The Death of the Global Warming Myth

[American Patriot]

Some scientists eye odd climate fixes
Associated Press ^ | 03/19/07 | SETH BORENSTEIN

When climate scientist Andrew Weaver considers the idea of tinkering with Earth's air, water or sunlight to fight global warming, he remembers the lessons of a favorite children's book.

In the book, a cheese-loving king's castle is infested with mice. So the king brings in cats to get rid of the mice. Then the castle's overrun with cats, so he brings in dogs to get rid of them, then lions to get rid of the dogs, elephants to get rid of the lions, and finally, mice to get rid of the elephants.

That scenario in "The King, the Mice and the Cheese," by Nancy and Eric Gurney, should give scientists pause before taking extreme measures to mess with Mother Nature, says Weaver of the University of Victoria.

However, in recent months, several scientists are considering doing just that.

They are exploring global warming solutions that sound wholly far-fetched, including giant artificial "trees" that would filter carbon dioxide out of the air, a bizarre "solar shade" created by a trillion flying saucers that lower Earth's temperature, and a scheme that mimics a volcano by spewing light-reflecting sulfates high in the sky.

These are costly projects of last resort — in case Earth's citizens don't cut back fast enough on greenhouse gas emissions and the worst of the climate predictions appear not too far away. Unfortunately, the solutions could cause problems of their own — beyond their exorbitant costs — including making the arid Middle East even drier and polluting the air enough to increase respiratory illnesses.

Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said mankind already has harmed Earth's climate inadvertently, so it's foolish to think that people can now fix it with a few drastic measures.

But at Trenberth's same Boulder, Colo., research center, climate scientist Tom Wigley is exploring that mock volcano idea.

"It's the lesser of two evils here (the other being doing nothing)," Wigley said. "Whatever we do, there are bad consequences, but you have to judge the relative badness of all the consequences."

Studying the concept of how volcanic pollutants could lessen global warming — the Earth was slightly cooler after the eruption of a Philippine volcano 16 years ago — was brought to the forefront of scientific debate last summer by Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen.

"It was meant to startle the policymakers," said Crutzen, of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. "If they don't take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end, we have to do experiments like this."

In the past, scientists and others have avoided talking publicly about these ideas, known as "geoengineering," even though the concept was first raised in 1965. They worried that the hope of a quick technological fix to global warming would prevent politicians and the public from making the real energy sacrifices that they say are necessary to slow climate change.

David Keith, a University of Calgary engineering professor and one of the world's experts in geoengineering, says that just because tinkering with the air, water and sunlight are possible, they should not be substitutes for cutting emissions just because "we've been politically weak-kneed."

Instead, he said, such options should be researched as an "insurance policy" in case global warming is even worse than forecast. And that prospect has caused climate scientists to talk about the issue more openly in recent months.

There is also a chance that discussion of such radical ideas as a volcano or sun shade could shock the world into acting to reduce fossil fuel emissions, Keith said.

However, White House science adviser Jack Marburger, said spending money on geoengineering doesn't make sense. The federal government, which spends about $2 billion on climate change science, invests nearly all of its research on energy sources that produce fewer or no greenhouse gas emissions.

"I don't think it's scientifically feasible at this time to consider a plan like that (geoengineering)," Marburger told The Associated Press. "The real urgency is to reduce carbon dioxide."

In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change looked at geoengineering as part of its report on how to lessen global warming. It found some promise, worried about unexpected side effects, legal and ethical implications, and concluded that "unlike other strategies, geoengineering addresses the symptoms rather than the causes of climate change."

Even proponents of geoengineering research are wary.

"We are playing with fire here," Keith said. "Those of us suggesting we do something are suggesting it with real nervousness."

___

Associated Press Special Correspondent Charles J. Hanley in New York contributed to this report.

[American Patriot]

E-mail Author Author Archive Send to a Friend Print Version

March 22, 2007 9:30 AM

Plutonic Warming

By Fred Thompson

Editor’s note:Click here to listen to the original radio commentary this transcript is based on.

Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever. Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto.

NASA says the Martian South Pole’s “ice cap” has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter’s caught the same cold, because it’s warming up too, like Pluto.

This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.

Silly, I know, but I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our SOLAR system have in common. Hmmmm. SOLAR system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder. Nah, I guess we shouldn’t even be talking about this. The science is absolutely decided. There’s a consensus.
Ask Galileo.

— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.

© PAUL HARVEY SHOW, ABC RADIO NETWORKS

[American Patriot]

NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory ^ | March 19, 2007 | NASA press release

NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records March 19, 2007

Long-term climate records are a key to understanding how Earth's climate changed in the past and how it may change in the future. Direct measurements of light energy emitted by the sun, taken by satellites and other modern scientific techniques, suggest variations in the sun's activity influence Earth's long-term climate. However, there were no measured climate records of this type until the relatively recent scientific past.

Scientists have traditionally relied upon indirect data gathering methods to study climate in the Earth's past, such as drilling ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica. Such samples of accumulated snow and ice drilled from deep within ice sheets or glaciers contain trapped air bubbles whose composition can provide a picture of past climate conditions. Now, however, a group of NASA and university scientists has found a convincing link between long-term solar and climate variability in a unique and unexpected source: directly measured ancient water level records of the Nile, Earth's longest river.

Alexander Ruzmaikin and Joan Feynman of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., together with Dr. Yuk Yung of the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif., have analyzed Egyptian records of annual Nile water levels collected between 622 and 1470 A.D. at Rawdah Island in Cairo. These records were then compared to another well-documented human record from the same time period: observations of the number of auroras reported per decade in the Northern Hemisphere. Auroras are bright glows in the night sky that happen when mass is rapidly ejected from the sun's corona, or following solar flares. They are an excellent means of tracking variations in the sun's activity.

Feynman said that while ancient Nile and auroral records are generally "spotty," that was not the case for the particular 850-year period they studied.

"Since the time of the pharaohs, the water levels of the Nile were accurately measured, since they were critically important for agriculture and the preservation of temples in Egypt," she said. "These records are highly accurate and were obtained directly, making them a rare and unique resource for climatologists to peer back in time."

A similarly accurate record exists for auroral activity during the same time period in northern Europe and the Far East. People there routinely and carefully observed and recorded auroral activity, because auroras were believed to portend future disasters, such as droughts and the deaths of kings.

"A great deal of modern scientific effort has gone into collecting these ancient auroral records, inter-comparing them and evaluating their accuracy," Ruzmaikin said. "They have been successfully used by aurora experts around the world to study longer time scale variations."

The researchers found some clear links between the sun's activity and climate variations. The Nile water levels and aurora records had two somewhat regularly occurring variations in common - one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years.

The researchers said the findings have climate implications that extend far beyond the Nile River basin.

"Our results characterize not just a small region of the upper Nile, but a much more extended part of Africa," said Ruzmaikin. "The Nile River provides drainage for approximately 10 percent of the African continent. Its two main sources - Lake Tana in Ethiopia and Lake Victoria in Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya - are in equatorial Africa. Since Africa's climate is interrelated to climate variability in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans, these findings help us better understand climate change on a global basis."

So what causes these cyclical links between solar variability and the Nile? The authors suggest that variations in the sun's ultraviolet energy cause adjustments in a climate pattern called the Northern Annular Mode, which affects climate in the atmosphere of the Northern Hemisphere during the winter. At sea level, this mode becomes the North Atlantic Oscillation, a large-scale seesaw in atmospheric mass that affects how air circulates over the Atlantic Ocean. During periods of high solar activity, the North Atlantic Oscillation's influence extends to the Indian Ocean. These adjustments may affect the distribution of air temperatures, which subsequently influence air circulation and rainfall at the Nile River's sources in eastern equatorial Africa. When solar activity is high, conditions are drier, and when it is low, conditions are wetter.

Study findings were recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

[American Patriot]

Gore under spotlight
Toronto Sun ^ | 2007-03-24 | Salim Mansur

There is no escape from being placed under the spotlight for an individual or a party promoting a cause. It was only a matter of time before Al Gore and his advocacy on global warming would be placed under the spotlight.

This week Gore appeared in the U.S. Congress and gave testimony to the hearing called by the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.

Gore testified that "a crisis threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth." Further, global warming "is real and human activity is the main cause."

He also insisted "there is no longer any serious debate over the basic points that make up the consensus on global warming."

Then, with a rhetorical flourish, Gore declared meeting the challenge of global warming was similar to the Allies winning the war against fascism "simultaneously in Europe and the Pacific ... this is a moral moment of similar magnitude." Gore's testimony was followed by that of Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish environmentalist who has become the thorn among supporters of the former vice-president's "moral crusade" of our time.

Lomborg's examination of Gore's advocacy of the Kyoto accord (both testimonies are available on the committee's web site) and more -- such as placing an immediate freeze on carbon emission -- provides a contrary view of how, in adopting these recommendations, "we will likely end up choosing very bad policies to solve the many problems we agree need attention."

Gore and his friends oddly insist the debate is over and consensus has been reached on the subject. The striking fact we find in exploring the subject is, however, the extent of disagreement among scientists on the question of human agency in climate change.

Gore might wrap himself in the mantle of science, but he is not a scientist. He belongs to a class of people -- politicians -- least trusted by the public.

There is no dispute about climate constantly changing. This is a given. The question politicians need to answer, if they have any clue, is one the scientist and former editor of the Journal of Biogeography, Philip Stott, recently asked in a public debate held in New York City: "What climate are you actually aiming to produce and when we get there won't it change anyway?"

Consensus, as Gore insists, is not the basis by which closure is brought to scientific discussions. Science is about the search for answers to natural phenomena and its progress is made through scrutiny and tests of falsification, and not consensus imposed by extraneous considerations.

It might be objected that public policy cannot wait for certainty among scientists on a matter that affects all of us. But it is a leap of faith and politics, not science, when policy is crafted on disputed scientific grounds for implementation disregarding costs.

There is invariably some politics to be found in science, and some science in politics. The integrity of science, however, rests on scientists (recall Galileo) who are neither intimidated by politics nor seduced by public popularity.

The good thing about Al Gore under the spotlight is that the public is beginning to notice that the debate on climate change and human activity as primary cause of global warming is unsettled.

The public, being generally wary of politicians, needs to question those who will impose a policy based on claims of science when scientists cannot predict in advance, for instance, how many hurricanes will strike in a given year -- a year that would be music to the ears of the insurance industry.

[American Patriot]

Bad Astronomy Blog » Do you still think the White House isn’t suppressing science?

I'm a little confused about who actually wrote this particular article, whether it was really Phil or some ghost writer, or a hacker.

Wait, though, I have something to say. Phil, stick to ASTRONOMY, not global warming. Global warming is a crock of hooey and it stinks. If there is global warming, it is due to the SUN and not to mankind.

I can't believe someone as smart as you is falling for such a nonsensical pot of stuff. "Global Warming" is NOTHING more than a whole lot of anti-capitalists who've gotten together, with very bad science to call the United States names.

I can't BELIEVE that a scientist, and a SKEPTIC would buy into that bull that a leftist online blog is spouting. Of COURSE Chris "caught" the White House "redhanded", it's JUST one more piece of an idiotic conspiracy theory.

Come on Phil, STICK TO SCIENCE and get out of politics. It's not for you. I used to like reading things you posted about "Bad Astronomy", but if you continue along the lines of "Global Warming is real" and point to humans as the cause, then I'm going to have to start discounting anything you say about real science.

You're screwing up your reputation as a clear thinking person.

[American Patriot]

Be afraid
The Prague Post ^ | March 28th, 2007 | Václav Klaus

But not of global warming — the Greens are out to get us Commentary | Archives March 28th, 2007 President Václav Klaus startled world audiences March 19 with his letter to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in the U.S. Congress. The statement attacks global warming as a myth and calls environmentalism more dangerous than communism. Although scientists and policymakers at home and abroad have pointed out his arguments lack any reference to research studies, Klaus reiterated his long-held position in answers to Congress’ questions, an abridged version of which follows. The complete text is available in Czech and English at www.klaus.cz. By Václav Klaus Concerning mankind’s contribution to climate change and in keeping with obligations toward the welfare of our citizens: What, in your view, should policymakers consider when addressing climate change?

The — so-called — climate change and especially manmade climate change has become one of the most dangerous arguments aimed at distorting human efforts and public policies in the whole world.

My ambition is not to bring additional arguments to the scientific climatological debate about this phenomenon. I am convinced, however, that up to now this scientific debate has not been deep and serious enough and has not provided sufficient basis for the policymakers’ reaction. What I am really concerned about is the way the environmental topics have been misused by certain political pressure groups to attack fundamental principles underlying free society. It becomes evident that while discussing climate we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment but a clash of views about human freedom.

As someone who lived under communism for most of my life, I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism. This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection — similarly to the old Marxists — wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning of the whole world.

The environmentalists consider their ideas and arguments to be an undisputable truth and use sophisticated methods of media manipulation and PR campaigns to exert pressure on policymakers to achieve their goals. Their argumentation is based on the spreading of fear and panic by declaring the future of the world to be under serious threat. In such an atmosphere, they continue pushing policymakers to adopt illiberal measures, impose arbitrary limits, regulations, prohibitions and restrictions on everyday human activities and make people subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision-making. To use the words of Friedrich Hayek, they try to stop free, spontaneous human action and replace it by their own, very doubtful human design.

… The policymakers are pushed to follow this media-driven hysteria based on speculative and hard evidence lacking theories, and to adopt enormously costly programs which would waste scarce resources in order to stop the probably unstoppable climate changes, caused not by human behavior but by various exogenous and endogenous natural processes (such as fluctuating solar activity).

My answer to your first question, i.e. what policymakers should consider when addressing climate change, is that policymakers should under all circumstances stick to the principles free society is based on, that they should not transfer the right to choose and decide from the people to any advocacy group claiming that it knows better than the rest of the people what is good for them. Policymakers should protect taxpayers’ money and avoid wasting it on doubtful projects which cannot bring positive results.

How should policies address the rate and consequences of climate change and to what extent should regulation of emissions of greenhouse gases be a focus of any such policies?

Policies should realistically evaluate the potential our civilization has, as compared with the power of natural forces influencing climate. It is an evident waste of society’s resources to try to combat an increase of solar activity or the movement of ocean currents. No government action can stop the world and nature from changing. Therefore, I disagree with plans such as the Kyoto Protocol or similar initiatives, which set arbitrary targets requiring enormous costs without realistic prospects for the success of these measures.

If we accept global warming as a real phenomenon, I believe we should address it in an absolutely different way. Instead of hopeless attempts to fight it, we should prepare ourselves for its consequences. If the atmosphere warms up, the effects do not have to be predominantly negative. While some deserts may get larger and some ocean shores flooded, enormous parts of the earth — up until now empty because of their severe, cold climate — may become fertile areas able to accommodate millions of people. It is also important to realize that no planetary change comes overnight.

… Mankind has already accumulated tragic experience with one very proud intellectual stream that claimed that it knew how to manage society better that spontaneous market forces. It was communism and it failed, leaving behind millions of victims. Now, a new -ism has emerged that claims to be able to manage even nature and, through it, people. This excessive human pride — just as the previous attempts — cannot but fail. The world is a complex and complicated system that cannot be organized according to an environmentalist human design, without repeating the tragic experience of wasting resources, suppressing people’s freedom and destroying the prosperity of the whole human society.

My recommendation, therefore, is to pay attention to the thousands of small things that negatively influence the quality of the environment. And to protect and foster fundamental systemic factors without which the economy and society cannot operate efficiently — i.e. to guarantee human freedom and basic economic principles such as the free market, a functioning price system and clearly defined ownership rights. They motivate economic agents to behave rationally. Without them, no policies can protect either the citizens or the environment.

Policymakers should resist environmentalist calls for new policies because there are too many uncertainties in scientific debates on climate change. It is impossible to control natural factors causing climate change. The negative impact of the proposed regulation on economic growth is to the detriment of all other possible risks, including the environmental ones.

What will be the effect on national economies, consumer well-being, job creation and future innovation under various climate change policy scenarios that have come to your attention?

If the policymakers accept the maximalistic environmental demands, the effects on national economies will be devastating. It would stimulate some very small parts of the economy while leaving a bigger part of it choked by artificial limits, regulations and restrictions. The rate of growth would decline, and the competitiveness of the firms on international markets would be seriously affected. It would have a negative impact on employment and job creation. Only rational policies, making spontaneous adjustments possible, can justify government intervention.

What impact and effectiveness will so-called cap-and-trade policies have upon the reduction of climate change threats and our ability to address these threats in the future?

Cap-and-trade policies are a technical tool to achieve pollution-reduction goals by more market-compatible means. They can help if the general idea behind the scheme is rational. I do not believe the whole idea to combat climate change by emissions limits is rational and I, therefore, consider the technicalities of its eventual implementation to be of secondary importance.

What is the moral obligation of developed countries to the developing countries of the world? Should developed countries embark on large emissions-reduction schemes while developing countries are allowed to continue to increase emissions unabated?

The moral obligation of developed countries to the developing countries is to create such an environment which guarantees free exchange of goods, services and capital flows, enables utilization of comparative advantages of individual countries and thus stimulates economic development of the less developed countries. Artificial administrative barriers, limits and regulations imposed by developed countries discriminate [against] the developing world, affect its economic growth and prolong poverty and underdevelopment.

… It is an illusion to believe that severe anti–climate change policies could be limited to developed countries only. If the policies of the environmentalists are adopted by developed countries, sooner or later their ambitions to control and manage the whole planet will spread the emissions-reduction requirements worldwide. The developing countries will be forced to accept irrational targets and limitations because “earth is first” and their needs are secondary. The environmentalist argumentation gives ammunition to protectionists of all colors who try to eliminate competition coming from newly industrialized countries. Therefore, the moral obligation of the developed countries is not to introduce large emissions-reduction schemes.


The author is an economist and president of the Czech Republic

[Ryan Ruck]

Bright Sun, Warm Earth. Coincidence?

Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm.

The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.

Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser.

Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer."

And I swear, I haven't left my SUV idling on any of those planets or moons. Honest, I haven't.

Is there something all these heavenly bodies have in common? Some one thing they all share that could be causing them to warm in unison?

Hmmm, is there some giant, self-luminous ball of burning gas with a mass more than 300,000 times that of Earth and a core temperature of more than 20-million degrees Celsius, that for the past century or more has been unusually active and powerful? Is there something like that around which they all revolve that could be causing this multi-globe warming? Naw!

They must all have congested commuter highways, coal-fired power plants and oilsands developments that are releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into their atmospheres, too.

A decade ago, when global warming and Kyoto was just beginning to capture public attention, I published a quiz elsewhere that bears repeating in our current hyper-charged environmental debate: Quick, which is usually warmer, day or night?

And what is typically the warmest part of the day? The warmest time of year?

Finally, which are generally warmer: cloudy or cloudless days?

If you answered day, afternoon, summer and cloudless you may be well on your way to understanding what is causing global warming.

For the past century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending out more radiation.

Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.

Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun's activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, "a near-perfect match."

Mr. Abdussamatov concedes manmade gasses may have made "a small contribution to the warming in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."

Mr. Soon showed as long ago as the mid-1990s that the depth of the Little Ice Age -- the coldest period in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,500 years -- corresponded perfectly with a solar event known as the Maunder Minimum. For nearly seven decades there was virtually no sunspot activity.

Our sun was particular quiet. And for those 60 to 70 years, the northern half of our globe, at least, was in a deep freeze.

Is it so hard to believe then that the sun could be causing our current warming, too?

At the very least, the fact that so many prominent scientists have legitimate, logical objections to the current global warming orthodoxy means there is no "consensus" among scientists about the cause.

Here's a prediction: The sun's current active phase is expected to wane in 20 to 40 years, at which time the planet will begin cooling. Since that is when most of the greenhouse emission reductions proposed by the UN and others are slated to come into full effect, the "greens" will see that cooling and claim, "See, we warned you and made you take action, and look, we saved the planet."

Of course, they will have had nothing to do with it.

[American Patriot]

Does CO2 really drive global warming?
May 2001 Chemical Innovation, May 2001, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp 44—46 ^ | May 2001 | Robert H. Essenhigh, E. G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Ohio State University

Does CO2 really drive global warming?

I don’t believe that it does.

To the contrary, if you apply the IFF test—if-and-only-if or necessary-and-sufficient—the outcome would appear to be exactly the reverse. Rather than the rising levels of carbon dioxide driving up the temperature, the logical conclusion is that it is the rising temperature that is driving up the CO2 level. Of course, this raises a raft of questions, but they are all answerable. What is particularly critical is distinguishing between the observed phenomenon, or the “what”, from the governing mechanism, or the “why”. Confusion between these two would appear to be the source of much of the noise in the global warming debate.

In applying the IFF test, we can start with the clear correlation between the global CO2 profile and the corresponding temperature signature. There is now in the literature the report of a 400,000-year sequence clearly showing, as a phenomenon, that they go up—and down—together (1). The correlation is clear and accepted. But the causation, the mechanism, is something else: Which is driving which?

Logically, there are four possible explanations, but only two need serious consideration, unless they both fail.

* Case 1: CO2 drives the temperature, as is currently most frequently asserted; and

* Case 2: Temperature drives the level of CO2.

Both appear at first to be possible, but both then generate crucial origin and supplementary questions. For Case 1, the origin question is: What is the independent source of CO2 that drives the CO2 level both up and down, and which in turn, somehow, is presumed to drive the temperature up and down? For Case 2, it is: What drives the temperature, and if this then drives the CO2, where does the CO2 come from? For Case 2, the questions are answerable; but for Case 1, they are not.

Consider Case 2. This directly introduces global warming behavior. Is global warming, as a separate and independent phenomenon, in progress? The answer, as I heard it in geology class 50 years ago, was “yes”, and I have seen nothing since then to contradict that position. To the contrary, as further support, there is now documentation (that was only fragmentary 50 years ago) of an 850,000-year global-temperature sequence, showing that the temperature is oscillating with a period of 100,000 years, and with an amplitude that has risen, in that time, from about 5 °F at the start to about 10 °F “today” (meaning the latest 100,000-year period) (2). We are currently in a rise that started 25,000 years ago and, reasonably, can be expected to peak “very shortly”.

On the shorter timescales of 1000 years and 100 years, further temperature oscillations can be seen, but of much smaller amplitude, down to 1 and 0.5 °F in those two cases. Nevertheless, the overall trend is clearly up, even through the Little Ice Age (~1350–1900) following the Medieval Warm Period. So the global warming phenomenon is here, with a very long history, and we are in it. But what is the driver?

Arctic Ocean model
The postulated driver, or mechanism, developed some 30 years ago to account for the “million-year” temperature oscillations, is best known as the “Arctic Ocean” model (2). According to this model, the temperature variations are driven by an oscillating ice cap in the northern polar regions. The crucial element in the conceptual formulation of this mechanism was the realization that such a massive ice cap could not have developed, and then continued to expand through that development, unless there was a major source of moisture close by to supply, maintain, and extend the cap. The only possible moisture source was then identified as the Arctic Ocean, which, therefore, had to be open—not frozen over—during the development of the ice ages. It then closed again, interrupting the moisture supply by freezing over.

So the model we now have is that if the Arctic Ocean is frozen over, as is the case today, the existing ice cap is not being replenished and must shrink, as it is doing today. As it does so, the Earth can absorb more of the Sun’s radiation and therefore will heat up—global warming—as it is doing today, so long as the Arctic Ocean is closed. When it is warm enough for the ocean to open, which oceanographic (and media) reports say is evidently happening right now, then the ice cap can begin to re-form.

As it expands, the ice increasingly reflects the incoming (shorter-wave) radiation from the sun, so that the atmosphere cools at first. But then, the expanding ice cap reduces the radiative (longer-wave) loss from the Earth, acting as an insulator, so that the Earth below cools more slowly and can keep the ocean open as the ice cap expands. This generates “out-of-sync” oscillations between atmosphere and Earth. The Arctic Ocean “trip” behavior at the temperature extremes, allowing essentially discontinuous change in direction of the temperature, is identified as a bifurcation system with potential for analysis as such. The suggested trip times for the change are interesting: They were originally estimated at about 500 years, then reduced to 50 years and, most recently, down to 5 years (2). So, if the ocean is opening right now, we could possibly start to see the temperature reversal under way in about 10 years.

What we have here is a sufficient mechanistic explanation for the dominant temperature fluctuations and, particularly, for the current global warming rise—without the need for CO2 as a driver. Given that pattern, the observed CO2 variations then follow, as a driven outcome, mainly as the result of change in the dynamic equilibrium between the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and its solution in the sea. The numbers are instructive. In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data on the carbon balance showed ~90 gigatons (Gt) of carbon in annual quasi-equilibrium exchange between sea and atmosphere, and an additional 60-Gt exchange between vegetation and atmosphere, giving a total of ~150 Gt (3). This interpretation of the sea as the major source is also in line with the famous Mauna Loa CO2 profile for the past 40 years, which shows the consistent season-dependent variation of 5–6 ppm, up and down, throughout the year—when the average global rise is only 1 ppm/year.

In the literature, this oscillation is attributed to seasonal growing behavior on the “mainland” (4), which is mostly China, >2000 mi away, but no such profile with that amplitude is known to have been reported at any mainland location. Also, the amplitude would have to fall because of turbulent diffusive exchange during transport over the 2000 mi from the mainland to Hawaii, but again there is lack of evidence for such behavior. The fluctuation can, however, be explained simply from study of solution equilibria of CO2 in water as due to emission of CO2 from and return to the sea around Hawaii governed by a ±10 °F seasonal variation in the sea temperature.

Impact of industrialization
The next matter is the impact of fossil fuel combustion. Returning to the IPCC data and putting a rational variation as noise of ~5 Gt on those numbers, this float is on the order of the additional—almost trivial (<5%)—annual contribution of 5–6 Gt from combustion of fossil fuels. This means that fossil fuel combustion cannot be expected to have any significant influence on the system unless, to introduce the next point of focus, the radiative balance is at some extreme or bifurcation point that can be tripped by “small” concentration changes in the radiation-absorbing–emitting gases in the atmosphere. Can that include CO2?

This now starts to address the necessity or “only-if” elements of the problem. The question focuses on whether CO2 in the atmosphere can be a dominant, or “only-if” radiative-balance gas, and the answer to that is rather clearly “no”. The detailed support for that statement takes the argument into some largely esoteric areas of radiative behavior, including the analytical solution of the Schuster–Schwarzschild Integral Equation of Transfer that governs radiative exchange (5–7), but the outcome is clear.

The central point is that the major absorbing gas in the atmosphere is water, not CO2, and although CO2 is the only other significant atmospheric absorbing gas, it is still only a minor contributor because of its relatively low concentration. The radiative absorption “cross sections” for water and CO2 are so similar that their relative influence depends primarily on their relative concentrations. Indeed, although water actually absorbs more strongly, for many engineering calculations the concentrations of the two gases are added, and the mixture is treated as a single gas.

In the atmosphere, the molar concentration of CO2 is in the range of 350–400 ppm. Water, on the other hand, has a very large variation but, using the “60/60” (60% relative humidity [RH] at 60 °F) value as an average, then from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers standard psychrometric chart, the weight ratio of water to (dry) air is ~0.0065, or roughly 10,500 ppm. Compared with CO2, this puts water, on average, at 25–30 times the (molar) concentration of the CO2, but it can range from a 1:1 ratio to >100:1.

Even closer focus on water is given by solution of the Schuster–Schwarzschild equation applied to the U.S. Standard Atmosphere profiles for the variation of temperature, pressure, and air density with elevation (8). The results show that the average absorption coefficient obtained for the atmosphere closely corresponds to that for the 5.6–7.6-µm water radiation band, when water is in the concentration range 60–80% RH—on target for atmospheric conditions. The absorption coefficient is 1–2 orders of magnitude higher than the coefficient values for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm. This would seem to eliminate CO2 and thus provide closure to that argument.

This overall position can be summarized by saying that water accounts, on average, for >95% of the radiative absorption. And, because of the variation in the absorption due to water variation, anything future increases in CO2 might do, water will already have done. The common objection to this argument is that the wide fluctuations in water concentration make an averaging (for some reason) impermissible. Yet such averaging is applied without objection to global temperatures, when the actual temperature variation across the Earth from poles to equator is roughly –100 to +100 °F, and a change on the average of ±1 °F is considered major and significant. If this averaging procedure can be applied to the atmospheric temperature, it can be applied to the atmospheric water content; and if it is denied for water, it must, likewise, be denied for temperature—in that case we don’t have an identified problem!

What the evidence shows
So what we have on the best current evidence is that

* global temperatures are currently rising;

* the rise is part of a nearly million-year oscillation with the current rise beginning some 25,000 years ago;
* the “trip” or bifurcation behavior at the temperature extremes is attributable to the “opening” and “closing” of the Arctic Ocean;
* there is no need to invoke CO2 as the source of the current temperature rise;
* the dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major secondary source and sink;

* if CO2 were the temperature–oscillation source, no mechanism—other than the separately driven temperature (which would then be a circular argument)—has been proposed to account independently for the CO2 rise and fall over a 400,000-year period;
* the CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from combustion is within the statistical noise of the major sea and vegetation exchanges, so a priori, it cannot be expected to be statistically significant;
* water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2;

* determination of the radiation absorption coefficients identifies water as the primary absorber in the 5.6–7.6-µm water band in the 60–80% RH range; and
* the absorption coefficients for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude too small to be significant even if the CO2 concentrations were doubled.

The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2. If there are flaws in these propositions, I’m listening; but if there are objections, let’s have them with the numbers.

References

1. Sigman, M.; Boyle, E. A. Nature 2000, 407, 859–869.
2. Calder, N. The Weather Machine; Viking Press: New York, 1974.

3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change; Houghton, J. T., Meira Filho, L. G., Callender, B. A., Harris, N., Kattenberg, A., Maskell, K., Eds.; Cam bridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K., 1996.
4. Hileman, B. Chem. Eng. News 1992, 70 (17), 7–19.
5. Schuster, A. Astrophysics J. 1905, 21, 1–22.

6. Schwarzschild, K. Gesell. Wiss. Gottingen; Nachr. Math.–Phys. Klasse 1906, 41.
7. Schwarzschild, K. Berliner Ber. Math. Phys. Klasse 1914, 1183.
8. Essenhigh, R. H. On Radiative Transfer in Solids. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Thermophysics Specialist Conference, New Orleans, April 17–20, 1967; Paper 67-287; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: Reston, VA, 1967.

Robert H. Essenhigh is the E. G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ohio State University, 206 W. 18th Ave., Columbus, OH 43210; 614-292-0403; essenhigh.1@osu.edu.

[American Patriot]

Al Gore at Congress, Global Warming.

[American Patriot]

The REAL reason that Global Warming is around..... FINALLY someone else said it.

California's Anti-Global Warming Laws as Smokescreen to Blockade Growth of Red Counties
The Pasadena Pundit ^ | April 5, 2007 | Wayne Lusvardi

California's Anti-Global Warming Laws as Smokescreen to Blockade the Growth of Red Counties


The Pasadena Pundit - Arpil 5, 2007


Preface: California's inland counties, mostly comprised of Republican strongholds, are growing rapidly and now are siphoning even immigrants from their landing zones in central Los Angeles. What can Democratic blue counties do to impede the gradual Republicanization of the state? Well, they could come up with a scheme that says that high-density housing, infill housing development shorter commutes, and mandating that people walk or bike to work is necessary to "save the planet" from global warming.


Just think about it. High density housing will mean more, not fewer, impacts on the environment because emissions and congestion will be concentrated in the coastal basins rather than diffused throughout the region.


The only way to impede or blockade the growth of inland counties is to regulate every aspect of our lives: where we live, what car we can own, what job we can take, whether we can own a car in the first place, how much we will have to pay for pricey luxury green electricity.


This is environmental totalitarianism with a political agenda. This comes right out of Soviet style central planning with 10-year Plans.


Democracy hardly exists anymore with gerrymandering, legal circunvention of Open Meeting laws under "legal confidentialty" rules, trick ballots and ballot wording that cancels out votes, tax laws which excuse low income people from paying taxes and thus having a stake in the political system by voting, revolving door politicians that circumvent term limits, fusion politics which dilutes the two-party system, courts which now run our jails, hospitals, and now indirectly electricity prices and what kind of car we can own.
Now the political party that calls itself Democrat wants to take the only freedom of choice we have left away from us - the right to vote with our feet. With that in mind read the excerpt below from NewTimes San Luis Obispo:


One gaseous goal


The state wants locals to help plan paths away from global warming but it's not saying how


BY PATRICK HOWE - NewTimes San Luis Obispo


Excerpt: California's ambitious new plan to shoehorn the state's lug-soled boot of a carbon footprint into a slimming strappy little number depends in part on getting local governments to radically change the way communities develop and grow.


Trouble is, nobody's yet told the planners how to craft the sort of strategies that would meet the goals, there's no money to pay for any changes yet, and so far there's no way to tell even if they do meet the targets.


Broadly, that means they want communities to zone for high-density housing, allow more infill development, encourage shorter commutes, demand green and energy-efficient buildings, and change their general plans to look for ways people can walk or bike to work.


...planning for climate change also means acknowledging that "the creek will rise, so where we used to build with a fair amount of confidence may not be where we'd want to build in the future."


Read the full article here:
http://www.newtimesslo.com/index.php...rticle&id=2382

[American Patriot]

Permanent drought seen for Southwest by 2050
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...home-headlines ^

The driest periods of the last century -- the Dust Bowl of the 1930s and the droughts of the 1950s -- could become the norm in the Southwest United States within decades because of global warming, according to a study released today.

The research suggests that the transformation could already be happening. Much of the region has been in a severe drought since 2000, which the study's analysis of computer climate models shows as the beginning of a long drying period.

The study, published online in the journal Science, predicted a permanent drought throughout the Southwest by 2050.

The data tell "a story which is pretty darn scary and very strong," said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate researcher at the University of Arizona, who was not involved in the study.

Richard Seager, a climate modeler at Columbia University and the lead author of the study, said the changes will force an adjustment of the social and economic order from southern Colorado to Southern California.

"There are going to be some tough decisions on how to allocate water," he said. "Is it going to be the cities, or is it going to be agriculture?"

Given the enormous variation of weather, some scientists were still uncertain of the dire predictions.

"I think we will continue to see the typical up and down variations of precipitation, including wet years vital to replenishment of water supplies in the Southwest, though in the future we may see fewer such very wet years," said Kelly Redmond, deputy director of the Western Regional Climate Center in Reno.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...

[American Patriot]

Warming report nears deadline
AP on Yahoo ^ | 4/5/07 | Seth Borenstein - ap

BRUSSELS - A major report on how global warming will dramatically change life on Earth will likely read less dire about massive extinctions than scientists originally wrote.

Participants in marathon negotiations over an authoritative climate change report, due out Friday, said government delegates have weakened the original language in the report.

A final draft of the report — written by scientists before government officials edit it — says "roughly 20-30 percent of species are likely to be at high risk of irreversible extinction" if global average temperature rises by 2.7 to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit.

That part has been "diluted," said retired scientist Ian Burton attending the session on behalf of the Stockholm Environment Institute.

Another delegate said the amended version hedged on the sweep of the original text, inserting a reference to species "assessed so far."

Guy Midgley of the National Botanical Institute in South Africa, a lead author of the chapter on ecosystems that includes extinctions, said the changes will be "commensurate with the science."

Negotiations stretched past midnight and into early Friday. One issue of major debate was whether to delete all or parts of key tables specifying the projected impact of each rise of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, delegates said.

Another prolonged tussle emerged over whether to include estimated costs of damage from climate change — calculated per ton of carbon dioxide emissions, said the delegates on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

Negotiations were expected to push right up against a Friday morning deadline for the report's release.

As they broke for dinner Thursday, carrying yellow boxes with gift chocolate Easter eggs, negotiators said they were in for a long night, but had confidence they will make their deadline.

There is little dispute about the science, although some disagree about their confidence in the research. But the main issue at the Brussels conference is how the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will say what it has to say in the most effective possible way — that 120 nations' negotiators can accept.

The key is making it easily understandable, said Oyvind Christophersen, who heads the Norwegian delegation as a senior adviser for climate and energy. "The challenge is how to summarize a big, big report."

The entire final draft report, obtained last week by The Associated Press, has 20 chapters, supplements, two summaries and totals 1,572 pages. This week's wrangling is just over the 21-page summary for policymakers.

It is the second of four reports from the IPCC this year; the first report in February laid out the scientific case for how global warming is happening. This second report is the "so what" report, explaining what the effects of global warming will be.

The situation became so slow that the panel chairman took the unusual step of warning delegates to get moving and scientists started grumbling about the possibility of recessing the conference until June, a scientist told The Associated Press. The scientist spoke on condition of anonymity because participants have been warned by top officials not to divulge details of negotiations.

Some of the biggest debates expected Thursday in the closed-door negotiating session center on what to include on the charts that summarize "key vulnerabilities" the world faces with global warming.

The charts have been called a "highway to extinction" because they show that with every degree of warming, the condition of much of the world worsens — with starvation, floods and the disappearance of species.

Those charts "tell us there's a danger in the future," said Belgian delegate Julian Vandeburie, who is in the science policy branch of his government.

Vandeburie compared the world's current situation to the Munich peace conference in 1938, when Britain and France had a choice between confronting Hitler and appeasing him: "We are at the same moment. We have to decide on doing something or not."

___

AP Correspondent Arthur Max contributed to this report.

[Malsua]

This is a good read. I like how they qualify him at the end "He receives no funding from any Energy companies" as if doing so would completely discredit him utterly.

-Mal
---------------------------------
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

Why So Gloomy?


By Richard S. Lindzen
Newsweek International

April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.


A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.


In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.


Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.
Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.


Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.


Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.


Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies

[Jag]

Forecaster says Al Gore does 'great disservice' with film about global warming

Says Gore "a gross alarmist"

By CAIN BURDEAU
Associated Press Writer


NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.

"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.

A spokeswoman said Gore was on a flight from Washington, D.C., to Nashville Friday; he did not immediately respond to Gray's comments.

Gray, an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.

Over the past 24 years, Gray, 77, has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster; recently, his mentee, Philip Klotzbach, has begun doing the bulk of the forecasting work.

Gray's statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.

Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.

Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," has helped fuel media attention on global warming.

Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly "dug (his) heels in" even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter.

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/.../NEWS/70407035

Jag

[American Patriot]

Freeman Dyson talks about Global Warming....

Three short vids. First one should start right away. Select the last two on the dropdown menu on the left.


http://www.peoplesarchive.com/browse/movies/1248/en/


144. Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere: the balance between vegetation and atmosphere [Duration 00:06:33]


145. Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere: global warming and stratospheric cooling [Duration 00:01:27]


146. Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere: conclusions [Duration 00:02:42]



Dyson sphere

Main article: Dyson sphere

One should expect that, within a few thousand years of its entering the stage of industrial development, any intelligent species should be found occupying an artificial biosphere which completely surrounds its parent star.^[6]

[American Patriot]

29 Ways To INCREASE Global Warming

The hysteria surrounding global warming is a crock. The idea that human beings are destroying the planet with BBQs and hair spray is stupid and silly...and I refuse to accept this nonsense. Following is a 'how-to' guide on enjoying more of the wonderful resources our Earth has to offer.

I encourage readers to stop feeling guilty if they choose NOT to recycle. It's time to burn those fossil fuels. Get out and drive your SUV...And by all means, leave the farting cows alone!

1. Remove your energy-saver bulbs and go back to normal lights. Your home should emit a soft, warm, comforting glow. Dull gray office lights have no business in a home. Normal lights look so much better than those tacky fluorescents.

2. Rinse your driveway and walkways with water instead of using a blower. A good wash removes stuck on dirt, grass and dead bugs that a blower simply can't touch. Plus, by hosing down your driveway instead of blowing you can avoid kicking up all of that allergy causing dust and debris.

3. Fart more during the day. The average person produces about a half liter of fart gas per day. If you increase that amount to ¾ of liter you will probably feel less bloated and be a little friendlier to people around you. Fart gas may contain methane which is a greenhouse gas.

4. Set your air conditioner thermostat to whatever temperature you want. Some spring nights you may want to enjoy the cool spring air by sleeping with a window open and leaving the heater on. Haven't you ever driven at night in a convertible with the top down and the heat on? It's a great feeling.

5. Use a BBQ smoker at least once a month. There is no better tasting food on this planet than smoked meat. Smoked ribs, smoked ham and even smoked salmon. It's simply delicious! Some people think clouds of billowing smoke rising out of your backyard will increase global warming.

6. Chop down trees. If you prefer open views and sunshine, a big ugly tree obstructing your landscape can be nuisance. The truth is, some trees are better off turned into firewood. Trees are a100% renewable resource. if we need more, we can plant more.

7. Grab extra packets of ketchup when you visit a fast food joint. By taking lots of extra packs you can be sure you'll have enough sauce to cover each and every fry. And when you toss the extra stuff you don't need into the garbage you can deliver more waste to the landfills and cause more packets to be made.

8. Allow the water to run while you brush your teeth. The sound of water running early in the morning can have a calming effect as you prepare for school or work.

9. Stay away from organic foods. Foods grown without pesticides are more prone to parasites and disease. Large factories requiring lots of energy are needed to produce chemical pesticides. More factories could also mean more jobs for people who need them.

10. Be sure to set your dishwasher to 'heat dry' rather than 'air dry'. Get ALL of your dishes dry faster. The heat setting can also reduce the number of spots appearing on the glasses.

11. Drive an SUV. A nice big sport utility vehicle allows you to haul more of your stuff in greater comfort. Why not live life in luxury? Stretch out and relax. You should not have to contort your body and legs around a tiny steering wheel and fit into someone else's idea of acceptable transportation.

12. Always turn your water heater up to the maximum temperature setting. This way you can use a little less of the hot water in your hot/cold mix to make your shower warm. This also allows you to take longer showers, wash more clothes and enjoy a bath where a tub of water actually reaches the top before it gets too cold.

13. Hold the lever down a little longer when you flush the toilet. Since so many of us are now using these tiny, little, girley-man, 1.6gpf ultra-low flow toilets, holding the lever a bit longer to completely empty the tank will increase the chance everything will actually get down. When you empty the toilet reservoir tank, you force the sewage treatment facility to take more crap and water and spend more energy working to process the stuff before it's dumped in the ocean.

14. Never use mass transit. What if, on your way home from work, you want to stop and get a pizza? What if you want to take the scenic route as you drive to the office? What if you simply decide at the last minute to ditch work and go to the beach? Public buses and trains deprive you of your ability to do what you want when you want to.

15. Use hot water to wash your clothes. The best way to clean white clothes is with hot water and a little bleach. Cold water simply doesn't do the job. This is also the method to use if you need to disinfect sheets and towels after having those nasty relatives over for a visit. In most cases, using hot water requires the burning of fossil fuel. Some people think the more we burn fossil fuels, the more we will increase global warming.

16. Wash smaller loads in your wash machine. Washing your clothes more frequently means you'll have more fashion choices each morning. Plus, by running smaller loads, you can be sure that your clothes are getting as clean as possible.

17. Remove the flow restrictors from your low-flow shower heads. Simply open them up with a screwdriver, punch out the plastic restrictor and once again enjoy the nice, strong shower you deserve.

18. Avoid buying a new car solely for its fuel economy. Cars that get the best gas mileage are almost always the ugliest cars on the road. The truth is, while you may be saving 3 or 4 dollars on a tank of gas, you almost always look like an idiot driving a Kia.

19. Stop recycling your bottles and aluminum cans. The time it takes to separate your recyclables is not worth the hassle. How much do you really make on the deal? A dollar a bag? - or some other ridiculously insignificant amount. Plus, have you ever thought about all of the money your city makes off of recyclables? Don't you think it's a little unfair that we have to pay the city to haul away items that they will in turn sell for a profit? Start dumping your recyclables in the trash where they belong.

20. Always accept a free sample. Especially at the grocery store, a tiny, little half cooked sausage or a cheesy cracker may be just what you need to quell those rising hunger pains as you shop. The energy required to slaughter the animal for sausage and fry it up nice and good is the same energy that some people think will increase global warming.

21. Always drive a little over the speed limit. In some states you can get away with driving as much as 15mph over the posted speed limit. Driving a little faster will help you arrive at your destination quicker, giving you more time to do other things.

22. Never reuse old faxes. Have you ever seen people use both sides of the paper in their fax machines? Don't they realize the other side bleeds through making both sides difficult to read...Never mind trying to figure out which side is the most current. Faxes should be treated like toilet paper. You use one side and throw it out.

23. Trade in your gas BBQ for a charcoal grill. The quick start convenience of a gas grill is great but, you can't beat the taste of food cooked on an old fashioned charcoal grill. Also, refilling or swapping out your used propane tanks is so much more of a hassle than dumping a bag of coals.

24. Leave your outdoor lights on through the night. One of the best forms of home security is a well lit perimeter. Criminals are attracted to dark spaces and avoid targets that have bright lights. While you may be able to keep the burglars away, some people think the extra lights will increase global warming.

25. Ask for more junk mail. Use a fake name to get on as many mailing lists as possible. There's a small chance you may actually see something you like. As the ads arrive simply toss the unwanted stuff into the garbage. The more ads you receive the more trees have to be cut down to produce more paper. This too may help add jobs to the economy.

26. Don't buy recycled copier paper. It's usually more expensive and it always has that weird grayish hue that never looks quite right. When you avoid recycled paper, you increase the number of trees being turned into pulp and this is a good thing.

27. Double or even triple bag your groceries at the supermarket. Use as many bags as you need to ensure your items don't burst through the bottom. The goal is to deliver your goods from the market to your pantry in as near perfect condition as possible. What global warming freak is going to pay for your broken Kahlua bottles if the one-bag theory doesn't hold up?

28. Do not use re-refined oil in your car. Other than it costing more, there is something just not right about putting someone else's old lube in your hot new ride. When you avoid re-refined oil, you encourage the oil companies to explore, drill and produce more energy.

29. Print online articles and stop reading from your computer screen. This list of '29 things' was written by those mean old conservative Republicans at MetroSpy.com (http://www.metrospy.com/). We want you to know, this list should be printed and read from a sheet of paper. After you've read the list, throw that paper in the trash. If you want to read it again, simply print it again! DO NOT READ THIS LIST FROM YOUR COMPUTER SCREEN!!

By following the advice on our list you can learn to enjoy all of the wonderful resources this nice big planet has to offer. On the other hand, if you decide to pursue the hippie-lifestyle and avoid the Earth's natural resources that's okay! Others of us are perfectly happy consuming whatever you decide not to use.

Burn more, digg more, eat more! - Enjoy!

[Aplomb]

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007...es-scientists/

Antarctic ice melt surprises scientists

Boulder researchers, satellite key to discovery

By Todd Neff (Contact)
Wednesday, May 16, 2007


University of Colorado and NASA scientists using a Boulder-built satellite have identified unexpected melting in west Antarctica over combined areas the size of California.


Konrad Steffen, director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, and recent CU Ph.D. graduate Russell Huff were co-authors of a chapter describing the work in the new book "Dynamic Planet." Son Nghiem, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, was lead author.



The melting happened in January 2005 and included regions up to 560 miles inland and more than 6,600 feet in elevation, places generally too cold for liquid water. It was an exceptionally warm year in Antarctica, and such melting has not been observed since.


Still, Steffen, now in Greenland, said in a statement that imagery showed the first signs of the impacts of warming across large regions of the southernmost continent outside of the Antarctic Peninsula, where melting has been well documented.


NASA's Quick Scatterometer satellite was built in Boulder by Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. and launched in 1999. CU's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics operates the satellite, nicknamed "QuikScat," for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.



Antarctic melt is well outside of QuikScat's official duties, which include sea-surface wind speed and direction monitoring for global climate research.
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Nghiem is known for his creativity in developing new uses for the satellite's microwave data, devising mathematical formulas to analyze historical QuikScat data for measuring such things as soil moisture content and sea-ice melt, co-author Huff said.


Huff helped develop the math used to tease out ice-sheet melting and snow accumulation from QuikScat data. The idea was to use QuikScat's active microwave data — it blasts down beams, then detects what bounces back — as a check against the passive microwave data satellites have collected since 1979.


David Long, director of Brigham Young University's Center for Remote Sensing, confirmed the melting in his own QuikScat data.


"It's as plain as day," Long said.


Long said such melting, if prolonged, could seep through glacial ice and lubricate glaciers, causing them to move more quickly to the oceans and potentially raising sea level by several feet.


Mark Serreze, a senior scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at CU, said scientists have seen the biggest warming effects in the Arctic, where warming, air and ocean circulation are combining to melt sea ice.


"Antarctica has always been considered this sleeping giant," Serreze said. "We could interpret these results as part of growing evidence that the sleeping giant is beginning to stir, but it's not definitive yet."


Ted Scambos, the Snow and Ice Data Center's lead scientist, has been to Antarctica nine times. He said there are certain areas of Antarctica that melt every year and that parts of the 2005 melt discovered with QuikScat have melted in the past, but some appear to be unprecedented.

[Sean Osborne]

Mankind has nothing to do with the warming trend which is being observed throughout this solar system.

Mars frozen poles are melting (or evaporating as the case may be).

Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus and the quasi-planet Pluto have been observed as becoming warmer.

This trend is concurrent, simultaneous across the entire solar system.

Hmmmmm... what do all these planets have in common that might be a cause for such a phenomenon?





In size and orbital perspective...

[Malsua]

Here's something I put together a few weeks back on CO2 and how relevent it is to our atmostphere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A

[Brian Baldwin]

that YouTube really puts it in perspective Mal. lol

You know what's amazing is that actual proof exists showing that the sun is responisble and still scientists have been pressured into maintaining the lie.