I have heard that we as a world have changed the climate by unbelievable amounts yet i do not think this is the case. If you takes a look at a map of the earth 10,000 years ago you see the bearing strait and the english channel being connected and land was less present in some areas and more in others. the earth changes constantly i yes we may be to blame for heating it up a little but i think the numbers are overestimated in terms of how much we have made an impact. i just think we need to adapt and move on your anyone's thoughts'?

Let me tell you that human beings are destructing the Earth very bad.
If we wait a little longer there is no Earth to protect or to live on any more.
Earth is dying, don't you see?
Are you really that blind that you do not see how Earth is suffering underneath these dumb, useless wars humans found out long ago.
We, human beings are destructing Earth.
Not a little bit, but forever...
:confused:
We may live here, and what do we do?
We destruct the world given to us, by fighting eachother for the most little stupid thing we humans can think of.
Because only humans are paranoid and yealous of their neighbours, because of their new car or so.
Material interests.
Not important people.
Only material, nothing warm to hold and love...
:rolleyes:
I choose a better life for as long as I can, I take Love, no material things.
Not important.
The warmth and Love of a real, live human being...
That is all what is important...Love!
;) :p ;)
But I do mean it...
For real...
And I am not a bible freak, just me, myself...
Bye.

I'm not so arrogant as to think that we can change something that's been around for billions of years (not to imply that anyone thinking the obverse is), all the while surviving meteorites, volcanos, earthquakes that produce the gases that we synthesize, nor am I blind to the fact the the human race moves sluggishly towards goodness and peace, and that we will most likely curb our destructive efforts or take them elsewhere before it is too late.

The alternative is a mass genocide of all those of bad and destructuve temperament, and I hardly think the gain of that worth a few generations of eventual wisdom on the part of humans, though oftentimes I question myself.

If anyone watched "Hyperspace" in TLC, you will notice that the Sun gets hotter over the years and soon, we will lose our comfort zone, that is the comfort zone will move outward. While the speculation is over several million years, if the process is nonlinear, it can happen in a matter of thousand years.

Which means, we better learn to teraform Mars - fast....

This global warming up is going a lot quicker then you think.
Thousands of years?
If we go on like this?
No, no way...

There are plants growing on the North-Pole...
What does that mean?
Thousands of years?
I guess a lot less years.
Enormous ice giants melt, and all the melting water flows into the Ocean.
So the Ocean gets colder on places where it has to be warm.
This means a lot of dying by Sea-animals.
The understreaming? (sorry, don't know the word in english) of the Oceans are changing.
So Whales, Dolphins and all Sea-animals are in danger then.
This melting is already started, nothing to do to stop it...
So, no thousands of years, not for the Sea-animals any way.
Nor for us.
The Oceans will rise higher and higher.
Earth cleans herself, from us.
Like a big washing machine, everything dirty, like humans, washed away and start all over again.
With a New Earth.
:(
Well, I don't know.
I do know that the melting of ice goes fast at the North Pole.
And there is found vegetation growing.
It sounds no good.
Poor creatures of the Oceans, what have we done to them?

oh please.... quit overreacting.

Overreacting????

We will see...

Since the Ice Age, Earth is getting warmer and warmer, isn't it?

Yes, of course...
Silly me.
How could I forget that fact? About the Ice-Age?
I am a fool, really.
:p

How is the weather up there?

Silly me forgot that it was the Ice-Age, through which the Earth gets warmer every day (sorry for the bad english).

I think that is why the weather here is so good and so warm for the time of the year, I mean, it is Fall, but we have 20 degrees Celsius here in the Netherlands.
This is very unusual, but I guess this is also a fact, because of the Ice-Age, which I completely forgot. All the Ice is now melted and that is why it is too hot for the time of the year here.
Yeah, yeah, whatever.
Man, how you come up with it? So stupid. The Ice-Age :confused:

Banshee said: <i>"I think that is why the weather here is so good and so warm for the time of the year, I mean, it is Fall, but we have 20 degrees Celsius here in the Netherlands.
This is very unusual, but I guess this is also a fact, because of the Ice-Age, which I completely forgot"</I>.

We in Argentina (Cordoba, 31°South) are enjoying a nice Spring, with exceptionally cool temperatures as never seen in recent years. It seems that the winter doesn´t want to go away. October 1st, 2001 saw a nice snowfall in our mountains (<b>never seen before</b>) and our highest temperature recorded since September 21st (start of Spring) was 28°C, when we usually have 32°C by now. Perhaps that can be blamed on Global Warming, in the same extent as Al Gore blamed Global Warming for the terrible blizzards that ravaged Eastern U.S. back in January 1998.

I really expect the world to warm a little more, because that way we could reach the good temperatures recorded back in the Medieval Climatic Optimum (800 AD - 1250 AD) when the Vikings named "Greenland" the island now covered with ice, and grew vineyards in northern Canada.

Something I wouldn´t like to see is a world like the one we had back in the 1550 (during the Little Ice Age) when chronicles of the foundation of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia (1548) (12°S, full tropical area) told about "<i>tree trunk splitting in half due to the severe frosts in winter</i>".

Rising temperatures? See satellite temperature records and watch how <b>they have remained the same since 1979</b>. Rising ocean levels? Where? Earth have been cooling for 70 years now, but that is something the Global Warming establisment will never acknowledge.

Leave your fears aside and start enjoying life!

Welcome to Sciforums, Edufer. When does winter normally end there in Argentina? Do you live in southren Argentina?

Originally posted by wet1
Welcome to Sciforums, Edufer. When does winter normally end there in Argentina? Do you live in southren Argentina?

Our winter starts Jun 21st and ends September 21st. I live right in the middle of Argentina (31°S - 34°W) and normally we have (or use to have) verey mild winters, warm Springs and HOT Summers. Temperatures of 40 - 45°C were the usual thing. Now we barely go over 38°C.

As we have a Mediterranean climate (no ocean to buffer temperatures), the extremes were wide apart. Weather has changed now (from very dry climate to quite humid), but it is due to extensive forestry done and construction of big dams in the south and in Brazil (Itaip&uacute;, and more than 30 more there). The humidity has gone up a lot, so it is acting as a buffer to keep temperatures at a more steady level.

So that´s the reason for a lot of snowing in our hills, but never had snowed as late as October and never sooner as May 4th.

If you want to see our website (FAEC - "Argentine Foundation for Scientific Ecology" (we have an English version) go to htpp://webs.sinectis.com.ar/edufer/ENGLISH.html
it might give you and idea of what´s really going on in the field.

Welcome to Sciforums, Edufer. When powerful organizations with their billions, are behind information, the world can look very different...

Once I was told by a chemical engineer that PCB is so stable and non-reactive that they use it in high temperature electrical transformers. It does not oxidize easily....

Originally posted by kmguru
[B]<i>Welcome to Sciforums, Edufer. When powerful organizations with their billions, are behind information, the world can look very different...</I></B>

Indeed. You can say that about the Sierra Club, the NRDC, Greenpeace, the EDF, WWF and other big guys in business. As for us, we can barely pay our internet site (you can see we have not our own private domain, but are in a "free service" site. A meager 6 MBytes page. We are a bunch of idealistic idiots, tired of the abundant quackery found in the enviromental issue. If you understand spanish, you must have read that we get no money from no one, government, companies or members, although we have been offered good money from reknown polluters for avising and counselling them. Our advise was free: "<b>Do you pollute? Clean up after your pollution.</b>" If we were rich we would have a nicer website with lots of stuff for selling. You see that my book "Ecology: Myths and Frauds" is free on the web, although editors wanted to publish it for making money.

<i>Once I was told by a chemical engineer that PCB is so stable and non-reactive that they use it in high temperature electrical transformers. It does not oxidize easily.... </i>

Yes. PCBs are extremely stable, and won´t react easily, even with oxygen, a quite active chemical. That´s one of the reasons why they won´t react --<b>at normal temperatures found in the environment</b>-- with most other compounds. PCBs have been linked to cancer by many scientifically flawed studies, that have been proved wrong. For an excellent and impartial view of this important issue go to the <A HREF="http://www.acsh.org/"><font color=red><B>American Council on Science & Health</B></font></A> (ACSH) website and look for the scientific facts on PCBs. You might be suprised.

kmguru: if you had trouble finding the PCB information on the ACSH website, here is one link (of many papers) in the site:

<A HREF="http://www.acsh.org/press/releases/BrownerBrodsky072398.html"><b>Click here</b></A>

Hi Edufer, nice to see a person from Argentina at the Sci Forums, welcome.
So in your country temperatures are no good either? It doesn't belong to be so cool in this time of year?
I do not agree with your point that we go back to medieval temperatures, it is not so.
Through the ages, the Earths crust moved, slowly and not noticable, but Earth moved. The Poles are on another degrees of longitude and latitude these days.
That happens through the years. So it comes that even the meridian is moved. The degrees of longitude and latitude change every day a very, very little, you can't even notice it, so slowly.
But it happens.
And through the ages, land moved with Earth, but not at the same 'speed', you see.
It is not ok that temperatures in your country are not normal, Nature has had enough now.
I wonder, how long it is going to take before humans ruined all of the Planet. And always, humans forget about the woods, trees, plants, and all the animals they destroy.
The woods are full of the mess people leave behind.
There are ashtrays there to throw your garbage in. But no. Why? Lets throw it in the woods. Plastic bags, everything.
I hate it, humans acting like nothing cares but they themselves.
And you go on thinking that it is not so bad. It is bad, look and listen...
Maybe then, you people will understand what I mean.

Hi Edufer:

I come from heavy engineering (including nuclear, refinery, biochemistry and neuroscience) background. So I know, what you are talking about. May I suggest you to put up the english version of the pages. You can get extra free space in yahoo, geocities and other sites as a free member. That way, you can spread out the graphics which takes up space but link them in a HTML page. Send me a private email, I may have some ideas for you.

As long as truth is told that benefits the world, I am for it. Biases towards one side or the other cause problems and one can loose objectivity. Let others decide what to do with the truth.

Good Luck.

Originally posted by kmguru
Hi Edufer:

<i>As long as truth is told that benefits the world, I am for it. Biases towards one side or the other cause problems and one can loose objectivity. Let others decide what to do with the truth.

Good Luck.</i>

Thanks kmguru for your kind words. My background also include 4 years of Mechanical and Aeronautical engineering, two years in Antrhopology, two years in Art at the Art Students Lague in New York (back in 1961-62), and have been in charge of mechanical maintenance of our familiy limestone quarry and quilns. (Caterpillar shovels and trucks, Decauville diesel locomotives, lime kilns, etc). One "sabatic" year was spent at AECL´s (Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. as head of the Technical Translations Dept. (English and Italian to Spanish, and viceversa) where I got deep into the Nuclear issue and found how there was wide discrepancy between the scientific facts and the "antinuke" agenda.

I also have a three-years trainign in Electronics (from basics to micro processors) and that made it possible for me to help my elder brother with his electronic and computing equipment in sientific research on Neurophysiology. (He was -now retired- professor of Experimental Psychology at Cordoba National University and Senior researcher at "<b>Mercedes and Martin Ferreyra Institute of Medical Research</B>", founded by my family in memory of my grandparents, and also a "guest researcher" at Columbia University in New York).

By the way, in our Institute was carried out the work that led to the world famous Papanicolau test for cancer of the uterus, by Drs. Ines Allende (a female doctor, and head of the team) and Dr. Papanicolau, who finally got the credit --back in the fifties women were not well seen at the labs. Quite an injustice.

About our page in the the web, I am building one at "freeservers.com" under the domain: <A HREF="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com"><b>"Mitosyfraudes"</b></A> but it is still under construction. In freeservers.com we have 20 Mbytes of space, so there will be room for lots of graphics, where I plan to have a page full of pictures of my more than 30 years of traveling and exploring the Amazon jungle, living among wild tribes (the headhunters Jivaro of Ecuador, the isolated Ewarhoyana at the border between Brazil and Surinam, the almost extinct Sirion&oacute; in the Bolivian Amazon, etc).

I agree completely with you about trying to spread the truth, but the problem is <b>"who holds the truth?"</b> Apparently, the truth lies near the scientific facts --observed, checked and rechecked facts, not <b>"perceived" factoids</b>-- but, as new scientific evidence comes to surface every day, making old "facts" obsolete, we must travel with "feet of lead" on grounds we have once assumed as solid.

In my very brief profile is listed my email, so if you want to share your ideas with me you are gratefully welcome. Any how, I´ll repeat it here: <font color0red><b><A HREF="mailto:edufer@sienectis,com.ar">My Email Here</A></b></font>. Hope to hear from you.

<blockquote>[QUOTE]Originally posted by Banshee
<font color=blue>[B]Hi Edufer, nice to see a person from Argentina at the Sci Forums, welcome.
<I>So in your country temperatures are no good either? It doesn't belong to be so cool in this time of year?</I></font>

Temperatures are good, but they have not been the high ones we usually had in past decades. It has been cooling down (in the high range), but that probably is due to an increase in humidity in our microclima at the center of Argentina. As I posted before, the erection of big dams in the southwest and big dams in the northeast (Yaciret&aacute; and Itaip&uacute; in Brazil), right in the axis of prevailing winds SW-->NE (cold and humid now) and NE-->SW (warm and extremely humid now), buffers the extreme temperatures, so we have not the high temps of past decades. This would also buffer the cold ones, but unfortunately this is not the case, as every year in record seem to be colder than the previous. This last winter we had the worst snow blizzards in history, with thousand of trucks getting blocked in the Patagonia and the Andes Cordillera pass to Chile. So here we might be seeing a "smoking gun" of a incoming cooling --not an Ice Age, but a cooling trend in the Southern Hemisphere.

<font color=blue><I>I do not agree with your point that we go back to medieval temperatures, it is not so.</I></font>

Depends on which Medieval temperatures. Certainly not the <b>Medieval Little Ice Age</b> of 1250 to 1850, but I hope we could get at the <b>Medieval Climate Optimum</B> of 800 - 1250 AD, <b><font color=red>when the global media was 2°C higher than today.</font></B> Ever wondered why climatologists call that era the "Climatic Optimum"? Because those are the best temperatures suitable for human, animal and vegetal life on Earth. The conditions set by those temperatures allowed the coming of the Renaissance and a boom of human activity all over the world.

Then came a severe cooling (caused by the Maunder and Spoerer Minima of solar activity) that sunk humanity into the Dark Ages. All kinds of calamities happened then, from the Black Plague to the Holy Inquisition, extended famines and depopulatin of the northern areas in Europe. People didn´t like it cold. Not then, not today.

<font color=blue><I>Through the ages, the Earths crust moved, slowly and not noticable, but Earth moved. The Poles are on another degrees of longitude and latitude these days. That happens through the years. So it comes that even the meridian is moved. The degrees of longitude and latitude change every day a very, very little, you can't even notice it, so slowly. But it happens. And through the ages, land moved with Earth, but not at the same 'speed', you see.</I></font>

I am aware of the tectonic movements, and the shift of Earth axis, the slight change in the precession of the equinoxes, changes in the magnetic field, etc. But this has been happening so slowly --at geological scale-- that has been barely noticeable during the past 10,000 years. Since then we came out of the last glaciation and went into the Holocen. Now we are getting close to the end of the Holocene and back into a new glacial era. Milantkovitch proved that in the thirties, and until now that seems to be the "sacred words" for climatologists. Human activities have nothing to do with any increase in global temperatures. As much man can be "destroying" the environment, assuming we can alter Earth climate is an expression of arrogancy from our part.

About the rest you tell me, I find you seem to be a sensible person worried about all the catastrophes "perceived" and denounced by enviromental groups. There is little we can discuss here, when emotion prevail over science and verified evidence. <b>Perception</B> is quite different from <b>observation</B>, and as science (or "knowledge") is based fundamentally in repeated observation of events, emotional arguments can not be tested against verified facts. There is no ground for comparison. Apples and horses...

<font color=blue><i>The mess people leave behind. There are ashtrays there to throw your garbage in. But no. Why? Lets throw it in the woods. Plastic bags, everything. I hate it, humans acting like nothing cares but they themselves. And you go on thinking that it is not so bad. It is bad, look and listen...
Maybe then, you people will understand what I mean.</I></font>

I understand very well how you feel and what you mean. I share your contempt for careless people throwing garbage everywhere. But that is a matter of education. Children must be taught to keep a clean bedroom, a clean kitchen, a clean environment. We must teach children sciences and philosophy, we must teach children <b>how to LEARN</B>, how to use their brains effectively, and not how to hug a tree or kiss a whale every morning. If we want mankind, the human species, to survive on this planet we must act intelligently, and try to better ourselves in all possible manners, materially and spiritually. Quite a task!
</blockquote>

If you know it all so very well, why don't you start with yourself then?
And be some friendlier, because you do not know me, and you can call me whatever you want, I don't care.
Haha, you make me laugh.
You sound like a teacher who did just lose his job because of knowing to little about the subject he is talking about.
Believe me.
I am not just a tree kisser or a whale kisser or what so ever.
Though, I love to kiss a whale, wish the oppotunity was there, I would do it in a second, I love whales.
And no, I am not such an intellct like you maybe, but man, what way off you are here.
Guess you better read and learn about people you take down without knowing any more of them then just one reply.
Have a nice day.;)

Hi Edufer:

We need a few Renaissance people in the age of specialization. Welcome to the group. - and keep up the good work....

Originally posted by Banshee
<blockquote>
<font color=blue>If you know it all so very well, why don't you start with yourself then? </B></font>

If I knew all so well, I would be a millionaire. Sadly, I´m not. Perhaps I´m not that good at practical things as balancing a budget. I have being trying to improve myself all my life, but according to you it has been unsuccessful. However, I will keep trying; harder every day.

<font color=blue><b>And be some friendlier, because you do not know me, and you can call me whatever you want, I don't care. Haha, you make me laugh.</b></font>

My apologies if you think I have offended you, though I couldn´t find where I called you names or said a word that can be interpreted as offensive or scornful or disdainful. On the contrary, I thought you were a sensible person worried (and concerned) by the "perceived destruction" on the environment. As I must judge by what you wrote, I thought you were sensible. Now I think you are <b>hyper-sensitive and prone to overreact with emotional bursts</B>. Keep talking and I might get to know you even better. It makes me happy if I make you laugh; nothing nicer than giving people a moment of joy.

<font color=blue><b>Believe me. I am not just a tree kisser or a whale kisser or what so ever. Though, I love to kiss a whale, wish the opportunity was there, I would do it in a second, I love whales.</B></font>

I love whales too, but not as much as love human beings, especially those unfortunates living in Third World countries, prey of greedy and corrupt politicians, multinational corporations and colonialist governments. Don´t take me wrong: I am not leftist at all. On the contrary.

<font color=blue><B>And no, I am not such an intellect like you maybe, but man, what way off you are here. Guess you better read and learn about people you take down without knowing any more of them then just one reply. Have a nice day.;) </font>

Thanks you for considering me an intellectual (I wish I was). I have been reading (in five languages) since I was 11 years old, infected by a rare virus transmitted by my father, that provokes the syndrome of <font color=red><b>Quest for Truth</B></font>. Vain task, if there is one. You´ll never get even close to it. Ever. But the joy of the road to knowledge makes life worth living. And having children to whom you can pass this nasty virus.

By the way, in your profile you state: <font color=blue>"paranormal items; ufo's; the universe; all the unexplained and read a book by S. King"</font>.

I love unexplained things (because I like to get closer to the Truth, remember?). Have you ever heard about the <b>"stones of Ica"</B>, also known as <b>"the stones of Ocucaje"</B>, engraved stones found in the Ica Desert, Per&uacute;?. They are more than 65,000,000 year old, and depict men hunting dinosaurs, and heart transplants too. They have been proven as authentic. Or the Paracas Mantle, a piece of robe more than 3,000 years old, where you´ll find a perfect lesson on genetics: the description of <b>"syndactilia"</B>, the syndrome of absence of thumbs in a family, transmitted by the males and updated by the mother.

If interested, I could give you links and email you pictures (.gif and .jpg) of these mysterious things.

Keep cool, have a nice Belgian lambic (sorry if you are Dutch) and stop worrying. Enjoy life! We had two days in a row of beautiful shining sun, and temperatures here might go back to normal.
</blockquote>

Well, I am sorry to tell you, but yes, I know of these items you mention.
I do love whales and other animals much more then humans.
Maybe that is just for me to decide.
I see what we humans do to this world, given to us to live on, the best we can.
Not to make a big mess from Nature and we are sure not here to pollute everything with our garbage.
That means all the oil, floating in the Sea's and Oceans, when a big tanker is going down at Sea or Ocean. All the oil comes to beaches, and kills all life on its way. Even at the beaches the oil kills the animals. All doing of humans.
This is just one, just one thing, humans do to Earth, then I do not talk about the mess they make with their stupid wars.
So, I see you love to quote. I am glad you quote me in the color 'blue', I love the color 'blue'.
Thank you and be welcome at Sci forums.
You make good discussions.
Talk to you later.
Bye.;)

in AMERICA millions of dollars are spent over weather research,still the future predictions are not very accurate .how can we then predict the climate correctly for the future.global warming has been going on since the time of ice ages.the rate HAS been the same throughout.arent those millions of dollars the only reason for envoirnmentalists to caution us about global warming?

....blind leading the blind....

Hi, kmguru! I don´t know if you found information about PCBs on ACSH website. In case you didn´t, here is a link to our webpage in Argentina to a report by the ACSH, where you´ll find full details about the issue. (It is in English). Nothing was left out. Hope you enjoy it!
<center>
<A HREF="http://webs.sinectis.com.ar/edufer/INGLES/PCB.html"><B>PCB Report</B></A>
</center>

Occurring? Yes. At what rate? Depends what you consider as fast and slow. Global warming is the rise in AVERAGE global temperatures but we've only been averaging for how long? Who knows, in the past, the average might have gone up and down and it was all "natural"....ice age, yes....but that was a "bit" extreme....let's not get carried away.

The greenhouse effect -->natural, and yes, human activity in the past 200 years may have contributed to global warming but HOW much? Is it that bad? It can get really bad, but I'm sure by then we will have solved our energy concerns in a more environmentally friendly way (no more spewing off greenhouse gases up into the atmosphere). Afterall, aren't environmentalists pushing the panic button on the global warming thing to encourage us into finding and using alternative energy resources? Not that I'm against them or anything....I support the noble cause....we should look for alternative energy sources....global warming or not.

I just don't see us roasting in this century....our great great great grandkids, maybe....if we don't nuke ourselves into oblivion first. As long as we are taking preventative measures (which we are) then I don't think we need to freak out over global warming...just keep it in mind and do our share.;)

The Ecosphere is badly damaged and it won't take a century before the human race shall be wiped away by 2/3 of the worlds population.

The main cause of this are the so called holy wars. Earth is hurt and damaged by the human race and it gets worse every day.
Better think of in between 40 years, 2/3 of the worlds population will be erased from Earth. Only the ones who nurture and take good care of Earth will remain.

Edufer, I don't need your reply on this, this is something different.
I know, for sure....
For you to find out how.
Enjoy your days in the Sun while you still can, haha.
I sure do the same, you don't know me and who I am, so no quotes please. I just give information.
Thank you.:)

Well, I seriously doubt that "Mother Earth" will individually select the people who have nurtured her and protected her to remain living 40 years from now. I suspect you were joking but ANYWAY...

Global warming is not as emminent as ozone layer depletion (granted they may have similar causes although CFCs are the main culprits in the ozone problem). Ozone layer depletion also occurs naturally---kinda like mutations in DNA only we've managed to turn it into a type of cancer...where the damage is pretty awful and almost irreversible (we are working on it!). Now THAT is a big concern. People in South America in Chile and Argentina (Tierra del Fuego) are having serious problems....skin cancer, blindness....hell, why do you think NASA has chosen to set up camp there? For all the pretty little points of light they can see?? The sheep are going blind for cryin' out loud!!!:mad:

No, I am not joking and Earth doesn't pick individuals.
That is for the human race to see who will remain.

And you name a lot of things which are very true, all pollution.
There are more autistic babies too the last 15 years.
And so there is a lot more.

The Ecosphere is really badly damaged. Something will happen, as always has been through the ages. Once in a while Earth cleans Herself from the little pests on Her back.
And right She is....

Ana: I am sorry to contradict you, but people in Tierra del Fuego and southern Chile have no problems at all with the infamous "ozone hole". I live in Argentina, and am well aware of anything concerned with the status of the ozone layer.

According to studies made by Drs. Isidoro Orlansky and Martinez, from the National University of Buenos Aires, back in 1996, the levels of ultraviolet radiation (UV-B) coming through a "mini ozone hole" above Ushuaia (the capital of Tierra del Fuego), were in the order of 150 watts/m2, while the "normal" radiation falling at the same moment in Buenos Aires (1800 km north) were 350 watts/m2. This means that the amount of UV-B coming through the ozone hole was less than half than the UV-B falling over Buenos Aries. By the way: UV-B right below the "hole" in Antarctica never go over 120 watts/m2.

The incidence of skin tumors (basal and squamous cells) among people in Tierra del Fuego are far below those seen in people living in more irradiated places like my city (Cordoba, 31°South). And regarding the malignant melanoma tumors, the rate is uniform from Ushuaia to the north border with Bolivia --which gives you a hint that melanomas are not related in any form to solar irradiance. Surely you must have been getting your information from the wrong places. According to Lic. Victoria Tafuri, form the National Observatory in Villa Ortuzar, Buenos Aires, in charge of cheking ozone layer thickness: "We have not seen any decrease in the levels of the ozone layer during the last 25 years". Please pay a short visit to the website by the <A HREF="http://webs.sinectis.com.ar/edufer/">Argentine Foundation for a Scientific Ecology"</A> (the English version) and check for some truths regarding some common myths and misconceptions on the environmental issue.

Edufer, I have to say that it is not much of a coincidence that it is better in Argentina, for it all started in South America in the first place, long, long ago in the Ancient Times.

And in the countries in South America is less pollution then in other parts of the world because they don't have the same kind of polluting material luxury in big places in the country.
I don't mean the cities, but inwards the countries.

So I should prefer to live there too, always wanted to go there, because of the Ancient Pyramids and the culture that is still there, less then it supposed to be, but oh, would I want to go there and have a look and feel the sphere at the Ancient Pyramids and their history.

For that I envie you very much. ;)

Have a nice day.

All I can tell you is that people who cherish this earth will be prepared for whats coming, and wont live in the places that will have the most devestation. I know that I will have a home in the wilderness.

I actually think that I would enjoy the peace and quiet of living in the wilderness with a beatiful wife. There would be no government to tell us that that is someone eles land. We would return to the life that we once loved so. The Hunter-Gather Life, the wanders.

Why become a space ferring Civilizatiion? We can't even take care of our own home let alone Mars and Titan. I dont know what is coming, I cant tell you that. But what I can tell you is that we are at fork in the road. Either we learn to live with ourselves or we will be demoted to the Hunter-Gathers that we once were. For we are All wanders, yearning for exploration and new places. All the explores have had to hang up their coats because the only place left to go is UP. And we have barely gotten our feet wet in the cosmic ocean. So I leave you with this: If we become a space ferring Civilization, something must have awakened us. Because without something that will awaken every soul on this earth, there is no way that this civilization, at its present state or given any number of years, will become a space ferring civilization that would have learned to live with its self and take care of our mother, the earth. For it will always be our home.

Not exactly what you would expect from global warming is it?

From CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/science/12/28/penguin.peril.ap/story.ap.jpg

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Massive icebergs and an unprecedented amount of sea ice have nearly isolated one of Antarctica's largest populations of Adelie penguins, jeopardizing attempts by the birds to breed, scientists report.
Each year at this time, the penguins flock from their feeding grounds at sea to Ross Island, where they breed and lay their eggs in shallow nests lined with pebbles.
But satellite images released Thursday by NASA show the coast around Cape Crozier -- normally home to a colony of about 130,000 breeding pairs of the penguins -- is choked with ice and icebergs.
The largest of the bergs, dubbed B-15A, covers 2,100 square miles, roughly the area of Delaware.
The amount of sea ice has increased -- and in some cases, doubled -- the distance between the breeding grounds and the open water, where penguins feast on krill, fish and squid. That means the birds must now walk rather than swim to their colonies, which can take them five times as long.
Scientist David Ainley of H.T. Harvey & Associates, ecological consultants based in San Jose, said the numbers of Adelie penguins is on the "low side" at Cape Crozier, threatening the survival of the colony.
The colony, the world's sixth-largest and southernmost population of the penguins, has been studied continuously since 1959. It had been increasing in size in recent years.
A smaller Adelie colony at nearby Cape Royds will "fail totally," Ainley said. A colony of 1,200 Emperor penguins at Cape Crozier also failed to raise chicks this year, according to researchers working on the National Science Foundation-funded study.
Among the natural culprits are B-15A and a smaller iceberg, C-16. The two bergs broke off from the Ross Ice Shelf in March 2000 as part of a natural calving process and have gradually migrated along the shore, altering wind and current patterns in the process.
The bergs may eventually seal off sea access to McMurdo Station, the main United States facility in Antarctica, said Ian Joughin, a researcher at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
The movement of the icebergs, and subsequent growth of sea ice in the region, was seen in NASA imagery captured by the agency's Terra satellite.

How you think it comes that those ice mountains are there in the first place? Natural? So it is Natural that those penguins die?

NASA tells this and NASA tells that. One tale after another.

Why did NASA take the satelite from Arecibo out of orbit? Because they care so much about Earth? Or because they care so much about themselves?

Why doesn't NASA release the hidden Spacecrafts? And why doesn't NASA tell us what they really found?

Tales, no more than stupid american tales. To keep the society quite.

I'll give you another american tale and please don't make me mad.:(

Saturday, 29 December, 2001, 00:32 GMT

Birds 'missing' after US bombing

The Siberian crane is globally endangered

By Jill McGivering
BBC South Asia correspondent

Ornithologists in Pakistan fear that populations of birds whose migration route takes them over Afghanistan may have been devastated by the weeks of bombing there.


For the birds, the timing of the bombing could not have been worse

On the shores of Rawal Lake, a key conservation area only about 10 minutes drive from the centre of Islamabad, there is a sound that cannot be heard this year: a whole bird population which has suddenly gone missing.

Dr Masoud Anwar, a biodiversity specialist who monitors wildlife, says he usually sees several thousand ducks and other wildfowl migrating here from Central Asia via Afghanistan.

So far this year, not one has arrived. It is a conservation disaster.

"We are trying to conserve biodiversity here, and we need the birds for that. If there're no birds, we cannot go for the conservation," he says.

Killed or derouted

The same reports are coming from all over Pakistan. Tens of thousands of ducks, cranes and other birds depend on Pakistan as a winter habitat, and Afghanistan is a key migration route.

Ducks and other birds depend on Pakistan as a winter habitat

For the birds, the timing of the bombing could not have been worse.

Oumed Haneed, an ornithologist with Pakistan's National Council for Conservation of Wildlife, says it is unclear why the birds have not appeared.

"One impact may be directly the killing of birds through bombing, poisoning of the wetlands or the sites which these birds are using.

"Another impact may be these birds are derouted, because their migration is very precise. They migrate in a corridor and if they are disturbed through bombing, they might change their route," he says.

Devastation

Cranes are perhaps the most at risk. Three species of crane winter in Pakistan. All of them are rare. One, the Siberian Crane, is globally endangered.

Asheik Ahmed Khan of the Worldwide Fund for Nature says the signs so far are very disturbing.

"Previously, the hunters used to see cranes in a group of 50 or 55. This year, they could not see them in a group of more than three. The group has become very small, and it means something is happening, somewhere."

Down at the lake, monitoring teams are waiting in the hope of seeing late arrivals.

The real impact on migrating birds will not be known until surveys are completed. But ornithologists fear the bombing in Afghanistan could have devastated bird populations, some of which will struggle to recover.


NASA has nice pictures, but let them stay with that please and out of Earths behaviour. :confused:

I have an understanding of how our Ozone is from a Satellite Chronological Scan of CO emissions that I found some months back.

The Ozone (O<SUB>3</SUB>) is the shell that protects us from Ultra Violet radiation (and other radiations), for many years people have been concerning about it's destruction as aparent holes begin to take shape over the poles. The following is my explaination of what occurs and why, as for what we can do about it???? well For any disease to be treated, it starts with a Diagnosis.

The Ozone, is above other gases that are sent into the atmsophere, Some are very natural:

like Hydrogen (H) and Oxygen as Water (H<SUB>2</SUB>O) Evaporates from the planet surface.

There is an amount of Methane (CH<SUB>4</SUB>) that comes from the breakdown of biological materials like waste at a landfill site, but is also vented from Oil rigs. (Since Oil is made from biological breakdown)

Cars output Carbon Monoxide (CO) through there Exhausts with an amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO<SUB>2</SUB>) which we also Exhail.

There are many other combinations of elements that are also expelled into the atmosphere from Volcanoes and Fridges/Old Aerosol cans. (Some have molecules that are too acute to name in full and can have alternative configurations, Like Chloro-fluorocarbon CFC's)

All these gases that can rise up to the Ozone, layer beneath, and because they intermingle with the ozone at it's base level, some Radiation manages to get through and photoelectrically change how a molecules electrons react.
This causes changes and the swapping of atoms between molecules, most notibly Oxygen from the Ozone.

This for a time Lowers the Strength of the Ozone and increases the amount of Molecular changes that occur in the Gases below the Ozone. The Molecular Gas clouds below the Ozone fluctuate in strength, at one given time CO,O3,CH4 might be high and next H2O, H2O, CO2 will be more prominant. (You'll notice a missing C, thats because Carbon on it's own falls back to earth to create Dust and Dirt)

This is where the planets Atmosphere shifts in Equilibrum, At one given time the Ozone is in emense depletion and next it's over repaired. The reason for such drastic shifts is due to the amount of Gases that Us humans have unnaturally forced into the Atmosphere.

If the world was naturally dealing with a natural amount, then its Equilibrium would be pretty much set and have close perimeters (This is because the planet has had Millions of years for development of it's climate), our shift has destablised the planet back to the point of Re-Development, and that is what we will have to deal with.)

The only way that a balance can be attempted to regain is by lowering CO, CH4 and CFC Emmisions GLOBALLY, And that is why almost all Worldly Countries Accepted the Kyoto Summits ruling (Other than one particular Country that I won't mention [CoughAmericaCough], Of course there was a Mention of "Not Economically Viable", Well thats a self-destructive statement, okay... your nearing retirement, you reaping some money in... But your Grandchildren aren't going to have a planet to live on where they don't get cancer, So I hope your moneys worth it.)

The holes are over the poles because the ICE sheets act like "Focal Mirrors", Namely Radiation strikes the ice and rebounds back up, attacking the Ozone from below.

(This with the added fact that originally Our Radio networks use to use a method of bouncing radiowaves off of the bottom of the ionosphere also cause Ozone damage.)

There you explain it very well Stryder. You can do so much better in English.:) Thank you.

And it is true that we humans are damaging the Ecosphere immensly at the moment and if we go on like this, we return to the state of cavemen.:(

Evolution, but than in reverse meaning.

So lets try to stop this and start at home, with your trashcans and cars and spread the word to your fellow humans who want to listen. Though I think it is already to late to 'cure' this.

Come on people, think about it. Earth is hurt badly and it is our fault...:confused:

With all the fuel we burn in cars and trucks, boats planes etc, you cannot jsut be ignorant and pass it of as not doing anything lol.
Yes the earth was probably coming out of a ice age.....naturally over thousands of years im sure, this gives life time to adapt, we speed it up to levels that will cause extinction, it will unless we make huge changes to the way we think, right now its bigger/more which will end humans. My grandfather who is 80 years old this year has seen the human population increase 6x since he was born, you think that that can go on?

Global warming is a reality, we need to react now!

So lets try to stop this and start at home, with your trashcans and cars and spread the word to your fellow humans who want to listen. Though I think it is already to late to 'cure' this.

You seem to be pretty hopeless already. I don't believe that it's too late for us to improve the Earth's condition. I just think it will take concerted effort. I know that we are moving in the right direction, I just don't know if it is fast enough.

For instance, five or so years ago the city where I live in built a huge recycling center and started having people separate out glass, plastic, tin, aluminum, and paper for recycling. Within 1 year the recycling center was already too small because of the huge response from the community. My city also has power generators placed around our landfill. They generate a small amount of power...using the methane produced by the landfill.

Hyundai and Toyota have this year released gas-electric hybrid cars that don't have to be recharged; they get 50-60 miles per gallon on the highway.

On the other hand, we also have an increased demand by people for 6 and 8 cylinder jeeps and SUVs. Not to mention that I heard that they are going to put 12 cylinder engines in Cadillacs. Even this does not have to be so bad; the technology is not beyond us to improve the efficiency of these vehicles drastically, yet the car companies do not do it...because of pressure from the oil companies, and because most governments do not require it. Notice that both of the hybrid cars are made by Japanese companies, although BMW has a prototype for a car that runs on hydrogen and Ford has said that they will have a hybrid out soon.

I have to have hope. I have to keep faith. Otherwise why bother at all?

You have to spread the word. Because Sciforums is a world wide Forum and humans from all over the world are posting here. Including a lot of Americans who have a rotten government which doesn't listen to anybody.

Why did the U$ leave the Kyoto convention in the first place? To make money, money, money. That is what they care for. You know how many cars the averidge american has? They don't care about separating glass, paper, iron, batteries and other poluting materials.

In the Netherlands they do that yes. Separate trash and have cars with less poluting fuel. They have windmills to make energy and Sun energy and there are a lot of houses connected to these 'new' form of energy.

That is a very good sign. I don't see it happen on such large scale in the U$ though and that is the most poluting country on Earth, so they say. I wonder about Russia and India. By my means they are pretty polutive too.

Where do you live Deus? Tell some more about it. Do you have a drivers license? I don't. I prefer to ride my bycicle.

And I am sure you have to keep faith in life. At the same time you can do something for Earth, by keeping your mind on the important things.

Thank you for listening, have a nice day...:)

Including a lot of Americans who have a rotten government which doesn't listen to anybody.

Actually, the American government DOES listen to people, but the people have to take the time to make their voices heard. The trouble is, not enough people care.

Why did the U$ leave the Kyoto convention in the first place? To make money, money, money. That is what they care for. You know how many cars the average American has? They don't care about separating glass, paper, iron, batteries and other polluting materials.

Bush said that he would sign the Kyoto Protocol. He lied. I am very angry about that. The fact that Bush and his corporate supporters don't like the Kyoto Protocol doesn't mean that we all feel that way. The average American family has 2 - 2.5 cars per household.

In the Netherlands they do that yes. Separate trash and have cars with less polluting fuel. They have windmills to make energy and Sun energy and there are a lot of houses connected to these 'new' form of energy.

There are quite a few windmills in California, where they can be placed to make it worthwhile. Even in Wisconsin, where I live, there are a few windmills. My aunt has solar panels on her roof.

That is a very good sign. I don't see it happen on such large scale in the U$ though and that is the most polluting country on Earth, so they say.

No, we could certainly do more. You're right, the US is the most polluting country in the world. We use up 25% of the fossil fuels burned each year. That's horrible.

Where do you live Deus? Tell some more about it. Do you have a drivers license? I don't. I prefer to ride my bicycle.

Yes, I have a drivers license. I got it at 18 and I need to drive to get to work. I drive a 3 cylinder compact car which is one of the most efficient non-electric, non-hybrid cars on the road. In the summer I do ride my bike, but in Wisconsin it's not very smart to ride it during about half of the year.

Keep the faith.

Bottom line is that a radical change in life will be required to save earth as we no it and prevent overpopulation, resource overuse.

We must reduce global polution, and live lifestyles that use far less resources.

This requires that our lives must change a LOT, people don't like, or will not accept that currently, a major catalism will fix this. Nature will force it upon us if we don't do it ourselves.

As sick as it may seem we have to use birth control, we are having WAY to many new babys born every day. I can't remeber the total population to date, over 5Billion i belive, that will go at least 5x in my lifetime, thats 20billion, really can earth keep on supporting that level of growth? No. People will die.

That is what is going to happen yes. Earth will take care of Herself if we 'intelligent' humans have bothered Her long enough. And it won't take long now for Earth to do so and get rid of the little pests on Her back who only torture Her with their stupid inventions.:(

On the other hand, children are the hope of the humans. When the children are raised well and with care for Nature, there'll be hope for Earth. It is case to teach the children well. Most of the times the children are forced into their parents narrow minded kind of view. So make sure you live your own life, not take the easy way out, learn from the mistakes other humans have made before you.;)

Over population is also a case of letting every human live as long as possible. Artificial garbage to keep humans alive. And why? Because humans are afraid to die. They want to live forever, immortality please, if possible.:( Crap, death is a part of Nature, a part of life.

You are right though, there are way to much humans on Earth nowadays...

As far as overpopulation goes, I don't know if what you're saying is completely true. I think I read somewhere that the Earth could easily support 20 billion people with our current technological advances if we want to make it work. That means that there is no way that people should be going hungry now, since global population is only around 6 billion. Unfortunately there are people who are hungry. :(
I do agree that we need to slow down, though. I don't want to see Earth get to the 20 billion people mark in my lifetime because we might not be ready to leave by the time I die. C'mon people, 2 children per pair of consenting adults and the population stays steady. Is that too much to ask?

Have a look at this!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1752000/1752999.stm

Interesting. Of course, overall temperature changes over Antarctica neither prove nor disprove the existence of global warming.

Sandpoint, ID — A small publisher has “tithed” $30,000 worth of new books entitled Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare to members of Congress and American libraries in support of the “Space Preservation Act of 2001”—legislation that would ban “Star Wars” programs if passed. The book, written by Harvard-trained health science investigator, Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz, discusses the risks posed by space weapons cited in House Bill H.R. 2977, issued by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich. The bill, currently in review committees, and certain to be opposed by the Bush administration, urges a “permanent ban on basing weapons in space.”

Included in the proposed ban are devices capable of directing lasers, chemical or biological sprays, and electromagnetic radiation to inflict “death or injury on . . . biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person.”

Tetrahedron Publishing Group of Sandpoint, Idaho invited the nation’s librarians and congressional representatives to order free copies of the 525-page hardcover, in an effort to inform the public and law makers about the health risks posed by military space programs targeted by the bill. Included here are the latest technologies for population control that H.R. 2977 calls “exotic weapons systems.”

The Congressional Record cites these exotic weapons as—(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons; (ii) chemtrails; (iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems; (iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons; (v) laser weapons systems; (vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and (vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons. All of these were critically examined in Death in the Air, which recently received a scientific endorsement in CHOICE—the nation’s leading academic library journal published by the American Library Association. (See; http://www.deathintheair.com/reviews.html)

According to the House bill, available for review at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery, the term “exotic weapons systems” include those designed to “damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, . . . with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.” This proposed legislation would clamp down on the government’s highly controversial High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) that heats portions of the ionosphere from Alaska. Critics contend that atmospheric heating is related to global warming, jet stream modifications, and weather changes causing more super storms and droughts.

:rolleyes:

According to the House bill, available for review at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery, the term “exotic weapons systems” include those designed to “damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, . . . with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.” This proposed legislation would clamp down on the government’s highly controversial High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) that heats portions of the ionosphere from Alaska. Critics contend that atmospheric heating is related to global warming, jet stream modifications, and weather changes causing more super storms and droughts.

Messing with nature is definately not a good thing to do. We know very little about how the weather works, and it is a very powerful thing to be screwing around with. Any project that alters large portions of an environment is in danger of radically changing hundreds of parameters with potentially disastrous effects. Just look what engineers have to deal with when they dam a river for hydro power or a resevoir. It radically alters the surrounding landscape, and that is nothing compared to screwing with the atmosphere. F*cking government/military, trying to play God.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1766000/1766064.stm

:cool: :cool:

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$QWZT0RIAACZIRQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/news/2002/01/20/wenv20.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/01/20/ixworld.html

:cool: :cool:

The scenario we are heading into is getting clearer when the impact of global warming on genetic changes is considered in-hand with the article below addressing rapid changes at the Antarctic published by Reuters.

Global warming has accelerated rapidly in the 20 years since the first of three consecutive double-peaked solar maximums began. A key question that we need to be looking into is what percentage of global warming the result of cyclic solar changes and what percentage is attributed to environmental degradation. I suggest that a good portion of global warming is the result of cyclic solar changes that are exacerbated by environmental pollutants.

Montana has had an incredibly warm winter and it seems that winters this mild did not occur in the memory of long-term residents before 1980. The current series of double-peaked solar maximums would have started around 1980, with the current one being in 2002 and 2000, the previous one in 1989 and 1991, and the first of the series in 1978 and 1980.

Antarctic Island Called a Unique Climate-Change Lab
Last Updated: January 24, 2002 02:04 PM ET
By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An unexpectedly rapid warming of lakes on a desolate Antarctic island provides compelling evidence of the environmental impact wrought by rising global temperatures, scientists said on Thursday.

Writing in the journal Science, British and Canadian scientists said a 20-year study has revealed dramatic changes in Signy Island's lakes caused by a 1.8-degree Fahrenheit rise in air temperature.

This increase has triggered a series of changes in the lakes on the island, located 435 miles northeast of the Antarctic Peninsula. The scientists consider polar lakes to be early detectors of change wrought by global warming.

The gain in winter lake temperatures was three times higher than that of local air temperatures, the scientists said. The amount of time during a given year that the lakes were completely frozen over declined by more than four weeks.

This decline allowed the lake water and sediments to absorb solar energy that normally would be reflected away by the ice.

Nutrient levels in the lakes rose, most likely because streams ran over thawed ground rather than ice. Algae and phytoplankton in the lakes also increased.

'ALMOST A BEACON GOING OFF'

"This is almost a beacon going off saying, 'Look, we've gone through this threshold at this point on the planet, and it's an indicator that the environment is changing rapidly,"' researcher Lloyd Peck of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge said in a telephone
interview.

"The main finding of our work is that the ecology and the ecosystem in the lakes that we've looked at have changed really dramatically fast. ... What we're seeing is an amplification of the larger-scale environmental change signal," Peck added.

Signy Island, in the South Orkney Islands, is named for the wife of a whaling ship captain who had a station there in the early 20th century. It is about four miles long and three miles wide. There is permanent ice cover over a large part of the island.

But in summer, extensive areas of moss and some grasses are exposed, and there are numerous freshwater pools and lakes.

Researchers say the island's isolation allowed them to come up with measurements not affected by local pollution or heating associated with cities.

"In the Northern Hemisphere, where they're seeing fast changes in lakes, they've often been associated with large human centers of population," Peck said.

"So it's hard to say whether it's a global change ... or whether it's something to do with extra heating and pollution from big cities, like Chicago and the Great Lakes. Whereas here, we're in an island that is several thousand miles away from the nearest big city," Peck added.

CONTRADICTORY FINDINGS?

The study was published just two weeks after other researchers reported in the journal Nature that temperatures had dropped since the mid-1980s in Antarctica's arid and inhospitable desert valleys. Those researchers noted that the climate is warming up on average globally, and that Antarctica's Dry Valleys region represented an exception.

Peck said his team's findings and the seemingly contradictory results from the Dry Valleys illustrate that regional variations exist in the global warming phenomenon.

He also noted that the Dry Valleys are about 4,000 miles from Signy Island.

"You would not expect to get the same message from every point on the planet of warming, or whatever, during a changing environmental scenario. It just doesn't work that way," he said.

John Turner, also of the British Antarctic Survey, said a complex picture has emerged of temperature change over the whole Antarctic continent. He noted that while the Antarctic Peninsula region experienced one of the largest temperature increases on Earth over
the last 50 years, the South Pole has experienced a modest cooling.

"However, what we can say with certainty is that Antarctica is extremely sensitive to environmental change," Turner said.

Hello there I am from Canada and would like to say a few things about this post that i have tried to read. I have lots of things to say and the flow may not be to coherent.

First off, there is no way that we can say without a doubt, be able to claim global warming is really happening. We as people have not been following weather patterns(globaly) long enough to determine that a global warming pattern is happening.

This is exactly why the large coorperations support the reasearch into global warming. They know as well as all the scientists in the world, that no study can say without a doubt that "it is not a natural cycle of the earth to warm and then cool". It is far to large of scale to predict with such a small study isolated in small region around the globe.

All of the studies put out will contradict each other because the time lines are far to short,

"just because i have walked 5Km on a road does not mean i know where the road will go"

what i mean by that is, we have only been following global patterns for a very short period of time! sure we have watched the weather but not on a global scale.

As a Canadian I am concerd with the enviroment! but if it gets a little warmer up here I won't be complaining!

Secondly

The US pulled out of the summit because the developing countries were not having to follow the rectrictions that were going to be imposed on the developed nations. Thus not helping the global enviroment. can't restrict some and let the other go nuts with polluting the globe!

lastly

Global warming is not the problem we face today, the real problem is the imediate enviroment around the very houses we live in! we all the world looking at global warming the companies continue to poison the water supply! Bad water is a far worse problem to tackle.

Not sure if any one is aware of the problem here in Canada right now, here is a brief note. A town's (which i won't mention) water treament facility was neglagent in there job. Several people died from the contaminated water pumped into there houses!(this is happening in more than just some towns)

Is the water so bad now, if we drink it we DIE! think of EVERY LIVING CREATURE THAT DRINKS FROM THAT WATER. DEAD

Move the presure from global warming(which i don't know if we can EVER prove) back to the companies that pollute are back yards! Think back a few years and see if you can remember all topics of concern we use to have. Notice how they don't seem to be at the for front now, I wonder why and how?

that for letting me rant and lending your eyes.

Would the greenhouse effect deniers explain the following (and please note the exponential nature of the ongoing increase):

http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/~plh2/group/glblwarm/CO2TEMP.GIF

Note that no 10,000 year old ice age can possibly even begin to explain the exponential rise that occurred in the last couple of centuries. Also note the correlation between C02 and average global temperature over the past 160 thousand years. Notice the graph above ends with C02 ppm concentration of under 250. Notice the graph below shows current C02 ppm concentration of ~350 and rising exponentially. Finally, note that in the graph above the total range of variation of C02 concentration is about 100 ppm, corresponding to a temperature range of about 12.5 degrees.

Now, would someone please deny all of the above so that we can breathe a collective sigh of relief and go about our normal daily business of screwing our children over?

I agree that the fresh water all over the world is in great danger. There is a lot more salt water available on Earth then fresh water. The human race is screwing up, big time, in all kind of ways.:(

So, why don't we take a collective breathe and go on with our daily screwing up business...:mad:

We'd better stop screwing up right away. Than again, guess it is already to late. Oh what a joy to be human.

It makes me sick, literally. And I don't need bad water for that. I can see for myself how terrible irresponsible the human race is behaving. It shows in everything.

Sorry for this post, I am real ticked off about this. We are not here on Earth to screw Her up you know.:confused:

thoughts,

I'll tell you why you should care about global warming. Because when the polar glaciers melt, all those great expanses of low-lying Canadian land will be drowned under the rising ocean. Because the Gulf Stream could be halted by decreased salinity of arctic water, which would plunge Canada into another ice age even while the rest of the Earth warms up. Because the dislocation and misery it will cause throughout islandic and third-world nations will impact you no less directly than the Arabic plight with respect to the U.S. Imagine hundreds of millions of very pissed off people looking to wreak revenge upon all those who fattened and gorged at the expense of their land and future.

Antartica Becomes Too Hot For
The Penguins - Warning To World
By Geoffrey Lean
The Independent - London
2-4-2

Penguins are starting to desert parts of Antarctica because the icy wastes are getting too hot.
The numbers of adelie penguins on the Antarctic peninsula the most northerly part of the frozen continent are falling as global warming takes hold. And experts predict that, as the climate change continues, they may abandon much of the 900-mile-long promontory altogether.
The archetypal "tuxedoed" species like the cold even more than other penguins. And the peninsula has been warming up faster than almost anywhere else on earth, with temperatures increasing at least five times faster than the world average. Scientists believe this is disrupting their food supplies.
Global warming is also causing them grief in another of their strongholds, the Ross Sea. Two giant icebergs have broken off the Antarctic ice sheet and are blocking the way from their breeding colonies to their feeding areas. As a result they have to walk 30 miles further to get food no small matter when they can manage only one mile per hour. And, on the other side of the continent, thousands of emperor penguin chicks drowned near Britain's Halley base after the ice broke up early, before they had learned to swim.
Like miners' canaries, the dinner-jacketed penguins of Antarctica are providing an early warning of danger to come. For global warming is heating up the frozen continent faster than the rest of the world, and the penguins are among the first to feel the effects.
Flightless, and so unable to escape like other birds, they are affected by what happens both on land and sea. And, because they are easy to spot and count, they provide an early indication of what may be happening to other species.
They are feeling the heat most strongly on the Antarctic peninsula, which juts out from the polar land mass towards South America. Studies of air temperatures around the world over the past half-century suggest that this is one of the three areas on the planet along with north-western North America and part of Siberia warming up fastest. The British Antarctic Survey says flowering plants have spread rapidly in the area, glaciers are retreating, and seven huge ice sheets have melted away.
As the peninsula has warmed up, the numbers of adelie penguins have been dropping. Scientists suspect that the rising temperatures affect the small fish and other marine animals on which they feed, though they are not yet sure how.
Professor Steven Emslie, of the University of North Carolina, believes that if the warming goes on the penguins "would continue to decline in the peninsula, and may completely abandon much of it". Studies of fossilised remains that he has carried out near Britain's Rothera base show that the numbers of the penguins have sharply declined during warmer periods in prehistory.
On at least one occasion, the decline in the peninsula was marked by a rapid increase in the penguins in the Ross Sea more than 2,000 miles away. But in recent months global warming has been causing them trouble there too. Researchers for the US National Science Foundation said that one colony of adelies at Cape Royds will "fail totally" this year. And scientists at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography add that a colony of emperor penguins at Cape Crozier has also failed to raise any chicks.
Global warming also threatens the food supplies of emperor penguins. When there is less ice in the sea, populations of krill a staple in their diet fall.
Despite all this, penguins are not in danger of extinction; there are millions of them still in Antarctica and one species the chinstrap penguin seems to be thriving in the warmer weather. But they still provide a warning. In the words of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the world's leading conservation body: "Things happening to penguins are a foretaste of things to come."

These guys (http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/) make a pretty good case that global warming isn't proven, though they are definately on the anti side of the fence.


Things we know:

We know that the weather varies.
We know about seasons, El Nino and Ice ages.
We know that the temperatures have varied considerably in the past 1000 years. (More info here. (http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/lec19.htm))
We know that we have relatively recently come out of a "little ice age" (from 1560-1890.)
We know that volcanoes can have large effects.
We know that the Sun's output varies by a few percent.


Given all this, it seems fair to say that we DON'T know:

a) if global warming is actually occurring
b) if the weather is getting worse than it used to be
c) if it's our fault if (a) or (b) are happening
d) if we can, or should, be doing anything about it

What we should be doing is more RESEARCH. Trying to find the answers to these questions. Instead we seem to be implementing policy based on flimsy evidence.

Unfortunately "the environment" has become so politicized that it's impossible to have a sensible public debate on it at the moment. On one side are the ultra-environmentalists who are the heroes of their own worldview, fighting against the evil rest of the world. On the other are the backlash movements - rabid anti-environmentalists who wouldn't believe the sky was blue if an environmentalist said so. Finally there is the press, who will always print "We're All Going to Die!" in preference to "There's Nothing to Worry About".

Peace.

What we should be doing is more RESEARCH. Trying to find the answers to these questions. Instead we seem to be implementing policy based on flimsy evidence.

Unfortunately "the environment" has become so politicized that it's impossible to have a sensible public debate on it at the moment. On one side are the ultra-environmentalists who are the heroes of their own worldview, fighting against the evil rest of the world. On the other are the backlash movements - rabid anti-environmentalists who wouldn't believe the sky was blue if an environmentalist said so.

I agree. I think that I may have come in my earlier posts as being someone who is adamant that we are causing an increased greenhouse effect which is causing global warming. We do know that the average temperatures on Earth since the industrial revolution have been getting higher. So global warming IS happening. The question is really whether we are causing it, or whether it is just part of a natural cycle. Either way, I think it is a good idea to err on the side of caution. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't develop more efficient appliances and engines, why we shouldn't strive to conserve more and pollute less. We may not know for sure that we are making the Earth warmer, but we do know about emissions and smog. We also know about the carbon-dioxide/oxygen cycle, and we know that if we cut too many trees down then they're won't be as many large plants to take in carbon-dioxide and release oxygen.

Anyone who's ever been in the Boy Scouts (such as myself), knows that the rule is that you should try to leave your campsite as clean as you found it, if not better. I think it might be a little too late to do that for the Earth, but at least we can make a better effort. It's not only good for other living things, it's good for our health too.

Will you please come and tell that to all the humans who leave their GARBAGE behind in the Woods and the Rivers and everywhere they can find a place to leave their GARBAGE behind???!!!:confused:

We cleaned up after the humans left you know. Late in the afternoon, on sunny Sundays and through the week. Go figure how long we were busy doing so.

Research??? Just take a look in the Woods, after the 'civilised' humans have done their visits to the Woods with their food supplies and chairs and play toys.

A little respect for the Woods, Nature in general that is, should be nice.

Global warming is happening yes. Hell, lets do some research how it comes that it is happening. How much research and doing nothing about it has yet to follow before humans understand that their inventions are the main problem here?:(

The Antarctic has cooled during the past 35 years despite the worldwide temperature rise, according to a study published today. The finding challenges the belief that global warming is raising temperatures across the whole of the southern continent. But the authors accept that some Antarctic "hotspots" have got warmer over the past few decades. (full text here (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/14/wtemp14.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/01/14/ixworld.html))Dr Ian Joughin, of the American space agency's (Nasa) Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Slawed Tulaczyk, of the University of California at Santa Cruz, say they have found "strong evidence" that the ice sheet in the Ross Sea area is growing, by 26.8 gigatons per year. (full text here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1766000/1766064.stm)) That is about 27 cubic kilometers of new ice/year (check my math, because I suck at it.) Given the very low precipitation in Antarctica that's a lot of new ice. I assume it is net growth, because I understand that two years ago the scientist who was measuring cracks and movement of the ice shelf (using a GPS system) determined that it was calving. People I talked to figured that meant it was warming up there. Just goes to show today's research conclusions might be quickly reversed by tomorrow's research observations.

Working on a few decades of reliable data and trying to predict 100,000 year cycles and assess blame for every litlle perturbation is assinine. Of course it's also assisine to rule out possibilities just because the data is incapable of confirming those possibilities. I absolutely believe that humankind is having a negative impact on the planet, but I also believe the model is more complex than we can understand at this point.

Peace.

Guess you say it very right. Doesn't take away the fact that humans can try, at the least, to have a little more respect for Nature.

Ever walked in a Forest? Did you see all the garbage left behind, because of the people who had an entertaining afternoon in the Forest? It's ridiculous to see what they leave behind and than I don't even mention the trashcans which are placed a few meters from the place the garbage is left behind.

Yeah, imagine, that the people walk that few meters to put their garbage actually IN the trashcan.:(

And I am talking close to 'home' now, not even about the damage done to the Planet.

Guess it messes me up too much. I always get angry from this crap. Don't understand this kind of mentality...:confused:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1833000/1833902.stm

It seems to me that this article suggets that if we can't link greenhouse gas emissions to global warming, then there is no reason to legislate against their release into the atmosphere. What about protecting the quality of air we breathe? What about preventing acid rain, which damages buildings, cars, etc?

Originally posted by Deus
What about protecting the quality of air we breathe? What about preventing acid rain, which damages buildings, cars, etc?A good observation. As I said previously in this thread, positions concerning the environment have become so polarized, that it's impossible to have a rational discussion surrounding the facts. Data can be presented to support both sides of the issue, which would indicate to me that we are not yet looking at the correct data.

Peace.

Global warming?

It is March and we are freezing here in Louisiana....

Global warming?

Tasmania has just had its coldest, cloudiest and stormiest summer on record. The mean daily maximum was less than 20C. We normally have 10 days in summer over 30C, this summer we had one (32C). I think we only got about 5-6 days over 25C.

I think that would the global warming be caused by humans or not, when world ends it'll be caused by humans

Originally posted by Unidentified Flying Object
...when world ends it'll be caused by humansFear not. Though we may dent it and damage it, the world will not end. The worst we will be able to do is make it unfit for us to inhabit. And then the problem is solved, eh? :D

Peace.

Originally posted by Unidentified Flying Object
I think that would the global warming be caused by humans or not, when world ends it'll be caused by humans

If a very large asteroid comes our way or the sun goes supernova or a blackhole shows up next door or massive radiation from a pulsar etc etc humans will not be the cause.

*Tasmania has just had its coldest, cloudiest and stormiest summer on record. The mean daily maximum was less than 20C. We normally have 10 days in summer over 30C, this summer we had one (32C). I think we only got about 5-6 days over 25C.*

*It is March and we are freezing here in Louisiana....*

What you think causes these weather changes? Just a 'coincidence'...? :(

Lawsuits may be next weapon in climate change fight (http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/03/03062002/reu_46587.asp)

Wednesday, March 06, 2002
By Michael Christie, Reuters


SYDNEY, Australia — Lawsuits may become the next weapon against climate change as impotent, tiny islands, sinking beneath the waves, seek revenge on the rich, polluting nations and multinational concerns they accuse of wiping them out. ....

Tuvalu, a string of nine coral atolls 16 feet above sea level at their highest point, says its last palm tree could sink beneath the aquamarine waters within 50 years. Last year it appealed to South Pacific heavyweights Australia and New Zealand to give its people special visas in case they became "environmental refugees" forced to flee. It was rebuffed. ....

Some scientists remain sceptical about global warming. But the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts sea levels will rise by up to 0.80 yards by 2100 as ice caps and glaciers melt and increasing temperatures cause water to expand.

ISLANDS IN FIRING LINE

In the firing line are low-lying coral atolls and islands, such as the Maldives in the Indian Ocean and Tuvalu, Kiribati, Niue, and the Marshall Islands in the Pacific. ....

Australia was vulnerable and had to brace itself for years of possible litigation as the country with the highest per-capita emissions of greenhouse gases in the world. ...I’m not exactly sure how I feel about this one. They might take a moment to consider how coral reefs turn into islands in the first place before lamenting the fact that some of them may, again, disappear beneath the waves.

Peace.

Well, I heard that parts of the world, including a piece of Texas, will be flooded within a couple of years. There will come flooded land above Sea level again then too.

Wish I could remember where I've read that. I'll look it up and get back to here and post it. It's a little foggy in my mind, can't remember it well. ;)

Many Channels like discovery,FOX had stated that the yellow stone park volcano erupts every 600,000 years and it is due this year.catastrophes...ahaha...(<B>NOTE THIS WAS IN 1999</B>)

As i said earlier in U.S itself millions of Dollars are spend annually for weather research purposes,needless to say many people hold jobs due to it.what will happen if we prove that weather forecasting is B.Shit and nothing else?

simple they"ll loose their jobs.i often wonder we cant predict weather perfectly and here we are talking about climate!!ha! talk about frantic money makers.I stayed(During a convention in Miami on FSOs) in hotel and only after say erm...5-6 hours before were able to say that storm was coming,this was only recently,1997 or 1999 i dont remember correctly.


bye!

It's not from the television or internet I've heard it. It is somewhere in my emails, from someone who predicts Earthquakes and amazing, she's always right!

The weather forecast doesn't say a thing to me. You can smell it in the Air when a Storm is coming and Rain and Snow you can smell in the Air, and Thunder and Lightning... Also hours up front, so what I'm concerned, all weather forecasters can go home.

Don't believe in doom predictions like Yellow Stone Park. So many of those predictions, they never come true.

I'll look for the email, it is a mess in my emails. Have to do a good clean-up in there. :) Trashy me... :p

Banshee:

You could use the search feature if you are using outlook. Anyway, I have a resident psychic who has been right too many times than wrong. She predicts that we will have a major anamoly in the world in about 10 years, but could not say if it is climate related. Another prediction that may happen in 30 years or so is that part of Louisina will be under water. Which means, the sea - level may rise another 50 feet or so. It may mean also that, while we feel cold, the temperature swing can cause icebergs to melt in a big way.

That is what I've been looking for and haven't found back til now.
It's somehow the same prediction. Are we talking the same Psychic here?

Now I am curious! I will do a search for the original message. Thank you for the tip... :)

She also said that Land which is under the Seas now will come above Sea level while parts of (among other Land) Texas and Louisiana will go under. You recognize this?

Banshee

There was a television program that discusses these predictions. I taped it several years ago, but can not find it now. I do not put much faith in other peoples prediction because unless that person is consistently correct in the past, that prediction is useless.

I only count on my friends over the years. Each friend have different capabilities. So, once they are tested, I can use a certain probability (confidence factor) for each event. I think, we all have predictive capabilities because of the way our brain works. But each of us can be good in certain specific areas because that is the point of focus for that brain.

Anyway, time will tell...

Goodbye cruel world
A report by top US scientists on climate change suggests that catastrophe could be imminent

Jeremy Rifkin
Friday March 1, 2002
The Guardian

We live in a world that has become so desensitised by watching calamities unfold on global television - both natural and human-induced - that it takes something really spectacular even to get our attention.

And it usually has to be visually dramatic to register, much less elicit a deep emotional response - such as the tragic events of September 11.

Recently, I came across a frightening report published by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - the nation's most august scientific body. Yet, because there was no visually provocative content, the report had received only a couple of short paragraphs tucked away inside a few newspapers.

Here is what the academy had to say: it is possible that the global warming trend projected over the course of the next 100 years could, all of a sudden and without warning, dramatically accelerate in just a handful of years - forcing a qualitative new climatic regime which could undermine ecosystems and human settlements throughout the world, leaving little or no time for plants, animals and humans to adjust.

The new climate could result in a wholesale change in the earth's environment, with effects that would be felt for thousands of years. If the projections and warnings in this study turn out to be prophetic, no other catastrophic event in all of recorded history will have had as damaging an impact on the future of human civilisation and the life of the planet.

A year ago the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) issued a voluminous report forecasting that global average surface temperature is likely to rise by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees centigrade between now and 2100. If that projection holds up, we were told, the change in temperature forecast for the next 100 years will be larger than any climate change on earth in more than 10,000 years.

The impacts on the earth's biosphere are going to be of a qualitative kind. To understand how significant this rise in temperature is likely to be, we need to keep in mind that a 5 degrees centigrade increase in temperature between the last ice age and today resulted in much of the northern hemisphere of the planet going from being buried under thousands of feet of ice to being ice-free.

The UN study predicts that a temperature rise of 1.4-5.8 degrees centigrade over the course of the coming century could include the melting of glaciers and the Arctic polar cap, sea water rise, increased precipitation and storms and more violent weather patterns, destabilisation and loss of habitats, migration northward of ecosystems, contamination of fresh water by salt water, massive forest dieback, accelerated species extinction and increased droughts.

The IPCC report also warns of adverse impacts on human settlements, including the submerging of island nations and low-lying countries, diminishing crop yields, especially in the southern hemisphere, and the spread of tropical disease northward into previously temperate zones.

The newly released NAS report begins by noting that the current projections about global warming and its ecological, economic and social impacts cited in the UN report are based on the assumption of a steady upward climb in temperatures, more or less evenly distributed over the course of the 21st century. But that assumption, they say, may be faulty - there is a possibility that temperatures could rise suddenly in just a few years' time, creating a new climatic regime virtually overnight.

They also point out that abrupt changes in climate, whose effects are long lasting, have occurred repeatedly in the past 100,000 years. For example, at the end of the Younger-Dryas interval about 11,500 years ago, "global climate shifted dramatically, in many regions by about one-third to one-half the difference between ice age and modern conditions, with much of the change occurring over a few years".

According to the study: "An abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause." Moreover, the paleoclimatic record shows that "the most dramatic shifts in climate have occurred when factors controlling the climate system were changing". Given the fact that human activity - especially the burning of fossil fuels - is expected to double the CO<->2 content emitted into the atmosphere in the current century, the conditions could be ripe for an abrupt change in climate around the world, perhaps in only a few years.

What is really unnerving is that it may take only a slight deviation in boundary conditions or a small random fluctuation somewhere in the system "to excite large changes ... when the system is close to a threshold", says the NAS committee.

An abrupt change in climate, of the kind that occurred during the Younger-Dryas interval, could prove catastrophic for ecosystems and species around the world. During that particular period, for instance, spruce, fir and paper birch trees experienced mass extinction in southern New England in less than 50 years. The extinction of horses, mastodons, mammoths, and sabre-toothed tigers in North America were greater at that time than in any other extinction event in millions of years.

The committee lays out a potentially nightmarish scenario in which random triggering events take the climate across the threshold into a new regime, causing widespread havoc and destruction.

Ecosystems could collapse suddenly with forests decimated in vast fires and grasslands drying out and turning into dust bowls. Wildlife could disappear and waterborne diseases such as cholera and vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue and yellow fever, could spread uncontrollably beyond host ranges, threatening human health around the world.

The NAS concludes its report with a dire warning: "On the basis of the inference from the paleoclimatic record, it is possible that the projected change will occur not through gradual evolution, proportional to greenhouse gas concentrations, but through abrupt and persistent regime shifts affecting subcontinental or larger regions - denying the likelihood or downplaying the relevance of past abrupt changes could be costly."

Global warming represents the dark side of the commercial ledger for the industrial age. For the past several hundred years, and especially in the 20th century, human beings burned massive amounts of "stored sun" in the form of coal, oil and natural gas, to produce the energy that made an industrial way of life possible. That spent energy has accumulated in the atmosphere and has begun to adversely affect the climate of the planet and the workings of its many ecosystems.

If we were to measure human accomplishments in terms of the sheer impact our activities have had on the life of the planet, then we would sadly have to conclude that global warming is our most significant accomplishment to date, albeit a negative one.

We have affected the biochemistry of the earth and we have done it in less than a century. If a qualitative climate change were to occur suddenly in the coming century - within less than 10 years - as has happened many times before in geological history, we may already have written our epitaph.

When future generations look back at this period, tens of thousands of years from now, it is possible that the only historical legacy we will have left them in the geologic record is a great change in the earth's climate and its impact on the biosphere.

· Jeremy Rifkin is the author of The Biotech Century (Gollancz) and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington DC

comment@guardian.co.uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0%2C3858%2C4365494%2C00.html

Now this (http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/03/19/new.iceberg/) is a big damn iceberg!

Peace.

Reckon we could get an ice cube or two for our drinks?

Off and on you hear of studies done with the idea if we could move something like that mass of ice to someplace where we could pump it to a desert like the Sahara that we could make a green farm out of the desert. That is one heck of a mass of fresh water.

The best solution is to find a way to spray a thin film to reduce the evaporation. Then tug it close to a desert land mass. Then use some big ass pump to pump the fresh water to a man made lake. It will be cheaper than desalination projects.

720 billion tons is not right. It is actually 72 billion tons... Click on the link for a little movie with comment...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/726247.asp?pne=msn

Staggering end to Antarctic ice shelf

U.S., British researchers tie rapid collapse to warming trend A NASA satellite image shows the thousands of icebergs created by the Larsen B ice shelf collapse. Brownish streaks are rocks and glacial debris exposed from the former underside and interior of the shelf.

By Miguel Llanos

MSNBC

March 19 — A massive Antarctic ice shelf has collapsed into the sea, shattering into thousands of icebergs and alarming researchers by the speed with which the process unfolded. Described by one researcher as “staggering,” the rapid collapse offered fuel for the debate over whether global warming is to blame.

‘We knew what was left would collapse eventually, but the speed of it is staggering.’ — DAVID VAUGHAN

British Antarctic Survey scientist U.S. AND BRITISH government agencies confirmed the collapse of what’s known as the Larsen B ice shelf. Some 1,255 square miles of the ice shelf disintegrated between Jan. 31 and March 7, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported Tuesday. “The shattered ice formed a plume of thousands of icebergs adrift in the Weddell Sea,” the center said, adding that over the past five years, Larsen B lost nearly twice that amount and is now about 40 percent the size of what it used to be.

Before it broke apart, the shelf was 650 feet thick and about the size of Rhode Island.

Scientists with the British Antarctic Survey first predicted in 1998 that it would eventually collapse, and satellite images over the years suggested as much. The process accelerated over the last month, with the single largest piece calving on March 5.

720 BILLION TONS

David Vaughan, a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey, noted that since the 1998 prediction, “warming on the peninsula has continued and we watched as piece by piece Larsen B has retreated.”

“We knew what was left would collapse eventually,” he said in a statement, “but the speed of it is staggering.” It’s hard to believe, he said, that 720 billion tons “of ice sheet has disintegrated in less than a month.”

The U.S. center noted that 720 billion tons is enough ice for 29 trillion 5-pound bags.

The British Antarctic Survey said its scientists would be researching when such an event last happened and which ice shelves are threatened in the future. Earlier studies found four other ice shelves had been retreating in recent years.

The researchers emphasized that ice shelves themselves would not raise sea levels because they were already floating in water. However, because shelves hold back ice sheets on the continent, their collapse could allow ice on the ground to slowly move into the sea, thereby raising sea levels over time.

‘CLOSER TO THE LIMIT’

Ted Scambos, a glaciologist with the National Snow and Ice Data Center, said in a statement that the Larsen B collapse “gave us the information we need to reassess the stability of ice shelves around the rest of the Antarctic continent. They are closer to the limit than we thought.”

“Loss of ice shelves surrounding the Antarctic continent could have a major effect on the rate of ice flow off the continent,” Scambos added. The center, located at the University of Colorado, noted that the next shelf to the south, the Larsen C, “is very near the stability limit, and may start to recede in the coming decade if the warming trend continues.”

“More importantly,” it said, is what might happen with the giant Ross Ice Shelf, the main outlet for several major glaciers draining the West Antarctic Ice Sheet — which is 6,000 feet thick, covers an area the size of Mexico and contains enough water to raise global sea levels by 15 feet.

“The warmest part of the giant Ross Ice Shelf is in fact only a few degrees too cool in summer presently to undergo the same kind of retreat process,” the center said.

New cracks in Larsen B were observed in the weeks prior to the sudden collapse.

GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE

Both the U.S. and British agencies attributed the collapse and other retreating shelves to warmer temperatures over the last half century.

That would fit in nicely with arguments made by environmentalists and many scientists that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are causing global warming. Greenpeace, for one, called the collapse “a harbinger of global warming.”

The weakening of the Larsen B ice shelf was first noted in the late 1990s. This 1997 photo shows people dwarfed by one fissure. Others, including some scientists, say it’s possible that any warming is due to natural shifts, not manmade causes, and that further studies are needed before taking global action to reduce emissions.

The agencies did not enter the debate over what has caused the warming around the Antarctic Peninsula.

The British Antarctic Survey limited its observation to earlier studies that found the peninsula has warmed by 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 50 years — much faster than global warming worldwide or even in other parts of Antarctica. The peninsula is the Antarctic area closest to southern Argentina and Chile.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center said studies had estimated that Larsen B had existed for at least 400 years and probably since before the end of the last major ice age 12,000 years ago.

“This is the largest single event in a series of retreats by ice shelves in the peninsula over the last 30 years,” the center said, attributing them to “a strong climate warming in the region.”

In comments to MSNBC.com, Scambos was careful not to tie the collapse to manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, and noted that computer models actually predicted different regional effects from those gases. But he added that the collapse was so sudden in geological time that it’s not clear it was due to natural causes either. What’s needed, he said, are improved computer models, more sampling of ice cores for climate changes and continued tracking of ice shelves and sea ice.

“The tools are there,” he said, “we need to apply them.”

COOLING IN SOME AREAS?

Other studies have actually suggested some Antarctic areas might be cooling.

One study reported new measurements showed the ice in West Antarctica was thickening, reversing earlier estimates that the sheet was melting. The Antarctica Peninsula extends from West Antarctica.

New Iceberg Breaks Off Shelf
Chunk of Ice Peeled From Ross Ice Shelf
The Associated Press

May 9 — An iceberg 47 miles long and 4.6 miles across has broken off the Ross Ice Shelf in the Antarctic, the National Ice Center reported today.

The giant sheet of glacial ice and snow was named C-18, meaning that it's the 18th iceberg to be tracked in that section of Antarctica since 1976, when record keeping began.
The iceberg, floating close to the ice shelf, is not considered a hazard to navigation. It was spotted on satellite images.

The discovery comes just under a month after a much larger iceberg — 40 miles by 53 miles — broke away from another part of Antarctica. That iceberg is known as B-22.

Also in March, a large floating ice shelf in Antarctica collapsed. The 1,250-square-mile section of the Larsen Ice Shelf collapsed during a five-week period that ended March 7. It splintered into a plume of drifting icebergs.

Meanwhile, however, new measurements indicate the ice in parts of Antarctica is thickening, reversing earlier estimates that the sheet was melting.

Mixed Signals

Scientists reported in January that new flow measurements for the Ross ice streams indicate that movement of some of the ice streams has slowed or halted, allowing the ice to thicken.

Researchers don't know if the thickening is merely part of some short-term fluctuation or represents a reversal of the long retreat of the ice.

That report, in the journal Science, came less than a week after a paper in Nature reported that Antarctica's harsh desert valleys — long considered a bellwether for global climate change — have grown noticeably cooler since the mid-1980s.

The National Ice Center, based in Suitland, Md., provides worldwide ice analyses and tracking to assist the military and private shippers.

It is a joint operation of the Navy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Coast Guard.


http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/iceberg020509.html

check out

http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/methane/greenhouse.html

basic science by By Harvey Augenbraun, Elaine Matthews, and David Sarma postulates of global warming evidences. Might help?

I think antarctica is being heated from underneath by sub-ice volcanos being created. link to:

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/antarctica/QA/geology/Volcanoes

i really hate to be so 'catastrophic' i just call 'em like i see 'em also.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200205/NAT20020514b.html

<b>quote:</b> <i>Check out:
http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/m...greenhouse.html

basic science by By Harvey Augenbraun, Elaine Matthews, and David Sarma postulates of global warming evidences. Might help? "</i>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, it did help to get near the truth. The NASA page is a nice example of how some "scientists" do their "science". Although they mention water vapor as the main greenhouse gas, they didn't mention the heat retention potencial of each gas (95% for water vapor) and 3,5% for CO2. If they mention these figures, it would undermine their arguments and make their agenda useless.

They also show a table with natural and anthropogenic sources of gases, but in the "natural sources for CO2", <b>they show a blank space!</b> Even Bert Bolin, head of the IPCC, has demonstrated in his studies that adult forests and jungles have a huge contribution of CO2, in fact, they have a <b>negative balance</b> of CO2, this is, forests and jungles produce more CO2 than their absorb from the air. And, what about CO2 produced by volcanoes, forest and prairies fires?

There are many other unscientific claims in the study by Augenbraun, Matthews and Sarma, but it would be too lenghty to show them here. The article is full of "half-truths", and when a scientist does not tell the <b>WHOLE</b> truth, he is <b>LYING</b>. He is avoiding data and facts that would contradict his hypothesis. One basic rule of science: <b>"A Half-truth is a Whole-Lie".</b>

But thanks for the link. It was really useful.

Odin, yours was also a good link. It shows us that there are many well respected scientists that are skeptical (to be kind) about global warming and the "prophecies" manufactured and manipulated by the computer models. Here is the last part:

<i>"Environmental groups were quick to dismiss the scientific skepticism on global warming. Ariana Silverman, a spokesperson for the Sierra Club's Global Warming & Energy program, disputed the panel's claim that climate science does not support the Kyoto Protocol. " ... "It is very difficult to make that claim. <b>There is a consensus in the scientific community,</b>" Silverman said.</i>

Well, the scientists mentioned in the first part of the article show that <b>there is no such thing as a "consensus" in the scientific community.</b> Or perhaps Silverman was referring to the "<b>green community</b>"?. Besides that, in science there have never been consensus on anything while the discussion was going on. Even Darwin's Evolution Theory is still being debated and you would find many different "consensus" according to the group of people you talk with... Cheers!
:p :D

As I said earlier,there are a lot of people making a living out of this,I think thats why we get these half truth's.
Also there are lots of people who want to be saviors,so will jump on any band wagon!

There are also people who see what's actually happening. Maybe it's cause of global warming, maybe it's cause of aeral heating, maybe it's just humans that cause it. There are much to many humans walking 'round this planet anyhow. All these humans want to eat, thus want meat, which come from cows and pigs, to mention an in between street. This "walking meat factories" produce gasses, which go up in the air. Just one example of many, many more.

People want to make money, no matter how.