First he was against it, now he supports it..

[Xargos]

Well, someone needs to tell all the Volcanoes to stop erupting.

And Bush will support anything if he thinks he can make money on it.

[crockett]

Well, someone needs to tell all the Volcanoes to stop erupting.

And Bush will support anything if he thinks he can make money on it.

I think that pretty much sums it up.. If there is a way to make money on it, the Republicans will suddenly support it. If they could figure out how to make money on Govt provided health care, they would suddenly be all for it. It's the same reason for the whole push on corn ethanol. It's total BS but there is plenty of money to be made on it, so both Republicans and Democrats are pushing it it.

[DREDIOCK]

Well, someone needs to tell all the Volcanoes to stop erupting.

And Bush will support anything if he thinks he can make money on it.

"Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times. "

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

4. IN GENERAL, VOLCANOS CAUSE GLOBAL COOLING
From article at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/index.htm

Explosive eruptions can inject large quantities of dust and gaseous
material (such as sulphur dioxide) into the upper atmosphere (the
stratosphere - see Figure 1.1, section 1.2.2), where sulphur dioxide is
rapidly converted into sulphuric acid aerosols. Whereas volcanic pollution
of the lower atmosphere is removed within days by the effects of rainfall
and gravity, stratospheric pollution may remain there for several years,
gradually spreading to cover much of the globe.

The volcanic pollution results in a substantial reduction in the
direct solar beam, largely through scattering by the highly reflective
sulphuric acid aerosols. This can amount to tens of percent. The reduction,
is however, compensated for by an increase in diffuse radiation and by the
absorption of outgoing terrestrial radiation (the greenhouse effect).
Overall, there is a net reduction of 5 to 10% in energy received at the
Earth's surface.
http://www.gaspig.com/volcano.htm

[Xargos]

Another factor might be contributing to the thinning of some of the Antarctica's glaciers: volcanoes.

In an article published Sunday on the Web site of the journal Nature Geoscience, Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey report the identification of a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards frozen within an ice sheet in western Antarctica.

"This is the first time we have seen a volcano beneath the ice sheet punch a hole through the ice sheet" in Antarctica, Vaughan said.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/20/europe/climate.php

Also

http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm

[Napoleon II]

Maybe Boosh has realised that America's dependence on foreign oil cannot be sustained. In 2006, the cost of oil was around $60/bbl. In less than two years, the cost has nearly doubled to $115.45/bbl today, which means that expenditure on foreign (mostly OPEC) oil is running at around $1.6bn per day.

There's plenty of oil in the ground - it's just that we can no longer afford it. What better a smokescreen than global warming to allow an oilman to say that we must cut back on the amount we burn.

[Jackal1]

LOL
Seems like a lot here are reading something into this that is just not there.
Pretty much the same as always.
The main thing was and is the U.S. will regulate what/how/if our standards and not some looney organization
that bases theory on a load of BS.
You may now return to your Dreamland channel.

[Getback]

Bush has never been my favorite president. (My favorites have been John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan). Apparently Bush saw an opportunity for more control (ie Marxism) over the people just like the Democrats want. It seems a conservative has no leaders anymore.

[lazs2]

Hmm.. I had heard on NPR that the whole thing was just a way for the US and Bush to do nothing... it pretty much stops us from doing anything until a study is completed and shows exactly what we can do and what it will cost and what they results will be.

There is a trend that is good.. it is doing an impact study on all construction that is meaningful.. so many regulations in the US are stepping on each others toes that it is literally impossible to build or even upgrade anything.. the EPA often uses a 20 lb sledge to kill a knat.

In my case.. the EPA is concerned with a tiny little salt addition to very salty groundwater..  to mediate this they will regulate a plant that will cost upwards to one million dollars in electricity (carbon) a year and add hundreds of tons of chemicals to the water and hundreds of tons of chemicals to remove the other chemicals and create thousands of barrels of toxic waste a year that had to be put in drums and hauled off... the plant now is mostly carbon and chemical free using gravity and wind and sun to work.

The tax burden will double on the inhabitants in order to do this.   The science is bad on the EPA side.. no science at all.   

This is the approach I hope we take on the whole "man made global warming" thing..  I hope that it will (minus the drama and hand wringing) come to a national discussion with both sides of the issue able to present to the American people and.. the true cost and what realistically can be expected out of the whole thing.

If we are told that "no one really knows" or "it will cost trillions but it is probly too late"..... Will you be willing to go for a buck and a half a gallon tax on gasoline to send to algore inc,?

If they say.. for $50 a year in new taxes.. we can make the climate of the planet a nice even, flat average year every single year forever (we control the climate ya know) then... people will say.. "go for it"



lazs

[Yknurd]

From the CNN article:

"The Environmental Protection Agency already is under orders from the Supreme Court to determine whether carbon dioxide is endangering public health or welfare. If so, the court said, the EPA must regulate CO2 emissions.

Carbon dioxide is the leading greenhouse gas, so named because its accumulation in the atmosphere can help trap heat from the sun, causing potentially dangerous warming of the planet."


I guess we're gonna have to get a law passed that says no human or animal may exhale more than 4 times a day.....

And the EPA will have to regulate bovines also.

[Napoleon II]

The tax burden will double on the inhabitants in order to do this. 

- just as the oil price has doubled in the past 2 years.

If we are told that "no one really knows" or "it will cost trillions but it is probly too late"..... Will you be willing to go for a buck and a half a gallon tax on gasoline to send to algore inc,?

Imported oil is already costing trillions -  a trillion $ every 2-3 years. We can go on being oil dependent, or we can seek alternatives. The oil price is set to rise much higher. It's down slightly on yesterday's price - now a mere $114/bbl.

Four Reasons why oil will hit $187/bbl within 3 years

http://tinyurl.com/5llnvr

[lazs2]

well beet...er... "napolean"  we have had this conversation before.   

I have no problem with "alternatives"  they will happen and they may be expensive but... Where we differ is that you believe that the "alternatives" can only be found by the government and taxation.  I believe that the market will, and should be, the ones to find it.

The perfect proof is that in your country you have been paying twice as much for fuel for.. well...forever and..

I don't see your government using the money to find an alternative.  merry old england just taxes the crap out of gas and uses the money for socialism.   Now.. you think we should have that too soo.. the real burden will be several bucks a gallon for health care and then start tacking on the money to save the earth... to give solar internet to some african.

Tell ya what.. you guys tax the gas a couple of bucks there in england and let your government find alternatives..

We don't like your countries gun bans and we don't like your countries taxation and... you guys are not doing so hot in saving the planet so far as that goes anyway.. more carbon and co2 every year instead of less.

go on one of your countries BB's and tell them what to do.

lazs

[bj229r]

The US was once largely covered by glaciers, and receded long before the industrial age....must have been heap much warming there...hmmmm


Lol I was gonna make a thread on this, it's pretty @##@#$ funny:

before:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/louv/20050322-9999-lz1e22louv.html

 

Through a new public-private partnership, the San Diego Unified School District is about to show the rest of the country just how practical and profitable solar photovoltaics can be.

In 1998, the roofs of more than 100 schools in the district were in such ill repair that they were potentially unsafe. That year, San Diegans voted to modernize its existing schools and build a few new ones. The execution of Proposition MM has sometimes been less than inspiring. But the district's photovoltaic roofing project, being applied to some Proposition MM schools, deserves national attention.

Working with Los Angeles-based Solar Integrated Technologies, the district is reroofing 15 schools and three administrative buildings with a new kind of solar roofing material.

Unlike the propped-up, unsightly solar panels of the past, these modules are the roof. Solar Integrated Technologies will install 1 million square feet of these solar roofs free-of-charge and maintain them at no cost to the district for 20 years. The firm will also sell the energy that these roofs produce to the district at about half the cost now paid to SDG&E.

In terms of savings, we're talking real numbers. The district anticipates $6.9 million in total cost-savings over 20 years. The savings will be in avoided roof replacement an maintenance costs, and electricity cost savings of $1.9 million. "We believe that we will be the leading school district in the nation in terms of power produced by photovoltaics," says Erika Wilgenburg, communications supervisor for the school district's facilities management division.

after:
http://www.kpbs.org/news/local?id=11426

It seems solar energy takes more green. The San Diego Unified School District has suspended its solar energy efforts because power bills soared after the green initiative.

The district says it's paying up to $20,000 a year more on electricity after installing solar energy systems at 28 schools. Plans for solar installations at 22 other schools have now been put on hold.

School district energy management coordinator J. William Naish says spiking energy bills are the result of how San Diego Gas and Electric calculates charges to large power users.

Naish says it's almost like the district is being penalized for going solar.

The formula used to calculate electricity rates in California is expected to change next month. Naish says he wants to see a few bills under the new rate system before reviving solar energy use.

I'm guessing none of the school board peeps went to business school---the is what an 'education' degree gets ya

[DREDIOCK]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/20/europe/climate.php

Also

http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm

 This has nothinig to do with C02 emissions into the atmosphere

[Yknurd]

Negros....guns.....global warming!!!1

[lazs2]

I mentioned socialism..  you left out socialism.

lazs