Yes, but. wrote on Nov 25, 2007 4:57 AM:What does the Bible say about it?

YesNo&Maybe wrote on Nov 25, 2007 5:11 AM:Professor Westerling has got it right in summing up the answer as to whether or not Global Warming causes wildfires: He says "Yes, no and maybe". This article proves we can either expect hotter and dryer, cooler and wetter, or it might stay the same. The truth is we can never stop wildfires in CA. But we can mitigate their damage by clearing brush near inhabited areas. But the Global Warming protagonists are the same crowd that will prevent that under the guise of protecting habitat for rats.

Howiek wrote on Nov 25, 2007 6:08 AM:Just one point, you can only burn the same ground just so many times—no rain equals nothing to burn! Besides we are running out water as well!

YaRight wrote on Nov 25, 2007 6:41 AM:Ya, first time Santa Ana's have ever whipped thru SoCal was when Gorebal warming took over. Will the kooks never end their fearmongering?

Scientists? wrote on Nov 25, 2007 6:47 AM:Didn't these folks also predict mega hurricanes this season?

Chicken Little wrote on Nov 25, 2007 6:53 AM:Oh my God, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!"

AGE of MEGA Fires? wrote on Nov 25, 2007 7:11 AM:Santa Ana winds have been blowing in this simi-arrid region since before man arrived. The brush in this area has grown and burned in fires far greater than any we have witnessed, as there were NO firefighters, aircraft, pumps, etc. to put them out. What has taken place here is simply that we have allowed the growth of the brush to continue uncheck without proper clearing (it used to burn quite regularly, even intentionally set by local indians). Environmentalists have told us we can't clear because it will effect endangered species. Yet, fire clears in a more devestating manner than controlled clearing, thus detroying more habitat for these endangered species. We must also be willing to admit that both the Fires in 2003 and 2007 were ALLOWED to burn as a result of inept management of the available resources to fight these fires! Global Warming had NOTHING to do with either fire, and will not cause a age of Mega Fires, unless Man Allows the fire conditions to exist, fails to manage growth (both of the brush and the developments), and fails to manage the fires and firefighting when required.

Jim wrote on Nov 25, 2007 7:56 AM:Global Warming, Global Warming, Global Warming-----what a bunch of crap. These fires have burned thru here since the beginning of time. We just put a lot of houses in their way. Climates have cycles, as does everything. Al Gore and the IPCC are a fraud. What a joke and all these "staff writers" like Dave Downey should write stories on the real catastrophy---all the money being wasted on this scam that could go towards real solutions to clean up our enviorment, like our storm drains,rivers ect,ect...

CO2, Rain, and plants wrote on Nov 25, 2007 8:48 AM:With rising CO2 plants will grow better. This will also bring increased tempuratures around the world that will result in increased evaperation, and thus increased rain fall. Also resultingin increased plant growth. Of course, the increased rains means plants won't burn as fast, since they will contain more water. And since coastal regions where on shore winds sweep in this increased moisture will see more of the effects upon the local plants, areas such as San Diego County and coastal CA have littel to worry about Global Warming bringing Mega Fires. Yellow Stone national Forrest on the other hand may see drier conditions and thus greater fire danger. But here too Yellow Stone is effected by the moisture content fo the air blowing in off the Pacific Ocean and over the various mountain ranges of North America. So, here too as the avaialbe moisture in the air increases due to increased tempuratures caused by Global Warming there should be increased rainfall and thus increased plant growth aided by the increased available CO2. With healthy green trees and brush, fire will have a difficult time ravaging the region. Global Warming is actually quite good for the plant growth, and should increase the productivity of many marginal regions around the world. Remember, at one time in Earth's history wine grapes were grown near London. It is now too cold for such. Global Warming could bring the wine industry back to England and other parts of Europe. Not to mention all the benefits of increaed growing periods across North America all the way up into Canada! There should be no shortage of plant matter for the Vegitarians to eat, and thus no shortage of meat for all the meat eaters too. Bring on the global Warming and bring an END to World Hunger!!!

Roy wrote on Nov 25, 2007 9:38 AM:These reports are real lame. Do some historical research NC Times before you blindly follow the climate change dogma. Mega fires were the historic norm! Summer lightening stikes would start fires and they would burn until it rained. Our suppression of fire in modern times is what leading to wildland areas that are unnaturally dense due to humanities interference with the natural fire cycle. This article is for those that can lack enough education to differentiate between real "news" and attempts at brainwashing.

La Nina and Global Warming wrote on Nov 25, 2007 10:13 AM:If La Nina is a cooler than "normal" central Pacific region, then how is this happening with all this GLobal warming taking place? In fact, if the Earth is warming, then shouldn't we see more El Nino conditions (warmer than normal central Pacific region)? If CO2 in the Earths atmosphere increases the tempurature, then wouldn't it also increase the evaperation taking place on the oceans that cover 2/3rds of the Earth's surface? Wouldn't this increased evaporation result in an increased availability of water in the air to be rained out around teh planet? And since rain is heavily influenced by the warm moist air blowing in off the ocean being forced up over mountains, including coastal mountains like those in California, which is then cooled as is rises, thus causing the evaporated water to condense and rain out, wouldn't this cause an increae in rainfall along the coast of California, just as it does during El Nino periods? So, if Global Warming is warming our oceans, shouldn't we see increased rainfall in California and along our coastal regions? And, as this warming would be year round, wouldn't this cause our rainy season to be lenthened and even cause teh summer rains we typiaclly see during El Ninos? Thus, we shoulsd be seeing less fires in this coastal region as there would be less dry air, since Global warming will cause greater moisture due to increased evaporation. Yes, I too studied Climate at Scripps and know this whole Global Warming stuff is all about getting your funding!

Tuck wrote on Nov 25, 2007 10:21 AM:These clowns can't predict tomorrow's weather, let alone next years. Another op-ed piece in the headlines of this laughable paper!

Warner: wrote on Nov 25, 2007 10:25 AM: You would think that we are not used to change. There is an arguement going on as to whether the current warming of the earth is due to a natural occurance or if it is caused by man destroying the ozone. I say - what difference does it make? We are going to have a great change in our life styles regardless of the root cause. First we must adapt by landscaping and taking the precautions as recomended by the fire prevention authorities. If you live in an area subject to wild fires you must have the proper fire insurance. We do it with car insurance and I see no difference for a home;i.e., fire, flood, mudslide, and earthquake. We might even consider high winds. (The insurance companies already have the affected areas zoned for most of those things.)Then consider man's contribution to the change. We know that the emmisions we are putting into the air are causing health problems. We can feel it in our lungs, we can taste and smell it. It is high time we took some major steps to protect ourselves from ourselves. Not to much we can do about about the natural occourances, but ajust our life styles. However, we can rid the air we breathe of smog.

What? wrote on Nov 25, 2007 10:43 AM:Are these the same experts who said the 2005 hurricane season was going to become the norm? The same hurricane season that gave us Katrina? The two years since have been pretty calm.

No one. wrote on Nov 25, 2007 10:43 AM:In this County believes in science. Get a grip.

Mud Slides wrote on Nov 25, 2007 11:59 AM:Yes, when the heavy rains return and we see flooding and mud slides due to the burn areas, the Global Warming fear mongerers will be telling us the mud slides are due to the Global Warming: More evaporation due to more heat from more CO2, and thus more rain causing all the floods and mud slides! A simple reading of History (read the log books of the early exporers of California) will tell you that we have seen some very MILD weather in California since the 1920s. Prior to that time heavy rains, high surf, floods, high winds, large fires buring up and down the coast, were all very normal events. The mild weather starting in the 1920's is what eventually caused the huge explosion of people coming to this region. Now as the weather patern returns to a more NORMAL cycle we have peple who claim to be scientists running around trying to blame Global Warming! We Historians know better. But, since we don't get the press like the Global Warming idiots, we are ignored! Well, I guess this too will some day make good historical reading: more on the political side of things and how mass-meida played into the destruction of what was once a great society - USA.

Karl wrote on Nov 25, 2007 1:52 PM:It's Bush's fault.

Last Laugh wrote on Nov 25, 2007 1:58 PM:How can some of you dismiss this scientifically based reports especially after what we just went through in the North County? Keep in mind the flooding that took place before, during and after the fires in New Orleans and Mexico. These fires are no isolated incidences. There were also reports of fires in Greece during the same time. There have been strong hurricanes, they just fortunately haven't touched down on land and created the same destruction. Those of you who laugh are just looking for a reason to justify living your OVER-developed capitalist lifestyle. THERE IS NO LONGER A SCIENTIFIC DEBATE about global warming. Only a time bomb that is ticking away.

re: YesNo&Maybe wrote on Nov 25, 2007 2:34 PM:Yeah blame the enviromentalist. Cite one case of any enviromentalist opposing the thinning of vegetation. You are unable to cite one case because they don't oppose thinning. On the other hand the enviromentalist have been warning about development in fire country and it falls on deaf ears. Then when the huge fires happen the enviromentalists get blamed!!!! They can't win in that game!!!!

to Mud Slides wrote on Nov 25, 2007 2:37 PM:Global warming can not be localized. It is a worldwide warming of a few degrees. Your cute anecdotes are not scientific. ooops, I forgot, you don't beleive science. What is it, the bible or some other myth?

michael wrote on Nov 25, 2007 2:43 PM:Conservatives must choose: Carbon Taxes Today to slow Global Warming or Massvie Drought, no Food, and SoyLent Green Tomorrow for their kids and grandkids. The "conservative" anti-environmental readers of NC Times have chosen SoyLent Green for this kids and grandkids.

Smithof All wrote on Nov 25, 2007 3:07 PM:This is the kind of garbage that they teach our kids so they will Believe

Joe wrote on Nov 25, 2007 3:17 PM:THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!! SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!

Roy wrote on Nov 25, 2007 3:28 PM:Lastlaugh those hurricanes have been just as intense in the past and imagine this scenario: No firefighters; lightning strike in July thunderstorm; fires in So Cal burn until first December or January rains. The difference is that back then there were no houses to damage. Flooding? Read about the history of flooding an Europe and China prior to industrialization thus prior to the hoax of manmade climate change. Historic floods were much more cataclysmic. THERE IS NO LONGER A SCIENTIFIC DEBATE? What Koolaid are you drinking? The debate is ongoing!Your assertions make you sound like an uneducated fool. Grab a history book and read some historical accounts of what humanity has been through over the last thousand years and more before you come on here and make such laughable ignorant claims.

Drivers wrote on Nov 25, 2007 4:37 PM:Megafires? Schmegaschmires! Who cares about megafires? I want a bigger Hummer! And why does anyone care about Global Warming? Don't any of you have air-conditioning?

To Last Laugh wrote on Nov 25, 2007 5:03 PM:There is a Scientific Debate, but those with the money are doing everything they can to stifle that debate by requiring Global Warming to be part of the funding requirement. And, if you debate against Global Warming, as many would like to do, your funding for your research is cut off! That sounds a lot like what the Communists in the former USSR used to do before the fall of the Wall. Now that the Socialists and Communists have failed in their experiment in Russia, they blame that failure on the United States of America, and NOT on the built-in failure of the system itself. So, naturally the USA becomes the target of those desiring World Power, as the USA is the only surviving Superpower. So, what one method can be used to tear down a singular superpower? A Global problem. Interestingly enough Global Warming was chosen as the new tool since Climate Change typically takes up to 50 years to actually verify. And, since the sun is currently in a warming cycle (as proven by NASA Planetary Sciences tracking of the Polar icecaps on Mars - they are melting!), Global Warming is a perfect choice. Except for one small problem: Milutin Milanković. We are heading into a Cooling cycle that started about 20 years ago and will reach its peak in about another 50 years. So, even with the sun in a warming cycle the cooling effects of the Milanković cycle will limit its impact. And if, yes I do say if, man is actually causing the Global Warming, the current impact of said warming may actually be saving us all from the severity of the Milanković cooling. All in all, the Earth is a wonderful creation quite capable of caring for itself despite all that man attempts to do to change his environment. By the way, China is pumping more Greenhouse Gas into the Atmosphere than the US. CO2 is only one of the many Greenhouse gasses and it is currently near saturation (in other words, you could double the CO2 in the atmosphere and only have a very minimal impact on the Earth's temperature). Yes, I too am a scientist who has been studying Atmospheric Radiation and its impact upon Earth and Humanity for the last 50 years. I have worked at SIO most of this time, but I find it very hard to continue my work there as so many have jumped on the Political Bandwagon of one who failed so many times in college it was no wonder he entered politics! We used Al Gore's book for many years as an example of Bad Science. But it is very interesting to see what money can buy. Power corrupts, and the love of money is part of that corruption. Too bad the common person out there is too busy watching TV to take time to read. If they were willing to read they would know that Global Warming is NOT the threat the Media and the power-hungry elites would want you to think it is. Freedom comes with a price: I've paid that price more than once in my life, and I'm willing to pay it again. I've seen the power of the politicians using the media to foment the people into believing a myth and literally throwing their lives away for it. I can only hope I'm not watching History repeat itself.

Mary wrote on Nov 25, 2007 6:07 PM:Global warming or not, we are still going to have wildfires. So the best thing to do is plan for them. Design a power grid that will not arc and spark and cause fires (my MSEE hubby says it is possible), plant burn resistant plants, get better fire fighting helicopters and planes and manpower trained to use them with or without spotters, build houses out of fire resistant materials, install roof sprinklers, train more people to be volunteer fire fighters, have hoses permanently stationed near fire hydrants. Just to rattle off a few ideas off the top of my head.

Daren wrote on Nov 25, 2007 6:36 PM:I don't care about the bible. Fires are started by nature or people. When people start fires, punish the people who start them. When nature starts fires, take steps to prevent the damage. Build your houses from proper materials. Groom your yards to minimize damage. Otherwise, shut up and quit looking for a handout or looking to place blame elsewhere.

Survivors wrote on Nov 25, 2007 7:44 PM:Yes, the Santa Ana winds have been a part of California's history since the time of the Conquistadors but to say that these fires "have burned thru here since the beginning of time" is inaccurate at best. Especially since we all should know that these "explorers" had little respect for anything but gold and riches, slaughtering and enslaving the native peoples of the Americas while literally BURNING their ancestral lands (yes this is documented). Even so, any records documenting the climate of this land beforehand would have surely been destroyed if not by them, by friars and other religious backed leaders having seen such indigenous items as sacrilegious. With that being said, our current and seemingly permanent drought climate only fuels the Santa Ana Winds and consequently the wildfires. Forget conservationists and environmentalists.. ALL concerned and informed citizens know for a fact that this prolonged drought is a symptom of negative climate change and to uproot what comparatively little brush that remains will advance the desertification of our land. This means continued dry conditions that strips the soil of essential nutrients and moisture, destroying vegetation and thus effectively reducing what little rainfall we do get and advancing this vicious cycle. This type of environmental degradation and negative climate change is WORLDWIDE and effects ALL living creatures regardless of if you are aware of it or not. DO your research and act accordingly. Also, STOP ridiculing those that are concerned about these problems and who are making steps to reverse these terrible conditions. It gets you nowhere and just makes you look foolish.

Stonecutter wrote on Nov 25, 2007 8:03 PM:Global Whinning is the biggest scam since the ancients belived in many Gods. Global Warming/Cooling/Changes have been occuring since the begining if there was a begining. God does not exist either.

Janet wrote on Nov 25, 2007 8:16 PM:The earth is flat. Environmentalists cause all problems (except those caused by illegal aliens). Global warming is a hoax. Yawn. Must be reading the NCT blog. You could study these issues before spouting off--or at least make an effort--instead of offering ridiculous "logic." For example, hurricanes: Scientists aren't saying that ALL years will be worse. They are saying that most years we will have stronger hurricanes with increasing strength as the temperature rises. Even if you don't agree, are you so determined to waste all the energy you can and let your kids take their chances. Heck, do you want to send them to the Middle East to die for oil?

Peter wrote on Nov 25, 2007 8:19 PM:Influence of the CON mouth pieces who are paid to mislead their audiences on the radio and on FOX are so evident by the hatred and ignorance expressed in most of these letters. What is it about the Koolaid drinkers who listen to Rush or FOX that you folks cannot take in new information. You and your children will pay a TERRIBLE price for the lies that you have so blindly accepted as information. Less oil means less money for terriorist. Less oil means less Americans dollars going overseas and less American debt and a stronger dollar.+++Every house with solar panels and solar water heater subtracts from the profits terrorists can use to kill us***Suppose there was no global warming. Stopping the buying of oil from Muslim countries particulary Saudi Arabia protects us now and our children later***But there is global warming. Why is Venus by far the hottest planet in the solar system? Not just on its sunlit side but uniformly all over Venus. Dark side and sunlit side it is hot enough to melt lead. Do you drooling limbaugh listeners know why? Come on even you folks might know that Mercury is half again as close to the sun as Venus. Then why is Venus so much hotter?***Venus has a thick almost 100% CARBON DIOXIDE atmoshere. CO2 makes planets hotter. No one disputes that fact. The more CO2 in any planet's atmosphere, the hotter it gets. Everyone agrees CO2 is increasing in the earth's atmosphere. No one disputes that CO2 causes greenhouse warming. What is wrong with you folks? Help us to stop terorism and to save this planet's future. Get on board with the good guys. Turn off the liars on your radio and TV.

Skeptic wrote on Nov 25, 2007 8:44 PM:Global warming does not exist and the recent wildfires did not occur. It is all a plot of extremist environmentalists.

Kook wrote on Nov 25, 2007 10:57 PM:Even the extreme kooks in the White House have finally admitted that global warming is a problem caused by humans. It's funny, even the Bible mentions natural catastrophes - quite a few of them. They do happen. So why do we deny, deny, deny, until they happen to us, then run around wringing our hands, blaming others for predictable tragedies, and demanding that everyone but ourselves must take action? Grow up people! Take some responsibility. We are doing damage which our children, if not we, ourselves, will have to pay dearly for. We are the most powerful species on earth; powerful enough to destroy ourselves, and it appears that we will do so because we haven't got enough brains to match our power. Fools.

Not that Joe. wrote on Nov 25, 2007 11:08 PM:There really isn't any cohesive scientific debate left about whether global warming is happening. Nearly all scientists have agreed that it is. It really isn't anything to believe or disbelieve, it is simply fact. Likewise, nearly all scientists in the field (climatologists) have agreed that it is caused by human activity. There may be a few oddballs who took a position and cannot bear to be proved wrong, but people like that aren't really very good scientists, anyway. There is a problem in "the press" which is causing a lot of the current strife about global warming. Modern journalism pretends to present all sides of an argument. So if a couple of wackos think global warming is false and thousands of serious scientists think it is true, then the press will present both sides of the argument and give equal weight to both. It seems like a good idea on the surface, but look how ridiculous it can turn out. These nut cases who cannot face reality get the same time as the ones who are trying to save humanity from a dreadful crisis. And the masses - most of whom choose to remain ignorant - split evenly down the middle. Sheesh! Maybe we *should* go extinct.

Brian wrote on Nov 25, 2007 11:21 PM:Mary seems to have a good head on her shoulders. I guess that means nobody will listen to you, Mary. Daren is mostly right except for one common misconception: very few of our brush fires are started by nature. Nearly all are started by human activity. These are man-made disasters. I agree with him that those responsible should be punished. So does that include those at the power company who decide to hang electrical wires suspended in the air from little poles when they could bury them in the ground and greatly reduce the fire hazard? Three of the biggest fires this fall were caused by fallen power lines and I'm here to tell you that the technology to bury power lines has been around for quite a few decades. Sure, it's legal for them to hang them in the air, but it is a known risk and they are clearly negligent.

To Survivors wrote on Nov 26, 2007 5:32 AM:There are more Trees in Coastal So. California than when the Conquistadors arrived. Strange thing about peole moving to So. Cal from the Midwest and East Coast is that they are so used to trees and rain that they tend to want to recreate what they have come to know and love, right here in So. Cal. We can normally expect and average of 10 to 15 inches of rain per year. 2 years ago we got almost 30 inches. So now that we are around 5 inches for this year we are still sitting pretty for our "average." Prolonged Drought? No, it is not prolonged! Of course there is the water issue too. We bring in more water and pump that water into our soil and across our lands in an ammount equal to 5 times that of the normal rainfall. Of course that is at the expense of the Sacramento River Delta and the Colorado River. But, don't go telling me we are turning this Desert into a Desert! We have been very slowly trying to turn it into an oasis, with plenty of problems yes, but it is far from being a desert!

To Peter wrote on Nov 26, 2007 5:51 AM:Learn some Physics before you spout off about Venus: CO2 only absorbs the radiation that is avialable, and Mercury has NO Atmosphere, so it can't absorb and retain heat. Also, Venus is far sloser to the sun than Earth. As for CO2 in Earth's atmosphere, the available radiation form the sun within the spectrum of CO2 is currently absorbed at about 98%. Increasing CO2 in our atmosphere to the point of 100% absorbtion would only result to about a 2 degree rise in average tempurature world wide. Now, if we talk about Methaine we have a whole different issue. We could also go into the simiple facts about our planet vs. Venus, such as the amount of Water on our planet, the phisical diameter, teh rotation, and many other thins. But, coolaid drinkers who buy into the Global Warming crock have NOT done their research into the physics behind the hoax. Once you look at physics you can quickly realize just how rediculous this whole thing is. Unfortunately curernt scientific research is so bound by Politics and teh funding associated with it that real science has gone out the window since about 1980. So, if you and your idiotic, politically motivated power mongerers would get off their high horses we scinetists could get back to the real work of research and stop having to play this Global Warming game. It is really very distracting. But, we too have to pay our bills. By the way, we have more oil avaialble to us here in the US than all of Saudi Arabia and teh Middle East put together. Only problem is that we are not allowed to tap it! If you realy feel tht we should stop giving our money to terroritst, then support the drilling of oil LOCALLY! In about 2 years time we coudl reduce our dependance on foreign oil to less than 1/4 of its current rate and within 5 years we could cut it all together. Especially considering the current price of $100/barrel!

esteban wrote on Nov 26, 2007 9:01 AM:UH OH!!!!!! Al Gore is right!!!!

Paul wrote on Nov 26, 2007 3:16 PM:Peter don't you think that there might be political motivation to run the Middle East out of oil before tapping our oil? Food for thought.

Peter wrote on Nov 26, 2007 5:11 PM:Sorry "Learn Physics" but the rocks on Mercury do absorb the heat of the sun just as rocks do on Venus. No the heat is not retained on Mercury because Mercury does not have a greenhouse gas atmosphere. But that does not change the fact that Mercury is much much closer to the sun yet much cooler especially on its dark side. Venus is closer to the earth than to Mercury. No one thinks that the earth will get as hot as Venus. But it is getting hotter and will get even hotter mostly caused by HUMAN added greenhouse gases principlely CO2.

Peter wrote on Nov 26, 2007 5:32 PM:to Physcis Did you think I was writing that CO2 generated heat? Of course it does not generate heat, it traps heat just like closed car windows do (when the car is in sunlight). If the windows in a car are completely open the interior of the car will be cooler than if they are completely closed. The more the windows are rolled up the hotter the car interior gets (if it is in the sunlight). Adding C02 to our atmosphere means more heat (from the sun) is retained. As to the US having as much or more oil left in the ground in Alaska or offshore of California or Florida, find one geologist who believes that. Not even the lying lobbyists from the Competive Enterprise Institute say that. What foaming at the mouth radio con are you listening to?

To Esteban wrote on Nov 26, 2007 5:32 PM:No. Gore said that MAN is responsible for global warming, not Mother Nature. That is yet to be proved.

To Peter wrote on Nov 26, 2007 9:34 PM:No I was talking about the trapped heat. Now then, as for Venus, its atmosphere also contains large amounts of Sulfur Dioxide, and very little Nitrogen. Mars on the other hand has more than double Earth's CO2 in its atmosphere, and yet is so cold that CO2 freezes into ice caps! So, if your argument is to hold any water (another missing component to your argument comparing Venus to Earth), then Mars should also be warmer than Earth. But, CO2 is NOT the threat Mr. Gore would have us believe. Its ability to trap heat is significantly limited by the size of its bond length. And, it is this ability to "trap" heat to which I was referring. It can only trap the amount of heat, or energy, that is available to be trapped. Presently, that available energy is being "trapped" at about 98% efficiency. Therefore, as I stated before, according to the physical laws of nature you could double the CO2 content in Earth's atmosphere and only increase the average temperature by about 2 degrees. But, with the large bodies of water covering nearly 2/3rds of the Earth’s surface, it would take many years (more than your lifetime) to see that "worldwide" average temperature rise (local temperatures might vary more rapidly, but it would still be debatable as to their exact cause: Global Warming, or local phenomena). If you are going to use science you better study it and get to know it inside out and backwards before you start trying to convince your scientific peers about the physical properties of which you speak!

More oil in US wrote on Nov 26, 2007 9:39 PM:Oil Sand, Shale Oil, and deep wells more than 5 miles down! All added up is more than the reserves in Saudi! Many Geologists are well aware and will confirm. But, most of these sources were not considered viable when oil prices were around $20 to $40 per barrel. Only when it topped $60 did it start looking profitable, and now at $100/barrel it is very profitable!

bob wrote on Nov 27, 2007 10:46 AM:To Peter - CO2 absorbs and re-emits thermal radiation from the earth. More CO2 increases the path length for thermal radiation attempting to escape the earth. Adding more CO2 is somewhat analogous to adding more panes to a window. There is no 98% saturation - you simply continue to increase the resistance to heat flow.

esteban wrote on Nov 27, 2007 11:44 AM:To "to esteban"....learn to identify sarcasm!!!!!

To Bob wrote on Nov 27, 2007 8:33 PM:Nice Try on the Window Panes. Problem is that you have learned your CO2 theory incorrectly. The means by which CO2 traps heat is due to its Carbon bond length. It can only trap so much energy within a given spectrum of energy. Of the availabel energy within that given spectrum approximately 98% is already being trapped. That energy is only emmitted in any significant quantity by the sun. All other nergy within that frequency spectrum is so insegnificant that is has no impact as compared to that generated by the sun. As the Earth rotates and is no longer pointing toward the energy source, the sun, the excess energy not blocked by the CO2 Carbon bond is emmitted back into space. This is where the 98% figure come into play. If we had no CO2 in our atmosphere the loss of energy would be significant and the dark side of the Earth would nearly freeze every night due to the engergy loss. However, as we do have the CO2 in our atmosphere the enrgy is retained and the Earth remains relatively stable between day and night. Other gasses, such as Methaine, H2O (water), and aprticulate matter in the air, all do their part as well to help stablize our tempurature. Interstingly enough H2O (water) is only currently at about a 48% efficency absorbtion rate of solar energy. But that has a lot to do with its reflective nature wherein it reflects the heat both away from the Earth and as well as back toward the Earth. So, according to NASA's Atmospheric Radiation Measurment (ARM) program there is still considerable debate as to what would happen if the water content of our atmosphere were to increase due to additional global heat enabling the air to retain more water. Of course, there are the large bodies of water themselves (the oceans) that cover about 70% of the Earth's surface and absorb significant amounts of energy from the sun each day. I should add here that this energy is also only within a given spectrum which differes from that of CO2. These bodies of water, and the many currents generated within by way of teh Earth's rotation, spread the energy they absorb throught the Earth thus causing many of the Weather patterns we see, and providing a great deal of warm to the northern and southern regions of the Earth that would not otherwise see such warmth. They also help to stablize the heat throughout the day and night, as well as throughout the year: summer and winter. Withouth the oceans we would see significant changes between day and night as well as between summer and winter. Now that I've given you a short lesson in Earth Science (a subject that seems to be forgatten these days), maybe you should try taking a few courses in such, as well as in physics and then re-evaluate your optinion concerning CO2 and window panes.

Hey Bob, wrote on Nov 27, 2007 8:35 PM:even an electrician knows that Carbon can only absorb so much energy before it too burns up. Just look at any resistor that has been overloaded! It would seem to me that the CO2 can only retain so much energy befor it would release the excess!

Peter wrote on Nov 28, 2007 12:01 PM:To physics So thousands of scientists from hundreds of countries on the International Panel on Climate Change are wrong and only you are right? Have you heard of the psychiatric term “delusional”. Perhaps you only believe Americans not any of them thar foreigners, then check out what the American Meteorological Society says about global warming.+++As Bob indicates in his post, to increase the warming of the earth all that is required is to slow the natural release of heat to space. Increasing CO2 acts like increasing the number of obstacles in a pinball machine. The more obstacles the ball hits the slower it leaves the playing area. Same thing is happening now on earth with the increasing amount of fossil CO2 in our atmosphere the sun’s re-radiated heat from the earth’s surface is slowed as it tries to exist to space. This slowing acts like a partially blocked sink drain, more heat for longer amount of time is trapped on or near the earth’s surface.*** Yes, Mars has a higher percentage of CO2 in its atmosphere than does earth, but the atmosphere is so thin that the number of CO2 molecules the re-radiated heat from Mars interact with on its way out to space is far too few to significantly warm the surface (not enough pinball obstacles).***I believe Venus' atmosphere is about 96% CO2 the last time I looked. The difference between the temperature of Mercury and Venus is very relevant to this discussion because the Radio Con jobs on your side claim CO2 does not warm our atmosphere. If that were true Venus would be cooler than Mercury and not the hottest inner planet.+++Already the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has made an incredible impact on the entire surface of the earth. Glaciers are melting in the mountains in southern hemisphere, the northern Hemisphere and at the equator. There is no place on earth that has not been affected. Locally the climate of the deserts of northern Baja has shifted north into our area. Our rainfall patterns will continue to more closely match the former patterns of Baja California, than what we formerly enjoyed for as far into the future as it is possible to look.++++As to me considering you my peer. Absolutely not!

Reggie wrote on Nov 28, 2007 9:13 PM:No doubt that global warming is very debated. I, however, have never heard that man is causing global cooling. For this - all I can say is that I hope that the people that believe this is natural are not wrong. But if man is causing at least part of the problem then why not do all we can. Are you familiar with the ground floor movement to take solar to the masses by a company called Citizenre? They are trying market solar with an approach similar to satellite TV, cellular telephones, and alarm systems. That is to provide the customer a complete solar system with no upfront charges and make money from a service contract. In this case the service contract would be a rent agreement. They intend to put a complete solar system on clients home. When the system produces electricity, it will lower the bill from the current utility provider. In most cases the savings from the lower bill will more than cover the rent fee that the company intends to charge. The company currently has no product available but intends to deploy in the middle of 2008. They are currently taking reservations and have 25,500 takers so far. As in any start up business, a chance exists that they may never get off the ground and fulfill any preorders, but if this is the case - the potential client has not lost anything. If you cannot afford the upfront cost of solar today, this may turn out to be a great alternative. This solution would mean that we could produce at least a little less pollution and would be a great step "just in case".

Bob wrote on Nov 29, 2007 1:25 PM:To " "Hey Bob". You missed my comment that CO2 re-emits the energy it absorbs. To "To Bob". CO2 absorbs a negligible amount of the incoming solar radiation (below 3 microns), but it is a strong absorber from 13 microns up, which means that it retards most of the heat radiation from the earth (10 to 100 microns). Retards- not stops. A CO2 molecule can't keep absorbing photons without re-emitting them. When a CO2 molecule re-emits a photon it can go any direction, including back down to the earth. If you do the math you will find that adding more absorbing gas (CO2) means that a larger fraction of the radiation ends up getting re-absorbed by the earth, and less escapes to space. The effect of this is to warm the earth so it radiates more heat, to balance the extra heat coming in. The probability that a photon escapes without an absorption has a natural lower limit of 0% (100% absorption), but the resistance to heat flow from these photons is 1 over this escape probability, and therefore is not bounded. There is no saturation in the sense that you think there is.

To Bob wrote on Nov 29, 2007 11:01 PM:Then if this is the case Mars, which has a significantly higher concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere, should be HOTTER than Earth. Since we know that Mars is actually cold enough to enable CO2 to FREEZE into a Polar Ice Cap, we can easily deduce that there must be something wrong with your hypothesis, even if your over simlified equations appear to show some level of intellegence. Additionally if you know about the capability of CO2 to absorb heat, you would relize that Methane has an even greater ability to absorb than CO2. Yet, for some reason nobody seems too overly concerned about Methane. Also, if you know so much about CO2, you would know that as CO2 rises, there MUST be a coorespnding decrease in Atmospheric O2, if the the CO2 rise is as a result of the burning of fossile fuels. This is because, as you should know, the Carbon in the fossile fule must bond with the O2 during the burning process to create the CO2. However, according to the research done by Dr. R. Keeling, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, the decrease in Atmospheric O2 lags significantly behind the current rise in CO2 discovered by and documented by his father, Dr. Charles David Keeling, Scripps Intitution of Oceanogrpahy. Therefore, the rising CO2 is not primarlily as a result of the burning of fossile fuels, but rather is a product of outgassing. Methane on the otherhand is rising at an alarming rate, especially from developing nations. But, as we all know it would be politically incorrect to bring forth this information and make attempts to bring the methaine production under control, since it would impact these developing nations' ability to continue their development. So, Bob, where do you stand on the many other Greenhouse gasses and their impact on the Earth? Are for cutting off their production as well as that of the CO2? On another note, CO2 (a greenhouse gas) is a necessary gas for the production of plants. In fact, it is well documented that a rise in CO2, and rise in temprature can actually aid plant growth, especially in the wetter regions. Many of the wetter regions in the upper northern and lower southern hemispheres currently experience significant cooling durint the winter months. Global warming however is already lengthening the growing period in these regions, including the productive periods of the oceans in these regions (one of the largest sources of O2 production in the world - accomplished by absorbing the CO2, locking the Carbon up into their shells, and then releasing the O2.). So, Global Warming may actually increase the Earth's natural ability to compensate for increased CO2. But, such is NOT the case where Methane and other grenhouse gasses are concerned. So, again I ask you; Where do you stand on the production of these other Greenhouse gasses? By the way, will I see you at the SIO Christmas Party this year?

To Peter wrote on Nov 29, 2007 11:21 PM:Adn most of thsoe Thousand of scientists are from contries whose Governemnts heavily fund their work and who are competing with the one and only Global Power: USA. Since these scientists would like to keep feeding their families they have no real choce but to produce data/reports that support what their Govenment desires. And, since Global Warming is currently the mechanism of choice to attack the USA, it is what these scientists will produce. But, there just happens to be another large body of scientists who disagree, but are being boycotted by media, and others with the "Hate America" or "Blame America" agenda. Yes, science has become seriously politicized! As for Reggie's assumption that Man has not caused Global Cooling, one only needs to go back to the early industrial revolution when Coal was the primary source of fuel and you will find tempuratures dropped significantly, especially in localized areas around the coal buring plants, and down wind from them as well. This was due to the significant quantities of particulate matter blocking the solar radiation from reaching the Earth. This phenomina is also taking place in China, especially along their Eastern Coast, where the Pacific Ocean's productivity has been cut by approximately 10% due to the blockage of solar raditation caused by all the increased particulate matter being pumped into the atmosphere by China. Although a localized cooling effect, this is man made environmental cooling, and does have a global impact to some extent. in fact, each time we have a major eruption of a volcanoe we see cooresponding cooling events caused by teh particulate matter in the air. This particulate matter alse aids in the formation of rain, but typically it turns into acid rain. Currently most of China's acid rain falls into the Pacific Ocean, where it is neutralized. But, in time even this will cause problems for the life in that ocean. So, where are all the Greenies on this issue? i don't hear anybody demanding China STOP its production of Global Pollution! By the way, China is the #1 producer of Greenhouse gasses, when you look at ALL greenhouse gasses combined. Also, at China's current rate of increase in petrochemical use, they will reach an equal consumption rate oil as that of the US in about 10 to 12 years. At that point they will be out producing the US in CO2 as well. But, again we don't hear anybody screaming that China should stop what they are doing. Why is that? Do they fear China's government that much, or are they simply attempting to go after the US since the free speach and freedom of press enable the US to be an easier target?

Peter wrote on Dec 1, 2007 5:30 PM:To Physics So it is all a plot to destroy the USA? Do you understand the word paranoid? There are "thousands" of scientist who are being boycotted? Again paranoia is believing something that has no basis in reality. What radio con job are you listening to? Whoever is filling your head knows enough to give you real science information but in a way to lead you to misleading conclusions.***Low level particulate matter in the atmosphere does cool the climate locally. Higher level particulate matter can cool the planet as a whole.***When a large volcano explodes with enough energy, particulate matter can get above the lowest level of the atmosphere (the troposphere) into the stratosphere the next lowest level. Because those two layers are very different temperatures, the two levels do not mix. Stratospheric particulate matter stays there for a much longer period of time due to no mixing. It can cool the whole planet--the year without a summer etc.***Coal particulate matter remains in the troposphere and cools for a realitively shorter time. The misleaders who told you that man-made particulate matter is cooling the planet are correct. China's contribution to particulate matter, acidification of the ocean by CO2 increases and mercury fall out from the coal are huge. But we live in the US, we have more influence here than in China. Plus the US contributes more pollution even now than China. In the US we talk about US pollution. In China environmentalist talk about Chinese pollution.***The earth is also presently going through a natural 20,000 year cycle in its orbit which is reducing the amount of solar radiation hitting the surface. If both airborne particulate matter and orbit changes were not happening, the human produced fossil CO2 would be warming the earth even faster.*** When planes were grounded in US after 9/11 for several days, there were no jet contrails for those days. The missing tiny amount of particulate matter from commercial jet contrails made a several degree difference in the day time highs (higher) and the night time lows (lower) over the United States. The differences were significant and far larger than anyone had expected.***When we run out of coal and oil or it is too expensive to burn, earth's temp will shoot up even faster. This possibility is very frightening to real scientists who study the atmosphere with goal of giving accurate and complete information and who are not being paid to lie by Fossil Fuel industry. It means we may have already gone beyond the point of no return.***In fact latest evidence indicates a very real possibility of NO Arctic (north pole, Darrell) Ocean ice at all in the summer in THIS DECADE. After more than ten thousand years of a frozen Arctic Ocean both winter and summer, the summer Arctic Ocean ice pack will be completely and permanently gone. This will greatly increase evaporation over the Arctic in the summer. A huge increase in global water vapor will result. Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. The dangers of human caused global warming are real and will have dramatic impacts on our lives in the very, very near future.***Again try to wean yourself from the websites you are reading. The science there is written by those who truly understand the danger, yet are taking money to give you scientific sounding info with the express purpose of misleading you so the Fossil Fuel corporations can make more profits. The people who care about the future of humanity, the good people trying to slow or stop the devastation that is about to happen would welcome you. Come on Darrel, join the forces of good. Leave the paranoia behind.

to Peter wrote on Dec 2, 2007 8:47 AM:You say, "When we run out of coal and oil or it is too expensive to burn, earth's temp will shoot up even faster." So, please tell me what it is, is man warming the Earths Atmosphere or cooling it? If burning Coal and oil produce CO2 that is warming the Earth, then why would it get even warmer when we stop buring them? You are condradicting yourself, and when that starts happening in your scientific argument, as a scientist you should know only too well that it degrades your own argument. Now then, although you addressed some of my other issues, you have still failed to tell us allwhy Mars is so Cold whenit has so much CO2. But your statement concering the Earth getting even hotter when we stop burning oil and coal seem to indicate taht CO2 is NOT the problem you and others would attempt to have us believe. You also did not address teh lack of a corresponding decline in atmospheric O2 that is needed to support the claim of man made CO2 from burning of fossil fuels as the cause of the increased CO2 in our Atmosphere. Therefore, as stated before, this whole thing is nothing more thatn a means by which to foment the public against the US and attempt to gain world power for those who would desire world domination. Any political scientist can tell you that when the bi-lateral super-power structure (sometimes considered a tri-lateral structure) fell apart shortly after the fall of the wall, there became a totally new world order wherein alliances between the many smaller countries became the normal means of dealing with the US. The vacuum created by the lack of any governemnt to oppose the US created a need for some method to make the People of the US agree to capituate their current way of life and agree to give up thta which has enabled them to do tha many great things they hve accomplished. That method is a Global Crisis, and although we have a Global War on Terror, Global Warming seems to be the method of choice. By the way, I don't listen to radio, I'm too busy doing research to spend any time listening to diiots who don't know what they are talking about, like all those in the mdeia who are pushing CO2 and Global Warming.

Bob wrote on Dec 3, 2007 4:20 PM:To "To Bob". Mars and Earth differ by more than just the CO2 content in their atmospheres, and it is therefore inappropriate to assume that Mars would have to be hotter than Earth if the greenhouse effect was real. Mars absorbs about 50% as much solar radiation (per unit area) as the Earth because it is more distant from the sun. It's atmosphere is dustier, about 1% as dense, and prone to very high winds over immense areas. It's surface does not have an annoying layer of trees and other plants which tend to block convection and radiation. For an optically dense atmosphere, such as found on Mars, the bulk of the radiation to space occurs at a relatively high altitude. The temperature of the ground and lower atmosphere depends on the resistance to heat flow to this upper part of the atmosphere. The combination of a low density, and hence low heat capacity, and high CO2 concentration, and thus a high capability to radiate heat, means that the upper layer of the atmosphere should cool rapidly at night. This cooling provides a large thermal gradient which increases radiative and convective transport through the atmosphere. Mars undergoes huge diurnal temperature swings. Earth's atmosphere has less CO2 and therefore radiates less efficiently, and has more heat capacity, and therefore much smaller diurnal temperature swings. Maximum daytime temperatures on Mars are close to those on Earth, while night time temperatures easily reach 100° F below zero. There is also a seasonal cycle, which is severe enough to begin to freeze CO2 out of the Martian atmosphere, which produces a further drop in temperature. It is these temperature swings which appear to be the clue as to why Mars is so much colder than you expect. The Earth's atmosphere has sufficient heat capacity to store significant amounts of heat for several days. This means that the air temperature is related to the heat input over this longer period. This is more heat than for a single day, and the air temperature is correspondingly higher. The Martian atmosphere does not have this heat capacity, and its temperature is therefore lower. This is of course just a qualitative argument. A planet's climate is an incredibly complex problem, with lots of feedback, so arguments such as these can at best only show plausibility. If you really want to know what is going on you have to do the math, and that is what the climatologists are doing. Their models are finally beginning to match the measurements for Earth's climate, but only when they include the increase in CO2.

To Bob wrote on Dec 3, 2007 6:48 PM:But what about the O2? As stated before, to create CO2 you must Burn Carbon. When you "Burn" a Carbon, it is bonded to TWO Oxygens. Thus, for every CO2 molecule produced rom the burning of fossile fuels you must decrease Atmospheric Oxygen (O2) by one. However, when you place Keeling CO2 curve against the R. Keeling O2 curve you see the CO2 is rising at a rate significantly steeper than teh decline in O2. This would indicate that the CO2 is NOT purely man made. In fact, as we all know it is a product of out gassing. We also must look at H2O if we are to consider the differences between Mars and Earth. Mars has little (if any) measurable H2O. Whereas, teh Earth has an abundance of H2O (both atmospheric and terrestrial). As you mentioned, Earth has the unique ability to retain heat, and a great deal of the retention in through the mechanism of Water! The amount of energy needed to transfer heat from air to water is quite significant, and therefore as we all know the ~70% coverage f the Earth's surface with water tends to significantly regulate teh Earth's temperature. Mars does not have such. But, since we are on teh subject of water, you would know that aptmoshperic H2O has and even greater capacity to retain heat (not to mention its ability to transform certain wavelengths of light into heat) than does CO2. But, we also know that atmospheric H2O has a reflective property as well, which inturn prevents heat and other radiation from arriving at the lower atmospheric levels, thus allowing it to be re-radiated back to space, jsut as you described above for Mars. So, as the temperature rises on Earth, from whatever source, the atmosphere's ability to hold H2O increases, as does the amount of evaporation fro that ~70% terrestial coverage. Thus, there is a corresponding increase in cloud formation, which acts both as a blanket and as a reflector. As of yet, NASA's ARM program has not fully determined the exact nature of this impact, and therefore the models of which you speak have used "speculation" as opposed to accurate, and definative calculations. Therefore, atmosphic scientists are still heavily debating Global Warming. We know it is happening, but we don't know the exact cause. Mars is warming as evidenced by its ice cap melting. Solar radiation is rising, as we are in a current sun cycle of heavy activity. Yet, we are also in various phases of Earth's orbital cycles that should be causing cooling. All in all the equation is too complex to be certain as to wheter or not CO2 is the real problem, and even more, whether or not "man made" CO2 is as significant as certain individuals would have us believe. Remeber what you said about the Earth's temp rising even more when we stop burning Carbon, since the particulate matter will not longer be there to "block" the heat? This too has to be entered into the equation, and as of yet it too is not fully understood, and thus heavily debated. Problem is, that the scientific community is being wagged by the dogs with the money and power. we would much rather prefer to do our resaerch without all the hulabalu from the politically motivated powere brokers!

Bob wrote on Dec 4, 2007 12:12 PM:Arrgh! I should know better than to write something in a hurry. The dirunal temperature cycle is important, but my explanation of why was incorrect. The increased magnitude of the diurnal temperature cycle on Mars is important because radiative cooling follows a temperature to the 4th power law. For the Earth the effective radiative temperature is only about 1% higher than the average temperature, but on Mars the difference is almost 15%, or over 50� F. I did a number of other quick calculations. The difference in absorbed solar radiation is sufficient to make about a 68� F difference in the temperature of the final radiative layer of the atmosphere for an emissivity of one, and even larger if the emissivity is lower. In addition, the temperature difference between the surface of the planet and the outer atmosphere is proportional to the amount of heat absorbed, so the reduced solar input also directly reduces the effectiveness of CO2 in raising the temperature of the surface above that of the outer atmosphere. On the opposite side of the coin, the natural convective heat transfer coefficient on Mars appears to be about 1/6th of the value for Earth's atmosphere, because of both the lower atmospheric density, and the lower gravitational force. This is balanced by the very high winds on Mars which make the forced convective heat transfer coefficient equal to or even higher than that on Earth. If forced convection is the dominant heat transfer mechanism in the lower atmosphere of Mars then only the CO2 above this zone will be effective in retarding heat transfer. When I put all the above together I was able to get temperatures in the right range. I want to emphasize again that this just establishes plausibility. When a system is this complex an attempt to analyze it qualitatively is, as I inadvertently demonstrated yesterday, an invitation to make mistakes. To "To Bob". Check [Web site] The people measuring atmospheric oxygen claim that it is declining faster than CO2 production, not slower. They attribute this to a decline in photosynthesis. The IPCC appears to agree with you that climate models are to some extent "speculative", in that they state their conclusion as a probability, not a given. The question you have to answer is whether it is prudent to ignore a 90% probability. You should also be aware that a field with this much interest attracts lots of scientists, with the standard range of viewpoints. It is very difficult to get away with truly bad science when there is this much scrutiny.

Peter wrote on Dec 4, 2007 1:56 PM:In the short term burning fossil fuels both warms and cools the atmosphere; however, the warming component is far greater than the cooling. Even with the cooling of the released particulate matter, the net effect has been a rapid warming of the planet. The trend has been much faster than even the most pessimistic computer climate modeling programs predicted.***When we quit burning so much fossil fuel, the current and future man made increase in CO2 blanketing our earth will cause far more of the sun's radiant heat to be retained on the surface of the earth than in the last ten thousand years. The heating of the earth will soar. Just like piling extra blankets on top of your bed. The extra human added CO2 will retain heat*** The earth gets hotter faster even then is currently happening when we stop or slow the burning fossil fuels. Why? because CO2 has a much longer life in the atmosphere than particulate matter. It will take centuries for photosynthesis to reduce the extra man-produced CO2 in the atmosphere but the particulate matter in the lower atmosphere mostly washes out in a decade or less.***As to why O2 does not go down in the atmosphere as CO2 goes up, it probably does a little. But CO2 is a very, very tiny component of the total gases in the atmosphere, whereas oxygen is the second most prevalent gas. The tiny loss of O2 to burning is negligible as a percentage.*** As I recall oxygen is about 21% of the atmosphere. Nitrogen is 78%. Of the one percent left over most of that is Argon. CO2 is something like one hundredth of one percent of the total volume of gasses in the atmosphere. The loss of O2 then would be perhaps a couple hundredths one percent of the total oxygen in the atmosphere. ***Yet when we double the amount of CO2, even though it is a tiny component of total the atmosphere, it has a huge impact on the earth’s heat retaining system because it is such a potent greenhouse gas. The amount of heat retained by the atmosphere will increase enough to threaten the civilized life that we now know and enjoy.+++As to a conspiracy to destroy the economy and have a trilateral commission take over. If you want the US to be the strongest economy and the strongest nation in the world, you should want us to be at the forefront of innovation leading to a weaning of the world off fossil fuels. The rest of the world could be coming to us for solar, wind and thermal technologies. There are huge profits to be made. There are many, many times the amount of energy from the sun hitting just the state of Arizona to power the entire world and all its cars factories and buildings in it. There is plenty of energy available other than fossil fuel if we just invest in finding economical ways to harvest it. (No, I am not suggesting turning Arizona into a factory for producing energy). But if, for instance, every roof in America was covered with solar voltaic cells, our country could be energy independent. Yes we would have to find a way to store the energy at night but that is possible. Clean, green energy independence is possible. Difficult, yes. Expensive, yes, but definitely doable. We are Americans. We have sent men to the moon. We can lead the world in clean energy technologies and continue being the country you want us to be. Glad to hear you do not listen to the con jobs on the radio. When you are researching on the web. It is important do get information from those who know the most about the subject. I think you will find that any meterological association has a fount of reliable information for you to read.

Walt wrote on Dec 8, 2007 7:16 AM:After that dose of science, back to wildfires human/nature/global warming/CO2 in the atmosphere/ caused or not.There are already enough damaging ones to warrent deve