Jump to content

OK...Now Al Gore is Really Pissed Off

Recommended Posts

"On Sunday, The New York Times ran an opinion piece stating that the terrible drought in California is not due to global warming."

"Martin P. Hoerling, a research meteorologist at the Earth System Research Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote, “At present, the scientific evidence does not support an argument that the drought there is appreciably linked to human-induced climate change.” Hoerling observed that the severe nature of the drought has been observed before, in 1976 and 1977, and that there hasn’t been a notable change in California’s average precipitation since 1895."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oceans and drought


The two cycles, called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), flip back and forth between boosting rainfall and causing drought in the Southwest, among other effects felt throughout the continent.



Pacific Decadal Oscillation



The Pacific Decadal Oscillation forms a cooler horseshoe of water in the northeastern Pacific Ocean to the tropics.

Credit: NASA Earth Observatory


Only discovered in the past two decades, these climate patterns have caused periodic, long-term Southwest drought going back more than 1,000 years, according to tree-ring records. More than half (52 percent) of the long-term drought in the lower 48 states can be attributed to the PDO and the AMO, according to a 2004 study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.



he also goes on to say global warming is making it worse and layer claims man made global warming. He claims this is the warmest in 600 years, which makes me wonder what we were doing 600 years ago to cause warm temperatures.


anyone have figures on human greenhouse gas production vs what the earth produces?

Throughout the Earth's history, greenhouse gases have played a vital role in keeping the planet's surface warm enough to support life. Without any greenhouse gas sources, the average global temperature would be almost 60 degrees Fahrenheit less than what it is now. Human industry over the past 150 years or so has increased atmospheric levels at unprecedented speed, but many major greenhouse gases are also produced naturally.



Other People Are Reading

Natural Factors That Affect the Climate

Natural Factors That Decrease Greenhouse Gases







Carbon Dioxide




The respiration of living organisms emits about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. Rotting organic matter contributes another 220 gigatonnes, and a further 330 gigatonnes is released from the surface of the ocean. While this amount dwarfs the estimated 32.3 gigatonnes produced by humans, the natural emissions are balanced by carbon sinks that "soak up" the newly released carbon dioxide, along with about 40 percent of the extra carbon dioxide from human activity. The other 60 percent collects in the atmosphere, where it contributes to climate change.







Anaerobic bacteria that break down organic matter and produce methane as a byproduct are the largest natural source of methane. Termites also produce significant amounts. Further releases stem from methane hydrates found on the ocean floor and in polar soils, as well as from geothermal activity, wildfires and wild animals, where it is a byproduct of digestion. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, causing a larger greenhouse effect per unit volume. Human activity releases more methane per year than all natural sources combined.






Sponsored Links

Enhanced Adwords Grader

Track How Your AdWords Changes Are Affecting Performance. Try it free!




Nitrous Oxide




Nitrous oxide is produced naturally when microorganisms break down nitrogen-containing compounds in the soil and ocean. Smaller quantities are produced from the chemical breakdown of methane in the atmosphere and the release from oxygen-depleted surface water. The amount of nitrous oxide produced naturally and by humans is about the same, meaning humans approximately double the volume of nitrous oxide released into the Earth's atmosphere every year.



Water Vapor




Water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas, and virtually all of it is produced naturally from evaporation on the Earth's surface. Unlike other greenhouse gases, water vapor acts as a feedback mechanism, not an original source of global warming. As other factors raise the planet's temperature, evaporation increases and the warm air gains a greater capacity to hold water vapor. As the water vapor levels go up, they increase the greenhouse effect, raising temperatures even further.





Read more: http://www.ehow.com/info_8222847_natural-factors-increase-greenhouse-gases.html#ixzz2vg3wfXOD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad for humans good for forests?


After more than 20 years of research in the northern hardwood forests of Michigan, scientists at Michigan Technological University's School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science have reached a surprising conclusion: Moderate increases in temperature and nitrogen from atmospheric pollution actually improve forest productivity.





















Andrew Burton, an associate professor at Michigan Tech and head of the National Institute for Climatic Change Research's Midwestern Regional Center, is part of a team of researchers that has been monitoring and measuring the temperature, moisture levels and nitrogen deposited by acid rain or varying levels of experimental nitrogen at four forest sites ranging from northwestern to southern Michigan since 1987. He's found that the trees grow faster at higher temperatures and store more carbon at greater concentrations of nitrogen, a chemical constituent of acid rain, providing there is sufficient moisture.


"It may well be that increasing temperature and nitrogen deposition are good things, up to a point," Burton said.


The rise in temperature is extending the growing season, he explained. So far, Burton and colleagues have measured 10 to 11-day longer growing seasons. “Our growing season isn't that long in the first place,” he pointed out, “so 10 or 11 days is significant.”


A longer growing season could benefit the timber industry, enabling them to harvest more wood. Now that woody biomass is being investigated as an alternative energy source by Michigan Tech and others, increased forest productivity could become a critical factor.


The research, which started out as an acid rain study in 1987, has grown into one of the longest continuous research studies supported by the National Science Foundation. A new five-year grant of $151,628 will fund the research through 2012.


“It is really unusual to receive NSF funding for nearly 20 years,” Burton remarked.


The latest grant will fund ongoing measurements tree growth and the the build-up of organic matter in the soil at the four sites: near Twin Lakes in the northwestern Upper Peninsula of Michigan, at Pellston, near Petoskey, Mich., at Mesick, near Traverse City, and north of Grand Rapids near the Silver Lake Sand Dunes in southern Michigan.


Burton and his fellow researchers, Don Zak at the University of Michigan and Kurt Pregitzer at the University of Nevada-Reno, want to discover if the increased annual growth of the forests is offset by an increase in tree mortality. They also will examine whether the woody debris on the forest floor will decompose more slowly as nitrogen levels are increased, further increasing the ecosystem’s ability to store carbon.


Burton calls the new work “a window into the future,” an opportunity to see if there is a tipping point beyond which increased nitrogen harms rather than helps the forests

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All you have to do is look at the smog stunted forests in S. California and the Sierras to see the nitrous oxide and ozone damage to the forests. And this poor tree health sets up forests for Bark beetle invasions and huge die offs.


I believe that GW is causing the Pacific high pressure cell to enlarge and move further north than normal, which shunts the storms north as well. This winter it has been particularly obvious that this is happening with record setting drought. The long range models also show this effect as well.


But, yes the PDO has a lot to do with the drought, and also because we have not had a decent El Nino winter in quite a while!


Lurking in the back of my mind, I often wonder if HAARP is doing this!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've had a drought for about 3 years where I'm at in Texas.


I'm definitely working on water efficiency in everything I do.


I read somewhere the average American uses 150 gallons a day. In the metroplex area of Texas that would be around 450 million gallons a day or more.


regardless of climate we need to start working towards water efficiency in all arid regions. We are draining the Ogallala aquifer irrigating the south west for food production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We have infrastructure dating from the 1960s for transporting water, but by the 1990s the policies had changed," said [California Central Valley farmer, lawyer, and representative] Valadao.

Environmental special interests managed to dismantle the system by diverting water meant for farms to pet projects, such as saving delta smelt, a baitfish. That move forced the flushing of 3 million acre-feet of water originally slated for the Central Valley into the ocean over the past five years.

Yep, it seems a left-wing federal judge ordered the state to dump its water reserves into the Pacific Ocean as part of an effort to "save" a supposedly endangered breed of smelt. Water that could have seen the central valley though a drought lasting as long as a whopping five years was simply jettisoned.

California's system of aqueducts and storage tanks was designed long ago to take advantage of rain and mountain runoff from wet years and store it for use in dry years. But it's now inactive — by design. "California's forefathers built a system (of aqueducts and storage facilities) designed to withstand five years of drought,"

Fortunately, Republicans in the House actually seem to give a damn about California's farmers, even if the state's far-left legislators don't. They've moved to restore the system.

Following legislative action last month by Speaker John Boehner and California's Central Valley Representatives David Valadao, Devin Nunes and Kevin McCarthy, whose Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act was designed to resolve the long-standing problem of environmental water cutbacks that have devastated America's richest farmland, Obama is grandstanding in California, too.

His aim, however, is not a long-term solution for California's now-constant water shortages that have hit its $45 billion agricultural industry, but to preach about global warming. Instead of blaming the man-made political causes of California's worst water shortage, he's come with $2 billion in "relief" that's nothing but a tired effort to divert attention from fellow Democrats' dereliction of duty in using the state's water infrastructure.

The one thing that will mitigate droughts in California — a permanent feature of the state — is to restore the water flow from California's water-heavy north to farmers in the central and south. That's just what House Bill 3964, which passed by a 229-191 vote last week, does.

But Obama's plan is not to get that worthy bill through the Senate (where Democrats are holding it up) but to shovel pork to environmental activists and their victims, insultingly offering out-of-work farmers a "summer meal plan" in his package.

How dare these hard working farmers scoff at Obama's box-lunch program! Why, the first family could use that money to pay for another vacation or one of Michelle's ridiculously expensive dresses! Instead, they've generously chosen to give it to California. People should say "thank you, glorious leader!"

Sadly, if history is any indicator, Speaker's Boehner's current efforts won't matter. Back in 2012, a very similar bill was introduced in Congress and, although it enjoyed strong support in the areas which are now hardest hit by drought, it died in the Senate. Why? Well, it undid a few years' worth of California's liberal progressive environmental agenda, so the White House threatened to veto it. Since they think politics are far more important than a state full of suffering farmers, the President's Senate toadies made sure it never escaped the legislature.

Now, we're seeing the results of their actions.

Given that the Democrats are facing a horrific midterm election and suffering under the yoke of Obama's imploding presidency, it'ssomewhat conceivable that things could happen differently this time ...but you shouldn't hold your breath. The liberals' bogus environmental agenda is - like health care - one of their holy grails. They won't let their ugly gains slip away without a fight.

HR 3964 passed the house on February 5th but, according to govtrack.us, enjoys only a 28% chance of escaping the Democrat-controlled Seante.

The veto threat for HR 1837 (the 2012 bill) appears below. Be sure to "like" Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You'll be glad you did.

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1837, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act because the bill would unravel decades of work to forge consensus, solutions, and settlements that equitably address some of California’s most complex water challenges.

H.R. 1837 would undermine five years of collaboration between local, State, and Federal stakeholders to develop the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. It would codify 20-year old, outdated science as the basis for managing California’s water resources, resulting in inequitable treatment of one group of water users over another. And, contrary to 100 years of reclamation law that exhibits congressional deference to State water law, the bill would preempt California water law.

The bill also would reject the long-standing principle that beneficiaries should pay both the cost of developing water supplies and of mitigating any resulting development impacts, and would exacerbate current water shortages by repealing water pricing reforms that provide incentives for contractors to conserve water supplies.

Finally, H.R. 1837 would repeal the San Joaquin River Settlement Agreement, which the Congress enacted to resolve 18 years of contentious litigation. Repeal of the settlement agreement would likely result in the resumption of costly litigation, creating an uncertain future for river restoration and water delivery operations for all water users on the San Joaquin River.

The Administration strongly supports efforts to provide a more reliable water supply for California and to protect, restore, and enhance the overall quality of the Bay-Delta environment. The Administration has taken great strides toward achieving these co-equal goals through a coordinated Federal Action Plan, which has strengthened collaboration between Federal agencies and the State of California while achieving solid results. Unfortunately, H.R. 1837 would undermine these efforts and the progress that has been made. For this reason, were the Congress to pass H.R. 1837, the President’s senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...