Global warming is a hoax | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Commentary

Global warming is a hoax

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Comment

By Don Snyder

The cat is out of the bag. I could not figure out why the media, including this paper, has suddenly hit us from all sides with global warming.

It climaxed with the report from the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change, a UN panel established under the United Nations Environment Programme. This panel is not made up “of hundreds of scientists,” as the AP articles state. The IPCC does not carry out research, nor does it monitor climate-related data or other relevant parameters. It selects scientific literature to be peer-reviewed and overseen by its parent UN organizations. It concluded that global warming is real and that human activity is the cause.

Here are a few basics facts on global warming. The greenhouse effect related to global warming is not the same as the backyard greenhouse, but both trap heat. The major atmospheric constituents (nitrogen, N2 and oxygen, O2) are not greenhouse gases. Water vapor accounts for about 90 percent of the Earth’s greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide, methane, ozone contributes the rest. It should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3 to 4 percent are equivalent to the effect of doubling the CO2. An IPCC report admitted that “the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas” is “extremely misleading,” as water vapor cannot be controlled by humans.

Increased levels of carbon dioxide can cause an initial rise in temperatures. This rise evaporates tropical oceans, which leads to increased cloud condensation at high elevations. This cloud cover then blocks sunlight from heating the earth, resulting in cooler global temperatures. Haven’t you ever wondered why it’s cooler when it’s cloudy? If human activity increased carbon dioxide levels, it would not raise the temperature. In fact, the global temperatures have been stable. Satellites measure temperatures to .01 degrees Celsius, find a statistically significant cooling trend in the lower atmosphere since they started taking measurements in 1979. Warming simply isn’t happening, according to the satellite data. The satellite data also matches up perfectly, on a year-to-year basis, with temperatures measured in the lower atmosphere by weather balloons. This is a completely independent corroboration of the lack of predicted warming.

Then where does this warming trend come from? Big warming numbers come not from measurements but from computer models. You know the saying about computers, “garbage in — garbage out.” What about the glaciers melting and making the sea level rise? Fred Singer, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project Research Group, says the sea level will continue to rise at a slow rate of 8 inches per century, as it has been for the last few thousand years. The arctic temperatures have been measured for a long time. They vary cyclically. The warmest years in the Arctic were around 1940. Then, it cooled. And it’s warming again, but it hasn’t reached the levels of 1940. Paleoclimatology Professor Tim Patterson of Carleton University in Canada suggests that changes in the brightness of the sun from sunspots has some responsibility for this.

This whole global warming thing is a hoax. French President Jacques Chirac has let the cat out of the bag. He warned that if the United States did not sign the Kyoto climate protocol agreements, a carbon tax on goods could be imposed to try to force compliance. A long time ago, I laughed when someone told me the government would eventually tax everything, including the air we breathe. A carbon tax is putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions — essentially, taxing those emissions. This would raise the production cost, thereby forcing firms as well as households to limit emissions. Landowners planting trees are paid a set price for each ton of carbon stored by these newly planted trees or undisturbed fields. The going rate in the Chicago Climate Exchange was $3.80 per ton. Businesses that emit carbon dioxide buy credits on the exchange to help offset their emissions. In Europe, where carbon dioxide emissions are capped by law, the price of carbon has topped $20 a ton. The system is voluntary here in the United States until Bush dictates otherwise. China and other communist countries are, of course, exempt.

Let’s stop this insanity and write your congressman to let him know you want America free and independent of UN global control. Have him support House Concurrent Resolution 487 to stop the North American Union.

(Snyder lives in Napa.)

129 comment(s)

Keith wrote on Feb 13, 2007 7:18 AM:

" If there was no information and I was totally isolated from any media reports I would still know that the planet was getting warmer because of things I have seen in my 64 years. The causes are insignificant because with the best will in the world mankind is incapable of stopping it. You may be the last man on the planet to be convinced but you will capitulate. "

mayar wrote on Feb 13, 2007 7:24 AM:

" i know we can't stop it we're doomed it started so whot would u=you do it to slow the proses i think stop using petrol cars right and useing more reneweble energy help rase awerniss to the teen our blue plant is done for do you want that to happen start a help save the plant compane and let the leaders show the public what will happenif we dont stop the via midea lets star all at ones "

Peter wrote on Feb 13, 2007 7:25 AM:

" Professor Don, Cooler "when it's cloudy". Really, that is your powerful reasoning for ignoring the global changes we are seeing in God's creation? We all know that your reasoning can fall flat on it's face. A New England winter evening is generally warmer with cloud cover than a clear night of intense cold and heat loss. The loss of heat on those clear nights is astounding. The cloud cover acts just like a nice wool comforter. Peter "

Norm wrote on Feb 13, 2007 7:28 AM:

" The entire issue of UN interference with the business of the American citizen is now almost out oof control. Do you know the US National Park system repirts must be filed with the UN? Why? Well, as explained to me our Parks are now a world heritage and must be overseen by a global authority. What? If they are going to do that, where is their budget monies to keep our Parks in peak condition? "

Barnabas wrote on Feb 13, 2007 8:21 AM:

" Now it's computer models Vs Satellite readings, huh? Wahtever happened to the fossil fuel we have burnt everyday since the start of the Industrial revolution? what about the CO2 emissions and the millions of destroyed aircons and freezers? You gave such a cold shoulder to Global Warming? Or are you laughing on the other side?! Your article makes the likes me BELIEVE in Warming and ofcourse, with the best of intensions and action it could NOT be stopped and the recent sun spots added fuel to the fire making the ice go 'plonk'! making it possible for more earth quakes; how else would the Words of the Bible come true? "

IanC wrote on Feb 13, 2007 8:22 AM:

" There are inaccuracies in this article. Daytime cloud cover's libido effect reduces overall global temperature, yes. Sunspot activity affecting the suns *BRIGHTNESS* is not what accounts for solar variability affecting the earth. Higher sunspot activity is directly tied to higher solar "wind" activity by the sun, which affects the earth's magnetosphere, thus controlling the rate at which cosmic radiation enters the troposphere. Cosmic radiation has been experimentally proven to be directly tied to the formation of clouds in the troposphere. Higher cloud-cover overall affects the amount of solar radiation to reach the earth, and thus be absorbed. While nocturnal cloud-cover does retain heat, this is at a far lower rate than the reflective nature of cloud-cover prevents heat absorption. The sun is currently going through a "minor" "maxima" period of sunspots. The last great "minimum" was the Maunder Minimum, which occurred in the middle-to-late 1700's -- a period referred to as "The Little Ice Age." The Earth STILL HAS NOT YET reached the global mean temperature it experienced before this minimum -- as is clearly demonstrated by the written record showing that winegrapes were grown in England in that period. (It's still too cold for even the genetically modified crops to be reliable.) IS global warming happening? Yes. Is it anthropogenic? There is no evidence to indicate this. There has never been a single study which attempted to measure the direct effect of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. As to the sea levels rising regardless of what humanity does, this actually has absolutely nothing to do with global warming *per se.* There is a phenomenon called a "microcomet" -- essentially ice particles no larger than a fist, generally speaking -- which impact the earth's atmosphere on a daily basis. This results in an overall accumulation of available water to the hydrosphere. (Read: Water cycle). For the record: I am only a layman ecologist. "

Kevin wrote on Feb 13, 2007 8:42 AM:

" Very good letter, Don. But don't be disappointed if it gets a bad reception, the environment/socialist alliance is not going to let facts get in the way of their march toward global domination. As you mention, global warming has been continuing since the last ice age and when it stops (which is overdue and is now being predicted by some scientists) you better be prepared. Al Gore will have a new video out within weeks, warning us about the coming ice age (suggested title "An Awkward Truth?) "

Jim wrote on Feb 13, 2007 8:45 AM:

" It is time to be very blunt about global warming ! The strongest advocates of reducing CO2 think we use too much green house producing energy. After much thought and research I finally agree with them. Therefore, we must solve this massive urgent global warming problem by quickly reducing civilization. The messages are simple: The more people there are the more global warming there will be. Halve the world's population by 2060 and you halve carbon emissions. The real environmental villains are those who drive big cars, live in large houses and apartments >1200 sq ft with big screen TVs, are obese, eat meat, eat and drink dairy products, travel for pleasure, buy unnecessary consumer goods, who have more than 1 child and an energy wasting and polluting thrill called a pet. Bottom line: In 50 years do we want a planet of 10 billion people mired in deepening environmental crisis or a healthy and wealthy planet of 5 billion people? We 'MUST' immediately implement this twelve point plan to begin the process to save the world ! 1. Encourage and actually promote regional wars. Wars are a quick and efficient means of exterminating large populations. In the short term it may increase C02 emissions and unwanted fallout but long term is clearly a win win for Mother Earth ! Iran vs. Israel and India vs. Pakistan would be an excellent start to this long overdue process ! If we are lucky eventually one of these conflicts will escalate into a global war. 2. Cut the funding to the Iraqi war, pull out the US forces and watch the civil war that ensues reduce the world population by more than a million in only a few short months. After all, cut and run worked extremely well in Vietnam and Cambodia with well over 2 million inhabitants cleanly removed from this fragile earth. 3. The average global selfish wasteful CO2 creating citizen is living way too long anyway. Therefore, euthanize everyone once they reach their 65th birthday. In addition, this will solve our urgent Social Security and Medicare dilemmas. 4. Allow only one child per family. It was extremely successful in communist China. 5. If one child per family is good for global warming then we should limit one car per family with a minimum 75 MPG. Increase taxes to raise the price a gallon of gasoline to a minimum $5 indexed to inflation. Taxes to be used to help the needy poor. 6. In three years a total ban commercial aviation since it is a very inefficient and wasteful mode of travel. 7. Provide free government merci killing services to the critically disabled and/or ill since they require more carbon generating energy and precious resources to support them. 8. Euthanize anyone who get 15% overweight since human fat requires vast amounts of C02 emissions to maintain. How disgusting and wasteful ! 9. Allow persons only 1 pet per life time since animals require the use of scare resources which only pollute our air and add to global warming. 10. Cut the amount of holidays in the year by 1/2 to reduce unnecessary and wasteful travel for pleasure. 11. Ban all major sporting events and social gatherings. Why heat and cool those huge sports complexes and auditoriums ? And do you know how much energy is wasted traveling to and from these events. Just watch it on TV or use the internet. 12. A total ban the sale in three years of motorized lawn mowers, lawn trimmers, blowers, boats, jet skis, off road vehicles and other unnecessary polluters. They are just noisy and foul the atmosphere with huge amounts of green house gases. People, let's finally start to get serious about global warming ! JB Time discovers truth. "

San Fran Man wrote on Feb 13, 2007 8:45 AM:

" Keith, most pro-global warming climate scientists don't believe that weather patterns over the course of a human lifetime can differentiate a pattern. Don't hurt the cause, man. "

Hawkeye wrote on Feb 13, 2007 8:49 AM:

" Mr. Snyder, you're right about cloud cover keeping the temperatures down, but only 50% of the time. That principal generally only applies during the daytime, when the cloud cover not only blocks the energy from sunlight but also reflects it back into space. At nighttime, cloud cover acts like a blanket and traps heat. It prevents heat from radiating away into space. Haven't you ever noticed how cold those clear nights get? So cloud cover really only keeps the temperature from changing much. "

local rube wrote on Feb 13, 2007 8:50 AM:

" Now a science commentator? The little green men are sneaking up on Don with Blue and White UN helmets. "

True wrote on Feb 13, 2007 8:53 AM:

" Yes this is true. Global warming does not exist... IF you live in america and think global warming exists... Step outside... it will anwser all of your questions. I concur. whatever that means... Im 50 years younger then you keith.. and I slightly agree and disagree with you "

Heidi wrote on Feb 13, 2007 9:00 AM:

" Peter you wrote "A New England winter evening is generally warmer with cloud cover than a clear night of intense cold and heat loss. The loss of heat on those clear nights is astounding. The cloud cover acts just like a nice wool comforter." Don Snyder wrote that during the day cloud cover blocks the sun and makes it cooler. I have been out on many cloudy summer days and noticed how much cooler it is then when there is no cloud cover. Once the sun has warmed the earth during the day cloud cover in the evenings or night help trap that heat near the earth and make it warmer. For the same reason not having cloud cover in the evenings or at night makes it colder because the heat now has a way to escape. "

Dan wrote on Feb 13, 2007 9:02 AM:

" It is very troublesome to see the panic that the global warming crowd can instill in the general population. Personally I believe that it may indeed be getting warmer but I do not believe man made carbon emmissions are the reason. It is estimated that the current ice age has produced 20 cycles were glaciation occured followed by subsequent warming. Now stop and consider that for a moment. What caused glaciation? What caused the glaciers to retreat? Man could not have been a factor. There is reasonable proof, not consensus,that the earth cools and warms in cycles without man. One other item - water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas. But you can't tax the ocean for evaporating. "

john wrote on Feb 13, 2007 9:20 AM:

" im just a teen but all this stuff is interesting, i mean there are so many theories and things but i mean come on though a lot of this depends on the weather and if it happens what then? you cant do anything bout it so whats the use of arguing?? "

JD wrote on Feb 13, 2007 9:31 AM:

" the letter jim wrote is a little bit far fetched. he thinks we should go back to the 1800's. I agree that we need to do something to help the enviroment but i dont agree that global warming is all man made. I think a few restrictions should be made but the taxing on co2 is crazy. "

Kathie wrote on Feb 13, 2007 9:40 AM:

" What are you trying to hide? Global Warming is not a hoax and mostly everyone should no that. Everyone should know that they are in danger. There is only one planet that we can live in and we are destroying it day by day. People should be able to know that they can do something about this. The truth should be told not hidden... "

Peter wrote on Feb 13, 2007 9:43 AM:

" "Increased levels of carbon dioxide can cause an initial rise in temperatures." You state this as a direct fact in your article. This increase in the world's temperature, however, would not immediately lead to an increase in the amount of cloud cover on the Earth. Tropical oceans would not start to evaporate, as this effect would be significantly more pronounced at the Poles. Yes, more research must be done on the subject of global warming, but your argument in no way disproves its veracity. "

Jon wrote on Feb 13, 2007 9:45 AM:

" What reason would people have to make up global warming? If Global warming wasn't ture people like Al Gore would dancing the streets! "

Freeport56 wrote on Feb 13, 2007 9:45 AM:

" Al Gore forgot to mention that the Glaciers will melt when the Ice Age is over. Hew also failed to mention how you measure CO2 and differeniate it from the CO2 all animals exhale, the ocean gives off when evapoating...etc. "

Karin wrote on Feb 13, 2007 9:46 AM:

" Wow. Is he for real. I am using this article in my classroom to show students different points of view. I will have this one and many many articles with data and resources pointing to global warming as being a real threat to earth. "

Call me a fish wrote on Feb 13, 2007 10:00 AM:

" Have asked this question before and nobody has answered. How many times has the ocean waters covered our valley? Yes I am talking about the Napa Valley. "

John Bickelhaupt wrote on Feb 13, 2007 10:31 AM:

" It is the denial of global warming that is the hoax. I don't expect those who are either duped into believing it is not human-caused or have a financial interest in believing it isn't human-caused will change their minds but this delusion needs to be challenged wherever it appears. If you spend enough time looking at the data, and I have spent a LOT of time with it, there is no other conclusion to be drawn. "

Kevin wrote on Feb 13, 2007 11:19 AM:

" An open mind can be a wonderful thing, John. Try googling Henrik Svensmark or Dr. Nir Shaviv or Prof. Jan Veizer. They have evidence that cosmic ray activity is directly related to global temperature increases. "

fame wrote on Feb 13, 2007 11:23 AM:

" So that’s what the person thinks how, lovely (lol). Just at this point I do think we need to do our hwk in this project too kiddos obviously done his hwk over the time. Now once there dead and buried we will find some astonishing information but now’s now and with one less person what we gonna do but then again one light bulb isn’t gonna do much too but ya all know "

Thomas Wentz wrote on Feb 13, 2007 11:30 AM:

" It seems that you have done some research on the matter (or at least did a simple statistics search on google) and your arguement was layed out nicely, however, we cannot overlook the natural events that scientists have predicted in the past. The katriana incident for example was known to happen eventually and it didn't take someone with a masters to figure that one out. But still nothing was done about it. It was written off as inconvenient and where are we now? So now what im saying is that even if global warming is a hoax why can't we just be on the safe side and start acting like we care what happens to the earth? Im 17 and if i have to live in a world that is messed up because of you and your parrents generation, then i will owe you nothing. Its up to us now to salvage what we can. I want to be able to feel like i can have a child of my own who can live a good life on a beautiful planet. I want the human species to continue for generations to come. I don't want to look back at your generation with hatred and contemt for your lack of acton. So if you want to salvage any sort of respect or importance from us, then you'll have to show us that you are more powerful than your ego. "

Hawkeye wrote on Feb 13, 2007 12:18 PM:

" I agree with you Thomas. It seems like people just don't care. They let politics cloud their perpective and whatever other motives besides a total lack of respect. This attitude seems to be most pronounced here in the US. Europe has come a lot further to reduce our negative human impact on our environment. If only American selfishness were to disappear then that would be a huge step forward. "

Chicken Little wrote on Feb 13, 2007 12:21 PM:

" The sky is falling! The sky is falling! "

Realist wrote on Feb 13, 2007 12:25 PM:

" Thomas, have no fears...this whole anthropogenic global warming concept is nothing but a way to funnel money in to liberal pockets. Contrary to what these extremists claim, there are plenty of scientists that do not buy in to this junk science. Even if things do get warmer, life has a funny way of adapting...it did so before when it was warmer (the redwoods and bay trees in Napa County are a remnant of the rain forest that used to cover our whole area!). "

spank wrote on Feb 13, 2007 12:56 PM:

" Global warming theorists haven’t yet explained the recent increase in the polar caps snow fall and net increase in glacier thickness over the past 36 months... "

Call me a fish wrote on Feb 13, 2007 1:11 PM:

" Thomas can you answer my previous question? Anybody? Can I add one that was presented by another blogger on a different story? Has Greenland always been covered with ice? Why is it that nobody knows if our valley has been covered by ocean water?. This reminds me of our drive by media, in which, you can ask all the questions you want to. However, you are only going to get an answer if it going to protect the mindless liberal. Thomas you are young and impressionable, please do your research with an open mind. "

Eric wrote on Feb 13, 2007 2:11 PM:

" ...and the conservatives will destroy the earth. They'll stall on meaningful action to fight global warming until it is too late. Conservatives are the ones who believed the world was flat despite proof to contrary. It was the same with the Earth not being the center of the universe etc. They don't like change. They don't like new ideas. They believe that God is in control of our little blue marble and that there's nothing we can do to screw things up. To quote John Stewar Mill, "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." "

Thomas again wrote on Feb 13, 2007 2:27 PM:

" "realist" how is it that so called global warming "theory" funnels money into liberal pockets? Is it just like smoke screens and squabbles for unrenewable resorces funnel money into corperate America's pockets? And just who are these "real" scientists you speek of? Where are their scientific findings posted so that i can review their experiments and try to test their data? And just what constitutes "junk science"? Is it the finding of an inconvenient trouth or the jamming of a convienient lie? And it's true that life has a "funny way of adapting". Most scientists call it evolution but we all know thats just junk scienc right? But the real cruxt of the matter is that people are so willing to rely on science and technology as long as it benifits their day to day life (cars, tv, modern oil rifining processes, electricity, synthisis of elements not found in nature, mp3 players, computers, etc...). But the moment science tries to warn us of our trashy ways, people refute it and spit on its name. Thanks for you kind words of comfort, however, im not looking for a, "everythings going to be alright kido", deal. I am looking for action, and i will not shut up until I see it happen. "

Call me a fish wrote on Feb 13, 2007 3:07 PM:

" Thomas, can you not answer my question? Or have you already closed your mind? I do believe Kevin has given some websites of interest to you. Please keep an open mind, not only in your studies as well as your writing. According to science things wont really get bad until you great grandchildren grow up? Perhaps. I do have one more question for anyone who can answer. What caused the first global warming? Dinosaur farts perhaps? "

JM wrote on Feb 13, 2007 3:14 PM:

" ...and the world is flat... "

To "Realist" @ 12:25 p.m. wrote on Feb 13, 2007 3:21 PM:

" "Contrary to what these extremists claim, there are plenty of scientists that do not buy in to this junk science" and that is because they have been bought by the Exxon-Mobil's of the world! "

John wrote on Feb 13, 2007 3:37 PM:

" Even if Global Warming is a hoax, I think its a good way to try and help the American People get away from oil. If we can get off the foreign oil maybe are country can spend more money to help the people of this country with free health care and better schools, instead of having to worry about keeping countris half way around the world stable. Also burning oil pollutes the air, just look at the skylines of any major city, no way can that be healthy for you. "

Hawkeye wrote on Feb 13, 2007 5:17 PM:

" John, that's what I've been trying to tell them. But like Thomas said, America depends too much on fossil fuel energy. All they care about is if it benefits them NOW. If it(changing our ways) will benefit our future generations then they say they can't be bothered. People are selfish. People are in denial. When we challenge their behaviours and attitudes they will defend them to their death. Come on people, burning fossil fuels is NOT healthy for the environment, DUH! Besides the impact on our atmosphere what about our health? It's a known fact that cancer rates are higher in polluted cities. Don't sit there and tell me that's a lie. Unfortunately most our cars still burn gasoline and most our power plants are still coal, so there's not much we can do about that right now except push for alternative energy. But there are things we can do to conserve a little bit. Let me address "call me fish". You ask if Napa Valley has been underwater. Well, it's a known fact that the Central Valley of California was once completely underwater and some of it sits a hundred feet above sea level. Some of Napa Valley sits under a hundred feet elevation and opens up to the bay, so yes, I would have to say that it has at one point. Whether it was due to the land mass being lower or the sea level higher I don't know. The Earth has always gone through warm and cold cycles, so it's hard to know exactly what trend we're currently in. But one thing is certain. We only have one Earth and one chance. We screw it up(now or in the future) and that may be our last. It's undeniable. "

No Name wrote on Feb 13, 2007 5:19 PM:

" Global Warming is not, i repeat not, a hoax!!!!!!!!!!! when i first read the title to this arcitle, i definetly made a comment. Global warming is real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

Christine wrote on Feb 13, 2007 5:50 PM:

" to ERIK, hello! umm...the conservative party or (should i say the ignorant party), gave over $16 billion in research(stated by Rice, recently) towards global warming in 2006 alone, and Bush, yes the Bush administration has increased spending this year by $4.2 billion on energy research. i would think this is a decent amount. as for for the conservatives being rather ignorant and only reliant on God...thats not entirely true,(and every conservative is religious) soley for the reason that I'am conservative, I'am on this blog finding out more info on the matter (and has helped alot) because I'am concerned. lets not generalize...it only feeds more ignorance. "

Chris wrote on Feb 13, 2007 5:51 PM:

" To Call me a fish... Ok, you're a fish. To answer your question about the Napa Valley, no, the Napa Valley was never under water, although that is really a tricky question since most of California west of the Sierras was at one time under water at one time or another. However, since the Napa Valley region is the result of relatively recent volcanism, it hasn't ever been under water. My source, The Roadside Geology of Northern Californa. As for Greenland ever being free of ice, the rocks from that part of the world are among the oldest around, so surely the land that is now Greenland was once free of ice. Now you can stop whining about how noone answers your questions. To IanC: Libido refers to your sex drive. Albedo refers to the reflectivity of an object. That was a good laugh. "

Sandra wrote on Feb 13, 2007 6:26 PM:

" Google vikings and greenland and you will find that it hasn't always been covered in ice....Hence the vikings naming it GREENLAND. They had a viable colonies that lasted over 300 YEARS only to fail once the ice intruded. They called the area of Nova Scotia VINELAND because grapes were growing there wild. Now it is too cold for grapes to grow there. "

Anonymous wrote on Feb 13, 2007 6:55 PM:

" It is interesting to say that the article contradicts itself. It states that water vapor accounts for 90% of the greenhouse effect, an effect that warms our planet, while it also states that water vapor can also cool our planet when it forms cloud cover. Which is it? Does the sum effect of water vapor warm our planet or cool it? I would also like to add that if global temperatures have been stable, as stated in the article, then WHY HAS GLOBAL WARMING BEEN MAKING SUCH A BIG DEAL ALL OVER THE WORLD? I am currently researching global warming for school purposes and I have only come across sources that say the global temperature has been increasing and most of my sources include Scientific American and other science based resources. Another thing I would like to add that yes, the IPCC is not made of scientists, but it reviews science based documents while remaining NEUTRAL (as stated in the document that set up the panel, set up how they are oraganized, stated their purpose, ect.-you can find this document simply by looking up the IPCC on google) on the issue of global. And they have reached a consensus that there is a 90% chance that global warming is being caused by human-caused emissions. Their support of this consensus comes from 600 scientists in over 40 countries. This seems like a huge consensus to me. So maybe we should stop debating over the issue of global warming and start acting against it, and I assure you, acting on global warming will not bring disaster to the economy; I'm sure there are ways to avoid disaster all the while helping the economy. Just look at the time when home constructioners were reluctant to install wall insulation in homes because they thought it would cost too much. But today wall insulation is installed in every home, the home construction companies are doing just fine, if not, better, and the wall insulation benefits everyone by trapping heat and saving money on the electric bill. Hmmmm........ "

Chris wrote on Feb 13, 2007 7:31 PM:

" Dig a little deeper Sandra. The ice sheet in Greenland is as old as 250,000 years. The Vikings may have called it Greenland because "Frozen Wasteland" didn't attract settlers. They may have called it "Gruntland" which translates to dirtland in old Norse. It may have been greener in Eric the Red's time due to a warming trend, but only the southern tip. The interior has had a 2 mile high glacier for tens of thousands of years. "

Anonymous wrote on Feb 13, 2007 7:40 PM:

" I would like to say that environmentalists and scientists are not making up global warming to try to "dominate the earth" (nor are they making it up, just to add). How could they "dominate the earth" anyway; do they expect to simply take over our leaders of the world once global warming has a strong consensus as some people state?.....uhhh....NO. If one wants to go argue against global warming, then I want to start hearing real arguments, not some stupid and ignorant statement. I would also like to point out that if you deny global warming because you fear it, well don't fear it. Just simply act on it so we can get over the problem and get on with our peaceful lives. "

Jon C wrote on Feb 13, 2007 8:00 PM:

" Fred Singer, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project Research Group, is funded by the Unification Church. That's the Rev. Moon. "

jim wrote on Feb 13, 2007 8:59 PM:

" This piece is an example of bad science of the worse kind and why people should have an idea about what they are pontificating about before opening their mouths or sitting at their keyboards. May Don Snyder roast in peace. "

The libido effect wrote on Feb 13, 2007 9:30 PM:

" Gotta love the libido effect! Thank you global warming! "

Sandra wrote on Feb 14, 2007 7:52 AM:

" Chris, my point was that there was GREEN in the LAND. The colonies failed because of intruding ice. Inuits started expanding thier territory, and because of the intruding ice, the vikings eventually left because it was more and more difficult to live there. Do grapes grow wild in Nova Scotia now? There was a warming trend, the ice pulled back, vikings came, saw green, saw grapes, lasted 300 years, the ice came back, grapes left vikings left....My point was there have been warming trends in the past. We are in a warming trend now. Is this human induced, sun induced, a natural occurance? That is the debate, not that it is warming. People panic because it is warming. It has warmed before. "

To Annonymous wrote on Feb 14, 2007 9:46 AM:

" You are correct Mr. Annonymous, the Global Warming preacers er... scientists themselves do not want to "dominate the earth" as you put it. But, all the funding for the research they do, their incomes etc. comes from those who want nothing more than to dominate the earth. "

just a hought wrote on Feb 14, 2007 11:21 AM:

" Words have the appearance only of what the one wishes to hear. Green understood in today’s parlance may well not share the same lexicon today as when first applied. Whether Green meant dirt or just different from the surrounding landscape in Old Norse or modern English is central only to a historic interpretation of the present from the past. Climate changes over a short range of time, say 1000 to 3000 years, can be noted by several variations in the effect climate has had on social and political settings and events. This is the historical record man leaves for us to predict the future from the past and is equivalent to applying the divination of reality from tealeaves. Observations of Vikings and our interpretations applied to the discussion of global warming may be colorful and amusing but ignore the sweep of geologic time, measured in tens of thousands and millions of years. The small incremental change we are able to substantiate from statistical observation, geologic proof over time, along with evidence that humans do indeed effect change by their behavior (acid rain, dust bowls, defoliation of forests etc.) in the environment is more reliable in the formation of hypothesis about what might happen than slick commentary using Vikings as examples or political fears of UN interlopers. Attributing a liberal political agenda to critical thinking about science and the environment is more mental posturing than credible thought. We ignore and deny the seriousness of our behavior in regard to the environment we all share, at the risk of destroying the quality of life we desire. "

Kevin wrote on Feb 14, 2007 6:51 PM:

" Do a little research and you will see that the Medieval Warming Epoch is well documented and is a severe impediment to the man made global warming crowd (they generally just ignore the data). "

just a thought wrote on Feb 15, 2007 8:33 AM:

" Kevin, do a little thinking and realize that 500 to 1000 years is not much of a comparison against the changes that occur on a global scale. The historical statistical resources you refer to may be as subjective as any modern resource or more so. Small climate changes occur (changes that have detrimental or beneficial effects for humans) "naturally" over short periods of time, to deny out right evidence of change linked to human cause is again ignoring the obvious. Theories predicting disasters are always suspect but to relegate them to the realm of the frivolous (i.e. political party, liberal, conservative, the UN or secret society etc.) may be a greater disaster. "

Summer wrote on Feb 15, 2007 10:18 AM:

" I hope you're right, Don. But hoax or not, we still win by making the planet healthier. (Attn: Capitalists, I smell economic opportunity) If you're not right, we'll pay a too high a price for ignoring it. "

Why have science wrote on Feb 15, 2007 3:27 PM:

" If you are going to throw it away when you don't like the findings? We might as well go back to explaining the world using myth. The American Geophysical Union, THe American Academy for the Advancement of Science, The National Academy of Sciences, as well as the IPCC have stated that global climate change is occurring and is partially caused by humans. There is one dissenter that I am aware of, and his message is propped up as the one area of uncertainty against the findings of (essentially) the rest of the climate scientists, as if there were equal numbers on either side. Luckily the wool is being pulled from America's eyes. "

Call me a fish wrote on Feb 15, 2007 4:10 PM:

" So now we have agreed that the Napa Valley has been covered by ocean waters. Thank you! I will be able to sleep. The point actually was however is that our earth changes. To call it global warming and put fear into minds that are not even likely to make correct lane changes on our roads, is completely out of line. Our country has fallen not the sky. Get with it people. Do we really need 48 different choices when trying to pick up some toilet paper? Do our children need to be sitting in front of a television constantly because they are affraid to go outside? If the nukes dont hit us first I do believe that a natural depression would certainly be helpful in all of these matters. "

Devil's Advocate wrote on Feb 15, 2007 5:19 PM:

" Whether global warming exists or not people are stupid. Why do you insist on driving everywhere and being wasteful in the home. Consume, consume, and consume some more. It makes me sick how many cars there are on the road. Sure driving is necessary at times but you don't see nearly enough people on bikes. Ride a bike once in a while. It's cheaper, you save a lot more money on gas, and it doesn't pollute our environment. Oh yeah and it's good exercise. Something our fat society needs. You can even run to where you need to go. The Napa Valley Marathon is about a month away. Start training. Whatever though. If it's not convenient you're not going to do it. You're spoiled, fat, and lazy. "

Chris wrote on Feb 15, 2007 7:15 PM:

" Call me a fish...Perhaps you should read my response a little closer. I said that the Napa Valley has never been covered with water. "

no name wrote on Feb 15, 2007 9:59 PM:

" Its a hoax!!! repeat it is Hoax Were just all running out of fuel. we have none left in a 20 years, they say, so it will colder including inside your house/ leaders should all drive open air electric scooters and set an example..of the new future. American auto makers should be forced to build no auto larger than a 3 cyclinder. Country's should close their borders and halt growth econmonies. All fuel related toys should be banned. Air transporation should be banned or taxed triple. No person should be allowed to work if they are they are further than walking distance to thier employment Yikes. "

Kevin wrote on Feb 15, 2007 9:59 PM:

" That's the problem "just a thought". There is no "evidence" of man made global warming. Lots of theories, but no proof. Another study came out today where the actual data does not support the global warming theory. The Antarctic is not warming the way they predicted. Damn those facts! "

Sandra wrote on Feb 16, 2007 7:42 AM:

" To just a thought...you stated "Small climate changes occur (changes that have detrimental or beneficial effects for humans) "naturally" over short periods of time, to deny out right evidence of change linked to human cause is again ignoring the obvious." You assume much in that statement. The last part is all assumption. That is the very area of the debate on global warming. There is evidence, of course, that humans contribute to the increase in CO2. BUT, how much change does that contribution cause is what is being debated. Greenland was Green. There is evidence from archeological digs that there was farming for a period of about 300 years. There is the same type of evidence showing that grapes were growing wild in Nova Scotia during the same time. Neither of those real occurances could happen now, because it is too cold. The world was warmer, and we survived. It cooled, and humanity survived....though not to well in Greenland. It does not hurt to tread lightly on this planet, but the hysteria surrounding the current theory of Global Warming only causes clear thinking people to wonder and ask more questions. The more questions I ask, the more I see that there is still a huge debate around this subject, and no clear conclusions can yet be drawn. "

just a thought wrote on Feb 16, 2007 10:15 AM:

" Kevin, All hard science and pseudo science is based on theory and observation. When the theory does not change or adapt to account for reality it could be viewed as a pseudo scientific theory. This is the problem with accepting any theory as absolute fact or evidence. However this does not mean that certain qualified predictions cannot be made using a theory. Evidence, being the empirical observation of specific conditions, which must be analyzed accepted or rejected in the validation or falsification of the evidence. The theory itself is neither upheld or denied by these findings it is merely confirmed or unconfirmed by them. Non-confirmation does not in and of itself deny the theory. Theories of global warming and climate change dismissed out of hand largely due to polarized political view points are not invalidated. Because the person or association advocating that theory may be politically repulsive does not invalidate that theory. That is the crux of this letter and discussion. Those predicting doom and gloom using this theory may be just as misguided as those who would deny any insight provided by it. What is the study "just out today" that you refer to? After all, I have in my possession a list of tree huggers and fellow travelers. "

just a thought wrote on Feb 16, 2007 12:56 PM:

" Sandra, I must assume that my assumption is “ignoring the obvious.” Climate change can be very subtle but contain very drastic consequences. The changes referred to by you and Kevin are the medieval Climate Anomaly (appx. 900 to 1300) and the Little Ice Age (appx. 1500 to 1850) these are excellent historical examples of figuratively recent climate change, but they are very small in comparison to geologic time and do not account for change globally. The discussion however centers about a certain theory being a “hoax” perpetrated to deliberately mislead and advocate a political agenda. You present evidence that Kevin, perhaps, would deny. You accuse me of making an assumption, I will confess to the assumption that neither you, myself or Kevin is a scientist but only people trying to fathom the world about them. I would ask you to look at the word assume and see what it makes out of U and Me. I tend not to assume anything but question everything. "

Chris wrote on Feb 16, 2007 1:01 PM:

" Sandra. Stop saying Greenland was once green. The southern tip of Greenland was once green (as it is today in the summer). The vast majority of Greenland was covered by many thousands of feet of ice for the last 100 or so thousand years. "

Sandra wrote on Feb 16, 2007 1:20 PM:

" Chris, you do love to nit pick, don't you? I think the school district could use you if they allow kids in school with nits....but that's another story. "

Mark M wrote on Feb 16, 2007 1:25 PM:

" What bothers me the most about the debate on Man Made Global Warming is the nearly vehement bile of Al Gore and many of those who believe that "WE" are responsible for this all of a sudden climate change. I do not respect him at all, nor will I believe only a consensus of the total number of scientists who have a voice. It is being shoved down our throats, and if you dare debate nor believe it, you are a branded heritic of the right. THAT is what is keeping ME in so-called denial. "

Call me a fish wrote on Feb 16, 2007 1:44 PM:

" Hey Chris I was not responding to your comment. You obviously didnt do your research. Its ok. I am pretty sure you are one to need the shovel when the time comes to it. In fact if you read the devils advocates post maybe it will clear things up fo ryou just a bit. Keep up the good work America. "

No "proof" of global warming? wrote on Feb 16, 2007 8:58 PM:

" Some of you state, quite correctly, that there is no "proof" of the link between human activity and global climate change. Nor is there any "proof" of the validity of the theory of evolution. But there is plenty of evidence to support both of those. One became widely accepted in the scientific community long ago as the best interpretation of the available evidence. The other appears, thankfully, to be rolling toward the same destination. "

To "Sandra wrote on February 16, 2007 1:20 PM" wrote on Feb 16, 2007 9:39 PM:

" With the information that he has posted here, Chris answered well your earlier post, which contained inaccurate and misleading information, and there is nothing insignificant, nor "nit picky" in what he has contributed to this venue. Rather, he has completely pulled the rug out from under your earlier arguments on this topic. So quit with the ad hominem personal attacks when you have clearly been "one-upped". They only serve to undermine your credibility in this debate even further. "

Proof of global warming wrote on Feb 17, 2007 7:40 AM:

" Just drive to Yosemite and see what that global warming has already done. In my humble opinion it made a mess of those mountains, cutting one in half, what a mess. We need to stop this warming before it makes more of a mess. "

Sandra wrote on Feb 17, 2007 7:46 AM:

" TO "Sandra wrote on February ....." I'm sorry you are unable to read clearly. I never said all greenland was green. I refer you to my post on "February 14, 2007 7:52 AM" where I clarify my statement for Chris, since he assumed much from my first post where I said Greenland wasn't always covered in ice. I never said there were no Glaciers on Greenland. He assumed that is what I meant. After trying to clear this up for him, he then still assumed this is what I meant, hence the NIT PICK observation. And Yes the southern tip of Greenland is Green today. It was still warmer when the Vikings settled there than it is now, and since it was warmer then, it was green in a larger area than it is now. I love it when people try to shoot the messenger. "

LeftyLimlog wrote on Feb 17, 2007 8:07 AM:

" Snyder must not have been living in Napa over the last few weeks. We've had some clear COLD nights, then we had some cloudy nights that were much warmer. So how is it, Snyder, that clouds make it cooler, exactly? I am sure glad that Snyder is not trying to predict the local weather, much less the climate change that I have watched happening since I was a kid. Lefty!!! "

To "Sandra wrote on February 17, 2007 7:46 AM" wrote on Feb 17, 2007 11:55 AM:

" Sandra: I read your posts very clearly. You stated in one earlier post that “Greenland was Green”. As Chris pointed out, in fact, a very limited portion of it was green, much as is still true today. With that in mind, to say that “Greenland was Green” is inaccurate and misleading. You were the one who was not clear. So “I'm sorry you are unable to [write] clearly”. Pointing that out can hardly be viewed as “ try[ing] to shoot the messenger". Rather, it is calling attention to a fallacy in your earlier argument. And my earlier comment about ad hominem personal attacks still stands. "

and the winner is? wrote on Feb 17, 2007 2:20 PM:

" Naysayers bring little real science to the table when discounting climate change. This letter is an attempt to fool people into to believing that major climate change is a hoax but it is merely the showmanship of a man in love with the sound of his own words. He essentially denies human contribution to the green house effect. Thinking about science is not easy as he readily demonstrates especially if one wishes clean neat answers and solutions which over a period of time this letter writer has demonstrated is his specialty on numerous subjects. He is fascinated by a conspiratorial political agenda on more than just global warming. The window dressing of misleading information about water vapor and CO2 is intended to have us believe he actually is aware of what he is talking about. His real beef is with the UN or anyone he views as espousing a liberal cause i.e. Al Gore, even illegal aliens or the one world consortium he views as a direct threat to his deluded sensibilities. Others here confuse dubious historical references with fact. Vinland was anglicized into Vineland (vin being a meadow in old Norse) and does not refer to Greenland but to a possible landing on the coast of Nova Scotia or perhaps New England. These accounts are from reports in the years approximately 900 to 1100 AD and are somewhat more reliable than say reports of the voyage of St. Brendan. Yes there is evidence of localized warming and cooling the shaky historical record of these periods suggests that areas we now believe to be quite cold were for a short period of time, say 300 years, a little more hospitable. These, again are localized not global indications. Current statistics show temperature on the rise globally and one strong reason suspected is the rise of green house emissions. Sun spots by the way were once thought to predict economic cycles by eminent economists. Science is not infallible but the evidence exhibited by the receding glaciers of Kilimanjaro the measurable difference at both polar regions are not to be taken lightly. "

Sandra wrote on Feb 17, 2007 2:49 PM:

" GREENLAND WAS GREEN!!! I never said it ALL was green. Get a grip, will ya? "

No, Sandra: YOU get a grip! wrote on Feb 17, 2007 3:27 PM:

" During the period that you cite, It was never even MOSTLY green. Your comment implied otherwise. THAT'S THE POINT!!! "

Sandra wrote on Feb 17, 2007 6:10 PM:

" The melting of glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro is mainly happening because the bottom slopes have been largely deforested, not because of CO2 emmisions. Air cools when blowing over the tops of trees, it does not cool when blowing over dirt, so warmer air currents are melting these glaciers. I never said grapes were in Greenland but in Nova Scotia. Archeologists can determine a great deal about a civilazation. They found the types of crops that were grown and the amount of agriculture during the times the Vikings were on Greenland. Yes this warming could of been localized in the northern hemisphere. It was also warmer in Scotland, England, and Ireland. I have never said it would not be a good thing to cut back on emmisions, I just think the debate should have facts and not be ruled by emotions such as evidenced by "February 17, 2007 11:55 AM". These emotions let these readers misinterpet and read things into what is said based on thier own predjudices. They assume because thier thoughts are driven by emotion and not clear thinking. Facts are facts, interpretations of the facts are where the debate lies. Oh and Greenland was green. (I never said all over...that was the emotional interpretation of my words.) "

To Sandra wrote on Feb 17, 2007 9:09 PM:

" You slay me! Instead of allowing even the remotest possibility that there may have been a lack of precision, clarity, or accuracy in your statement, you blame it, instead, upon someone else's "emotional interpretation of [your] words". You can sure dish it out, but you cannot take it. "Get a grip, will ya?" "

Mark M wrote on Feb 18, 2007 10:06 AM:

" I find that speaking to many of those who believe in Man Made Global Warming are as easy to get information from as those of the Religon (?) of Islam, when you ask them even a simple question concerning their prophet; nothing but ridiclue and snide remarks. We are told that the earth goes through cold and warm phases; so WHY ON EARTH is THIS one OUR fault? Al Gore has not sold me; in fact, he drives me away, as do all liberal causes. "

Runbikehike wrote on Feb 18, 2007 11:27 AM:

" Three key ideas regarding the theory of global warming are all true: (1) temperatures are getting warmer; (2) warming is caused by human activity; and (3) warmer temperatures will be harmful to biomes around the world. There is an Everest of evidence to support each of these three ideas. Naysayers may quibble, but over time they will not be able to disprove the abovementioned key ideas. Deal with it. "

Sandra wrote on Feb 18, 2007 3:55 PM:

" I attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt, since you insist I was misleading. Having reread my posts, and seeing not once did I ever say Greenland was all green, or even mostly green, I am perplexed that you keep thinking that is what I said. It is your interpretation of what I said that has you confused. Anyone at any time can add meaning to written words that was never there. I can only ponder at your insistance that I inferred Greenland was mostly green, since I never did. I could repeat what I said , but if you could not understand it the first time, or the second time when I further clarified what I originally stated, why should I think you would understand it by repeating it ad nauseum? Also, why should I say I was at fault for saying something I never said? As for getting a grip? I appreciate the advice, but I seem to have more of a grip on the comprehension of the written word, than you. I belive your thinking is clouded by emotion, which is why you find it so difficult to understand what I said. If that bothers you? Oh well.... "

Realistic Environmentalist wrote on Feb 18, 2007 4:16 PM:

" The evidence is not as conclusive as the liberal lemmings say it is. A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models. This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity. It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet. If you want to research this further, check out David Bromwich, a professor of of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. He reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco. I'd post a link, but they usually get rejected by Register blog editors so much for free speech!). "

A More Realistic Environmentalist wrote on Feb 18, 2007 5:26 PM:

" Here are some quotes from the Bromwich article which add a more balanced perspective to that 4:16 p.m. post. “‘It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,’ he said. ‘Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. THIS IS IN MARKED CONTRAST TO THE NORTHERN TIP OF THE ANTARCTIC PENINSULA THAT IS ONE OF THE MOST RAPIDLY WARMING PARTS OF THE EARTH.’ … Bromwich said that the increase in the ozone hole above the central Antarctic continent may also be affecting temperatures on the mainland. ‘If you have less ozone, there's less absorption of the ultraviolet light and the stratosphere doesn't warm as much.’ … That would mean that winter-like conditions would remain later in the spring than normal, lowering temperatures. ‘In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion,’ he said. ‘The year 2006 was the all-time maximum for ozone depletion over the Antarctic. … Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong.” "

To 3:55 p.m. wrote on Feb 18, 2007 5:57 PM:

" Sandra: if you are the one posting the comment, you are not the one inferring. You are the one implying. According to the online source, thefreedictionary.com: "Usage Note: Infer is sometimes confused with imply, but the distinction is a useful one. When we say that a speaker or sentence implies something, we mean that it is conveyed or suggested without being stated outright: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a business tax increase, she implied (not inferred) that some taxes might be raised. Inference, on the other hand, is the activity performed by a reader or interpreter in drawing conclusions that are not explicit in what is said: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a tax increase, we inferred that she had been consulting with some new financial advisers, since her old advisers were in favor of tax reductions.” So much for your clarity of expression. "

Sandra wrote on Feb 19, 2007 9:48 AM:

" "THIS IS IN MARKED CONTRAST TO THE NORTHERN TIP OF THE ANTARCTIC PENINSULA THAT IS ONE OF THE MOST RAPIDLY WARMING PARTS OF THE EARTH" Please correct me if I am wrong, in fact I'll probably be corrected even if I am right...but it is my understanding that this part of antartica is melting due to a warm ocean current that had changed its course towards this peninsula. If that is the fault of global warming, please explain how. It would seem to have more to do with other sources than CO2 in the air. Why do ocean currents change? There are probably many reasons, but somehow I think global warming would be very low on the list. "

Chris wrote on Feb 19, 2007 10:49 AM:

" Let me try to explain this. First off, think of the Earth's weather system as finely tuned machine. Messing with the mechanism can throw it off in unexpected ways. For instance, higher temperatures mean more ice melt. This causes more fresh water locally. Fresh water floats over salt water. Saltwater sinks. This movement is one of the drivers of currents, the others are temperature differences and landforms. A good example is the Gulf Stream on the East Coast. Without the Gulf Stream Europe would not be as temperate as it is today. When the ice in the polar cap and Green Land Ice Cap melts at a greater frequency (which is a documented phenomena), more fresh water goes into the current and could shut it down. The last time that happened was shortly before the last great ice age. "

continued wrote on Feb 19, 2007 11:03 AM:

" It doesn't take a lot of temperature change to mess with things. It doesn't take a lot of carbon dioxide to raise the temperature, either. Natural processes put CO2 into the air every day. The system, however, keeps it from building up, that's what plant life does. Photosynthesis uses CO2 as food and body building (cellulose is basically sugar, C6 H12 06 ). When the plant dies if it isn't consumed, the carbon stays locked away. If it becomes fossilized(coal or oil), the carbon stays out of the system. There is the problem. When we use fossil fuels on the scale we do, we put it back into the system at a rate that the system can't remove it. Plus the fact, our activities are having an impact on the very thing that keeps the carbon in check, a double whammy. Not good! "

Sandra wrote on Feb 19, 2007 11:25 AM:

" Ok Chris...more ice melting from the Antartica peninsula due to higher temperatures, changed a cold current to warm? It seems the melted water would be colder than the ocean water. If it is your belief that salt water sinks,and colder water stays on top, then how could the current get warmer there? It would seem that the warm current would shift away due to the colder temp. of the melting ice. in response to your last sentence... are you saying we are not entering Global warming, but an ice age? LOL, you wouldn't be inferring or implying would you? "

the AXE wrote on Feb 19, 2007 12:22 PM:

" Putting aside everyone’s political axe, perhaps many proponents or opponents should examine their opinions and strident defense and advocacy by asking and answering several questions for themselves. Is there a general documented rise in global temperature? Whether the answer is yes or no, a further question or series of questions must be answered. If the answer is yes than, what data confirm or do not confirm a rise in temperature. What, if any, effects can be expected or predicted and what indicates that this is different from past temperature changes? If manmade emissions hasten or contribute to a temperature rise is it realistic to ignore that contribution? If we are not experiencing a climate change based on a temperature rise and manmade emissions do not contribute to current and future temperature change is it realistic to attempt to control such emissions or ignore them? Are there other reasons these emissions should be controlled? Absolute guarantees do not exist for either the proponents of the theory of Global climate change or their opponents. Which do you think is the more promising avenue to follow? "

Afternoon wrote on Feb 19, 2007 3:40 PM:

" As I understand it trucks and buses cause the most pollution, damage to our roads and green house emissions. Why is that we have all those empty buses running around Napa? We can make a positive start right here in our own community to reduce pollution, road damage, traffic and global hot air by cutting out 90% of the empty buses. "

Evening wrote on Feb 19, 2007 4:01 PM:

" Or perhaps we should ride the busses and leave our cars at home. "

To "Chris" @ 10:49 AM wrote on Feb 19, 2007 4:35 PM:

" Some of us out here in the blogosphere understand what you are talking about, even if Sandra doesn't. (Of course, anyone who had given any serious thought or study to the topic of global warming/climate change would recognize immediately the phenomenon that your are referring to here. The fact that she clearly has no idea what you are talking about illustrates well just how poorly informed that she is about this topic. Thanks for your thoughtful contributions to this page. "

Chris wrote on Feb 19, 2007 5:56 PM:

" Sandra: Sigh! First off, it is not a belief that fresh water floats on salt water, it's a physical fact. Less dense things float on more dense things. Salt water is denser than fresh water. Likewise, warm water floats being less dense than cold water. That is a principle you can observe when you see a hot air balloon. Secondly, will global warming lead to an ice age? Perhaps, I don't really know all of the science on the subject. The point is that the mechanisms that govern climate are sensitive. The activities of human beings are having a significant effect on those mechanisms by producing more carbon dioxide than would naturally occur and disrupting the processes that keep the system balanced. The ultimate results are not well known. The short term effects are that sea levels are rising (not disputed), the average global temperature is rising (not disputed), the northern polar cap is getting smaller and there is strong evidence that the southern polar cap and the Greenland ice cap are melting. Ultimately, everyone reading this will be long dead before the true consequences are known and felt. It's not an over night process. I personally doubt there is much to be done about global warming. I'm rather pessimistic, I think that the majority of people will die as a result of chaos all this will cause. Major climate changes usually result in mass extinction. "

Average Joe wrote on Feb 19, 2007 7:33 PM:

" If global warming is as huge a problem as the media claims it is, then higher concentrations of air particulate is good...more sunlight reflected away, therefore less sunlight trapped in the atmosphere, and Earth stays cooler. How come this is not addressed as at least in part as a solution? "

To "Average Joe" wrote on Feb 19, 2007 9:17 PM:

" There are some researchers out there who are beginning to put forward just such an idea as a possible (partial) solution to the problem. However, there are concerns that there may be unintended or unanticipated consequences to such an approach that may have other adverse affects (such as possible harm to the public's health). There is a lot more research to do before such a possible solution can reasonably be pursued as a means to such an end. "

Dear Chicken Little: wrote on Feb 19, 2007 9:29 PM:

" Do all the "the earth is warming so it is our fault" sheep actually believe there are no reputable scientists declaring otherwise? Do us all a favor and conduct a little research and you'll be amazed (yes you, Mr. 10:49 AM)! The very attempt to silence all who disagree about global warming ought to raise red flags. The global climate alarmists have a very pathetic track record and continue to suck the gullible in. Please, if you rely on your scientific information from a politician, Hollywood celebrity, or a rock star, you're a bigger moron than they are! "

Dear CL wrote on Feb 20, 2007 7:49 AM:

" You must know these Scientists and their work, post their names and/or organisations. That way we can share ijn your wisdom. Please not wikipedia and obvious intenet mavens but actual Scientists and reputable sources. "

Sandra wrote on Feb 20, 2007 9:40 AM:

" From The American Geophysical Union (or AGU), a nonprofit organization of geophysicists, consisting (as of 2004) of over 41,000 members from 130 countries.: "There is evidence that the sea level rise observed over the last decade is largely due to thermal expansion, as opposed to the influx of freshwater mass from the continents. However, estimates of thermal expansion are still sufficiently uncertain to exclude some contribution of other sources, such as the melting of mountain glaciers and polar ice. Moreover, independent measurements of total ice melting during the 1990s suggest up to 0.8 mm/yr sea level rise, an amount that could eventually be canceled by change in land water storage caused by anthropogenic activities. Another important result of satellite altimetry concerns the nonuniform geographical distribution of sea level change, with some regions exhibiting trends about 10 times the global mean. Thermal expansion appears responsible for the observed regional variability. For the past 50 years, sea level trends caused by change in ocean heat storage also show high regional variability. The latter observation has led to questions about whether the rate of 20th century sea level rise, based on poorly distributed historical tide gauges, is really representative of the true global mean. Such a possibility has been the object of an active debate, and the discussion is far from being closed." SO while sea level are rising it is possible much of it is due to thermal expansion. Another example of data used to support global warming is Glaiciers melting on Mt. Kilaminjaro. The deforestation at the base of the mountain is the reason the Glaciers are melting there. My intelligence can be insulted by the likes of "February 19, 2007 4:35 Pm", but it doesn't make me stupid, because he/she says so. In fact the need to insult me to shut me up is a reflection on the posters own intelligence. There is a lot of data. Accuracy of data can be question some of the time. Inerpretations of data most certainly can and should be questioned. If certain people do not like my questions, then they need to think about why that is. "

Chris wrote on Feb 20, 2007 12:25 PM:

" Sandra- 2 things. The shrinking of the glaciers on mountains is a world wide phenomena, not just at Mt. Kilimanjaro. And, it's not just that they are shrinking as it is the accelerated rate that they are shrinking. I lived in Kenya and frequently visited the Kilimanjaro area. The change in the snow cap is startling after 20 years. You are right to say that the deforestation around Kilimanjaro contributes to the effect, but that just contributes to the argument that human activity contributes to global climate change. "

Thin Skin wrote on Feb 20, 2007 12:26 PM:

" Personal sensitivity is not what one should seek in the blogospere. Be careful of your own words Sandra as they offend many with your special arrogance and insult. You have entered an area where expertise at internet find and seek does not depend upon how much you think you know about a political situations that opinion and belief rule but how knowledge is derived from the real world, how it is interpreted and how it is used. You can find as many scientific theories and scientists to support or deny any number of competing theories as you can find generals and politicians and “expert” sources you’re your crusade against Radical Islam. Mark M. has already made such a suggestion. You bring your own personality and baggage with your opinion to others seeking understanding of a very complex problem that can not be reduced to single one size fits all theories like global warming. Do you really want to address the problems of the environment or is this just another forum for you to practice your polemics? "

Thanks Chris wrote on Feb 20, 2007 3:45 PM:

" As a layperson (non-scientific type) I must express the difficulty of wrapping my mind around any single theory that uses a single cause as an explination. I know it is difficult to explain how science works in a manner easily accessible to the general public. Over a number of years we have seen any number of supposedly scientific predictions of doom and gloom come and go. It has left many jaded and reactionary when grandiose schemes or explanations are touted and politicized. We have also seen recognizable warnings come true, air pollution, deforestation, acid rain, industrial landfill pollution and much more. The footprint human beings make upon the planet has definite cause and effect relationships and many times may be either irreversible or take generations to correct. Our skepticism arises with conflicting information and the tendency to want to understand only what is easy for us to digest. Might I suggest that Climate change is not solely linked to carbon emissions but to many sources some man made i.e. deforestation and some that could be considered a natural occurrence. Could I further suggest that we may need to control what we can in order to preserve and protect what we can of our environment? It is apparent, at least to me, that whatever theory is correct in the long run it makes sense to limit whatever harm we do and conserve what resources we are able to, in an effort to preserve the planet and our future on it. I find your explanations quite valid, informative and courteous. "

dear thin skin wrote on Feb 20, 2007 4:39 PM:

" The AGU, is not just some organization. It's huge. Sandra's use of their findings is appropriate, and your dismissal of one of the most important and largest scientific organizations in the world is inappropriate. "

To Realistic Environmentalist wrote on Feb 20, 2007 5:17 PM:

" Yes. The Models suggested that there would be more snow; hoping that it would offset the melting in Antarctica. Unfortunately, that did not come to pass. "News outlets around the world covered Andy Monaghan and colleages's research which was published in the journal Science, titled, Insignificant change in Antarctic snowfall since the International Geophysical Year. "[Monaghan], a meteorologist at Ohio State University's Byrd Polar Research Center, said in an interview that his findings suggest the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2001 prediction that Antarctic snowfall would increase 15 to 20 percent by the end of the century may not be borne out. Some researchers had hoped increased snowfall in the region would thicken the Antarctic ice sheets and help counterbalance any future melt." " So, that just means it's worse than the IPCC thought (shrug) "

Sandra wrote on Feb 20, 2007 5:47 PM:

" Chris, My point through this whole discussion is and has been that we should walk gently on this earth. I am just fine and dandy with leaving as small a foot print as possible. I have no objections to cutting back on CO2 emmissions. BUT I also am a curious person by nature and like to learn and discuss things. When I see contradictions I want to understand the "why" of a thing. I object to the Glaciers melting on Mt. Kilaminjaro being used as eveidence of increased CO2 emmissions, because that is inaccurate. You are absoulutely right that it is because of man that they are melting, but it is not CO2, it is deforestation. Also I dared to question the Antartic peninsula's melting as a direct result of CO2, as I know it is from a warm current change. It is certainly possible that it is nondirectly related. This is something for me to think about. I asked for clarification from you so as I would have a better understanding and was met with a "SIGH", and an insult from the poster above you. It is too bad you both have such arrogance, as it is not helpful to people gaining any understanding. It is also too bad we cannot just have a discussion of ideas without this attitude continually showing up. The level of obtusness displayed by the other poster can only be interpreted by me as a way to induce argument. It is very tiresome. "

Sandra wrote on Feb 20, 2007 7:22 PM:

" Thin skin, I wish you would settle on just one name and quit hiding behind so many different ones. Your posts reflect upon you. Your attitude is childish and tiresome. You do what you accuse me of, and it is obvious you are the same person, by the tone of your posts. GROW UP. "

Hawkeye wrote on Feb 21, 2007 4:08 PM:

" Sandra, here is something for you to think about though. You say that the melting of glaciers on Mt. Kilaminjaro is due to deforestation. And you are right. The sun heats bare ground more readily which carries warmer air currents up the mountain which in turn helps deplete the glacial ice. And, forests help supply humidity. Without that humidity the drier air currents help evaporate the ice through sublimation. BUT, plant life also consumes CO2. With worldwide deforestation, there is less plant matter to consume our excess CO2. Add to that the slash and burn technique where the burning releases all the CO2 that the plant consumed and stored throughout its life cycle. So the deforestation you speak of relates directly to the CO2 issue. So I believe that the melting glaciers are due to many factors, including greenhouse gases. "

Sandra wrote on Feb 21, 2007 5:46 PM:

" To Hawkeye, Yes you are right about the release of CO2 in slash and burn. I know this. Many countries contribute to the green house effect. Do you really think driving our cars less will make a bit of difference when there are so many different things contributing to this? I already drive my car much less than the average person, I don't burn wood, I recycle, etc...But what I do makes absolutely no difference in the amount of green house gas released. My point about the hysteria is it is pointless. The whole world needs to get that there is a potential problem. Hysteria, and misinformation do not help. It is my understanding so far that the thermal expansion of the ocean would be the largest contributer to ocean rise. BUT, it may be offset by other factors. The science just isn't there yet to tell accurately. And it is a slow process that will take hundreds of years to reach maximum level of water rise. Also with all the misinformation and questionable interpretation of data, the final word is not in. Absolutely we should try to emmit less CO2, but the damage may already be done, or not....the melting of glaciers could be from Greenhouse gas, or a normal warming trend...better to be safe than sorry...but as of right now I don't think anyone can say what the ultimate result of humanity on the planet will be. I resent it when politicians attempt manipulation of me with misinformation. I don't care what side of this issue they are on. I resent the know all attitudes of those who are unqualified to know all. Yes, I am referring to "Thin Skin" and all the other names this person goes under. It does not help in trying to reach understanding on this issue. It is so much hot air. Hmmm, I wonder how much CO2 this person has contributed? I wonder how much I have contributed in reacting to his/her nonesense? "

Taylor w. wrote on Feb 21, 2007 5:53 PM:

" i think global warming is happening but we could all easily fix it by simple things that does not even take a scientist to figure out i am twelve and know how this could be prevented form going any firther "

God wrote on Feb 24, 2007 12:20 AM:

" The planet will be fine once we and it thin's out the parasites called humans... Its just a matter of time... enjoy. "

LeftyLimblog wrote on Feb 24, 2007 6:44 AM:

" Sorry, "Sandra", but the science is IN and it is uniformly bad for the Climate Change Deniers. The only 'scientists' that disagree are those that are paid by the oil and coal people. I think it is very interesting when a major oil company is offering bounties for 'scientists' to keep denying what we can see with our own eyes. California is warmer and drier than when I was a kid. And finally, to meet your proposed standard of evidence, Old Napa will have to be underwater -- AGAIN. Lefty!!! "

Kevin wrote on Feb 24, 2007 7:28 AM:

" Just like the science was "in" only 30 years ago that "was certain" the earth had entered a period of global cooling. The science was wrong then and they are probably wrong this time. Look at how they keep downgrading their predictions: 10 years ago they predicted a 20' rise in the oceans in a hundred years. Now they have backpeddled and only predict a rise of 20". What will they predict ten years from now: a 2" rise? "

Sandra wrote on Feb 24, 2007 8:30 AM:

" To Leftylimbog., I obtained my information about the science not "Being in" on the effects and consequenses of Thermal Expansion from the finding of scientists in the AGU. Where did you get your info from? Al Gore? "

Afternoon wrote on Feb 24, 2007 2:24 PM:

" Why must liberals make global hot air such a political gaffe? They say no to nuclear power genearation which requires the use of coal and natural gas to support power demands and causes incredible amounts of green house gases and particulate fall out. "

Hawkeye wrote on Feb 24, 2007 4:48 PM:

" Sandra, I applaud you for taking steps to tread lightly on this earth. You must realize that every bit we do to conserve reduces the output of pollutants by that much. If a hundred people did that, then multiply that by 100. So of course we as a population can help reduce. It does pale in comparison to the output of factories, aircraft, etc. But whatever we can do does help. Even jet engine manufacturers are designing more fuel efficient yet more powerful jet engines. Just watch an old Boeing 727 takeoff next to a new Boeing 777. The 727 leaves a huge brown cloud behind it, while the 777 leaves no visible cloud at all. All the savings add up quick. Cut back on fossil fuels and we don't pollute as much, we save money, our lungs are healthier, trees are healthier, waterways cleaner, etc, etc. Unfortunately a lot of us are so jaded by past misinformation from the government, politicians and scientists that we balk at any suggestion that our human footprint may be causing more harm than good. Our thoughts are so clouded with political garbage that it eliminates any chance of rational discussion. "

Mark M wrote on Feb 26, 2007 6:30 AM:

" If it is SO dire a situation, why have China and India been given a pass in regards to being left OUT of the Kyoto Agreement? And, why carbon credits, if this is death at our doorstep? "

Temper wrote on Feb 26, 2007 12:48 PM:

" Super cool dudes ahahahaha lmao! "

Lina wrote on Feb 26, 2007 8:43 PM:

" I don't believe this There has to be something behind this theory, or hoax as you put it "

Sandra wrote on Feb 27, 2007 10:30 AM:

" Lina, think what you will....something behind this theory? hmmmm...some theories in the past that were embraced and then debunked....the encroahing Ice age of the 60's and 70's, also devastating population growth...And one of my favorites, which was supported by Theodre Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill,Alexander Graham Bell, Margaret Sanger, Luther Burbank, Leland Stanford, H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and approved by Supreme court Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Louis Brandeis. Research was backed by the Carnegie institute, and work done at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, and John Hopkins. Efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the AMA, and the National Research Council. The theory was Eugenics, later embraced by Hitler to support his erradication of the Jews. Just because a lot of people say its so, doesn't mean we should not question, and analyze. Won't hurt to cut back CO2....but lets not forget lessons of the past, and let's not forget both sides of this issue have other motivations besides just being alturistic. "

More Kool-Aide anyone? wrote on Mar 1, 2007 9:55 AM:

" Let’s see if I have the “correct understanding of the “science”….When the temperature increases….it’s made-made global warming. When the temperature decreases….it’s normal climate change. Oh, and Al Gore is the only person who can save us! "

Mark M wrote on Mar 2, 2007 8:25 AM:

" Ok, since I didn’t get a response, I will ask you who believe in Man Made Global Warming (MMGW) the question again, but in a different way: If MMGW is a reality, and it IS such a dire a situation, why have China and India been given a pass in regards to being left OUT of the Kyoto Agreement, and why has Al Gore NOT been over to THEIR countries? And the second part of the original question stands as is: why have "Carbon Credits" if this is death at our doorstep?" "

Julia wrote on Mar 6, 2007 9:25 PM:

" It is a proven fact that global warming is real, now the only way that we can slow it down is by working together and doing our own parts to help the environment. Writing articles about how global warming is a hoax is just a waste of time and good resources. "

Bill wrote on Mar 10, 2007 9:47 AM:

" It comes down to this, if we take efforts to curb global warming, we’ll be in a better place in terms of alternative energy sources and healthier biomes across the planet, regardless of whether it’s a hoax or not. If, however, we do nothing and it turns out that global warming is a reality, well, then we’re in trouble. If we do something, we’ll be in a better place. If we do nothing, we might just be screwing ourselves. Why not err on the side of caution? Seems like the prudent thing to do. "

Mark M wrote on Mar 12, 2007 1:49 PM:

" Oh, a PROOVEN FACT, is it? I dont know if this will get posted, but if you go to the search engine Google, and type in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" you will be able to view a lengthy retort to the intolerant and even facist view of Man Made Global Warming. Our children in the Napa Valley Unified School system are already being taught that MMGW is a fact, when in reality, it is NOT. If you REALLY value truthful discussion, and not another Michael Moore lie, watch this video, and REALLY debate this religion. "

Julia wrote on Mar 18, 2007 4:13 PM:

" Being a Student in the NVUSD, i think that I will stick to what they are teaching me, and not to what some random person who cannot even spell "proven" correctly is trying to tell me. "

Hawkeye wrote on Mar 26, 2007 5:48 PM:

" Kevin, China and India were given a pass to be left out of the Kyoto agreement because they are planning to build more coal plants. "

LiL VaShA 2KaY7 wrote on Mar 27, 2007 6:40 AM:

" GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! "

Sarah Hogg wrote on Apr 20, 2007 7:39 AM:

" what the heck is this all about????? why do you say thet it is going on i don't see any thing. "

Mstry4u wrote on May 23, 2007 10:18 PM:

" Are you trying to tell me that the rising temperature graphs from WMO are not real and part of a conspiracy. There are only two forms of pollution in the atmosphere, air and radio, of these both only CO2 is monitored and regulated for it's effects on the environment (which haven't been actually observed) while radio waves are unregulated and have been directly proven to simulate stratospheric ozone depletion through REP relativistic electron precipitation (look it up)check out the latest readings from the french DEMETER satellite. You'll be surprized. "

bee-smrt wrote on Dec 18, 2007 1:38 PM:

" Im a 15 year old child, and i still don't think that 'Global Warming' is true. Years ago, the whole world started to change, it changed from Pangea, which was all the continents as one before they all parted, now into all the continents we have now. If you look back, there has been so many changes, and the world continues to change. I believe, and this is just my opinion, but i don't agree with Global Warming, i think scientists are right with us polluting the Earth, and it may have somewhat to do with the Earths changes, but i don't think its entirely our faults. The world changes every second of everyday, Afganistan use to be a Tropical Forest, there was an Ice Age, and according to the Bible a Global Flood years ago. So how do you know its not just the world changing, or maybe its just the world is going to flood and restart again like it did before, im no scientist, but this is just what i believe, and also im doing my science project on disagreeing with Global warming and thought i'd comment on this for you people. Thanks. "

Join the conversation