News Ticker powered by Fox News

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Congress Plans Global Warming Bills While Antartic Ice Grows, Snows Oustside Vegas, Denver (24in.) in April

Congress is contemplating putting new greenhouse gas regulations that will cripple the energy industry among others.

After President George W. Bush did little about global warming in his two terms, there is "a lot pent up demand" for action on climate, said William Ruckelshaus, the first administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Both the Democratic-controlled Congress and President Barack Obama agree that legislation is needed to limit emissions of greenhouse gases and radically alter the nation's energy sources. They want to pass a bill by the end of the year.

So, it begins. The O-Team will try to turn our economy green. Consequences be damned!

This coming week, lawmakers begin hearings on an energy and global warming bill that could revolutionize how the country produces and uses energy. It also could reduce, for the first time, the pollution responsible for heating up the planet.

Both sides of the debate on global warming are poised to clash over the legislation after the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday said rising sea levels, increased flooding and more intense heat waves and storms that come with climate change are a threat to public health and safety. The agency predicted that warming will worsen other pollution problems such as smog.

They followed this unproven theory with outright misrepresentation.

Every year since 2001 has been among the 10 warmest years on record. Sea ice in the Arctic and glaciers worldwide are melting.

From 2001 to 2006 may have been warmer, but the last two years have been getting progressively cooler not warmer. Research shows that while ice is melting in some parts of the Artic it is growing in others.

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

They go on to explain that while the west coast is melting the east is growing.

However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

So, basically they gained in the east what they've lost in the west. Let me check the math:


Yep, it's basically a wash.

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual. "Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."

In addition, reports from a few months ago say that the ice level is about the same as it was in 1979. (See link below.)

Back to the upcoming debate in Washington over the new economy-strangling regulations on emissions:

Then there is the question whether the public will have the appetite to accept higher energy prices for a benefit that will not be seen for many years. Climate change ranks low on many voters' priority lists.

I have that answer for you.

No, we can't take a repeat of $4-5 p/ gallon gas. That was one thing that started this crisis last year. It caused a huge consumer backlash. Why would the Democrats force the price of energy up intentionally?

These regulations are too damaging to the economy to enact all at once especially to prevent something that many scientist don't believe is really happening. There is as much evidence disproving the theory as there is supporting it.

We do need to get off fossil fuels so that we won't be so dependent on countries that hate us, but it should be more of a gradual shift.


No comments:

Post a Comment