Eh? Ya, I read them...I also read just how much mercury is in your average cfl and how much is volatile when broken. It's ridiculously minute...just don't put your face in it. Gimme a break...you're probably subject to worse pollution by jogging through the city. Obviously no reason to choose incadescents over cfl's. As for the reading...there have been pretty significant improvements in the light produced by cfl's. If it still bugs you, use an incadescent in a reading lamp you use to read under. Doesn't rule out the rest of the house.
"This WMD someone calls safe".....I'm not even gonna comment.
So is the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere compared with all other gases; yet it appears anthropomorphic CO2 , les than .28% of the total amount of CO2 produced naturally by Earth`s environment through natural processes is the cause of global warming? Titty for tatty... got you acting batty
The science isn`t settled. There is not consensus. There wa media blitzkrieg trying to convince US that there is proof. The science is failing to concur with even modest statements about the projected trends in warming of the earth. Science is not consensus or democratic. Christophel Colomb and Ferdinand Magellan are just one team of dissenting fellows in a long line of others who prevailed against the political science of their time.
Computer Models Fail to Predict Climate
"Computer models that form the basis for future global warming predictions have projected significantly more warming in recent years than has actually occurred ..."
Computer models that form the basis for future global warming predictions have projected significantly more warming in recent years than has actually occurred, concludes a comprehensive new scientific study.
"A Comparison of Tropical Temperature Trends with Model Predictions," published in the December 2007 International Journal of Climatology, is the latest study to cast doubt on the efficacy of climate modeling. Climate scientists David H. Douglass, John Christy, and S. Fred Singer analyzed 22 climate models and found their predictions at odds with actual warming over the past 30 years.
No Human Fingerprint
Most of the models predicted significant middle- and upper-troposphere warming, yet actual warming was minimal.
Douglass and his colleagues write, "Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs."
Christy, an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contributor, noted in a December 6 press statement, "Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. Satellite observations suggest that greenhouse models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide."
Models Don't Reflect Causes
Many top climate scientists point out climate models are incapable of handling confounding factors such as cloud cover and water vapor (the dominant greenhouse gas), thus distorting climate predictions.
Additionally, they note, the models do not reflect the actual causes of warming. Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, says the models used by the IPCC and other alarmists assign too much warming resulting from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, rendering the models' predictions inaccurate.
Singer writes, "Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role of water vapor. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940-75), nor for the observed patterns of warming. For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite."
Computer Programs Inadequate
Computers, no matter how big, cannot take account of all of the earth's complexities and processes, critics of the alarmist models also note. As a result, no current climate model can explain the causes of climate changes, accurately predict future climate, or form a sound basis for environmental policy.
"Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us," Christy was quoted as saying in The Wall Street Journal on November 1.
"Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? It seems that the answer is no," summarized Douglass in the press statement.
"This new study adds another nail to the coffin of alarmist global warming theory," said Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
"Alarmist global warming theory is totally dependent on computer models predicting accelerating warming in the future," Burnett noted, "yet the models have predicted such warming in the past, and the predicted warming has failed to materialize. This hardly seems a reliable indicator of future warming."http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=22604
From the effect of increased salinity of sea water under ice shelves, to the clear understanding that not enough is known about climate changes and the multiple causations thereof were all recorded in 1997.
37. H. Ye and J.R. Mather, 1997, International Journal of Climatology 17, 155-162. In the case of the Antarctic ice shelf: "For the present mode of oceanographic circulation, the implication is that warmer winters (a climate warming[)], leading to lower rates of sea-ice formation, would cause a reduction in the flux of HSSW [High Salinity Shelf Water] beneath the ice shelf. The resultant cooling in the sub-ice cavity would lead, in turn, to a reduction in the total melting at the ice shelf’s base. A moderate warming of the climate could thus lead to a basal thickening of the Fichner-Ronne Ice Shelf, perhaps increase its longevity" (K.W. Nicholls, 1997, Nature 388, 460-462).
38. In summarizing the section on projections of Changes in Extreme Events, IPCC 1995 concluded that "Current climate models lack the accuracy at smaller scales and the integration are often too short to permit analysis of local weather extremes. Except maybe for precipitation, there is little agreement between models on changes in extreme events." (p. 336) Regarding extreme wind events: "Clearly, there is little agreement between models on changes in storminess that might occur in a warmer world. Conclusions regarding extreme storm events are obviously even more uncertain." (p. 334) As for tropical cyclones: " … [I]t is not possible to say whether the frequency, area of occurrence, time of occurrence, mean intensity or maximum intensity of tropical cyclones will change." (p. 334)
39. C.J.L. Murray and D. Lopez, 1996, in The Global Burden of Disease Study, Global Burden of Injury Series (Boston: Harvard University Press), 975 pp.
40. See for example IPCC1995 Figure 6.10 on p. 307.
41. "Our ability to quantify the magnitude of [the human influence] is currently - limited by uncertainties in key factors, including the magnitude and patterns of longer-term natural variability and the time-evolving patterns of forcing by (and response to) greenhouse gases and aerosols" (IPCC 1995, p. 439).http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=78http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=38http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=44
Wait a minute. Starting an argument about global warming in 1998 is a bit unfair. After all, that’s starting off with a very hot temperature, followed by two relatively cool years.
Fine. Take those years out of the record and there’s still no statistically significant warming between 1997 and 2007. When a scientist tells you that some trend is not “significant,” he or she is saying that it cannot mathematically be distinguished from no trend whatsoever.
More importantly, there’s not going to be any significant trend for some time. Assume, magically, that temperatures begin to warm in 2009 at the rate they were warming before the mid 1990s, and that they continue to warm at that rate. The world has to warm in such a fashion through 2020 before there’s a significant trend reestablished in the data. That’s a full quarter century for any discernable trend of global warming to emerge.
That, however, is not what the U.N.’s own models show. The IPCC’s latest (2007) compendium on climate used 21 different climate models to forecast the future, and subjected each to different “storylines” (in the U.N.’s parlance) for global emissions of carbon dioxide. They are there for the world to see, on page 763 of the volume on climate science. Not one of them predicts a quarter century without warming — even under a scenario in which emissions increase more slowly than they already are.
The U.N.’s own climate models have failed barely a year after they were made public. They have demonstrated a remarkable inability to even “predict” the present. Will 10,000 people in Poznan somehow ignore this?
They shouldn’t. Instead they should be thankful. The lack of recent and future warming almost certainly means that the ultimate warming of this century is going to be quite modest. And they should keep in mind that expensive policies to fight a modest climate change will only worsen the cold snap currently affecting the global economy. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2NjZjg4YzMwMDU5YWE2ODYxMGJlNjkxOGNiMjc3ZjA= The science is not working.