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

Don't want politics? Ok, don't blame ya.

So let's look at the weather system.

Moscow... They should be in the deep freeze. However they've been having current temps of about 40 feirenhight... not -30 like normal.

The PNW was slammed from november to Januarary with horrendous weather cycles that isn't something normal... and now here we are in the middle of Feburary and the frogs are out in force in the ponds. THey shouldn't be out untill atleast the end of may. Same for the canadian geese. They shouldn't be comming back till aprilish.

The Midwest was slammed by HUGE blizzards that decimated the cattle industry... And that's not slamming into the east coast.

Tornados hitting Florida, New Orleans, and London. As well as that Hurricane plowing through Europe.

Those having summer now are experiancing blistering heat. The same blistering heat that the northern hemi had in 2005 and 06. Chances are we'll have it again this year.

(sept for us in the Seattle area.. like those last two year.. *cackles*)

Blah blah ice caps melting, polar bears and penguines loseing their habitates...

Really, you don't have to listen to scientists and politicians to know that something's going on. Global isn't just the global temps riseing... but also the seasons (particularly winter and summer) become more extream.

Man made? yes and no. No as in, the climate cycle and changes are normal. Yes as in our added polution, and desimation of the things that help soak up all that CO2(rain forests all over the globe being sliced down by the miles and miles... the pollution we dump in the oceans hinder the algeas from doing their job... things like that) in the air is not helping things in a possitive way. More like helping in a very negitive way.

We can't stop it no. Not even going to try. But we *might* beable to either slow it down, or make it more bearible if we did things to lessen the pollution we're causing. That or learn how to adapt to the savere changes that will happen.

but you see.... "global warming" is doing something else also... it warms up the oceans sending more and more precipitation into the air... places on earth are seeing 2 to 3 times the amount of precipitation than normal. pretty much northern north america and europe. a major partof the reason for this is the volcanic activity under the oceans right now... there is an overabundance in volcanic activity going on down there... they just recently found a 407 degree c vent under one of the ice caps... the hottest one ever found on the sea floor... its such a number of things. the earth has its own self preservation and its going into its starting effects as we speak....

the climte is going to change drastically across the world in both directions in places it shouldnt, but in the end the glaciation will become once more and i think it will spread farther. also most of the glaciers around the world arent diminishing and thats from the glacier monitering people. i mean there is so much that is left out of the equation. just because the temperature is rising and the increase in Co2 leads to one thing which is global warming, its not that easy. living on this earth, i myself, have seen a many wonders and things that happen that shouldnt. i live in ohio and we just got belted with ice, ice and more ice along with all the snow. plus, blisteringly cold temperatures here in the northeastern and midwest for the past month. we see cold temps but not 15 or below for extended periods of time like this

there are so many records lows being broken across the world it isnt funny. there is something going on.... i dont think its global warming... its a major climate shift.

the sun is also going into a dormant cycle. the sun affects the weather on this planet the most. so if it goes dormant as which scientists predict then how will we know what will happen. certainly it will not warm up, i mean thats almost a given there. who knows it might stay the same but certain parts of the world are going to be very very cold very soon, and will probably stay that way... we are due for a full fledged ice age soon... im no scientist i just look at everything that i see and read and take in and from what i have its not showing "global warming", but a climate shift for the cooling trend...

a little info also we have breached the 400ppm barrior. everytime the earth has breached 300 or so we have went into an ice age and thats a fact based on paleological records

It never ceases to amaze me, whenever winter rolls around, or there's an unseasonably cool spell during the summer, some crank will write a letter to the editor quaestioning the validity of "global warming". This is pretty much along the same lines. People here the term "global warming" and they envision desert wastelands, popping up all over the place with in the course of a few years. It just doesn't work that way. It's a gradual process, the change is slight, but noticable. A better term in "global climate change," if it makes any difference. Also what needs to be taken into consideration is the theory of "global dimming". If this is in fact correct, then the true severity of global warming is being mitigated so long as the planes keep flying.

KGS

im not invisioning desert wastelands when i hear global warming lol. i just think that its taking the wrong path in saying that the earth will stay warm and the temperature will keep rising.

i totally agree with you on the "global climate change". also, note that im not alarming that we had snow or harsh temperatures.... weve had record lows here is what im getting to. ive seen many of winters... the worst i can remember here in ohio was back in 1998, which was also up there on the warm year chart.

the temperature rises the earth shifts climate to make up for it. i mean im not saying that whats going on is a natural cycle, but i do believe that when the earth gets hot it has its ways of reversing that effect no matter what the ppm are. every time the Co2 has breached the 300 ppm line we have eventually went into an ice age. the ice age isnt right now but i believe it will soon based on knowledge from around the world and things that i have read on temperature and precipitation totals.

those are my thoughts aswell

I heard it was to do with the earth's core....

http://nov55.com/gbwm.html

http://geothermal.marin.org/pwrheat.html

WHAT IS GEOTHERMAL ENERGY?

Our earth's interior - like the sun - provides heat energy from nature. This heat - geothermal energy - yields warmth and power that we can use without polluting the environment.

Geothermal heat originates from Earth's fiery consolidation of dust and gas over 4 billion years ago. At earth's core - 4,000 miles deep - temperatures may reach over 9,000 degrees F.

HOW DOES GEOTHERMAL HEAT GET UP TO EARTH'S SURFACE?

The heat from the earth's core continuously flows outward. It transfers (conducts) to the surrounding layer of rock, the mantle. When temperatures and pressures become high enough, some mantle rock melts, becoming magma. Then, because it is lighter (less dense) than the surrounding rock, the magma rises (convects), moving slowly up toward the earth's crust, carrying the heat from below.

Sometimes the hot magma reaches all the way to the surface, where we know it as lava. But most often the magma remains below earth's crust, heating nearby rock and water (rainwater that has seeped deep into the earth) - sometimes as hot as 700 degrees F. Some of this hot geothermal water travels back up through faults and cracks and reaches the earth's surface as hot springs or geysers, but most of it stays deep underground, trapped in cracks and porous rock. This natural collection of hot water is called a geothermal reservoir.

How healthy is Mother Earth?
It's only fitting that Mother Earth get a day to herself. The rest of the year, we go on tilling, mining, logging, burning, burying trash, and otherwise taking advantage of Mother.A small marine snail with brown internal organs seen through a clear body.

We act like we have a spare (and livable) planet waiting in the wings.

Once in a dozen moons, it makes sense to think about your Mother. How's her health? Is she getting forgetful?

What about her fever?

http://whyfiles.org/238earthday/
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/stor...5009640,00.html


http://www.librarising.com/spirituality/ignition.html

"As the planet goes into fasting mode and its light and heat increase, the snow and ice at the poles will start to melt and evaporate forming a canopy or cloud cover around it. It's similar to a human developing a powerful auric field around his or her body. If successful, the cover will become permanent and induce a semi-tropical climate and diffused light throughout the planet, commencing a new golden age or millennium. This will affect not only the climate but the mentality, health, and spirit of all its lifeforms. The excess prana or life force(Holy Spirit in religious terms) will purify and enrich the soil and water and air and all life forms wll grow larger and stronger and aging and death and disease will become a thing of the past. The Earth in general will return to its pre-Diluvian days when inner middle and outer earth co-mingled freely and harmoniously and had open relations with the rest of the cosmos."

I kinda agree, I do think its natural and not man made

there is conclusive evidence of global warming with out any politics, just good ol science. You say that there is a lot of snow being poured down from massive winter storms. In fact in new york there has been over 100 inches in certain parts. Did you know that extreme weather stems from the global warming.

The potential for floods and droughts is increasing."....... the heating from increased greenhouse gases enhances the hydrological cycle and increases the risk for stronger, longer-lasting or more intense droughts, and heavier rainfall events and flooding, even if these phenomena occur for natural reasons. Evidence, although circumstantial, is widespread across the United States. Examples include the intense drought in the central southern U.S in 1996, Midwest flooding in spring of 1995 and extensive flooding throughout the Mississippi Basin in 1993 even as drought occurred in the Carolinas, extreme flood events in winters of 1992-93 and 1994-95 in California but droughts in other years (e.g, 1986-87 and 1987-88 winters)," says Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Even if data from 100 years ago is inconclusive, bc of unrealiable technology, the fact remains the earth is getting warmer, period. up up up it goes, which isnt good. Its a slow but steady increase, which is why its still snowing, duh! You keep making a point of how you realize the polar ice caps are melting, you understand that there is temperature increase, dude that IS WHAT GLOBAL WARMING IS!!!!!!!! your just contradicting yourself, check out these websites and inform yourself so you don't sound liek an idiot

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocean...eforwarming.htm
http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5394326


hell im republican and i know and acknowlege that there is a very serious global warming problem

I think this planet has been getting warmer the day it was created. I don't believe its man made. I usually think when people use the word global warming that its man made. I think things move in cycles for the most part.

First of all you don't need to quote an intire post and type 11 words to get your point across; quote the sentence or paragraph you wish to address and add your comments, Thank you.

To tackle the OP and issues related I must say that itseems the oceans of our little planet are heating up but I'm no longer convinced that its due to greenhouse gasses as much as subterranian heating. Magmatic movement and tectonic movement might be the culprit of the earth's crazy weather patterns Tsunami much?

Our planet is experiencing subterranian anomolies that produce strange weather; when you boil a pot of water your kitchen becomes humid. Wet. That water has to go somewhere and gravity usually brings it down. If its cold then water turns to snow. We have two feet here in Indiana.

I'm not saying *tick tick tick* we are running out of time because we are all retarded but this planet's central core might be on autopilot at this point.

Well you could ignore the US politics and look at the actual scientific evidence instead.

My friend the other day wrote the following in his AIM away message. "Global warming my ass, its been in the single digits for the past week"
I thought it was funny. But i do think Global Warming is a problem, well, for humans and animals, the plant world is loving it, Bring on that CO2...

No it has led to massive crop failure in Russia.

The lack of understanding on global warming is possibly only second to the lack of understanding shown about evolution.

thanks for sharing that crystal sage. was zi very educational

Nature, Global Warming.
Aritcle from the Journal of Climatic Change.
Polar changes from Global warming.
Pubmed article showing changes in wildlife distributuion from global warming.
Effects of constant increasing CO2 emmissions.
Geophysicsal analysis of Global Warming.


But then I'm sure internet journalists know much more than these scientists.

they dont stretch or bend or falsify the truth at all. its real, the icebergs will be gone in a few years because of it, and then species will begin to die off. plankton will be the first to go, with plankton gone, the things that depend on it will die, and the chain will go on. im starting a new topic about it.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/earth/climate/uncertain.htm

"The current scientific knowledge of climate change presents policymakers with a number of conundrums:

* confidence that there will be global warming is high, whereas confidence in regional descriptions of future climate is low
* continued emissions of greenhouse gases will inevitably produce climate change, but at what point, and for whom, the climate change is considered 'dangerous' is unknown
* the prospect of climate change implies concrete action in the short term to lessen unclear damage decades hence
* the tools associated with assessing potential climate change are imperfect, but insights available from past changes are also limited because the present situation (especially given the involvement of humans) is unique.

http://www.physorg.com/news68305951.html
"The concentration of carbon dioxide in today's atmosphere is about 380 parts per million, whereas the concentration 55 million years ago was about 2,000 parts per million. "

"Today's models underpredict how warm the poles were back then, which tells you something disturbing — that the models, if anything, aren't sensitive enough to greenhouse gases," Huber said. "At the same time, it is possible that other forces in addition to higher-than-normal greenhouse gas concentrations were involved, otherwise we can't explain how the tropics maintained livable conditions.



http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why............Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics.

but do you realize what will happen if the caps do melt? it wont be global warming anymore. see you guys seem to leave out the other side of the equation. if the ice caps melt it will shut down ocean currents. ocean currents spread heat throughout the world. do you guys not realize that? oceanic currents displace more heat than anything but the sun. thats why we people in the northern hemisphere have a temperate climate, without the oceanic currents we dont have any heat. it doesnt matter how much Co2 is dumped into the air we can be at 1000 ppm it wouldnt matter. if there is no way to displace the heat, and the earth is 70 percent water, so lets do the math here please. the sun doesnt hit the earth at the same everywhere in the world so how is the entire world going to heat up? think think think.............

this "climate shift" is a healing process the earth has done for millions and billions of years people is abundant in paleo records!!!!! everytime the earth has gone past 300 ppm the earth went into an ice age!!!! no excuse, no debate about it look it up. ther eis more than A+B=C here.

ocean currents are fueled by the balance of salt water and freshwater in the oceans. that balance is very very delicate and once shifted into a dormant stage. we wont be hearing oh its so hot it will be so cold you will freeze outside.

also, ill have you note, that the oceans are heated by volcanic and techtonic activity. they are heated more by that than the sun! and there is an increase in underwater volcanic activity across the globe. they forget to add such things into their diagrams its rediculous...

so if the most mainstream way the earth displaces its heat is gone whats that mean? cold not hot

thank you ill be here all week and further

Is it politics??? to distract us from what ????
We had snow at Christmas... ( our summer) at Melbourne and Queensland... a tropical area!!!!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1818163.htm

"Three states that have endured bushfires in recent weeks - Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania - have today seen snow.

Paul Koenig at Victoria's Mount Buller Chalet has spent the last week watching as fire blackened the foothills around the mountain in the state's north-east.

But now he says the summit is covered in about two centimetres of snow.

"I didn't actually believe it until it actually came last night," he said.

"It was great - it sort of makes you feel like it is Christmas."

Mr Koenig says the snow has transformed the mountain.

"It's put the white cover across the buildings and the white cover over the ground, so it looks beautiful," he said.

Temperatures in alpine areas like Mount Baw Baw, east of Melbourne, have plunged below zero.

Melbourne weather forecaster Ward Rooney says below-zero temperatures in alpine areas can mean snow, no matter what time of year.

"Certainly, the air is cold enough for further snow to fall not only on the mountain peaks but a bit further down the mountain slopes..." he said.
It's not just getting hotter... it's freak weather... hot and cold...!!!!


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
"Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.......

......So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.!!!!!!!!"

February 20, 2007

WHEN politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change, which is due for publication in a few months' time.
They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.
The small print explains very likely as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90 per cent sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when John Cockcroft, Britain's top nuclear physicist, said he was 90 per cent certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion.

It turned out that he was wrong.

More positively, a 10 per cent uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latter-day Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea.

That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers.

And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter's billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages.

The early arrival of migratory birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adelie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8 per cent in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you're forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is "Why is east Antarctica getting colder?" It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered.

Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor?

Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report. Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate.

The sun's brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds.

The sun's magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark's idea - apart from its being politically incorrect - was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation.

After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Centre hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water.

These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark's initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then.

The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it: A New Theory of Climate Change.

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark's scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile, humility in face of nature's marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

Nigel Calder is a former editor of the New Scientist. This is an extract from The Sunday Times in London.

source

Its coming?

I think the earth is going through a normal temperature cycle.

But leaving lights on, driving the car distances you could walk in 15 miniutes, filling the kettle with more water than you'll use immediately - i think these people are a tad sick in the head. You're wasting your own money... and because there is no proof either way for what is currently happening to our planet, is it really worth the risk?

No, of course not.

Fact of the matter is, whatever our planet is doing, we aren't helping. But change is somthing that every living thing on this planet has done. Shaping the planet to its own will. Before there were plants to provide oxygen, for example.

I try to save energy and i recycle. Not because i'm worried about climate change, but because it's just plain stupid not to.

Melbourne is not tropical, Darwin is, Melbourne and Tasmania are temperate.
Global warming does not mean everywhere will suddenly get hotter. That is not the point, anomalies would be expected.

But as I said, you surely know more than those who study the subject profesionally.

Of course you could ignore the fact that the only time the climate has varied this quickly is during mass extinction events, increased desertification. You could ignore those who study the field and know a lot more than you about this subject.
The northern hemisphere? Do you not mean northwest Europe? There is a a big difference. The gulf stream affect countries like the UK, Northern and Iceland and to a lesser extent Germany and Holland. However it also keeps the north pole frozen. Although though the loss if the gulf stream would cause the UK and Iceland to cool down it would also stop bringing snow to the Arctic.
It make no difference that the Sun hits the Earth at varying strength at different latitudes. That is completely erronious. The heat is being trapped, it means variation in heat lost so of course it is possible, to reiterate your point, think, think, think. Just because some where recieves the sun with less strength than somewhere else does not mean that heat can not be trapped there.
The worlds surface waters are not warmed by volcanic activity, they are heated by the sun. Hence world water surface temperatures are coincidal with air temperature along with current distribution.
Also ICE AGES COINCIDE WITH LOW CO2 LEVELS NOT HIGH.
Volcanic activity in deep water means heat is heavily dispersed in very cold water, pressure makes a difference here. It occurs below the thermocline, the most stable environment on the planet. That is erronious.
If your going to ask for accliam at least be right.

Question is: how do you increase the number of high level clouds, especially in the N Hemisphere, and at the same time reduce the formation of low level, rain bearing, clouds in tropical regions without there being some resultant climate change? As far as I can determine it's physically impossible. Thus, like it or, anthropogenic climate change is real. And that's without a single molecule of CO2 ever being emitted .......

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/apr/H...ds_climate.html

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t...t_rainfall.html

Simon Calder is a journalist, this has already been posted and you have enought threads on this subject and despite calling it a media fuelled myth, your post only media articles and conviently ignore actual scientific work.
Maybe you should some actually work on the subject not newspaper articles.

My copy of the book arrived today. However one thing I am 100% convinced of - it's not all down to cosmic rays!

See people! Keep on polluting as much as you want, there is nothing to worry about. Besides, you don't want emission caps to take away our hard-earned money, right? Trust us.

receivingendofsirens,

Try to keep all your information regarding 'global warming' in one thread, please, there's no reason to start new topics everytime you have similar information to pass along.

10 Feb 07 - "Timothy Ball is no wishy-washy skeptic of global warming. The Canadian climatologist, who has a Ph.D. in climatology from the University of London and taught at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, says that the widely propagated "fact" that humans are contributing to global warming is the "greatest deception in the history of science."

"Ball has made no friends among global warming alarmists by saying that global warming is caused by the sun, that global warming will be good for us and that the Kyoto Protocol ""is a political solution to a nonexistent problem without scientific justification."

"Needless to say, Ball strongly disagrees with the findings of the latest report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which on Feb. 2 concluded that it is ""very likely"" that global warming is the result of human activity.

"I talked to Ball by phone on Feb. 6 from his home on in Victoria, British Columbia, on Vancouver Island, which the good-humored scientist likes to point out was connected to the mainland 8,000 years ago when the sea level was 500 feet lower.

"Q: The mainstream media would have us believe that the science of global warming is now settled by the latest IPCC report. Is it true?

"A: No. It’’s absolutely false. As soon as people start saying something’’s settled, it’’s usually that they don’’t want to talk about it anymore. It’’s very, very far from settled. The IPCC is a purely political setup.

"Q: Why should we be leery of the IPCC’s report -- or the summary of the report?

"A: Well, because the report is the end product of a political agenda, and it is the political agenda of both the extreme environmentalists who of course think we are destroying the world. But it’’s also the political agenda of a group of people ... who believe that industrialization and development and capitalism and the Western way is a terrible system and they want to bring it down.

"Q: What is your strongest or best argument that GW is not ""very likely"" to be caused by SUVs and Al Gore’’s private planes?

"A: I guess the best argument is that global warming has occurred, but it began in 1680, if you want to take the latest long-term warming, and the climate changes all the time. It began in 1680, in the middle of what’’s called ""The Little Ice Age"" when there was three feet of ice on the Thames River in London. And the demand for furs of course drove the fur trade. The world has warmed up until recently, and that warming trend doesn’’t fit with the CO2 record at all; it fits with the sun-spot data. Of course they are ignoring the sun because they want to focus on CO2.

"The other thing that you are seeing going on is that they have switched from talking about global warming to talking about climate change. The reason for that is since 1998 the global temperature has gone down -- only marginally, but it has gone down. In the meantime, of course, CO2 has increased in the atmosphere and human production has increased. So you’’ve got what Huxley called the great bane of science -- ""a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact."" So by switching to climate change, it allows them to point at any weather event -- whether it’’s warming, cooling, hotter, dryer, wetter, windier, whatever -- and say it is due to humans. Of course, it’’s absolutely rubbish. .

"Q: Is the rising CO2 level the cause of global warming or the result of it?

"A: That’s a very good question because in the theory the claim is that if CO2 goes up, temperature will go up. The ice core record of the last 420,000 years shows exactly the opposite. It shows that the temperature changes before the CO2. So the fundamental assumption of the theory is wrong. That means the theory is wrong.

"Q: Why are sea levels rising and should we worry?

"A: Sea levels have been rising for the last 10,000 years. In fact, 8,000 years ago, sea level was almost 500 feet lower than it is today. It’’s been rising gradually over that time. It’’s risen very slightly in the modern record, but it has risen no more rapidly than it has in the last 8,000 years.

"Q: Is it not inevitable that we will have another ice age?

"A: Yes, I think there is another ice age coming, because the major causes of the ice ages are changes in the orbit of the Earth around the sun and changes in the tilt of the Earth. Those are things we’ve known about for 150 years, but we’re still telling our students that the orbit around the sun is a fixed elliptical orbit and the tilt is an unchanging 23.5 degrees. Neither of those things are correct."

Source

so this guy is an idiot?

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global.htm

here are some charts and graphs for ya made by a climatologist about how colcanic activity can greatly the affect of the climate of the world

1.)"Previously, the warmest year of the century was 1998, when a strong El Nino, a warm water event in the eastern Pacific Ocean, added warmth to global temperatures. However, what's significant, regardless of whether 2005 is first or second warmest, is that global warmth has returned to about the level of 1998 without the help of an El Nino."

Source

2.)Warmest January Ever Recorded Worldwide in 2007
World temperatures in January were the highest ever recorded for that month of the year, US government scientists said.

"The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the highest for any January on record," according to scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climate Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

3.)"The 2006 average annual temperature for the contiguous U.S. was the warmest on record and nearly identical to the record set in 1998(without the help of an El Nino), according to scientists at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Seven months in 2006 were much warmer than average, including December, which ended as the fourth warmest December since records began in 1895."

Source


----------------------------------------

Yes.

you keep reposting that thinking for some validity... and tell that guy hes an idiot...

who cares if this is the warmest january on record? did you even go to the graphs or read what the climatologist wrote?

look the things up... not just the fact that january is the warmest ever. im looking for the reason not the result i know its hot... and its not all or even a large portion of mans fault.... we are mere specks to this earth and to what causes global temperature... read the graphs please.... those are all true recorded events based on scientific knowledge.

and the artical has just as much validity than your warmest january thing you keep posting a billion times lol

Wouldn't the magnetic pole shifts cause weather disturbances????/

'http://www.physorg.com/news8917.html
" After some 400 years of relative stability, Earth's North Magnetic Pole has moved nearly 1,100 kilometers out into the Arctic Ocean during the last century and at its present rate could move from northern Canada to Siberia within the next half-century. If that happens, Alaska may be in danger of losing one of its most stunning natural phenomena – the Northern Lights.
But the surprisingly rapid movement of the magnetic pole doesn't necessarily mean that our planet is going through a large-scale change that would result in the reversal of the Earth's magnetic field, Oregon State University paleomagnetist Joseph Stoner reported today at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, Calif.

<A HREF="http://a.tribalfusion.com/h.click/aVmxQ0SG7Za463IpW6rTtQe0Un8XF790aZaqPrUZbTFrQVdQWnrBqPFbqYEFs4qjf4TnRoEjAXFFgWWfPoA7ZcpG3wpdrJ3TZbe3HuN5mvZbprvEYVfSXVv41sZbumabR5bFdq0bBPb/http://gaming.freepay.com/a/?x=8331&c=33725933438923" TARGET="_blank"><IMG SRC=http://cdn5.tribalfusion.com/media/748226/RedButton300.gif WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 BORDER=0></A>
"This may be part of a normal oscillation and it will eventually migrate back toward Canada," said Stoner, an assistant professor in OSU's College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences. "There is a lot of variability in its movement."

Calculations of the North Magnetic Pole's location from historical records goes back only about 400 years, while polar observations trace back to John Ross in 1838 at the west coast of Boothia Peninsula. To track its history beyond that, scientists have to dig into the Earth to look for clues.

Stoner and his colleagues have examined the sediment record from several Arctic lakes. These sediments – magnetic particles called magnetite – record the Earth's magnetic field at the time they were deposited. Using carbon dating and other technologies – including layer counting – the scientists can determine approximately when the sediments were deposited and track changes in the magnetic field.

The Earth last went through a magnetic reversal some 780,000 years ago. These episodic reversals, in which south becomes north and vice versa, take thousands of years and are the result of complex changes in the Earth's outer core. Liquid iron within the core generates the magnetic field that blankets the planet. Because of that field, a compass reading of north in Oregon will be approximately 17 degrees east from "true geographic north." In Florida, farther away and more in line with the poles, the declination is only 4-5 degrees west. "
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/09/D8ED22880.html

http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/daily_mvt_nmp_e.php
Geomagnetism
Daily Movement of the North Magnetic Pole

It is important to realize that the position of the North Magnetic Pole given for a particular year is an average position. The Magnetic Pole wanders daily around this average position and, on days when the magnetic field is disturbed, may be displaced by 80 km or more. Although the North Magnetic Pole's motion on any given day is irregular, the average path forms a well-defined oval.



"Yet the intensity of the magnetic field has been dropping for the last 2,000 years, and "it has dropped significantly" during the past two decades, Clement said. One recent study shows the decline in strength amounts to 10 percent over the last 150 years."

I posted it because he is saying the earth has been cooling since 1998 when in fact, it is the opposite. 2005 was hotter than 1998 and that was without the help of an El Nino. It's hard to take this guy seriously when he making false statements.I care. You can't dismiss facts simply beause it does not suite your opinion.Yes I have looked the graphs. Have you looked at mine?



You are one lacking in the research department.

Source

this is from your own source... now forget me if im wrong but if 2005 was the warmest year on record and 2006 is sixth, how is the world getting warmer?

http://www.iceagenow.com/Pacemaker.htm

heres a link based on temperatures during the past 500,000 years and how spikes in heat directly are associated with ice ages

http://www.iceagenow.com/Magnetic_Reversal_Chart.htm

heres a graph about how closely magnetic reversals go hand in hand with ice ages.

" However, at the reversal itself the field is not necessarily zero.
Other, more complex parts of the field exist, and right now it looks as
if these are soaking up magnetic energy lost from the main north-south
field. At the time of reversal, the Earth may have for a while 4, 6 or more magnetic poles, and a somewhat weaker field--but it is not expected to lose its magnetism altogether."

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2002/20030103.htm

http://www.greatdreams.com/poleshift.htm


Then there's the effect of solar flares.....

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sola...are_031028.html

How are we getting colder since 1998 if the hottest year was 2005? NASA states the reason for such high temperatures in 1998 was due to an El Nino. Now we are reaching temps without the help of one. If you look at the facts, the hottest 6 years have all occured within the last 10 years. We are still above average with the temp drop. You think a simple drop is going to debunk GW? Using that logic, I can simply say any temp increase proves GW without a doubt but I'm not and I wouldn't.

im simply stating that it has dropped from 2005 being the warmest ever to 2006 being the sixth... thats what your source states

You wouldn't expect a direct warming/year correlation, you would expect minor differences.
Have you actually read any scientific journal papers on this? Or do you take all your information from newpapers? (Who of course made this whole thing up in the first place).

Yes, and I may have to send Tim an email and tell him so! Even at the height of the last ice age (18,000 years ago) sea levels were only around 400ft lower than today - and they had reached more or less modern levels by 8,000 years ago. Indeed, by 6,000 years ago they were actually higher than today in some places. Obviously isostasy affects individual localities differently.

It should also be noted Timothy Ball worKs for a think tank that is controlled by energy companies.

http://news.com.com/2061-11128_3-6160463.html

Why is global warming questioned? Evidence exists.
The majority of people on this planet believe in god. Without evidence/proof. Where are the people demanding evidence of god?
The silence can be deafening...

There are plenty of people asking for evidence of God. Just look around the other forums on this site.

Given that the U.S. is the only country which has been consistently measuring temperatures for more than a century and the prior to that all we have is anecdotal data, and that even that only covers approximately 10,000 years, and that we have records indicating the planet has constantly undergone changes in climate, the thing many of us argue is that there is no real proof that the warming trend small as it really is, has been caused by anything man is doing since man was not around for most of the climatological change this planet has constantly had.

erm the UK has had a met office that has kept consistant tracking temperature since 1854.