Posted: 03/05/2009 - Short Term
Posted: 03/05/2009 - Short Term
Posted: 03/05/2009 - Long Term
Updated: 03/05/2009 - The amount and distribution of solar energy that we receive varies as the Earth revolves around the Sun and also in response to changes in the Sun's activity Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records. They noticed that more sunspots meant warmer weather on Earth. Is it true then that solar radiation, which supplies Earth with the energy that drives our climate, and caused so many climate shifts over the ages, is no longer the principal influence on climate change? The most recent scientific evidence shows that even small changes in solar radiation have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate. Bill Clinton used to sum up politics by saying, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Now we can fairly sum up climate change by saying, “It’s the Sun, stupid!”
Posted: 03/05/2009 - Michael Reilly posted an article in Discovery News that is getting a lot of internet traffic, as well it should. It brings up the possibility that warming of the planet will not resume. First, Reilly cites a new study in Geophysical Research Letters which suggests that global warming might stop for up to 30 years. Wait, in the 1970s, there was fear of an impending ice age. Newsweek published The Cooling World in 1975. Since then, the planet has warmed for, uh, about 30 years! As a scientist, I have been hesitant about the runaway warming train for one main reason: Feedback Mechanisms. Regardless of my belief in the natural cycles and variability, Earth has a way of balancing out extremes.
Updated: 03/05/2009 - For those who have endured this winter’s frigid temperatures and today’s heavy snowstorm in the Northeast, the concept of global warming may seem, well, almost wishful. But climate is known to be variable—a cold winter, or a few strung together doesn’t mean the planet is cooling. Still, according to a new study, global warming may have hit a speed bump and could go into hiding for decades.
Posted: 03/05/2009 - Despite consistently describing the economic situation as being dire, President Barack Obama is rapidly moving forward with policies that have the potential to seriously harm American industry. But the question is begged: If green energy is so wonderful, why isn’t the free market jumping at the opportunity? If the program needs the government’s hand to jump-start it, it will need government’s dollars to sustain it. And if those are ever in short supply, it will risk collapse. A good case study is ethanol. After years of promoting it as an alternative to fossil fuels, the sad truth has emerged over time that the industry is almost entirely dependent upon the government. As previously reported, there can be unintended side-effects - in the case of ethanol, government subsidies have contributed to food shortages in certain regions around the world, leading to political and economic destabilization.
Posted: 03/05/2009 - We hear a lot today about generating green jobs along with green power and fuel. But as Congress just passed a stimulus package with tens of billions of dollars in spending for clean energy and infrastructure projects, we have to ask ourselves what are the odds these projects will go forward when existing projects are being stymied.
Posted: 03/05/2009 - The Gore Effect was first noticed during a January 2004 global warming rally in New York City, held during one of the coldest days in the city’s history. Since then, evidence has mounted of a correlation between global warming activism and severely cold weather. Theories, e.g., citing the influence of sun spot activity, have gained increasing credence as scientists have noted global warming in recent years on other planets, which presumably have been human-free. If nothing else, the Gore Effect proves that God has a sense of humor.
Posted: 03/05/2009 - As an organizer of the conference, I have had so many impeccably credentialed scientists ask to speak that I have had to beat them off with a stick. Still other highly credentialed scientists are waiting in the wings for 2010 because we haven’t been able to fit them into the 2008 or 2009 program. Moreover, these are some of the most brilliant minds in science speaking out against the so-called global warming crisis. Among the speakers at next week’s conference are scientists from Harvard, MIT, NASA, NOAA, etc. etc.
Posted: 03/05/2009 - Temperatures have plummeted to record or near-record lows in 32 states this winter. On March 2, a global warming protest in Washington, D.C. was buried by nearly a foot of snow. And a new study warns that the Earth could be in for a 30-year cooling trend. Reality is not cooperating with the network news’ global warming theme, yet reporters are unwilling to even discuss the possibility that the Earth is cooling.
Posted: 03/05/2009 - Duke Energy says Carolinas electricity rates would rise by at least 13 percent under President Obama’s plan to address climate change by auctioning off carbon credits.
Posted: 03/05/2009 - THIS HAZARDOUS WEATHER OUTLOOK IS FOR SOUTHEAST ALABAMA... SOUTHWEST AND SOUTH CENTRAL GEORGIA...AND THE FLORIDA BIG BEND AND PANHANDLE...AND ADJACENT COASTAL WATERS.
Posted: 03/04/2009 - Short Term
Posted: 03/04/2009 - Long Term
Updated: 03/04/2009 - Official announcement could come plater today
Posted: 03/04/2009 - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Chinese leaders February 22 that human rights issues, such as China’s oppression of Tibet, “can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis.”
Posted: 03/03/2009 - Short term
Posted: 03/03/2009 - Long Term
Posted: 03/03/2009 - Temperatures for the contiguous United States last month were slightly above the long-term average, based on records going back to 1895, according to a preliminary analysis by scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The average January temperature of 31.2 degrees F was 0.4 degree above the 20th Century average.
Posted: 03/03/2009 - In his February 24 speech, President Obama asked Congress to send him “legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America.” But by “market-based cap” he means that the government would mandate carbon dioxide emission permits - which are essentially permits to use energy - that companies would then be able to sell among themselves. His budget assumes a staggering $650 billion in revenue from this scheme. But who picks up the tab? Who ultimately pays the cost of buying these slices of global warming baloney, and why would industry support such a scheme? The answer is that you and I do, as does everyone who buys anything requiring energy, just like we pay the cost of all the other taxes paid by manufacturers. It’s a tax, folks. Plain and simple, Obama’s “market-based cap” plan is a tax on American business. Industry is actually behind this massive tax, having sold their support so that the tax is not merely passed through to consumers, but it allows companies to skim the scheme for a profit, again at your expense. This tax, however, is nearly twice the size of the failed BTU tax which Al Gore still attributes the Democrats’ loss of Congress the next year. The BTU tax was offered in the name of deficit reduction. Obama’s global warming tax is expressly to pay for new middle-class welfare entitlements, even though it takes away from the beneficiaries about the same amount they will fork out in increased energy costs (if not the entire inflationary impact). The important point for his movement, however, is that more money is run through the state, creating dependency. With BTU, the then-new “rock star” Democratic president Clinton was rebuffed by a Democratic Congress once the public fought back. This was only after the House had passed the tax by one vote - cast by Rep. Marjorie Margolies Mezvinsky (D-PA), who tearfully marched down to change her vote after being singled out for flipping by the White House. As she shuffled back up the aisle, a prescient Republican caucus loudly waived “bye, Margie!” knowing the gift she had given them. She was among many BTU-tax supporters later driven from office. Then business successfully “Swiss-cheesed” the tax proposal by lobbying and achieving so many carve-outs that the tax simply collapsed. With an insufficient business constituency, Democratic Sens. Bennett Johnston, John Breaux and David Boren could not justify so angering the public and instructed the new president how the world would work. There are two lessons here. First, as Al Gore confessed to the Financial Times, going through the front door of a direct energy tax is too risky. Hence the cap-and-trade rationing scheme; it’s a tax but a non-transparent one, also making it vastly less efficient (more expensive) according to economists at, for example, the Congressional Budget Office. The message to lawmakers is to worry about one job: yours. Hide the tax. The part about also doubling the tax seems to be all Obama’s idea. Second, cap-and-trade shows that business has also learned how to sell its support in return for additional schemes to further pick your pocket, siphoning of some of the cost to themselves. Cap-and-trade provides them billions of your dollars in return for playing along. Read more of this powerful must read here.
Posted: 03/02/2009 - Short Term
Posted: 03/02/2009 - Long Term
Posted: 03/02/2009 - It's feeling a little nippy outside. Forecasters say even though the snow is gone - the biting cold will linger across Alabama at least through Tuesday
Posted: 03/02/2009 - Drought conditions in Texas are keeping farmers from planting crops, forcing cattle producers to cull their herds and drying up lakes across the state.
Posted: 03/02/2009 - A wildfire fueled by grass, brush and trees has destroyed at least 25 homes and three businesses in central Texas.