Global Warming to Speed Up as Carbon Levels Show Sharp Rise
By Geoffrey Lean
The Independent UK
Sunday 15 January 2006

Global warming is set to accelerate alarmingly because of a sharp jump in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Preliminary figures, exclusively obtained by The Independent on Sunday, show that levels of the gas - the main cause of climate change - have risen abruptly in the past four years. Scientists fear that warming is entering a new phase, and may accelerate further.

But a summit of the most polluting countries, convened by the Bush administration, last week refused to set targets for reducing their carbon dioxide emissions. Set up in competition to the Kyoto Protocol, the summit, held in Sydney and attended by Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea as well as the United States, instead pledged to develop cleaner technologies - which some experts believe will not arrive in time.

The climb in carbon dioxide content showed up in readings from the US government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, taken at the summit of Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The measurements have been taken regularly since 1958 in the 11,400ft peak's pristine conditions, 2,000 miles from the nearest landmass and protected by unusual climatic conditions from the pollution of Hawaii, two miles below.

Through most of the past half-century, levels of the gas rose by an average of 1.3 parts per million a year; in the late 1990s, this figure rose to 1.6 ppm, and again to 2ppm in 2002 and 2003. But unpublished figures for the first 10 months of this year show a rise of 2.2ppm.

Scientists believe this may be the first evidence that climate change is starting to produce itself, as rising temperatures so alter natural systems that the Earth itself releases more gas, driving the thermometer ever higher.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article338689.ece

Quite frankly, global warming is a crock.
There is no evidence whatsoever of global warming taking place.

ever heard of the poler ice caps melting!!

True. Global Warming is a creation of the Far Left used as scare tactics to try and extricate big bucks out of the USA.



Ever heard of the Ice Age? The Earth goes through periods of change. The Ice Age resulted in a frozen tundra encompassing The Bering Strait. Ancient Eskimo traversed this huge expanse of ice following Woolly Mammoth and Caribou. The Earth went through a warming period and the Bering Strait once again became part of the Sea. The Ancient Eskimo were left on the mainland of what is now the United States. These tribes evolved into the American Indian tribes.

Global Warming does not mean the Earth is warming up a bit. What it means is that the Earth is warming up precisely because of the effects of man's pollution. Actually, to be even more precise, it means that the Earth is warming up alot due to America's SUVs.

You have to remember what the definition of an ice age is...

"A period during which the Earth is substantially cooler than usual and a significant portion of its land surface is covered by glaciers. Ice ages generally last tens of millions of years."

2 HUGE continents are still covered by glaciers, and on top of that so is Sibera, a good portion of the extreme North of N. America.

I think it's plausible to say we ARE still in an ice age and that it could be ending.

Well... I'm becoming more convinced each day here in Wisconsin. Right now, it is suppose to be freakin freezing with tons of snow. Yesterday, the average high in the record books is 7 degrees F. It was 46 degrees yesterday. Today is still warm and raining... a local ice fishing club actually had to cancel it's annual trip because it is so warm the ice on the lakes isn't thick enough to be safe. It's been like this nearly all of "winter".

I agree. Global warming is a sham. I mean, just because our once predictable weather is being overthrown with category 5 hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, unusually cold winters in eastern Europe and unusually mild winters in Canada ... it's all just the earth's natural evolutionary process.

surprisingly too myself, i think i agree with joc lol

i dont think we have enough recorded history to know exactly what is going on

the ice age could just be coming to an end

it has seemed unseasonably warm in maine this winter

even though last winter with wind chill we hit -40F

maybe 'normal' in maine is supposed to be 50 degree days in january

maybe slowly warming up for the next thousand years or so is just the mormal cycle for the planet

then we will start a new cooling trend

its nice in wisconsin this winter as in the whole USA . but what about
Russia and eastern europe along with China and Japan. they are having the worst winters in years...its entirely cyclical.

Australia who has not signed the Kyoto Protocol has set its own targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the target percentage is actually higher than those who have signed the protocol while also having a timetable that would allow this to happen far quicker than the kyoto countries.

I agree about the first part except the Bering Straight was actually dry, not a huge chunk of Ice connecting Russia and Alaska like people think (why it's called the land bridge. But Global Warming is just the result of the greenhouse effect. It doesn't need to relate to anything but that effect.

But yeah, before every Ice Age is a massive warm up of the Earth. Yeah we can interupt the Earth's cycle, but in the end, Earth will just intrude into our lives. In the end, Earth wins. We're not going to completely destroy our planet chill people.

Details, details.........

Undoubtedly, this post contains the point.
We don't have any data to speak of to indicate any substanbtial changes in the earth's condition.

Sure, right now in the Eastern U.S. it is about 55 degreef F, and raining. It's January 29. Seems a little irregular, sure. We had about 8.5 inches of snow in December in my area, which is also a little off nominal, and it was pretty darn cold. Ten years ago, we were in the middle of several nasty, nasty winters, including alot of ice storms, blizzards, and the like.

But compared to the scale of time in which this planet's been in existence, these occurrances are no more than little microscopic burps. They don't lead to any subtsantive conclusions whatsoever, as meteorological records of any detail haven't been kept for much more than a century, if that.

Alot is said about global warming and pollutants, but there isn't any substantial evidence present to conclude that human generated pollutants have any effect on anything but local environments. And personally, I think it's rather presumptuous to think that humanity can actually have a marked effect on the earth as a whole. We are, generally speaking, microscopically invisible little specs on its surface.

Now, I'm sure someone will bring up the point that microscopic little invaders can have a profound effect on the human body, but most human bodies are not natural anymore. We suppress symptoms which are healing reactions, cause latency in the toxins that are inside our bodies (i.e. they go into hiding), and they come back in a much larger way in the future, because we do not allow our bodies to rid themselves of toxins as they are designed.

The earth, has no pills, no doctors, or any suppressants. It simply is, and it can cleanse itself quite thoroughly, and does so in cycles..with no regard whatsoever for the puny men who inhabit its surface.

The idea that human action can affect global conditions is furthered rendered somewhat silly by natural occurrances which are much more substantial than anything a human could do (other than launching a full scale nuclear war, of course), but are still small-scale compared to the planet.

The Tunguska even of 1903 (I think) in Siberia, largely held to be a cometary impact, leveled hundreds of sqaure miles of forest, sent billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, affecting the skies as far away as London, England. Mouth Saint Helen's eruption in the NW U.S. some years back spewed more pollutants into the atmosphere in a single day than New York City or San Francisco does in 10 years or more.

And yet, considering these cataclysmic events, nothing ever happened to the global climate as a result. The earth is set up to take care of herself. Humans have a decided sense of self-importance which leads to the construction of all these theories of their possible effect on the planet. The planet gives not two hoots about humanity. The planet can take care of itself, and it does. We just tend not to like it !

Regards.

LOL, the replies in this thread are the funniest post's I have read on these forums to date. Especially joc's when he says global warming is a scare tactic to by the far left to get money. That doesn't make any sense. He also thinks the Bering Straight was made out of ice, obviously you don't know enough to debunk the speeding up of global warming. It's also funny how you relate 'far left' to 'scare tactics'. The right are the people who are using scare tactics to get money. For example 'weapons of mass destruction', 'terrorism', 'bird flu' are all scare tactics pushed by the right to get money & support.

Bush very well knows global warming is being sped up by emissions from factories and the millions of cars. You want to know why Bush didn't sign the Koyoto Treaty? These are words directly from his mouth; "It would hurt our economy." Apparently our economy is more important than what the future of our earth holds for our children, grandchildren and so forth. Being in denial & being ignorant is bliss. It's not healthy ignoring the truth. Its a bad way to live and you'll find out eventually. Everyone thinks everything is a theory untill their leader says otherwise.

Ever hear someone say "You wouldn't know *insert word here* if it came up and smacked you in the face!" Well thats what is going on here. Global warming sped up by human actions and emissions has effected us all, look out your window, watch the weather channel. How can you be soo blind? For someone to say human actions don't affect global conditions is silly and ignorant.



http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...st=0&p=1034638&

Hmmm...

Weapons of mass destruction, and terrorism are scare tactics to get money?
Now who sounds a little far out? People should be just a little wary of terrorism, wouldn't you think? I think most rational people think that terrorism is somewhat scary.

Bush knows full well that global warming is not a scientifically established fact, as do many scientists. The Kyoto Protocol was based upon highly contested and likely faulty science. That is enough reason to decline to impliment its proscriptions. There's nothing wrong with saying it'll hurt the economy, especially when it will, and its benefits are highly debatable.

I meant..

The right are the people who are using scare tactics to get money. For example 'weapons of mass destruction', 'terrorism', 'bird flu' are all scare tactics pushed by the right to get money &/or support.

The bird flu was a scare tactic, Bush got billions to fight this "epidemic". There was no real threat. Terrorism and WMD are indeed scare tactics so the invasion of Iraq ect looks justified and noble. Look at how many times Bush changed the reason why we are fightings this war. I don't care if people think I hate Bush because I do. That man has done way more wrong than right and never deserved to be in office.

The science demonstrating global warming is not "highly contested". The vast majority of real scientists have concluded that there's little doubt it's happening and that it's caused by human use of fossil fuels, farming practices and other human activities. The "scientists" who claim it isn't happening are mostly paid by oil and coal companies to derail political progress on addressing the problem. There are a few real scientists who aren't convinced that global warming is happening and/or is caused by human activities, but they are very few.

Deliberately lying that there was evidence of WoMD in Iraq in order to justify Bush's private agenda (which had nothing to do with WoMD) most certainly was a scare tactic. Lying that there was credible evidence linking Iraq with terrorist attacks against the US in order to justify invading Iraq (and abandoning Afghanistan, the true seat of Al Qaida), was most certainly a scare tactic.
Of course there are WoMD. USA has most of them. Claiming that Canada has WoMD and we have to invade to protect USA is no more a deliberate lie than claiming the same about Iraq.
Deliberately lying that there is credible scientific evidence that global warming isn't happening, isn't mostly due to human activity and that it isn't the greatest threat to human survival (FAR greater than the threat of terrorism) so that the rich Bush and his rich supporters can continue to reap astonishing wealth from the oil trade is beyond stupid. All I can think is that Bush expects his Savior to destroy the planet soon anyway so why bother to protect it?

Was it capitalist cavemen burning fossil fuel that caused the formation of the grand canyon?

Is it haliburton warmongering causing global warming on mars?

For the 8 years Clinton rode in Air Force One putting pollutants in the air... is he blameless, and this imaginary cause of a real situation all Bush's fault?

Huh? Huh? and...Huh?

Cavemen didn't have fossil fuels to burn. They burned wood. What are you trying to say?

I don't care about climate change on Mars. There's nothing we can do to cause or to stop it. That's not the case here on Earth.

Jimmy Carter knew about the inevitability of the end of fossil fuel use and he tried to do something about it. Consumers didn't want to be bothered. Clinton knew about it and didn't do enough. Both of them were president when the world was barely beginning to feel the effects of global warming and the science showing it would happen was much weaker than the climate science we have now. Unlike now, there actually was significant scientific disagreement about global warming and the greenhouse effect. Yes, they should have done more. Does that mean that Bush should continue his mad pretense that there's nothing wrong and that the answer to our energy problems is to drill more and more oil wells?
No. Bush knows far better than Clinton or Carter did exactly what is at stake and he's taking the opposite of the actions that he should be taking. He's trying hard to INCREASE fossil fuel use with tax breaks for SUVs and other mad initiatives. I don't care who did what in the past - that has no effect on the future. Actions taken NOW will destroy or save the world.
You're trying to stop the discussion about how to save the world and turn it into a blame-game. If A was wrong and wasn't blamed, then B can't be blamed...
Who cares?!?!

Bush, get your hands out of the wallets of your oil-masters and act like the President of the United States of America. Protect this nation and protect the world. That and only that is your job. Protecting the estates of the super-rich is not your job.

wow
drink the democratic kool-aid much ?

cave men didnt have oil ?

i suppose when Bush bombs Iraq its for the oil
but when Clinton bomed Iraq it wasnt ?

protecting rich people may not be Bush's job, but neither is making Kerry stop driving his SUV

"Cavemen didn't have oil?"
Of course they didn't. Did they have drills and pumps? Refineries? Where did they get oil?
The liquid rendered from a slaughtered mastodon isn't fossil fuel. It's a different kind of oil. Obviously we've been talking about petroleum, not liquified animal fat. I really have no idea what you're trying to say with this caveman issue.

No, Bush can't tell anyone to stop driving an SUV. He can influence Congress to pass laws that encourage efficient vehicles and discourage gas guzzlers. He has done the opposite.

As for what Clinton did, again who cares? Clinton is not the President of the USA. Bush is the President of the USA. Get off your "blaming" horse. I really don't care about blaming anyone for anything. I just want Bush to save my planet. That's all I want. As long as he continues to plunge my planet toward destruction, I will shout. When Bush is gone and the next President does something I don't like, I will yell then too. Trying to say that somebody else was bad makes absolutely no difference in the discussion of Bush's actions and intentions.

Lol, people need Clinton to try and desperatly make democrats look bad and go away from bush.

Ok... guess I need to go a little slower. Maybe rephrase the questions?
(note to self: Start here and move to Bush being evil incarnate and the cause of all global suffering past, present, and future, next.)

How did the grand canyon form?

Why is there global warming on mars?

Wow, that got a little convoluted didn't it?

You go from the supossedly conclusive evidence of global warming straight into the President's deliberate lying about WMD evidence in Iraq. Makes perfect sense to me, and it sort of paints a clear picture of your agenda.

The problem is "real science" requires the use of the scientific method, and the collection of conclusive data. there is no such data, and cannot be in the case of global warming. It isn't possible. Any real scientist knows that. Some scientists postulate that current effects may be caused by human polutants, which is a reasonable postulation, but it cannot be proven until alot more data and conclusive proof is found. This will take a very long time, and in the absence of anything profound that occurs and can be definitively linked to hydrocarbon generation by humans (which is highly unlikely), the issue will simply be argued. However, an understanding of the planets systems and how it takes care of itself provides a clue that although polluting the local environment is demonstrably not too good for the inhabitants, and is something obviously to be avoided, the earth doesn't appear to react at all to it.

It is apparent that lengthy posts with clear illustrations of the obvious...that cataclysmic events which pollute a million times more than humans could do in a period of years have no effect on the overall condition of the planet...seem to escape you.

Global warming is theoretical at best. It also has no association to Iraq or the president's supposed lying about WMD .

Besides, there's no evidence of any deliberate deception there. It is well known and acknowledged that the intelligence was faulty...at that time. It is also well known and acknowledged that Iraq did in fact have, and use WMD in the past. So?

What is clear is that you are stuck on believing what the media tells you, which is not unusual, as most people seem to do so. And, why would they not? Most people watch the "news" every day, where this menagerie of skewed opinions and ideas is laid on the populus ad-nauseam every night. So, you wish to believe that Bush deliberately lied, and that global warming is a fact, when there is no evidence to substantiate either premise clearly at all, and plenty of circumstance to indicate that neither is true.

Fine. You listen to what you are told. Can't fault you there. However, you don't really investigate the matter beyond what you are told, which is lazy.

dude do you drive a hybrid or fuly electric car ?

do you live in a solar or wind powered house ?


do you boycott the heaviest polluting companies and not buy thier goods ?

do you at all times avoid air travel and the massive amounts of pollution planes spew out ?

lemme guess, your answer to all of these is no, and you blame Bush for that too

You're too cruel....

okay, you want evidence.check out the websites below;
www.commondreams.com
www.CimateArk.com
www.nakedscienticts.com
www.nationalgeoraphic.com
www.livescience.com
www.bluefish.org
and then talk.

Long as we don't blame it on people or the internal combustion engine I've no problem accepting the fact there are naturally occuring extreme warm and cool periods on this planet.

We are not talking about Clinton. We are not talking about Kerry. We are not talking about me. We are talking about the one person who has the power to get the nation and the world seriously working on this deadly problem.
Your repeated attempts to divert the discussion away from the only person who can actually do something about this issue and onto people who do not have that power are dishonest.

yes

the only person that can do anything is you

you drive a hybrid car

live in a solar house

and recycle all your used goods

then throw stones at someone else

So...if I do all those things the world's climate will return to normal and everything will be ducky. Wonderful!!!

but apparently if Bush does it will? yeah right. He's proposed weaning the country off petro pretty much completely eventually... who has a plan like that now? Switchgrass powered engines... weee!!!


Try this question again.

How did the Grand Canyon form?

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=60751

^Read that....someone better tell them they are wrong and wasting their time.

"but apparently if Bush does it will?"
OF COURSE IT WILL!! OF COURSE IT WILL!!!!! Who on Earth has that ability other than the leader of the nation that is by far the greatest producer of green house gasses??? Who other than the leader of the most powerful nation in the world? OF COURSE the President of the United States is directly responsible for shaping the energy policy of the USA and strongly influencing the energy policy of the entire world. OF COURSE!!

Why are you having so much trouble with this concept?

As for the Grand Canyon...what are you talking about? We're discussing Bush's lack of any real leadership when it comes to getting the world off of fossil fuels. Grand Canyon? I just don't see the connection. Unless you can contribute something relevant to the discussion, please stop trying to distract us away from the real issues.

As for his address, yes, he FINALLY mentioned energy without saying the only way to get it is to drill in our precious national parks. Did he do more than that? Not really. He mentioned switchgrass. That may have some promise. He didn't do his duty though. He didn't say that he's going to push to significantly raise the fuel economy requirements on all vehicles sold in the US. He didn't say that he's diverting tens or hundreds of billions of dollars into non-fossil fuel research. He blew a puff of smoke and moved on.

I'm reading the original article and I just don't see where it's discussing Bush.

Anyway, so you don't know how the Grand Canyon was formed. Explains alot I guess. It directly relates to global warming and global cooling and how man, doesn't, cause it. Man can't slow it. Man can't speed it. Man can't stop it.

I'll see if I can find a kids guide on the formation of Grand Canyon of Yellowstone River somewhere for ya.

I've never denied that pollution is very similar to crapping in your own bed. There can be health risks, it can make life miserable, it can have a minimal effect on the environment, but when it's cleaned up, after a few years nobody would ever be able to tell it had been there.

But just go on hating Bush. Apparently people think it will get them far in life or fix something.

Edit: Even better, read up on http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/reference/glaciation and explain how the combustion engine, or capitalistic society, or haliburton, or SUV's caused it, or it's opposite, in the past. Why is looking at the past only good for one side but is ignored on another pretending that history started (and ends?) with Bush? How does this have anything at all to do with Bush? It doesn't.

haha reading Celumnaz's posts are entertaining. he is clueless!

So you're saying glaciation never happened... and I'm the clueless one!?

Unfortunately for you, it is not Celumnaz who is clueless. Quite the contrary.
And blizno seems to deliberately ignore the fact that global warming is not an established fact. Very far from it.

There is no shortage of oil. Alaska WANTS DRILLING TO TAKE PLACE THERE, and it will have utterly no effect on the environment.

It is idiocy to adhere to a theory that has no substantiation whatsoever. Amercica should be producing its own oil 100%, and can...if short sighted adherents to lunacy get out of the way...