16 Mar 07 - Homer, Alaska - Most winters, Norm Anderson merely has to climb aboard his boat in the harbor and make sure his oil-pan heater is still keeping the engine warm before he turns over the F/V Sea Otter for a winter king fishing excursion.
This year isn't much different. Anderson is certainly ready to fish.
He just can't go anywhere. The reason?
"The ice is killing me," said Anderson, owner and operator of Norm's Sal****er Adventures. "I've had to cancel close to 50 trips this winter because I just can't get out of the harbor."
"Its a little later in the year for ice to be socked in the harbor," said Homer Harbormaster Steve Dean. "It usually happens sometime in December or January. Currently, both our response harbor tug and our skiff are completely frozen in."
With more than six inches of ice surrounding some boats, some owners are walking around their boats and between floats on the frozen harbor surface.
And with commercial halibut season looming and a March 24 Winter King Salmon Tournament hinging on fishing-ground accessibility, everyone is eager to see things flowing freely again. That includes the organizer of all things fish derby-related, Homer Chamber of Commerce's Linda Winters.
March is headed to being one of the coldest on record, weather experts say.
If the cold hangs on, this year could beat 1956 as Anchorage's coldest.
41 DAYS OF FREEZING
Anchorage hasn't recorded a temperature above freezing since Feb. 3.
Source
Full Version: not buying this global warming
For the past 17 years, researchers used Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites to monitor the horizontal and vertical motion of the Yellowstone caldera — a huge volcanic crater formed by a super-eruption more than 600,000 years ago.
The movement of the caldera indicates what's going on underground where magma, or molten rock, is stored for the next eruption.
When magma builds up, some of it starts to rise toward the surface, where it presses against the floor of the caldera. The pressure makes the caldera bulge, while a decrease in pressure makes it sink.
The 45-by-30-mile caldera bulged and deflated significantly during the study period, resulting in a series of small earthquakes that produced 10 times more energy than would occur if the ground were to move suddenly in a large eruption.
"We think it's a combination of magma being intruded under the caldera and hot water released from the magma being pressurized because it's trapped," said lead study author Robert Smith from the University of Utah. "I don't believe this is evidence for an impending volcanic eruption, but it would be prudent to keep monitoring the volcano."
More energy
The data shows that the caldera floor sank 4.4 inches from 1987 until 1995. From 1995 until 2000, the northwest rim of the caldera rose about 3 inches, followed by another 1.4-inch rise until 2003. Then between 2000 and 2003, the caldera floor sank a little more than an inch.
And then from 2004 to 2006 the central caldera floor rose faster than ever, springing up nearly 7 inches during the three-year span.
"The rate is unprecedented, at least in terms of what scientists have been able to observe in Yellowstone," Smith said.
Abnormal fault
These results could explain another surprise finding: The ground along the Teton fault — an active fault running 40 miles north-south along the eastern base of the Teton Range in the Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming just south of Yellowstone — moves in the opposite direction compared to what's been previously thought.
Typically, when a big earthquake takes place on a normal fault such as the Teton, the ground is pulled apart.
This kind of extension or stretching causes valleys to drop downward and mountains to rise upwards. Thousands of earthquakes over millions of years built the mountains that comprise the Teton Range today.
But recent measurements showed a different trend.
Researchers found that just the opposite is happening with Jackson Hole — the valley below the Teton. The valley is rising up slowly and the mountains are dropping down.
What the researchers think is happening, on a short-term basis at least, is that the bulging Yellowstone hotspot north of the Tetons is pushing against the north edge of Jackson Hole and jamming it against the mountains.
(This is also causing the southwest part of the Yellowstone plateau, under the hotspot, to slide downhill at a rate of one-sixth of an inch each year.)
"The textbook model for a normal fault is not what's happening at the Teton fault," Smith said. "The mountains are going down relative to the valley going up. That's a total surprise."
This motion, according to researchers, is also expected to produce bigger quakes, confusing the picture of how earthquakes occur in that area.
Source
if yellowstone blows its top... we would be in a full fledged ice age in months if not weeks!!!
The movement of the caldera indicates what's going on underground where magma, or molten rock, is stored for the next eruption.
When magma builds up, some of it starts to rise toward the surface, where it presses against the floor of the caldera. The pressure makes the caldera bulge, while a decrease in pressure makes it sink.
The 45-by-30-mile caldera bulged and deflated significantly during the study period, resulting in a series of small earthquakes that produced 10 times more energy than would occur if the ground were to move suddenly in a large eruption.
"We think it's a combination of magma being intruded under the caldera and hot water released from the magma being pressurized because it's trapped," said lead study author Robert Smith from the University of Utah. "I don't believe this is evidence for an impending volcanic eruption, but it would be prudent to keep monitoring the volcano."
More energy
The data shows that the caldera floor sank 4.4 inches from 1987 until 1995. From 1995 until 2000, the northwest rim of the caldera rose about 3 inches, followed by another 1.4-inch rise until 2003. Then between 2000 and 2003, the caldera floor sank a little more than an inch.
And then from 2004 to 2006 the central caldera floor rose faster than ever, springing up nearly 7 inches during the three-year span.
"The rate is unprecedented, at least in terms of what scientists have been able to observe in Yellowstone," Smith said.
Abnormal fault
These results could explain another surprise finding: The ground along the Teton fault — an active fault running 40 miles north-south along the eastern base of the Teton Range in the Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming just south of Yellowstone — moves in the opposite direction compared to what's been previously thought.
Typically, when a big earthquake takes place on a normal fault such as the Teton, the ground is pulled apart.
This kind of extension or stretching causes valleys to drop downward and mountains to rise upwards. Thousands of earthquakes over millions of years built the mountains that comprise the Teton Range today.
But recent measurements showed a different trend.
Researchers found that just the opposite is happening with Jackson Hole — the valley below the Teton. The valley is rising up slowly and the mountains are dropping down.
What the researchers think is happening, on a short-term basis at least, is that the bulging Yellowstone hotspot north of the Tetons is pushing against the north edge of Jackson Hole and jamming it against the mountains.
(This is also causing the southwest part of the Yellowstone plateau, under the hotspot, to slide downhill at a rate of one-sixth of an inch each year.)
"The textbook model for a normal fault is not what's happening at the Teton fault," Smith said. "The mountains are going down relative to the valley going up. That's a total surprise."
This motion, according to researchers, is also expected to produce bigger quakes, confusing the picture of how earthquakes occur in that area.
Source
if yellowstone blows its top... we would be in a full fledged ice age in months if not weeks!!!
QUOTE(receivingendofsirens @ Mar 19 2007, 10:25 PM) [snapback]1590205[/snapback]
16 Mar 07 - Homer, Alaska - Most winters, Norm Anderson merely has to climb aboard his boat in the harbor and make sure his oil-pan heater is still keeping the engine warm before he turns over the F/V Sea Otter for a winter king fishing excursion.
This year isn't much different. Anderson is certainly ready to fish.
He just can't go anywhere. The reason?
"The ice is killing me," said Anderson, owner and operator of Norm's Sal****er Adventures. "I've had to cancel close to 50 trips this winter because I just can't get out of the harbor."
"Its a little later in the year for ice to be socked in the harbor," said Homer Harbormaster Steve Dean. "It usually happens sometime in December or January. Currently, both our response harbor tug and our skiff are completely frozen in."
With more than six inches of ice surrounding some boats, some owners are walking around their boats and between floats on the frozen harbor surface.
And with commercial halibut season looming and a March 24 Winter King Salmon Tournament hinging on fishing-ground accessibility, everyone is eager to see things flowing freely again. That includes the organizer of all things fish derby-related, Homer Chamber of Commerce's Linda Winters.
March is headed to being one of the coldest on record, weather experts say.
If the cold hangs on, this year could beat 1956 as Anchorage's coldest.
41 DAYS OF FREEZING
Anchorage hasn't recorded a temperature above freezing since Feb. 3.
Source
This year isn't much different. Anderson is certainly ready to fish.
He just can't go anywhere. The reason?
"The ice is killing me," said Anderson, owner and operator of Norm's Sal****er Adventures. "I've had to cancel close to 50 trips this winter because I just can't get out of the harbor."
"Its a little later in the year for ice to be socked in the harbor," said Homer Harbormaster Steve Dean. "It usually happens sometime in December or January. Currently, both our response harbor tug and our skiff are completely frozen in."
With more than six inches of ice surrounding some boats, some owners are walking around their boats and between floats on the frozen harbor surface.
And with commercial halibut season looming and a March 24 Winter King Salmon Tournament hinging on fishing-ground accessibility, everyone is eager to see things flowing freely again. That includes the organizer of all things fish derby-related, Homer Chamber of Commerce's Linda Winters.
March is headed to being one of the coldest on record, weather experts say.
If the cold hangs on, this year could beat 1956 as Anchorage's coldest.
41 DAYS OF FREEZING
Anchorage hasn't recorded a temperature above freezing since Feb. 3.
Source
Don't confuse lo*spam filter*ed temperatures with global ones. Local is irrelevant, it is overall global that is important.
lol... of course to you matt.... anything that doesnt say global warming is truth you dont wanna believe haha.
Dust and other tiny particles suspended in Earth’s atmosphere function like a global sunscreen, helping to counteract global warming by blocking sunlight. But the cooling effect of these aerosols has been diminishing since the early 1990’s, according to a new NASA study.
“When more sunlight can get through the atmosphere and warm Earth’s surface, you’re going to have an effect on climate and temperature,” said lead author Michael Mishchenko of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Aerosol consist of natural particles such as dust and volcanic ash, as well as manmade pollution. The NASA scientists examined satellite aerosol data from 1978 to the present, and found several large, short-lived spikes caused by major volcanic eruptions in 1982 and 1991. Overall they found global aerosols have been declining since about 1990.
By 2005, aerosol levels had dropped by as much as 20 percent from levels found between 1986 and 1990. The finding is detailed in the March 15 issue of the journal Science.
The drop in atmospheric aerosols could help explain recent observations that the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface has increased in the past decade—a phenomenon known as “global brightening,” since the two trends began around the same time.
However, changes in cloud cover, which also affects the amount of sunlight reaching our planet’s surface, can’t be ruled out just yet.
The scientists are also unsure whether aerosol levels will continue to decline because the particles are not uniformly distributed around the globe and come from many different sources, both natural and man-made
Source
“When more sunlight can get through the atmosphere and warm Earth’s surface, you’re going to have an effect on climate and temperature,” said lead author Michael Mishchenko of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Aerosol consist of natural particles such as dust and volcanic ash, as well as manmade pollution. The NASA scientists examined satellite aerosol data from 1978 to the present, and found several large, short-lived spikes caused by major volcanic eruptions in 1982 and 1991. Overall they found global aerosols have been declining since about 1990.
By 2005, aerosol levels had dropped by as much as 20 percent from levels found between 1986 and 1990. The finding is detailed in the March 15 issue of the journal Science.
The drop in atmospheric aerosols could help explain recent observations that the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface has increased in the past decade—a phenomenon known as “global brightening,” since the two trends began around the same time.
However, changes in cloud cover, which also affects the amount of sunlight reaching our planet’s surface, can’t be ruled out just yet.
The scientists are also unsure whether aerosol levels will continue to decline because the particles are not uniformly distributed around the globe and come from many different sources, both natural and man-made
Source
QUOTE(receivingendofsirens @ Mar 20 2007, 12:22 AM) [snapback]1590411[/snapback]
lol... of course to you matt.... anything that doesnt say global warming is truth you dont wanna believe haha.
No, you simplely can not cite one area of the planet. If your only show a regional view it can described as global unless you show it in comparison to the everywhere else. Where I live for example has had its warmest winter ever, it got below 0 no more than twice. I am trying to be objective that is all.
Anyway I thought you believed in global warming, you didn't believe it was man made, you just think that global warming will lead to an ice age (something which I don't agree with but if you look at my posts you'll see that I think global warming will consinderably reduce the average temperature in northern Europe and the eastern seaboard of North America due to the movement of the gulf stream).
QUOTE
I think global warming will consinderably reduce the average temperature in northern Europe and the eastern seaboard of North America due to the movement of the gulf stream).
now matt we finally agree on something here..... wow didnt think that would happen lol
but yes that is part of the climate shift.... global warming reduces salinity.... slows currents... doesnt displace heat (which the oceans is probably the biggest heat dispersal on the planet).... then the extreme northern hemisphere gets colder and the extreme southern one does the same... its a direct corellation really.
yes i do believe there is a climate shift about to occur in the next 10-30 years or maybe sooner.... but i believe its for the colder instead of warmer especially with yellowstone right now and the strange things that are going on there.
if it blows we are doomed... not saying it will but there is caution to believe so at this point.
QUOTE(receivingendofsirens @ Mar 19 2007, 07:03 PM) [snapback]1590710[/snapback]
now matt we finally agree on something here..... wow didnt think that would happen lol
but yes that is part of the climate shift.... global warming reduces salinity.... slows currents... doesnt displace heat (which the oceans is probably the biggest heat dispersal on the planet).... then the extreme northern hemisphere gets colder and the extreme southern one does the same... its a direct corellation really.
yes i do believe there is a climate shift about to occur in the next 10-30 years or maybe sooner.... but i believe its for the colder instead of warmer especially with yellowstone right now and the strange things that are going on there.
if it blows we are doomed... not saying it will but there is caution to believe so at this point.
but yes that is part of the climate shift.... global warming reduces salinity.... slows currents... doesnt displace heat (which the oceans is probably the biggest heat dispersal on the planet).... then the extreme northern hemisphere gets colder and the extreme southern one does the same... its a direct corellation really.
yes i do believe there is a climate shift about to occur in the next 10-30 years or maybe sooner.... but i believe its for the colder instead of warmer especially with yellowstone right now and the strange things that are going on there.
if it blows we are doomed... not saying it will but there is caution to believe so at this point.
Well, as a climate and weather forecaster, I continue to maintain that it is what the Sun, Moon and planets are doing that directs our weather here on Earth, and that the Sun is the main reason for all climate change ~ global warming included. If you want to know what the climate is going to be at any time ~ observe what is happening in space ~ everything, from planetary transits, to cosmic rays getting through to the Earth clearly shows that the Sun is the prime reason for Earth's climate change.
Man-made carbon dioxide is not the reason for global warming ~ the Sun is the reason. In the last century, the Sun's magnetic field activity doubled in the 20th century ~ and this is where you see the Earth's climate warming considerably. This is the cause of Earth's global warming. The Sun drives all climate change.
More on the Global Warming Debate. Long video, but worth the watch ~
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831
QUOTE(receivingendofsirens @ Mar 19 2007, 09:53 PM) [snapback]1590141[/snapback]
if its the second warmest that wouldnt be an upward trend lol...
Hmmmm.... Take this imaginary sequence of numbers.
10 10 10 5 15 10
The average is 10, so a trend line would run horizontal across this range.
Now we add a number of 14 next
14 is less than the highest value of 15, so therefore the second highest.
14 is also higher than the trend of 10, so we see an increase in the trend.
Hope this helps.
QUOTE(receivingendofsirens @ Mar 19 2007, 10:25 PM) [snapback]1590205[/snapback]
16 Mar 07 - Homer, Alaska - Most winters, Norm Anderson merely has to climb aboard his boat in the harbor and make sure his oil-pan heater is still keeping the engine warm before he turns over the F/V Sea Otter for a winter king fishing excursion.
This year isn't much different. Anderson is certainly ready to fish.
He just can't go anywhere. The reason?
"The ice is killing me," said Anderson, owner and operator of Norm's Sal****er Adventures. "I've had to cancel close to 50 trips this winter because I just can't get out of the harbor."
41 DAYS OF FREEZING
Anchorage hasn't recorded a temperature above freezing since Feb. 3.
Source
This year isn't much different. Anderson is certainly ready to fish.
He just can't go anywhere. The reason?
"The ice is killing me," said Anderson, owner and operator of Norm's Sal****er Adventures. "I've had to cancel close to 50 trips this winter because I just can't get out of the harbor."
41 DAYS OF FREEZING
Anchorage hasn't recorded a temperature above freezing since Feb. 3.
Source
Now lets look at the BIG picture -
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the combined land and ocean temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere for December through February were 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit (0.72 Celsius) above average for the period since record keeping began in 1880.
For the United States, meanwhile, the winter temperature was near average. The season got off to a late start and spring-like temperatures covered most of the eastern half of the country in January, but cold conditions set in in February, which was the third coldest on record.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070...est_winter.html
I live in Cleveland and usually ever winter there is a ton of snow...this year we had one day of snow, followed by a day of rain, followed by a nice spring time type day, and it just keeps repeating.
I had a snowball fight on Monday, carried an umbrella on Tuesday, and played baseball on Wednesday.
I'm either living in Bizzaro world or something is going down.
I had a snowball fight on Monday, carried an umbrella on Tuesday, and played baseball on Wednesday.
I'm either living in Bizzaro world or something is going down.
QUOTE(Theodore @ Mar 17 2007, 11:47 AM) [snapback]1586730[/snapback]
Yes, but not on a global scale. That distinction is important. The Sun does vary in its intensity, and does force the climate here on Earth. <snip>
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm absolutely convinced that our spewage does impact the climate. Volcanic eruptions (natural) and massive unnatural disasters, like Kuwait, do alter climate. As stated - if a few large incidents can do this, I don't see why a billion smaller ones can't impact the climate.
I'm sure if you did a search, especially Hawaii's Volcanic Observatory, you'd find some things which may surprise you...
A few people believe that Korea's bomb testing set off a tsunami...
QUOTE(graylady2 @ Mar 22 2007, 06:23 AM) [snapback]1594661[/snapback]
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm absolutely convinced that our spewage does impact the climate. Volcanic eruptions (natural) and massive unnatural disasters, like Kuwait, do alter climate. As stated - if a few large incidents can do this, I don't see why a billion smaller ones can't impact the climate.
I'm sure if you did a search, especially Hawaii's Volcanic Observatory, you'd find some things which may surprise you...
A few people believe that Korea's bomb testing set off a tsunami...
I'm sure if you did a search, especially Hawaii's Volcanic Observatory, you'd find some things which may surprise you...
A few people believe that Korea's bomb testing set off a tsunami...
Sure, that's ok Graylady. However, I am more concerned about the impacts on the seas, the land, and the air, especially air quality, more than any myth of man-made global climate change. We just do not have the capacity to do that globally when it comes to global warming. Only the Sun can accomplish this, and it is the reason for the last 27 years of global warming since 1980.
We humans do have impact on our environment, without a doubt, but not on the level of worldwide climate change. That is just not true. Many people do not account for that star in the sky ~ the Sun.
QUOTE(Theodore @ Mar 22 2007, 10:54 AM) [snapback]1594798[/snapback]
Sure, that's ok Graylady. However, I am more concerned about the impacts on the seas, the land, and the air, especially air quality, more than any myth of man-made global climate change. We just do not have the capacity to do that globally when it comes to global warming. Only the Sun can accomplish this, and it is the reason for the last 27 years of global warming since 1980.
Yes, I'm too more concerned about the environment we're creating for our children and their children. We should be ashamed of what our legacy will be. Children deserve to be raised in a clean, healthy environment...but, we're systematically destroying that with a toxic hodgepodge. We can't avoid the poisonous environment we've created - it's in our food, waterways and the air.
QUOTE
We humans do have impact on our environment, without a doubt, but not on the level of worldwide climate change. That is just not true. Many people do not account for that star in the sky ~ the Sun.
Okay... ; )
Global Warming is a serious issue that can be reveresed if done right. and global warming is just a cycle that earth undergoes. there are some "private companies, and non-goverment agencies that are now doing the first move to renew our home planet. i just hope they make it in time and i hope that the world would cooperate.
QUOTE(receivingendofsirens @ Feb 16 2007, 05:04 PM) [snapback]1546071[/snapback]
We've been hearing a lot about global warming. It's real, they say. We've got to do something, they say. Al Gore even is even an Oscar candidate for his documentary on the subject.
To them, I say: Let's see some proof without the politics.
Look, there's no question that climates have been warmer over the past several years than we're used to. Mississippi Delta winters haven't been very cold, and when the weather has been cold, it hasn't stayed that way for very long.
But isn't it a bit puzzling that while the alarmists are screaming that the earth is getting hotter and the polar ice caps are melting, that much of the United States and parts of Europe are blanketed with snow? Some areas of the Northeast and Midwest just got a fresh coat of 10 inches or more.
Even here in the Deep South, we've been getting predictions of snow at a time of year that normally offers previews of spring.
But what do I know? The global science community says we're doomed because the earth is hotter and we humans caused it.
I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying it. I mean, yeah, average temperatures have been warmer than they were, say, 30 years ago. But how can anyone look at 100-year-old data and come to any realistic conclusions? Think about it. Most of us weren't around in 1907, so we have no idea what it was like. All we have to go on is what's in the record books. And bear in mind, weather-related technology wasn't very advanced back then. Heck, even as advanced as it is now, meteorologists can't tell us where the rain will fall tomorrow or how many inches we're going to get. But we're supposed to believe the scientific community knows with absolute certainty that the earth is gonna fry in a few years.
Give me a break.
This is not to say that we shouldn't stop polluting the environment, or that we shouldn't reduce consumption of fossil fuels. Buying hybrid cars and turning to alternative fuels make sense for many reasons, not the least of which is the need to end our dependency on foreign oil.
But exactly how much of an impact are we having on the planet? Just 30 years ago, the conventional thinking was the earth was headed toward a new ice age. A 1975 article in Newsweek magazine, titled “The Cooling World,” included a suggestion that the Arctic ice caps be intentionally melted to prevent such a calamity.
Three decades later, they're saying the melting ice caps are caused by global warming.
Sorry, but I just don't believe humans have are smart enough to manipulate the weather like that. To not only prevent an ice age but also make the planet hotter than it was before The Great Cooling, and to do it in just 32 years on a planet estimated to be 4.5 billion years old?
If the knowledge and technology of the 1970s, '80s and '90s gave us the means to do that, by now we should have mastered the art of eliminating baseball rain delays. And tornados? Hurricanes? They'd never happen.
Granted, the experts know a great deal more about climate changes than I do. But do we have enough data to conclude, beyond all reasonable doubt, that what we're experiencing isn't a natural cycle that will swing toward a cooler earth in the next 10-20 years?
Mind you, it was only last August that experts decided Pluto wasn't a planet - some 76 years after a scientist “discovered” it and said it was a planet. I guess astrological mood swings take twice as long as climate reversals.
So where does that leave us?
Well, I think the data on world climate projections is inconclusive. And that which supports the theory of global warming has become so politicized, it's difficult to give it any credence.
The frenzy about global warming has a lot more to do with shifting money from one hand to another than it does any real science. The alarmists blame capitalistic USA for the planet's demise and want good ol' USA to fix it by giving money away.
So believe in global warming if you want to. Me? I'm going to keep a heavy coat and some extra socks handy.
source
http://www.ddtonline.com/articles/2007/02/...ns/columns1.txt
To them, I say: Let's see some proof without the politics.
Look, there's no question that climates have been warmer over the past several years than we're used to. Mississippi Delta winters haven't been very cold, and when the weather has been cold, it hasn't stayed that way for very long.
But isn't it a bit puzzling that while the alarmists are screaming that the earth is getting hotter and the polar ice caps are melting, that much of the United States and parts of Europe are blanketed with snow? Some areas of the Northeast and Midwest just got a fresh coat of 10 inches or more.
Even here in the Deep South, we've been getting predictions of snow at a time of year that normally offers previews of spring.
But what do I know? The global science community says we're doomed because the earth is hotter and we humans caused it.
I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying it. I mean, yeah, average temperatures have been warmer than they were, say, 30 years ago. But how can anyone look at 100-year-old data and come to any realistic conclusions? Think about it. Most of us weren't around in 1907, so we have no idea what it was like. All we have to go on is what's in the record books. And bear in mind, weather-related technology wasn't very advanced back then. Heck, even as advanced as it is now, meteorologists can't tell us where the rain will fall tomorrow or how many inches we're going to get. But we're supposed to believe the scientific community knows with absolute certainty that the earth is gonna fry in a few years.
Give me a break.
This is not to say that we shouldn't stop polluting the environment, or that we shouldn't reduce consumption of fossil fuels. Buying hybrid cars and turning to alternative fuels make sense for many reasons, not the least of which is the need to end our dependency on foreign oil.
But exactly how much of an impact are we having on the planet? Just 30 years ago, the conventional thinking was the earth was headed toward a new ice age. A 1975 article in Newsweek magazine, titled “The Cooling World,” included a suggestion that the Arctic ice caps be intentionally melted to prevent such a calamity.
Three decades later, they're saying the melting ice caps are caused by global warming.
Sorry, but I just don't believe humans have are smart enough to manipulate the weather like that. To not only prevent an ice age but also make the planet hotter than it was before The Great Cooling, and to do it in just 32 years on a planet estimated to be 4.5 billion years old?
If the knowledge and technology of the 1970s, '80s and '90s gave us the means to do that, by now we should have mastered the art of eliminating baseball rain delays. And tornados? Hurricanes? They'd never happen.
Granted, the experts know a great deal more about climate changes than I do. But do we have enough data to conclude, beyond all reasonable doubt, that what we're experiencing isn't a natural cycle that will swing toward a cooler earth in the next 10-20 years?
Mind you, it was only last August that experts decided Pluto wasn't a planet - some 76 years after a scientist “discovered” it and said it was a planet. I guess astrological mood swings take twice as long as climate reversals.
So where does that leave us?
Well, I think the data on world climate projections is inconclusive. And that which supports the theory of global warming has become so politicized, it's difficult to give it any credence.
The frenzy about global warming has a lot more to do with shifting money from one hand to another than it does any real science. The alarmists blame capitalistic USA for the planet's demise and want good ol' USA to fix it by giving money away.
So believe in global warming if you want to. Me? I'm going to keep a heavy coat and some extra socks handy.
source
http://www.ddtonline.com/articles/2007/02/...ns/columns1.txt
Like the Good Words From Lewis Black
"in 1907 they were still crapping in the woods, but woohoo they have Meteorology down to an exact science"
people need to relize that if the world gets to hot the world will react and change accordingly such as a ice age that will hit
The Planet Earth is a wonderful entity , it keeps changing trying to balance it self out
like if the world gets too hot it will go into an ice age to cool down, when it gets too cold it warms back up
all we humans are doing is speeding up the proces of a pre-ice age transformations
QUOTE
Like the Good Words From Lewis Black
"in 1907 they were still crapping in the woods, but woohoo they have Meteorology down to an exact science"
people need to relize that if the world gets to hot the world will react and change accordingly such as a ice age that will hit
The Planet Earth is a wonderful entity , it keeps changing trying to balance it self out
like if the world gets too hot it will go into an ice age to cool down, when it gets too cold it warms back up
all we humans are doing is speeding up the proces of a pre-ice age transformations
"in 1907 they were still crapping in the woods, but woohoo they have Meteorology down to an exact science"
people need to relize that if the world gets to hot the world will react and change accordingly such as a ice age that will hit
The Planet Earth is a wonderful entity , it keeps changing trying to balance it self out
like if the world gets too hot it will go into an ice age to cool down, when it gets too cold it warms back up
all we humans are doing is speeding up the proces of a pre-ice age transformations
exactly hawkmason
QUOTE(Kretos @ Mar 23 2007, 09:28 AM) [snapback]1596148[/snapback]
Global Warming is a serious issue that can be reveresed if done right. and global warming is just a cycle that earth undergoes. there are some "private companies, and non-goverment agencies that are now doing the first move to renew our home planet. i just hope they make it in time and i hope that the world would cooperate.
Once those companies get global warming under control - hopefully it won't be too late to get the toxins we spew into the atmosphere, causing health issues, under control...
QUOTE(graylady2 @ Mar 24 2007, 11:18 PM) [snapback]1597960[/snapback]
Once those companies get global warming under control - hopefully it won't be too late to get the toxins we spew into the atmosphere, causing health issues, under control...
There are now Serious Issue about the dust/toxic particles that we release in the air. it causes lifetime illness like Asthma ( which i have ). and the CO2 in the athmosphere eats up the 03.
QUOTE(Kretos @ Mar 24 2007, 03:41 PM) [snapback]1597986[/snapback]
There are now Serious Issue about the dust/toxic particles that we release in the air. it causes lifetime illness like Asthma ( which i have ). and the CO2 in the athmosphere eats up the 03.
CO2 does not eat up ozone, in fact man made ozone is a known greenhouse gas.
One Congress man told Gore that ice is accumulating on the South Pole.
Guess it goes back and forth for all we know.
Use atomic gases for as many engines as possible if the atomic bonds can rebuild
which hydrocarbons can't then you save on exhaust gases.
Some government science office might know about these engines but under national security can not use them.
Well thats the story I heard.
Guess it goes back and forth for all we know.
Use atomic gases for as many engines as possible if the atomic bonds can rebuild
which hydrocarbons can't then you save on exhaust gases.
Some government science office might know about these engines but under national security can not use them.
Well thats the story I heard.
QUOTE
not buying this global warming
I hope not. Do you have any idea how expensive buying something this vast would be? Bill Gates couldn't even write out a check big enough. I'm glad you came to your senses. Keep the checkbook and wallet locked away my friend.
Theodore says (on global warming):
Well, between the cutting down of so many forests over the last two centuries, and the addition of billions of tons of additional CO-2 to the atmosphere each year...I have to differ with you on this point.
It would be easy to just point to the sun and say, "That's the culprit!" However, it just isn't true. The overwhelming evidence points to the burning of fossil fuels as the primary cause.
QUOTE
"We just do not have the capacity to do that globally when it comes to global warming."
Well, between the cutting down of so many forests over the last two centuries, and the addition of billions of tons of additional CO-2 to the atmosphere each year...I have to differ with you on this point.
It would be easy to just point to the sun and say, "That's the culprit!" However, it just isn't true. The overwhelming evidence points to the burning of fossil fuels as the primary cause.
Until a cheap alternative fuel is found nothing will change. We have to have transport at a reasonable cost to live.
I personally think the climate change is one big cycle without much to do with man.
I personally think the climate change is one big cycle without much to do with man.
RE: Al Gores documentry and the general root of the GW panic.
hmmm, hello btw, i'm new, and just kinda stumbled into this group, as ya do
. Heres a documentry that rebutes Al Gores sci fi flick and the whole GW panic, its long though so make sure you got an hour or so spare, its very informative
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831
However, i did spot a few inconsistencies/correlating coincidences, that highlighted to me some possible ulterior motives within the documentry, its just as possible that this documentry aimed at showing the inaccuracy of Al gores has inaccuracies of its own. I shall not go into great detail about the inconsistencies that i spotted because i do fear it will make me look silly but here are a few headings.
Professor wearing Nike trainers?
The focus on third world poverty?
Who funded the documentry?
After wading through all my conspiricy theory hype one result i came up with that may be useful and relative to this topic is that it debunked elements of the traditional GW view, but did little to make the inaccurate information accurate, it instead replaced it. So it became bias on this point.
As a solution i say it would be easy to find how much industrialisation has affected global warming in combination with the other facters rather than simply gathering evidence to disprove it. All they would of had to have done is taken the charts that proved the suns behaviour corrolated with our temperatures and just see how the actual relationship has changed between pre industrialisation and now. Not in terms of measurement of heat and activity, but in terms of how closely they corrolate over time, did they corrolate more closely pre-industrialisation? if they did how much more closely? Now i'm just a "thicko" nobody, and if i can suss this out, why did they not include this? I feel this stands as evidence that this programme too has more than a little bias and political/market (?) spin working for it. Do apologise, i have issues with media controls over society.
But anyway, ignoring the bones i pick with the media here is another artical with less of the pictures and more of the facts...HA! the irony is, i found the propaganda-"ised" marketed documentries much easier to interpret than this raw information, although it has the same information just without the political spin
http://fathersforlife.org/REA/warming4.htm
Reading this thread and finding this stuff out has changed my attitude slightly towards GW, i feel myself simply starting to marvel at the changes taking place rather than live in fear, what we are wittnessing really is quite exciting in some ways. Dont get me wrong, this doesnt mean i shall stop recycling and start dropping litter or become pro deforestation, but i am interested and almost excited to be witnessing the changes that existance fortunes us to be aware of in our galaxy.
WOW...my first post WOO HOOO
NICE ONE!!!
nn23
hmmm, hello btw, i'm new, and just kinda stumbled into this group, as ya do
. Heres a documentry that rebutes Al Gores sci fi flick and the whole GW panic, its long though so make sure you got an hour or so spare, its very informative http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831
However, i did spot a few inconsistencies/correlating coincidences, that highlighted to me some possible ulterior motives within the documentry, its just as possible that this documentry aimed at showing the inaccuracy of Al gores has inaccuracies of its own. I shall not go into great detail about the inconsistencies that i spotted because i do fear it will make me look silly but here are a few headings.
Professor wearing Nike trainers?
The focus on third world poverty?
Who funded the documentry?
After wading through all my conspiricy theory hype one result i came up with that may be useful and relative to this topic is that it debunked elements of the traditional GW view, but did little to make the inaccurate information accurate, it instead replaced it. So it became bias on this point.
As a solution i say it would be easy to find how much industrialisation has affected global warming in combination with the other facters rather than simply gathering evidence to disprove it. All they would of had to have done is taken the charts that proved the suns behaviour corrolated with our temperatures and just see how the actual relationship has changed between pre industrialisation and now. Not in terms of measurement of heat and activity, but in terms of how closely they corrolate over time, did they corrolate more closely pre-industrialisation? if they did how much more closely? Now i'm just a "thicko" nobody, and if i can suss this out, why did they not include this? I feel this stands as evidence that this programme too has more than a little bias and political/market (?) spin working for it. Do apologise, i have issues with media controls over society.
But anyway, ignoring the bones i pick with the media here is another artical with less of the pictures and more of the facts...HA! the irony is, i found the propaganda-"ised" marketed documentries much easier to interpret than this raw information, although it has the same information just without the political spin
http://fathersforlife.org/REA/warming4.htm
Reading this thread and finding this stuff out has changed my attitude slightly towards GW, i feel myself simply starting to marvel at the changes taking place rather than live in fear, what we are wittnessing really is quite exciting in some ways. Dont get me wrong, this doesnt mean i shall stop recycling and start dropping litter or become pro deforestation, but i am interested and almost excited to be witnessing the changes that existance fortunes us to be aware of in our galaxy.
WOW...my first post WOO HOOO
NICE ONE!!!
nn23
Could it be proven that the temperature would be where it's at on this planet if mankind had never lived on it. Im sure someone somewere has tried to figure that one out. I will search the net and post anything if i find it.
QUOTE(Robert M. Blevins @ Mar 24 2007, 02:34 PM) [snapback]1598446[/snapback]
Theodore says (on global warming):
Well, between the cutting down of so many forests over the last two centuries, and the addition of billions of tons of additional CO-2 to the atmosphere each year...I have to differ with you on this point.
It would be easy to just point to the sun and say, "That's the culprit!" However, it just isn't true. The overwhelming evidence points to the burning of fossil fuels as the primary cause.
Well, between the cutting down of so many forests over the last two centuries, and the addition of billions of tons of additional CO-2 to the atmosphere each year...I have to differ with you on this point.
It would be easy to just point to the sun and say, "That's the culprit!" However, it just isn't true. The overwhelming evidence points to the burning of fossil fuels as the primary cause.
Well Robert, I'm afraid that it is true ~ the Sun is the culprit. There is no "overwhelming evidence" that points to the burning of fossil fuels as the primary cause. It is much more easier to say ~ and many people do just that ~ blame it on fossil fuel burning, which does ruin local air quality ~ but does not cause global warming.
There is evidence that the Sun is the prime cause and plenty of it.
Even with the destruction of forests, and the cutting of healthy trees, which is criminal, you still should know that the oceans, the mountains of the Earth, and all the animals on it ~ produce MORE carbon than we humans do. That is a fact.
Moreover, the Sun is the main cause of global warming ~ climate change. It always has been and always will be. This is an astrophysical and geophysical fact ~ a cosmic law in our neighborhood of space ~ and no amount of political correctness is going to change it either.
Moreover, carbon is NATURAL to the Earth. In fact, you, me, and every human being on this planet is made of it, as well as much of all of what we know as physical on this planet.
If you want to know what causes global warming, or global cooling, and all that is in-between ~ look up to that star in the sky we call call the Sun ~ that is the culprit ~ and a very powerful culprit at that.
QUOTE(Theodore @ Mar 27 2007, 11:38 AM) [snapback]1601697[/snapback]
Well Robert, I'm afraid that it is true ~ the Sun is the culprit. There is no "overwhelming evidence" that points to the burning of fossil fuels as the primary cause. It is much more easier to say ~ and many people do just that ~ blame it on fossil fuel burning, which does ruin local air quality ~ but does not cause global warming.
There is evidence that the Sun is the prime cause and plenty of it.
Even with the destruction of forests, and the cutting of healthy trees, which is criminal, you still should know that the oceans, the mountains of the Earth, and all the animals on it ~ produce MORE carbon than we humans do. That is a fact.
Moreover, the Sun is the main cause of global warming ~ climate change. It always has been and always will be. This is an astrophysical and geophysical fact ~ a cosmic law in our neighborhood of space ~ and no amount of political correctness is going to change it either.
Moreover, carbon is NATURAL to the Earth. In fact, you, me, and every human being on this planet is made of it, as well as much of all of what we know as physical on this planet.
If you want to know what causes global warming, or global cooling, and all that is in-between ~ look up to that star in the sky we call call the Sun ~ that is the culprit ~ and a very powerful culprit at that.
There is evidence that the Sun is the prime cause and plenty of it.
Even with the destruction of forests, and the cutting of healthy trees, which is criminal, you still should know that the oceans, the mountains of the Earth, and all the animals on it ~ produce MORE carbon than we humans do. That is a fact.
Moreover, the Sun is the main cause of global warming ~ climate change. It always has been and always will be. This is an astrophysical and geophysical fact ~ a cosmic law in our neighborhood of space ~ and no amount of political correctness is going to change it either.
Moreover, carbon is NATURAL to the Earth. In fact, you, me, and every human being on this planet is made of it, as well as much of all of what we know as physical on this planet.
If you want to know what causes global warming, or global cooling, and all that is in-between ~ look up to that star in the sky we call call the Sun ~ that is the culprit ~ and a very powerful culprit at that.
Actually there is a lot of evidence for CO2 global warming and there is a lot of evidence that current global warming, in fact I have posted a lot of papers on here saying so.
Carbon is natural yes and life is based around it, however, we have produced record levels of atmospheric CO2, which is quite different to a lump of graphite or the cells with in us (we wouldn't live very long if we kept CO2 inside us). The current CO2 levels only correspond to our influence, there is no getting away from us having over 400ppm of it ino the atmosphere, over twice the level that was there at the start of the industrial revolution. Now being a gas CO2 naturally diffuses, so the CO2 is going to spread everywhere, so affecting the planet on a global scale is not challenging.
We also have sun cycles all the time and none have been responsible for such rapid alterations in the global temperature, the only historical events that the current climate change correlates to are mass extinction events. In both CO2 levels and in rapidity of change to the climate.
QUOTE(Mattshark @ Mar 27 2007, 06:22 AM) [snapback]1601899[/snapback]
Actually there is a lot of evidence for CO2 global warming and there is a lot of evidence that current global warming, in fact I have posted a lot of papers on here saying so.
Carbon is natural yes and life is based around it, however, we have produced record levels of atmospheric CO2, which is quite different to a lump of graphite or the cells with in us (we wouldn't live very long if we kept CO2 inside us). The current CO2 levels only correspond to our influence, there is no getting away from us having over 400ppm of it ino the atmosphere, over twice the level that was there at the start of the industrial revolution. Now being a gas CO2 naturally diffuses, so the CO2 is going to spread everywhere, so affecting the planet on a global scale is not challenging.
We also have sun cycles all the time and none have been responsible for such rapid alterations in the global temperature, the only historical events that the current climate change correlates to are mass extinction events. In both CO2 levels and in rapidity of change to the climate.
Carbon is natural yes and life is based around it, however, we have produced record levels of atmospheric CO2, which is quite different to a lump of graphite or the cells with in us (we wouldn't live very long if we kept CO2 inside us). The current CO2 levels only correspond to our influence, there is no getting away from us having over 400ppm of it ino the atmosphere, over twice the level that was there at the start of the industrial revolution. Now being a gas CO2 naturally diffuses, so the CO2 is going to spread everywhere, so affecting the planet on a global scale is not challenging.
We also have sun cycles all the time and none have been responsible for such rapid alterations in the global temperature, the only historical events that the current climate change correlates to are mass extinction events. In both CO2 levels and in rapidity of change to the climate.
That's not true. It's just not. Yes, Co2 is natural to the Earth. It's not new. There's carbon everywhere on this planet and has been here much, much longer than any kind of industrial development. In fact ~ at the peak of modern industrial production in the 20th century from 1940-1980 ~ the Earth was cooling ~ not warming.
There is no man-made global warming. It never existed, and still does not exist. It just doesn't. There is no way that humanity can force worldwide climate change on the level that the Sun does to the Earth. Most people don't truly appreciate the star that our Sun is and without it there would be no life on this planet ~ none at all. The Sun is the prime reason for all weather on Earth ~ globally ~ and the data supports it heads and tails above the myth that is "man-made global warming."
We've also seen some very powerful anomalous cooling taking place throughout the world this decade, and this is a sign of what is to come in the decades ahead as the Sun enters a new cycle. We will see more La Ninas, and decreasing El Ninos in the next decade.
The Sun is the primary cause for global cooling and global warming and since 1980 the Sun has been much more active ~ particularly in the 1990s, when the Sun's magnetic field strength more than doubled. You can match the Sun's activity and intensity to the rise in global temperatures to a perfect fit. This is the reason for global warming. We are now in the 27th year of global warming ~ forced by the Sun.
Read some of the data presented in the links below, these should help you to understand why the Sun is the reason for global warming ~ in fact the reason for all climate change that takes place on Earth.
See ~ http://www.john-daly.com/po.htm
And ~ http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm
And ~ http://www.john-daly.com/guests.htm
The effects of the Sun's forcing of our climate will be with us for many years in the future; however, we are headed for global cooling that will peak in the 2030s. What will happen then, will people then go out on a limb and blame the coming global cooling on man-made activities?
Sorry matt but you is definitely flogging a dead horse as regards to this whole co2 and the cause of global warming.
The sun fires over 250,000 forms of radiation out into this system and we can only measure five of them yet we know the other forms exist and are responsible change in all the fields of planetary characteristics, from atmosphere through to position within the system.
The co2 you keep reporting too is the by product of a turn of events in the solar cycle. The industrial revolution corresponds with a change in the solar activity, the solar activity caused volcanic eruptions on a global scale as well as similar circumstances in the melting of permafrost etc….
The reason for the 400 + ppm is down to the co2 being released from the melting of these areas that once remained frozen, along with co2 there is also an increase in every other air born gaseous state so to keep ranting on about co2 is slowly going to make you look like a fool, the more we investigate the closer we get to the truth and the truth is the solar activity correlates to the release of co2 not the production of co2.
I know you are a champion for the cause but the reality is a little different to what you are pushing, its only a little shift but the point is the cause is going to effect the solution so we need to be real as to the cause as we can see the effects but the resolve is never going to be allowed to surface if we aren’t singing from the same hymn sheet…
Top and bottom is last year alone Alaska released more co2 through the melting of its permafrost than what all of mankind has done since he first walked this earth, that’s just one area in one year we also have Siberia to take into consideration and that’s 100 times larger so try to see the reality of the situation here.
Try and ask yourself ‘why would they push this spin on the truth and who gains from it?’
We are all eco’s in our own ways but we don’t have to believe the first thing we are told, question the facts and look for the cracks, first rule of science……
This time next year you’ll be finding more and more people siding on the solar side of the argument and you’ll start to find yourself looking more and more like a fool for believing what you currently believe. This aint like swapping sides its more like keeping up with facts, the only one true fact is that facts change so learn to accept that and you’ll keep up with the rest of us, who knows the argument might take on a few new facts and all this might seem futile but as it stands it’s the solar activity causing these events not the co2 we produce, we don’t even add to it in reality its just a time and space thing, we are unlucky in that we are in the wrong space and time we just have to knuckle down and get on with it…..
Ciao for now……
The sun fires over 250,000 forms of radiation out into this system and we can only measure five of them yet we know the other forms exist and are responsible change in all the fields of planetary characteristics, from atmosphere through to position within the system.
The co2 you keep reporting too is the by product of a turn of events in the solar cycle. The industrial revolution corresponds with a change in the solar activity, the solar activity caused volcanic eruptions on a global scale as well as similar circumstances in the melting of permafrost etc….
The reason for the 400 + ppm is down to the co2 being released from the melting of these areas that once remained frozen, along with co2 there is also an increase in every other air born gaseous state so to keep ranting on about co2 is slowly going to make you look like a fool, the more we investigate the closer we get to the truth and the truth is the solar activity correlates to the release of co2 not the production of co2.
I know you are a champion for the cause but the reality is a little different to what you are pushing, its only a little shift but the point is the cause is going to effect the solution so we need to be real as to the cause as we can see the effects but the resolve is never going to be allowed to surface if we aren’t singing from the same hymn sheet…
Top and bottom is last year alone Alaska released more co2 through the melting of its permafrost than what all of mankind has done since he first walked this earth, that’s just one area in one year we also have Siberia to take into consideration and that’s 100 times larger so try to see the reality of the situation here.
Try and ask yourself ‘why would they push this spin on the truth and who gains from it?’
We are all eco’s in our own ways but we don’t have to believe the first thing we are told, question the facts and look for the cracks, first rule of science……
This time next year you’ll be finding more and more people siding on the solar side of the argument and you’ll start to find yourself looking more and more like a fool for believing what you currently believe. This aint like swapping sides its more like keeping up with facts, the only one true fact is that facts change so learn to accept that and you’ll keep up with the rest of us, who knows the argument might take on a few new facts and all this might seem futile but as it stands it’s the solar activity causing these events not the co2 we produce, we don’t even add to it in reality its just a time and space thing, we are unlucky in that we are in the wrong space and time we just have to knuckle down and get on with it…..
Ciao for now……
QUOTE(Theodore @ Mar 27 2007, 04:39 PM) [snapback]1601998[/snapback]
That's not true. It's just not. Yes, Co2 is natural to the Earth. It's not new. There's carbon everywhere on this planet and has been here much, much longer than any kind of industrial development. In fact ~ at the peak of modern industrial production in the 20th century from 1940-1980 ~ the Earth was cooling ~ not warming.
Actually CO2 production has exponentionally increased and is still increasing and global warming was reported initially in the 1970's and if you look through I have posted papers from the 1970's there. And no CO2 is not new, I don't believe I ever said it was did I? However the CO2 levels are at their highest for 25 million years and are still rising and it is a proven green house gas and there is no doubt we have released a very large amount of it, but not only that, we have decreased the amount of carbon sinks as well meaning a lower reabsorbtion rate of CO2. QUOTE
There is no man-made global warming. It never existed, and still does not exist. It just doesn't. There is no way that humanity can force worldwide climate change on the level that the Sun does to the Earth. Most people don't truly appreciate the star that our Sun is and without it there would be no life on this planet ~ none at all. The Sun is the prime reason for all weather on Earth ~ globally ~ and the data supports it heads and tails above the myth that is "man-made global warming."
Again there are a lot of scientific papers that disagree with you, I have posted plenty, in fact the most recent studies upon this all state that CO2 is a major factor, also solar effects do not eplain the rate of change, which again is still unprecidentd outside of mass extinction events. QUOTE
We've also seen some very powerful anomalous cooling taking place throughout the world this decade, and this is a sign of what is to come in the decades ahead as the Sun enters a new cycle. We will see more La Ninas, and decreasing El Ninos in the next decade.
Read some of the data presented in the links below, these should help you to understand why the Sun is the reason for global warming ~ in fact the reason for all climate change that takes place on Earth.
See ~ http://www.john-daly.com/po.htm
And ~ http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm
And ~ http://www.john-daly.com/guests.htm
The effects of the Sun's forcing of our climate will be with us for many years in the future; however, we are headed for global cooling that will peak in the 2030s. What will happen then, will people then go out on a limb and blame the coming global cooling on man-made activities?
QUOTE
The Sun is the primary cause for global cooling and global warming and since 1980 the Sun has been much more active ~ particularly in the 1990s, when the Sun's magnetic field strength more than doubled. You can match the Sun's activity and intensity to the rise in global temperatures to a perfect fit. This is the reason for global warming. We are now in the 27th year of global warming ~ forced by the Sun.
Again global warming has been reported since the 1970'sRead some of the data presented in the links below, these should help you to understand why the Sun is the reason for global warming ~ in fact the reason for all climate change that takes place on Earth.
See ~ http://www.john-daly.com/po.htm
And ~ http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm
And ~ http://www.john-daly.com/guests.htm
The effects of the Sun's forcing of our climate will be with us for many years in the future; however, we are headed for global cooling that will peak in the 2030s. What will happen then, will people then go out on a limb and blame the coming global cooling on man-made activities?
So why are these more viable than the papers that I have post? Nature is an extremely well repsected scientific journal. I'm not saying the sun is not having an effect, however There is a lot of strong evidence pointing to CO2 having an effect on the global climate.
QUOTE
Sorry matt but you is definitely flogging a dead horse as regards to this whole co2 and the cause of global warming.
The sun fires over 250,000 forms of radiation out into this system and we can only measure five of them yet we know the other forms exist and are responsible change in all the fields of planetary characteristics, from atmosphere through to position within the system.
The co2 you keep reporting too is the by product of a turn of events in the solar cycle. The industrial revolution corresponds with a change in the solar activity, the solar activity caused volcanic eruptions on a global scale as well as similar circumstances in the melting of permafrost etc….
The sun fires over 250,000 forms of radiation out into this system and we can only measure five of them yet we know the other forms exist and are responsible change in all the fields of planetary characteristics, from atmosphere through to position within the system.
The co2 you keep reporting too is the by product of a turn of events in the solar cycle. The industrial revolution corresponds with a change in the solar activity, the solar activity caused volcanic eruptions on a global scale as well as similar circumstances in the melting of permafrost etc….
Sorry but there are not natural events with exceptions of supervolcanoe erruptions and metoer collisions that correlate to such high levels of CO2 increase. You are disputing that as exponential increase in human CO2 output is responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 despite the two events being concurrent?
QUOTE
The reason for the 400 + ppm is down to the co2 being released from the melting of these areas that once remained frozen, along with co2 there is also an increase in every other air born gaseous state so to keep ranting on about co2 is slowly going to make you look like a fool, the more we investigate the closer we get to the truth and the truth is the solar activity correlates to the release of co2 not the production of co2.
I know you are a champion for the cause but the reality is a little different to what you are pushing, its only a little shift but the point is the cause is going to effect the solution so we need to be real as to the cause as we can see the effects but the resolve is never going to be allowed to surface if we aren’t singing from the same hymn sheet…
I have read a lot of journal articles on the subject and they tend to disagree with you, if this where the case of warmer periods would have had correlating CO2 levels and they do not.I know you are a champion for the cause but the reality is a little different to what you are pushing, its only a little shift but the point is the cause is going to effect the solution so we need to be real as to the cause as we can see the effects but the resolve is never going to be allowed to surface if we aren’t singing from the same hymn sheet…
QUOTE
Top and bottom is last year alone Alaska released more co2 through the melting of its permafrost than what all of mankind has done since he first walked this earth, that’s just one area in one year we also have Siberia to take into consideration and that’s 100 times larger so try to see the reality of the situation here.
Do you have a source for this? Since in 2003 the US released 5,844,042,000 metric tons of CO2 (about a quarter of the CO2 released world wide Source: United Nation Statistics Division Can you actually comprehend how much that is? And it too 3,682,755,000 from the combined EU nations and 3,263,103,000 from the PR China, that is a lot of CO2 per year and that is only 55% of the human production. As for permafrost melting CO2 and CH4 release, this was reported in Nature in 2004 it is called a positive feedback loop (Full article)QUOTE
Try and ask yourself ‘why would they push this spin on the truth and who gains from it?’
Maybe you should ask what will countries built upon oil economy lose.QUOTE
We are all eco’s in our own ways but we don’t have to believe the first thing we are told, question the facts and look for the cracks, first rule of science……
Who said anything about believing what I have been told, I have read enough papers on climate change to form my own opinion, you have not shown any cracks. I'd say backing up your information is much more important.QUOTE
This time next year you’ll be finding more and more people siding on the solar side of the argument and you’ll start to find yourself looking more and more like a fool for believing what you currently believe. This aint like swapping sides its more like keeping up with facts, the only one true fact is that facts change so learn to accept that and you’ll keep up with the rest of us, who knows the argument might take on a few new facts and all this might seem futile but as it stands it’s the solar activity causing these events not the co2 we produce, we don’t even add to it in reality its just a time and space thing, we are unlucky in that we are in the wrong space and time we just have to knuckle down and get on with it…..
Sorry but I you have not backed up your arguement, I have posted plenty of evidence.
QUOTE(Mattshark @ Mar 27 2007, 09:38 AM) [snapback]1602207[/snapback]
Actually CO2 production has exponentionally increased and is still increasing and global warming was reported initially in the 1970's and if you look through I have posted papers from the 1970's there. And no CO2 is not new, I don't believe I ever said it was did I? However the CO2 levels are at their highest for 25 million years and are still rising and it is a proven green house gas and there is no doubt we have released a very large amount of it, but not only that, we have decreased the amount of carbon sinks as well meaning a lower reabsorbtion rate of CO2.
Again there are a lot of scientific papers that disagree with you, I have posted plenty, in fact the most recent studies upon this all state that CO2 is a major factor, also solar effects do not eplain the rate of change, which again is still unprecidentd outside of mass extinction events.
Again global warming has been reported since the 1970's
Read some of the data presented in the links below, these should help you to understand why the Sun is the reason for global warming ~ in fact the reason for all climate change that takes place on Earth.
See ~ http://www.john-daly.com/po.htm
And ~ http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm
And ~ http://www.john-daly.com/guests.htm
The effects of the Sun's forcing of our climate will be with us for many years in the future; however, we are headed for global cooling that will peak in the 2030s. What will happen then, will people then go out on a limb and blame the coming global cooling on man-made activities?
So why are these more viable than the papers that I have post? Nature is an extremely well repsected scientific journal. I'm not saying the sun is not having an effect, however There is a lot of strong evidence pointing to CO2 having an effect on the global climate.
Sorry but there are not natural events with exceptions of supervolcanoe erruptions and metoer collisions that correlate to such high levels of CO2 increase. You are disputing that as exponential increase in human CO2 output is responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 despite the two events being concurrent?
I have read a lot of journal articles on the subject and they tend to disagree with you, if this where the case of warmer periods would have had correlating CO2 levels and they do not.
Do you have a source for this? Since in 2003 the US released 5,844,042,000 metric tons of CO2 (about a quarter of the CO2 released world wide Source: United Nation Statistics Division Can you actually comprehend how much that is? And it too 3,682,755,000 from the combined EU nations and 3,263,103,000 from the PR China, that is a lot of CO2 per year and that is only 55% of the human production. As for permafrost melting CO2 and CH4 release, this was reported in Nature in 2004 it is called a positive feedback loop (Full article)
Maybe you should ask what will countries built upon oil economy lose.
Who said anything about believing what I have been told, I have read enough papers on climate change to form my own opinion, you have not shown any cracks. I'd say backing up your information is much more important.
Sorry but I you have not backed up your arguement, I have posted plenty of evidence.
Again there are a lot of scientific papers that disagree with you, I have posted plenty, in fact the most recent studies upon this all state that CO2 is a major factor, also solar effects do not eplain the rate of change, which again is still unprecidentd outside of mass extinction events.
Again global warming has been reported since the 1970's
Read some of the data presented in the links below, these should help you to understand why the Sun is the reason for global warming ~ in fact the reason for all climate change that takes place on Earth.
See ~ http://www.john-daly.com/po.htm
And ~ http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm
And ~ http://www.john-daly.com/guests.htm
The effects of the Sun's forcing of our climate will be with us for many years in the future; however, we are headed for global cooling that will peak in the 2030s. What will happen then, will people then go out on a limb and blame the coming global cooling on man-made activities?
So why are these more viable than the papers that I have post? Nature is an extremely well repsected scientific journal. I'm not saying the sun is not having an effect, however There is a lot of strong evidence pointing to CO2 having an effect on the global climate.
Sorry but there are not natural events with exceptions of supervolcanoe erruptions and metoer collisions that correlate to such high levels of CO2 increase. You are disputing that as exponential increase in human CO2 output is responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 despite the two events being concurrent?
I have read a lot of journal articles on the subject and they tend to disagree with you, if this where the case of warmer periods would have had correlating CO2 levels and they do not.
Do you have a source for this? Since in 2003 the US released 5,844,042,000 metric tons of CO2 (about a quarter of the CO2 released world wide Source: United Nation Statistics Division Can you actually comprehend how much that is? And it too 3,682,755,000 from the combined EU nations and 3,263,103,000 from the PR China, that is a lot of CO2 per year and that is only 55% of the human production. As for permafrost melting CO2 and CH4 release, this was reported in Nature in 2004 it is called a positive feedback loop (Full article)
Maybe you should ask what will countries built upon oil economy lose.
Who said anything about believing what I have been told, I have read enough papers on climate change to form my own opinion, you have not shown any cracks. I'd say backing up your information is much more important.
Sorry but I you have not backed up your arguement, I have posted plenty of evidence.
There is no evidence of man-made global warming Matt. And, moreover, demanding that less developed nations derive their main power from solar energy is also not honest while developed countries barely use solar. How is that honest?
There is plenty of evidence for solar forcing, and I suggest you take the time to really read the scientific evidence in the links I provided that points clearly to the Sun. You're not the only one that has read "enough" papers on climate change. Try to avoid the mantra on man-made climate change because you clearly have not read the facts that clearly say the Sun is the reason.
QUOTE(Theodore @ Mar 28 2007, 09:12 AM) [snapback]1603133[/snapback]
There is no evidence of man-made global warming Matt. And, moreover, demanding that less developed nations derive their main power from solar energy is also not honest while developed countries barely use solar. How is that honest?
There is plenty of evidence for solar forcing, and I suggest you take the time to really read the scientific evidence in the links I provided that points clearly to the Sun. You're not the only one that has read "enough" papers on climate change. Try to avoid the mantra on man-made climate change because you clearly have not read the facts that clearly say the Sun is the reason.
That is just downright untrue. I have posted plenty of evidence support man made global warming, there are plenty of journal articles and reports clear showing the corrolation between the two. There is plenty of evidence for solar forcing, and I suggest you take the time to really read the scientific evidence in the links I provided that points clearly to the Sun. You're not the only one that has read "enough" papers on climate change. Try to avoid the mantra on man-made climate change because you clearly have not read the facts that clearly say the Sun is the reason.
Where did I demand less developed nation derive their power from solar energy exactly?
So how are you links more valid than mine exactly and how do your links porivde more evidence than mine?
Just a thought -- There was an article recently posted somewhere on UM (couldn't find it) about the sun and what was it was doing which scientists said was "impossible". This type of arrogance in the scientific community should raise an eyebrow or two. Obviously it wasn't "impossible" as they were witnessing the event.
It may've been impossible by their "scientific/cosmic laws" - which seems to mean they really shouldn't be applying our laws to all of the cosmos. If they get it wrong in our own galaxy - who can trust they get it right far from our own *space*?
It may've been impossible by their "scientific/cosmic laws" - which seems to mean they really shouldn't be applying our laws to all of the cosmos. If they get it wrong in our own galaxy - who can trust they get it right far from our own *space*?
QUOTE(Mattshark @ Mar 28 2007, 05:45 AM) [snapback]1603347[/snapback]
That is just downright untrue. I have posted plenty of evidence support man made global warming, there are plenty of journal articles and reports clear showing the corrolation between the two.
Where did I demand less developed nation derive their power from solar energy exactly?
So how are you links more valid than mine exactly and how do your links porivde more evidence than mine?
Where did I demand less developed nation derive their power from solar energy exactly?
So how are you links more valid than mine exactly and how do your links porivde more evidence than mine?
Matt, the scientific evidence is quite clear that climate change is forced by the Sun. There is no "man-made global warming" ~ it never existed. Now, there is man-made pollution, but this is not related to global warming. Only the Sun is capable of this, and has been responsible for all climate variations, both minor and major, on Earth, and in fact, on all the planets of our solar system, where warming has also been recorded during the intense magnetic and cosmic ray activity of the Sun since 1980.
QUOTE(Theodore @ Mar 28 2007, 03:37 PM) [snapback]1603402[/snapback]
Matt, the scientific evidence is quite clear that climate change is forced by the Sun. There is no "man-made global warming" ~ it never existed. Now, there is man-made pollution, but this is not related to global warming. Only the Sun is capable of this, and has been responsible for all climate variations, both minor and major, on Earth, and in fact, on all the planets of our solar system, where warming has also been recorded during the intense magnetic and cosmic ray activity of the Sun since 1980.
No, some evidence suggests that it is solar effected, there is also a lot of viable evidence that idicates that it is human affect (I posted enough it, but you choose to ignore it). Interestingly, it has been happening SINCE BEFORE 1980, hence there are papers published in the journal Nature since 1978 and work looking into this since the mid 1970's.
QUOTE(Mattshark @ Mar 28 2007, 08:29 PM) [snapback]1604264[/snapback]
No, some evidence suggests that it is solar effected, there is also a lot of viable evidence that idicates that it is human affect (I posted enough it, but you choose to ignore it). Interestingly, it has been happening SINCE BEFORE 1980, hence there are papers published in the journal Nature since 1978 and work looking into this since the mid 1970's.
No, I read it. Listen, even the concept of global warming wasn't well known (or accepted) except by solar researchers and astrophysical scientists as early as 1989. However, there is no man-made global warming. Try to appreciate the power of the Sun more than you seem to show. The Sun is the reason for all climate change on the Earth. It's a no-brainer.
QUOTE(Theodore @ Mar 29 2007, 05:45 PM) [snapback]1604903[/snapback]
No, I read it. Listen, even the concept of global warming wasn't well known (or accepted) except by solar researchers and astrophysical scientists as early as 1989. However, there is no man-made global warming. Try to appreciate the power of the Sun more than you seem to show. The Sun is the reason for all climate change on the Earth. It's a no-brainer.
No, the sun has obvious effect, however there is clear data to say we have affected the atmosphere greatly and are increasing the effect. Other things can affect the planets climate and sadly we are one of them.
QUOTE(Mattshark @ Mar 29 2007, 08:51 AM) [snapback]1604919[/snapback]
No, the sun has obvious effect, however there is clear data to say we have affected the atmosphere greatly and are increasing the effect. Other things can affect the planets climate and sadly we are one of them.
I agree with you on that Matt, but not on the myth of "man-made global warming" ~ look to the Solar Forcing data ~ it speaks for itself quite nicely indeed on climate change.
Sorry to gatecrash an arguement. I can not see this affecting thnigs, but there may be an element.
There is a lot information on dates, distances etc.... now for this, so what I am interested to know is -
Have supernovae or gamma ray bursts (GRBs) been considered within climate change models?
Given that all planets are affected (alledgedly) a universal solution is possibly required, so why not?
If there is no mention of this, then I think I had better hurry to create something so I get a nice government grant!
There is a lot information on dates, distances etc.... now for this, so what I am interested to know is -
Have supernovae or gamma ray bursts (GRBs) been considered within climate change models?
Given that all planets are affected (alledgedly) a universal solution is possibly required, so why not?
If there is no mention of this, then I think I had better hurry to create something so I get a nice government grant!
Stephen Hawking believes humans play a big role is global warming and that we need to act fast to lower emissions. He doesn't believe the suns rays are the main contributor instead of humans and he would know! Not science illiterate republicans.
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Apr 2 2007, 12:06 PM) [snapback]1610155[/snapback]
Stephen Hawking believes humans play a big role is global warming and that we need to act fast to lower emissions. He doesn't believe the suns rays are the main contributor instead of humans and he would know! Not science illiterate republicans.
Humans have always played a role in our environment, but that does not mean that we are the cause of global warming. The Sun has those rights, always did, and always will. Hawking can "believe" whatever he wants to believe, but frankly, if he doesn't know that the Sun is the reason for global climate change then he needs to re-check his own facts on astrophysics and how they directly relate to our geophysical environment on the Earth.
QUOTE(Theodore @ Apr 4 2007, 02:37 AM) [snapback]1612547[/snapback]
Humans have always played a role in our environment, but that does not mean that we are the cause of global warming. The Sun has those rights, always did, and always will. Hawking can "believe" whatever he wants to believe, but frankly, if he doesn't know that the Sun is the reason for global climate change then he needs to re-check his own facts on astrophysics and how they directly relate to our geophysical environment on the Earth.
We are hastening global warming by our spewage. Yet you won't acknowledge that. You even challenge one of the greatest minds on this planet...Stephen Hawking.
The ozone layer is being compromised by our spewage. Do you not acknowledge this? If we're depleting the ozone layer then we must be responsible for hastening global warming.
QUOTE(graylady2 @ Apr 4 2007, 08:04 AM) [snapback]1612885[/snapback]
We are hastening global warming by our spewage. Yet you won't acknowledge that. You even challenge one of the greatest minds on this planet...Stephen Hawking.
The ozone layer is being compromised by our spewage. Do you not acknowledge this? If we're depleting the ozone layer then we must be responsible for hastening global warming.
The ozone layer is being compromised by our spewage. Do you not acknowledge this? If we're depleting the ozone layer then we must be responsible for hastening global warming.
Hawking is not the only "great mind" on this planet. Moreover, if Hawking contends that global warming is "man-made" then his mind is not that great if he does not see the data that clearly shows the Sun as the ONLY reason for climate change. Why are you not acknowledging that?
There is no way in the world that human beings are able to deplete the Earth's ozone layer. That is a total myth. Only the Sun has the capacity to accomplish this, and accomplish it the Sun has ~ over the last decade especially; as the Sun's magnetic field strength and activity more than doubled as it caused severe radiation storms over the Earth's poles. That is the reason for ozone depletion and the world's oceans are the main reason for the rise and falls of Co2.
While we do have impact on our environment, it is primarily in the form of pollution of the seas, land and air, and the degradation of air and water quality.
However ~
Humans are not responsible for global warming. The Sun is, and always will be. The Sun is that important and is the cause of global climate change ~ hence ~ global warming.
QUOTE(Theodore @ Apr 5 2007, 03:49 AM) [snapback]1614182[/snapback]
Hawking is not the only "great mind" on this planet. Moreover, if Hawking contends that global warming is "man-made" then his mind is not that great if he does not see the data that clearly shows the Sun as the ONLY reason for climate change. Why are you not acknowledging that?
I don't acknowledge it because I don't believe it is solely the sun... You still refuse to acknowledge the chemicals and toxins we spew into our atmosphere are the main reason for hastening global warming. Why are there UV warnings - and respiratory warnings - if we're not causing the sun's heat to magnify by our spewage? There are chemicals, when mixed with heat from the sun, which can do damage to us and our life support system.
Still, the weatherman thinks he's more knowledgeable than Stephen Hawking...
QUOTE(Theodore @ Apr 5 2007, 08:49 AM) [snapback]1614182[/snapback]
Hawking is not the only "great mind" on this planet. Moreover, if Hawking contends that global warming is "man-made" then his mind is not that great if he does not see the data that clearly shows the Sun as the ONLY reason for climate change. Why are you not acknowledging that?
There is no way in the world that human beings are able to deplete the Earth's ozone layer. That is a total myth. Only the Sun has the capacity to accomplish this, and accomplish it the Sun has ~ over the last decade especially; as the Sun's magnetic field strength and activity more than doubled as it caused severe radiation storms over the Earth's poles. That is the reason for ozone depletion and the world's oceans are the main reason for the rise and falls of Co2.
While we do have impact on our environment, it is primarily in the form of pollution of the seas, land and air, and the degradation of air and water quality.
However ~
Humans are not responsible for global warming. The Sun is, and always will be. The Sun is that important and is the cause of global climate change ~ hence ~ global warming.
Ignorance is bliss There is no way in the world that human beings are able to deplete the Earth's ozone layer. That is a total myth. Only the Sun has the capacity to accomplish this, and accomplish it the Sun has ~ over the last decade especially; as the Sun's magnetic field strength and activity more than doubled as it caused severe radiation storms over the Earth's poles. That is the reason for ozone depletion and the world's oceans are the main reason for the rise and falls of Co2.
While we do have impact on our environment, it is primarily in the form of pollution of the seas, land and air, and the degradation of air and water quality.
However ~
Humans are not responsible for global warming. The Sun is, and always will be. The Sun is that important and is the cause of global climate change ~ hence ~ global warming.
Michael Savage's web site has a list of scientific data regarding the whole global warming issue that is very interesting. We have had warm up and cool down periods before man was industrial by far. It also seems that the Martian polar caps are experiencing a warm up cycle as well, but there are no people there to cause it. Our industrial age is not helping the situation but I do not think it is causing it.
QUOTE(graylady2 @ Apr 5 2007, 07:14 AM) [snapback]1614391[/snapback]
I don't acknowledge it because I don't believe it is solely the sun... You still refuse to acknowledge the chemicals and toxins we spew into our atmosphere are the main reason for hastening global warming. Why are there UV warnings - and respiratory warnings - if we're not causing the sun's heat to magnify by our spewage? There are chemicals, when mixed with heat from the sun, which can do damage to us and our life support system.
Still, the weatherman thinks he's more knowledgeable than Stephen Hawking...
Still, the weatherman thinks he's more knowledgeable than Stephen Hawking...
I don't "refuse" anything. What I said is that the Sun is the reason for global warming. This is a fact. Moreover, no amount of human Co2 emissions can cause climate change. The oceans, the mountains, and animals produce and emit more Co2 than all of mankind. This is a geophysical fact. Believe it, because it is true.
The astrophysical fact is that the Sun is responsible for global warming and all the data points to it. You can match global warming since 1980 to now to the Sun's activity and it fits like a glove.
The chemicals we spew into the air ruin air quality, for sure, but cannot, and does not cause global climate change. Only the Sun has this capacity. Man-made global warming is a myth, pure and simple.
QUOTE(Theodore @ Apr 5 2007, 05:47 PM) [snapback]1614677[/snapback]
The chemicals we spew into the air ruin air quality, for sure, but cannot, and does not cause global climate change. Only the Sun has this capacity. Man-made global warming is a myth, pure and simple.
Not only are you discrediting Stephen Hawking, now you are denying even the most basic scientific facts. Your argument isn't look too good anymore.QUOTE(Theodore @ Apr 5 2007, 05:47 PM) [snapback]1614677[/snapback]
no amount of human Co2 emissions can cause climate change. The oceans, the mountains, and animals produce and emit more Co2 than all of mankind. This is a geophysical fact. Believe it, because it is true.
Look at how much C02 we spew compared to other non-human processes.
QUOTE
These greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide but including others such as methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons, enter the air mainly as byproducts of the combustion of coal, natural gas, and petroleum, and to a lesser degree through other industrial and agricultural activities. Their rates of emission into the air are roughly proportional to the global rate of energy consumption arising from human activity. Thus, as human population and per capita energy consumption have increased, concentrations of these gases have risen in nearly direct proportions to the product of both increases. As they build up, these gases trap radiation upwelling from the Earth’s surface. The expected consequence is rising temperature at the Earth’s surface unless some compensating process cancels out this tendency.
Source
Source
QUOTE
Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution.
Source
Source
QUOTE
Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are naturally regulated by numerous processes collectively known as the “carbon cycle” (Figure 2). The movement (“flux”) of carbon between the atmosphere and the land and oceans is dominated by natural processes, such as plant photosynthesis. While these natural processes can absorb some of the net 6.1 billion metric tons of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions produced each year (measured in carbon equivalent terms), an estimated 3.2 billion metric tons is added to the atmosphere annually. The Earth’s positive imbalance between emissions and absorption results in the continuing growth in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Source
Source
But feel free to continue using your 'deny everything' tactic if it makes you feel better...
28 Jun 1998 - NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and several ground-based instruments show that temperatures on Neptune's largest moon have increased dramatically since the Voyager space probe in 1989. So much so, in fact, that Triton's surface of frozen nitrogen is turning into gas, making its thin atmosphere denser by the day.
"At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming," says astronomer James Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Percentage-wise, it's a very large increase."
Elliot and colleagues from the Lowell Observatory and Williams College reported their findings in the June 25 issue of Nature. Triton's 5 percent increase in temperature from about -392 to -389 degrees F would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of some 22 degrees F in just nine years
Source for full article
21 Mar 07 - A cold spell last November, plus a too-cold March, drove frost deeper than usual in Anchorage this winter, down to about nine feet, just one foot above the official burial depth of city water pipes. Pipes buried 10 feet underground are freezing all around the city, according to the Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility.
Fire hydrants popped out of the ground Monday and Tuesday nights and sent water flowing into buildings. The spurs that lead to houses - which property owners are responsible for - are freezing around the city.
"Everything in town is freezing up faster than we can keep it thawed out," said Larry Libby, owner of Libby Thawing Service. Libby thaws pipes 12 to 14 hours per day, and has been for weeks.
Source for full article
haha uh oh heres come reincarnated with his IPCC bullcrap lol.... so if stephen hawking said that he isnt handicapped we should believe him just cause he said it?
"At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming," says astronomer James Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Percentage-wise, it's a very large increase."
Elliot and colleagues from the Lowell Observatory and Williams College reported their findings in the June 25 issue of Nature. Triton's 5 percent increase in temperature from about -392 to -389 degrees F would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of some 22 degrees F in just nine years
Source for full article
21 Mar 07 - A cold spell last November, plus a too-cold March, drove frost deeper than usual in Anchorage this winter, down to about nine feet, just one foot above the official burial depth of city water pipes. Pipes buried 10 feet underground are freezing all around the city, according to the Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility.
Fire hydrants popped out of the ground Monday and Tuesday nights and sent water flowing into buildings. The spurs that lead to houses - which property owners are responsible for - are freezing around the city.
"Everything in town is freezing up faster than we can keep it thawed out," said Larry Libby, owner of Libby Thawing Service. Libby thaws pipes 12 to 14 hours per day, and has been for weeks.
Source for full article
haha uh oh heres come reincarnated with his IPCC bullcrap lol.... so if stephen hawking said that he isnt handicapped we should believe him just cause he said it?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.