving it to dry out and
brown. Increasing the Solar Albedo for a season or two, until the
canopy grows back.
======
Meanwhile, South Florida is enduring 11.5% increase over normal (yr) in
cooling degree days.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=ICAO:KFLL&almanac=1
Joe Fischer
>Meanwhile, South Florida is enduring 11.5% increase over normal (yr) in
>cooling degree days.
>
>http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=ICAO:KFLL&almanac=1
I don't understand, the chart doesn't even show warming
degree days.
Do you mean dry brown flora has a high albedo than moist
green leaves?
We had a couple of warm days this weekend, one was
well above normal, but I have noticed that it is rare to have
days more than 5 degrees above normal, but common to
have days 10 or 20 degrees below normal.
I think this is because with a greater temperature
differential, the greater the cooling in all three processes.
From what I gather, a couple of years ago the
sum total global temperature was estimated at .6 Celsius,
or about 1.0 F.
Surely last year was a warm year in near the Gulf
and the Caribbean. But hurricanes are heat engines,
and the presence of colder air at high altitude can have
as much to do with the strength of the storm as the
energy in the moist air.
I was watching the cloud top altitudes, and the
upper atmosphere false color images for temperature,
and it was quite cold above where one of the deepest
lows peaked.
I don't understand how anybody can get excited
about .06 degrees C over the last 30 years, the upper
three feet of soil has a quite constant temperature at
the same location, and the upper 100 feet of ocean
and the upper 3 feet of soil must represent far more
mass than the entire atmosphere.
So apparently the concensus is that there was
cooling from 1940 until 1970, and warming of a degree
or so since, so is it time for a cooling trend to start?
I don't see surface temperatures as a good
indicator of total global heat content, but of course
anything that melts polar ice is a problem.
And then I read that there are places that are
picking up more frozen snow cover than there is
ice lost in other places, and snow on land lowers
sea level.
My suggestion of using Ultracapacitors to make
shutting off the engine at traffic lights has to be the
way to get the biggest possible reduction in CO2 emissions
in the short term.
Joe Fischer
T.Keating
>On 1 Nov 2006 "T.Keating" <tkgo...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>
>>Meanwhile, South Florida is enduring 11.5% increase over normal (yr) in
>>cooling degree days.
>>
>>http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=ICAO:KFLL&almanac=1
>
> I don't understand, the chart doesn't even show warming
>degree days.
We haven't had any since July 1.
Here are the stats for July 1, 2005 thru June 30, 2006..
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KFLL/2006/6/30/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
Other than annual testing.
I haven't turned on my heating unit in two years.
> Do you mean dry brown flora has a high albedo than moist
>green leaves?
Yes..
Desertification is one ways nature cools our overheated planet.
(246 million years ago.. Nearly all of land was turned into vast
deserts).
Dark Green (~10%) -> dark Brown -> light brown (dried out/
burning/decomposing) -> blowing way and exposing sand (~40%)
underneath.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Albedo-e_hg.svg
> We had a couple of warm days this weekend, one was
>well above normal, but I have noticed that it is rare to have
>days more than 5 degrees above normal, but common to
>have days 10 or 20 degrees below normal.
Ahem.. the data says otherwise..
And the Fort knox data prior to July 1. (July 1, 2005 to June 30,
2006)
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KSDF/2006/6/30/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
Demonstrates that your area experienced 552 heating degree days lower
than normal.
And ...
Fort Knox data (July 1, 2005 to Dec 31, 2005)
(http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KSDF/2006/1/1/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
Indicates that nearly all of that negative heating degree day delta
(552 -16 == 536) has occurred in this calendar year (Jan 1, 2006 to
July 1, 2006).
Net result.. This year your area experienced over 458 fewer heating
degree days than normal. (Over a 10% negative swing).
Snip ... rest of theory supporting incomplete, subjective, and/or short
term measurements.
Joe Fischer
>Joe Fischer wrote:
>> We had a couple of warm days this weekend, one was
>>well above normal, but I have noticed that it is rare to have
>>days more than 5 degrees above normal, but common to
>>have days 10 or 20 degrees below normal.
>
>Ahem.. the data says otherwise..
>
>And the Fort knox data prior to July 1. (July 1, 2005 to June 30,
>2006)
>http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KSDF/2006/6/30/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
>Demonstrates that your area experienced 552 heating degree days lower
>than normal.
Wait a minute, the "heating" degree days term is confusing,
I am pretty sure we had less days in the 90s than normal, and
I have felt colder than normal (but that may be due to old age).
>And ...
>
>Fort Knox data (July 1, 2005 to Dec 31, 2005)
>(http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KSDF/2006/1/1/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
>
>Indicates that nearly all of that negative heating degree day delta
>(552 -16 == 536) has occurred in this calendar year (Jan 1, 2006 to
>July 1, 2006).
Last fall may have been colder than normal, but from
late December on, the winter was milder than normal, and
that was the case for the entire midwest and east coast AFAIK.
But last November or December I got hit with a $526
utility bill (electric and gas), partly because they estimated
the previous bill (apparently too low), and partly because
the meter reader had stopped reading my gas meter because
I didn't use any all summer.
>Net result.. This year your area experienced over 458 fewer heating
>degree days than normal. (Over a 10% negative swing).
Do you mean this area has experienced 10 months
of local cooling? I guess I can look at my utility bills, they have
a synopsis on each months bill.
>Snip ... rest of theory supporting incomplete, subjective, and/or short
>term measurements.
Which is where I am in understanding or accepting
just what the big fuss is about.
Is all this change in temperature supposed to be
from the hurricanes, which I assume carries a lot of heat
to the upper atmosphere where it has less of a barrier
to radiation to black space, and partly to increased albedo?
And does the Sahara actually heat the planet less
than a forest, even though it is hotter than most places?
There seems to be an awful lot of strange information
that must surely confuse the entire issue.
Joe Fischer
T.Keating
>On 1 Nov 2006 "T.Keating" <tkgo...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>
>>Joe Fischer wrote:
>>> We had a couple of warm days this weekend, one was
>>>well above normal, but I have noticed that it is rare to have
>>>days more than 5 degrees above normal, but common to
>>>have days 10 or 20 degrees below normal.
>>
>>Ahem.. the data says otherwise..
>>
>>And the Fort knox data prior to July 1. (July 1, 2005 to June 30,
>>2006)
>>http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KSDF/2006/6/30/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
>>Demonstrates that your area experienced 552 heating degree days lower
>>than normal.
>
> Wait a minute, the "heating" degree days term is confusing,
You're the one who started out using a short term increase in HDD as a
justification for a anti GW stance..
as for what it really means..
"Answers: Heating degree days"
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/2004-12-16-heating-degree-days_x.htm
>I am pretty sure we had less days in the 90s than normal, and
>I have felt colder than normal (but that may be due to old age).
That maybe true... There is a gap in daily mean temps (65 to 80
degrees) which remains unrecorded in either HDD or CDD statistics.
HDD is measured from July 1 to June 30.
Which resulted in your selection of a small (inappropriate) sample
size.
Heating probably not needed until mid September or later.
>>And ...
>>
>>Fort Knox data (July 1, 2005 to Dec 31, 2005)
>>(http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KSDF/2006/1/1/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
>>
>>Indicates that nearly all of that negative heating degree day delta
>>(552 -16 == 536) has occurred in this calendar year (Jan 1, 2006 to
>>July 1, 2006).
>
> Last fall may have been colder than normal, but from
>late December on, the winter was milder than normal, and
>that was the case for the entire midwest and east coast AFAIK.
Increased variability in weather patterns is another
predicted(modeled) outcome of GW.
>
> But last November or December I got hit with a $526
>utility bill (electric and gas), partly because they estimated
>the previous bill (apparently too low), and partly because
>the meter reader had stopped reading my gas meter because
>I didn't use any all summer.
>
>>Net result.. This year your area experienced over 458 fewer heating
>>degree days than normal. (Over a 10% negative swing).
>
> Do you mean this area has experienced 10 months
>of local cooling?
Significant decreases in the number of Heating Degree Days usually
means it's been warmer than the long term averages.
Daily mean temps would be a more accurate measurement.
But that would entail collecting a lot more data points(~300) from
cited sources.
> I guess I can look at my utility bills, they have
>a synopsis on each months bill.
Nope... there are dozens of factors (other than temp) influencing your
comfort level and resulting energy bill. To name a few.. Wind speed,
air inflitration factors, Cloud cover, Humidity, Changing fuel prices,
Utility estimates, Human feedback, Aging ( of both people and heating
equipment), memory of previous year (hottest on record worldwide),
etc..
T.Keating
Agreed..
Except, I would penalize Exxon for their anti-science & anti-social
behavior.
First, Immediate repeal of ALL tax breaks for drilling, pumping,
refining, transporting Oil would be a start.
Next up, excess profits tax on oil co's operations to help offset costs
incurred in the Iraq operation.
Joe Fischer
>On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 16:50:58 -0500, Joe Fischer
><j...@westpointracing.com> wrote:
>>On 1 Nov 2006 "T.Keating" <tkgo...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>>>Joe Fischer wrote:
>>>> We had a couple of warm days this weekend, one was
>>>>well above normal, but I have noticed that it is rare to have
>>>>days more than 5 degrees above normal, but common to
>>>>have days 10 or 20 degrees below normal.
>>>
>>>Ahem.. the data says otherwise..
>>>
>>>And the Fort knox data prior to July 1. (July 1, 2005 to June 30,
>>>2006)
>>>http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KSDF/2006/6/30/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
>>>Demonstrates that your area experienced 552 heating degree days lower
>>>than normal.
>>
>> Wait a minute, the "heating" degree days term is confusing,
>
>You're the one who started out using a short term increase in HDD as a
>justification for a anti GW stance..
I think my stance is skeptical, but pretty neutral, although
I do see things wrong with the CO2 levels being the primary concern.
Long periods of local colder than normal temperatures might
make anybody skeptical.
>as for what it really means..
>"Answers: Heating degree days"
>http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/2004-12-16-heating-degree-days_x.htm
That may be a useful tool in it's simplicity, but high + low
over 2 is not going to give a precise amount of heat needed to
hold constant temperature, in fact I think the high usually is
a short peak in the afternoon, but there can be cold dips when
the sky is clear.
I don't think I meant to recite heating degree days,
just average temperatures quoted by the TV weather vs
the actual temperature.
>>I am pretty sure we had less days in the 90s than normal, and
>>I have felt colder than normal (but that may be due to old age).
>
>That maybe true... There is a gap in daily mean temps (65 to 80
>degrees) which remains unrecorded in either HDD or CDD statistics.
Which would not apply to any thing I mentioned,
like the average temperature for the past month was 58
compared to the same month a year ago, which was 68,
and I used 50 KWH per day this year compared to 33
last year. (No gas atall)
>HDD is measured from July 1 to June 30.
>Which resulted in your selection of a small (inappropriate) sample
>size.
> Heating probably not needed until mid September or later.
The subject is global warming, which I assume means
every day of the year.
I looked at an intergovernmental report, I think involving
Norway and the UK, possibly others, and while there seems to
definitely be a rise of 0.4 to 0.6 degrees Celsius +/- 0.2 degrees,
I find it astonishing that plots of various temperature differences
of what looks like 0.01 degrees Celsius are placed on the graph.
The report was focused on warming, and barely found any,
although like I said, there is a sharp rise the last few years, even
though better thermometers are no doubt being used, and tree rings
probably are no longer used.
Note that digital readout thermometers _WILL_ provide
approximately a 0.5 degree higher readout on average than the
data recorded by people reading mercury thermometers.
I would ask error analysts to study this change in
thermometer type to see if it could account for any of the
0.6 +/- increase.
>>>And ...
>>>
>>>Fort Knox data (July 1, 2005 to Dec 31, 2005)
>>>(http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KSDF/2006/1/1/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
>>>
>>>Indicates that nearly all of that negative heating degree day delta
>>>(552 -16 == 536) has occurred in this calendar year (Jan 1, 2006 to
>>>July 1, 2006).
>>
>> Last fall may have been colder than normal, but from
>>late December on, the winter was milder than normal, and
>>that was the case for the entire midwest and east coast AFAIK.
>
> Increased variability in weather patterns is another
>predicted(modeled) outcome of GW.
Now that is really getting bizarre, in 78 years I have
seen variability, and it can't get much more variable, in
1948 when I went to the flight line near San Antonio,
the AT-6s had ice up to an inch thick on the propellers,
and by noon I had to take my T-shirt off because it
was soaked in sweat.
Then the next few days might stay above 70
all around the clock.
>> But last November or December I got hit with a $526
>>utility bill (electric and gas), partly because they estimated
>>the previous bill (apparently too low), and partly because
>>the meter reader had stopped reading my gas meter because
>>I didn't use any all summer.
>>
>>>Net result.. This year your area experienced over 458 fewer heating
>>>degree days than normal. (Over a 10% negative swing).
>>
>> Do you mean this area has experienced 10 months
>>of local cooling?
>
>Significant decreases in the number of Heating Degree Days usually
>means it's been warmer than the long term averages.
The first 4 months this year were cooler than normal,
but June did not have the usual number of 90 degree days.
>Daily mean temps would be a more accurate measurement.
Not accurate enough to measure global warming,
as a low or a high might only a sharp peak in an otherwise
constant temperature day.
Hourly temperatures would be needed at every
observing station to be anything close to accurate.
>But that would entail collecting a lot more data points(~300) from
>cited sources.
For the globe, I would think any less than one
data point every hour from every 10 kilometer square
area of the globe would be needed if the data is going
to be used to force people to spend a lot of money or
give up a livelihood or not have comfort in their own
home.
>> I guess I can look at my utility bills, they have
>>a synopsis on each months bill.
>
>Nope... there are dozens of factors (other than temp) influencing your
>comfort level and resulting energy bill. To name a few.. Wind speed,
>air inflitration factors, Cloud cover, Humidity, Changing fuel prices,
>Utility estimates, Human feedback, Aging ( of both people and heating
>equipment), memory of previous year (hottest on record worldwide),
>etc..
Those aren't used for global warming, are they?
>>>Snip ... rest of theory supporting incomplete, subjective, and/or short
>>>term measurements.
>>
>> Which is where I am in understanding or accepting
I will be interested to read a report from Japan or elsewhere
in Asia, and one from South America, South Africa, and Australia,
and Russia and India.
Sorry if I am suspicious of one report from governments
that may be socialist leaning and possibly biased by the amount
of industrial activity in the US.
If there is solid evidence of significant warming, I want
to know, and if there is not, that is even more important, for
the sake of truth and factual knowledge.
Joe Fischer
T.Keating
Joe Fischer wrote:
Big Snip.. now your trolling..
You completely shifted the topic.. (Big time troll tactic..)
Again..
where YOU used the recent(short term) weather pattern @ your
location as justification to adopt an anti global warming stance. And
I proved your techniques and measurements to be so flawed, that it
failed to detect a significantly warmer than normal weather pattern in
your area.
P.S. 90 degree days don't count torwards HDD. (they get counted in the
CDD stats).
> Sorry if I am suspicious of one report from governments
> that may be socialist leaning and possibly biased by the amount
> of industrial activity in the US.
Spoken like someone who's got a vested interest in fossil fuels. (coal
perhaps?)
>
> If there is solid evidence of significant warming, I want
> to know, and if there is not, that is even more important, for
> the sake of truth and factual knowledge.
Here you go..
http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html
"Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"
(Various links will lead you to Hundreds of reports.)
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm
"Mandate and Membership of the IPCC
Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) in 1988. It is open to all members of the UN and WMO.
The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open
and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic
information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of
human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for
adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor
does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It
bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published
scientific/technical literature. Its role, organisation, participation
and general procedures are laid down in the "Principles Governing IPCC
Work" "
===
Nasa has collected extensive datasets using Sat technology.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/ (searching for "global warming" yeilds 146
hits)..
===
Until you get up to speed on GW.
I recommend that you stop authoring posts claiming the contrary.