OZONE.

Ground-level ozone is an air pollutant with harmful effects on the respiratory systems of animals (and we are the chief animal). On the other hand, ozone in the upper atmosphere protects living organisms by preventing damaging ultraviolet light from reaching the Earth's surface (but that is a story, a small white lie to keep you searching for an answer). It is present in low concentrations throughout the Earth's atmosphere.

Scientists went through years of research on what is destroying the ozone layer of the earth and they came out with Chloroflourocarbons, you know the propellant in spray cans. Then it was the air conditioning system, the Freon. They slowly stopped all that and it kept going away and the hole kept getting bigger and bigger. Where, O where is the ozone going? **Cough, cough ** Ever heard of TB? That's just one thing. Children whose lungs are not quite developed enough are subject to the effects of OZONE. Gases rise above the level of your breathing. Plants that produce oxygen produce lots of it and that pushes any pollutants away. The rising oxygen produced by the plants combines with the atomic oxygen in the air to produce the ozone and the ozone reacts with the UV rays from the sun to produce HEAT. IT IS NOT THE SUN THAT PRODUCES THE HEAT, IT IS THE REACTION OF THE ULTRAVIOLET RAYS ON OZONE THAT PRODUCES THE HEAT! THE MORE OZONE IN THE LOWER ATMOSPHERE THE HOTTER IT IS AND THAT BURNS UP THE OXYGEN. It's a mad cycle that y'all have no idea about! But then, there is nothing that you or I can do about it. If the Ozone layer was not around our earth, we would not be flesh animals, we would be blocks of ice. Light a candle or a blow torch; make the flame millions of degrees and put it in space next to a planet with no heat hundreds of thousands of miles away. That is what is in the orbit of this earth, blocks of ice. Mercury is still there that close to the sun, why doesn't it disintegrate, 'poof?' Its atmosphere has. It stays there because of the side away from the sun, it stays as cold as the other side is hot. It is that cold in space.

^ so we wouldnt burn up if we lost the ozone or whatever we would freeze?

I don't understand why people don't observe the obvious either! It is Global Warming!

I never said that pollution cannot be linked to global warming, so, perhaps you ought to try questioning your own ability to hear what I've already said before comparing that with my knowledge of "basic science." Moreover, that is something you might want to check out for yourself considering your comments above that greatly underestimate the power and reality of the SUN.

Yes, one can link pollution to almost anything. Doesn't mean it is the reason for global warming. And ~ that is not a reason to then "link" humans as the "cause" of global warming ~ on a planetary scale. People are not responsible for global cooling, or global warming. Never were. Never will be. All things are regulated and work naturally, and mathematically as set by God the Creator. God created the Sun, the Earth, the Moon and all the planets and the comos we all inhabit.

Human beings did not do that. We did not create the Sun. We cannot control the weather. We cannot control the world's climate.

Can we pollute? Yes. Humans always have, and most likely, always will. But human beings are NOT the cause of global warming. Some of us would like to think that we are with the sizes of egos out there that falsely blame humanity for global warming, but, really, like you said, has more to do with a lack of "basic science" than anything else, and I suggest that you should check out the SUN more than you've seemed to have done because mister, you certainly don't appear to have much respect for the SUN.

I do.

Remember, there are other planets in our solar system that would also not exist without the SUN, and these planets have been undergoing global warming as well. Where is the human pollution that is causing global warming on those planets? Were is the link for that? I say ~ look up at that star in the skies called SOL.

Moreover, your attempt to "link" human pollution to global warming is understandable, since you've obviously have stated that my comments that the SUN is responsible for all life and energy on Earth is an "exaggeration."

Just how is that so?

Do you really think that without the SUN, that the Earth would exist, as it does now, with all the life that is supported on this planet by this star? You call that an "exagerration?

I say that perhaps it is you that greatly underestimate the SUN, and could use a bit more of "basic science" and astrophysics yourself. Remember ~ "As above, So Below." Ponder that a long while before treating the SUN as mere "solar energy" in the manner you've done.

Without that "solar energy" you downplay Leonardo, you, I, or anyone else on this planet would not even be alive geophysically, and neither would much else on this earth.

We classical astrologers have a saying... "A day without the Sun cannot be called a day."

Think about it. Deeply.

You know what else?

Global warming wouldn't matter at all.

Why?

Because without the SUN ~ global warming would not exist. 'Nuff said.

Theodore, I think you should take a chill pill and calm down.

Man-made pollution can be linked to Global Warming as one of the causes. I didn't state it was the only cause and it may be sheer coincidence that we have exacerbated a problem that may have occurred anyway with the solar cycle, however we are right to be concerned and not dismiss the fact of our interference but look to reduce it as much as possible.

I like how you talk of "others with sizes of egos" (and I'm assuming you meant giant egos?) yet you post absolutes and simply dismiss out of hand possibilities without even reasoning why they should be dismissed. It is a wonderful irony and I thank you for making me laugh...

Here is a link to the EPA's website regarding ozone depletion. I think it has been fairly certainly determined that this is the result (largely) of pollutants entering the upper atmosphere letting much more UV-B and UV-C radiation into the lower atmosphere rather than causing much of it to be absorbed and re-emitted back into space. Now, I'm not going to lecture you on radiation, or the fact that it is energy, or that the more of this that is not re-emitted into space (due to the pollution we have caused) will cause the planetary energy budget to rise and so cause warming because you apparently already know all this.

From the EPA's site...



So just increasing the amount of UV radiation entering the lower atmosphere or striking the Earth's surface could lead to an increase in production of greenhouse gasses and this would accentuate a warming effect.

I suppose you could argue this extra energy does come from the sun, however it wouldn't be a part of the Earth's energy budget were it not for our interference, so I do hope you can see the point being made here. You can't just look at the sun as the whole cause, you have to take into account the effect we are having by introducing pollutants into the system. A smaller amount of warming might have taken place regardless of this factor, but we are making things worse...or so the evidence would indicate.

I am quite calm. Listen, as I've said, you can link pollution to anything you want, but that is not the cause of global warming. Never was. You can also comment on the Sun like it's just some kind of mere "energy" force, but you surely cannot actually link pollution as the cause of global warming because it is not.

The other comments you make about "absolutes" and "egos" and such has nothing to do with global warming except in the arguments of those who continue to falsely blame humanity for causing global warming, when it is clear that the Sun is the cause. Pure and simple.

Stop blaming humanity for something it is not doing, and never did and that is cause global warming. And when you write about the SUN you ought to try using caps next time since obviously, you seem to treat the main source of all the Earth's energy as some kind of little thing sitting on the sidelines. Believe me pal ~ the SUN is anything but "little."

That is what happened. And it will happen again because of the memory of the elements.

The planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune would not be here if there was no sun. Just like Saggittarius A, the sun was much larger and was the gateway to another place. Mercury, venus, earth, and mars are the remnants of planets that collided and that shrunk the sun down to as small as it could get; the door was closed.

Yes, it's a mad cycle and I've never heard of it before. Probably because it's just a bunch of bullsh*t.

By the way, it is proven that CO2 in the atmosphere is directly related to temperature level.
And we are increasing the amount of CO2. =The Global Warming is a fact.

I have proven Theo wrong on page one.

Right, and the world is square too. Only in your dreams. Man-made global warming is a myth Reincarnated. It is not true. It never was. Just deal with it. Don't worry, it won't hurt one bit.

Theodore,

If man-made global warming is a myth and the end result of the effort to stop this 'myth' is that we clean up a lot of the pollution on the planet and find ways to generate the energy/products we need in a cleaner, greener way then why are you making such a big deal of it?

If you are correct we aren't going to stop global warming but we will make this planet a nicer place to live. Are you unhappy about that?

Why not just stop denying that we are destroying our own planet?
I belive we all know that we are. Some people just can't accept it.

I think Theo is taking his amatuer astrology hobby a little too seriously. He is using it as a premise to explain real-life events, like he is living in some magical psychic world. He flips a wig if you don't give his Sun-God all the credit for anything that happens in this world. If you say humans are a factor in climate change he'll say; "the Sun isn't just a cardboard cutout, jeez" or It feels like I'm arguing with Miss Cleo. You need to touch back down to reality and join us Cleo, err Theo.

aNDO, aNDO, aNDO. CO2 is WHAT? WAKE UP! CO2 IS WHAT!!!!!?? DAMMMMMMIT!!!!! CO2 IS WHAT????? WHERE DOES THE O2 COME FROM IN THE CO2? WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CO2 COMES FROM THE FUSION IN THE ATMOSPHERE OF A CABON ATOM WITH AN OXYGEN MOLECULE THAT HAS COME FROM THE BREAKDOWN, THE LIFE SPAN, OF 03, OZONE!!!!! WE, US, YOU AND ME, THEY, THEM PEOPLE PRODUCE, MAKE, MANUFACTURE CARBON! WE ARE CARBON CREATURES; OIL, GAZOLINE (VROOM, VROOM!), CAUSE EMISSIONS OF CARBON, plants produce DI-OXIDE which immediately burns in the atmosphere which causes carbon dioxide. THE LIFE CYCLE OF OZONE IS THE REVERSE OF THE FORMATION OF OZONE. WHEN OZONE IS FORMED IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE, AN ATOM OF OXYGEN (O) FUSES WITH A MOLECULE (O2 - DI-OXIDE) OF OXYGEN IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE. THIS FUSION IS THE SAME AS THE FUSION IN THE SUN OF THE IONS OF HYDROGEN AND HELIUM, A CONTINUAL PROCESS. IN FUSION THERE IS A RELEASE OF ENERGY. WITH THE FUSION OF OXYGEN OR ANY OTHER ELEMENT, THE FISSION FROM THE FUSION IS EXTREME POWER AND SPEED. HEAT IS THE SPEED OF THE FISSION.

The fusion in the sun of the ions of hydrogen and helium prduces 6 things. Heat, photons, and a neutrino are 3. Hydrogen, Helium, and heavy Hydorogen are the other 3. The speed of the fission from the fusion is stopped at the corona of the sun AND IT IS STOPPED BY THE FORCED SLOWING OF THE FUSION OF THE ELEMENTS BY TEMPERATURE. It is stopped after the speed of the fission reaches a temperature of -450 degrees. At this degree, Oxygen is formed. On this earth we receive the photons and the neutrinos.

The fusion of an oxygen atom with a molecule of oxygen produces 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 different combinations of elements. God never sleeps, it is a continual process. It is really much more complicated with 3 huge sets of combinations. You have an atom with 8 electrons fusing with a molecule of 16 electrons and on. That is what school teaches you. This is from the web:
http://www.speclab.com/elements/oxygen.htm
Pay close attention to: Liq: Irritant to skin & tissues. THE INHALATION, AT 1 ATM, OF 80% O2 FOR MORE THAN ABOUT 12 HR CAUSES IRRITATION OF RESP TRACT. Is that heartburn, respiratory diseases, or what? There is an Oxygen center in your brain that will shut down the body if it gets too much oxygen or when there is not enough.

Nitrogen is the major element in our atmosphere. In the atmosphere, the fusion of Nitrogen and Oxygen produces what? 56 x 55 x 54 x 53 x 52 x 51 x 50 x . . . x 2 different combinations of elements according to the fission. There is Nitrous Oxide, there is Nitric Acid, and more. We know what Nitrous Oxide does and Nitric Acid causes the rust. Very Irritating. And we fill our bodies with coffee, cokes, vinegar, and more acidic stuff to complete the process of rust. Eat yourself from the inside out while Nitric Acid is from the out side in.

It gets darker and more bleak as the thought grows. Boy, wouldn't it be nice if we did not have these ugly mortal bodies?

Are we causing global warming or is it the sun? I don't think it is either one. For those who think it is a natural thing, that could be if you think it is natural to live and die. But anything that is a part of nature does not die, it is recycled. A bird dies and the spirit of that bird uses the pattern formed inside of its head to form a better creature. On earth, the sun is recycled. On earth, the sun has been recycled to be light and everything else we see. We add more toxins to the atmosphere and the result will be the formation of countless other toxins that God can't use in His body that He created. Who is this God? The birds, the bees, the flowers, the trees, the cattle and the creeping things. We were formed by them to take care of them.

aNDO, aNDO, aNDO. CO2 is WHAT? WAKE UP! CO2 IS WHAT!!!!!?? DAMMMMMMIT!!!!! CO2 IS WHAT????? WHERE DOES THE O2 COME FROM IN THE CO2? WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CO2 COMES FROM THE FUSION IN THE ATMOSPHERE OF A CABON ATOM WITH AN OXYGEN MOLECULE THAT HAS COME FROM THE BREAKDOWN, THE LIFE SPAN, OF 03, OZONE!!!!! THE LIFE CYCLE OF OZONE IS THE REVERSE OF THE FORMATION OF OZONE. WHEN OZONE IS FORMED IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE, AN ATOM OF OXYGEN (O) FUSES WITH A MOLECULE (O2) OF OXYGEN IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE. THIS FUSION IS THE SAME AS THE FUSION IN THE SUN OF THE IONS OF HYDROGEN AND HELIUM, A CONTINUAL PROCESS. IN FUSION THERE IS A RELEASE OF ENERGY. WITH THE FUSION OF OXYGEN OR ANY OTHER ELEMENT, THE FISSION FROM THE FUSION IS EXTREME POWER AND SPEED. HEAT IS THE SPEED OF THE FISSION.

The fusion in the sun of the ions of hydrogen and helium prduces 6 things. Heat, photons, and a neutrino are 3. Hydrogen, Helium, and heavy Hydorogen are the other 3. The speed of the fission from the fusion is stopped at the corona of the sun. On this earth we receive the photons and the neutrinos.

The fusion of an oxygen atom with a molecule of oxygen produces 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 different combinations of elements. God never sleeps, it is a continual process. It is really much more complicated with 3 huge sets of combinations. You have an atom with 8 electrons fusing with a molecule of 16 electrons and on. That is what school teaches you. This is from the web:
http://www.speclab.com/elements/oxygen.htm
Pay close attention to: Liq: Irritant to skin & tissues. THE INHALATION, AT 1 ATM, OF 80% O2 FOR MORE THAN ABOUT 12 HR CAUSES IRRITATION OF RESP TRACT. Is that heartburn, respiratory diseases, or what? There is an Oxygen center in your brain that will shut down the body if it gets too much oxygen or when there is not enough.

Nitrogen is the major element in our atmosphere. In the atmosphere, the fusion of Nitrogen and Oxygen produces what? 56 x 55 x 54 x 53 x 52 x 51 x 50 x . . . x 2 different combinations of elements according to the fission. There is Nitrous Oxide, there is Nitric Acid, and more. We know what Nitrous Oxide does and Nitric Acid causes the rust. Very Irritating. And we fill our bodies with coffee, cokes, vinegar, and more acidic stuff to complete the process of rust. Eat yourself from the inside out while Nitric Acid is from the out side in.

It gets darker and more bleak as the thought grows. Boy, wouldn't it be nice if we did not have these ugly mortal bodies?

Are we causing global warming or is it the sun? I don't think it is either one. For those who think it is a natural thing, that could be if you think it is natural to live and die. But anything that is a part of nature does not die, it is recycled. A bird dies and the spirit of that bird uses the pattern formed inside of its head to form a better creature. On earth, the sun is recycled. On earth, the sun has been recycled to be light and everything else we see. We add more toxins to the atmosphere and the result will be the formation of countless other toxins that God can't use in His body that He created. Who is this God? The birds, the bees, the flowers, the trees, the cattle and the creeping things. We were formed by them to take care of them.

Has anyone ever considered the possibility that weather patterns are most likely cyclical and on a much grander scale than decades? Mother Nature probably works in hunreds, or even thousands of years.

By the way, are you familiar with the Kansas Dust Bowl disaster? There were record heat temperatures associated with this event, many of which still stand. This occurred back in the 30's before there was any such thing as CFC's.

Welcome to the club and yes, our weather patterns do operate on a grand scale, which is why it has already been established because the unaccountable temperature increases didn't raise concern till the 60's and 70's. The IPCC, EPA and all of the other climate scientists already know that even if we were to stop releasing greenhouse gases completely, our temperatures will still continue to rise due to all of the excess C02. It's a matter of how bad do we wan't it to make it...The Dust Bowl was a direct result from over-farming of the land. Decades of agriculture killed a lot of grass and other plants and exposed the soil. When you repeatedly tear up all that land and kill all of those plants, it is going to get warmer and eventually the exposed soil is going to dry up and voila, you have a dust storm, no CFC's needed. I'm glad you brought up this subject because it is a great example of how humans can and do effect our climate.

There's nothing "amatuer" about what I do Reincarnated. I suggest you take your "pop-culture astrology" outlook somewhere else. Ms. Cleo was never an astrologer, and you don't know who got rid of her. If you did, you might show more respect than you do, but, considering how little you know about the physical Sun and how it forces Earth's climate, I am not surprised to see you continue to stoop to newer, and lower levels in your comments. You've not even a distant clue as to what you are talking about. I suggest you take a "reality check" of your own and learn more about the world, and the cosmos you inhabit rather than flipping in your own wig. Jeez.

I'm very much for great reductions in human pollutants, and I am all for living, and working "green." However, I am not for those out there who say one thing, and then do another, and many of the so-called environmentalists pushing this myth of "man-made global warming" are making connections that are not there. Moreover, many lack even the basic understanding of the SUN to so easily dismiss that which is prime to all life, and energy on this planet.

We will never stop global warming, or global cooling for that matter. Humanity has no control over the order of the solar system and the transits. All we can do is be aware of them, pre-act through our knowledge of transits, and adapt to the climate changes that is forced by the transits ~ prime among them ~ those of the SUN.

This planet can be made a nicer place to live, but that has to start with human beings, who don't treat one another very well. If we cannot accomplish this simple feat, just how are we to even think about reversing climate change when we obviously cannot. Who can change the orbit and activity of the SUN?

Out of every single one of your posts, not once have you even shown the slightest evidence that humans are not contributing to climate change. All we get are underlined words and the same sentences repeated over and over...

As usual, another untrue comment of yours Reincarnated. The evidence is right in front of you. Look up. See the Sun? I think that's pretty powerful evidence. Hey bud, listen ~ read what I write. If I said it, then I meant it. Don't try to dumb things down to the point of repeating oneself, because you've done that so often (repeat yourself) that some of your posts have had to been edited with reminders to you not to repeat/repost the same thing. So, don't project your issues onto me, ok pal? 'Nuff said.

The fact that the sun exists is not proof that it is the sole cause of climate change on the earth. Try again.

So you started this thread not to debate global warming but to push your theory about the sun, which is simply a very large fusion reactor we are orbiting from a distance of approx. 93 million miles?

Here is the data on the sun's sunspot cycle, going back 250 years...



Notice we are in a solar minimum, which has been shown through analysis of historical data (such as tree rings) to coincide with lower mean global temperatures.

Here is a more detailed view, including data on the sun's irradiance, going back some 30 years...



Here is the data on the mean global temperature, again going back some 250 years...



So, could you please explain, using your theory, why the mean global temperature has been steadily rising since approx 1910 when the usual solar indicators suggest it would remain steady?

(Notice the total irradiance figures indicate a steady output and the data on the solar cycles indicate no major variation in the number of sunspots.)

excellent point

Thank you, Lt Ripley...

I agree with the premise that the sun (in the main) causes the global cooling/warming cycle. However I have yet to see a definitive argument that there aren't other factors involved...namely us.

There is a very strong connection, the releases of CO2 into the atmostphere( Wich is causing pollution, human pollution) accelarates the global warming and greenhouse effect, mind how I said accelerates, global warming is a natural thing, but human atmospharic polution is accelarating the process, not the sun.

It had been proven that mass amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the atmospharic temperature, just look at Venus. The Ozone hole has nothing to do with global warming but it was caused by humans too. Due to the release of CFC's into the atmosphere. So I totally disgree with you here. Please don't get offended, its not my intent.

I've said the same thing and have shown the same evidence (many times because Theo kept ignoring it). When I finally got him to respond, the best he could come up with is that it is all a conspiracy.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...amp;pid=1646233
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...amp;pid=1647531
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...amp;pid=1648919

Like they say; ignorance is bliss.

To all who believe in "man made global warming"
As long as you continue to use your A/C, drive your vehicle, or any other manner consumption of natural resources that generate greenhouse gasses. You are hypocrites of the first magnitude! If you truly believe in man made global warming then you are worse sinners against the environment than those of us who do not believe global warming is not man made.
Put your actions where your mouths are! What are you personally doing (other than flapping your jaws) to combat the Greenhouse gasses?
Buy a car that gets 60 miles to the gallon, drain your swimming pools (the largest source of CFC's), turn off your A/C learn to live with nature, switch to florescent bulbs (they consume less power) but contain mercury. Don't encourage those nasty manufacturers that spew millions of tons of contaminants into the atmosphere, don't buy their products. Buy products only from green manufacturers.
I do all of these things not because of Global Warming, but to protect the future of the environment for my children and grandchildren.

What I do find amazing is that the leaders of the Global Warming Movement are the ones unwilling to make any sacrifice whatsoever.

Man has never been known for his intelligence in these matters. Quit blaming everyone else and look in a mirror.
If you have acheived this goal then you are a true environmentalist. Only by doing these things do you have the right to argue the points of global warming.

What's more funny.. we're not claiming mad made global warming. Just helped speed it along... and people are still insisting that we're saying man made global warming.

*orders the butlers to switch on every incandescent bulb in his 60 room mansion, leaves heating on to the swimming pool 24x7, gets other servants to drive his fleet of 20 Bentleys around his 1/2 mile driveway until they run out of petrol, then fill up and do it again, orders groundskeepers to chop down every tree on his estate*

Now, what were you saying about me being a hypocrite, sirfiroth?

Seems you've assumed quite a lot about those people who are debating the case for man-assisted global warming without actually knowing anything about them. I'm all for a cleaner, greener lifestyle, but I'll do it without demanding others do the same. If governments pass laws about this I'm sure all the good citizens will comply.

...and, regardless of my personal activities and whether I am a 'true environmentalist', I live in a country where freedom of speech is enshrined in law and so may speak about this issue as I please.

So I can take the easy way out by thinking we aren't accelerating climate change? Yay, now I can live guilt free and live like a pig! How convenient, no wonder so many people deny it! Nothing like blissfull ignorance.

Looks buddy, we are not saying we should stop this activities, we are just saying they should be reduced to a level so that the Earth's tempeture can mantain steady, so we are certainlu not hipocrits. Ass a matter of fact, I do try to reduce the usage of this activities, if you don't believe it then it's your personla problem, but don't call us hipocrits ok?

That's good to hear Leonarado, and it is the prime first towards understanding what is climate change. As for the other "factors" ~ these are not responsible for global warming, and that includes human activity. All climate and weather starts in SPACE first ~ the causes. And the geophysical effects are felt here, on Earth (and the other planets in our solar system.) We have been feeling the causes of global warming on Earth, as we've felt the causes of global cooling on Earth since the dawn of this solar system. It has always been this way.

Human activities on Earth have always used carbon since carbon is natural to the Earth. Our planet's trees provide oxygen and the seas, mountains, the earth, animals, and human's provide the carbon. The SUN regulates all things and drives the our atmosphere, our oceans, and all of our energy. It drives the climate and weather and is the reason for climate changes.

Rather, ask whose solar indicators you are using. If you've read my article, you will easily see the correct data that proves the correlation of the SUN to global warming. It's a no-brainer. Those who cannot see it, well, let's just say they ain't seeing period.

Moreover, define what you mean by the "usual" solar indicators, since the ones you use said the Sun would remain steady ~ however, it has not. A case in point is the heightened solar activity since 1980, which clearly shows how the Sun's activity and peaks matched climate change data ~ just look at the global sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) over that 25-year period. You can find it on page one of this thread.

As for your comment, "about the sun, which is simply a very large fusion reactor we are orbiting from a distance of approx. 93 million miles?" ~ well, that's one way to look at the SUN ~ however, I suggest you take more time to study the Sun as your comments on the SUN continue to sound, well, rather ~ distant ~ along with your spelling of the "sun" in small caps.

Believe me, the Sun is much closer to this Earth than you might think ~ even at 93 million miles, you'd better not look directly into it, or stay out in the Sun too long, or you might get a retina or your skin seriously burned ~ even from 93 million miles away. That should tell you a lot about just how important the SUN is to all life on this planet and why it is the cause of global warming.

This is getting absurd. I've only skimmed this thread but time and again you've made statements to the effect that the sun is the only important driver of climate, as if the terrestrial mechanisms by which the planet's energy budget (yes, of energy received from the sun) is regulated are irrelevent. Without greenhouse gases there would be no liquid water on this planet, regardless of how bad a sunburn one might still get. Life can exist precisely because the sun is only one player in climate dynamics; emitting energy from the sun is only half the battle, absorption and reemission here is equally important.

A few years ago Froelich and Lean constructed a composite record of the Sun's total irradiance since 1976, based on data from five space-based radiometers (in the Dec. 1, 1998 Geophysical Research Letters). They found no upward trend that could account for the warming measured during that period. I would encourage you to read Rind's "The Sun's Role in Climate Variations" (Science 296, 673) for a much broader look at this than you're taken thus far. I'll just quote the conclusion here:



Similarly, Joanna Haigh wrote an interesting Perspectives article in Science in December of 2001 considering the effect solar variability has on climate but (more importantly for this thread) also examining the numerous potential mechanisms by which the solar signal is amplified here on earth. The point of all this being that things happen here too, not just an AU away. No one (as far as I can tell) in this thread is denying that the sun is extraordinarily important. They're just pointing out that the sun is part of a larger puzzle that you would seem to prefer to ignore.

It's useless, Startraveller. I've tried, we've all tried, but Theo thinks he knows. Unless the SUN itself will come down to earth and say "Theo, you're wrong...!" you're wasting your time.

I am not quite sure of your opening statement???
Secondly, Hey if the shoe fits!!!
I sir, never assume anything, it is public records (Utilities, Travel and Consumption of Natural Recources) of the leaders of the Global Warming Movement I am speaking of. They really don't seem very green to me, or do they get a pass?
Sir, do you wish me to think that you represent the typical White Man, very adept at speaking out of both sides of your mouth so aptly demonstrated in dealings with the Native Americans.
Yes Sir, the Constitution does grant us the right of free speech, but it can never insure Morality, that is a personal issue.

I called no one a Hypocrite I mearly defined what it is. You gave yourself that lable!

If this discussion is not about doing what is right the what is the point?
You don't have to convince me there is Global Warming, I am aware of that much, It is laughable that you think we or all the humans on earth together have any control the earth's temprature. It is a matter of ego of the human race to believe we can influence such matters. Let us all put our brains together and whip global warming, YOU FIRST

Discussion without action is mearly Mental Masterbation.

sirfiroth,

How do you rationalise this statement where you discredit Humanity with having any effect or influence on Global Warming (which is an increase in the global temperature)...



...with this statement where you clearly indicate we can affect the global temperature (Global Warming)???

I think you'll find most of the people contributing to this thread are aware the we can help reduce the effect of global warming and most of those people are probably doing something to help - even if it's just using energy efficient lighting in their homes.

psst...I'm not American, btw. Have a peek at my profile

SOLAR SYSTEM TRANSFORMATION
http://www.enterprisemission.com/Bees/thebeesneeds.htm

Were it not for the sudden threat of Colony Collapse Disorder, we were set to publish the newest installment in our on-going "Interplanetary Day After Tomorrow?" article series (started back in 2004), within the next few days. In Parts 2 and 3 of 'Interplanetary', we cited at that time well over 100 different mainstream NASA studies that collectively revealed our entire Solar System is undergoing massive "climate change" ... just like we are now seeing on Earth.

If you think the "local" honeybee problem may be related to this more far-reaching "interplanetary effect," then you're on exactly the right track -- and you're probably a regular listener to "Coast-to-Coast AM" with George Noory and Art Bell to boot!

There have been increasingly serious-sounding reports of "Global Warming" on Mars recently, and some astronomers have suggested other solar system planets are also changing as well, using small, isolated studies of the data. Even though we published our Interplanetary paper three years ago -- again, with over 100 different data sources -- it seems to have gone unnoticed by almost everyone ... both in the mainstream and alternative communities.

We gave official (NASA) climate change data for every planet (except Mercury), and many outer solar system satellites (moons) -- showing dramatic increases in brightness; magnetic field strength; ozone content in the atmosphere; global storms; X-ray activity; and, of course, "good 'ol global warming" -- all across the board. We also pointed out that the Sun is simultaneously experiencing an 11,000-year high in its level of activity (anticipating, again, by three years the latest official warnings that "Solar Cycle 24" will be a "lulu!").

It was a great deal of work to put all that data together, but realistically anyone could have done it -- as it was all from mainstream sources.

Now we know NASA, and the US government, has been actively suppressing objective climate change data here on Earth for years. What about interplanetary climate change: is there any credible evidence that this "big picture" has also been selectively censored ... and, also from the top levels of the US government (and others ...)?

Absolutely.



NASA BLOCKS EVIDENCE OF ENERGETIC CHANGES

As we have demonstrated going back three years -- and with official NASA data -- the physics of our entire solar system is changing, and on the most fundamental levels: planetary temperatures (irrespective of distance from the sun); global magnetic field strengths; even planetary rotation periods ....

The vast volume of the Galaxy immediately outside our system of orbiting planetary objects -- and just outside the influence of the magnetic field of the sun -- is called the Local Interstellar Medium ... or "LISM." If the solar system is changing as much as we've reported from intrinsic HD and torsion effects, we would expect to see an energetic increase in the far more distant LISM as well. A "feedback effect" from the LISM would then be expected on the various "heliosphere" parameters within the sun's magnetic influence, that our most distant spacecraft (the two Pioneers and two Voyagers) are now actively sampling, as they forever leave the solar system -- measurable by such things as "the quantity and density of charged particles" they are finding and reporting back by radio from their extraordinarily remote locations now.

And, if you were a government (or, others ...) who did not want even this type of "unsettling, changing solar system information" to reach "ordinary folks," just to be really safe, you'd probably keep all your bases covered on this esoteric front as well.

And, it looks like "someone" has ....

As Wilcock reported in 2002, NASA scientist Dr. Don Shemansky found the initial "happiness and wonder of scientific discovery" meeting up with a cold, dark, "insidious force" -- the same scientific suppression that led to those recent (at least ...) 294 acts of documented censorship by the US government, against NASA's Dr. Hansen.

Dr. Shemansky, after many years of quiet "suffering," publicly denounced NASA's "persistent, pernicious bias" against ANY research suggesting there is "a charge-up in the LISM." Don't forget that "pernicious" means "deadly, evil and insidious" -- so this is quite an accusation, coming from a physicist! Archive.org (the "Way Back Machine") shows Shemansky's page, carrying this remarkable public indictment of NASA, was first recorded on "February 17th, 2001":



"... research on the properties of the Local Interstellar medium have been carried out in scattered periods beginning in 1978. The NASA Space Physics Division has shown a persistent pernicious bias against work on the effects of the neutral gas in the LISM in the United States, from the time of the formation of the Division…

"The most important contributions to research in this Program are papers ... which present the first evidence for a large increase in the LISM neutral atomic hydrogen density… [emphasis added]."







So, NASA doesn't want Shemansky to share even his extremely esoteric "interstellar research" -- which could ultimately suggest even the vast volume of space surrounding the entire solar system is, somehow, undergoing "a fundamental change in physics." And, this "pernicious NASA bias" on this subject could extend all the way back to 1978, as Shemansky himself indicates.

Someone, even then, really didn't want this getting out ... did they?!

But, does the buck stop with NASA?

No.

Dr. James Hansen's recent testimony reveals that this "pernicious bias" comes from far higher ... directly from the highest levels of the US government itself -- not only the White House -- but, whomever is actually running things .....

Excuse me? "unless the SUN itself will come down to earth and say "Theo, you're wrong...!" you're wasting your time..." Just what kind of comment is that? And "we've all tried?" Who is "we?" Tried to do just what? Jeez.

Oh, come on, Theo, CHILL OUT ! I was just being sarcastic. No malice involved. Can't you take just the tiniest amount of banter? It wasn't intended as a personal attack on you.. If you see it as such, I apologize & will refrain from such base ad hominem attacks for evermore...

Although I disagree, I accept your opinion. I just think that your degree of certitude is unjustified taken the scientific evidence. We'll just have to wait & see.

"We" is all of the users here trying to show you evidence of human-accelerated global warming in hopes of ACTUAL EVIDENCE that refutes it. Saying that the sun heats up the earth and all of these other obvious things really do not make your point. Every time you just ignore the evidence and repeat your line about the "SUN being more important than you think it is", etc. Why don't you offer some PROOF that our CO2 emissions are not effecting the climate? I mean actual numbers from reliable sources, like many have provided on the other side of this argument. All you seem to do is say how little we know about the subject and that the sun is the only reason for climate change. Why don't you prove it?

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=1399900408121222150

If you look at Dubai and realize the environment, it can reach and has reached temperatures of 248 degrees Farenheit in the desert regions. Thinking about that is hard to do unless you think of the daytime sunfilled land on MARS! It might be a little warmer on Mars because they do not have the nice green landscapes that we do here and the liquid water and the oil underneath the land. Does the sun cause the Earth to be so warm? Yes, it really does.

Polar ocean 'soaking up less CO2'
By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News

The Southern Ocean is an important natural carbon sink
One of Earth's most important absorbers of carbon dioxide (CO2) is failing to soak up as much of the greenhouse gas as it was expected to, scientists say.

The decline of Antarctica's Southern Ocean carbon "sink" - or reservoir - means that atmospheric CO2 levels may be higher in future than predicted.

These carbon sinks are vital; they mop up excess CO2 from the atmosphere, slowing down global warming.

The study, by an international team, is published in the journal Science.

This effect had been predicted by climate scientists, and is taken into account - to some extent - by climate models. But it appears to be happening 40 years ahead of schedule.

The data will help refine models of the Earth's climate, including those upon which the predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based.

Of all the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, only half of it stays there; the rest goes into carbon sinks.

There are two major natural carbon sinks: the oceans and the land "biosphere". They are equivalent in size, each absorbing a quarter of all CO2 emissions.

The Southern Ocean is thought to account for about 15% of all carbon sinks.

Sink efficiency

It was assumed that, as human activities released more CO2 into the atmosphere, ocean sinks would keep pace, absorbing a comparable percentage of this greenhouse gas.

The breakdown in efficiency of these sinks was an expected outcome, but not until the second half of the 21st Century.

Lead researcher Corinne Le Quere and colleagues collected atmospheric CO2 data from 11 stations in the Southern Ocean and 40 stations across the globe.

Measurements of atmospheric CO2 allowed them to infer how much carbon dioxide was taken up by sinks. The team was then able to see how efficient they were in comparison to one another at absorbing CO2.


Climate models take part of the effect into account
"Ever since observations started in 1981, we see that the sinks have not increased [in their absorption of CO2]," Corinne LeQuere told the BBC's Science in Action programme.

"They have remained the same as they were 24 years ago even though the emissions have risen by 40%."

The cause of the decline in the Southern Ocean sink, the researchers explain, is a rise in windiness since 1958.

This increase in Southern Ocean winds has been attributed to two factors.

The first is the depletion of ozone in the upper atmosphere, which changes the temperature of this region.

The second is recent climate change, which warms the tropics more than the Southern Ocean.

Both these processes change atmospheric circulation over the Southern Ocean, resulting in stronger winds.

Churning waters

Oceans store much of their CO2 in deep waters. But, explained Dr Le Quere, "as the winds increase, the water in the ocean mixes more".

The British Antarctic Survey (BAS) scientist added: "The CO2 that would normally be in the deep ocean and would just stay there instead gets brought up to the surface and outgasses to the atmosphere."

The ocean surface becomes saturated with CO2 and cannot take up any more from the atmosphere.


Corals are vulnerable to ocean acidification
Dr Sus Honjo, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Massachusetts, US, is working on a separate project to assess the efficiency of the Southern Ocean carbon sink, using a different method.

He said recent developments in technology now made possible very detailed monitoring of marine carbon sinks, with some data available in real time.

"We have been way behind the modellers, who are hungry for numbers. But now we are starting to catch up because of the new tools and instruments available," he told BBC News.

Dr Honjo said recent evidence suggested the north-western Pacific appeared to be another significant CO2 sink.

As CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, it makes them more acidic, harming populations of marine organisms such as coral. The latest study suggests that phenomenon will only get worse over the century.

"The problem is that the extra CO2 from human emissions stays in the surface ocean and does not get removed to deep waters," said Dr Le Quere.

"So the problem gets worse, because the biological organisms affected by ocean acidification live, of course, at the surface where there is sunlight."

Paul.Rincon-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

When Carbon, the C in CO2, binds with O2, Di-oxide, it becomes heavy and falls to the ground or to the ocean. Every atom or molecule has receptors. When you breathe CO2, your body does not recognize the Oxygen because the Carbon has the receptors blocked. Just like water, H2O. Hydrogen is the lightest element so it is going to rise to the top. The CO2 will not react with H2O, Carbon is like a rock to Hydrogen, but the CO2 still has Oxygen so the CO2 will stay CO2 in H2O. All animal life, all flesh, is Carbon based so the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more wonderful looking creatures are going to be on the bottom of the sea! What we need to do is start pumping oxygen in big cities, you know, gigantic oxygen tanks on top of buildings. I really wonder what that would do?

You call that "banter?" Hey, if you are trying to be funny, then, be funny, but don't write in a manner where a person can't tell the difference and then respond with "chill out." Jeez. That's your responsibility. Not mine. As for my "degree of certitude" ~ you'll learn that everything is not based on personal opinions, and that some people actually know what it is that they are talking about. That has nothing to do with a person's "ego" or changing facts because the personal sensibilities of others are somehow disturbed. Who cares? What does personal sensibilities have to do with the laws of astrophysics and geophysics? As for waiting for what you call "scientific evidence" ~ perhaps you ought to discover that the evidence of solar-forced global cooling and global warming has been out in the public for many years. It isn't new to those in the know.

What's to prove? It is a known fact. Moreover, I've provided the numbers, and the facts of the matter, not some bland statement that "the sun heats up the earth." It's like saying that we need to prove that oxygen exists. If you don't know that the Sun is responsible for climate change on this planet (and all the other planets in our solar system) then "proof" is not something that you require. Ignoring evidence? Of what? Man-made global warming? There is no evidence of that and this very point is the theme of my thread. I mean, come on.

You are so predictable. You totally miss the point every time, I've already given up.

I am anything but predictable Toxic Flood. You don't know me. Moreover, exactly what is your point? Try making one without assuming that you've accounted for space weather that directs all climate change on this planet ~ specifically ~ the SUN.