http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4864237-102275,00.html

The way the polar caps are already melting, the Earths oceans will rise over 2 feet in 100 years at this rate.

From that link

>> Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added.


Yep, oil is the problem, an oil film, an oil layer on all the waters of the world, drying the atmosphere out..... a hard one.

Even if global warming was not occuring, we are facing the world's sixth mass extinction (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994797). This will have disasterous effects on the whole ecosystem, since everything is connected.

Not to contradict what you said, Zarkov, but humans may not the only reason why our climate is changing; if you consider how much the climate would have had to drop in temperature in order to begin the last ice age, then how high it would have to raise for all the glaciers to melt, can't we acept the possibility that something like this can happen again?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33391

the sinking of the Kyoto Protocol last December in Milan, has caused an explosion of hysterical propaganda in order to put pressure on governments for ratifying the infamous treaty. We have seen that with the unbelievable clumsy story of the “Pentagon Report” published by the British The Observer and The Guardian – clear examples of yellow press. What came out of the story now is that:

(1) There is no such “Pentagon Report”,

(2) The story was not kept hidden for 4 months – it was published by Fortune magazine almost a month before The Observer “got it”. (the link to the story was provided in a previous post in this forum.

(3) The story was written by two “science fiction” writers (one of them, Peter Schwartz wrote the script for the film “War games”, where a kid got inside the ballistic missile control computer.

(4) An aging (82 years-old) adviser in the Defense Dept., Andrew Marshall (he is still permitted to play around with phones, Xerox machines, and computers in his little office at the Pentagon), asked Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall for a scary story for himself. He later sent it to The Observer as if it had been suppressed by the Pentagon, giving the tip to Greenpeace and other lunatics of the kind.

The rest you know, and are discussing here. But has anyone read the original "Pentagon-Schwartz-Randall Report"? All people know is what they've read in the media - the yellow one, of course.

And now people believe that the whole Pentagon has warned Bush about the impending disaster of climate change, and he better ratify the treaty or else. People really believe that the science fiction story has scientific validity. People believe it can happen in 20 years, in spite that the authors clearly state in their disclaimers and caveats, that their report is a work of fantasy, and it has not a single possibility of becoming real.

If this is not a dishonest manipulation of the press, in order to fool and cheat on people with false information, then what is?

Go here and see a longer analysis and comments: http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/006051.php

And here is the original "Schwartz-Pentagon" report, in Word format:

http://www.stopesso.com/campaign/Pentagon.doc

The Observer and the Guardian are crap.

you know this climate report from pentagon is not about coming climate change

http://www.icomm.ca/survival/pentagon_climate_change.pdf

it is a way to talk about life after oil runs out in 20 years. please read this thread here before posting that our communal fears about coming shortages of energy are going to be solved by a miracle. the guy has good points

http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?p=34611

Even if the article is a fake the climate is changing because of humanity. I think it is cold enough here in Germany already. Newest reports state that the climate will change drastically dooming millions of people. I suppose the article can be seen as a dystopian warning to everyone. It is a fact that we will all be fucked if we are going on living the way we live now. However some people seem to be too thick in the head to see the problems at hand, seeing the limitation of their destructive powers as a severe limitation of their freedom. Damn, we only have one planet, we can´t afford to destroy it, can we?

We have the technology right now to make spectacular cuts in our emission of greenhouse gases. All we have to do is use it. It's called the internet.

The vast majority of workers in the U.S. and the whole industrialized world perform "knowledge work." We go for weeks at a time and never put our hands on anything except paper and our computers. Hell, I work for a rather large company with thousands of employees, and none of us ever work with physical artifacts because we sell insurance, a virtual commodity. The only people on our staff who don't spend all day at a computer screen are the few hundred who go out and look at damaged autos.

So why do I -- and tens of millions of other workers -- have to get in my car every morning and spout billions of molecules of pollutants into the air, when I have a computer with an internet connection right here at home?

One reason of course is that the people who manage companies are old and they haven't adapted to the computer age. They don't have the skills it takes to supervise the work of people whom they can't physically walk in on by surprise and say aha why are you doing a crossword puzzle instead of working.

But wait. I'm one of those guys. I'm sixty and I've adapted perfectly nicely to the computer age, thank you. I know how to manage employees, it's called looking at how much they accomplish, rather than how much time and effort they put into it. I don't give a damn if somebody works only five hours a week, if he's good enough to do his entire job in five hours, I'm happy to have him. He'll be really handy in a crisis! The people who just barely get by are useless in a crisis.

But I digress. Even us older workers are computer literate. What's going on? Why does Corporate America still insist that we drive to work every day instead of working at home?

As someone basically said earlier in this thread, it's the oil, stupid. Some of the most wealthy and powerful people in this country got that way because of oil. They're not about to let petroleum go the way of buggy whips as the internet replaces freeways.

We've got a bunch of rich, selfish, greedy people with a lot of influence over the government and the economy, who are making it unfashionable to be a telecommuter. After all, you're nobody if you don't have a fancy SUV, they told me that just a few minutes ago on the TV. You're a nerd if you don't look forward to the time you spend in your car breezing along mountain roads, dodging buffalo, and listening to Mozart. Funny, my drive to work is never like that, is yours? You're a misfit if you don't feel a deep need to go to the office every day and trade bragging stories with your co-workers about how great your children are and how many cars you have -- when you actually never get to see your children when they're awake and the only reason you have so many cars is that everybody in your family over sixteen needs one to drive to work so they can make enough money to... pay... for... the... cars...?

We've all been manipulated into believing that our civilization depends on the auto industry and the petroleum industry. That was true fifty years ago. Not any more. In fact our real 21st century industry, information technology, is falling behind. They say it's because we get paid more than our counterparts in India and Poland. I wonder if it's because we're so tired after spending two or three hours a day in our damn cars that by the time we get to work we've lost 30 IQ points?

Get America -- and all of the Western world -- out of its cars, buses, and trains, and let us work at home. Pollution will fall back to sub-catastrophic levels and as an added bonus we'll do better work.

That's a really great idea, fraggle rocker. :D Working from our homes can greatly reduce emissions from vehicles. Not saying that this idea won't help, but primary industries will still cause a great ammount of pollution, and that will for sure catch up to us in the future.
Sure, there are people out there that think we can close down all the factories and mines and whatever else we want, but without them, a very large percentage of secondary and tertriary industries would become useless. For example, without mines to extract things like steel, etc, car factories can't make cars, in turn car dealerships and car insurance companies would become meaningless. Such a vast change will take decades, most likely centuries for our economy to adapt to.
However, despite this I strongly agree that something has to be done, soon, for we are already beginning to feel the effrects of global warming.

>> if you consider how much the climate would have had to drop in temperature in order to begin the last ice age,

IMO, Ice ages are caused by heat!!!!!!!!

My analysis is

The balance in the hydrology system is between sea saltiness and fresh water.

The dropping of snow comes from clouds. Clouds need heat to evaporate fresh water to cause massive cloud banks that spiral to the latitude extremes cooling the area then dumpping their load.
Ice comes from snow, not frost.

The cycle is
fresh water melts and dilutes the saltiness of the sea, stimulating evaporation.
Ice dumped at the poles increases the saltyness of the sea.
So its less salty and wet leading to massive cloud banks, go into ice age, until sea water is too salty... high temperatures, ice melts, land drys....higher temperature starts evaporation again.... massive cloud banks... ice age...

The problem is the heat trapped in the sea mass... and this is in equilibrium with the temperature and hydrology of the atmosphere, they follow each other, they are not synchronised.

This a natural harmonic cycle.....

The layer of oil has artificially increased the saltyness of the sea (inhibiting natural evaporation)... causing a heat up of the planet, due to lack of cloud.
The lands dry out, the ice caps melt, reducing the sea saltyness and stimulating evaporation and rain ( remember the air temperature will be too high, ie higher sea temperature).... a natural repeat back to moist Earth, BUT this layer of oil will still be there once the land has dried out and the caps are melted and the added fresh water has diluted salt levels of the sea.

This process is like a pendulum, once started it swings too far then swings back......
Our drying swing is gathering pace..... until ????? the land is dried out... this would normally start another ice age but the oil will cause an unnatural frequency to be imposed upon the swing.

Yep an ice age will result but it could be preceeded by
massive lightning, dried land, massive fires
UVb will penetrate the atmosphere and cause severe eye problems for all animals, and destroy plant habitats. The sea will warm significantly destroying marine habitats.

Countries needing to feed their populations will compete for water.....

The ice age will hit once the oil has been degraded by microorganisms, once human activity has almost ceased.........

The Earth is naturally losing its water to space, replacement is slowing as the conditions for LIFE on Earth deteriorate... the physical natural size of the biggest species is reduced......

As one poster said

We only have one place to live... this is it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:eek: ... I'm speechless.

Zarkov, you mentioned that the oil will eventually be broken down by microorganisms, causing the ice age. Is it at all possible that we can degrade the oil (or at least a fair ammount of it) before conditions grow too serious? :confused:

The way the polar caps are already melting, the Earths oceans will rise over 2 feet in 100 years at this rate.
Is this a life pr death situation.....???

The way the polar caps are already melting, the Earths oceans will rise over 2 feet in 100 years at this rate.
As North Pole ice is floating ice, the net increase in level is ZERO. And as the Antarctic ice pack has been increasing at the fabulous rate of some 25 gigatons a year because Antarctica has been cooling for about 35 years now.

Amundsen base temperature records show a cooling trend of exactly 1º C since 1967, while Japanese Mizuho base has cooled by -1.7º C.

<center><img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/chart/amundsen3.gif width=500>

<img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/chart/mizuho3.gif width=500></center>

Other Antarctic stations also show strong cooling trends (with the exception of the Antarctic Peninsula, a 2% portion of the continent) so there is no way sea levels will rise not even a millimeter. On the contrary, there is evidence that sea levels at the Maldives and Mauritius Islands have gone down.

Here's a related article. Even if it's not entirely the fault of humans, climate change does happen!
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/arctic-04a.html

<font face=verdana size=2>
Yes, the climate is changing. There is no doubt about that. It has been changing since Earth was created, and never stayed the same for extended periods. <b><i><font color=#ff0000>Changing climate is the norm, steady climate is the exception.</font></i></b> We must take a look at the issue from different scales: human scale, the climate we live in, usually is one or two generations in span, and climate in that period usually don't change too much, and when it does, it goes unnoticed.

Changes occur mostly on local weather patterns due to forestation or deforestation, and dams and big o many lakes being built in a region, This case has been clearly demonstrated in Argentina when big dams were built in Patagonia (in the southwest, <i>Chocón-Cerros Colorados, Piedra del Águila </i>and many others, with an enormous area covered by their lakes), the center of the country (Córdoba, with five big dams and their lakes), and in the northeast part, near Iguazú falls, where a huge dam, <i>Yaciretá</i>, was built on the Paraná River. To this we must add what Brazilians did on the high Paraná River, a series of about 30 small dams (but big lakes) and one of the biggest in the world, <i>Itaipú</i>, with a huge lake.

The dams and lakes were accompanied by great forestations in the northeast and the centre, for commercial logging. Winds affecting the transport of humidity and creation of rains are from the northeast to the southwest (warm and humid, carrying all the evaporation produced by that huge lake area and forest area in the northeast) and cold winds blowing in the reverse direction, southwest to northeast. These winds, before the construction of dams were dry, as they come from the Andes. But now they collect all the evaporation from the lakes in the south and are extremely humid.

In the 1950s, the region where I live – Córdoba, right in the geographic center of the country, had an average annual rainfall of about <b>500 millimeters</b>, and was considered a dry area (with drought lasting 9 months, from April to December), northwest of the rich humid Pampas. But now, our region has an <b><font color=#ff0000>average precipitation of 1100 millimeters every year</font></b>, and has become part of the rich Pampas – while the “old” Pampas suffer continuous flood that have ruined thousands of square kilometers. The area remains flooded most of the year, while extended portions of Buenos Aires province have become a continuous shallow lake.

<b>What about temperatures in the region?</b> In Santa Rosa, La Pampa, in the center of the region, the trend since 1941 is an almost flat line: 0.05º C degree increase.
<center>
<img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/chart/santarosa3.gif">
</center>
In Punta Arenas, Chile (Tierra de Fuego), the trend was -0.6º C towards cooling.

In my region there has been also a slight cooling. Old summers had temperatures in the order of the 42º C, and the normal was to have two or three weeks in a row with steady 39º C. In this summer the highest temperature was 38º C, only in two occasions in the 3 months, while the low temperatures were abnormally cool. In fact, we had <b><i><font color=#ff0000>the coldest summer in 100 years.</font></i></b>

The article in the link, about the <b>North Atlantic Oscillation</b>, deserves some analysis. It says at one point: <i><font color=#0080c0>“But the NAO has switched phases twice in the 1990s, while the subpolar gyre current has continued to weaken. Whether the trend is part of a natural cycle or the result of other factors related to global warming is unknown.”</font></i>

What is somehow curious, is that those switches in phase <b><i>correlate with solar activity</i></b>, something the scientists involved in the study fail to mention. In fact, I think they have not the slightest idea that this is happening. Please read the article of Dr. Theodor Landscheidt, on <b><i>“Solar Eruptions Linked to North Atlantic Oscillation”</i></b> at: http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/solarnao.htm

Some other relation between the sun and climate can be read in “Long-Range Forecast of US Drought Based on Solar Activity, at: http://www.john-daly.com/solar/US-drought.htm also by Landscheidt.

Then it comes the part where the scientist says: <i><font color=#0080c0>"It is a signal of large climate variability in the high latitudes," Hakkinen said. "If this trend continues, it could indicate reorganization of the ocean climate system,…”</font></i> The trend issue is a sticky one. Trends do no last too long, and somehow they are not steady. Take for example, the growing trend of the human species: if the trend of a growing baby continues (as scientists love to say for scaring people) at the age of 15 we'd have a 21 feet tall teenager!. Mark Twain was a clever man and he took notice of this thing of trends mentioned by scientists. We should remember the advice of Mark Twain against projecting current trends too far into the future:<dir><font color=#0080c0>“In the space of 176 years the Mississippi had shortened itself 242 miles.*Therefore in the Old Silurian Period the Mississippi River was upward of 1,300,000 miles long. 742 years from now the Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long. There is something fascinating about science.* One gets such wholesome returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”</font></dir>And lastly, there is the mention of the Topex/Poseidon satellite: “The joint NASA-CNES (French Space Agency) Topex/Poseidon oceanography satellite provides high-precision data on the height of the world's ocean surfaces, a key measure of ocean circulation and heat storage in the ocean.”

I would take the readings of the Topex/Poseidon satellite not with a pinch of salt, but with a three feet long prong. Readings from the toipex/Poseidon are claimed to be precise to the hundredth of a millimeter, while in truth, there is not such an instrument in present technology with that accuracy mounted on a satellite. They get the results of readings by “averaging averages” – repeated times, in an absurd iteration. Please get the facts in this paper: <b>“Topex Poseidon Altimetry: Averaging the Averages”</b>, http://www.john-daly.com/altimetry/topex.htm

Enjoy the reading, and the input of new information you might have not been aware of.

Thanks Eudifer, facts are always welcome.. the future is a hard one to predict :)
especially when we have not been there before

>> Is it at all possible that we can degrade the oil (or at least a fair ammount of it) before conditions grow too serious?

Supposing that the problem is natural but magnified by oil ( it certainly is not a CO2 problem) then we basically can do nothing except stop excreating oil into the environment.... leglislation is happening... but this is only causing minimal restraint.

I am sure if the fascination with maximum temperatures are put aside and the true indicator... temperature range (difference between max and min temp) is correlated with time, we may get a clearer trend picture... ????

>> In fact, we had the coldest summer in 100 years.

So what does this mean ???? were the nightly minimums lower than normal, day temp too, because of lack of humidity ? ... ??clear skys at night ??? Air will not heat up if it is dry, and clear skys at night allow trapped heat to just disipate into space.

Temperature to humans (and air-thermometers as we use them) is related to water content of the air. Basically IMO, climatologists when measuring basic data, do not correlate this to water content.

THEY ARE NOT MEASURING MEANINGFUL PARAMETERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A better way to measure temperature is to measure the sun temperature on the ground,,, related to water via a water thermometer (ie water as the heat absorber) and correlate this with a thermometer with blackened lead as the heat absorber.

Until the correct climatic measurements are taken over time, all the present conclusions made by humans will be pure conjecture, spin, with NO relation to the actual situation.
No wonder the confusion is deep.

Edufer, it is good that we can agree on some things, if anything the trend has been towards cooler conditions. I'm afraid your constant temperature is not the norm for many places on the planet. The increase in precipitation is alarming isn't it?

Zarkov, yes, heat triggers the ice ages according to some theories such as this one http://www.iceagenow.com/ and the one that appears most convincing to me at http://www.remineralize.org/ in the free books offered there about the Hamaker hypothesis. An hour long documentary was made concerning Hamaker's thesis in something like 1985. Very amazing results in the health and productivity of the biomass when remineralization is carried out in field, forest and jungle. Besides doing this to tie up more carbon dioxide it has been suggested that dusting parts of the ocean with iron and other minerals can cause huge algal blooms that can further take out more of the extra carbon dioxide. It may be too late though. If we get and I do believe I have heard of such happening, melting of permafrost, this will lead to great amounts of methane release which is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. According to the record in researched ice cores and pollen sediments, the change to ice age conditions can take place within just a matter of a couple of decades, quite catastrophic indeed.

I'm afraid Eudefer can not consider the possiblity that any reason exists to stop burning fossil fuels, stop destruction of rain forests, remineralize, etc.

In general I think climate change has probably spurred a great amount of human innovation in order to survive the past cataclisms that have happened in the cycles between cold and warm. I hope now, we can even take some preemptive action. I don't know how long we have before the system cascades into the more stable state that has been the planet's usual condition, quite cold. Seems there is even evidence that the entire cycle between cold conditions and relatively warm is winding down like a simple damped harmonic. It may be approaching a state of equilibrium. Unfortunately that set of conditions that in chaos theory would be called a strange attractor, appears to be quite cold. Maybe cold enough eventually, perhaps even with this swing back to the normal state of ice age, to tip earth into what is called the "white-earth" or "snowball earth." You can find out more about this at http://www-eps.harvard.edu/people/faculty/hoffman/snowball_paper.html

>>“the future is a hard one to predict - especially when we have not been there before”

But, on the other hand, history has the nasty habit of repeating itself again and again, until we learn the lesson. Which are the lessons to learn? Some of them are very clear – but you need to know the history to recognize them.

>> “Is it at all possible that we can degrade the oil (or at least a fair amount of it) before conditions grow too serious? … Supposing that the problem is natural but magnified by oil”
What for? Why oil magnifies any problem? I guess you are still with your hypothesis that an oil film is covering the oceans. Oil, as any organic matter, degrades with time. It takes a liitle longer than other substances but it goes away eventually. Remember the Exxon Valdez and the Alaskan coasts? Well, they are now as pristine as before de Exxon Valdez made the spill. No lasting consequences there.

>> In fact, we had the coldest summer in 100 years. … So what does this mean ???? were the nightly minimums lower than normal, day temp too, because of lack of humidity ? ... clear skies at night ??? Air will not heat up if it is dry, and clear skies at night allow trapped heat to just dissipate into space.”

Sorry, but you have things totally backwards. Now our region is extremely humid – not dry. Humidity should have kept heat more than dry air, but temperatures were lower, nevertheless. If our region was as dry as 50 years ago, temperatures would have been much lower, because water vapor wouldn’t be there to retain heat during the night. See the difference?

>>“Temperature to humans (and air-thermometers as we use them) is related to water content of the air. Basically IMO, climatologists when measuring basic data, do not correlate this to water content. “ In fact, they take into account water atmospheric vapor content into account. It is an important part of the radiative forcing formula.
<<”THEY ARE NOT MEASURING MEANINGFUL PARAMETERS !!!!!!!!!”

No, they are measuring the parameters correctly, but they are introducing those parameters in a wrong way in their General Circulation Models. An example of this is they have not reached an agreement yet over the value of clouds: if negative or positive. And the change of value of any variable in a formula gives a completely different result.

>>”A better way to measure temperature is to measure the sun temperature on the ground,,, related to water via a water thermometer (ie water as the heat absorber) and correlate this with a thermometer with blackened lead as the heat absorber.”
As long as you determine any material as a reference for measuring the temperature, and you keep that value constant, then there is no problem.

The confusion is deep because other reasons, not because differences in measuring temperatures. There are differences when you position a weather station in a overheated environment, as near cities or airports, as you’ll get a bias due to the “heat island effect”. When you measure water temperature from the seas, a vital part is the way you retrieve the water from the oceans for measuring. In earl times, they used canvas buckets to pick water from the ships decks, then they shifted to metal buckets. Later on, they used water intakes with pipes leading to the engine room. All these methods lead to confusion, as all give different readings from the same water being measured.

But at least we have you, Edufer, to sort through all of the confusion and come to the grand truth that business as usual is perfectly acceptable. Seems to me there is real bias in such placation perhaps fomented by sycophantic servility. Hey, if some corporation wanted to defend clear-cutting, oil drilling and production, cholorinated chemical use, they can come to you for fodder to confuse and obfuscate and defeat those who would rather not see the shit happen. How does your foundation make money?

edited to remove request for URL you already posted.

>>I'm afraid Eudefer can not consider the possiblity that any reason exists to stop burning fossil fuels, stop destruction of rain forests, remineralize, etc.

I see no reason to try to stop fossil fuel use just because they blame it for rising CO2 levels. As CO2 levels were higher in other periods of Earth’s history (Cretaceous, for example, that had between 6,000 to 2,600 ppm) and temperatures were barely 2º C higher than now, but exactly the same they were during the Medieval Warm Period (800-1250 AD).

But you loose sight of a fundamental aspect of the issue: fossil fuel use add to the atmosphere just 5% of the CO2 being produced annually on Earth. 95% is produced by nature, and we cannot do anything against it! Why destroy our economies and send the world into a catastrophic recession just because they don’t take into account nature’s input of CO2? - that, in the other hand, is a quite poor greenhouse gas!

>>”I don't know how long we have before the system cascades into the more stable state that has been the planet's usual condition, quite cold.”

The world has only been in a stable condition during Ice Ages. I don’t like that kind of stability, with 3000 meter high ice packs covering most parts of Europe and North America. Nowadays scientists that have an axe to grind want everyone to forget that the Medieval Warm period, 2º C higher than now, was originally called “The Little Climatic Optimum”, meaning temperatures 2º C higher than today’s are the best possible ones for all living things on Earth.

I now everything is there to know about “Snowball Earth”, and believe me, there is nothing attractive for anyone in a snowball Earth – only if you are a die hard green, with a pathos as big as the world, with desires to wipe out humankind, along with all kind of living matter on Earth. No way I could ever accept your idea of going back to what you call “normal”, an ice Age.

I don't suffer from a neurosis called Green Paranoia. I am an incurable Scientific Optimist.

>> Mr Chips: Seems to me there is real bias in such placation perhaps fomented by sycophantic servility. “

I only serve my personal ideals of looking for the scientific truth and the wellbeing of my sons and grandsons (I am selfish here), and later for the rest of the poor people in the Third World that is suffering the consequences of greedy Western corporations and green ONGs, that get handsomely funded for their help in keeping a neocolonial status on poor countries. It is a matter of geopolitics, where real science and moral are meaningless.

>>”Hey, if some corporation wanted to defend clear-cutting, oil drilling and production, cholorinated chemical use, they can come to you for fodder to confuse and obfuscate and defeat those who would rather not see the shit happen. “

I would not help them, of course. I have refused good money (and I am not rich, at all – I am among the 50% population in Argentina considered barely above the line of poverty) to advise chemical and other polluting industries in their advertising. I do advise them in how to lower their pollution levels adopting new cleaner technologies, though.

>>”How does your foundation make money?”

It gets funded by me: $80 dollars a month in wireless internet connection. No employees, just a lot of scientists (members and collaborators) that send me their papers to translate into Spanish. And many hours surfing the internet reading scientific papers and articles in order to get a clear view of many things that is going in the world. I live on my retirement pension, and get help from my sons and daughters.

>>”What is the URL to this great presentation of the reasons to go ahead and be an Alfred E. Newman ("What me worry?")?”

The URL is: “Ecology: Myths and Frauds”, at http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html, for the English version, and from there you can go anywhere to its more than 2000 pages and articles.

In case it means something to you, I was invited to participate, as the only representative from Latin America, to give lectures to the “Summer Course – Seminary: Myths, Frauds, and the Authentic nature of the Environmental Movement”, in Fanlo, Huesca, Spain, in September 2003. It was organized and sponsored by University Rey Juan Carlos in Madrid, the City Council of Huesca, he Liberty Fund, and Libertad Digital, a liberal Spanish journal publishing only in the internet.

I have been threatened to death by Greenpeace activists, and one of our members, the ethologist Dr. Enrique C. Lerena de la Serna, Honoris Causa in the Max Planck Institute, the man who devised the method (used now in most zoos in the world) to get the Siberian Tigers to reproduce in captivity), had his laboratory in Buenos Aires attacked and burned down by eco-terrorists opposed to his research. They machine-gunned his house, killed all his 6 pet dogs and other domestic animals, and crucified a little kitten he had on his front door. He and his family escaped death because they had gone to mass...

We are really living interesting times, gentlemen.

Yes, interesting indeed. I am surprised that you haven't found any of the volumes of information and claims by highly credentialed individuals and organizations questioning virtually every platitude you support with your efforts. Just a little perusal of that site of yours shows a lot of "papers" that do not use extensive citation for their claims nor address opposing views other than with derision.

I am not into leveling violence upon any one. I suggest that blaming people of differing opinion of heinous deeds raises the specter of false ad hominem to the misinformation, selective ignorance of opposing science and outright unabashed bias that is your modus operandi.

Talking about misinformation, "I now everything is there to know about “Snowball Earth”, and believe me, there is nothing attractive for anyone in a snowball Earth – only if you are a die hard green, with a pathos as big as the world, with desires to wipe out humankind, along with all kind of living matter on Earth. No way I could ever accept your idea of going back to what you call “normal”, an ice Age."

I guess you are defining the words "strange attractor" from chaos theory as a desire on my part for a white earth and my use of normal as synonym to "usual" as, again, an expression of a desired state of affairs? You ought to try learning a bit of science rather than only that which supports your desired opinions. You are quite lost. The anomie is sometimes so thick, you'd swear the smog alerts must be wailing.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1089723.htm

>> Native leaders say salmon are increasingly susceptible to warm-water parasites and suffer from lesions and strange behaviour. Salmon and moose meat have developed odd tastes and the marrow in moose bones is weirdly runny, they say.

Arctic pack ice is disappearing, making food scarce for sea animals and causing difficulties for the natives who hunt them. It is feared polar bears, to name one species, may disappear from the northern hemisphere by mid-century.

As trees and bushes march north over what was once tundra, so do beavers, and they are damming new rivers and lakes to the detriment of water quality and possibly salmon eggs.

Still, to the frustration of Alaska natives, many politicians in the lower 48 US states deny global warming is occurring or that a warmer climate could cause problems.>>>


Not the best evidence, but things for them are changing......


The problem is knowing what will happen when the flywheel of the Earth becomes unbalanced ?????????

The answer to all this recrimination & sarcasm can only be: more research! The Earth's climate still defies the most popwerful supercomuters to model it accurately - we need better computers, more locally-gathered data from as many locations as possible, and a determination to find answers rather than simplpy deride each other's viewpoints. Surely though, Edufer, caution is better than complacency...

According to James Gleick in his book "Chaos" those computer models have to be carefullly adjusted to avoid their having the earth's climate collapse into an unrecoverable white-earth.

As in the famous Snowball Earth theory, describing the situation around 600-700 million years ago?

If the computer models pronounce such a situation "unrecoverable" due to the extreme albedo of a completely icebound globe, that shows that the modelling is incomplete. Volcanic carbon dioxide emissions must be accounted for: with the oceans frozen over and virtually no photosynthesis taking place, there would be no CO2 sink; with no clouds or rain, falling water would not dissolve the gas either. Thus a gradual buildup of CO2, over about 10 million years, would intensify the greenhouse effect until the ice finally melted. Once the oceans thawed, the planetary albedo would drop drastically, and the climate flip into a severe hothouse. The planet's tiny biomass would exponentiate until it drew down enough CO2 to stabilise the temperature again.

I guess that, if not for the tenacious survival of algae in localised pockets throughout the snowball phase, nothing would have prevented a runaway greenhouse effect from turning the Earth into another Venus. Now THAT would be truly unrecoverable!

Yes, the ""Snowball Eath theory." Yup, more effort needs to be put into the modeling.

I really don't know about your speculations. Sounds like worthy considerations though. The computer models probably attempt to consider the carbon dioxide from volcanism and if they do commonly fall into snowball earth conditions as unrecoverable as Gleick noted, then the modeling must be questioned but also some amount of possibility that it would be unrecoverable should be given a bit of weight. Either way, I doubt if we'd be around to observe it but then, if the information explosion is tamed to the benifit of Homo saps, maybe expected longevity can come to grow faster than expected mortality. Tell you what, if we both live to be a thousand years old, let's meet at some pub and discuss the situation then over a nice cup of tea or a frosted mug of beer. ;)

Let's hope Edufer's still around for your 30th-Century beercall, as well. You guys can look back on the current argument and decide who has been proven correct.

It's not just known throughout history that the world has suffered great climactic changes it's also proven, the usual method is through looking at fossilised wood and old trees. The understanding is that cold winters generate an increase in bark as apposed to warm ones (at least thats what I think was suggested).

This means through these different trees and fossils, it's possible to get an understanding of the planets climatic changes over the years, coupled with the information thats usually taken from ice core samples, which again suffer the same sort of events based upon temperature, since the top of the ice you walk upon nowadays wouldn't be the same as 1000 years ago.

Tieing all this together with an understanding of historical events that have been documented since the creation of the meteorological society, which originally outputted the interpretation that at every end of 100 years (circa) there are great climactic changes.

Such changes aren't just about chemical outputs from volcanoes, or pollution from man, there also about position changes of our planets orbit in relationship to the sun as it's eliptical path alters, and the relationship of the moons orbit with the planet since it decays a small amount with every year.

The more radiation that enters out atmosphere from being on a closer orbit with the sun, the more alterations of chemical states occur, and therefore can breakdown greenhouse gases, as we move away from the sun again (+/- tilts and moon movements) the photonic reactions don't occur so readily leaving a greater residule amount of unaltered state chemicals.

However it's a balance the world has faced for millenia and something that will continue to occur.

>> However it's a balance the world has faced for millenia and something that will continue to occur.


enter stage left.......... all encompassing........ OIL !!!!!!!!!

The first time I saw an article about the deep well crystal analysis of oxygen isotope ratios it was entitled "Milankovitch Takes a Dive in the Desert." I can not find that reference on the web and I do not find the reports of the work either though if I recall I did see (I read a lot of periodicals) that another team was doing such research also and basically confirming the findings of the first, that the Milankovitch theory is basically not supported by the evidence. I think I should hit the periodical indexes at my local libraries. I have found that the major libraries in my area (lots) have been purged of data that does not support a specific favored hypothesis but that is another story. I had about a year when I was free enough to spend most of my time in these libraries. Now with the computerized indexing and closed stacks, it is more difficult to get to original reports. Ah, those were the days.

The Milankovitch theory is the one that takes about three grand oscillations and theorizes that the phasing of these, results in regular change in solar energy influx through continuous changes in tilt, distance and wobble of the planet. It is a convenient theory for fossil fuel protagonists, those who think that business as usual is just fine and dandy but it does appear wrong. Lots of claims on the web that Milankotch's theory explains everything to a "T."

Stryder: "However it's a balance the world has faced for millenia and something that will continue to occur."

Sometimes thresholds are approached and passed where a long standing balance collapses.

btw, I'm not a Fossil fuel Protagonist (Not that you suggest otherwise). My background was from power-regeneration and dealing with gas emissions through a form of combustion (Flaring). It's just while I was doing my research back then I came across a picture that Wet1 outputted from NASA I think, called "Methane Earth", it was a satellite picture that showed the Methane content of the atmosphere.

Further investigation on such pictures and the photonic reactions of the planet showed a pattern of ebb and flow in how the chemicals change state in our atmosphere, it even showed the contraction and increase of polar ozone holes, as they would find themselves losing chemicals then gaining them again.

I find references to that NASA presentation on the web. No doubt, methane is of important consideration as far as the climate goes. According to the Milankovitch theory atmoshperic gases have little if anything to do with past glacial cycles. Hamaker's hypothesis mainly considers carbon dioxide, if I recollect correctly, but if methane were included, might be the closest fitting theory as far as I can tell.

I am surprised why no one is talking about Fusion based powerplants to produce energy which can be used to charge batteries/capacitors for vehicles. By changing our living habits slightly without sacrificing the quality, we can breath clean air, drink clean water and so on....irrespective of whether the planet is cooling or warming....

? The only working fusion nuclear power plant I know of currently available is the sun. Please inform me, kmguru, what powerplants your are referring to.

thanks.

Heavy duty research is underway at many universities (including ancilliary technologies) on Hot Fusion. At this rate, we could have a hot fusion power plant in 50 years. My point is we could speed up the development and focus our national and international resources to get there in less than 15. The two core technologies are slowly inching for better performance.

Magnetism - 16 to 20 Tesla and slowly going up
Superconductivity - slow but steady improvement