http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20001026/2782522s.htm

Global warming is accelerating, scientists report

By Traci Watson

USA TODAY

By 2100, global warming could raise the average temperature of the Earth as much as 10 degrees more than the average temperature in 1990, according to a U.N.-sponsored panel of hundreds of scientists.

The estimate is substantially higher than the maximum temperature rise of 6 degrees predicted in the 1995 edition of the United Nations report and will renew debate over what causes global warming and how to address it.

The report goes further than the 1995 edition in tying humans to the warming of the planet. It says ''it is likely'' that gases produced by human activity ''have contributed substantially'' to the warming seen so far. The report defines ''likely'' as a chance of 66%-99%.

''It is indeed a much stronger statement'' than five years ago, said Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The 1995 report said most of the evidence ''suggests a discernible human influence on climate.''

The Earth has warmed about 1 degree in the past 100 years. Many scientists believe that part of the cause is a buildup of greenhouse gases. These gases, emitted by factories and fossil-fuel use, linger in the atmosphere and trap heat.

However, a minority of scientists say there is no proof that the warming of the 20th century is anything but natural, and they argue that the computer models used to predict climate change are not reliable.

The new report, a draft summary prepared by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was being circulated for review to scientists this week.

The report says that the Earth could warm 2.5 to 10.4 degrees by 2100, compared with the 1.8 to 6.3 degrees estimated in the 1995 report.

Scientists say that the new estimates are higher partly because they assume developing nations will cut emissions of sulfur, an air pollutant that causes health problems and haze. Sulfur in the atmosphere cools the Earth.

Most nations, including the United States, have not ratified a 1997 treaty intended to slow global warming.

A spokesman for Al Gore said the report shows that climate change will be an important issue for the next president. A spokesman for George W. Bush said the Texas governor believes more research is needed.

-- (in@the.news), October 26, 2000

Answers

Sorry to say I told you so, but I told you so. We are going to be getting reports like this more and more frequently, and each time the estimates of what is coming will be worse than what was previously predicted.

These scientists are so caught up with analyzing data that they are completely overlooking a basic phenomenon that occurs when energy (in this case, heat energy) begins to increase. It is called "synergy", and it means that we are in a whole lot more trouble than almost anyone could have ever imagined, except perhaps the physicists.

-- (goodbye@blue.sky), October 27, 2000.

This type of report is exactly the same as those that caused all the Y2K fuss. It is a report by someone with no actual knowledge of the subject on a report by some other people who are only on the peripheral of the issue. It raisesmore questions than it answers, and contains no actual facts.

First off who is Traci Watson, and what scientific or mathmatical qualifications does she hold.

By 2100, global warming could raise the average temperature of the Earth as much as 10 degrees more than the average temperature in 1990, according to a U.N.-sponsored panel of hundreds of scientists. Who are these so called scientists, and where can we read the original report?

It says ''it is likely'' that gases produced by human activity ''have contributed substantially''to the warming seen so far. Likely? Scientists do not talk in terms of "Likely". Science deals in hard data. Where is the Data? What warming have we seen so far? All of the hard evidence is that there has been no real global warming over the past century, only localised Urban Heat Island effects in and near large cities. Have a at this site and then see if you can detect any Global Warming?

The Earth has warmed about 1 degree in the past 100 years. Many scientists believe that part of the cause is a buildup of greenhouse gases. Where is the evidence for this statement? And how many scientists is "Many"? Is that 6, 60 or 160. Certainly most environmental and physical scientists that I know would disagree with this claim, although there are a couple that I often have discussions with on this topic who support the theory of Global Warming. One is a hydrolygist, and the other is a Bioligist.

However, a minority of scientists say there is no proof that the warming of the 20th century is anything but natural, and they argue that the computer models used to predict climate change are not reliable. Where is the data that shows that only a minority argue against this theory. Any seminars or conferences on the issue that I have attended have overwhelmingly concluded that any effects are natuaral and are related to the El-Nino/La-Nina cycle.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), October 27, 2000.

Thanks Malcolm. I also wondered about the "minority" of scientists that didn't believe the results of this report. I don't really question the conclusions of this report (because there are none, only speculation based on some model). What I'd like to see are the data and how the study was conducted.

Bush is absolutely right, more research is needed.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 27, 2000.

"What I'd like to see are the data and how the study was conducted."

LMAO What good would that do you? You've already demonstrated on many other threads that you are illiterate!

"Bush is absolutely right, more research is needed."

Absolutely! Research done for several decades by thousands of scientists is not enough, we need a booze-guzzling, coke-snorting, lying, sleazy, corrupt dimwit like Shrubya to look into it. LOL

-- (maria@rather.dim), October 28, 2000.

To whom ever you are who posted maria@rather.dim

This is typical socialist rhetoric. First they pick an issue, then they get some people to agree with their position, then they scare everybody and whip everybody into a frenzy, then here comes the gubment on its white horse saying, "Don't worry, we'll save you". Then the gubment passes a law infringing on your personal freedom. Then you thank the gubment for saving your life. The gubment laughs because you're so stupid, emotionally handicapped and thought challenged. Then you go on leading your aimless immoral life until the socialist want to remove another personal freedom and then it starts all over again. Anything here sound familiar?

Ooops

-- Ooops (Ooops@slipofthetongue.com), October 28, 2000.

There's no doubt that temperatures are up. The question is, why? Here's a 1999 story about temperatures in 1998.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/hotyear990111.htm l

By Randolph E. Schmid

The Associated Press

W A S H I N G T O N, Jan. 11 B Last year was the hottest year on record, according to NASA researchers who say the rising temperatures are further evidence that the world is heating up.

BGlobal surface temperatures in 1998 set a new record by a wide margin,B NASA said.

In announcing its findings on the Internet, NASA said Monday the average global temperature last year was 0.34 of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than the previous record, in 1995. BAnd unlike many recent years, the warmth is beginning to hit home; the United States this year is experiencing its warmest year in the past several decades.B

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in a separate announcement, agreed that last year was the hottest on record.

NOAA Administrator D. James Baker called the readings Breally quite extraordinary.B

more

-- Things (are@warming.up), October 28, 2000.

Temperatures since the 1400's

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/warm980422.html

-- Things (are@warming.up), October 28, 2000.

SO WHAT??? This planet is what, 4 Billion years old? And you've got what, recorded data for two hundred years or so. I'll do better than that, I'll give you 5,000 years (which you don't have). So how many years do you speculate that human beings have been here, 100,000 years, 200,000-1 million years. So let's see Mr. & Mrs. Above Average Intelligence you can blame man for influencing the weather for the last 1 million years so who influenced the weather for the previous 3 billion 999 million years. Who caused the hot house that the dinosaurs lived in? Did man cause the ice age? Do you even know what the weather was like a billion years ago? How do you know this isn't some cycle the planet goes through? Gees, get a grip. I mean they can't forecast the weather right for six days in advance and you want me to believe they know what the weather will be in 100 years. NOT! BTW, I own this nice little bridge in Brooklyn, interested?

-- Ooops (Ooops@slipofthetongue.com), October 28, 2000.

Folks:

and in the same week that NASA scientists reported that Global Warming is mostly due to normal changes in the Solar Cycle. Oh well. There is a difference between science and politicized UN reports. But I am sure they will be posted by folks who have no ability to understand the data behind them. Arggg.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 28, 2000.

"This is typical socialist rhetoric."

LOL Yeah, I suppose these "socialists" that you are so paranoid of even have control over the sun. They just turned up the solar thermostat so that we would get all kinds of weird weather and beg for them to help. Exactly how are they going to benefit from this elaborate conspiracy you speak of... are they in the air conditioning business? LOL

-- (gubmint.issue@air.conditioners), October 28, 2000.

Yes, SOCIALIST RHETORIC. For the good of all (or for the "social welfare"). those of you who are afraid want the rest of us to give up a personal freedom. I'm not sure what you want but it is along the lines of you want me to give up my car that burns fossil fuel, or stop burning my wood stove, or quit using electricity or something along those lines, because you feel it is the best for society. You feel I should give up my choice, to satisfy you, because your goals are lofty and are directed toward mankind (the "social welfare"). So when you stand for the loss of personal freedom in the name of improving the "social welfare" you are promoting SOCIALISM!

What I can't figure out is the right-angled thinking of liberals. Your agenda is to tell others they need to give up their choice (personal freedom) in the interest of all others; however, you adamantly demand the personal freedom for women to choose death for unborn children?

This non-parallel thinking makes me think you just want what you want. You want to tell me to give up what you want me to give up, but you don't want anybody telling you what to do? Right?

-- Ooops (Ooops@slipofthetongue.com), October 28, 2000.

We've known that cars were bad for the environment for decades, numbskull. I didn't see anybody taking them away from you.

The reason we are now concerned about those vehicles which are guzzling up more gas than necessary is because it is a limited resource, knucklehead. No one is going to take your car away from you, but if you still want to drive it when we run out of oil, then have fun paying $50 a gallon. I'll be driving my economical airmobile.

Paranoia is a terrible thing. It makes people like you think that when someone gives you good advice it means that they are going to take something away from you or try to kill you. LOL

-- (paranoia@is.treatable), October 28, 2000.

Things (are@warming.up). You appear to base your conclusions purely on newspaper reports of data rather than of the actual data. May I ask that you follow the link I posted earlier (to actual weather station data) and then tell us all just where this global warming is occuring. Or alternatively try this actual data from NOAA satelites.

You can see that 1997 -98 were very warm years, but that 1999-2000 are cooler than average.

MONTHLY MEANS OF LOWER TROPOSPHERE CHANNEL 2LT.D ANNUAL CYCLE BASED ON 79001-98364 12-MON RUNNING MEAN YEAR MON GLOBAL NH SH NO.DAYS GLOBAL NH SH DAYS 1979 1 -0.121 -0.242 0.000 31. -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 31. 1979 2 -0.118 -0.171 -0.064 28. -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 59. 1979 3 -0.114 -0.104 -0.125 31. -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 90. 1979 4 -0.147 -0.165 -0.129 30. -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 120. 1979 5 -0.140 -0.216 -0.064 31. -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 151. 1979 6 -0.131 -0.168 -0.093 30. -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 181. 1979 7 -0.027 0.089 -0.143 31. -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 212. 1979 8 -0.120 -0.073 -0.168 31. -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 243. 1979 9 0.030 0.006 0.055 30. -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 273. 1979 10 0.145 0.096 0.194 31. -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 304. 1979 11 0.030 0.079 -0.019 25. -0.066 -0.081 -0.051 329. 1979 12 0.131 0.161 0.100 31. -0.049 -0.060 -0.038 360. 1980 1 0.053 -0.101 0.206 25. -0.035 -0.047 -0.024 354. 1980 2 0.141 0.065 0.217 29. -0.014 -0.027 -0.001 354. 1980 3 0.035 -0.180 0.249 31. -0.001 -0.034 0.032 354. 1980 4 0.161 -0.018 0.341 30. 0.025 -0.021 0.072 354. 1980 5 0.177 0.049 0.306 31. 0.052 0.001 0.104 354. 1980 6 0.118 0.059 0.176 30. 0.073 0.020 0.126 354. 1980 7 0.087 0.044 0.129 31. 0.083 0.016 0.150 354. 1980 8 0.147 0.049 0.245 31. 0.107 0.027 0.187 354. 1980 9 0.193 0.056 0.329 30. 0.120 0.031 0.209 354. 1980 10 0.100 0.152 0.049 31. 0.116 0.036 0.197 354. 1980 11 0.138 0.146 0.129 30. 0.124 0.041 0.206 359. 1980 12 -0.042 -0.067 -0.017 30. 0.110 0.023 0.197 358. 1981 1 0.150 0.144 0.156 31. 0.117 0.042 0.193 364. 1981 2 0.193 0.096 0.289 28. 0.121 0.044 0.198 364. 1981 3 0.154 0.157 0.150 25. 0.131 0.071 0.190 358. 1981 4 0.015 0.087 -0.056 21. 0.121 0.080 0.162 349. 1981 5 0.061 0.088 0.034 31. 0.111 0.083 0.138 349. 1981 6 -0.011 0.046 -0.068 30. 0.100 0.082 0.117 349. 1981 7 0.061 0.036 0.085 31. 0.097 0.081 0.113 349. 1981 8 0.066 0.107 0.025 23. 0.091 0.086 0.095 341. 1981 9 0.030 -0.013 0.073 30. 0.076 0.080 0.073 341. 1981 10 -0.001 0.044 -0.046 31. 0.067 0.070 0.064 341. 1981 11 0.010 0.015 0.004 30. 0.056 0.059 0.053 341. 1981 12 0.151 0.130 0.172 31. 0.073 0.076 0.070 342. 1982 1 -0.081 -0.204 0.043 31. 0.052 0.045 0.060 342. 1982 2 -0.076 -0.174 0.022 28. 0.030 0.023 0.038 342. 1982 3 -0.220 -0.348 -0.091 31. -0.001 -0.020 0.018 348. 1982 4 -0.119 -0.030 -0.207 30. -0.012 -0.027 0.004 357. 1982 5 -0.138 -0.277 0.001 31. -0.029 -0.059 0.001 357. 1982 6 -0.095 -0.232 0.041 30. -0.036 -0.082 0.010 357. 1982 7 -0.239 -0.226 -0.252 31. -0.062 -0.105 -0.019 357. 1982 8 -0.161 -0.265 -0.057 31. -0.079 -0.132 -0.025 365. 1982 9 -0.143 -0.244 -0.042 24. -0.092 -0.149 -0.035 359. 1982 10 -0.218 -0.336 -0.099 31. -0.111 -0.182 -0.039 359. 1982 11 -0.108 -0.400 0.183 30. -0.121 -0.217 -0.024 359. 1982 12 0.011 -0.029 0.052 31. -0.133 -0.231 -0.035 359. 1983 1 0.148 0.153 0.143 31. -0.113 -0.200 -0.026 359. 1983 2 0.005 -0.133 0.143 28. -0.107 -0.197 -0.017 359. 1983 3 0.272 0.203 0.342 31. -0.064 -0.149 0.021 359. 1983 4 0.178 0.006 0.350 30. -0.039 -0.146 0.067 359. 1983 5 0.193 -0.007 0.393 31. -0.011 -0.123 0.101 359. 1983 6 -0.078 -0.180 0.023 30. -0.009 -0.118 0.100 359. 1983 7 0.128 0.138 0.118 31. 0.022 -0.087 0.132 359. 1983 8 0.089 0.099 0.079 31. 0.044 -0.056 0.143 359. 1983 9 0.078 0.027 0.129 30. 0.059 -0.036 0.155 365. 1983 10 -0.087 -0.163 -0.010 31. 0.070 -0.022 0.162 365. 1983 11 -0.021 0.041 -0.082 30. 0.077 0.014 0.140 365. 1983 12 -0.293 -0.304 -0.282 31. 0.052 -0.009 0.112 365. 1984 1 -0.302 -0.362 -0.242 28. 0.016 -0.050 0.082 362. 1984 2 -0.183 -0.303 -0.062 29. 0.000 -0.064 0.065 362. 1984 3 -0.113 -0.321 0.095 31. -0.032 -0.109 0.044 362. 1984 4 -0.220 -0.327 -0.112 27. -0.065 -0.135 0.006 359. 1984 5 -0.045 -0.213 0.122 31. -0.084 -0.152 -0.017 359. 1984 6 -0.238 -0.187 -0.289 30. -0.098 -0.153 -0.042 359. 1984 7 -0.269 -0.308 -0.230 31. -0.132 -0.192 -0.072 359. 1984 8 -0.188 -0.178 -0.197 31. -0.156 -0.216 -0.096 359. 1984 9 -0.501 -0.480 -0.522 30. -0.205 -0.258 -0.151 359. 1984 10 -0.193 -0.263 -0.124 31. -0.213 -0.266 -0.160 359. 1984 11 -0.400 -0.577 -0.223 30. -0.245 -0.319 -0.171 359. 1984 12 -0.371 -0.574 -0.168 28. -0.250 -0.339 -0.161 356. 1985 1 -0.136 -0.194 -0.078 31. -0.236 -0.324 -0.148 359. 1985 2 -0.188 -0.109 -0.267 28. -0.237 -0.309 -0.164 359. 1985 3 -0.085 -0.262 0.092 31. -0.234 -0.304 -0.165 359. 1985 4 -0.168 -0.277 -0.058 30. -0.230 -0.300 -0.160 362. 1985 5 -0.213 -0.179 -0.247 31. -0.244 -0.297 -0.191 362. 1985 6 -0.214 -0.320 -0.109 30. -0.242 -0.308 -0.176 362. 1985 7 -0.347 -0.520 -0.174 27. -0.248 -0.324 -0.172 358. 1985 8 -0.173 -0.346 0.000 31. -0.247 -0.339 -0.155 358. 1985 9 -0.182 -0.322 -0.042 27. -0.220 -0.326 -0.115 355. 1985 10 -0.268 -0.288 -0.248 31. -0.227 -0.328 -0.126 355. 1985 11 -0.113 -0.085 -0.141 27. -0.203 -0.288 -0.119 352. 1985 12 -0.109 -0.033 -0.186 31. -0.182 -0.243 -0.121 355. 1986 1 -0.003 0.028 -0.033 31. -0.170 -0.224 -0.117 355. 1986 2 -0.135 -0.277 0.006 28. -0.166 -0.237 -0.095 355. 1986 3 -0.107 -0.118 -0.096 28. -0.169 -0.225 -0.112 352. 1986 4 0.010 -0.046 0.066 30. -0.153 -0.206 -0.101 352. 1986 5 -0.018 -0.080 0.045 31. -0.136 -0.197 -0.075 352. 1986 6 -0.123 -0.096 -0.151 30. -0.128 -0.178 -0.079 352. 1986 7 -0.156 -0.232 -0.080 31. -0.114 -0.157 -0.072 356. 1986 8 -0.186 -0.248 -0.124 31. -0.115 -0.148 -0.083 356. 1986 9 -0.240 -0.326 -0.155 30. -0.121 -0.150 -0.092 359. 1986 10 -0.237 -0.241 -0.232 31. -0.118 -0.146 -0.090 359. 1986 11 -0.076 -0.193 0.042 30. -0.115 -0.154 -0.076 362. 1986 12 -0.099 -0.182 -0.015 31. -0.114 -0.167 -0.061 362. 1987 1 0.179 0.278 0.079 31. -0.098 -0.146 -0.051 362. 1987 2 0.223 0.310 0.136 28. -0.071 -0.100 -0.041 362. 1987 3 -0.048 0.015 -0.110 31. -0.066 -0.089 -0.043 365. 1987 4 0.131 0.063 0.198 30. -0.056 -0.080 -0.032 365. 1987 5 -0.029 -0.100 0.042 31. -0.057 -0.082 -0.032 365. 1987 6 0.159 0.055 0.264 30. -0.034 -0.069 0.002 365. 1987 7 0.133 0.122 0.144 28. -0.011 -0.041 0.020 362. 1987 8 0.043 0.003 0.082 31. 0.009 -0.019 0.037 362. 1987 9 0.056 0.125 -0.013 30. 0.034 0.018 0.049 362. 1987 10 0.227 0.234 0.220 31. 0.073 0.059 0.088 362. 1987 11 0.128 0.109 0.148 30. 0.090 0.084 0.097 362. 1987 12 0.393 0.566 0.219 31. 0.132 0.148 0.117 362. 1988 1 0.305 0.383 0.227 31. 0.143 0.157 0.130 362. 1988 2 0.054 0.081 0.028 24. 0.131 0.139 0.123 357. 1988 3 0.254 0.228 0.280 31. 0.157 0.158 0.156 357. 1988 4 0.077 -0.025 0.180 30. 0.153 0.152 0.155 357. 1988 5 0.107 0.218 -0.003 31. 0.165 0.179 0.150 357. 1988 6 0.104 0.137 0.071 27. 0.160 0.186 0.135 354. 1988 7 0.206 0.272 0.140 31. 0.166 0.198 0.134 357. 1988 8 0.157 0.303 0.011 31. 0.177 0.225 0.129 357. 1988 9 0.291 0.312 0.269 30. 0.196 0.240 0.152 357. 1988 10 0.142 0.196 0.089 31. 0.189 0.237 0.140 357. 1988 11 -0.041 -0.091 0.009 30. 0.174 0.220 0.129 357. 1988 12 -0.097 -0.095 -0.098 31. 0.131 0.161 0.100 357. 1989 1 -0.294 -0.318 -0.269 31. 0.080 0.101 0.058 357. 1989 2 -0.150 -0.113 -0.187 28. 0.064 0.087 0.042 362. 1989 3 -0.163 -0.057 -0.270 31. 0.028 0.062 -0.006 362. 1989 4 -0.083 0.043 -0.209 30. 0.015 0.068 -0.038 362. 1989 5 -0.196 -0.106 -0.287 31. -0.011 0.040 -0.062 362. 1989 6 -0.195 -0.130 -0.260 30. -0.035 0.019 -0.088 365. 1989 7 -0.074 -0.023 -0.124 31. -0.058 -0.006 -0.111 365. 1989 8 -0.059 -0.043 -0.076 31. -0.077 -0.036 -0.118 365. 1989 9 0.075 0.108 0.041 29. -0.095 -0.053 -0.137 364. 1989 10 0.065 0.067 0.063 31. -0.102 -0.064 -0.139 364. 1989 11 -0.034 -0.153 0.086 30. -0.101 -0.069 -0.133 364. 1989 12 0.097 0.053 0.142 31. -0.084 -0.056 -0.113 364. 1990 1 0.025 -0.010 0.060 31. -0.057 -0.030 -0.085 364. 1990 2 -0.108 0.002 -0.219 28. -0.054 -0.021 -0.087 364. 1990 3 0.135 0.363 -0.093 31. -0.029 0.015 -0.072 364. 1990 4 0.031 0.092 -0.029 30. -0.019 0.019 -0.057 364. 1990 5 0.118 0.192 0.043 31. 0.008 0.044 -0.029 364. 1990 6 0.107 0.256 -0.041 30. 0.032 0.076 -0.011 364. 1990 7 0.066 0.016 0.117 31. 0.044 0.079 0.010 364. 1990 8 0.026 0.071 -0.019 31. 0.052 0.089 0.014 364. 1990 9 0.008 0.059 -0.043 30. 0.046 0.085 0.007 365. 1990 10 0.148 0.156 0.139 31. 0.053 0.092 0.014 365. 1990 11 0.343 0.328 0.359 30. 0.084 0.132 0.036 365. 1990 12 0.240 0.277 0.203 31. 0.096 0.151 0.042 365. 1991 1 0.153 0.195 0.111 31. 0.107 0.168 0.046 365. 1991 2 0.188 0.228 0.149 28. 0.130 0.186 0.074 365. 1991 3 0.314 0.466 0.162 31. 0.145 0.194 0.096 365. 1991 4 0.152 0.254 0.051 30. 0.155 0.208 0.102 365. 1991 5 0.183 0.346 0.020 29. 0.160 0.220 0.101 363. 1991 6 0.344 0.324 0.363 30. 0.180 0.226 0.134 363. 1991 7 0.208 0.224 0.191 31. 0.192 0.244 0.141 363. 1991 8 0.223 0.230 0.216 31. 0.209 0.257 0.161 363. 1991 9 0.066 0.149 -0.017 30. 0.214 0.265 0.163 363. 1991 10 -0.064 -0.013 -0.116 31. 0.196 0.250 0.141 363. 1991 11 -0.108 -0.007 -0.210 30. 0.158 0.222 0.094 363. 1991 12 -0.136 -0.153 -0.120 31. 0.126 0.186 0.066 363. 1992 1 -0.040 -0.009 -0.071 31. 0.110 0.168 0.051 363. 1992 2 -0.139 -0.036 -0.243 29. 0.083 0.146 0.019 363. 1992 3 -0.027 -0.042 -0.013 31. 0.055 0.104 0.006 363. 1992 4 -0.207 -0.299 -0.115 30. 0.025 0.058 -0.008 363. 1992 5 -0.223 -0.436 -0.009 31. -0.009 -0.007 -0.011 365. 1992 6 -0.232 -0.425 -0.038 30. -0.056 -0.068 -0.045 365. 1992 7 -0.366 -0.597 -0.134 31. -0.105 -0.138 -0.073 365. 1992 8 -0.398 -0.477 -0.319 31. -0.157 -0.198 -0.117 365. 1992 9 -0.388 -0.358 -0.418 30. -0.194 -0.239 -0.150 365. 1992 10 -0.166 -0.224 -0.109 31. -0.203 -0.257 -0.148 365. 1992 11 -0.176 -0.133 -0.219 30. -0.208 -0.267 -0.150 365. 1992 12 -0.247 -0.144 -0.349 31. -0.218 -0.266 -0.169 365. 1993 1 -0.260 -0.222 -0.299 31. -0.236 -0.284 -0.187 365. 1993 2 -0.216 -0.110 -0.321 28. -0.242 -0.290 -0.194 365. 1993 3 -0.378 -0.309 -0.448 31. -0.272 -0.313 -0.231 365. 1993 4 -0.266 -0.311 -0.220 30. -0.277 -0.314 -0.240 365. 1993 5 -0.230 -0.198 -0.261 31. -0.277 -0.294 -0.261 365. 1993 6 -0.114 -0.164 -0.065 30. -0.268 -0.272 -0.263 365. 1993 7 -0.091 -0.157 -0.026 31. -0.244 -0.235 -0.254 365. 1993 8 -0.199 -0.250 -0.148 31. -0.228 -0.216 -0.240 365. 1993 9 -0.357 -0.427 -0.286 30. -0.225 -0.221 -0.229 365. 1993 10 -0.118 -0.211 -0.025 31. -0.221 -0.220 -0.222 365. 1993 11 -0.104 -0.181 -0.026 30. -0.215 -0.224 -0.206 365. 1993 12 0.030 0.075 -0.016 31. -0.191 -0.206 -0.177 365. 1994 1 -0.042 0.056 -0.141 31. -0.173 -0.182 -0.164 365. 1994 2 -0.188 -0.155 -0.221 28. -0.171 -0.185 -0.156 365. 1994 3 -0.186 -0.073 -0.298 31. -0.154 -0.165 -0.144 365. 1994 4 -0.124 0.021 -0.269 30. -0.143 -0.138 -0.148 365. 1994 5 -0.136 0.074 -0.346 31. -0.135 -0.115 -0.155 365. 1994 6 -0.021 0.028 -0.070 30. -0.127 -0.099 -0.155 365. 1994 7 -0.030 0.045 -0.105 31. -0.122 -0.082 -0.162 365. 1994 8 -0.083 -0.021 -0.145 31. -0.112 -0.062 -0.162 365. 1994 9 0.013 0.077 -0.051 30. -0.082 -0.021 -0.143 365. 1994 10 -0.163 0.031 -0.358 31. -0.086 0.000 -0.171 365. 1994 11 0.110 0.220 -0.001 30. -0.068 0.033 -0.169 365. 1994 12 0.081 0.098 0.063 31. -0.064 0.035 -0.162 365. 1995 1 0.095 0.336 -0.146 31. -0.052 0.058 -0.162 365. 1995 2 0.048 0.290 -0.193 28. -0.034 0.092 -0.160 365. 1995 3 -0.050 0.002 -0.102 31. -0.022 0.099 -0.144 365. 1995 4 0.206 0.363 0.050 30. 0.005 0.127 -0.117 365. 1995 5 0.063 0.219 -0.093 31. 0.022 0.139 -0.096 365. 1995 6 0.127 0.314 -0.059 30. 0.034 0.163 -0.095 365. 1995 7 0.094 0.139 0.049 31. 0.044 0.171 -0.082 365. 1995 8 0.248 0.342 0.154 31. 0.072 0.201 -0.056 365. 1995 9 0.240 0.319 0.162 30. 0.091 0.221 -0.039 365. 1995 10 0.108 0.091 0.124 31. 0.114 0.226 0.002 365. 1995 11 0.108 0.329 -0.112 30. 0.114 0.235 -0.007 365. 1995 12 -0.160 -0.328 0.008 31. 0.094 0.199 -0.012 365. 1996 1 -0.155 -0.115 -0.196 31. 0.072 0.161 -0.016 365. 1996 2 -0.002 -0.026 0.023 29. 0.070 0.138 0.002 365. 1996 3 0.012 -0.057 0.081 31. 0.073 0.131 0.016 365. 1996 4 -0.058 -0.245 0.130 30. 0.052 0.081 0.022 365. 1996 5 -0.122 -0.072 -0.172 31. 0.037 0.056 0.017 365. 1996 6 -0.128 -0.079 -0.177 30. 0.015 0.024 0.007 365. 1996 7 -0.021 0.000 -0.043 31. 0.005 0.012 -0.002 365. 1996 8 0.079 -0.081 0.239 31. -0.010 -0.024 0.005 365. 1996 9 0.161 0.025 0.298 30. -0.016 -0.048 0.017 365. 1996 10 0.078 0.050 0.106 31. -0.018 -0.051 0.015 365. 1996 11 0.066 0.254 -0.122 30. -0.021 -0.057 0.015 365. 1996 12 -0.036 0.042 -0.114 31. -0.011 -0.026 0.004 365. 1997 1 -0.146 -0.278 -0.015 31. -0.009 -0.038 0.019 365. 1997 2 -0.095 -0.107 -0.082 28. -0.017 -0.046 0.011 365. 1997 3 -0.101 -0.064 -0.138 31. -0.027 -0.046 -0.007 365. 1997 4 -0.211 -0.133 -0.289 30. -0.039 -0.037 -0.042 365. 1997 5 -0.067 -0.042 -0.091 31. -0.035 -0.034 -0.035 365. 1997 6 -0.010 0.059 -0.079 30. -0.025 -0.023 -0.027 365. 1997 7 0.077 0.195 -0.040 31. -0.017 -0.006 -0.027 365. 1997 8 0.073 0.226 -0.081 31. -0.017 0.020 -0.054 365. 1997 9 0.100 0.289 -0.089 30. -0.022 0.041 -0.086 365. 1997 10 0.124 0.172 0.077 31. -0.018 0.052 -0.088 365. 1997 11 0.135 0.040 0.230 30. -0.013 0.034 -0.059 365. 1997 12 0.255 0.174 0.336 31. 0.012 0.045 -0.021 365. 1998 1 0.490 0.472 0.509 31. 0.066 0.109 0.023 365. 1998 2 0.644 0.688 0.599 28. 0.123 0.170 0.076 365. 1998 3 0.452 0.544 0.360 31. 0.170 0.222 0.118 365. 1998 4 0.756 1.012 0.501 30. 0.249 0.316 0.183 365. 1998 5 0.627 0.680 0.575 31. 0.308 0.377 0.240 365. 1998 6 0.554 0.657 0.451 30. 0.355 0.426 0.283 365. 1998 7 0.499 0.696 0.302 31. 0.391 0.469 0.312 365. 1998 8 0.492 0.557 0.427 31. 0.426 0.497 0.355 365. 1998 9 0.425 0.565 0.286 30. 0.453 0.520 0.386 365. 1998 10 0.360 0.486 0.234 31. 0.473 0.546 0.400 365. 1998 11 0.100 0.171 0.030 30. 0.470 0.557 0.383 365. 1998 12 0.197 0.274 0.120 31. 0.465 0.565 0.365 365. 1999 1 0.047 0.195 -0.101 31. 0.427 0.542 0.313 365. 1999 2 0.154 0.304 0.004 28. 0.390 0.512 0.267 365. 1999 3 -0.113 -0.029 -0.198 31. 0.342 0.464 0.220 365. 1999 4 0.029 0.346 -0.288 30. 0.282 0.409 0.155 365. 1999 5 -0.048 0.148 -0.245 31. 0.225 0.364 0.086 365. 1999 6 -0.160 0.112 -0.432 30. 0.166 0.319 0.013 365. 1999 7 -0.034 0.071 -0.139 31. 0.121 0.266 -0.025 365. 1999 8 -0.113 -0.007 -0.220 31. 0.069 0.218 -0.080 365. 1999 9 0.035 0.160 -0.089 30. 0.037 0.185 -0.110 365. 1999 10 -0.036 -0.036 -0.036 31. 0.004 0.141 -0.133 365. 1999 11 -0.103 0.085 -0.291 30. -0.013 0.133 -0.160 365. 1999 12 -0.091 0.110 -0.292 31. -0.038 0.119 -0.195 365. 2000 1 -0.319 -0.236 -0.402 31. -0.069 0.083 -0.220 365. 2000 2 -0.083 0.000 -0.166 29. -0.087 0.059 -0.234 365. 2000 3 -0.044 -0.004 -0.084 31. -0.081 0.062 -0.224 365. 2000 4 0.012 0.211 -0.186 30. -0.082 0.050 -0.214 365. 2000 5 0.024 0.080 -0.032 31. -0.077 0.044 -0.198 365. 2000 6 -0.005 0.037 -0.047 30. -0.063 0.038 -0.165 365. 2000 7 -0.084 0.009 -0.177 31. -0.068 0.033 -0.169 365. 2000 8 -0.122 0.052 -0.295 31. -0.068 0.038 -0.175 365. 2000 9 -0.025 0.086 -0.137 30. -0.073 0.032 -0.179 365. DECADAL TREND= 0.046 0.129 -0.038

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), October 28, 2000.

Cool. Now can you ask Flint the computerbot to translate that for us?

-- (convert to @ english. please), October 28, 2000.

These scientists are so caught up with analyzing data that they are completely overlooking a basic phenomenon that occurs when energy (in this case, heat energy) begins to increase. It is called "synergy", and it means that we are in a whole lot more trouble than almost anyone could have ever imagined, except perhaps the physicists.

-- (goodbye@blue.sky), October 27, 2000.

Mr Goodbye--

You are discombobulating the words "entropy" and "synergy". Goodbye.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 29, 2000.

Mmmmm, that didn't format as I expected at all. However, for Convert, Here it is converted to English.

For a more realistic view of Global Warming in general, check out Still Waiting for Greenhouse. This site explains why so many people are misreading the information that is available in the public arena. Just like so many people misread the Y2K data that was available.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), October 29, 2000.

Not at all Lars.

Roget's definition of "synergy"...

The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects.

That is exactly what I meant.

-- (goodbye@blue.sky), October 29, 2000.

Just for the record, I'm taking two Biology classes this semester at UTA and BOTH professors have stated that "Global warming is REAL, despite what the Republicans say."

YOU can argue with that, but *I*'m not going to [at least not until I learn that I don't have one of these guys next semester.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 29, 2000.

Good point Anita. Global warming is a problem that needs to have ALL types of scientists working on it, not just climate scientists. Biologists, geologists, hydrologists, chemists, oceanographers, physicists, etc., ALL have a lot of knowledge that climate scientists do not include in their models. That is why these guys keep underestimating the severity of the problem.

-- (goodbye@blue.sky), October 29, 2000.

Mr/Mrs/Ms Paranoia, You want me to accept your science, well, here's some for you. Of course this is going to drive you crazy because it says we could have "OIL" for another 400 years. Ooops Saturday, October 7, 2000

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Research promises $5/barrel oil New method called ecologically superior, more productive than drilling

by Jon E. Dougherty

A research team says it has developed a new technology for the oil industry that would lower crude-oil prices to just $5 a barrel, dramatically decrease the cost of gasoline and oil-related products and break the hold the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries has over U.S. oil supplies.

"OPEC needs to be told the game is over," said Larry Elgin, chairman of U.S. Defense America Victory, a group that promotes technologies that strengthen national defense.

The group is also headed by Adm. Thomas Moorer, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- the highest-ranking military position in the U.S. -- and Gen. Gordon Sumner, formerly chairman of the Inter-American Defense Board and ambassador-at-large in Central American affairs at the State Department.

By Elgin's reckoning, the new production method, called "Master Separation Technology," would be one way the U.S. could enhance its national security by becoming less reliant on foreign oil producers and, possibly, less victimized by enemies seeking to cripple national security and the U.S. economy by cutting off U.S. oil imports.

The technology -- which actually has been under development for about 25 years, according to Elgin -- is similar to one already used extensively in a Canadian oil field to extract oil that could not be pumped out by other methods. However, he added, "this new method will replace the old one," as it is more efficient and less costly.

"Master Separation Technology" makes drilling for oil obsolete, Elgin said. The process works by breaking the electro-bond between oil and sand. After extracting oil, the sand is returned in pristine condition. "In fact, you can plant a crop in the same soil the next day," Elgin said, "so there are no environmental concerns with this method."

At the Athabasca site in northern Alberta, Canada, the new technology has been tested and declared effective. Elgin said in North America alone there "is enough oil in the first thousand feet of just our abandoned wells in Canada and the United States to supply the entirety of the continent for 400 years."

Such supplies -- and the technology to access them -- would "reduce domestic reliance on foreign oil suppliers like OPEC and give us the ability to cut gas prices dramatically."

Using the new technology, Elgin said, oil companies could reopen previously closed wells in the U.S. and across North America and extract the 70 percent of oil still in the sand and ore left in those wells by conventional oil drilling and pumping methods. Such an increase in domestic supply -- without having to find actual new oil wells -- would greatly decrease U.S. reliance on overseas sources as well as domestic supplies.

"This technology would come online very gradually," Sumner told WorldNetDaily, "and I think our current suppliers -- especially Saudi Arabia -- would adjust to it."

When asked if the new technology would harm U.S. relations with OPEC in general, Sumner said the goal was to decrease American reliance on foreign oil suppliers, not necessarily to cut relations with them altogether.

"The ultimate goal is to try to make us less dependent on foreign oil, and this [process] would certainly help," he said.

Adm. Moorer was out of town and could not be reached for comment.

'Not invented here'?

Most major oil companies have opposed the new technology, said Elgin, because of "their substantial investment in old oil drilling technologies" and because "the big oil companies don't have this technology."

"They've adopted a 'not invented here' mentality," Elgin said, claiming some major oil corporations have tried to reverse-engineer the technology -- without success -- and have also tried to steal it.

Jeannie Miller, a public relations spokeswoman at Exxon, said her company was familiar with the technology. "I think we're even working on it," she told WorldNetDaily, but would not comment further.

Though it would seem the major oil companies -- because they would presumably obtain far greater production from existing wells -- would be the most interested in seeing such new technology come to market, Elgin said those corporations consider the master separation process to be "disruptive technology."

Such technologies "are those having trouble coming to market because existing inferior technologies that are in place don't want to be displaced," he said.

What his group wants to do is promote other such "disruptive technologies" that would ultimately enhance national security -- and help bring them to market. The group's oil-production technology is just the first such innovation being pushed.

Regarding the current debate within both major party presidential campaigns over energy policy, Elgin said the separation technology is vital to both U.S. domestic economic and national security because it would virtually eliminate what he views as the "stranglehold" foreign oil suppliers have over U.S. consumers and politicians.

"Lawmakers said back in 1973 that they would never let the U.S. be held hostage by OPEC or other foreign oil producers again," he said. "But here we are -- in 2000 -- again having our energy demands being held for ransom."

Elgin said the technology has been used in similar forms to solve "once-unsolvable" industrial waste problems, "so it is proven and it works."

Specifically, the separation technology has been used to clean up industrial waste from factories and also the toxic residue from AFFF foams used by the military to cushion runways for planes that have to make emergency landings or landings without landing gear.

The company that owns the new production method is Kenterprise Research, founded by technology developer James Keene, who was unavailable for comment.

Elgin says that since major oil firms have put up roadblocks to the process of bringing separation technology to market, his group and Kenterprise are prepared to work with "the hundreds of independent oil companies throughout North America to offer them a franchise deal and let them use the process" in their operations.

"Kenterprise would continue to control the technology, but these independents could franchise it, duplicate it and bypass the major players in bringing more oil to domestic markets," he said, noting that the quality of oil extracted by the separation technology is "very good" and "very close" to the quality of oil pumped by the old methods.

The major oil companies "have traditionally been aligned with OPEC in keeping these sorts of technologies off the market," Elgin said. "This notion that people have that if you build a better mousetrap big companies will just jump right in and help you develop it is not very realistic."

But "the independents [oil firms] are different," he said. "In essence, this will be set up like the Hughes tool bit. In order to control the technology, Keene's company will precisely control the technology, but with franchise groups of independent oil firms and others who are not presently in the oil business to use the technology in areas where there are formations of oil ore. We hope [the plan] can be quickly implemented so as to make [the U.S.] oil-independent," he added.

The oil formations targeted by the new technology, Elgin said, are not productive by traditional methods, but contain a huge reserve of oil that can be accessed using the separation method.

The reason the price of a barrel of oil would be so dramatically reduced, Elgin said, is in the reduction of overhead that the separation method would foster.

"Everything is greatly simplified" under the new technology, he said. "What we're doing is so much cheaper. When you have to drill down hundreds of feet out in the middle of the ocean, with all the manpower, equipment and transport costs, it is expensive."

Elgin said the revelation about Kenterprise's new oil extraction technology could also have political ramifications.

The technology "would be most important in what are considered to be 'battleground states' in this year's presidential election -- Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin -- the areas known as the old oil patch, so to speak."

Old wells in these states that have long since been abandoned because conventional oil drilling could no longer produce sufficient amounts of crude to remain active. But with the new technology -- "and our knowledge that up to 70 percent of the oil in these wells is still in the ground" -- Elgin said companies could reopen them and make them productive again.

"You can go back and get all of this oil -- 99.9 percent of it -- and then you can simply grow back whatever's growing there because the process returns no toxic waste, just soil," he said.

Elgin said the new technology would be used in Canada first "because there are no environmental laws to rewrite and we're welcome there." But, he noted, "there is a pipeline right there in northern Alberta, where some of this technology has been tested, that we could get the oil to market just as cheaply and efficiently as we've promised."

Once the technology is in place in Canada, Elgin said, the U.S. would be next. "The system is already in use in Canada -- they have written the laws for it, they are used to it. It only makes sense to start there," he said.

Today, Elgin will attend a seminar to describe the new technology at Monrovia, Calif., at a United Republicans of California meeting to be held at the Four Points Barcello Hotel. The meeting begins at 9 a.m. local time. Elgin will speak at 1 p.m. on the topic, "The Chinese Oil Noose."

Former state Sen. Don Rogers, an independent oilman, will moderate the event.

-- Ooops (Ooops@slipofthetongue.com), October 29, 2000.

Lol Anita, that's funny!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 30, 2000.