posted 01-13-2004 01:36 AM               

Is a New Ice Age Under Way?
by Laurence Hecht

“Watch out, Al Gore. The glaciers will get you!” With that appended note, my friend, retired field geologist Jack Sauers, forwarded to me a report that should have been a lead item in every newspaper in the world. It was the news that the best-measured glacier in North America, the Nisqually on Mount Rainier, has been growing since 1931.

The significance of the fact, immediately grasped by any competent climatologist, is that glacial advance is an early warning sign of Northern Hemisphere chilling of the sort that can bring on an Ice Age. The last Little Ice Age continued from about 1400 to 1850. It was followed by a period of slight warming. There are a growing number of signs that we may be descending into another Little Ice Age—all the mountains of “global warming” propaganda aside.

Our current understanding of the long-term climate cycles shows that for the past 800,000 years, periods of approximately 100,000 years’ duration, called Ice Ages, have been interrupted by periods of approximately 10,000 years, known as Interglacials. (We are now about 10,500 years into the present Interglacial.) ...more

*********************************************
Here's the reality:

http://glaciers.pdx.edu/MRNP/Res00.html

Figure 1 - The lower portion of Nisqually Glacier, July 2001. The white outline shows the current location of the glacier terminus. The red area shows the terminus of the glacier in 1912 (based on a photograph taken by Aashel Curtis). The estimated retreat is 1.5 kilometers (0.9 miles).

*********************************************
http://faculty.washington.edu/scporter/Rainierglaciers.html

Recent glacier and climate variations in the Pacific Northwest

Stephen C. Porter

Quaternary Research Center, University of Washington

Extent of Nisqually Glacier in 1976 and early in the 19th century during its greatest advance of the Little Ice Age. Glacier terminus positions recorded sporadically between these times are identified by year of observation. Since 1976, the glacier terminus has continued to retreat and now lies well upvalley from its 1976 position. (after Porter, 1981)

Long-term mass balance trend for Nisqually Glacier based on a reconstructed climate record since 1850 (after Burbank, 1982). The long-term negative trend since the culmination of the Little Ice Age in the early to middle 19th century was accompanied by a decrease in glacier-covered area and glacier volume.

Like Nisqually Glacier, other glaciers on Mount Rainier have undergone substantial retreat during the past 100 years, as have other glaciers in the Pacific Northwest. Lyman Glacier, in the North Cascades, is a good example.

The terminus of Lyman Glacier has retreated far upvalley from the arcuate moraine that it built during the first decade of the 20th century. In the process the glacier has decreased in area and volume by more than 60 percent.

The overall pattern of 20th century glacier retreat is consistent with the warming trend seen in the later part of the global temperature trend for the last 350 years, which displays an abrupt warming in the early part of the century to values well above those of the Little Ice Age.

*********************************************

Does this surprise you, that SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra would present such misleading data?

It follows a consistent pattern. He used Glacier Mountain Park in Montana as an example of an advancing glacier...it's not.

He's said that polar stratospheric clouds don't occur outside the Antarctic Polar Vortex...they do.

He claims ozone depletion in the stratosphere is a hoax... it's real.

We have to continue to wonder why one is so desperate to press his case that he his willing to promote such easily disproved falsehoods.

IS this just sloppy? ... or fully intentional assuming that there are those who will believe his every word?

...or is he satisfied to simply create confusion?

Very distasteful in any event.

posted 01-13-2004 12:49 PM               

As the previous Titanic, Sore Throat, the galant captain of the Warming Titanic, will go down with is ship, trying to ignore the iceberg that collided against its theory: global cold weather brought it in a collision course against their computerized climate models, that curiously enough, do not take into account real world facts and measurements. In their virtual world of computer GIGO, only virtual results are obtained, but when they get in touch with real world's facts, they burst like a soap bubble. Pop goes the weasel!

According to Sore's nice link:

quote:

---

Ozone is not destroyed unless the temperatures in the stratosphere are cold enough to form polar stratospheric clouds and a polar vortex is formed that isolates the air so that the cold temperatures persist.

Ozone loss then occurs when sunlight returns to the air inside the polar vortex and initiates catalytic ozone destruction. This cycle means that ozone depletion is greatest in the spring when the sun returns and lowest if stratospheric temperatures are higher over the winter.
From: How does ozone depletion occur? http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/eff/pollution/544857/544921/?version=1&lang=_e

---

Then, how can Sore Throat reconcile the above statement of needed light to initiate ozone destruction with the fact that the “hole” has been developing earlier, a full month before the sun's rays reach the Antarctica stratosphere? I have posted and article here (from my website) quoting what a scientist from the NASA (Dr. Eberstein) said about this matter. I will repeat it again, because it is clear the Sore Throat has missed it completely (or rather he chose to ignore and not make any easy sarcastic commentary about it). Anyway, here it is:

quote:

---

Here's the reality:
Source: Goddard Institute for Space Studies http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/observe/surftemp/
Global Temperature Trends: 2002 Summation

---

Let us see how truthfull are graphs from the IPCC: This chart of global temperature as determined from surface thermometers was published in the latest "Summary for Policymakers" by the IPCC, with blue and purple labelling added later by 'skeptics' pointing to parts that have been proved wrong, and this flawed data is the one used by "scientists" publishing in Science magazine and the mainstream media.

It illustrates one of the key points of contention between the advocates of global warming and the 'skeptics'. The surface chart was mostly compiled by Tom Wigley and Phillip Jones, and it shows a +0.6°C warming from 1860 to 2000.

In a recent interview he gave to the PBS TV network in the U.S., Wigley said this about the above temperature history –

quote: "If I go back now and look at that record of global warming, it's true that over the period from about 1910 to 1940, there was very substantial warming, so much so that it cannot have been due only to human activities.  But there are two other possibilities. It could be due to changes in the output of the sun.  And, in fact, we believe that this is the primary reason for that warming." (end of quote)

Wigley's admission is based on the fact that the increase in atmospheric CO2 was not significant up to around 1940. He  referred to 'human activities' rather than CO2 specifically during this period, since that could include such human activities as land clearing and agriculture.

The IPCC claims a +0.6°C warming over the last 140 years, but they present that claim as if it could all be blamed on fossil fuels.  However, it is clear from Wigley's remarks and from CO2 data on public record that anything pre-1940 could in no way be blamed on fossil fuels.  This means that fully half of that +0.6°C warming was due to pre-1940 forcings, most probably the sun, as is now generally agreed by everyone.

But was there really a warming of +0.6°C?

The final 21 years of the above surface record shows a strong warming.  However, it overlaps with the satellite data (thick blue line), which shows no such warming, leading to the obvious question as to whether the pre-1940 warming was as big as claimed.  If the statistical processing of the surface record post-1979 could lead to an error of that magnitude in the surface record, the same processing procedures applied to pre-1979 data would in all probability over-estimate previous trends also.  By contrast, NASA's satellite record for the stratosphere:

and NASA's satellite record for the troposhere:

has been validated against independent radio-sonde data and is accurate to one hundredth of a degree. The surface record pales in comparison.

Your great knowledge of climatology lets you see that the big spikes in the graphs (1983-84, 1992-93, and 1998) were due to the strong El Niños of those years, especially the biggest of the all, 1997-98 - something that is totally unrelated to CO2 increases or fossil fuel burinig, as the El Niño/ENSO and La Niña are absolutely governed by the solar sunspots cycles as brilliantly demonstrated by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt, from the Schroetter Institute of Solar Research, in Germany:

SOLAR FORCING OF EL NIÑO AND LA NIÑA

New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?.

Once the El Niño was gone, temperatures went down again, something that your models does not predict at all. Models predict steady, linear warming, and do not allow for decreasing temperatures.

The Next El Niño – July, 2006 - Dr. Theodor Landscheidt has now extended his solar analysis to forecast the next occurrences of El Niño and La Niña. He is the only scientist in the whole world that predicted accurately the last three El Niños occurrences - with three years in advance, something that the best known "climate" model available cannot predict with more than three months in advance.

Of course, Sore Throat will dismiss Dr. Landscheidt's research because he is a 'skeptic'. Now Sore will have to prove that Dr. Landscheidt is being paid by the OIL industry - or perhaps a smaller industry?

But, as you people in this board have witnessed, Sore Throat has been constantly posting press releases from his friends in the warming industry (it is also an industry, and a flourishing one for that matter, but Sore doesn't mind, because he is part of the industry, he makes his bread from the industry, he`s being paid by the industry, but he doesn't mind...) that have been completeley refuted by facts taken from the real world, the one we live in - not a virtual computerized and highly mediatic one.

quote:

---

Of course, if you don't like these GLOBAL maps of temperature trends produced by NASA, then you can do what Eduardo Ferreyra does...
...buy a PC Paint program and make some of your own.

NOTE: ALL of the data in all of may posts is in its original form, not doctored in any way, and is cited and linked to the original source.

---

posted 01-13-2004 03:10 PM               

What a crock of arrogant, delusional, bullshit!

Here are the FACTS:

SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra has not admitted that he was in error by posting that "the best-measured glacier in North America, the Nisqually on Mount Rainier, has been growing since 1931."

My post at the top of this page dramatically shows what a complete fabrication his claim is.

Will he admit it? ...of course not!

SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra posts:

"According to Sore's nice link:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone is not destroyed unless the temperatures in the stratosphere are cold enough to form polar stratospheric clouds and a polar vortex is formed that isolates the air so that the cold temperatures persist.
Ozone loss then occurs when sunlight returns to the air inside the polar vortex and initiates catalytic ozone destruction. This cycle means that ozone depletion is greatest in the spring when the sun returns and lowest if stratospheric temperatures are higher over the winter.
From: How does ozone depletion occur? http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/eff/pollution/544857/544921/?version=1 &lang=_e

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact of the matter is, I did not post that link...wrong again Ferreyra.

Will he admit his error? Not likely!

Did you see his response to the question: "Would you please inform the kind readers of this thread just what type of instrument was used for the ozone readings at the French Antarctic station of Dumont d'Urville in 1958."

No, you haven't. I will give him a little more time to see if he has actually read the paper to see if he can answer this very simple, and pertinent question...but don't keep your hopes up beause once again, he will do anything to promote his agenda...and nothing that harms it.

As far as the lack of warming goes, check out the following:

Melting permafrost threatens Alps
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1099916.stm

Scientists Fear Cycle of Global Warming
Melting of Permafrost Could Cause More Warming
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/warming_permafrost010207.html

Melting Permafrost in Previously Forested Areas
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF5/594.html

Frozen Ground and Permafrost
http://nsidc.org/news/frozenground/archives.html

*********************************************
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0731-04.htm

Alaskan Warming is Disturbing Preview of What's to Come, Scientists Say

by Seth Borenstein

Global warming has caused the Columbia Glacier to retreat 7 miles in the last 20 years, leaving calves of ice in Prince William Sound.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska is melting.

Glaciers are receding. Permafrost is thawing. Roads are collapsing. Forests are dying. Villages are being forced to move, and animals are being forced to seek new habitats.

What's happening in Alaska is a preview of what people farther south can expect, said Robert Corell, a former top National Science Foundation scientist who heads research for the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment team.

"If you want to see what will be happening in the rest of the world 25 years from now, just look at what's happening in the Arctic," Corell said.

Alaska and the Arctic are warming up fast, top international scientists will tell senior officials from eight Arctic countries at a conference in Iceland next week. They will disclose early, disturbing findings from a massive study of polar climate change.

In Alaska, year-round average temperatures have risen by 5 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1960s, and average winter temperatures soared 8 degrees in that period, according to the federal government. The entire world is expected to warm by 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, predict scientists at the International Panel on Climate Change.

2002 was the hottest year in Alaskan history, and this past winter was the second warmest on record, according to the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., which found that Alaskan temperatures began to rise dramatically in 1976. This July, Anchorage recorded its second highest temperature ever as tourists got suntans.

Deborah Williams, the executive director of the Alaska Conservation Foundation, used to take visitors from the Lower 48 to the famous Portage Glacier just outside Anchorage, where the $8 million Begich-Boggs visitor center opened in 1986. By 1993, the Portage glacier had receded so much that it no longer could be seen from the visitors' center. Williams still takes visitors to the site, seeing the glacier's retreat as a warning.

"Alaska is the melting tip of the iceberg, the panting canary," said Williams, who was the chief Interior Department official for Alaska during the Clinton administration.

Portage is "a glacier that's almost out of water; it's thinned dramatically," said U.S. Geological Survey geologist Bruce Molnia, the author of the book "Glaciers of Alaska." About 98 percent of Alaska's glaciers are retreating or stagnant, he said.

Alaskan glaciers add 13.2 trillion gallons of melted water to the seas each year - the equivalent of more than 13 million Olympic-sized swimming pools, University of Alaska in Fairbanks scientists concluded after a decade of studying glaciers with airborne lasers. The rate of glacier run-off has doubled over just a few decades, they found. Alaska's melting glaciers are the No. 1 reason the oceans are rising, Molnia said.

Another frozen staple of Alaska's northernmost lands - permafrost - is also thawing and "is probably the biggest problem on land," said Gunter Weller, director of the Center for Global Change and Arctic System Research at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks.

Permafrost is land that stays frozen year-round. Villages rely on the hard permafrost to prevent beach erosion from violent ocean storms. Two Alaskan native villages, Shishmaref and Kivalina, must relocate because melting permafrost has caused beach erosion, leaving the towns vulnerable to severe storms.

About 600 people live in 150 homes in Shishmaref, a centuries-old village on a barrier island just south of the Arctic Circle. On the island's northern edge, erosion is so severe that the village voted to move two years ago, but villagers haven't been able to find a new site or money to finance the massive undertaking, said Percy Nayokpuk, president of the Shishmaref Native Corporation.

"It's a matter of safety," Nayokpuk said. "We're on this small low island. One bad storm could possibly wipe out the village. There is nowhere to run."

Melting permafrost also means trouble for the oil industry. Oil companies build pipelines and roads on it to support drilling on the North Shore. To minimize damage to Arctic tundra, oil companies explore for oil on Alaska's North Slope only when roads are frozen with a foot of ice and six inches of snow. The ice-road season has dropped from 200 days a year in 1970 to 103 days in 2002, according to Alaska state documents.

"It is unlikely the oil industry can implement successful exploration and development plans with a winter work season consistently less than 120 days," an Alaska Department of Natural Resources budget document said in March.

While global warming is hurting oil drilling, it's the increased burning of fossil fuels such as oil that causes global warming. In June, the Department of Energy announced that it would spend $270,000 to help Alaska rewrite its rules about how thick ice roads should be.

Permafrost lies under 166 Alaskan towns and 1,700 miles of Alaskan highways. Melting is causing whole chunks of the Alaska Highway to come apart, state officials said at a January global-warming conference.

Permafrost is melting "under forests as well as under buildings and roads," said atmospheric scientist Michael MacCracken, who headed federal climate-change studies in the 1990s.

So far, the greatest effect on forests has come from the spruce-bark beetle, according to Glenn Juday, a professor of forest ecology at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. The beetle, which kills spruce trees, has long lived in Alaska's forests, but normally takes two years to grow and reproduce; cold spells cut their numbers.

With global warming, however, the beetles now are damaging as many trees each year as they used to ruin in two, Juday said. More than 4 million acres of spruce - Alaska's predominant tree - have been killed, especially on the Kenai Peninsula.

"It's the largest episode of insect-caused tree mortality ever recorded in North America," Juday said.

The spruce-bark beetle isn't alone. Other tree-killing invaders made welcome by warmer weather include the larch soft fly, the aspen leaf miner and the birch leaf roller, Juday said.

As Alaska's climate gets warmer and drier, Juday's studies indicate, black and white spruces, which make up 80 percent of the state's main forests, won't survive. By the turn of the next century, Alaska's forests will resemble the Aspen-treed grasslands along the northern edge of the Great Plains in North Dakota and Montana, Juday said.

Some scientific reports also blame global warming for plummeting herring and salmon populations, Williams said. In the Yukon River, a warm-water parasite has infected salmon and herring, a key food source for marine mammals such as the stellar sea lion.

Warm waters have made Alaska's Bristol Bay salmon runs occur earlier than normal, making it harder for the salmon to survive, said Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologist Slim Morstad.

In addition, warm-weather wildlife, such as moose and beaver, are heading unusually far north, while species that require frigid weather "don't have anywhere to move to," said scientist MacCracken. Marine mammals such as walruses, ring seals and polar bears may soon see their numbers shrink along with the Arctic ice, Weller said.

*********************************************

A reasonable person would conclude that there is widespread warming throughout the world with melting of environments that have previously been frozen.

So just how is this happening without warming?

Or is Eduardo Ferreyra going to further amuse us by claiming that this isn't really happening? That it's all a hoax staged by the IPCC?

Let's see if he can answer this question: What causes the "drunken tree syndrome in Alaska" and why is this germane to this discussion of warming?

Once again, watch and see if he is capable of admitting to his errors.

This guy is so completely detached from reality (and lies so easily) that you'd think he was taking lessons from George Bush!

posted 01-13-2004 06:09 PM               

"Is a New Ice Age Under Way?
“Watch out, Al Gore. The glaciers will get you!”

Ferreyra claims that global warming is a hoax, that the majority of glaciers around the world are advancing.

Blantant misrepresentations of the truth (notice that he cannot find any current documentation to support his claim).

This, in fact, is what is presently going on:

Record retreat in Swiss glaciers in 2003 due to climate change: scientists

January 13, 2004

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm pl=story&cid=1539&ncid=1539&e=2&u=/afp/20040113/sc_afp/science_climate_switzerland_glaciers_040113184610

GENEVA (AFP) - Switzerland's glaciers melted by a record amount during 2003 under the onslaught of long-term climate change, a top Swiss science academy said.

The retreat of the glaciers in the Swiss Alps reached up to 150 metres, with an overall melting exceeding that observed in any year since measurements began in the 19th century, according to the Swiss Academy of Natural Sciences.

And the shrinkage of the mountain ice was not the direct result of record hot summer temperatures in Switzerland and Europe last year, it added.

"The overall view that emerges is of a clarity never seen before since annual measurements started in 1880. None of the glaciers progressed or were stationary," the academy in Bern said in a statement.

"These observations should not be associated directly with the extreme summer heat, the length of the glaciers reacts with a delay to the change in climate," it added.

One of the academy's scientists explained that the overall length of the glaciers reflected a warming of the climate over several years rather than immediate shifts in temperature.

More complex measurements of the thickness of the ice cover -- which is affected by short-term heat -- on three glaciers also showed melting last year exceeding the levels measured through the 1990s, said Andreas Bauder.

"The length change sums up all the climatic influences," he told AFP.

"The glacier measurements are one of the best ways of documenting climate change," Bauder added.

The academy also cautioned that the advance of some glaciers occasionally observed in recent years was caused by residues of old snow, and was not due to the freezing of new rainfall during cold weather.

Overall, glaciers in the heart of Europe's biggest mountain range stopped advancing about 50 years ago, Bauder pointed out.

The Swiss length measurements were based on regular data recorded on 96 Alpine glaciers.

Climate change has been blamed on global warming caused by the rise in air pollution from greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

Bauder said scientists were not able to predict longer term trends for the ice floes but felt confident enough to forecast that the Swiss glaciers would again shrink in 2004.

"The glaciers will retreat, just on the signals we had in the last couple of years," he observed.

*********************************************

RECENT WARMING OF ARCTIC MAY AFFECT WORLDWIDE CLIMATE

NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center

October 23, 2003

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html

Recently observed change in Arctic temperatures and sea ice cover may be a harbinger of global climate changes to come, according to a recent NASA study. Satellite data -- the unique view from space -- are allowing researchers to more clearly see Arctic changes and develop an improved understanding of the possible effect on climate worldwide.

The Arctic warming study, appearing in the November 1 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, shows that compared to the 1980s, most of the Arctic warmed significantly over the last decade, with the biggest temperature increases occurring over North America.

"The new study is unique in that, previously, similar studies made use of data from very few points scattered in various parts of the Arctic region," said the study's author, Dr. Josefino C. Comiso, senior research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "These results show the large spatial variability in the trends that only satellite data can provide." Comiso used surface temperatures taken from satellites between 1981 and 2001 in his study.

The result has direct connections to NASA-funded studies conducted last year that found perennial, or year-round, sea ice in the Arctic is declining at a rate of nine percent per decade and that in 2002 summer sea ice was at record low levels. Early results indicate this persisted in 2003.

...much more Well worth reading the entire article.

********************************************

Given these realities, isn't it interesting to watch SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra continue to spout his distorted view of reality.

Pathetic actually....despite whatever he attempts to distort with his drawing programs (modifying trends curves), he cannot control the realities of warming that are occuring all over the planet.

posted 01-13-2004 07:51 PM               

Scientist: Ice melting more quickly in Arctic

(2003-10-03 10:19) (Xinhua)
http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-10/03/content_269189.htm

Chinese scientists have discovered that ice in the Arctic area is melting at accelerating speed, which might have a greater impact on the global weather pattern than ever anticipated.

The conclusion was reached by scientists involved in China's second scientific expedition which returned to Shanghai on Sept. 26 after a 74-day exploration in the Arctic.

The thickness of the ice layer in the Arctic is now roughly at 2.75 meters, a significant decrease from 4.88 meters in the 1980s, said Dr. Zhang Zhanhai, leader of the expedition and director with the Shanghai-based China Polar Research Center.

Statistics indicate that as of September 2002, the ice layer in the Arctic shrank to approximately 5.18 million square kilometers, around 1.03 million fewer than in the 1980s.

Scientists have also found that the ice layer is usually about two meters thick at the areas around 80 degrees north latitude in the Canadian basin. In the areas south of 78 degrees north latitude, scientists could barely find the old ice layer, which is normally thicker than three meters.

Chinese specialists will carry out further analyses on the data and information obtained in the expedition and keep an eye on the situations in the Arctic, said Zhang.

Previous research has proven that Arctic ice layer changes influence the weather in China, including the temperature and rainfall in the Yangtze River basin during the rainy seasons.

********************************************

While legitimate scientists from all around the world are consistently reporting the observable results of a widespread warming trend, we still have Eduardo Ferreyra claiming it's all a hoax.

So let's see, they are ALL wrong and he is right.

You know the wonderful thing is you still have the freedom to believe who you want.

Don't waste it.

posted 01-13-2004 08:24 PM               

quote:

---

Does this surprise you, that SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra would present such misleading data? … We have to continue to wonder why one is so desperate to press his case that he his willing to promote such easily disproved falsehoods.
IS this just sloppy? ... or fully intentional assuming that there are those who will believe his every word? ...or is he satisfied to simply create confusion?
Very distasteful in any event.

SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra has not admitted that he was in error by posting that "the best-measured glacier in North America, the Nisqually on Mount Rainier, has been growing since 1931."

---

Despite silly arguments presented by this unbelievable silly character in this board, the Nisqually Glacier is undergoing an advancing stage. I suggest a trip to http://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology/wg_ol.htm (the “Washington Geology online” website – an US government institution, and select the September 2000 issue. It is a long PDF file (6.8 mbytes) containing the whole Sep. 2000 issue. When your download is ready, go to page 24, and read all about: “Abstracts on the geology of Mount Rainier” and the first abstract, related to Mount Rainier Glaciers says the following, (that cannot be considered “misleading data”:

from: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology/wg_ol.htm

Conclusion: probable glacier advance during the first decade of 21 century.

To put it in more accurate words: He LIED!. And he knew he was LYING!

quote:

---

He's said that polar stratospheric clouds don't occur outside the Antarctic Polar Vortex...they do. ... He claims ozone depletion in the stratosphere is a hoax... it's real.

---

He is desperately hung on that lie! Even in an article published years ago in my website (also posted here), and in my book “Ecology: Myths and Frauds” chapter two, "The ozone Hole Fraud" written in 1995, I say SPC form rarely outside the South Pole Vortex, with the exception of the short lived North Pole Vortex, and the main argument still stand as CHROME MOLYBDENUM STEEL: SPC DO NOT FORM in the rest of the world, so there is no GLOBAL OZONE DEPLETION. Only natural and seasonal depletion in the Antarctic and very little in the Arctic.

And that was confirmed by the Christa-Spa satellite, the joint NASA/Wuppertal University project that shsowd the ozone layer is not homgeneous, so reading vary from one mile to another!. The Cristas-Spa satellite also showed there is almost no FREON-11 inside the Polar Vortex, so how could chlorine come from inexistent CFCs inside the Vortex? BTW, The Invincible Ignorant skipped the Crista-Spa information without any comment. He IGNORED COMPLETELY such dangerous and heretic information for his GAIA Religion. He has ignored ALL problematic data I provided, and stuck only with some typos or unadverted omissions, or faulty grammar or synthax, perhaps because he has such a Shakespearean style. What about the chemical formulas for the chlorocatalythic course of Molina's theory?. Hasn't his team of eco-chemists came up with an answer yet?

posted 01-13-2004 09:11 PM               

A new modelling study published in Nature, [Thomas et al, v.427 p.145, 8 Jan 04] and publicised widely in the media (e.g.here and here), has led to claims that a million of the world's species `could' become extinct by 2050 as a direct result of 'climate change'.  The study focuses on several regions of the world including Australia, Brazil, Europe, Mexico, South Africa, and Costa Rica.

In one example, the BBC report on the study claims that nearly half of all protea flowering plants in South Africa 'could' become extinct due to climate change.  The habitat range of these plants is shown on the left (the area shaded in brown), and the temperature record from Capetown, in the centre of that range, is shown on the right.  As is clearly evident, the warmest period of the last 150 years was the 1930s, not the present.   Clearly if the plants survived that period, they cannot be regarded as being vulnerable to 'climate change'.  The claims are therefore entirely speculative and without scientific foundation.

In another example, this time a bird species, the BBC report on the study cited the Scottish crossbill as a candidate for extinction due to `climate change'.  They suggested it might even have to emigrate to Iceland - if it could survive the journey...

As with South Africa, simple reference to meteorological records affords the means to determine the credibility of the claim.  Tiree is located on Scotland's Inner Hebrides Islands, just off the west coast of Scotland.  The record shows the warmest years were 1949 and 1959. Again we find no justification in the climate record to support the warnings made about the Scottish crossbill.  It may be in danger from other causes, but climate is not one of them.

The study itself was not based on real field studies, but used climate models matched against known habitat regions for various species and the projected changes to those habitats anticipated by the climate models.  It was a speculative statistical exercise, nothing more.

The media reports of  'one million' species to become extinct is a nice round, scary, number.  With such a loose number, we could ask - what species have already become extinct in the wild as a direct result of climate change?

A useful website for such a question is http://www.birdlife.org.uk/datazone/search/species_search.html which has a large database of all the world's bird species, making it possible to see which are endangered, threatened, or actually extinct.  Of course, terms like 'endangered' and 'threatened' are highly subjective and value-laden depending on the prejudices of the environmental researchers themselves. 

But 'extinct' is quite precise and easily defined scientifically.  Take Britain for example.  According to the database, only one bird species is confirmed as 'extinct' in Britain - the Great Auk.  It fell victim to hunting, not climate change.  In Australia, only a handful of bird species are listed as extinct, all of them sub-species on remote islands, the victims of introduced pests like rats. 'Climate change' is not implicated in any of them.

A similar lack of identified extinct bird species is evident in the rest of the world, the small number cited being attributed to non-climate factors like hunting, land clearing, pests, pollution etc.

Thomas et al say "Climate change over the past ~30 years has produced numerous shifts in the distributions and abundances of species and has been implicated in one species-level extinction."  So that's the best they have to offer - just one extinct species (the golden toad of Costa Rica) where they say climate change may be `implicated'.  So after several decades of 'climate change' already, where are the extinctions?  On their reasoning, there should be hundreds, thousands of them by now, not merely the lone problematic toad species they cite.

Thomas et al also contradict themselves.  In p.147 of their paper, they say "Many unknowns remain in projecting extinctions, and the values provided here should not be taken as precise predictions."  That was for the scientific readership.  But in their abstract (the only part read by the media), they say "Exploring three approaches in which the estimated probability of extinctions shows a power-law relationship with geographical range size, we predict, (my emphasis) on the basis of mid range climate warming scenarios for 2050, that 15-37% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be `committed to extinction'."

So is this a firm prediction or just a loose speculation?

Many if not most of the extinctions they `predict' are admitted by them to be a result of non-climate factors like land clearing, pest invasions and habitat loss.  Yet the media reports attribute all the extinctions to climate alone

Thomas et al further muddy their 'predictions' or 'projections' (whatever they are), with this piece of confusing hair-splitting - "We estimate proportions of species committed to future extinction as a consequence of climate change over the next 50 years, not the number of species that will become extinct during this period."  

So are we to take this to mean that the 'million' might not really be a million after all?  A thousand perhaps?  A hundred?  A dozen?

posted 01-13-2004 09:55 PM               

Eduardo Ferreyra concludes his assertions about the Nisqually Glacier on Mt. Rainier with the following:

Conclusion: probable glacier advance during the first decade of 21 century.

"Probable" hummm, I thought that was one of those conditional words that has so often been condemned by Eduardo Ferreyra when used by others whose viewpoint differ from his. So he's arguing about something that he suspects MAY happen in the future.

Let us remember the statement he posted that I challenged as being in error:

"best-measured glacier in North America, the Nisqually on Mount Rainier, has been growing since 1931."

As if the pictures and documented maps don't speak for themselves, consider the following:
http://www.mount.rainier.national-park.com/sights.htm

"Nisqually Glacier is one of the most accessible glaciers on Mount Rainier. It can be viewed readily from Nisqually and Glacier Vistas located less than 1-mile from Paradise visitor facilities. Nisqually Glacier advanced and retreated three times between 1965 and 1992. The most recent period of retreat occurred between 1985 and 1991 during which time the glacier thinned by 52 feet in the region immediately west of Glacier Vista. The retreat that has been occurring since the late 1980's may be slowing."

Sure doesn't sound like growth since 1931 to me.

or this:
http://www.nps.gov/mora/notes/vol15-4c.htm

Sure looks like DOCUMENTED retreat since 1931 to me.

or this from:

Third Nisqually Research Symposium:
www.nisquallyestuary.org/docs/SympProc1995.pdf

"Nisqually's dramatic retreat between the 1850s and early 1930s was well documented by pioneer photographers and journalists; the retreat raised fears that a reduction in meltwater would threaten operation of a new hydropower facility at LaGrande. In response, Tacoma City Light began making measurements in 1931 of surface elevations along profiles across the glacier. These data, with measurements from a third profile first surveyed in 1942, indicate that in addition to retreat, the glacier had thinned dramatically. By 1945 the uppermost profile indicated that the glacier was beginning to thicken, providing the first evidence that Nisqually Glacier was responding to cooler climatic conditions. The thicker ice moved in a wave down the glacier, increasing the ice thickness by about 50%. By the early 1960s the thick ice wave had advanced the glacier terminus 480 feet over bare ground. A second wave of thickened ice advanced the glacier almost 600 feet between 1974 and 1981, then again several feet between 1984 and 1986.
Since 1986 Nisqually Glacier has retreated again—more than 600 feet.

Retreating glaciers, snowpacks may raise power costs
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20021220/northwest/31466.shtml

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
SEATTLE -- Shrinking glaciers in the Cascades, and some dwindling winter snowpacks, could ultimately mean increased winter flooding and drier summers, further endangering fish runs and driving up the cost of power.

Scientists say weather fluctuations, global warming and human activity are causing some glaciers to shrink and are affecting snowpacks -- the snowdrifts that melt each spring before they can compress and turn into glaciers.

Lessened spring runoff means less water in the rivers that produce hydroelectric power, irrigation and drinking water and sustain the region's salmon runs.

If the trend continues, some experts think the region may have to considering building more dams, or choose between using river water for power or leaving it for salmon.

Scientists estimate that South Cascade Glacier, 25 miles east of Darrington, has shrunk 40 percent since the last severely cold period 350 years ago. The end of the glacier has retreated nearly two-thirds of a mile since 1928, said Ed Josberger, who heads a glacier-monitoring team for the U.S. Geological Survey in Tacoma. A lake has formed where the toe of the glacier once reached.

The shrinkage occurred even though the region has experienced several lengthy spells of cold weather that might have helped the glaciers grow.

The National Park Service has begun measuring the effects on glaciers in North Cascades National Park.

North Klawatti and Noisy glaciers, in the North Cascades, have each lost three feet or more in their vertical mass since 1993. In each case, the loss is considered significant; the loss at Klawatti is equivalent to more than 10,000 Olympic-size swimming pools. Seasonal water runoff from Klawatti Glacier supplies Diablo Lake, where the water is used to generate hydroelectric power.

A study of Mount Rainier glaciers shows that most major glaciers except Nisqually Glacier became smaller during an 80-year period. Similar changes have been noticed in glaciers in Alaska, Montana, Canada and in the Andes range in South America.

Philip Mote and others on a University of Washington team of climate experts say global warming is a likely cause, though they differ on how much of the warming is due to human activities such as fuel burning.

Others, like UW hydrologist Alan Hamlet, say changing weather patterns could explain why many glaciers and snowpacks are shrinking. The region has experienced four different phases of alternating warm-and-dry and cool-and-wet weather since the mid-1920s. And two of the North Cascades glaciers being monitored, Silver Glacier and Sandalee, have grown in the past decade because the mountain peaks shade them more than others.

Seattle, which has 1.3 million water customers, has asked the UW team to study the possible effects of global warming on its system. Faster melting of snow might force the release of more water from reservoirs and cause possible downstream flooding.

Lower summer flows could mean too little water in the rivers for fish, while water demand could rise because of higher temperatures.

********************************************
Cascade glaciers are shrinking, posing threat to everything below

Thursday, December 19, 2002
By LARRY LANGE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/100613_climatechange19.shtml

Eons ago, great ice glaciers carved the canyons of the Cascades. They pulsed with the seasons, swelling in the frigid winters and melting at the edges in the summer to fill the Northwest's rivers.

Now, they're shrinking -- the victim, scientists say, of weather fluctuations, global warming and human activity. Some have disappeared altogether, and there are indications that the mountains' winter snowpacks -- drifts of snow that melt away before they can compress and turn into glaciers -- may be dwindling as well.

...much more to article...graphs and photos

********************************************

If anything, Eduardo Ferreyra has hung his hat on an exception, rather than the rule, and is attempting to extrapolate to an unsubstantiated conclusion...i.e., an impending ice age.

Like I said, it would be amusing if it weren't so tragic.

And let's remember the issue on the table, it was Eduardo Ferreyra posting an assertion that said, that the "best-measured glacier in North America, the Nisqually on Mount Rainier, has been growing since 1931."

Accurate? Truthful? ...no, just very sad.

(Beautiful picture which won't load but worth checking out)http://www.eces.org/gallery/images/paradise_ice_cave.jpg

The Paradise ice caves on Mount Rainier near Seattle, Washington, shown here in 1982, were completely melted away by the fall of 1991 due to rising temperatures in the Pacific Northwest.

"Similarly, Mt. Ranier's Nisqually glacier has drawn back nine-tenths of a mile since the early 1900s. In addition, the North Cascades glaciers in Washington state have lost some 30 percent of their mass in the last century, according to researchers from Nichols College in Dudley, Massachusetts, who have been monitoring 117 North Cascades glaciers since 1984. All of the glaciers are receding, and seven have disappeared.

The South Cascade Glacier has lost a third of its mass in 45 years, with the meltoff particularly high from the mid-'70s to mid-'90s, reflecting a regional pattern. U.S. Geological Survey scientists calculate that the glacier has probably lost two-thirds of its ice in the last century."

http://eces.org/gallery/000317.php

*******************************************

Our Warming World: Effects of climate change bode ill for Northwest

Thursday, November 13, 2003
By LISA STIFFLER AND ROBERT McCLURE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTERS
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/148043_warming13.html

Excerpt: "Old advertising slogans touted the North Cascades as "America's Alps." But the region's glaciers have lost some 30 percent of their girth in the last century, according to researchers from Nichols College in Dudley, Mass. They've been monitoring 117 North Cascades glaciers since 1984. All of them are receding. Seven have disappeared.

A big snow year in 1998-99 helped preserve them, although the dearth of snow last year again had many shriveling. The only ones that don't seem to be on the wane are those at high elevations, near the crest of the mountain range, said Rob Burrows, a geologist at North Cascades National Park and Recreation Complex.

"I don't think our glaciers are going to disappear in the next 50 years," he said.

Maybe not, but Nichols College's Mauri Pelto, who has been monitoring them longer than anyone, says most could be gone by then.

Just outside the park lies the continent's best-studied example of glacier-wasting. Some 25 miles northeast of Darrington, the South Cascade Glacier has lost a third of its mass in 45 years. The meltoff was particularly high from the mid-'70s to mid-'90s, reflecting a regional pattern. And U.S. Geological Survey scientists calculate that the glacier has probably lost two-thirds of its ice in the last century.

At Mount Rainier, it's a similar story -- the Nisqually glacier has drawn back nine-tenths of a mile since early in the last century. A series of ice caves that drew visitors to the glacier next door, Paradise, melted away by fall 1991."

********************************************

Let's remember Eduardo Ferreyra's taunt:

"Is a New Ice Age Under Way?
“Watch out, Al Gore. The glaciers will get you!”

Oh, we're very afraid...

afraid of fools...and charlatans!

posted 01-13-2004 10:41 PM            

.....Giving the charts a different hue is not doctoring data - is UN-doctoring data. The data is the same, the proportions are the same, only the visual impact changes. Doctoring data is what has been done by using "doctored color schemes" for making scale bar that induce a false visual impression. So Sore Throat implication of doctoring data should be directed to the IPCC, not me - or any other rational person that wants to see where the truth really is. The charts and graphs presented by the IPCC and Sore Throat, are simply for suckers.....

This is an interesting statement from someone who seems to be obsessed with making his points by using BIG RED, ORANGE and YELLOW letters.

Senor F, what in hell is wrong with you? I'm amazed that an eminent scholar such as yourself has what appears to be unlimited time to devote to making long, screaming posts on WHACKO MESSAGE BOARDS. Why don't you go and hang out with Dixy Lee Ray, Rush Limbaugh, Fred Singer and the rest of the white trash whose lives are dedicated to convincing the public that climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion and the public health effects of excessive fossil fuel pollution are HOAXES being perpetrated on the world for monetary and political gain?

You're beginning to sound like Jay Reynolds. In fact, you do sound just like him. You and your ilk are literally EVERYWHERE on the Web where concerned people are trying their best to conduct civil discussions about issues of climate change, ozone depletion and excessive regional fossil fuel pollution.

You all work from the same script - it's very recognizable and very predictable by now. And this script most definitely includes your unwavering group insistence on shoving it down people's throats that the continuous strafing of our upper troposphere with persistent aviation trails is perfectly normal and that we should "get used to it."

As for the question of polar stratospheric clouds and stratospheric ozone destruction, there are many references to explain exactly how this works and why the problem of O3 depletion is exacerbated by the formation of PSC's in a layer of the atmosphere that is normally arid and pristine.

.....Each spring, the ozone concentration above Antarctica drops by about half. But the destruction actually begins in the dark winter months when polar winds circle Antarctica, forming what Mereand calls "a leaky beaker in the sky." Air trapped in the beaker becomes extremely cold during the night. Temperatures drop low enough to form clouds even in the very dry stratosphere. These clouds provide the necessary surface for a series of ion-molecule reactions.

First, inert chlorine compounds, mostly from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) released at ground level, photochemically react, releasing their chlorine. This, in the form of chlorine nitrate and hydrochloric acid, dissolves on the cloud surfaces to form chlorine ions. There, the ions react to form more active chlorine species. These active molecules don't destroy ozone immediately, but lie dormant until the polar night lifts and spring sunshine breaks them down into aggressive chlorine atoms.....

From:
http://www.rps.psu.edu/jan97/ozone.html

Also, it is well known by now that as the AVERAGE TEMPERATURE [get it?] of the near-Earth troposphere increases, the stratosphere is being observed to be getting colder - thereby enhancing, over some regions, the very cold conditions needed for the formation of polar stratospheric clouds - upon whose surfaces the process of stratospheric O3 destruction is accelerated.

By the way, my cousin visited Switzerland two years ago in February. She was there for two weeks and reported that not only was there so little snow on the south-facing side of the Alps in her location that skiing was greatly reduced, but it was so unseasonably warm that she had to borrow clothes from her friend because everything she had brought to wear was too heavy. I.e. she had to borrow T-shirts and short pants. In February. In Switzerland.

posted 01-13-2004 10:45 PM               

quote:

---

Eduardo Ferreyra concludes his assertions about the Nisqually Glacier on Mt. Rainier with the following:

"Probable" hummm, I thought that was one of those conditional words that has so often been condemned by Eduardo Ferreyra when used by others whose viewpoint differ from his. So he's arguing about something that he suspects MAY happen in the future.

---

The very last part of the abstract said “Between 1994 and 1997, the glacier thickened by 17 m at 2,800 m altitude, indicating probable glacier advance during the first decade of the 21st century.”

More shots in his own foot! It is getting boring this self destructive habit the Invincible Ignorante has…

posted 01-13-2004 11:53 PM            

Great. Why don't you just piss off then, and find yourself a more interesting venue? What's the matter - are things falling apart over at Maverick's now that the self-appointed _Arbiters of Integrity_ have left in a snit?

Oh, by the way, did they manage to salvage the "Turning The Screws on Throat and Deborah" thread? You know - the one they started when the first "Global Warming" thread was set up here on this board? And in which you participated with obvious pleasure?

posted 01-14-2004 12:07 AM               

quote:

---

First, inert chlorine compounds, mostly from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) released at ground level, photochemically react, releasing their chlorine. This, in the form of chlorine nitrate and hydrochloric acid, dissolves on the cloud surfaces to form chlorine ions. There, the ions react to form more active chlorine species. These active molecules don't destroy ozone immediately, but lie dormant until the polar night lifts and spring sunshine breaks them down into aggressive chlorine atoms.....

---

But what does not fit into de picture is that CFCs are not found inside the Polar Vortex, as demonstrated by the Crista-Spa satellite and studies – that has not been refuted by anyone in the scientific community. They have merely put Crista-Spa under the “Silence Bell” of the media. The Crista-Spa has found an “CFC-11 Hole” in Antarctica.

But then, the accepted Molina (and Rowland’s) theory says very clearly (but you missed the explanation) that besides having the hard surface in those ice crystals, you need sunlight for triggering the reaction!. you also missed completely Dr. Eberstein statement about the fact that since 1990, NASA discovered that the hole was forming (ozone destruction) a full month before the sun rays reached the polar stratosphere! Can you get that into your mini-brain? Molina’s and Rowland’s theory, the same you have just posted above, was shown wrong!. It does not work that way!.

Simply reasoning and plain common sense tell us that the increase and decrease in size of the ozone hole according to different years, cannot possibly be explained by the chemistry of chlorine, bromine and other compounds alone. Given the time CF have been out of sight (the Crista-Spa proved it) there are not more CFCs to provide chlorine for Molina’s absurd formula and theory. The cause of the hole is purely dynamical.

It goes this way: Once the polar vortex is established (when the sunlight is absent from the South Pole) with those hurricane winds circling the Pole, no gas can enter the vortex, and no gas can get out of the vortex. Ozone molecules are stirred along with the rest of other gases inside the vortex, and as there is no heat needed for the reaction, each time one ozone molecule collides with another ozone molecule, three oxygen molecules are born. When this reaction is completed, 64 kcal/mol energy is released, slightly warming the stratosphere around July. As there is no UV radiation for splitting oxygen molecules, there is no ozone regeneration (and also there is no CFC dissociation!) Ozone levels keep going down as the ozone molecules keep colliding among themselves, converting into oxygen molecules. That’s the reason for the increased levels of oxygen during the formation of the hole, as oxygen cannot enter the vortex from the outside. Analyze what happens with gases inside and outside the polar vortex.

Why chlorine gets so high inside the vortex? At about 80ºS we find Mount Erebus, a passive degassing volcano spewing more than 1000 of chlorine a day – right into the stratosphere, as the stratosphere there is barely at 8.000 meters, and the Erebus has more than 4.000 meters.

There is another reasoning that no one has ever refuted: considering that every year the ozone hole closes by about the same date, one week more or less, one could expect that the years when the depletion was big (say 50%) the hole would close later than years when the depletion was low as 15%, as have happened. It would be reasonably to think that, if chlorine was the responsible for a huge depletion, then chlorine will interfere with ozone formation and delay the closing of the hole. But no, the hole does not gives a dam if it was big or small, and goes away in about the same dates, year after year. This would tell to any sane person that if chlorine didn’t stop or delay ozone formation, then it could have been quite possible that chlorine was not the responsible for the original depletion, and the causes must be found in the field of dynamics, not in the chemistry field.

But we’ve been on this explanation before and you systematically eluded the analysis and went into another direction. I know we are never going to get anywhere with this discussion, as science cannot argue with Religion. So I will return to my job as debunking all those studies you have shown here; it is really easy. But there is just one condition: you have to read the studies past their abstracts, their conclusions, their graphs, and their press releases. That’s what was done with Mann et al. Hockey Stick, and was quite easily demolished. Just apply the right scientific methodology, basic laws in physics, and chemistry, and voilá, the fraud is exposed.

Bye Sore, have a nice winter. Tell you cousin that Switzerland now is covered with snow and ice up to their noses. I talk every day via messenger (audio chat) with a collaborator of ours (Cuban exiled ornithologist Carlos Wotskow, you can read his articles on our website, criticizing National Geographic magazine and the Smithsonian for the way they are helping Castro to destroy Cuba’s environment, without Greenpeace saying anything about how Cubans sell dolphins to aquariums) and told me he cannot stand any longer the cold weather. This year seems to be the worst in Europe, they had 44.5ºC below Zero on Christmas eve in Bavaria – almost as cold as the Little ice Age. And you in the States, Boston broke a 129 year-long record with 20ºC below zero. Montreal tied the record with 24ºC three days ago. México city almost had a snowfall. Mexicans clogged the roads trying to see snow in their nearby mountains for the first time in 50 years. And more cold is predicted, so we might see snowing in Mexico city!

And down here, South America, we should be having normal temperatures of 38ºC-42ºC, but are about 6ºC-10ºC below normal! Go to the weather website, just for curiosity, and see temperature forecasts for the Atlantic coast in Argentina: Mar del Plata, Pinamar, Necochea, etc, all famous seaside resorts and vacation places. You will see the weather forecast for the next three day of 20, 22, and 24ºC, while the normal temperature should be well over 34º C. People is reluctant of going into the cold waters, and they show that in the TV news! We are still using blankets at night. I hate cold, I love warmth, I love warming and if it is global, much better!

So this is it. Chau! You’ll be missing my red and golden posts. As a sore tooth, but you’ll miss them…

posted 01-14-2004 12:34 AM               

quote:

---

Your credibility with me is exactly zero. And I don't like the way you address people on this board.

---

As you read in my previous post this is my adieu!

posted 01-14-2004 12:57 AM            

What the hell are you talking about? This doesn't even make sense.

You have no idea who you're addressing, believe me.

posted 01-14-2004 08:46 PM               

Britain rises above the US on climate change

By Stephen Leahy , InterPress Service

The recent critique of US climate-change policies by UK Chief Scientific Adviser Sir David King is a reminder of how differently the two nations approach the issue of global warming.

In an article in the current issue of the US journal Science, Sir David chides the administration of President George W. Bush for insisting that more research is needed on climate change when, we already know enough about the problem to agree on the urgent need to address it.

Global warming is a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism, he adds.

Sir David also criticizes the US approach of market-based incentives and voluntary measures, which he says have done little to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Only 50 companies, a small fraction of the thousands of US firms with pollution problems, have agreed to reduce emissions. Of these, only 14 have set goals under the administration’s two-year-old Climate Leaders Program, The Washington Post reported earlier this month.

In stark contrast, the British government has a long-range target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 60 percent by 2050. And it wants other developed countries, especially the United States, to follow its lead.

Just one month before the war on oil-rich Iraq, Britain announced an ambitious goal to generate 20 percent of the country’s electricity from renewable sources by the year 2020. Less than 3 percent of the UK’s energy is currently green, and that’s mostly from old hydropower stations.

Recent private and public investments in offshore wind power and other alternatives are expected to bring the UK’s green energy share to 10 percent by 2010.

Green energy now provides less than two percent of US supply.

Yet US officials maintain their approach is valid.

We’re extremely proud of our global climate change action program, says Dana Perino, director of communications at the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).

CEQ Chair James Connaughton, senior environmental adviser to Bush, came under fire from the media after censoring passages on global warming in a major US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report in 2003.

We have good buy-in into these voluntary programs from our industry partners, Perino said in an interview Monday.

A number of new members to the Climate Leaders Program will be announced this week.

The overall program will reduce US greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of the US economy by 18 percent by 2012, she added.

However, the US General Accounting Office, an independent research arm of the government, concluded the Bush plan would reduce overall emissions only two percentage points below what the nation would achieve with no federal program whatsoever.

More than 20 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions are generated in the United States, which has four percent of the world’s population, while Britain—with two percent of the Earth’s people—produces just 2 percent of the emissions.

But the Bush administration strongly disagrees with Sir David’s criticisms and the need for mandatory reductions, such as those under the Kyoto agreement, says Perino.

Kyoto, which Bush refused to sign, would have imposed severe economic hardships on the country while doing little to reduce overall emissions, she says.

If ratified, Kyoto would commit individual countries to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from the burning of fossil fuels to a level that is six percent less than was generated in 1990.

Voluntary reductions, carbon sequestration and US ingenuity, such as the development of “clean coal” technology, will be enough to slow the growth of emissions, Perino says.

Equally important, this ingenuity is needed to help southern countries develop their economies without suffering environmental consequences. If the United States can help in that regard, says Perino, it has an obligation to do so.

Sir David says it is a myth that reducing carbon emissions will impoverish nations. Between 1990 and 2000, Britain’s overall emissions fell 12 percent while its economy grew 30 percent, he points out.

A UK government report, “Our Energy Future: Creating a Low Carbon Economy,” released February 2003, found that the costs to achieve a 60-percent reduction in emissions averaged 0.5 percent to 2 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2050.

Although substantial, such costs would be more than offset by the reduction in severe weather-related risks, it concluded.

Britons are huge supporters of emissions reductions and the Kyoto agreement, says Roger Hickman of the environmental group Friends of the Earth UK.

People want to do something to lessen the impact and are very keen on renewable energy, he told IPS.

Most people believe the devastating floods in Britain and Europe in 2000 and the summer heat wave of 2003 were a result of climate change, says Hickman.

And they might be right.

Swiss scientists reported this week that global warming appears to be generating climate instability, which could mean that every second summer in Europe is likely to be as warm, if not warmer, than the summer of 2003.

In Britain, the number of people at high risk of flooding was expected to more than double to nearly 3.5 million by 2080. And damage to properties could run to tens of billions of pounds every year, writes Sir David.

Strong action needs to taken now to avoid more substantial, more disruptive and more expensive changes in the future, he concludes.

posted 01-15-2004 10:38 AM               

Just as predicted...increasing weather extremes.
http://www.drudgereport.com/agwarm.htm

GORE TO WARN OF 'GLOBAL WARMING' ON NEW YORK CITY'S COLDEST DAY IN DECADES!

In what political watchers are calling possibly the biggest gaffe in years, former Vice President Al Gore is set to give a speech tomorrow on the perils of global warming -- on what is expected to be the coldest day in New England in nearly half a century!

the advice of senior advisers, Gore is planning to appear at the historic Beacon Theatre in Manhattan on Thursday to issue an indictment of the Bush administration's "inaction on global warming."

Gore will make the warming case on a day forecasters are predicting the coldest temps in Boston since 1957, with wind chills in parts of New England plunging to 100 degrees below zero!

Even though forecasters predict Thursday night will bring the coldest temperature reading in New York City in more than 10 years [1 degree above zero], sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT that Gore is determined to deliver the speech -- hoping to make the case how "Global warming" is actually the cause of the record cold snap!

MORE

"The extreme conditions are actually the end result of the planet warming," Gore has told advisers, sources say, in explaining his motivations. "The Bush policies are leading to weather extremes."

Sources would not say whether the speech is to be given outdoors.

*********************************************