Wednesday, April 23, 2014
PLACERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
99 CENTS

The state’s view of climate change

By
From page A1 | February 04, 2013 | 70 Comments

The Sacramento Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy are based on the following conclusions:

Causes and Effects of Climate Change

Climate change is a measurable change in the state of the average weather conditions over a period of time, usually decades or longer.

1. A growing body of scientific research has linked climate change to an increase in the concentration of GHGs in the Earth’s atmosphere. Concentrations of atmospheric GHGs has remained relatively constant up until the last 200 years at between 260 and 285 parts per million.

2. Current levels of atmospheric GHGs exceed 390 parts per million.

3. Part of this fluctuation is caused by the natural carbon cycle. Absorption and release of GHGs by the oceans, plants, and the atmosphere is a natural occurrence. However, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that there are 6 billion metric tons of GHG emissions annually from human activity, and while some of this is absorbed by the carbon cycle, roughly 3 billion metric tons are released into the atmosphere each year.

4. While there is uncertainty on how the variation in climate is impacted by this increase in human-produced GHG emissions, it is believed that any increase in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere can increase global temperatures, which can have an impact on weather conditions around the globe.

In the United States, roughly 82 percent of all GHG emissions come from the use of petroleum and natural gas. This equals about 25 percent of global emissions. According to an EIA report, world energy consumption will increase by 47 percent from 2007 to 2035. This increase will be led by the use of liquid fuels, including petroleum and natural gas. Worldwide demand for oil is growing steadily. Current world oil usage is about 90 million barrels per day, with demand rising to around 111 million barrels per day by 2035.

5. The U.S consumed approximately 19.1 million barrels of petroleum-based products per day in 2010. This is expected to increase to 21.9 million barrels per day in 2035.

6. Most of the increase in oil demand comes from the transportation sector, where there are the fewest available alternatives to petroleum. Roughly 70 percent of the U.S. oil consumption is in the transportation sector (14 million barrels per day).

7. In California, petroleum-based fuels account for 43 percent of all energy consumption, and 39 percent of that is for transportation.

8. Over the last 20 years, California’s consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel increased 50 percent. However, with recent state and federal regulations on fuel efficiency and alternative fuel sources, transportation-related fuel consumption is projected to decrease 3.7 percent by 2030.

9. Carbon dioxide (along with water) is the natural end product of the clean burning of petroleum fuels, so the only way to reduce the influence on global climate is to reduce the amount of fuel burned, or to find a new fuel for vehicles that does not come from oil. Even carbon emissions from cleaner sources such as natural gas, ethanol, or electricity (unless derived from a renewable source) play a role in global warming. It is widely accepted that carbon dioxide forms approximately 84 percent of all GHG emissions; this is true in California as in the rest of the world.

The impacts from a change in global climate can be felt throughout the region. California has adopted the public policy position that global climate change is “a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California.” Health and Safety Code § 38501 states that:

“The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious disease, asthma, and other human health-related problems … [and that] … global warming will have detrimental effects on some ofCalifornia’s largest industries, including agriculture, wine, tourism, skiing, recreational and commercial fishing, and forestry (and)…will also increase the strain on electricity supplies necessary to meet the demand for summer air-conditioning in the hottest parts of the State.”

Information obtained from state Website and SACOG documents.

LEAVE A COMMENT

Discussion | 70 comments

  • Oscar EdwardsFebruary 03, 2013 - 8:15 pm

    OK, nutbags; On your mark, get set, ....

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 03, 2013 - 8:53 pm

    LINK - Global warming less extreme than feared?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 03, 2013 - 8:57 pm

    LINK - Solar variability and terrestrial climate

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 03, 2013 - 9:16 pm

    LINK - Small Fluctuations In Solar Activity, Large Influence On Climate

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 03, 2013 - 9:26 pm

    LINK - Full AR5 draft leaked here, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • RichardFebruary 04, 2013 - 4:12 am

    Web site COMMIEBLASTER.COM: "Obama teams up with China to wage climate war against America."

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65February 04, 2013 - 9:31 am

    There has never been discovered a single time in the millions of years of life on this planet when the earth was too warm for life to flourish. There have however been countless times when this planet has been too cold for life to flourish. Anything that requires leftists to think for themselves is regected in favor of just being told what to believe. http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65February 04, 2013 - 9:37 am

    Richard, you seem to spend a lot of time attempting to convince yourself that anyone who disagrees with obama or the left must be as mentally deranged as you. It is a good thing there is no shortage of resources to remind you daily of what you believe. Answer a question for me. Which came first the floods of the farmland? The answer has more importance than you know.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65February 04, 2013 - 9:42 am

    Phil, are you trying to suggest that the single source of heat in our solar system which fluctuates on an 11 year cycle may have something to do with varying temps on the planet? If that is true how can the leftists transfer trillions of dollars of wealth? The funniest part is they are afraid of the one thing that allows life to flourish on this rock. global warming. you can't make up the gullibility of leftists.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65February 04, 2013 - 9:44 am

    The left won't ever stop on their assault on prosperity. Even now they want to burn half of our corn crop and have us all dependent on 15th century windmills.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65February 04, 2013 - 10:05 am

    Richard, would you care to post even one thought on the subject that you and you alone can claim credit for? Not something that can be found in a thousand different places and not what you have been told to believe. The answer is no. Just like every other global warming sucker, you have no indepenent thoughts. Only what you have been trained to believe and repeat.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65February 04, 2013 - 10:10 am

    The state's view of climate change. How much can we steal from the private sector. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 04, 2013 - 2:20 pm

    Regarding "the potential adverse impacts of global warming," ARCTIC ICE GROWTH BLOWS AWAY ALL RECORDS - HERE - Arctic ice area has increased by 10.5 million km^2 since mid-September 2012.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureFebruary 04, 2013 - 2:43 pm

    And in other news, there have been numerous leprechaun sightings around Ireland this past year. Also, alcohol consumption was up dramatically, however these two stories are not believed to be related...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 04, 2013 - 5:18 pm

    Since Paddy has cast his reporting net overseas, let me add another worthy item. From the UK: "Coalition plans tax on fresh air to 'help improve environment'" - No, I didn't make that up. You can read about it HERE. If this innovative taxing scheme is good enough for the Brits its certainly good enough for us Yanks.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Oscar EdwardsFebruary 04, 2013 - 6:24 pm

    Thanks. You guys never disappoint! Especially cookie.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65February 04, 2013 - 7:17 pm

    Here is an interesting article. http://www.examiner.com/article/man-made-co2-has-minimal-effect-on-climate-change-claim-global-warming-skeptics

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 04, 2013 - 7:30 pm

    Indeed, it is a good article, Cookie. To quote just a bit: “The great lesson from geologic history is that carbon dioxide is critical to life. The move to label it as a pollutant is simply preposterous. The logical extension to that thought process is that the government has legally regulated life. The notion would be laughable if it were not so tragically real.” ********** So are we faced with a "conspiracy" or just plain stupidity. My vote is that it's a combination of the two.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • REWFebruary 04, 2013 - 7:36 pm

    Welcome to GODS spaceship Planet Earth: A ship so ingeniously designed that mankind until recently, never had a clue that it was on one. The spinning planet spaceship Earth is flying through the universe at a million miles per hour, with a good water and food source for all its passengers. Mother Earth gives all her passengers a set of instructions called instincts. All the passengers but one follows these rules. Humans have misplaced their internal handbook. Important rules like don't poison the water, soil or air. Overuse resources, deforest massive areas, overpopulate or use dangerous genetically modified organisms and abuse domestic livestock for no other reason than to profit. Mother Earth has for eons decided some passengers have finished their flight. Only humans continue to force other passengers to leave because we ignore the handbook. We see everywhere in the world there are ordinary people willing to confront despair, power, and incalculable odds in order to restore some semblance of grace, justice, and beauty to this world. There are many groups and organizations who are working on the most salient issues of our day: Poverty, deforestation, peace, water, hunger, conservation, human rights, and more. Possibly the largest movement the world has ever seen. Rather than control, it seeks connection. Rather than dominance, it strives to disperse the concentrations of power limiting the masses from purpose. Humans can create the conditions that are conducive to life. Humans should think of no better motto for a future life and global economy. Humans have abandoned homes without people and abandoned people without homes. Human societies have failed lawyers advising failed bankers advising failed regulators and failed lobbyists advising corrupt politicians on how to save failed assets. Humans are the only species on the planet without full employment. Every bacteria, insect, plant and animal on the planet has a purpose, yet some humans feel they do not. We have a Global economy that tells us that it is cheaper to destroy Earth in real time rather than renew, restore, and sustain it. Humans print currency to bail out financial institutions but unfortunately humans can't print life to bail out a planet. Currently we are stealing the future, selling it in the present, and calling it gross domestic product and leaving the cost to our offspring .We need to create an economy that is based on healing the future instead of stealing it. We either create assets for the future or take the assets of the future. One is called restoration and the other exploitation. And whenever we exploit the Earth we exploit people and this causes untold suffering. Life on this planet should not be a way to get rich, but a way to be rich in life. Human greed by the few for centuries has caused senseless suffering to the many. GOD and Mother Earth own and pilot the Spaceship Earth. Our fare is being paid by ordinary compassionate people from all the races and religions of the world. With GODS grace, hopefully their efforts will continue to be enough...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65February 04, 2013 - 8:09 pm

    Evelyn, whether it is a conspiracy or just stupidity. Follow the money, a group of people has managed to tranfer a trillion dollars of wealth and have the people who lost it happy for it. And hope for more of the same. How stupid can they be? They invented the best mouse trap of all time. Trillions of dollars in return and all they have to do is keep repeating it. Not a bad investment. They have people convinced they can control the weather.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65February 04, 2013 - 8:13 pm

    Evelyn, have you ever read this? http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eco/hotair4.html

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 04, 2013 - 8:42 pm

    Cookie: I couldn't say whether I've previously read that particular article, but in the last several years I have read similar articles about Greenland, why it is so-named, etc. I'm not a climatologist, so would be unable to debate the finer details. But I am convinced that Global Warming, as it's being sold to us, is based on fraudulent science and is making a number of people endearingly wealthy. For me, the Climategate scandal several years ago involving leading "scientists" from Penn State and East Anglia University in the UK was the nail in the coffin.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 04, 2013 - 8:55 pm

    February 2010 - "Climate change email scandal shames the university and requires resignations" - The Guardian's new revelations about the hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia might help to explain the university's utter failure to confront its critics. They could also explain why the head of the unit, Phil Jones, blocked freedom of information requests and proposed that material subject to those requests be deleted. He has been spared a criminal investigation only because the time limit for prosecutions has expired. The emails I read gave me the impression that Phil Jones had something to hide. Now we know what it might have been. The Guardian has discovered that Jones appears to have suppressed data that undermines a paper he published in Nature in 1990. The paper claimed that Chinese weather stations show that local heating caused by urbanisation has very little effect on the temperature record. It now seems that much of the data they used is worthless and the documents required to validate it do not exist. The paper might be 20 years old, but in a way that makes the scandal worse: Phil Jones has had 20 years in which to issue a correction. - HERE

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65February 04, 2013 - 9:15 pm

    Phil Jones and the dog ate my homework excuse. When the creators of the hockey stick graph were questioned on thier research and how they reached their findings they couldn't produce anything to support their conclusions. I believe it was Phil Jones who claimed he wasn't good at keeping records. The truth is for years they have cherry picked various things from around the globe to promote global warming while ignoring anything that contradicted it. http://www.examiner.com/article/the-hockey-stick-was-never-accurate-and-cru-knew-it

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 05, 2013 - 6:11 am

    "The infamous 'hockey stick' temperature graph purporting to show a runaway acceleration in global temperatures beginning in 1850 was never accurate--and the Climatic Research Unit [but not Al Gore] knew it wasn't accurate when they published it." ********** From "scientist" Phil Jones to colleagues: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick . . . to hide the decline." (See Cookie's 9:15 pm)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65February 05, 2013 - 6:29 am

    For years I have made the claim that they determine the outcome before they ever do the the research and everytime I say it I get mocked up one side and down the other by some brain-dead indoctinated leftist as being anti-science. But it has never caused me to quit saying it. Because it is true.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • MartinFebruary 05, 2013 - 6:39 am

    As I stated before if common since was a snake there wouldn’t be a problem, employment would be at record highs and our government would be under control of the people.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • M. SchumannFebruary 05, 2013 - 6:52 am

    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 05, 2013 - 7:10 am

    64-pg report from the Union of Concerned Scientists: HEADS THEY WIN, TAILS WE LOSE - HOW CORPORATIONS CORRUPT SCIENCE AT THE PUBLIC’S EXPENSE. This describes interference in science and how companies with a financial stake in the outcome are allowed to influence the scientific research used by policy makers. “Corporations use front groups, public relations firms, and other paid consultants to influence public opinion, undermine science, and gain access to policy makers while maintaining the illusion of independence. Corporate involvement in these groups is often obscured, as the groups do not have to disclose their funding sources.” - HERE

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 05, 2013 - 7:22 am

    One of my personal favorites remains TheScientist 2009 revelation concerning pharmaceutical giant Merck. Seems Merck had been publishing a fake “scientific” journal primarily consisting of articles presenting data favorable to Merck. There was no disclosure of company sponsorship.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 05, 2013 - 7:52 am

    "Polar Bear Researchers Urge Governments to Act Now and Save the Species" - HERE - (Also see above, yesterday @2:20pm)********** I love polar bears. When first seeing those photos of them stranded on an ice berg, floating into oblivion, my heart nearly broke. Years later I was greatly relieved when reminded that polar bears can swim!!!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 05, 2013 - 7:58 am

    REW writes, "Every bacteria, insect, plant and animal on the planet has a purpose, yet some humans feel they do not." - Yes. You can count me among those who question the need for chiggars, seed ticks and HIV. - REW, are you really Rabbi Michael Lerner? Are you pitching Tikkun olam again?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65February 05, 2013 - 8:58 am

    Anyone see where the state of California is dropping the algebra 1 requirement for 8th graders? And they are using the lefts favorite excuse when all of their inlightened ideas fail miserably. In this case it is the kids fault. You just can't make this $h%^t up.... toooooo funny...Maybe if they got exposed to algebra nearly as often as they get told about global warming we would be producing some mathematical wizards. They are actually trying to tell us the kids can't learn. Hey, but they need more mone. http://www.news10.net/news/article/228625/2/Calif-drops-Algebra-1-requirement-for-8th-graders

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 05, 2013 - 12:53 pm

    I wish there were a transcript of Ann Bressington, South Australia MP, speaking (2/2/2013) on Agenda 21 & the Club of Rome. THIS 21 min video records that address. I had not realized that Australia is suffering managed transformations (and deprivations) such as our own. The content of what MP Bressington has to say is totally documentable. Source documents can be found with relative ease. The alarm she sounds for Australians is the same alarm we should be hearing. But we’re not. At least, not in any organs of the mainstream media. WATCH. SAVE. PASS IT ON.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65February 05, 2013 - 2:18 pm

    One World Government. Sustainability. The Good of the Whole. Social Contract. Living Constitution. Resource Management. Conservationism. Consumption. Sustainable Development. Central Planning. Eminent Domain. Zoning. IPCC. All part of the same big picture.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65February 05, 2013 - 2:21 pm

    I didn't realize this when I posted my last comment but this is the opening to this story. "The Sacramento Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy are based on the following conclusions:" Right there in big letters... Sustainable Communities....

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 05, 2013 - 3:44 pm

    Agenda 21 is simply ONE approach to this vexing growth function -----> A = P(1+r/n)^nt <--------------- Are there ANY math literate posters on this forum?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rodFebruary 05, 2013 - 6:08 pm

    Mr. Daley apparently has some Russian history, psychology and counseling to his credit. so where is the background in physics, chemistry, organic chemistry, or oceanography, maybe some meteorology no? Please, spare us the 'science lecture' salted by EPA... and tell us why Stalin hated Lenin, thankyou!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rodFebruary 05, 2013 - 6:21 pm

    Global warming 101: When the Cap and Trade bill failed in congress, the EPA simply declared CO2 a pollutant (there’s that Orwellian reverse speak again) and proceeded to write copious regulations that negatively impact all of us. Tremendous new taxation on most nation wide industries, economic energy (fossil fuels) for us all, and auto emission standards are a result, based on an assumption that global warming is an anthropocentric phenomenon, or man caused. Just for the record, CO2 is NOT a pollutant, it is emitted as a natural function of animal respiration, plants in the absence of sunlight, forest fires, oceans and volcanoes, and all internal combustion engines. That’s a lot of sources of ‘pollution’ to blame on man. Yes the earth is warming up….again, but is it caused by Man? At least three glaciations have occurred since time began, so consequently there has been three global warmings…and man wasn’t around then. Now Let’s take a look at the facts. There is a simple little exercise that is quite revealing. The next time you have an opportunity to stand on a hill, or a spot where you can see an object like a house three to four miles away, point to it. Then fix that scene in your mind and slowly rotate your arm to vertical, projecting the vision of that house straight up. That is the distance (about 18,000 feet) above your head and below where over one half of the earth’s atmosphere resides, nitrogen, oxygen, argon and carbon dioxide in a ratio of about, 78%, 21%, .9% and .03% respectively. This is known as the Troposphere. Now consider the earth’s circumference of 27,000 miles and realize that most of our earth’s atmosphere really is an extremely thin layer compared to the size of the earth. Point 1. Now, the oceans of the world comprise about 71% of the earth’s surface and average about 13,000 feet in depth. But water has a much higher saturation point for dissolved gasses, about 300 times greater than our atmosphere. Therefore, the total amount of CO2 in the oceans is astronomically higher than it is in our atmosphere. Well what does this mean? Enter the carbon cycle. In simple terms, the oceans maintain a fairly constant equilibrium of these dissolved gasses depending on temperature and PH throughout the world. As dissolved CO2 builds up and exceeds the equilibrium threshold, it precipitates out as calcium carbonate or bicarbonate, dropping to the sea floor forming limestone. This essentially locks up CO2 as a solid, thereby removing it as a gas from the oceans as well as the atmosphere. As ocean temperatures increase, solubility of CO2 decreases and forms limestone more rapidly. It is no secret the capacity of the oceans to contain CO2 as a gas and a solid is almost infinite. The reverse occurs when ocean temperatures decrease. Cold water can hold more CO2 as a dissolved gas thus limestone reverts back into CO2 and the calcium ion maintaining the equilibrium. This is the dominant mechanism by which CO2 is subtracted or added to the atmosphere, warming or cooling it and our oceans. Are we getting the picture? Not only are the oceans great at subtracting or adding CO2 in water, they are also superb at scrubbing the air for all gasses. As the eternal winds blow across the oceans they are continually mixing and changing from vertical to horizontal directions as they come in contact with ocean surfaces. This forced interface is where gas exchange takes place and is a two- way agreement. If the winds hold an abundance of CO2, it is given to the oceans, and vice versa. Point 2. The carbon cycle is only the first barrier to excessive global warming. There are many mitigating factors but the big one, the one that holds the hammer is dissimilar surface heating. As solar radiation (sunshine) penetrates the atmosphere it warms the land surfaces at a higher rate than the oceans. Heat reflected from land surfaces becomes infrared radiation and is trapped by atmospheric CO2 causing it to warm. This is called the ‘greenhouse effect’. Water simply has a much higher heat capacity without warming as much. Through the scientific term known as the ‘heat of evaporation’, the hotter it gets the more cooling occurs on ocean surfaces than land. This term probably should have been called the ‘cold of evaporation’, oh well, but what does this mean? The hotter the atmosphere becomes, the more evaporation takes place creating cloud mass. In the hotter climates of the tropics and subtropics there is a continual daily cycle of clouds and rain. Extrapolating this concept to the entire earth, (ala Jurassic Park) the hotter it gets the more clouds will form reducing solar radiation on land (cooling). This reduces infra-red radiation from the earth’s surface thereby cooling the atmosphere and the oceans. Aside from the carbon cycle, there is no more beautiful and proven natural equilibrium. So, the oceans are not just the ‘great moderator of temperature’ as we all know, but also a fantastic moderator of CO2. A chemical equilibrium that has well managed the full spectrum of temperature ranges from glaciation to the other end, global warming… and it has all happened without man. While it is true man is contributing more CO2 to the biosphere since the industrial revolution began, it is entirely miniscule when considering all the eternal and natural CO2 emanating from the oceans, volcanism and forest fires. So why all the fear of global warming? This is simple proven physics supported by history, how can it be misconstrued? Why has it been? Have these unfounded fears been manufactured? Have computer models been tweaked to support environmental agendas? Since the EPA’s Endangered Species Act is getting tired, as evidenced by the catastrophic destruction to our economy and Constitutional rights, can it be the EPA is looking for a gigantic overreaching encore… A new martyr… from ‘death of a species’ to ’death of the earth’? Is global warming less about our environment, and more about control through more lucrative taxation?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 05, 2013 - 7:00 pm

    Rod: PLEASE hang around for the next installment of "Global Warming and Why We Must Give Up Our Freedoms/Money". I have saved your 1,010 words (yes, have made a Word doc, so know the count). If you aren't here when needed I ask permission to reinsert you comment+name+link. Masterful summary executed with appropriate passion. Clearly you know your stuff. MANY MANY THANKS.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieFebruary 05, 2013 - 7:19 pm

    Rod -- Thanks for the description of the carbon cycle. From what I understand, forest fires and volcanoes continue to keep up their contribution of CO2, while the burning of fossil fuels puts an additional burden on the cycle. How much CO2 are we adding to the system each year?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 05, 2013 - 7:21 pm

    Unfortunately, the "Global Warming and Why We Must Give Up Our Freedoms/Money" battlefield is beyond these pages. It is at City Councils, Planning Commissions, County offices & BOS, SACOG, and all the way up. Hats off to the one or two dedicated, vigilant & brave people who consistently have been fighting the good fight on our behalf.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 05, 2013 - 8:40 pm

    LINK - Vast California Oil Reserve May Now Be Within Reach, and Battle Heats Up

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureFebruary 05, 2013 - 8:43 pm

    Kirk asks "How much CO2 are we adding to the system each year?" I'll answer for in a nice scientific like way, as Rod does. Forest fires and volcanoes have been occurring with regularity for millennia, and Mt Pinatubo alone spewed more CO2 than man has ever produced. One little burp out of thousands. Now for scientific explanation to how much we are adding; get your self a glass of iced tea (or cold beer if you're so inclined) and set it aside. Next, grab a 5 gallon bucket and fill to the top with water. Now hold your tea over the bucket until condensation forms on the outside of the glass. Hold the glass over the bucket. When the very first drop of condensation falls from the glass into the bucket, you have your answer to how much greenhouse gas humans add to the equation; a drop in the bucket.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureFebruary 05, 2013 - 8:44 pm

    All right, I'll admit, that wasn't quite as impressive as Rod's was.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 05, 2013 - 8:50 pm

    . . . and you did not provide bucket dimensions, Paddy. . . . sloppy science, mr O

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rodFebruary 05, 2013 - 8:52 pm

    Evelyn, Kirk, flattery will get you everywhere, thanks. But I have to confess all the stats are straight from the book "the world Ocean" Anikouchine & Sternberg, a famous university text print 'pre EPA' (before the 'enviroligionists' started stripping original data from university libraries). You may copy it since I wrote it, but caveat emptor!. Kirk, It would be fanatastic to find some nonbiased data on current CO2 emmissions, but this we know. The oceans by far outweigh by several orders of magnitude any other sources, man's contribution would be the smallest. However, The aquatic equilibrium of dissolved gasses trumps additional CO2 ANYWHERE. It may take a few hundred years for man's contribution to be precipitated out on the ocean floor, but it will happen just as the sun rises, followed by the moon. ciao for now

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieFebruary 05, 2013 - 8:55 pm

    We add ~26 billion tons of CO2 every year to the system. As a comparison, Mt St Helens produced ~10 million tons of CO2.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 07, 2013 - 6:43 am

    SO CALLED UN CLIMATE EXPERTS ACADEMICALLY UNQUALIFIED IN METEOROLOGY - HERE - If GW/CC was the great threat to the planet we are told it is then why isn’t it being presented and examined by the world’s great actual climate scientists and meteorologists? It is simply because it is a political based scheme for control and financial gain for those behind the cause, offering flawed data and manipulated computer models in place of actual recorded and visual fact. ********** (At every level of government & policy making, and in non-profits, climate change talk is a mantra, unsupported by honest academic study.)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieFebruary 07, 2013 - 9:32 am

    Evelyn -- I can't tell if your link is intended to be serious or comic relief. It clearly has an agenda..."enviroclown" is not the sort of term an objective analysis would contain. The point that only "real" climate scientists can do a good job of managing the organization does not hold water. Ditto for the implication that *all* research supporting climate change is based on unethical methods. And, I am very skeptical of the world wide conspiracy designed to rob us of our liberties.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 07, 2013 - 11:01 am

    Kirk: I understand your reaction to "clown" enviro- or otherwise. But the article does deal with the qualifications of those making policy decisions of national/international significance. There are many serious scientific papers I could post that would address your concern; the one in question simply is what I came across today. Regarding the diminution of our liberties, I'd like to ask a favor. Seriously. Whenever you have time, please would you read THIS document. What I'm wanting to know is a) whether you find credible Ann Bressington's portrayal of the Australian experience, and b) whether you think our own situation resembles Australia's.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 07, 2013 - 11:15 am

    "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" - HERE ********** (I would note that these days scientists do not lightly stand apart from received orthodoxy. It is a real career killer.)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 07, 2013 - 11:21 am

    "Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society" - HERE - It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist. ********** (Scroll down a couple windows to get to his letter)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 07, 2013 - 11:27 am

    Check out Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis HERE - He earned a Masters degree from the University of California, Berkeley from 1943 to 1944 before joining the Navy, where he served in World War II as an electronics technician. After the war, he returned to the University of California, Berkeley, and earned his Ph.D. in Physics studying under J. Robert Oppenheimer. His focus was high energy physics (cosmic rays and elementary particles). He, along with the other theoretical Physics professors at Berkeley, refused to sign the McCarthy era loyalty oath on principle, and in 1950 went to Princeton. Later, when offered reinstatement at Berkeley, he chose instead to accept a position at Bell Labs where he did research on superconducting materials. In 1956 he left Bell Labs to join the University of Wisconsin, Madison to work on solid state physics and plasmas. In 1964, he left to join the University of California, Santa Barbara as a full professor, and later chairman, in their growing Physics department. He wrote a text on the trade-offs between technological advances and risks, and also authored a popular book on decision making. In 1991 Harold Lewis won the Science Writing Award for his book 'Technological Risk'. Lewis was chairman of the JASON Defense Advisory Group from 1966 to 1973, when he worked on the issue of missile defense. He was a long-term member of the Defense Science Board (DSB), and chaired a 1985 DSB Task Force (with Stephen Schneider) on nuclear winter. Lewis was active in the field of safety of nuclear power plants. In 1975, he chaired a year-long study of light-water reactor safety for the American Physical Society (APS). Lewis chaired the 1977-1979 Risk Assessment Review for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 07, 2013 - 11:29 am

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 07, 2013 - 11:30 am

    italics off?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 07, 2013 - 12:12 pm

    "U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims" - HERE

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 07, 2013 - 12:19 pm

    From HERE: The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. … (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party's convention platform battle, not a scientific process.) Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 07, 2013 - 12:28 pm

    May 2010: "Tax dollars [$5,856,600] perpetuate global-warming fiction" - HERE

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 07, 2013 - 12:30 pm

    May 2010: National Academy of Sciences Urges Carbon Tax, Becomes Advocacy Group - HERE

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieFebruary 07, 2013 - 12:43 pm

    Evelyn -- (2nd try...argh!) I have to claim ignorance regarding Australia and their experience with Agenda 21. I know a few Aussies and they never mentioned it. How we deal with it gets me back to my broken-record mantra: We The People must figure out how to impose our will on our elected representatives. The only defense against tyranny is self government. We The People have been horribly inept at playing our role in the system, almost from the beginning.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 07, 2013 - 12:53 pm

    Kirk: Previously I was unaware how much we have in common with the Auzzie experience. The linked document (not long) is worth a read. Regarding Agenda 21, as Ann Bressington says, we're not meant to speak the words. By and large the media obeys the unwritten rules, so we remain ignorant. As for imposing our will upon the government, unless we understand how government ACTUALLY works and what REALLY is being done (forget electioneering propaganda) and where REAL POWER lies, we ain't got a chance.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 07, 2013 - 1:02 pm

    P.S. Comprehending that Australians and Americans are suffering nearly identical political/economic/regulatory transitions raises the question "What's responsible for this "coincidence?"

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieFebruary 07, 2013 - 1:19 pm

    Evelyn -- The "coincidence", IMO, is due to both countries having similar political systems at the same level of maturity, on a landmass with similar resources. I disagree that we need to understand how/why the government works the way it does...we only need to figure out how to make it work the way it was intended.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 07, 2013 - 1:50 pm

    Maybe. But I'm stumped about how one imposes THEORY (the way government was intended) upon REALITY without understanding the complexities of WHAT IS.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 08, 2013 - 9:11 am

    "BBC exaggerated climate change in David Attenborough's Africa" - HERE

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 08, 2013 - 9:14 am

    "Eco-Zealots In Overdrive: Let’s Kill The Polar Bears" - HERE -Already having to suffer its identity being abused by global warming alarmists as a symbol of manmade climate change, now the polar bear may have to fear being euthanized by overzealous conservationists.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 08, 2013 - 9:17 am

    "Wolves to be 'educated' not to kill sheep" - HERE (FILE: "Early Morning Humor")

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 08, 2013 - 9:18 am

    OFF

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 11, 2013 - 6:08 am

    (File under “Inconvenient Facts”) - NASA DISAPPEARS THE COOLING TREND - HERE

    Reply | Report abusive comment
.

News

Downtown group coordinates painting, awnings

By Wendy Schultz | From Page: A1

 
More mountain lion sightings reported

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: A1, 8 Comments

 
Supervisor Nutting trial begins

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1, 102 Comments | Gallery

Sanford murder case to jury

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1 | Gallery

 
Herard over the back fence: Try fishing at Wakamatsu

By Bob Billingsley | From Page: B1

Gearing tax questions to correct office saves time

By Treasurer-Tax Collector | From Page: A3

 
.

Opinion

My turn: More than a buzzword

By Special to the Democrat | From Page: A4, 73 Comments

 
Building restored

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4

 
Outstanding dog

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4

.

Letters

‘Parents, be afraid’ letter

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 53 Comments

 
Ukranian situation

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 5 Comments

Misquote

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 11 Comments

 
Altshuler framing

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 9 Comments

National Day of Prayer

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 7 Comments

 
.

Sports

Pedal power at the forefront next month

By Jerry Heinzer | From Page: A6 | Gallery

 
Outside with Charlie: Transitioning

By Charlie Ferris | From Page: A6

Pitching the ‘Root’ cause of Trojans’ victory

By Mike Bush | From Page: A6 | Gallery

 
Sports Scene: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7

Roundup: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7 | Gallery

 
.

Prospecting

4-H’ers star at showcase

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: B1 | Gallery

 
At a glance: Look for fireballs

By Mimi Escabar | From Page: B2, 1 Comment

Authors to share their stories

By Pat Lakey | From Page: B2, 2 Comments

 
Church to host human trafficking conference

By Pollock Pines | From Page: B3

Grow For It! Flower of Easter

By Barbara Schuchart | From Page: B5

 
.

Essentials

Crime Log: April 1-3

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A2

 
Weather stats 4-22-14

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2

Building permits 4/7-11/2014

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2, 1 Comment

 
.

Obituaries

Bobby Lloyd Bridges

By Contributor | From Page: A2

 
Harry Frank Harper

By Contributor | From Page: A2, 6 Comments

Marion “Wayne” Griswold

By Contributor | From Page: A2

 
.

Real Estate

.

Comics

New York Times Crossword

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Flying McCoys

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Speed Bump

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Tundra

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Horoscope, Thursday, April 24, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Horoscope, Wednesday, April 23, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Working It Out

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
TV Listings

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Shoe

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Sudoku

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Rubes

By Contributor | From Page: A8