not buying this global warming

[Belial]

that graph shows an increase that follows the industrial revolution right through to now, it's mans need for oil based motion and energy that as caused the problem.

[Lt_Ripley]

great reply about Dr. Shariv's article on the web about global warming --------------- http://forums.freep.com/viewtopic.php?p=66162

The article you have obviously referenced completely misrepresents his works and views. Shaviv’s work involving cosmic rays highlights their role in long-term climate regulation. By long-term I mean from thousands of years to geological periods, much longer than people have had the ability to influence climate, which at the most is a couple of thousand years since the dawn of large scale agriculture.

His work deals with long suspected processes such as the Milankovich Cycle and eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit and a cosmic phenomenon known as the faint young son paradox. In short, Shaviv questions the role of atmospheric carbon at a geologic time scale and his work has no validity regarding the anthropogenically enhanced greenhouse effect.

If you want to talk about hard science, there is plenty of it to back up the hypothesis of global warming. The physics are there, as is the chemistry. Changes in solar activities can not explain the recent heating of the Earth. They can explain a very small portion, but not a majority. You have completely misinterpreted Shaviv’s work, if you have even read it. I suspect you simply read a distorted synopsis of his work you found on the internet.

Lastly, your statement,

“Forth, Now I know many of you will dismiss this as some right wing wacko blather, but, unlike the Democrats, I have an open mind and have enough intellectual curiosity to to continue to look at both sides of an issue. Global Climate Change is most likely happening, however, this has happened many times on this planet before, and long after we are gone it will probably continue to happen.”

demonstrates your bias and lack of knowledge on the subject matter. The last sentence dealing with recurrent climate change, which does happen naturally by the way just not like this, highlights the lack of logic in your argument. Simply put, the current warming is happening at a far greater rate than it would naturally, why is that? It is because the levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are higher than they have been in thousands of years and due to land use and land cover changes, more long wave radiation is being released from the surface and captured by said gases.

The scientific consensus that you speak of is based on large amounts of empirical data that has been collected an analyzed by the climate community. The hard science is there. The physics to back it up is there. All you have to do is look, and as you said, all you have to do is look at the information with an open mind to see it. Scientific information has been grossly misinterpreted by the public and media for years. Remember when researchers first suspected a link exists between the rotation of glacial and interglacial periods and changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun and axial tilt?

To this day, many people will claim that science predicted that we would enter into another ice age soon. This is a misinterpretation of the science. It was stated that under normal conditions the planet was due to begin moving into a period of glaciations, not that the planet would be. One misspoken word, one misinterpreted result, deliberately or indeliberately changes the perception of science. I suggest doing your homework because you sound like an unknowledgeable skeptic despite all of your efforts to the contrary.

[Lt_Ripley]

hhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmm

"Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

1. Fred Singer:

In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [9]

However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1

In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. SEPP, however, received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including 1998 and 2000. In addition, Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states that he served as a consultant to several oil companies. The organizations Singer has recently been affiliated with - Frontiers of Freedom, ACSH, NCPA, etc. - have recieved generous grants from Exxon on an annual basis.

[receivingendofsirens]

yes i understand back 20-30 years ago the big alarming threat was that it was global cooling and yes we havnt seen an ice age yet, but we are very very much due for one is you base them on the timescales throughout history.

as it has been proven that 75 percent of the known galciers around the world are not retreating at all. some are static some are growing in size.

By long-term I mean from thousands of years to geological periods, much longer than people have had the ability to influence climate, which at the most is a couple of thousand years since the dawn of large scale agriculture

then you should know that the earth has been much hotter, without our influence, in the history of this planet? that the parts per million has reached 600 ppm millions of years ago? or that its a fact that when the earth breaches the 300+ppm mark we start transitioning to ice age?(thats fact by the way).

i look at the whole picture instead of just Co2 and greenhouse gasses. we as humans didnt cause it.

have you also looked at any of the geological parts of it yet? and how they are finding more and more Co2 dumping hotspots on the ocean floor than ever have known? or the fact that there is 400 degrees C thermal vents under the arctic ice cap? or the new lava plateau they have found that spills out 2,150 degree F lava out at a constant rate that is 8 miles long? dont ya think that would heat up the waters and the earth?

we cannot change the global climte in that amount of time no way and science is out there proving it different. i have posted the graphs, the articles stating otherwise. so to sit here and call me an idiot is quite rude when i have came up with very good information.

just because i dont believe in what you preach, doesnt make me an idiot. hell they thought einstein was a complete wacko, crackpot and look what he acchieved and he was one man. just because the numbers are against it doesnt mean they are right.

there are other things involved than just this "global warming" bologne. i dont buy it because i read evidence to the contrary from good sources. sorry mine doesnt come from government paid sources like the ipcc, nasa, etc.

find me evidence that doesnt have ipcc, nasa, al gore, the blah blah coalition of global warmign scientists, and then i will give it a good hard read, because all they are is pollitcal outfits.

i want pure pure pure science without politics at all. thats what i have been posting.

[Raptor]

1. When Mt. St. Helen erupted in 1980, (a large, but not uncommonly so eruption, as volcanoes go) it dumped into the air more Carbon dioxide, monoxide, sulfur and other "green house" gases and pollutants than the entirety of mankind has since we discovered how to harness fire. This is just one eruption of one volcano.

So how much carbon dioxide do you propose was released by Mount St. Helen?

_ _ _ _ _

How much CO2 did Mount St Helens' eruption in 1980 release into our atmosphere? Can you give me some idea of how much CO2 volcanoes add to the atmosphere generally?

I don't have an exact number. At Mount St Helens the maximum measured emission rate was 2.2X10^7 kg per day. The total amount of gas released during non-eruptive periods from the beginning of July to the end of October was 9.1X10^8 kg . I do not have an estimate for the volume of CO2 released during the Plinian eruptions. As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15 kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2. Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from man-made sources. For more detail, see Morse and Mackenzie, 1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates.

Scott Rowland, University of Hawaii Steve Mattox, University of North Dakota

[Click]

~~~

Mount St. Helens produces between 500 and 1,000 tons a day of carbon dioxide, he estimates.

Nothstein, of the state energy office, says the Centralia coal plant puts out about 28,000 tons a day. Statewide, automobiles, industries, and residential and business heating systems emit nearly 10 times that amount.

Gerlach, who often gets calls from power-plant operators and oil-company executives who believe nature is just as responsible for global warming as man. His answer always disappoints them.

"I tell them the amounts don't even come close and I usually never hear from them again."

Worldwide, people and their activities pump 26 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, he said. The total from volcanoes is about 200 million tons a year — or less than 1 percent of the man-made emissions.

[Click]

~~~

2. All the forests of the earth account for about only 3-8 percent of the CO2 (and other polutants) removed from the air. The rest (between 92 and 97 %)? The ocean, via plankton and algae.

Juvenile forests are responsible for removing carbon dioxide. As soon as a forest begins to mature a near equilibrium is reached, in which young tree's remove carbon dioxide and older tree's release carbon dioxide (via decaying matter). If you cut down vast areas of vegetation, not only will carbon dioxide no longer be removed from the atmosphere, but large amounts will be contributed.

It simply doesn't matter which percent of the carbon dioxide removed is down to forests, there's a relatively low threshold.

Basically you have to realize just how big the Earth is. And how powerful. We as humans, with the exception of Nuclear waste, have very little chance of effecting the planet on a global scale.

Maybe you aren't aware of it, but humans are a global force.

On a local scale, yes. Industry can pollute and harm, but the Earth has ways of taking care of itself.

We're adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and restricting the Earth's mechanisms which are responsible for removing the carbon dioxide. You do the math. Unfortunately global warming is only one of the ecological problems posed by industry.

[IamsSon]

Great information folks, amazing what truth is out there if people are willing to open their eyes and stop buying what the media is selling. People need to remember that the only reason we have TV channels we don't pay for is because they're paid by advertisers.

[Lt_Ripley]

Published on Friday, February 2, 2007 by the Guardian / UK

Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study

by Ian Sample

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

now how many more keep it quiet ? just like bushco - more rotten under the skin.

[Lt_Ripley]

Disappearing Plankton

The ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide may be at risk. Presently oceans are absorbing about 2 billion tons of carbon annually [3] . A report in Nature, August 1995, suggests that the oceans may be losing fixed nitrogen, an essential fertilizer that allows phytoplankton to grow. Phytoplankton absorb and fix carbon that is then transferred to the deep ocean. If in fact the oceans are losing nitrogen as they warm, they will tend to absorb less carbon, boosting the rate of carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere. [24]

Plankton are a major carbon sink in addition to the forests, other green plants, the permafrost, the earth's soil and atmosphere. Plankton take in about half of all the world's CO2, using the carbon for growth, while releasing oxygen during the process of photosythesis. During the past 20 years there has been a stark decline, more than 9%, in primary production of plankton, while in the same period plankton of the North Atlantic has decreased by 7%. Less plankton; less carbon uptake.Watson W. Gregg, a NASA biologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland says that the greatest loss of phytoplankton has occurred where ocean temperatures have risen most significantly between the early 1980's and the late 1990's. In the North Atlantic summertime sea surface temperatures rose about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit during that period, Gregg said, while in the North Pacific the ocean's surface temperatures rose about 7/10ths of a degree.(San Francisco Chronicle, David Perlman, Science Editor, October 6, 2003). See NASA Report on Ocean Plant Life Absorbing Less Carbon

In the Arctic, loss of sea ice associated with warming could result in the diminution of phytoplankton populations. This could lead to ‘knock-on effects’ throughout the Arctic food chain, including declines in the stocks of several key prey species of cetaceans, such as copepods and plankton-feeding fish, including Arctic cod, a key prey species for narwhal and beluga whales. Warming and the attendant ice melt might result in greater stratification of the water column and decreased nutrient resupply, limiting the growth of phytoplankton populations that are a critical link in the cetacean food chain in the region. See Report by William Burns, Director of Communications & Research Associate, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security

Research suggests a positive feedback scenario, where more intense storms roil oceans and cause the latter to release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. [36]

[Lt_Ripley]

Loss of Carbon Sink: Warming Tundra & Thawing Permafrost

Tundra

Tundra is usually defined based on vegetation, areas covered by bushes, grass and low vegetation. It also includes colder and dryer desert-like landscape with little or zero vegetation. The tundra is found in areas north of the taiga (the northernmost pine tree forest). (84) The tundra, located near or inside the polar regions, covers 1/5th of the world's land surface.The tundra is warming and as it warms, it is leaking carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. The process is another of the positive feedback scenarios, that will increasingly inhance climate change.[58]

Worldwide, about 50 gigatonnes of carbon are estimated to be held in a frozen state in the tundra, and now the tundra is beginning to become a source of carbon dioxide. In the 1970's University of California biologist Walter Oechel studied carbon dioxide emissions in the tundra, which until this time had been thought of as a carbon sink. Doing further tests in the 1980's, Oechel discovered that this was no longer the case, that warming temperatures had changed the tundra to a net emitter of carbon dioxide. Says Oechel, " We found to our great surprise that the tundra was already losing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. So that by the start of these experiments, which was in 1982, the tundra had already warmed and dried enough, that its historic role as a carbon sink had reversed and changed. It was now losing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. That was totally unexpected."

[Lt_Ripley]

yes i understand back 20-30 years ago the big alarming threat was that it was global cooling and yes we havnt seen an ice age yet, but we are very very much due for one is you base them on the timescales throughout history.

as it has been proven that 75 percent of the known galciers around the world are not retreating at all. some are static some are growing in size.

then you should know that the earth has been much hotter, without our influence, in the history of this planet? that the parts per million has reached 600 ppm millions of years ago? or that its a fact that when the earth breaches the 300+ppm mark we start transitioning to ice age?(thats fact by the way).

i look at the whole picture instead of just Co2 and greenhouse gasses. we as humans didnt cause it.

have you also looked at any of the geological parts of it yet? and how they are finding more and more Co2 dumping hotspots on the ocean floor than ever have known? or the fact that there is 400 degrees C thermal vents under the arctic ice cap? or the new lava plateau they have found that spills out 2,150 degree F lava out at a constant rate that is 8 miles long? dont ya think that would heat up the waters and the earth?

we cannot change the global climte in that amount of time no way and science is out there proving it different. i have posted the graphs, the articles stating otherwise. so to sit here and call me an idiot is quite rude when i have came up with very good information.

just because i dont believe in what you preach, doesnt make me an idiot. hell they thought einstein was a complete wacko, crackpot and look what he acchieved and he was one man. just because the numbers are against it doesnt mean they are right.

there are other things involved than just this "global warming" bologne. i dont buy it because i read evidence to the contrary from good sources. sorry mine doesnt come from government paid sources like the ipcc, nasa, etc.

find me evidence that doesnt have ipcc, nasa, al gore, the blah blah coalition of global warmign scientists, and then i will give it a good hard read, because all they are is pollitcal outfits.

i want pure pure pure science without politics at all. thats what i have been posting.

27] The United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. "The Potential Effects of Climate Change on the United States" (Joel B. Smith and Dennis Tirpak, eds.) Washington, D.C.

[29] Hastenrath, S., and P.D. Kruss, February 1992. Greenhouse indicators in Kenya. Nature. Volume 355. p.503-504.

[34] "Geochemical Consequences of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Coral Reefs," Joan A.Kleypas et al., Science, April 2, 1999

50]U.S Global Change Research Program

[51] Report titled 'Confronting Climate Change in California' by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and The Ecological Society of America, 1999 p.17, published by UCS Publications, Cambridge, MA.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), ranking member on the Government Reform Committee, has just released a series of emails from the Department of Commerce that suggest that Bush officials “tried to suppress a federal scientist from discussing the link between global warming and hurricanes.â€

In a letter to Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Waxman details how CNBC requested an interview with NOAA scientist Tom Knutson in October 2005 — one month after Hurricane Katrina — “to discuss whether global warming is contributing to the number or intensity of hurricanes.†the request for the interview with Dr. Knutson was subsequently denied. Knutson

told the Wall Street Journal he felt censored.

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20060...05731-66383.pdf

waxman emails - http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20060...01130-14873.pdf

we have escalated it - or didn't you read what I had posted earlier ? of course you didn't .

what are your sources other than one theory and right wing big business rhetoric?

Edited March 3, 2007 by Lt_Ripley

[Lt_Ripley]

then you should know that the earth has been much hotter, without our influence, in the history of this planet? that the parts per million has reached 600 ppm millions of years ago? or that its a fact that when the earth breaches the 300+ppm mark we start transitioning to ice age?(thats fact by the way).

source please

global warming has , by the numbers , increased over all. those are hard facts. not the freak heat wave or snow storm or hurricane season , but over all it has increased. Ocean levels have risen twice as fast this decade.

A tree's rings can tell us more than just its age: Researchers from Columbia University are looking at them to find the history of global temperature increases. The rings, which typically grow wider during warm years and narrower during cooler ones, have helped scientists create a climate change chronology that, in some cases, can track back as far as 262 AD. Evidence from ancient Mongolian trees has so far matched data from tree rings in North America, Europe and western Russia, showing a steady increase in global temperature from the 1870s onward

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/gmaps/climate-change/

Simply put, the current warming is happening at a far greater rate than it would naturally, why is that? It is because the levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are higher than they have been in thousands of years and due to land use and land cover changes, more long wave radiation is being released from the surface and captured by said gases.

The scientific consensus that you speak of is based on large amounts of empirical data that has been collected an analyzed by the climate community. The hard science is there. The physics to back it up is there. All you have to do is look, and as you said, all you have to do is look at the information with an open mind to see it. ...................many people will claim that science predicted that we would enter into another ice age soon. This is a misinterpretation of the science. It was stated that under normal conditions the planet was due to begin moving into a period of glaciations, not that the planet would be. One misspoken word, one misinterpreted result, deliberately or indeliberately changes the perception of science. .............

Edited March 3, 2007 by Lt_Ripley

[Lt_Ripley]

even if a global warming or cooling is natural --- why would big business be so against better practices to clean up this globe? why would any skeptic?

that is the bottom line of global warming as far as man goes - man's contribution to it. it isn't what happens naturally , but mans increase in it's speed.

so your either for a cleaner healthier world or your not. it's that simple.

[brave_new_world]

It's sad how fast people will follow whats waved in front of their noses.

I think anyone who believes in the Global Warming fad that is sweeping the world needs to look at a few facts first.

1. When Mt. St. Helen erupted in 1980, (a large, but not uncommonly so eruption, as volcanoes go) it dumped into the air more Carbon dioxide, monoxide, sulfur and other "green house" gases and pollutants than the entirety of mankind has since we discovered how to harness fire. This is just one eruption of one volcano.

2. All the forests of the earth account for about only 3-8 percent of the CO2 (and other polutants) removed from the air. The rest (between 92 and 97 %)? The ocean, via plankton and algae.

3. A recent Discovery Channel documentary showed that we are in fact in the middle of an uncommonly CALM phase in weather history. As noted by miles of ice cores from Greenland, We have been lucky.

4. Only about 25% of the Glaciers in the world are retreating. The rest are static or growing.

Basically you have to realize just how big the Earth is. And how powerful. We as humans, with the exception of Nuclear waste, have very little chance of effecting the planet on a global scale. On a local scale, yes. Industry can pollute and harm, but the Earth has ways of taking care of itself.

As an aside, the inconvienent truth, someone needs to ask how much Al Gore made off of that film. And see how "green" Gore is. I'm guessing that private jet and limo aren't running off solar power. And to think he wants to stage a world wide tour of eco-friendly bands, with a show in Antartica. How much pollution would that bring to the ice shelf there? How much extra energy would have to be generated to hold those concerts? How much extra CO2 would all those writhing, mosh-pitting concert goers be breathing out into the atmosphere? Come on, there is obviously economic and or political gains intended here, and everyone getting scared is just adding to the fire of it. Don't believe everything your fed.

Good post mate.

[receivingendofsirens]

thank you brave new world...

even if a global warming or cooling is natural --- why would big business be so against better practices to clean up this globe? why would any skeptic?

that is the bottom line of global warming as far as man goes - man's contribution to it. it isn't what happens naturally , but mans increase in it's speed.

so your either for a cleaner healthier world or your not. it's that simple.

its not about that though.... the earth has its own ways of cleaning the world up.... its the ice age... when it all coems down to it the earth and the solar cycles decide the fate of humans and the earths progress.... right now yes we are on an accelerated path of warming but thats not because of us. it has in part to do with the sun and the geothermal parts of the earth. there are many volcanoes aroudn the world looking to erupt in massive proportion. we cant control that at all. so if there is a massive eruption like say pompei for example, global warming is out the window. the earth will cool itself because of the blanket of ash and Co2 in the air and will have the opposite effect.

everyone forgets to remember that C02 is the main elemnet in fire extinguishers. Co2 can also make this world very cool so the mass amount of Co2 in the air will only accelerate the process of and ice age in the event of a dormant solar cycle.

there are so many factors to just say that this or that is gonna happen. thats why "global wamring" is just theory at this point. global temperature rise is apparent but doesnt mean global wamring

[Raptor]

its not about that though.... the earth has its own ways of cleaning the world up.... its the ice age

During the past few millions of years the Earth's climate has fluctuated, but it still keeps returning to generally the same state. Is that because the Earth has the ability to 'repair' itself and wants to maintain this climate? No. It's just a cycle that has developed.

it has in part to do with the sun and the geothermal parts of the earth.

How?

there are many volcanoes aroudn the world looking to erupt in massive proportion. we cant control that at all. so if there is a massive eruption like say pompei for example, global warming is out the window. the earth will cool itself because of the blanket of ash and Co2 in the air and will have the opposite effect.

No. Volcanic winters have nothing to do with carbon dioxide at all, they are caused by aerosols. Carbon dioxide acts as a blanket, there's no denying that.

everyone forgets to remember that C02 is the main elemnet in fire extinguishers.

That's nothing to do with the carbon dioxide being cold, it works as a fire extinguisher because it starves the fire of oxygen, which is required for combustion to take place.

Co2 can also make this world very cool so the mass amount of Co2 in the air will only accelerate the process of and ice age in the event of a dormant solar cycle.

Through which mechanism?

global temperature rise is apparent but doesnt mean global wamring

That's most non-sensical thing I've read in this thread so far. How do global temperatures rising not indicate global warming?

Unless you mean to suggest that it doesn't necessarily indicate that the commonly accepted mechanism of global warming is true...?

Edited March 4, 2007 by Raptor X7

[receivingendofsirens]

How?

the sun goes through various cycles and has shown that in dormant cycles of the sun, no matter whats happening on earth the global temperature cools down. when the solar cycle is very active, it warms the global temperature. its pretty much that simple really.

just a few weeks ago there was a massive solar flare that was one of the strongest ever recorded since we were able to record solar flares and sun spots. it registered x17.

how does underwater volcanic activity warm the earth? well the earths heat is transferred throughout the world really by ocean current. when the ocean warms the earth is going to warm.

Scientists Discover Undersea Volcano Off Antarctica

– 31 May 2004 – Scientists have found what they believe is an active and

previously unknown volcano on the sea bottom off the Antarctic Peninsula .

The international science team from the United States and Canada mapped

andsampled the ocean floor and collected video and data that indicate a major

volcano exists on the Antarctic continental shelf.

Eugene Domack, the expedition's chief scientist, said the volcano stands

700 meters (2300 feet) above the seafloor and extends to within roughly

275 meters (900 feet) of the ocean surface in an area known as Antarctic

Sound, at the northernmost tip of Antarctica .

He noted that there has been "no previous scientific record of active

volcanoes in the region. The volcano is unusual, Domack said, in that it

exists on the continental shelf, in the vicinity of a deep trough carved out

by glaciers passing across the seafloor.

In addition to mapping, the research team used a bottom-scanning video

recorder, rock dredges, and temperature probes to survey the sides and

crest of the submarine peak. The video survey revealed a surface that is

heavily colonized by bottom-dwelling organisms.

But a dark mat of underwater life broken along the edges of the volcano

by barren patches of dark, black rock indicate that lava has recently flowed

there.

Source

9 Jan 06 – The plateau is located in the Mid Ridge in the Indian Ocean about 500 miles east of Mauritius, said Professor Tamaki Ura, director of the University of Tokyo's Underwater Technology Research Center.

This is presumed to be not only the biggest lava plateau in the Indian Ocean but also one of the biggest in the world," Ura said. Their submersible vehicle "also spotted hydrothermal eruptions on the northern part." (In other words, it’s volcanically active!)

Measuring about 8.8 miles by 1.7 miles at a depth of about 8,860 feet, the plateau is covered with lava some 980 feet thick.

Source

How Global Warming Could Cause The Next Ice Age

While global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm of the Bush administration, and Al Gore's recent conference on the topic during one of the coldest days of recent years provided joke fodder for conservative talk show hosts, the citizens of Europe and the Pentagon are taking a new look at the greatest danger such climate change could produce for the northern hemisphere - a sudden shift into a new ice age. What they're finding is not at all comforting.

In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world. Here's how it works.

Source (for the rest of the atricle. too long to post)

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said

Source

1992, when Mt Pinatabu erupted it colled the earth dumping millions and millions of volcanic ash into the atmosphere and it actually cooled the earth.

Stromboli of the coast of siciliy just blew its top a few days ago and is still sumping vapor, aerosols, Co2 etc. into the atmostphere.

[Raptor]

So do you have any links to papers which mention that geothermal and solar activity is rising in accordance to the temperature rises on Earth?

[Rae41]

A wise man once said follow yourself and not the masses. After reading this thread I understand why this man was considered wise. Just because mainstream media (and people) says man is the reason for global warming and throws tidbits of data at the subject don't make it the truth.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Rae41

[Raptor]

A wise man once said follow yourself and not the masses. After reading this thread I understand why this man was considered wise. Just because mainstream media (and people) says man is the reason for global warming and throws tidbits of data at the subject don't make it the truth.

How have you gotten that from reading this thread? All I've seen so far are lots of hypotheses with either false, or no data to support them.

Some times the croud is right.

[Roj47]

the sun goes through various cycles and has shown that in dormant cycles of the sun, no matter whats happening on earth the global temperature cools down. when the solar cycle is very active, it warms the global temperature. its pretty much that simple really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity

I have my reservations about Wikipedia, but not all of it can be wrong, and a lot of it can be checked should you have the time.

[Rae41]

How have you gotten that from reading this thread? All I've seen so far are lots of hypotheses with either false, or no data to support them.

Some times the croud is right.

IMHO, it's rather simple. Facts, whether you get them from man-made global warming argument or its opposition, can change from one minute to the next. So rather than following blindly the crowd I read all I can on all sides then come to my own opinion.

The crowd all too often rush to judgement based on propaganda, initials behind names , job titles,or so called statistics/data without ever looking objectively at the other side of the issue or ever asking themselves who would gain by them buying into such facts.

All I've seen so far are lots of hypotheses with either false, or no data to support them.

Yes I would agree with you. That can be said on both sides of the issue of "global warming". Do I know unequivocally this planet is not going through a "solar or man-made global warming"? No but from what I've read on the subject neither do anyone else.

Lets say hypothetically the "global warming" argument is true, what on earth can you or I do about it? Yes we can go back to living like cavemen/women but how would that help the environment if (according to the proponents of "global warming") the damage has been done and we're doomed?

I've posted this before and I'll do so again. Governments are ran by PEOPLE, people who are concerned (as you and I) about their own preservation.

Destroying the planet would mean destroying mankind, these people may like wars and creating hardships for others, they are not about to cause their own demise. Logic dictates if my driving a large SUV and powering my house with a fossil fuel would cause havoc to the environment those things wouldn't be available for me to purchase much less use, if deemed so hazardous it would destroy this world. There would be no debates on global warming, the governments of the world would collectively not allow their citizentry use of any products that would add to the ultimate destruction of this world.

Sounds like many people are looking for the absolute truth on this issue and they won't find it.

Edited March 6, 2007 by Rae41

[IamsSon]

And more info keeps coming pointing to the bright yellow ball in the sky, which has been heating the planet for millenia as the *GASP* cause of Climate Change.

Sun Responsible for Global Warming

Two new reports cast doubt on the manmade global warming theory and instead point to another cause for the recent warming of Earth — changes in the sun.

One report from National Geographic News asserts, "Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate changes have a natural — and not a human-induced — cause, according to one scientist’s controversial theory.”

Data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey mission in 2005 disclosed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps” near Mars’ south pole had been shrinking for three consecutive summers.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the shrinking provides evidence that the current warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun, according to the National Geographic article.

Story Continues Below

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,” he said. "Manmade greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance.”

The other report offers a mechanism behind the changes in the sun — variations in its magnetic field.

Compiled by scientists at the Danish National Space Center, it maintains that the Earth’s climate is strongly influenced by cosmic rays from exploded stars.

The cosmic rays help make ordinary clouds, and high levels of rays and cloudiness cool the planet, while lower levels of radiation lead to milder temperatures, according to the Danish report, which is cited by Marc Morano, communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, on the committee’s Web site.

"Cosmic ray intensities — and therefore cloudiness — keep changing because the sun’s magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming from the galaxy before they reach the Earth,” the Danish report by Henrik Svensmark, head of the Space Center, explains.

Whenever the sun’s magnetic field was weak, cosmic ray intensities were high and the climate cooled, most recently in the little ice age that climaxed 300 years ago.

Several scientists cited in the report believe that changes in the Earth’s climate are linked to "the journey of the sun and the Earth through the Milky Way Galaxy. They blame the icehouse episodes on encounters with bright spiral arms, where cosmic rays are most intense.”

[receivingendofsirens]

Two Main Scientific Frauds of the Kyoto Protocol

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." —Mark Twain

Stable climate oscillations have been estimated from annual tree-ring growth. 5,6,7 The reconstruction showed that the only difference in the modern warming of the Northern Hemisphere from previous warming periods consists of its occasional coincidence with the current technical progress. So it seems that changes in Northern Hemisphere temperature for almost 100 years often correlate well with the growth in the number of cars and engines on our planet, as well as the amount of fuel they burn.

The coincidence of the above mentioned independent processes has formed the "scientific basis" for some climatologists. They believe that modern industrialization is catastrophically warming up the planet. Carbon dioxide (СО 2 ) is formed in the process of burning fuel. These climatologists think that this СО 2 , like the glass above a greenhouse, covers an atmosphere, causing the rise in air temperature. As a result, they try to impose this incorrect climatic script on the whole world.

There are two principal mistakes in the "scientific foundation" of the U.N. Kyoto Protocol:

1. There have been many periods in the earth's geological history when it was warmer and the atmosphere contained more СО 2 than present (0.03 percent). The proponents of the Kyoto Protocol use this correlation as proof of effective greenhouse influence on the atmosphere. In fact, the increase in СО 2 is due to a natural increase in temperature of the surface of the ocean water. The warmer the climate and oceans, the more СО 2 is released from the oceans to the atmosphere. It is a well-known chemical fact: СО 2 escapes from water at heating periods. There is strong evidence that increases in СО 2 concentrations happened centuries after the increases in temperatures. 8 The result of warming (isolation of СО 2 ) was intentionally commingled with the reason of the existence of the warm climate periods.

2. Terrestrial air holds heat better than carbon dioxide (СО 2 ). The saturation of the atmosphere by additional amounts of СО 2 always leads to cooling-off tendencies of the air. Theoretical estimations showed that replacement of an existing nitrogen-oxygen (78 percent/21 percent) blend in the earth's atmosphere for the СО 2 (100 percent) would result in cooling of the terrestrial surface by almost 2°Ð¡ 9 (http://macroevolution.narod.ru/sorohtin.htm).

Nature is wiser than human beings. When the climate becomes warmer, nature extracts from the terrestrial waters additional portions of СО 2 gas, which is very useful for plants at that time. With this evidence, one can see assumptions about global warming being related to the modern industrial boom and its "greenhouse gas effects" are simply incorrect.

Climate Change and Pollution Are Not Connected

"Bad taste is simply saying the truth before it should be said." —Mel Brooks

An excellent coincidence or highly significant correlation between computer-generated global air temperatures 5,7 and independently restored ones 6 for as long as 1,200 years (see graph) shows that the mathematical model accurately describes the oscillations of Northern Hemisphere temperatures for 14 periods ranging from 7 to 1,029 years. The simulated and reconstructed curves capture many of the same events that have occurred on the decade and central scale. This empirical physical model can be used for climatic forecasts and reconstruction for at least the next 1,500 years.

The modern global warming-up (1920 to 2035 years), past and future significant cooling-off and warming-up tendencies are caused by adding together all modeled climatic oscillations, especially periods of 230, 515 and 1,029 years, formed inside the solar system 7 . That is why climate change is not connected with industrial "greenhouse gases" in any way. All long-term changes of the Northern Hemisphere temperatures have a natural origin and oscillatory character (see graph).

Movements toward pure water and clean air should deal with local and regional pollution problems, which have nothing to do with the global climate change.

In particular, the pollution of the atmosphere's lower layers in Canada and Russia influences only their own territories. At latitudes of these countries, air streams move mainly from the west. These countries are bordered on the east by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, where air is cleansed naturally.

Sources of contamination and areas of their harmful influence can be easily detected. They cannot be managed by the Kyoto Protocol's global rules, which have not scientific basis.

We have to work out national and international laws and regulations that would make polluting manufacturing processes unprofitable.

Who Is Guilty and What Should We Do?

"To be or not to be? That is the question." —William Shakespeare

Model forecasts based on periodicity of climatic processes reliably predict future global cold spells. Now, on the earth, we have one of the warmest and most favorable periods of our glacial epoch. For the last one million years, intervals favorable for life have constituted no more than 10 percent of time. Periods similar to a modern climate were no more than 1 percent. All ancient civilizations, including ours, came into being during the interglacial warming period, which is now coming to an end. Only 12 thousand years ago, glaciers had covered—fully or partially—the territories of Alaska, Canada, the countries of Europe, Russia, Ukraine, and China and a new glacier period is approaching.

To preserve the infrastructure of our civilization, it is necessary to artificially decrease the climatic fluctuations and stabilize global temperatures. We need to learn how to preserve a warm climate as soon as possible. The first significant temperature drop will tentatively start in 2035. To control the climate, it requires significant preliminary expenditures of time and resources. We need to start scientific and experimental studies directed at controlling natural energy fluxes in the near earth space and at the earth's surface. Since the minimum experimental cycle should be 22 years, we need to hurry up!

The programs of the Kyoto Protocol should be reexamined since they endanger our civilization. On the eve of severe natural climate changes, they direct studies, money flow, and propaganda along an incorrect path. From the very beginning, temperature drop will cause the shutdown of the northern seaways and will radically hinder production and delivery of hydrocarbons and other minerals. Northern countries, with the help of the entire world, must urgently begin to study, design, and build technical systems for dealing with the future temperature drops.

Theres much more to this article here (source)

Edited March 5, 2007 by receivingendofsirens

[receivingendofsirens]

Scientific `consensus' on global warming doesn't exist

The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summary, released Feb. 2, states that it is ``very likely'' that changes in climate are due to human influence. More recent comments in various media outlets have focused on a scientific consensus which supports the panel's conclusions. Those who question this consensus have been compared to Holocaust deniers, and some have been threatened with job dismissal. This is no longer science, but scientific socialism. I do not agree with all of the IPCC conclusions and know through peer discussions that the idea of a consensus in the meteorological community is false.

The IPCC was formed under U.N. auspices, and while each expert contributed a few pages of the report, the final publication was vetted through governmental committees before release, where significant changes could be made. The documents signed by the contributing experts note that they agree with the pages they contributed, but not necessarily the complete report nor its conclusions.

There are a number of inconsistencies in the report. The most glaring is that the models on which the conclusions depend do not agree with various sets of observations. Following are a few specific examples: The summary notes an increase in mean sea level of 7 inches during the 20th century, with a forecast rise of an additional 7 to 23 inches by 2100. Observations, however, do not agree with these predictions. Stockholm, which has the world's longest sea level measurement record of about 1,200 years, has shown increases in sea level of only plus-or-minus 0.06 inches per year, with an average very close to zero; these observations are well below the model predictions.

The Pacific Island nation of Tuvalu , barely above sea level, has requested permission to move its people to Australia or New Zealand, based on the predicted sea level rise. However, satellite data and sea level measurements indicate falling sea level at the island. The models predict that temperature increases will appear first at the poles. However, data published after the release of the IPCC Summary indicate that temperatures in the Antarctic have not increased during the previous 50 years. Those data frequently quoted in the media of increasing temperatures are only from a small region occupied by scientists; the Antarctic region as a whole does not show rising temperatures.

Away from the earth's surface, models predict that temperature trends should show a strong increase with height, particularly in the tropics. However, observations indicate upper atmosphere temperatures showing flat or decreasing temperature trends.

Research has also shown that slight changes in energy from the sun can significantly affect the earth, particularly in terms of clouds, which are a weak link in the global warming models. The level and amount of cloud can determine whether temperatures will warm as the cloud layer limits heat dissipation to space or whether temperatures will cool as the sun's incoming energy is reflected back to space before reaching the Earth's surface.

Temperature has fluctuated significantly in the past, with shorter-term cooling and warming trends of about 1,500 years superimposed on long-term cycles of ice ages and glacial melting. The 1,500-year cycle includes the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, which together extended from about 900 to 1850 A.D. During the former, literature and archaeology provide evidence that the Vikings found grapes in Newfoundland, naming their new settlement Vinland. The Little Ice Age was associated with major diseases which were rampant, due at least partially to the cold weather. As the Arctic ice edge advanced, Inuit hunters in kayaks were observed as far south as Scotland around 1700.

Clearly, these changes were not due to human influence. It has yet to be determined whether we are in a warming period which is part of the normal climate cycle.

Is it worth destroying our economy and lifestyle based on an unproven theory which does not correlate with historical observations?

Source

[receivingendofsirens]

The Globe Is Warming – and the Sky Is Falling

Inconvenient Truth or Convenient Deception?

As with so many other topics, any viewpoint that does not agree with the "mainstream" views is snuffed by the mainstream media. We can find many credible scientists that are not very concerned about human-induced global warming. They may agree that there is some global warming and that part of it could be from industrial emissions; however, they may not feel it is such an urgent issue. Instead of following the data, which there is certainly not enough of both temporally and geographically to make a firm conclusion, let us generate some alternate understanding of our comprehension and ability to predict the future.

Look at the North American jet stream. It currently flows from west to east and dips and twists across the continent. A little more or less fluctuation has a pronounced effect on the climate including variations in temperature in the tens of degrees and not in fractions as postulated by "global warming". Now, consider how long the continent has supported humans – thousands of years at a minimum. How long have humans known of the jet stream and how much comprehensive data do we have on its behavior? Not very much. What causes the flow of the stream? No conclusive data exists. We can conceive that the rotation of the Earth, gravitational pull of the moon and tides and water currents all affect its flow. Certainly a volcanic eruption or other massive natural event will alter its course. Now how do we know the thing will continue to flow from west to east? Maybe the atmosphere will spontaneously and ever-dynamically rearrange so that it flows more from north to south or south to north or even east to west. It is not at all impossible to imagine. Obviously the climate would change drastically, orders of magnitude above what is predicted by the "warmers".

Let us not ignore the fact that man, with his ever-amazing wisdom and instinct for self-preservation, has polluted this globe. It is a shame of course, but not a definitive cause of global warming (if it does in fact exist). The planet is highly dynamic and self-regulating. How can the "experts" who can barely tell you the temperature for tomorrow within a few degrees or the amount of precipitation within an inch be able to predict a fraction of a degree in a decade? Averages? What fraction of the Earth’s area is computed in those averages? A very small amount. Maybe if we measured 100 times as many geographic points, the data would show a global cooling. It happens over periods of 10,000s of years anyway. Glaciers were in the Southeastern USA. It is not logical to give merit to the warming predictions. And do not confuse the political scientists by giving them all the facts, they have already made up their minds, and their conclusions will bring them fortune and fame. Just look at Al Gore’s Oscar! Hollywood has become both honest and sincere (NOT).

The main point is that it is important to collect as much of the available facts as possible before making any conclusions about a phenomenon. Listening to Al Gore or the mainstream media will certainly lead most to believe we are doomed by our own actions. Considering only the opposition will determine that there is nothing to worry about. However, if both arguments are considered objectively, one might conclude that there is no overwhelming evidence either way about man-made global warming. And that man’s contribution to climate can be snuffed in no time by Mother Nature herself. In fact, the planet has hosted a plethora of species that have come and gone as a result of natural weather deviations. Life goes on and the world adapts as it would with or without any contribution from Homo sapiens. The fallacy widely accepted up until the 1600s was that the Earth is the center of the universe and the latter revolves around the former. This same ignorance leads people today to still believe that the Earth was made for man and he is its master. Anyone who has experienced a tornado or earthquake or hurricane or tsunami might question this. Mark Twain said that if the Earth were the Eiffel Tower, man would be the top coat of paint at the very tip. We need to put things in perspective. It gives a warm feeling to accept Hollywood’s depiction of global warming and its noble efforts to save us all from ourselves – this echoes big brother’s intents exactly. And the Oscars went green! How many of the stars walked or rode the bus or their bicycles instead of taking limos or Hummers? Have a look at their electric bills. It is reminiscent of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh who collected the fortunes of educated and affluent people on the belief that material possessions were evil, yet he had fleets of private jets and Rolls Royce cars. How many actors or politicians or academics would be willing to give up their comforts and live in rustic cabins to save the human race? Who in Hollywood is ever concerned with the facts, other than in their own financial and career advancements?

We will never become enlightened and free to experience life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness until we learn to think for ourselves and reject the sensational generalizations of the ruling class. Thomas Jefferson said, "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." Americans of all sects should learn about the logical thought process and the scientific method. It will help in all aspects of life and lead to a real understanding of the world. And then maybe we can pull together and fix the true problems that we face. It is unlikely that our "leaders" will solve these problems; it is their mindset that created them.

Source