Global warming is it really happening

CO2 scrubbers

Of course, that could be done. But we must do something <B>POSITIVE</B> not <B>NEGATIVE</B> as crippling World's economy with insane bans on energy consumption. Let's do it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The massive of methane release near the end of Ice Age from methane hydrates burried under sea floor is thought to help the end of Ice Age. Today, if such massive release occurs again, global temperture will raise 12 degrees in ten years. Much worse than any car or factory waste combined today.

http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html
http://www.ornl.gov/reporter/no16/methane.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Removal of CO2

Aren't phytoplankton plants?

Not to mention holding down the soil so it doesn't wash away/blow away.

Really? I didn't know that 6 trees are planted for each one cut down. Is that US law?

 

Absolutely. Planktons are composed of zooplanktons and phyotplanktons, microscopic "animal" and "vefetal" (algae) living forms. Both perform different duties in water, and are extremely useful in the food chain.

Phytonplanktons are, indeed, plants, but not in the way people think about about "plants" --big things with leaves. I thought you were referring to trees and "terrestrial" plants, not the acquatic kind. My mistake.

But, "au contraire" of terrestrial plants, proliferation of acquatic plants, especially big algaes, can lead to serious problems, either in salty ot freshwater. No need to explain more, as this effect is widely known.

Actually, yes. You can check that with the US Forest Service.

Here are some facts from the <B>National Hardwood Lumber Association</B>: <font color=blue><I>"The US is home to 70% of the forestland that existed in 1600, 737 million acres of forests. Fully 33.5%---247 million acres---are reserved from harvest by law or are slow-growing woodlands unsuitable for timber production.<BR><BR>There are 490 million acres called timberlands, forests that can produce more than 20 cubic feet of wood per acre annually. They are growing <B>more trees today than they were fifty years ago</B>. Every year, more than <B>1.5 billion trees are planted in the US</B>, more than five trees for every man, woman and child in America. That's an average of 4.1 million seedlings each day. <B>Six trees are planted for every one</B> that is harvested.<BR><BR>The National Forest System (191 million acres) was established &quot;to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States.&quot; The US Forest Service, an agency of the US Department of Agriculture, administers the System. These national forests pay 25% of the gross receipts from timber sales directly to States who use them to fund things like county roads and schools, representing millions of dollars each year."</I></font><BR><BR>Any doubt about these figures or data, just get in touch with the US Forest Service (easy to find in the web, perhaps through the US Information Agency = http://www.usia.gov).

 

Everything in moderation appears to apply again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Just what's going on in Antarctica?
� Barry James International Herald Tribune��
�
� Friday, June 7, 2002

Warmer and cooler at the same time
�
PARIS
�
Like the Delphic oracle, the Antarctic sends out conflicting signals about global climate change. Part of it is warming significantly, but much has been cooling for some time.
.
These signals are picked up and amplified both by those who argue that the world is headed for disaster as the climate heats up faster than at any time in recorded history, and others who argue that scientific warnings, notably by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, of major sea level rises over the next century are overly pessimistic.
.
"The picture is complex rather than conflicting," says John King, principal investigator of Antarctic climate processes at the British Antarctic Survey. "There is a tendency to want to oversimplify things and to treat the whole of the Antarctic as one unit. The fact is that it is a large area geographically and it is hardly surprising that different things are happening in different places."
.
Much of the world's climate research is focused on the poles, because they are sensitive to even minor changes, and because they provide clues to changes going back tens of thousands of years.
.
Evidence of atmospheric change is clearer in the Arctic - where scientists have found that permafrost zones have melted, the extent and thickness of sea ice have decreased and glaciers have receded - than in the Antarctic.
.
The U.S. government's National Science Foundation recently announced a major five-year study of environmental changes in the Arctic. Some scientists believe that even a small amount of warming in the northern polar region could trigger an abrupt change that could alter the Gulf Stream, which conveys surface water across the Atlantic, and turn northern Europe into a much colder place in a matter of decades.
.
Warming also is clearly having an impact in the Antarctic Peninsula, jutting about 1,500 kilometers (950 miles) toward South America and surrounding waters, but scientists do not yet know whether this is a temporary, recurring phenomenon or evidence of permanent change.
.
Sir Ernest Shackleton was bedeviled by unseasonably warm temperatures and melting ice as he tried to escape entrapment in the floes during his ill-fated 1914-1916 expedition to cross the entire continent. And air temperature over much of the peninsula region has warmed an average of one degree centigrade (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) in the past 40 years. In Signy Island, about 700 kilometers northeast of the peninsula, however, British researchers have found that lake waters have warmed by a degree in as little as 15 years, indicating that the change may be speeding up.
.
Earlier this year, satellites observed the rapid collapse of much of the enormous floating Larsen ice shelf that had existed on the peninsula since the last Ice Age, 12,000 years ago. The likeliest cause of that, geologists said, is that surface ice melted and penetrated through the shelf, weakening it to the point where it broke up catastrophically. With summer temperatures in the peninsula substantially above freezing, "it is almost certain that warming precipitated the collapse," King said.
.
"What is well established is that most of the Antarctic Peninsula has been warming significantly over the past 50 years or so for which we have records," he said. "Over the rest of the continent, the signals are a lot less clear - at some stations you will see a slight warming, and at others you will see a cooling trend, but none of the observations would pass the test that we would use for statistical significance. Indeed, for the vast majority of the continent we don't have the observations that would enable us to say whether it is warming or cooling."
.
Scientists have been keeping an eye on the Larsen shelf since 1995, when a large chunk broke away. The recent collapse of a section of ice 200 meters thick and 3,240 square kilometers in surface area - equivalent to 650 feet thick by 1,250 square miles - has left the shelf with only about 40 percent of its original size, and what remains is losing stability. David Vaughan, a glacier expert at the British Antarctic Survey, has called the speed of the collapse "staggering." Other ice shelves are closer to breaking up than scientists previously thought. Although these events are dramatic, they do not affect ocean levels, because the shelves jut out from the continental land mass and in effect float on the water. It would be a different matter if the vast ice sheets actually on the continent also started to melt. Containing most of the world's fresh water, the sheets are up to 5 kilometers thick.
.
Many questions have been raised about the stability of the West Antarctic sheet, containing about 13 percent of the continent's ice, which is anchored to rock that is below sea level. If this ice were to melt precipitously, it could raise the world's average ocean level by about 5 meters. Using engineering risk-analysis methods, British and Norwegian scientists concluded last year, however, that there was only a 5 percent chance of major sea-level rise due to disintegration over a period of a few hundred years of the ice covering West Antarctica.
.
Satellite and other evidence shows that the ice sheets are actually getting thicker, and that the Antarctic Dry Valleys, the continent's largest ice-free area, have cooled somewhat. The National Science Foundation says records show a decline in seasonally averaged surface air temperatures of 0.7 degrees centigrade per decade, but has no explanation for this fall. Antarctica is the only continent where such cooling has been observed. The Antarctic ice cap contains an estimated 30 million cubic kilometers of glacial ice, and if all this were to melt, the average sea level around the world would rise by 60 meters. This is not going to happen any century soon, but Antarctica was once part of a temperate zone attached to Australia and South America, over which dinosaurs roamed 65 million years ago.
.
To put together a picture of climate changes in the past, a European scientific team backed by 10 nations recently drilled more nearly 3 kilometers on the Dome Concordia, high on the East Antarctic plateau, to reach layers of ice that fell from snow that fell more than 500,000 years ago. Ice core samples now being studied at European laboratories cover four glacial and interglacial periods, supporting evidence of several cycles of climate change.
.
"The climate 10,000 years ago was typified by rapid variations," King said. "It was nonglacial for a few decades and then it went back to glacial."
.
He said the collapse of the Larsen ice shelf may herald an end to a period of stability that has prevailed throughout recordable history.
.
"It is important to explain this stability as well as the changes," he said. "And we have a long way to go in explaining why things are changing rapidly in the Antarctic Peninsula but not so much in the rest of the continent. What we will be trying to do is to improve the way in which Antarctic processes fit into the global climate model."�
�
Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune

�
�http://www.iht.com/articles/60470.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Delphi's Oracle at IPCC

A very interesting article. Although it pretends to appear impartial by reporting both sides of the story, after a quick reading one can find how the media writes the reports using a carefully devised technique of misinformation. As usual, the reporting is geared towards uninformed people (the vast majority of the population), but it cannot pass the scrutiny of better informed persons. So let me show some contradictions and lack of science in the article:

I have emphasized "likeliest" and "surface ice melted...". "Likeliest" means they are not sure at all, and the use of this kind of vague terminology gives them the chance to say. "Well, we didn't say that was the reason, but we thought it could be". Then comes the absence of physics when they say the "surface ice melted, and penetrated through the shelf". For ice to melt, the <i>conditio sine qua non</i> is that temperatures be above the freezing point (0°C) or more. As temperature records in the Larsen ice shelf show, are well under the freezing point: (they are about -25°C below zero, or freezing point). It is unlikely (I say impossible) that ice can melt at say -10°C. But, even if somebody had melted the ice with a blowtorch, when the water starts to "penetrate" the ice creaks and crevices, it would freeze again. Altough the ice temperature there is 0°C, the air is still well below freezing point. I remember trying to ski in upstate New York when there was -20°C, but had forgotten to take along my ski goggles. When I started down the slope, the tears in my eyes froze, provoking a terrible pain. The same applies to the water "penetrating" the shelf.

The <i>"not so much in the rest of the continent"</i> actually is <i>"a lot of cooling"</i>. They have assumed that their climate modeling is "perfect", so instead of trying to modify their models to fit them to the observed physical facts, they are trying to "improve" the way they can distort "real world observations" to fit their models --that have a preconceived conclusion, of course: warming.

What a nonsense! Waht kind of data they have, then? They say there is no observations on which we can say it is cooling or warming --nevertheless, <b>they insist it is warming!</B> They vast majority of the continent is cooling, but a small portion (as the Peninsula) is warming. As a result, the mean Antarctic temperatures are <b>cooling significantly</b>, but they cannot aknowledge this fact, so they have to say they don't have the observations that can prove a warming or a cooling. As the "real world observations" don't count, we must rely only in climate modeling. Its like throwing away our Physics books and trying to determine warming or cooling by means of Christian Andersen's fairytales.

So, because they have no explanation of this <b>significant cooling</b> (0,7°C per decade is severe), then it doesn't exists. So let's stick to climate modeling fairytales.

What caused those warmings and coolings? Nature, of course, because man's activities were non-existant then. So, we must reasonably assume that <b>nature changes the clima</b> anytime it has the chance to do it. As ALL climatologists know (but "warmers" would refrain to mention) is that the Golden Rule in climatology is <b>Constant Change</b>. Climate has never been steady for extended periods of time. A quick glance at any graph showing geological cycles will show you this. See Milantkovitch studies, please.

Do you want to know how trustworthy climate models are? Take a look at this Stanford University page and be prepared for some surprises.

<A href="http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html"><B>Global Warming: Does it Exist? </B></A>

or here: <A HREF=http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex12.htm><b>http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex12.htm</B></A>

So much for the alleged <b>"consensus"</B> among scientists. LOL !

 

Bad news

Excerpts and comments from:

<b><font color=red size=4>BBC News</font></B>.
Sunday, 16 June, 2002, 21:50 GMT 22:50 UK
<b><A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_2047000/2047827.stm"><font color=red size=5>Antarctic rescue mission begins</A></font></B> (click for the BBC link)

<font color=blue><b>"The ship is trapped in frozen seas. A South African ship has set out for the Antarctic to rescue more than 100 crew and passengers, including 79 Russian scientists, on board a German ship trapped in pack-ice."

"The rescue ship has a Russian expert specialising on polar navigation - known as an "ice-pilot" - and will be aided by an Argentine ice-breaker, the Almirante Irizar, which is set to depart from Buenos Aires soon. "

"The conditions are terrible. This time of year it's dark for 24 hours, the temperatures is -50C, and there are very high winds with lots of ice flying around," said South African Defence Force spokesman Colonel Piet Paxton."

"The Magdalena Oldendorff was making its way up to Cape Town after spending more than 12 months in Antarctica at the two Russian research stations. They encountered thick ice and had to turn back. They are now sheltering in a fjord waiting for the chance to try and break through around 1,000 kilometres of ice. "</B></font>

Well, it looks these people trusted too much the fairytale about "melting ice" in Antarctica. As the icebreaker Almirante Irizar (the only icebreaker in the Southern Hemisphere) going to rescue them, don't count on it. The costs for just fueling the ship is about 1,000,000 dollars. Argentina is broke, and I think the government will rather spend that kind of money in feeding our own starving people.

A sad and unfortunate event. It should serve to show that the cooling and freezing is a real and hard fact. It is a pitty that climate modellers trusted too much their computer models. There is going to be innocent people paying the consequences for this foolhardy behavior.

 

<font size=5 color=red><B>Sun’s Magnetic Cycles Influence Earth’s Climate</B></font>

A study published in the June 10 issue of Earth and Planetary Science Letters, shows a clear link between changes in solar magnetism and the Earth’s 100,000 year climate cycles. The author, Mukul Sharma of the Department of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College, used data of changes in the production rates of beryllium 10 to map variations in the sun’s magnetic activity. <b><I>“Beryllium 10 in the Earth’s atmosphere depends on the galactic cosmic ray influx that, in turn, is affected by the solar magnetic activity and the geomagnetic field activity [earth’s magnetic field intensity].”</I></B>

When the sun is magnetically more active, it blocks incoming cosmic rays, which are charged particles that contribute to cloud formation, causing the earth to warm. When the sun is less active, more cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, increasing cloud cover, and cooling the earth.

Sharma found that changes in solar variation match changes in earth’s climate. <B><I>“Surprisingly, it looks like solar activity is varying in longer time spans than we realized,”</I></B> said Sharma. <I><B>“We knew about the shorter cycles of solar activity, so maybe these are just little cycles within a larger cycle. Even more surprising is the fact that the glacial and interglacial periods on earth during the last 200,000 years appear to be strongly linked to solar activity”</B></I> (<B><A HREF="http://www.eurekalert.org">http://www.eurekalert.org</B>, June 6, 2002).

Human induced warming? Every day less likely.

 

Seven pages of posts on the end of an ice age

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I hope the information provided by both sides was compared and somehow we got closer to the truth --if there is such thing called "truth"-

 

Amen.

Though I still think my side is truth.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A big problem is that only a few people know enough to say yay or nay. How many people have acess to the equipment to make the observations, and the knowledge to interpret the data? dAnd for those that use secondary data, they are faced with the viewpoint given by the original observers. Frequently the two interpretations conflict, and the original viewpoint is so ingrained that there is trouble introduceing something contrary.

 

This is true when it comes to "conclusions" or "opinions". But when you are dealing with facts, raw data, and observed phenomena, then you can easily spot something that contradicts the basic of science. In the case of ozone depletion, for instance, the fact that the observed and measured UV radiation over the US during the period of 1974-1985, as recorded by the huge network of Robertson-Berger spectrometers (J. Scotto et all, "Biologically Effective Ultraviolet Radiation, Surface Measurements in the US, 1974-1985", Science, Feb. 12, 1988), shoed a <b>decrase in UV radiation of about 7%</B>. After Scotto published his study, ALL stations were closed down and now the UV radiation <b>is "measured" by means of computer simulations!!!</B> The real world has been replaced by virtual videogames...

Also, measurements by all recording stations in the world, <b>have not shown any decrease in ozone levels</b>. Decrease in ozone levels occurr naturally during the day, from one day to another, from week to week, and month to month. <b>But there is not a trend in any direction --either increasing or decreasing.</B>

The same applies to all fields of science, and Global Warming is one of the most polluted fields in science. Contradictory data is suppresed from "green" and "scaremonger" studies. If there is a dubious aspect on one subject, they apply the nefarious "precautionary principle" and promote policies that shouldn't have been applied if we really must apply the "principle": the policies they push, are worse than the problem they claim is threatening mankind.

And, of course, I agree completely with Kmguru in his wiewpoint on money. Money talks --and talks loud and clear.

 

Dependence on computer simulations is a problem, especially when the simulations don't include all the factors(in fact, they can't, so they rig it to show what they want it to show).

 

Here are two articles about the impact global warming is having on new diseases and genetic alterations of life biologies.�
�
Warming Spreads Disease
Global warming is being blamed for the spread of diseases that affect both animals and humans, according to a report published in the journal Science. The report stated that pathogens are thriving in places where they previously could not live as the climate warms and winters become milder. Researchers warned that bacteria, bugs, parasites, viruses and fungi, formerly restricted by seasonal temperatures, may be able to invade new territories and find new victims. Co-author Andrew Dobson of Princeton University said, “Climate change is disrupting natural ecosystems in a way that is making life better for infectious diseases.”�� (Earthweek 6-28-02)

�

Global warming 'altering genes'
The latter half of the 20th Century saw a rapid warming
By BBC News Online's Helen Briggs

Global warming is leading to changes in the genetic make-up of animals, say scientists.� They have found that mosquitoes have altered their genes in response to climate change.� According to biologists at the University of Oregon, US, many plants and animals are adapting to a warming environment by taking advantage of the longer seasons.

Evolution is happening and it is happening very fast - Dr William Bradshaw, University of Oregon

British birds now lay their eggs more than a week earlier than they did in the 1970s. And frogs are spawning about 10 days earlier. But the Oregon study is the first clear evidence that the genes of animals are changing. In northern latitudes, warming has led to earlier springs, longer summers and milder winters. The shift in the seasons is linked to increasing global temperatures experienced in the second half of the 20th Century. This has affected the life cycle of a tiny species of mosquito found on the eastern seaboard of North America, from the Gulf of Mexico to northern Canada.

Delayed dormancy

Dr William Bradshaw and Dr Christina Holzapfel studied populations of the mosquito, Wyeomyia smithii, in the laboratory.� They found that the insects are now entering their pupae 8-10 days later than they did in the 1970s.


Because the insects' life cycle is controlled by a genetic switch linked to the length of day, or photoperiod, it must be due to genes, the scientists say.

Dr Bradshaw told BBC News Online: "There is a genetic change in their response to daylight. We can detect this change over as short a time period as five years.� "Evolution is happening and it is happening very fast." �Complicated life cycle The mosquitoes, the size of a grain of rice, occasionally bite people but prefer plants. They lay their eggs in a select environment: the foot of carnivorous plants called the purple pitcher.

The larvae swim and feed in water at the base of the plant, where they go through a complicated life cycle. To survive the winter, the mosquito must enter its dormant phase as a pupa.� To know when winter is coming, it takes its cues from the environment, in� this case the length of the day.� The shift towards longer summers has meant that mosquitoes that enter their pupal stage later have an advantage. Thus, global warming is selecting for a certain genetic trait that, over the course of time, will be passed to the rest of the population.

�The implication, says Dr Bradshaw, is that there may be a genetic basis for seasonal changes seen in other animals.� Birds that lay their eggs slightly earlier in the year, along with the premature arrival of spring, may have a genetic advantage that they pass on to their offspring.� And, because of the complex interaction between predators and prey, the consequences are likely to be widespread.� "The broader implication is that the make-up of future communities in nature may depend critically on the ability of these species to adapt or evolve in their response to global warming," Dr Bradshaw told BBC News Online.

One species of British bird, the great tit, is already feeling the effects, he says. Some of the birds are running out of insects to feed to their chicks because they are nesting after caterpillars have developed into butterflies.

Tuesday, 6 November, 2001, 11:11 GMT


http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1639000/1639284.stm

 

Quite funny!

The report seems to be written by Homer Simpson under a beer overdose.

As anyone can see by taking a swift look at the records from about 1500 weather stations all over the world, <A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm"><b>"What the Stations Say"</b></A>, winters <B>have not become milder</B>. But this is something everybody knows, as the last three winters have been increasingly colder. Down here, in Argentina, Uruguay and Chile, the winter is terrible. We had not such cold temperatures for the last 30 years, and snowfalls and blizzards in the Andes made the headlines and TV news when about 2,400 trucks were trapped in the Argentina-Chilean border. We would really love it if the weather warmed a little.

How amazing! On the contrary, swallows in the South Hemisphere started they journey from the city of Goya, Corrientes, to San Juan de Capistrano, California one week earlier than usual. This was due to the cool summer we had and the early arrival of Fall.

This was an email sent to our foundation's website,(<A HREF="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html"><b>Ecology: Myths and Frauds)</B></A> from Canada:
---------------------------------------------
<b>`Coldest March on record' </b>

<b>CALGARY</b> - It may be the first day of spring, but it's the coldest one many can remember. Alberta is well on its way to setting a weather record. The average temperature so far this month has been close to minus 16 degrees. "The month of March record is minus 13.0," says Brian Steffora, meteorologist with Environment Canada. "That record was set back in 1899, so its quite an old record, 103 years ago. And like I say, we're at minus 15.6; we're about two and a half degrees below that record yet."

"I live and work in Calgary, Alberta and the month of March <b>has been brutally cold</b>."

"I wanted to let you know that the month of March 2002 has seen many record low temperatures set in the western provinces of British Columbia (BC), Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The cold has lasted longer and was deeper than I have seen in my 30 years in the central part of BC. Many temperatures were in the range of -15°C to -32°C in the interior (continental influence), and Vancouver (west coast) had snow and below freezing temperatures. Highly unusual! We normally refer to the month of March as "break-up", as this is the time of year that the warm weather returns, ice breaks up in the rivers and the ground starts to thaw. Until today, we have been in winter. Today we got to about +8C, which is about normal; spring might finally be close!"
--------------------------------

However fast evolution is going on, it has nothing to do with any warming. For heavens sake! Just read the quote again, and note the changes are linked to <B>light</b> not <B>temperature</B>! This is one of the worst cases I have seen of misunderstanding and twisting of facts geared towards misinformation. It is outreageous!

Again: what has global warming to do with LIGHT?!!! Jesus! Please, be serious, we are talking science here (at least some of us are trying to do it). The lenght of the day (the cue for the alleged genetic trait) is no related in any way to warming or cooling!

Banshee, sometimes you post quite hilarious articles! Please, give us more...