FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Latest on Global Warming Bunk
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 22, 23, 24  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 410
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yup - I know what you mean. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Financial Post
Friday, January 12, 2007

The science is settled” on climate change, say most scientists in the field. They believe that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are heating the globe to dangerous levels and that, in the coming decades, steadily increasing temperatures will melt the polar ice caps and flood the world’s low-lying coastal areas.

Don’t tell that to Nigel Weiss, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge, past President of the Royal Astronomical Society, and a scientist as honoured as they come. The science is anything but settled, he observes, except for one virtual certainty: The world is about to enter a cooling period.

Dr. Weiss believes that man-made greenhouse gases have recently had a role in warming the earth, although the extent of that role, he says, cannot yet be known. What is known, however, is that throughout earth’s history climate change has been driven by factors other than man: “Variable behaviour of the sun is an obvious explanation,” says Dr. Weiss, “and there is increasing evidence that Earth’s climate responds to changing patterns of solar magnetic activity.”

The sun’s most obvious magnetic features are sunspots, formed as magnetic fields rip through the sun’s surface. A magnetically active sun boosts the number of sunspots, indicating that vast amounts of energy are being released from deep within.

Typically, sunspots flare up and settle down in cycles of about 11 years. In the last 50 years, we haven’t been living in typical times: “If you look back into the sun’s past, you find that we live in a period of abnormally high solar activity,” Dr. Weiss states.

These hyperactive periods do not last long, “perhaps 50 to 100 years, then you get a crash,” says Dr. Weiss. ‘It’s a boom-bust system, and I would expect a crash soon.”

In addition to the 11-year cycle, sunspots almost entirely “crash,” or die out, every 200 years or so as solar activity diminishes. When the crash occurs, the Earth can cool dramatically. Dr. Weiss knows because these phenomenon, known as “Grand minima,” have recurred over the past 10,000 years, if not longer.

“The deeper the crash, the longer it will last,” Dr. Weiss explains. In the 17th century, sunspots almost completely disappeared for 70 years. That was the coldest interval of the Little Ice Age, when New York Harbour froze, allowing walkers to journey from Manhattan to Staten Island, and when Viking colonies abandoned Greenland, a once verdant land that became tundra. Also in the Little Ice Age, Finland lost one-third of its population, Iceland half.

The previous cooling period lasted 150 years while a minor crash at the beginning of the 19th century was accompanied by a cooling period that lasted only 30 years.

In contrast, when the sun is very active, such as the period we’re now in, the Earth can warm dramatically. This was the case during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings first colonized Greenland and when Britain was wine-growing country.

No one knows precisely when a crash will occur but some expect it soon, because the sun’s polar field is now at its weakest since measurements began in the early 1950s. Some predict the crash within five years, and many speculate about its effect on global warming. A mild crash could be beneficial, in giving us Earthlings the decades needed to reverse our greenhouse gas producing ways. Others speculate that the recent global warming may be a blessing in disguise, big-time, by moderating the negative consequences of what might otherwise be a deep chill following a deep crash. During the Little Ice Age, scientists estimate, global temperatures on average may have dropped by less than 1 degree Celsius, showing the potential consequences of even an apparently small decline.

Dr. Weiss prefers not to speculate. He sees the coming crash as an opportunity to obtain the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions on climate change, and the extent to which man-made emissions have been a factor.

“Having a crash would certainly allow us to pin down the sun’s true level of influence on the Earth’s climate,” concludes Dr. Weiss. Then we will be able to act on fact, rather than from fear.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation.

Nigel Weiss, professor emeritus of mathematical astrophysics in the University of Cambridge, discovered the process of “flux expulsion” by which a conducting fluid undergoing rotating motion acts to expel the magnetic flux from the region of motion, a process now known to occur in the photosphere of the sun and other stars. He is also distinguished for his work on the theory of convection, and for precise numerical experiments on the behaviour of complicated non-linear differential equations. Nigel Weiss is a recipient of a Royal Society Citation, he is a past President of the Royal Astronomical Society, and a past Chairman of Cambridge’s School of Physical Sciences. He was educated at Clare College, University of Cambridge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hocus Locus

Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 850
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If we're at a tipping point, I'd put my money on a single horse, albedo.

A book, Federbush/Feck's "Ice" [1978], years before The Day After Tomorrow ripped it off

The book glossed over the science, yet did so in a direct and 'honest' way, presenting it correctly as a multi-aspect synergy in which natural cycles are at work, to focus on the drama; the movie does the same, a bit less honestly IMO by treating us to a glimpse of one aspect -- thus showing the disaster's trigger via the aspect humankind has the least capability to affect, ocean currents. And the movie seems to end before the glaciers start growing and moving. Glaciers would affect overall planetary albedo big time.

I am no climatologist, but my survival intuition tells me there are many more ways mankind can increase albedo than decrease it. Contrails' effect on cloud formation, mean surface temperature being but one recent such 'surprise', pollution reaching the Arctic from Europe being another. Anything that brings moisture towards the dry polar regions brings weather there, and if the method by which it occurs also begins to block the effects of sunlight, seasons aren't so seasonal anymore. Could feedback begin that would end in a period of a less seasonal world: where the ice ends, drought begins? I don't know, and with all the warming hoohah and (relatively recent!) widening of the view away from a myopic fixation on chemical composition of atmosphere -- I'm not sure how sure we can be.

What Happens Once Global Warming is at Full Power?
Mario Aguilera or Cindy Clark // 858/534-3624 // scrippsnews@ucsd.edu
For Release: December 20, 2006

One trend in pollution has been diminishing the effects of another, but as particulate emissions are contained, their disappearance from the atmosphere will unmask the true impact of global warming

One of the parameters that allows Earth to sustain life is its ability to reflect solar radiation, but to this day there is no existing theory that explains how the planet's "albedo," or reflectivity, is achieved or maintained.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego scientist V. Ramanathan has pondered planetary albedo for years but argues that the topic now warrants a serious examination from the greater scientific community. As two consequences of pollution-global warming and global dimming-influence Earth's climate, their trends could jeopardize a condition now optimally set to support life.

Percentages of the sunlight that is reflected from Earth's surface and atmosphere vary widely. Fresh snow and some clouds, for instance, can have albedos greater than 50 percent while dark surfaces such as the surface of the ocean reflect less than five percent of the light that strikes them. Clouds overall double the planetary albedo. Earth and the atmosphere as a whole maintain an albedo that hovers around 29 percent.

Ramanathan notes that if Earth's albedo were to increase only three percent, the resulting climate change would throw the planet into an ice age. A three-percent decrease would create a severe heating effect comparable to that caused by a sixfold increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, far greater than anything projected by today's climate models.

Global warming and global dimming both have the potential to alter Earth's prevailing albedo through complex climate feedbacks. Ramanathan suggests there is evidence that they already have. Despite their common origin in human activities, however, they have done so in ironically contradictory fashion.

In the past century, industrial and agricultural activities have generated an infusion of particulate pollution into the atmosphere. Inputs of soot and other aerosols into the atmosphere have made the planet dimmer by limiting the solar radiation that reaches its surface. The phenomenon also impacts human health by exposing people to smog and on agriculture by limiting the production of rain-bearing clouds.

Human activity has also introduced unprecedented concentrations of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, causing the planet to trap more heat and retain more water vapor. After correctly predicting in 1980 that global warming would be detected by 2000, Ramanathan observed at the end of the 20-year period that the amount of warming was roughly half what he'd predicted. The stifling of the warming trend is generally attributed to a counteracting cooling effect caused by global dimming, an inference that has since been supported by data collected by Ramanathan and others from a number of field campaigns.

But what will happen when the counterbalance is eliminated? Already Western nations have been successful in reducing particulate pollution and Ramanathan believes emerging nations, most importantly in south Asia, will soon follow suit. As one form of pollution is eliminated, the mask concealing the true impact of global warming will be stripped away. He predicts an acceleration of warming trends to take place in coming decades but what that means for cloud formation, hydrological cycles and other events that affect albedo is unknown.

"We're sort of in uncharted territory when it comes to what happens 30 or 40 years from now," Ramanathan said.

Related to AGU Fall Meeting 2006 "Bjerknes Lecture: Global Dimming and Its Masking Effect on Global Warming"

Scripps Institution of Oceanography: scripps.ucsd.edu
Scripps News:scrippsnews.ucsd.edu

Maximum distance from the sun: 94 million 537 thousand miles
Minimum distance from the sun: 91 million 377 thousand miles
Mean distance from the sun: 92 million 957 thousand and 200 miles
Mean orbital velocity: 66000 miles per hour
0rbital eccentricity: 0.017
Obliquity of the ecliptic: 23 degrees 27 minutes 8.26 seconds
Length of the tropical year: equinox equinox 365.24 days
Lenght of the sidereal year: fixed star fixed star 365.26 days
Length of the mean solar day: 24 hours and 3 minutes and 56.5555 seconds at mean solar time
Length of the mean sidereal day: 23 hours and 56 minutes and 4.091 seconds at mean sederial time
Mass: 6600 milion milion milion tons
Equatorial diameter: 7927 miles
Polar diameter: 7900 miles
Oblateness: one 298th
Density: 5.41
Mean surface gravitational acceleration of the rotating earth: 32.174 feet per second per second
Escape velocity: 7 miles per second
Albedo: 0.39
Albedo: 0.39
Albedo: 0.39
Albedo: 0.39
Albedo: 0.39
Albedo: 0.39
Albedo: 0.39

~Vangelis: "Albedo 0.39" [1976], spoken, years before Enigma ripped it off
Why did the board post my edit as a new post? Didn't notice, will now try to delete it. Wish me luck;)

Last edited by Hocus Locus on Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Albedo 0.39 (1976) was actually by Vangelis, Hocus...
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Hocus Locus

Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 850
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hm, I am not able to delete this superfluous message but I can modify its content. So this message intentionally left blank. This has been a vacant code announcement.

Last edited by Hocus Locus on Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:39 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3861

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gawd Exclamation

This story is quite old but it's regaining traction now. I can just imagine Jimmy Swaggert saying something along the lines of:

"Save God's planet. Let God back into your atmosphere, for $50.00 or more."


US evangelists take action on environmental issues


Fri, Feb 10, 2006

MAJOR CONCERNS: While leading evangelists called on US President George W. Bush to act, scientists highlighted the pressing nature of global environmental problems

Friday, Feb 10, 2006, Page 7
Dozens of leading US evangelists went public on Wednesday with a call for their faithful to press the administration of US President George W. Bush into action on climate change.

Eighty-six influential evangelists yesterday endorsed an environmental action plan that calls on the Bush administration to impose mandatory limits on the fossil fuel emissions that scientists blame for warmer temperatures.

The initiative marks a rare challenge to Bush from one of his most loyal constituencies: his fellow Christians. Bush, a former Texas oil man, has refused to acknowledge the dangers caused by burning fossil fuels and his administration has repeatedly been accused of stifling scientific evidence on the issue of climate change.

Wednesday's signatories include the national commander of the Salvation Army, Todd Bassett, the author of the bestselling The Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren, the editor of Christianity Today, David Neff, and Duane Litfin, the president of Wheaton College, the leading Christian university.

However, the environmentally minded evangelists were not joined by prominent conservative figures such as Pat Robertson and James Dobson, who insist there is little evidence of the harmful effects of global warming.

"Our commitment to Jesus Christ compels us to solve the global warming crisis," the leaders said in an advertisement prepared as part of a campaign to convince Christians of the dangers of climate change.

"As evangelical Christians, we believe that we're called to be stewards of God's creation, and after considerable study, reflection and prayer we are now convinced it's time for our country to help solve the problem of global warming." they wrote.

They said they were also guided by the moral obligation to help the poor and the marginalised, who were the worst hit by flood, famine and other calamities.

The evangelists claim recent polling suggests widespread concern about the health of the planet, and that 54 percent of evangelicals believed it to be a Christian duty to support environmental issues.

The initiative came as scientists announced yesterday that global warming is already causing death and disease across the world through flooding, environmental destruction, heatwaves and other extreme weather events.

In a review published in the Lancet medical journal, the scientists said there was now a near-unanimous scientific consensus that rising levels of greenhouse gases would cause global warming and other climate changes.

The scientists' review of dozens of scientific papers over the last five years said that health risks were likely to get worse over time as climate change as well as other environmental and social changes deepened.

The review said climate change would bring changes in temperature, sea levels, rainfall, humidity and winds.
This story has been viewed 1289 times.

atm :roll:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 6:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's more on the environmentalist link-up with Evangelicals at Prometheus here:


A number of prominent scientists -- including the well-known James Hansen, Judy Curry, Paul Epstein, and Rita Colwell -- have joined with the National Association of Evangelicals to advocate for political action on climate change. They released a statement (PDF) yesterday which stated:

"We believe that the protection of life on Earth is a profound moral imperative. It addresses without discrimination the interests of all humanity as well as the value of the non-human world. It requires a new moral awakening to a compelling demand, clearly articulated in Scripture and supported by science, that we must steward the natural world in order to preserve for ourselves and future generations a beautiful, rich, and healthful environment. For many of us, this is a religious obligation, rooted in our sense of gratitude for Creation and reverence for its Creator."

Here at Prometheus we often call out scientists who hide their political agendas behind science, particularly on climate change. But in this case, there is none of that, to these scientists' credit. These scientists are explicit about their political values and their efforts to use a seemingly "strange bedfellows" association with a major religious group to influence the political process (PDF).

The role of science in policy and politics is much more straightforward when scientists clearly identify when they are advocating for values that they strongly hold, rather than suggesting that it is science that compels particular political outcomes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8358

PostPosted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:40 pm    Post subject: Global Warming?? Reply with quote

About The Subtle Difference Between
global warming, and 'Global Warming'


'Global Warming' is a box-set of greatest media hits:
CO2 Causes it, and we are to be ripped off for oil and
taxed relentlessly to counter the threat of submersion.
It comes in a slick presentation pack with a cute ribbon.

It's a complete myth.


Whereas, global warming is something that is definitely
happening. The main reason seem to be solar output.

Solar activity has been up for 50 years. It may have
peaked already. Nobody knows for sure. Earth could
be cold in 50 more years. The troposphere has neither
warmed nor cooled appreciably. The Gulf Stream is
speeding up -not slowing. Sea levels are where they
were 300 years ago.

The real threatening environmental issues are the
current level of toxic pollution. The real issue with
CO2 is acid rain from coal-powered electricity plants:
a health -destroying, soil-selenium-depleting disaster.

China is a nightmare. It's headed to make Eastern Europe's
communist environmental catastrophe look like a health farm.

The Central Committe has told the regional mafias to clean
up their pollution act. The local elite capitalists have told the
Central Committee to go fuck itself.

That's the reality.


China chokes on a coal-fired boom

Michael Sheridan -The Sunday Times - December 31, 2006

Toxic cloud of progress can be seen from space

A GREAT coal rush is under way across China on a scale not seen anywhere since the 19th century.

Its consequences have been detected half a world away in toxic clouds so big that they can seen from space, drifting across the Pacific to California laden with microscopic particles of chemicals that cause cancer and diseases of the heart and lung.

Nonetheless, the Chinese plan to build no fewer than 500 new coal-fired power stations, adding to some 2,000, most of them unmodernised, that spew smoke, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere.

It is the political fallout of that decision that is likely to challenge the foundations on which Britain and other developed nations have built their climate change policy — even as there are signs that ordinary Chinese citizens are at last rebelling against lives spent in poisonous conditions.

Cloaked in swirling mists of soot particles and smoke, cities such as China’s “coal capital” of Datong are entering the coldest period of winter in which demand for power and heating produces the worst pollution.

It is often darkness at noon in Datong, just 160 miles west of Beijing, where vehicles drive in daytime with their headlights on to grope through the miasma.

One of the four filthiest towns in China, it stands at the heart of the nation’s coal belt in Shanxi province, a region that mines more coal every year than Britain, Russia and Germany combined.

Cancer rates are soaring, child health is a time bomb and the population, many of whom are heavy cigarette smokers, are paying the price for China’s breakneck rush to riches and industrialisation — an estimated 400,000 premature deaths nationwide because of pollution every year.

Now, for the first time, the Chinese media have reported a revolt among the choking citizens of Shanxi. More than 90% of people surveyed by the provincial bureau for environmental protection said economic growth cannot go on at such an appalling cost.

That puts them on a collision course with their rulers — the same survey, reported by the China Youth Daily, found that 90% of mayors and local cadres opposed any moves to protect the environment that might slow the economy.

It is not hard to find the reason why. One mine boss in Shanxi named Zhang owns three Rolls-Royces of different colours plus a fleet of other luxury cars for his extended family, according to the Chongqing Morning Post, a daily newspaper.

While normal people die of polluted air and water, officials use mineral water to wash their vegetables and even their feet,” said Yue Jianguo, an analyst, commenting on the Shanxi survey.

“People can’t tolerate the pollution any longer but officials only care about their political achievements of hitting targets for growth. If this policy isn’t stopped, China will become a land where there are only graves, no people.”

Coal is king in China. The nation’s hunger for energy appears insatiable. Oil, costing more than $60 (£31) a barrel, is too expensive. Nuclear power is a distant option. Giant hydroelectric projects, such as the Three Gorges Dam, generate a mere fraction of the demand. Wind power and other alternative technologies make a minimum impact.

So China is digging furiously and fast in more than 21,000 mines. Last Wednesday Zeng Peiyan, a vice- premier, disclosed that coal output had doubled in the past five years. The nation will use 2.5 billion tons in 2007.....

....The upside of China’s dynamic growth, however, is offset by its disastrous side effects. “If we don’t protect our environment, our economic miracle will soon come to an end,” said Pan Yue, the outspoken head of the government’s state environmental protection bureau.

Acid rain falls on one third of China’s land, most of our biggest seven rivers are poisoned, a quarter of our people have no clean drinking water and a third of them breathe polluted air,” he said. China is not bound by the Kyoto protocol, the international agreement to limit emissions of climate-changing gases.

Now Britain and other signatories to the controversial Kyoto accords face the prospect that they may in effect be made redundant by Chinese growth — plus the fact that the United States, which remains the world’s biggest polluter, has refused to sign.

“China is a developing country and we must protect our state interests and reject any duty on us,” declared a government statement.

Paradoxically, China’s emissions of sulphur dioxide, whose particles reflect sunlight back into space, are so huge that they are slowing global warming, say some scientists. But this will be gradually overwhelmed by its output of carbon dioxide, which warms the atmosphere.

Foreign countries are doing their utmost to persuade the Chinese of the merits of change.

A team of scientists from the bioenergy research group at Birmingham’s Aston University is helping to pioneer a technique to burn coal along with “biomass” of rice husks, straw, crop wastes and reeds.

Yet Beijing has proved unable to compel local leaders to spend money on filters that could cut sulphur emissions from smoke stacks by 95%. Nor will they buy new western technology for power stations, which could operate more cleanly and efficiently.

In the capital itself, however, authoritarian orders will ensure that athletes at the 2008 Olympics breathe freely: the worst coal-burning polluters have moved out and those that remain must shut for the duration of the Games. That pristine image will be a temporary illusion.

In the provinces of northern China’s coal belt, where perpetual fires burn in abandoned coal seams and entire villages occasionally subside into collapsed mineshafts, a clean future seems a distant dream — and the smoky deposits of soot mean that the Rolls-Royces have to be washed every day.


One third of fish species in Yellow River dead

By Clifford Coonan in Beijing - 19 January 2007

Human encroachment, pollution, overfishing and dam-building have killed one third of fish species in the Yellow River, China's second-longest waterway. Its increasingly desperate plight is also threatening economic growth.

The mighty Yellow River once made its away along 3,395 miles through nine provinces, supplying water to more than 150 million people and watering 15 per cent of China's scarce agricultural land.

Where once the river teemed with many different types of fish, it now is a graveyard. "The Yellow River used to be host to more than 150 species of fish, but a third of them are now extinct, including precious ones," an official from the Agriculture Ministry told the People's Daily newspaper....


CHINA: Pollution From Chinese Coal Casts a Global Shadow

by Keith Bradsher and David Barboza, The New York Times June 11th, 2006

One of China's lesser-known exports is a dangerous brew of soot, toxic chemicals and climate-changing gases from the smokestacks of coal-burning power plants.

In early April, a dense cloud of pollutants over Northern China sailed to nearby Seoul, sweeping along dust and desert sand before wafting across the Pacific. An American satellite spotted the cloud as it crossed the West Coast.

Researchers in California, Oregon and Washington noticed specks of sulfur compounds, carbon and other byproducts of coal combustion coating the silvery surfaces of their mountaintop detectors. These microscopic particles can work their way deep into the lungs, contributing to respiratory damage, heart disease and cancer.

Filters near Lake Tahoe in the mountains of eastern California "are the darkest that we've seen" outside smoggy urban areas, said Steven S. Cliff, an atmospheric scientist at the University of California at Davis.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:25 pm    Post subject: the shaky science? Reply with quote

I'm not even going to pretend to understand the scientific data being thrown back and forth on the issue of global warming. But my question to the skeptics: is it the distortion of science that upsets you or the issue as a controlling, apocalyptic rhetorical device?

I'm still thinking about this, but I can see why environmentalists, or any salesman, would want to paint the most extreme image they can in order to get humans to think about their consumer excesses, corporate pollution, toxins and destruction of beautiful, ecological sustainable land for real estate purposes. And if they can fool politicians into actually acting what's so terrible about that?

I may not like the tactics of animal rights activists, but its hard to argue that we'd probably be healthier and less environmentally destructive is less people ate meat and that clubbing baby seals is totally pointless.

Other questions I now have:
Does this NASA chart mean that ocean temperatures are not rising?
Are coral reefs are dying for other reasons?
What about the Artic iceshelf?
Was the Mad Cow scare real?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:50 pm    Post subject: Re: the shaky science? Reply with quote

Sorry that should have read:
" its hard to argue WITH THE NOTION that we'd probably be healthier and less environmentally destructive is less people ate meat and that clubbing baby seals is totally pointless.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:12 pm    Post subject: Ice Ages Cause Global WArming Reply with quote

My view of global warming is shaped by the concept of ice ages. The past ten ice ages have been cycling at exactly 100 thousand year intervals, and the next one is scheduled to begin now. Now means within the next few centuries. Ice ages are always preceded by global warming, which particularly means an increase in ocean temperatures. Ocean temperatures are much more significant that air temperature. The oceans are said to have a heat capacity of 1,000 times that of the atmosphere. This means oceans greatly influence air temperature, but air does not easily influence ocean temperature.

Here's a graph of ocean temperature over the past few ice age cycles. It shows an increase in ocean temperatures of about 6°C before the temperature reversal of each ice age. The present ocean temperature is only 0.2°C lower than the peak at the beginning of the last ice age. The importance of this fact is that it overrides nearly every other fact about global warming. Regardless of what humans do, there is going to be a precipitous cool-down within the next few centuries. Humans have no ability to influence ice age cycles.

Warmer oceans mean increased global precipitation, which has been quite noticeable for about 30 years. Ice melting around the Arctic has resulted in milder winters throughout the U.S. The increased rainfall and longer growing season has extended the corn belt westward into the plains resulting in bumper harvests of corn and soybeans.

There is no valid mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming. The claim that it does is based upon the simplistic fact that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation better than nitrogen and oxygen do. But CO2 absorbs to extinction in about 10 meters. More CO2 only shortens the distance slightly, while convectional currents mix it around and remove any relevance for short distances. To rationalize the distance effect, propagandists claim that shorter distances result in more cycles of absorption and emission being required for the energy to get into outer space. That logic is not valid, because the absorption of infrared radiation is followed by instantaneous conversion into heat. The heat is distributed to the nitrogen and oxygen stopping the cycles after the first one near the earth's surface. This means that more CO2 does not result in more heat in the atmosphere, regardless of how much heat the first 10 parts per million added.

On top of that, humans cannot influence the amount of CO2 in the air, because oceans regulate it to the most minute degree. Carbon dioxide is highly soluble in water, which means it establishes an equilibrium between the amount in the air and the amount in the oceans. Warmer oceans release more, as do salty oceans. Therefore, the amount of CO2 in the air tracks with ocean temperatures. This is why CO2 levels follow "global" temperatures during an ice age, not because CO2 creates the result. As a demonstration of this, measurements of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere show a slight increase when an El Nino is heating the Pacific Ocean, and the measurements normalize when the El Nino disappears.

If oceans were not regulating, there would not be a definable amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Compare it to a warehouse containing a product. There doesn't have to be any relationship between the amount of product in the warehouse and the amount being manufactured. Considering the huge amount of CO2 in the oceans, if regulation were not occurring, there would be so much in the air that life would be impossible.

So where do propagandists get their numbers? The numbers are totally contrived.

I have more details on my web site here:

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8358

PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:01 pm    Post subject: Wolly Sweaters Time Reply with quote

Terrific post!

Shroom: Ocean temperatures are much more significant
that air temperature. The oceans are said to have a heat capacity of
1,000 times that of the atmosphere
. This means oceans greatly
influence air temperature, but air does not easily influence ocean

A killer point.

Shroom: On top of that, humans cannot influence the
amount of CO2 in the air, because oceans regulate it to the most minute degree.

No arguing with that. The solubility of a gas in a liquid is basic science and
the mechanism is unstoppable. Global warming fanatics insist that layers
in the ocean prevent normal solubility working, but you tacke that
argument on your website also.

Anyway, all that is largely irrelevant becaue of your next point:

Shroom: Warmer oceans release more (CO2), as do salty
oceans. Therefore, the amount of CO2 in the air tracks with ocean

So warmer oceans release more CO2. Folks you can check this in your
bath at home. Suppose you put bath essences into a cold bath. Then you
do the same with a hot bath. Which do you reckon will smell up the
bathroom more? Hot or cold bath with essences?

Ok, clearly the historic emission of CO2 by warming oceans prior to ice
ages beginning --did not prevent the subsequent ice age from

But, Gary: could the impact of agricultural clearance of forests over the
last few millenia possibly stave off the imminent (albeit centuries to go)
ice age? Or could the current unusually active solar cycle help prevent
the coming ice age?

Here's the background article:

The Battle against... Global Cooling!
BreakForNews.com, 18 Aug, 2005 by Fintan Dunne, Editor

The Earth's climate is your responsibility too, so buy a gas-guzzling
SUV, burn plenty of fossil fuels; and keep asking yourself are you doing
enough to keep global cooling at bay?

Because, the incessant hype over 'global warming' may turn out to be a
dreadful mistake, if some scientists' more long term assessments of
climate change proves right.

They say that without the presence of greenhouse gasses over the last
8,000 years we might already be well on the way to another mini-ice age.

A study by William Ruddiman, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences and his team at the University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia has shown that if ancient agriculturists had not systematically cleared forests, planted crops and raised domesticated herds, global temperatures today would be an average of two degrees centigrade lower....

MORE: http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/GlobalCooling.htm

On your website you say a nuclear hot spot rotating in the earth's core is
the cause of this ice age phenomenon. If so, why does this cause such
sharp spikes in ocean temperatures? (as seen in your graph below)

One would expect a more smoothed graph with gradual cyclic changes in
ocean temperature. Why the dramatic spikes? Maybe feedback loops?

I highly recommend that people read Gary's articles:

Global Warming: The cause is oceans heating, not greenhouse gases

The Cause of Global Warming is not Carbon Dioxide or Humans

Heat in the Earth's Core
It seems likely that ice ages on earth are caused by a nuclear hot spot in
the core rotating toward the surface and heating the Pacific Ocean......
...It's quite significant that a large number of coral reefs are dying from
over-heating. Humans are not causing the oceans to over-heat; it
appears to be caused by heat from the earth's core.


Theory on Hot Spot Rotating within the Earth

Climate and Ice Ages

Isn't it nice when someone with a fully-functioning brain applies themselves
to the "global warming" issue. More horse sense in these five articles
than in all the material on the subject which I have read.

Shroom: The present ocean temperature is only 0.2°C lower than the peak at the beginning of the last ice age.
The importance of this fact is that it overrides nearly every other fact about global warming.

See what I mean!

Deeply ironic that the mainstream is flailing about with industrial CO2
issues, which are irrelevant compared to industrial acid rain pollution.

Meanwhile, if it is a nuclear magma hot spot driving this, it seems the
ice age is unstoppable. But maybe the jury is not in yet on just why
the earth's core is hot and what is going on.

Now where did I leave my wolly sweaters...... Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 22, 23, 24  Next
Page 5 of 24

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.