U.S. Corporates Wake Up to GW Risks
Roger Coppock
Change Among U.S. Corporations
U.S. Corporates Wake Up to Climate Change Risks and Opportunities
NEW YORK and LONDON, Sept. 14 /PRNewswire/ -- More U.S.
corporations than
ever before now factor climate change into the risks and opportunities
faced
by their businesses, according to a report released today by the Carbon
Disclosure Project, a coalition of institutional investors with more
than $21
trillion in assets. Increased interest from the investment community,
in
conjunction with related macro-economic developments, is encouraging
the
development of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The report shows a marked increase in awareness of climate change
and
disclosure of related data among U.S. corporations, [ . . . ]
Key Findings from CDP3:
Growing Corporate Awareness
- More than 70% of FT500 companies responded to the CDP
information
request, a jump from 59% in CDP2 and 47% in CDP1.
- More than 90% of the 354 responding FT500 companies flagged
climate
change as posing commercial risks and/or opportunities to their
business.
- 86% reported allocating management responsibility for climate
change.
- 80% disclosed emissions data.
- 63% of FT500 companies are taking steps to assess their climate
risk
and institute strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Increasing Investor Interest
- CDP3 involved more institutional investors than ever before.
- There are now 155 signatories to the Carbon Disclosure Project
(CDP)
who represent more than $21 trillion in assets under management,
a
doubling from CDP2 (95 signatories, $10 trillion assets), and
quadruple
that of CDP1 (35 signatories, $4.5 trillion assets).
Increasing U.S. Momentum
- CDP3 saw a dramatic increase in the number of U.S. corporations
making
information on their greenhouse gas emissions and climate change
strategies available to investors.
- This year 60% of all U.S. FT500 companies provided answers to
the CDP
survey. This is a considerable increase over the 42% that
responded to
CDP2.
Still Much Work to Do
- Despite the increase in numbers of corporations that are aware
of
climate change, CDP3 reveals a large gap between awareness and
action.
- Just over half of the FT500 reported their greenhouse gas
emissions for
CDP3, but less than 50 FT 500 corporations actually reduced them
over
the last year.
- Only 51% of respondents have implemented emission reduction
programs
and only 45% have established emission reduction targets.
- Less than 35% report having taken early action in emissions
trading.
- Only 13% of companies reporting to CDP3 recorded a reduction in
their
greenhouse gas emissions since CDP2.
Notes For Editors
The CDP is a special project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.
The CDP
is financially supported by the Carbon Trust UK, Climate Initiatives
Fund UK,
Esmee Fairbairn Foundation UK, The Funding Network, Home Foundation
Holland,
The Nathan Cummings Foundation USA, Network for Social Change UK,
Polden
Puckham Charitable Foundation UK, Rockefeller Brothers Fund USA, Rufus
Leonard
UK, Turner Foundation USA, W. Alton Jones Foundation USA, WWF UK.
Where permission has been granted, corporations' responses to the
CDP
questionnaire will be available for download from
http://www.cdproject.net
from 9:30 am EDT / 2:30 GMT on September 14, 2005.
Speeches from the New York CDP launch, including that of Jim
Rogers, CEO
Cinergy (CEO Designate Duke Energy), Alan Hevesi, New York State
Comptroller
and Margaret Beckett, UK Secretary of State, will be available for
download
from the CDP website at 9:30 am EDT / 2:30 GMT on September 14th 2005.
For contact details of more than 100 signatories to CDP3 please see
the
first two pages of the new CDP Report, which can be downloaded from
http://www.cdproject.net or ask the media contacts.
SOURCE Carbon Disclosure Project
Web Site: http://www.cdproject.net
THe rest of this press release:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-14-2005/0004107259&EDATE=
raylopez99
customer complaints.
I do have a problem with taxpayer dollars being wasted on 'combating'
GW.
Big difference.
RL
Roger Coppock
greenhouse gas emissions?
raylopez99
> So then, we should use the court system to prod corporations to reduce
> greenhouse gas emissions?
In the US, I don't think you would have 'standing' to bring a lawsuit.
A couple of decades ago, back in the 70s, some people did bring a
lawsuit for littering against some organization (I think it was the
government being sued) but it was thrown out of court. Same with GW.
The harm from GW (if any) is too generalized for a particular group of
people to bring a lawsuit, at least in the US.
But a lawsuit proving GW is caused by man is the basis for Michael
Crichton's thriller "State of Fear".
Can you imagine if the AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming] hypothesis
was tried in a court of law to see if it is a valid theory? I predict
it would fail to be proved. Too much conjecture; too much 'computer
simulation'; too much 'expert testimony'. On the last point, the
"Third Law of Litigation" applies: for every expert, there is an equal
and opposite expert. You have Dr. Bill; we have Dr. Linden. Case
closed; you lose.
RL
d...@dan.com
news:1126828600.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Roger Coppock wrote:
>> So then, we should use the court system to prod corporations to reduce
>> greenhouse gas emissions?
>
> In the US, I don't think you would have 'standing' to bring a lawsuit.
> A couple of decades ago, back in the 70s, some people did bring a
> lawsuit for littering against some organization (I think it was the
> government being sued) but it was thrown out of court. Same with GW.
> The harm from GW (if any) is too generalized for a particular group of
> people to bring a lawsuit, at least in the US.
>
> But a lawsuit proving GW is caused by man is the basis for Michael
> Crichton's thriller "State of Fear".
>
> Can you imagine if the AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming] hypothesis
> was tried in a court of law to see if it is a valid theory? I predict
> it would fail to be proved. Too much conjecture; too much 'computer
I see why you have such trouble with accepting AGW. You don't know the first
thing about science. Scientific theories are never proven. They can be
disproven, but never fully proven. Good theories make predictions that are
then confirmed with the data. AGW is a good theory.
Coby Beck
news:1126828600.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> was tried in a court of law to see if it is a valid theory? I predict
> it would fail to be proved. Too much conjecture; too much 'computer
> simulation'; too much 'expert testimony'.
Yeah, too much 'o that book larnin' involved, eh Ray?
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I have no problem with private enterprise taking on GW, in response to
>customer complaints.
>
>I do have a problem with taxpayer dollars being wasted on 'combating'
>GW.
I have a bigger one with dollars being wasted on Iraq.
>
>Big difference.
>
>RL
>
raylopez99
and I did not vote for BUsh, truth is the war in Iraq had a logical
reason--to stop possibly nuclear development (as in Iran), westernize
Iraq, and keep the oil flowing. That they failed on all three or at
least two of three counts did not make going in wrong (though again, I
would not have gone in).
By contrast, there is no logical reason to support Kyoto or stop
greenhouse gases other than to essentially take a bet that a computer
simulation based on the 100 yr old Arrhenius eq. is correct.
Big difference, that even a little man like you Lloyd should
appreciate.
RL
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
> Big difference.
> RL
I have no problem with FREE ENTERPRISE competing to build the scaffold
you are hanged from. You enjoy benefits from other's taxes but sabotage
people obtaining life-saving government services which FREE ENTERPRISE
refuses to provide.
You willingness to KILL your fellow citizens means you forfeit the
benefits of citizenship.
A chess fanatic like yourself cannot plead inability to forcast future
scenarios, so this is truely psychotic intent to dely life-saving
measures to others.
KATRINA-level storms are the threat. Preparations for that level of
threat cannot be stalled by subversive voices in our midsts. FREE
SPEECH only applies to TRUE SPEECH -- fraud has always been illegal.
You don't have a right to cite fraud to support your position. The LAW
of the land makes it MANDATORY to investigate one's sources for bias
and integrity -- one has a "due diligence" duty of citizenship to nor
pas on lies. There is no escape clause -- you OWE me truth, or you owe
your neck to the noose for deceptions which lead to deaths.
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
http://tinyurl.com/95kzz
Number of monster hurricanes doubled in past 34 years Total of all ...
San Francisco Chronicle, United States - 2 hours ago
Worldwide, the number of the most severe hurricanes has almost doubled
during the past third of a century, scientists say in a new report. ...
As the world warms the tempests rage harder
Sydney Morning Herald (subscription), Australia - 6 hours ago
By Deborah Smith Science Editor. Global warming could be behind a
dramatic rise in the number of ferocious hurricanes and tropical ...
Severe hurricanes increasing, study finds
MSNBC - 10 hours ago
By Juliet Eilperin. WASHINGTON - A new study concludes that warming sea
temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global ...
Hurricanes Are Getting Stronger, Study Says
PhysOrg.com, VA - 10 hours ago
Image: The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide has nearly
doubled over the past 35 years. Peter Webster, professor at ...
Stronger storms linked to warmer sea water
Newsday, NY - 11 hours ago
BY BRYN NELSON. The world's oceans have spawned ever-stronger
hurricanes over the past 35 years, according to a new study that finds
...
Number of strongest storms seen rising
Boston Globe, United States - 12 hours ago
By Randolph E. Schmid, Associated Press | September 16, 2005.
WASHINGTON -- Powerful hurricanes like Katrina, the most destructive
...
Hurricanes 'becoming stronger'
News24, South Africa - 14 hours ago
Washington - The number of hurricanes in the most powerful categories -
like Katrina and Andrew - has increased sharply over the past few
decades, according to ...
Study links global warming to stronger storms
Houston Chronicle, United States - 14 hours ago
By ERIC BERGER. Katrina's blunt assault of the upper Gulf Coast has
reignited one of the most controversial debates in science today ...
Study Attributes Stronger Storms to Warmer Seas
New York Times, United States - 16 hours ago
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 (AP) - Storms with the
power of Hurricane Katrina are becoming more common, in part ...
Researchers say hurricanes are becoming stronger
Monsters and Critics.com, UK - 16 hours ago
BOULDER, CO, United States (UPI) -- The number of category 4 and 5
hurricanes worldwide has nearly doubled in 35 years, as global sea
surface temperatures ...
Study says global hurricanes are getting stronger
People's Daily Online, China - 18 hours ago
The number of the strongest hurricanes worldwide has nearly doubled
over the past 35 years, even though the total number of hurricanes has
dropped since the ...
Global warming linked to increase of hurricanes
Times Online, UK - 21 hours ago
By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent. HURRICANES of the intensity
of Katrina have become almost twice as common over the past ...
'Warming link' to big hurricanes
BBC News, UK - 23 hours ago
By Helen Briggs. Records for the past 35 years show that hurricanes
have got stronger in recent decades, according to a global study. ...
Study: Hurricanes Getting Stronger
CBS News - Sep 15, 2005
(AP) Powerful hurricanes like Katrina - the most destructive such
storm ever to hit the United States - are becoming more common,
according to a new study ...
Hurricanes Are Getting Stronger, Study Says
National Geographic, D.C. - Sep 15, 2005
Warming ocean temperatures appear to be fueling stronger, more intense
hurricanes around the world, a new study suggests. The number ...
Hurricanes will happen faster and stronger
Financial Times, UK - Sep 15, 2005
By Fiona Harvey. Devastation similar to that caused by Hurricane
Katrina is likely to be repeated in the next few decades, perhaps ...
Experts say global warming is causing stronger hurricanes
USA Today - Sep 15, 2005
By Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer. WASHINGTON - The number of
hurricanes in the most powerful categories - like Katrina ...
Study: More Hurricanes in Strongest Classes
Washington Post, United States - Sep 15, 2005
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID. WASHINGTON -- The number of hurricanes in the
most powerful categories _ like Katrina and Andrew _ has increased ...
Study Links Hurricanes to Global Warming
Forbes - Sep 15, 2005
THURSDAY, Sept. 15 (HealthDay News) -- An increase in the ferocity of
hurricanes around the globe over the last 35 years may be ...
More strong Katrina-like hurricanes reported
Reuters AlertNet, UK - Sep 15, 2005
By Deborah Zabarenko. WASHINGTON, Sept 15 (Reuters) - The number of
strong hurricanes -- like the devastating Katrina -- significantly ...
Storms get fewer but fiercer
Nature.com (subscription), UK - Sep 15, 2005
There are fewer hurricanes today than there were a decade ago, but they
are stronger and more destructive. That's the conclusion ...
Stronger Hurricanes Becoming More Numerous
Environment News Service - 3 hours ago
BOULDER, Colorado, September 19, 2005 (ENS) - The number of Category 4
and 5 hurricanes worldwide has nearly doubled over the past 35 years,
even though the ...
Hurricane study raises hot debate
Kansas City Star, MO - 4 hours ago
PHILADELPHIA - The numbers of powerful hurricanes worldwide have
increased significantly in the last 35 years, evidently incited by warm
ocean waters brewed ...
Global warming may be fueling stronger storms
The Argus, CA - 4 hours ago
By Bryn Nelson, NEWSDAY. The world's oceans have spawned ever-stronger
hurricanes over the past 35 years, according to a new study ...
Did global warming power Katrina?
>From the Wilderness - 5 hours ago
In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included ...
Hurricanes Getting Stronger Even as Worldwide Total Drops
Insurance Journal - 5 hours ago
The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide has nearly doubled
over the past 35 years, even though the total number of hurricanes has
dropped since the ...
Study: Severity of hurricanes tied to warming
Fort Worth Star Telegram, TX - 5 hours ago
By Juliet Eilperin. A scientific paper being published today concludes
that rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant ...
Hurricanes Have Grown More Intense Since 1970, Researchers Say ...
Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription) - 5 hours ago
More Coverage: Articles about how Hurricane Katrina has affected
colleges, plus photo galleries, an interactive map, commentaries, and
other information. ...
Study: Hurricane Frequency Increasing Worldwide
Post Chronicle - 6 hours ago
by Mike Baron. In tomorrow's issue of the journal Science, a study
stops just shy of pinning the increase in hurricane intensity on global
warming. ...
Hurricane data suggest link to global warming
Oxford Press, OH - 6 hours ago
ATLANTA - The number of major hurricanes like Katrina has nearly
doubled worldwide since 1990 - a finding that scientists say
coincides with rising sea ...
Study Suggests Increase in Number of Category 4 and 5 Hurricanes ...
Newsinferno.com, NY - 6 hours ago
The increase in the number of powerful hurricanes such as Andrew and
Katrina has experts disagreeing as to the effect global warming may
have on the creation ...
Hurricanes growing fiercer as warmer waters fan them: Global ...
Earthtimes.org - 6 hours ago
Scientists at Georgia Institute of Technology and the National Center
for Atmospheric Research, Colorado, have published a new study
analyzing global tropical ...
Researchers look for links between hurricane intensity, global ...
OregonLive.com, OR - 7 hours ago
A city underwater, uncounted hundreds of dead, miles of coastline homes
and buildings pulverized -- the destruction of Hurricane Katrina was
vast. ...
Science: East Coast is getting more, stronger hurricanes
U.S. News & World Report - 7 hours ago
By Betsy Querna. The 15 named tropical storms this summer, including
the devastating Hurricane Katrina, have left many feeling like ...
Hurricanes are getting stronger, says study
999 Today, UK - 8 hours ago
The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide has nearly doubled
over the past 35 years, according to a study by researchers at the
Georgia Institute of ...
..
raylopez99
I think you are a man ahead of your time. Yes, your time was the 19th
century and the Revolution of 1848. Missed that one, Bozo, along with
the fall of the Iron Curtain.
Curtains for you! Bedtime for Bonzo. And Grandpa Bush was right to
sell coal to the Nazis--coal is a fungible commodity, you oddity, and
like money cannot be controlled by the state. The stupid 'money
laundering' laws to the contrary are steps backward from this time
honored tradition.
Face it Grandpa: you are a HAVE NOT. If you were a HAVE, your
worldview would be different. So, given this fact, how are you
different from a computer? No wonder Marvin Minsky called people like
you "meat computers". LOL.
RL
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
anytime and checkmate me".
An armed society is a polite society.
Well Done
>"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Can you imagine if the AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming] hypothesis
>> was tried in a court of law to see if it is a valid theory? I predict
>> it would fail to be proved. Too much conjecture; too much 'computer
>> simulation'; too much 'expert testimony'.
>
>Yeah, too much 'o that book larnin' involved, eh Ray?
>
hearing, you would understand what a lot of shit the AGW "theory" is.
I first began to doubt the AGW proponents when I noticed how quickly
they go to personal comments when corrected. It's the first sign of a
person whose views are NOT grounded in thought, but in emotion.
John Beardmore
<Well...@WellHoned.com> writes
>>Yeah, too much 'o that book larnin' involved, eh Ray?
>>
>If you've ever watched an academic testifying before any sort of
>hearing, you would understand what a lot of shit the AGW "theory" is.
>I first began to doubt the AGW proponents when I noticed how quickly
>they go to personal comments when corrected. It's the first sign of a
>person whose views are NOT grounded in thought, but in emotion.
And you've watched how many academics testifying before which sorts of
hearing ?
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore
Lloyd Parker
Well Done <Well...@WellHoned.com> wrote:
>"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
>>"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Can you imagine if the AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming] hypothesis
>>> was tried in a court of law to see if it is a valid theory? I predict
>>> it would fail to be proved. Too much conjecture; too much 'computer
>>> simulation'; too much 'expert testimony'.
>>
>>Yeah, too much 'o that book larnin' involved, eh Ray?
>>
>If you've ever watched an academic testifying before any sort of
>hearing, you would understand what a lot of shit the AGW "theory" is.
You understand neither "theory" nor "global warming."
>I first began to doubt the AGW proponents when I noticed how quickly
>they go to personal comments when corrected.
Creationist, heal thyself.
Paul Bramscher
> Not to get too far off topic, but though dollars are wasted in Iraq,
> and I did not vote for BUsh, truth is the war in Iraq had a logical
> reason--to stop possibly nuclear development (as in Iran), westernize
> Iraq, and keep the oil flowing. That they failed on all three or at
> least two of three counts did not make going in wrong (though again, I
> would not have gone in).
If we wish to stop nuclear proliferation, we need to start with
ourselves: even some previous Cold War hawks like McNamara have gone on
record that we maintain an insanely large Cold War stockpile ourselves.
We're the pot calling the kettle black. If we're genuinely interested
in stopping proliferation, we must start with ourselves -- lest our
bluff is called and we're seen for the hypocrites we are.
We might stop proliferation as bullies and hypocrites for the short run.
But the writing is on the wall. A hardline stance toward the
Palestinians got Israel a wall, modern-day ghettos and ethnic cleansing,
and carbombs anyway. We want the US to borrow Israel's tactics?
As for peak oil, it's well past time we start looking at alternatives.
> By contrast, there is no logical reason to support Kyoto or stop
> greenhouse gases other than to essentially take a bet that a computer
> simulation based on the 100 yr old Arrhenius eq. is correct.
Depends. The huge majority of scientists concur that human
industrial/automotive activity is a real problem. Science isn't quite
the same as logic, but it's close enough for me.
raylopez99
studies were the wave of the future and Frederick Taylor became a
celebrity back in the early 20th century--but he's forgotten now. And
Galton and the Eugenics Movement thought you could breed out bad genes,
which the Nazis tried to do, with disasterous results (turns out it
takes about 1000 years to breed out bad genes--perhaps this was why the
"Third Reich" was supposed to last 1000 years?!)
Point being: science is drive by 'fads', even hard science
(particle/wave debate comes to mind), but especially speculative
science based on weak models such as the climatelogists.
I say "further research is needed" before we jump to conclusions about
Anthropogenic Global Warming.
RL
Psalm 110
> I say "further research is needed" before we jump to conclusions about
> Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I agree you need to re-search the subject some more. How you do that,
when, how much time and money you spend is your business.
If you come into a science forum and you haven't learned basic physics
or rudimentary math skills you are not ready yet. Go away. Come back
after you have re-searched.
Here's the Global Warming Hurricane Rita Power Math. It does not lie.
It is incapable of lying.
The waters of the Gulf are about 30°C. The cloud tops of Rita
are about -70°C to -80°C. That is about 100 degrees difference
in a distance of about 12 kilometers. Each change of one degree
C to a CC of water, one gram of water, is one calorie. If we
knew how much water was being lifted by Rita we could figure out
how many calories of Global Warming heat energy is trapped by
greenhouse gases in those waters.
We can figure out how much water is being lifted. The National
Hurricane Center is taking constant measurements.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
Here's some raw data for figuring the math:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCPAT3+shtml/220249.shtml
"... RITA IS MOVING TOWARD THE WEST NEAR 9 MPH ...15
KM/HR...AND THIS GENERAL MOTION AT A SLIGHTLY FASTER FORWARD
SPEED IS EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT 24 HOURS.
MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS ARE NEAR 175 MPH...280 KM/HR...WITH
HIGHER GUSTS. RITA IS A POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC CATEGORY FIVE
HURRICANE ON THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON SCALE. SOME FLUCTUATIONS IN
INTENSITY ARE LIKELY DURING THE NEXT 24 HOURS.
HURRICANE FORCE WINDS EXTEND OUTWARD UP TO 70 MILES...110 KM...
FROM THE CENTER...AND TROPICAL STORM FORCE WINDS EXTEND OUTWARD
UP TO 185 MILES...295 KM. ..."
HEAVY RAINS ASSOCIATED WITH RITA ARE FORECAST TO BEGIN TO AFFECT
THE WESTERN AND CENTRAL GULF OF MEXICO COASTAL AREAS THURSDAY
NIGHT INTO FRIDAY. RITA IS EXPECTED TO PRODUCE TOTAL RAINFALL
ACCUMULATIONS OF 8 TO 12 INCHES WITH ISOLATED MAXIMUM AMOUNTS OF
15 INCHES OVER THE CENTRAL TO UPPER TEXAS COAST. ..."
>From this we can figure the speed covering a radius of the
hurricane-portion of the system.
9 mph forward motion, diameter of hurricane force winds is 140
miles, it takes 15.5 hours to traverse one storm diameter. The
rainfall in that peak area is 8" to 12" up to peak of 15"
maximum. Choosing the lowest number 8" of rainwater over 15.5
hours will give us some number we can use.
The area of a circle is Pi x R^2, = 15393.8 square miles.
8" of water = 20.32 cm.
15393.8 square miles = 398,697,600,000,000 sq. cm
398,697,600,000,000 sq. cm x 20.32 cm =
8,101,535,232,000,000,000 cubic centimeters = calories.
That's how many calories it takes to raise those CCs by each
degree.
8,101,535,232,000,000,000 = 9.422085e+012 kilowatt-hours
8,101,535,232,000,000,000 = 9.422085e+009 megawatt-hours
8,101,535,232,000,000,000 = 3.214949e+016 BTUs
8,101,535,232,000,000,000 = 3.391951e+013 megajoules
8,101,535,232,000,000,000 = 1.263522e+013 horspower-hours
This is not even counting the energy required to go from liquid
phase to gasous phase without any raise in temperature (600 cal
per gram, per CC).
You can multiply those numbers by about 700 (kilowatt-hours,
megawatt-hours, BTUs, megajoules, horsepower-hours) to see how
much heat is being extracted from the ocean and turned into
death.
This is what Global Warming is ALL about. It takes storms of
this power, this often, to barely keep up with the heat going
into the system, trapped under greenhouse gases, during this
part of summer. This is the third storm of catagory 4 or higher
in 23 days on either side of Mexico. Katrina barely cooled the
waters at all dissipating all that heat to the frigid heights of
-80C, and Rita is unlikely to dent the 300 foot deep hot water
reservoir of the Loop Current which gave it its big push to 175
mph wind force.
OCTOBER is when the big storms hit, traditionally. This is just
a PREVIEW.
Eric Swanson
>
>Point being: science is drive by 'fads', even hard science
>(particle/wave debate comes to mind), but especially speculative
>science based on weak models such as the climatelogists.
katrina and Rita and the ones which hit Florida last year were not "fads".
They were real events. Same is true for the intense storms which hit
Europe the past few years. And the cyclones that hit Japan, etc.
>I say "further research is needed" before we jump to conclusions about
>Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Wake up Ray, the "further research" you think is needed has been done.
We started more than 30 years ago. The data shows the Earth is warming.
Where you been? Lost in the LA Ozone?
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bramscher
You've just built an algorithm with no exit condition. That is, in the
first and second paragraphs you denounce science as fad-driven, in the
second paragraph you call for more of the same.
Sure there are fads in science, especially in consomology and chalkboard
math that passes for science. But in the realm of biology, chemistry,
geology, ecology and many other natural sciences there has been genuine
built-upon progress.
There can be absolutely no doubt that human activity, even in terms of
simple thermodynamics -- of releasing up energy stored in hydrocarbons,
fossil fuels, etc. in the form of heat -- as well as the impact of
building so many impervious surfaces and albedo on temperature -- is
producing very real and very measurable effects. Most any urban area,
for instance, is at least a couple degrees warmer than its surroundings.
This isn't a mere fad or theory. You can prove that with your
backyard thermometer.
raylopez99
> There can be absolutely no doubt that human activity, even in terms of
> simple thermodynamics -- of releasing up energy stored in hydrocarbons,
> fossil fuels, etc. in the form of heat -- as well as the impact of
> building so many impervious surfaces and albedo on temperature -- is
> producing very real and very measurable effects. Most any urban area,
> for instance, is at least a couple degrees warmer than its surroundings.
> This isn't a mere fad or theory. You can prove that with your
> backyard thermometer.
Paul--I could not AGREE with you more on the above statement. The
change in albedo and the UHI is VERY VERY REAL. The problem is: this
newsgroup does not believe that UHI exists! They think that it's been
'corrected for'. No, the 'correction' is not the trivial amount the
AGW advocates think it is, rather, the correction is exactly what the
putative increase in city stations indicates! (That is, no global
warming).
As evidence of this, consider two facts:
1) The authors of the fall 2004 report that saw no UHI on windy days
in cities said they could not measure UHI, ergo it does not exist!
Clearly they violated the 2nd Law of Thermo.
2) Antarctic sea ice is INCREASING while Arctic sea ice is decreasing.
Does not sound like GW to me. Global cooling in the south? Ditto for
the DECREASE in temperatures the last 50 years in the American south.
RL
NobodyYouKnow
> Paul Bramscher wrote:
>
>> There can be absolutely no doubt that human activity, even in terms
>> of simple thermodynamics -- of releasing up energy stored in
>> hydrocarbons, fossil fuels, etc. in the form of heat -- as well as
>> the impact of building so many impervious surfaces and albedo on
>> temperature -- is producing very real and very measurable effects.
>> Most any urban area, for instance, is at least a couple degrees
>> warmer than its surroundings. This isn't a mere fad or theory.
>> You can prove that with your
>> backyard thermometer.
>
> Paul--I could not AGREE with you more on the above statement. The
> change in albedo and the UHI is VERY VERY REAL.
Many things are real. UHI and changes in albedo for example are accepted
here. However, not without quantification and methodology. You make stupid
claims on both.
> The problem is: this
> newsgroup does not believe that UHI exists! They think that it's been
> 'corrected for'.
The first is a lie which is humorously annexed to a claim that disproves it.
You cannot 'correct for' a factor that is claimed not to exist. However, the
correction is as real as the UHI and this can easily be seen by the fact
that the global warming anomaly does NOT coorelate with urbanisation. Even a
fifth grader ought to be able to get that point by now.
> No, the 'correction' is not the trivial amount the
> AGW advocates think it is, rather, the correction is exactly what the
> putative increase in city stations indicates! (That is, no global
> warming).
Unsubstantiated fantasy.
>
> As evidence of this, consider two facts:
>
> 1) The authors of the fall 2004 report that saw no UHI on windy days
> in cities said they could not measure UHI, ergo it does not exist!
> Clearly they violated the 2nd Law of Thermo.
Cite?
>
> 2) Antarctic sea ice is INCREASING while Arctic sea ice is
> decreasing. Does not sound like GW to me. Global cooling in the
> south? Ditto for the DECREASE in temperatures the last 50 years in
> the American south.
Antarctic sea ice is increasing somewhat here and there due to fresher water
from the runoff of the ice sheets. Less saline water freezes more readily
than saltier water. That implies a lot of melting, not a colder climate.
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/hydro/aspects/rosssea.html
>
> RL
raylopez99
it head, from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island#Relation_to_global_warming
"A study by David Parker published in Nature in November 2004 attempts
to test the urban heat island theory, by comparing temperature readings
taken on calm nights with those taken on windy nights. If the urban
heat island theory is correct then instruments should have recorded a
bigger temperature rise for calm nights than for windy ones, because
wind blows excess heat away from cities and away from the measuring
instruments. There was no difference between the calm and windy nights,
and the author says: we show that, globally, temperatures over land
have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that
the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development
"
What is wrong with this picture, idiot?
You don't know how to Google so I guess you're hopeless to answer that.
But I'll let the rest of the group figure it out. Hint: faulty
premise, faulty conclusion, violations of the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics, and a predetermined bias to show no UHI.
RL
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
provides some.
People discussing Global Warning effects on the deteriorating economic
and social conditions post facts, give links, explain things -- none of
which you do.
Properly designed temperature observation stations are shielded to
avoid wind-chill distortion. They are designed to record the heat
content of the environment separately from the wind effects. The two
effects of heat and wind are then combined to produce wind-chill and
relative humidity as derived calculated products from reliable
instrumentation.
I guess you really don't understand "heat" at all. You also don't seem
to understand "Global" either, and you don't understand multiple
redundant data points accumulated by a wide array of sensors and
embedded proxy records.
You keep looking for a "flaw" to save your failed theory that there is
no killer weather brewing from results of inappropriate technology.
You log in from the LA basin, a cesspit of car pollution, including
roadrage gridlock and promote that failed lifestyle as "progress",
another word you don't understand. TV just showed us Houston's version
of gridlock progress, which in fact wasn't a lot different than normal
traffic. I remember those crazy Texans sometimes shotting other cars in
their roadrage, except the dumbbells didn't even roll down the window
but shot through their own windshield. This is the "progress" you think
is the most valuable thing to save from change.
A beautiful idyllic lifestyle can be created which brings things to
people instead of hauling meat around in 3-ton SUVs. You can have all
the pleasures you like in strong buildings that don't blow away and
need no evacuation when the storm comes. You can have 80% of your
commutes cancelled by bringing things to you instead of you wasting
valuable hours of your day in gridlock pursuit of distant destinations.
That would be replacing the already FAILED lifestyles of the 20th
century with PROGRESS adopting lifestyles of the 21st century.
I bet you suck at chess too.
owl
wrote:
Trust Lou Pee to hunt down something he understands so poorly that he
proudly posts it - when it says his UHI evidence is garbage.
Loopy:- "The change in albedo and the UHI is VERY VERY REAL. The
problem is: this newsgroup does not believe that UHI exists!"
Wikipedia link:- "Another view, often held by skeptics of global
warming, is that the heat island effect accounts for much or nearly
all warming recorded by land-based thermometers. However, these views
are only aired in the "popular literature" and there are no known
scientific peer-reviewed papers holding this view. Some have argued
for an ill-defined "influence" of the UHI on the temperature records
without attempting to quantify it - for example Richard Lindzen in
1990."
It's like watching watching a mouse jump up and down on the
trap-spring ... refusing to stop until it gets some cheese.
raylopez99
I see Dr. Bill (William M. Connolley) has edited out my contribution to
Wikipedia. This is why you saw the quote above. I had changed it.
Truth hurts I suppose.
As for 'properly shielded' temperature stations (Grandpa) ask Dr. Bill
about those. We discussed this last time--there is no such thing,
convection currents wreck havock on static temperature. What you are
measuring is dynamic temperature (which has a velocity component). Not
to mention humidity in the air that affects how much heat is transfered
to the instrument (moisture affects heat transfer, and generally makes
things cooler).
That alone will explain the 1 degree change in temps--not to mention
narrowing of error in instrument which will create an artificial upward
swing (upward since low temperatures are harder to measure than higher
temperatures).
This is too advanced for you pinheads--I should post this as a new
message--you people are basically the kind of second-tier 'scientists'
who found their calling in a 'cause' like radical environmentalism.
Great way to meet chicks I've heard (if you dig chicks--I have my
doubts about you two, obsessed as you are about me and constantly cyber
stalking me).
Later looosers.
RL
raylopez99
re UHI. He moved this interesting conversation on how UHI is not
properly measured off the main page to the 'edits' page:
We seem to have an incipient disagreement... I've reverted:
Though the UHI is generally most apparent at night, this belies the
fact that it is driven by daytime processes. Throughout the daytime,
particularly when the skies are free of clouds, urban surfaces are
warmed by the the absorption of solar radiation. As described above,
the surfaces in the urban areas tend to warm faster than those of the
surrounding rural areas. However, as is often the case with daytime
heating, this warming also has the effect of generating convective
winds within the urban boundary layer. Due to the atmospheric mixing
that results, the air temperature UHI is generally minimal or
nonexistant during the day, though the surface temperatures can reach
extremely high levels.
At night, however, the situation reverses. The absence of solar
heating causes the atmospheric convection to decrease, and the urban
boundary layer begins to stabilize. If enough stablization occurs, an
inversion layer is formed. This traps the urban air near the surface,
and allows it to heat from the still-warm urban surfaces. Thus the
nighttime UHI is formed.
That text was inconsistent with the text there The explanation for the
night-time maximum is that the principal cause of UHI is blocking of
"sky view" during cooling: surfaces lose heat at night principally by
radiation to the (comparitavely cold) sky, and this is blocked by the
building in an urban area.
I don't think the new text works: if convection moves away the daytime
heat, then it wouldn't affect the nighttime. If the main forcing is
during the day, the main effect would be seen during the day. At the
least, that text needs some source.
William M. Connolley 21:33:05, 2005-08-25 (UTC).
Wow, that was quick. I'm new at this (the wiki bit, not the science),
so please bear with me.
The basic argument is this - during the day, the sun heats the
surface/ground/buildings/etc. The surface tries to heat the air, but
the convection/mixing with rural air prevents significant warming.
After the sun sets, the air stablizes and can be heated by the ground,
which hasn't yet cooled. (While the warm air is more noticeable, the
bulk of the heat energy is stored in the ground, due to much higher
heat capacities.) Does that make sense?
I will work on finding some sources.
However, I disagree with the statement that the blocking of "sky view"
is the principle cause of the UHI. It is certainly one of the causes,
but nowhere have I seen it described as the primary reason, including
in the sources listed.
--David Streutker 22:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
owl
wrote:
>Stooge fOwl-- you're a dirty bird, masquarading as a clean one.
You've tried that lame line a bunch of times. It's still a boring
response.
>I see Dr. Bill (William M. Connolley) has edited out my contribution to
>Wikipedia. This is why you saw the quote above. I had changed it.
>Truth hurts I suppose.
Aw gee. The world will just have to live with the disappointment.
</sarc off>
>As for 'properly shielded' temperature stations (Grandpa)
Mix your mash of responses somewhere else.
> ask Dr. Bill
>about those. We discussed this last time--there is no such thing,
>convection currents wreck havock on static temperature. What you are
>measuring is dynamic temperature (which has a velocity component). Not
>to mention humidity in the air that affects how much heat is transfered
>to the instrument (moisture affects heat transfer, and generally makes
>things cooler).
So under just the right conditions, you just might be able to get an
urban heat effect.
Strange, I see about the same temp diff between city and local rural
on the weather report just about every day - under every kind of
sun/cloud, windy/calm, humid/dry condition. It all gets drowned out
by real weather fronts moving through.
It reads like you've spent too much time trying to boil a bus to the
braking point.
>That alone will explain the 1 degree change in temps--not to mention
>narrowing of error in instrument which will create an artificial upward
>swing (upward since low temperatures are harder to measure than higher
>temperatures).
The only thing missing for this supposed explanation is a shred of
evidence. The evidence goes the other way - there has been a curious
note of slightly cooler values than expected in urban measurements.
(Stay tuned for Loopey's next Easter Island Bunny thought - the Rural
Heat Plateau effect. Convecting soon to a tea party near you.)
>This is too advanced for you pinheads--I should post this as a new
>message--you people are basically the kind of second-tier 'scientists'
>who found their calling in a 'cause' like radical environmentalism.
You don't understand the very 'UHI effect' you claim to have all these
saving 'explanations' for.
As a componant of anything more than localized urban warming. it gets
a miniscule low-probably complimentary value and nothing more. It
does not explain away the global average-temp increase.
As for your attempt to categorize and group people ... that's your
issue.
>Great way to meet chicks I've heard (if you dig chicks--I have my
>doubts about you two, obsessed as you are about me and constantly cyber
>stalking me).
Lou Pee, if anyone sidetracks to sexual alternatives and dysfunction
issues, it's you. Whatever those 'issues' are, they're yours and they
belong elsewhere, like back in your closet.
>
>Later looosers.
>
>RL
The later the better.
raylopez99
You have no clue what UHI is, do you?
Here is Wikipedia's definition, which is not bad, considering it's been
vetted and censored by your pal Dr. Bill. Read it and educate
yourself. Pay close attention to the passage marked with three stars
"***" :
"
An urban heat island (UHI) is a metropolitan area which is
significantly warmer than its surroundings. As population centers grow
in size from village to town to city, they tend to have a corresponding
increase in average temperature which is more often welcome in winter
months than in summertime. The EPA says: "On hot summer days, urban air
can be 2-10°F [2-6°C] hotter than the surrounding countryside." Not
to be confused with global warming, scientists call this phenomenon the
"urban heat island effect." [1]
There is no controversy about cities generally tending to be warmer
than their surroundings. What is controversial about these heat islands
is whether, and if so how much, this additional warmth affects trends
in (global) temperature record. The current state of the science is
that the effect on the global temperature trend is small to
negligible-see below.
Scientists compiling the historical temperature record are aware of the
UHI effect, but they vary as to how significant they think it is. Some
scientists (see Peterson, below) have published peer reviewed papers
indicating that the effect of the UHI has been overestimated, and that
it does not affect the record at all. Other scientists have used
various methods to compensate for it. **** Some advocates charge that
temperature data from heat islands has been mistakenly used as evidence
for the global warming theory.****
As a result of the urban heat island effect, monthly rainfall is about
28% greater between 20-40 miles downwind of cities, compared with
upwind. [2]
owl
wrote:
>fOwl -
>
>You have no clue what UHI is, do you?
You cornered the market on clued out long ago.
In response to:
>Most any urban area,
> for instance, is at least a couple degrees warmer than its surroundings.
You wrote:-
" ... the correction is exactly what the putative increase in city
stations indicates!"
You're claiming UHI is a measurement factor that overstates AGW.
You're wrong, you're silly, and now you're trying to crab-leg
backwards from it as an AGW explanation to the pedantic 'well, it's
warmer in the city than the surrounding countryside.'
The AGW correction is actually a complimentary approx .05dC.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm#222
The Nature study that did not find the any spreading UHI to correct
for was done at night, and you switched it to days (same post as
above).
And while you're wasting your time saying the city is warmer than the
rural, the UHI issue is about whether it is a GW factor and/or
requires adjustments to account for urban heat displacement at the
measuring device.
"The 'heat island' warming does unquestionably affect cities and the
people who live in them, but it is not at all clear that it biases
trends in historical temperature record: for example, urban and rural
trends are very similar."
Wander around all you want with 'city hot' ... just don't try to join
the dots to your AGW explanation (as usual).
>Here is Wikipedia's definition, which is not bad, considering it's been
>vetted and censored by your pal Dr. Bill. Read it and educate
>yourself. Pay close attention to the passage marked with three stars
>"***" :
>
>"
>An urban heat island (UHI) is a metropolitan area which is
>significantly warmer than its surroundings. As population centers grow
>in size from village to town to city, they tend to have a corresponding
>increase in average temperature which is more often welcome in winter
>months than in summertime. The EPA says: "On hot summer days, urban air
>can be 2-10蚌 [2-6蚓] hotter than the surrounding countryside." Not
Lloyd Parker
raylopez99
I am simply saying this: as we both agree (correct me if I'm wrong),
it is slightly warmer in the city than the country--this is known as
UHI. My conclusion that I draw from this (on this point we disagree)
is that instruments to record temperature, which over time have become
'urbanized' in that 50 years ago lots of them were in the countryside
(where airports are) and now have become part of the city, are showing
higher than before temperatures because of the UHI effect.
What part of that don't you understand? Quick suggestion: use simple
sentences. Not that I'm dumb, but you have a tendancy to use a lot of
compound sentences with recursive logic that makes it hard to follow
you--nobody can follow a crazy dumb bird brain like you.
Your pal (not that way you homo),
Ray
owl
wrote:
>fOwl--
>
>I am simply saying this: as we both agree (correct me if I'm wrong),
>it is slightly warmer in the city than the country--this is known as
>UHI. My conclusion that I draw from this (on this point we disagree)
>is that instruments to record temperature, which over time have become
>'urbanized' in that 50 years ago lots of them were in the countryside
>(where airports are) and now have become part of the city, are showing
>higher than before temperatures because of the UHI effect.
>
>What part of that don't you understand? Quick suggestion: use simple
>sentences. Not that I'm dumb, but you have a tendancy to use a lot of
>compound sentences with recursive logic that makes it hard to follow
>you--nobody can follow a crazy dumb bird brain like you.
>
>Your pal (not that way you homo),
>
>Ray
Inabiilty to read is your problem.
You've switched position on the focus of your UHI claim so many times
it has, like you, become pointless.
Take your inner conflicts somewhere else.
Take your childish vents somewhere else.
Take the need to post your autobiography somewhere else.
Basically, go to Easter Island.
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>fOwl--
>
>I am simply saying this: as we both agree (correct me if I'm wrong),
>it is slightly warmer in the city than the country--this is known as
>UHI. My conclusion that I draw from this (on this point we disagree)
>is that instruments to record temperature, which over time have become
>'urbanized' in that 50 years ago lots of them were in the countryside
>(where airports are) and now have become part of the city, are showing
>higher than before temperatures because of the UHI effect.
>
1. That's taken into account.
2. Stations not in an urban area (including ones at sea) are also showing
warming.
3. This has been noted in this group for at least 2 years.
raylopez99
just say I disagree that UHI "has been taken into effect". ANd not
just me but a significant portion of the scientific community.
RL
NobodyYouKnow
> Well, at least you can answer a question Lloyd, unlike fOwl. Let's
> just say I disagree that UHI "has been taken into effect".
And your ignorance is worth exactly nothing.
> ANd not
> just me but a significant portion of the scientific community.
No. Most of the relevant scientific community is quite aware of the
processing of the data. Your claim is unsupported.
And even a idiot like you should realise that if the UHI contributed
significantly to the global warming trend, then it should be coorelated with
urban areas, which it clearly is not.
Would you like to respond for once to that simple point?
>
Paul Bramscher
> Paul Bramscher wrote:
>
>
>>There can be absolutely no doubt that human activity, even in terms of
>>simple thermodynamics -- of releasing up energy stored in hydrocarbons,
>>fossil fuels, etc. in the form of heat -- as well as the impact of
>>building so many impervious surfaces and albedo on temperature -- is
>>producing very real and very measurable effects. Most any urban area,
>>for instance, is at least a couple degrees warmer than its surroundings.
>> This isn't a mere fad or theory. You can prove that with your
>>backyard thermometer.
>
>
> Paul--I could not AGREE with you more on the above statement. The
> change in albedo and the UHI is VERY VERY REAL. The problem is: this
> newsgroup does not believe that UHI exists! They think that it's been
> 'corrected for'. No, the 'correction' is not the trivial amount the
> AGW advocates think it is, rather, the correction is exactly what the
> putative increase in city stations indicates! (That is, no global
> warming).
>
> As evidence of this, consider two facts:
>
> 1) The authors of the fall 2004 report that saw no UHI on windy days
> in cities said they could not measure UHI, ergo it does not exist!
> Clearly they violated the 2nd Law of Thermo.
What report? We have demonstrable UHI here in the Minneapolis/St. Paul
area. Tune in any meteorologist or climatologist.
> 2) Antarctic sea ice is INCREASING while Arctic sea ice is decreasing.
> Does not sound like GW to me. Global cooling in the south? Ditto for
> the DECREASE in temperatures the last 50 years in the American south.
I don't know the study you're referring to, but the Antarctic glaciers
are 75% in retreat and the shelves are collapsing. Global warming isn't
a theory -- it's basically a demonstrable statistical fact. The
question is what's causing it, and what -- if anything -- we might want
to do in response.