Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

[Christian IV]

I suppose everyone here is familiar with the concept of greenhouse gasses and the greenhouse effect - without our atmosphere with its contents of greenhouse gasses - the earth would be a much colder place to live - 30-35C or so colder.

So my question is this: Knowing that the amount of greenhouse gasses within the atmosphere IS currently drastically increasing (that is a well known fact from measurements) and knowing that greenhouse gasses do have a warming effect - what should be the reason for the current increase greenhouse gasses NOT to lead to a warming?

I would very much like to see that simple question answered.

[wodinoneeye]

There is a question that those who believe that global warming is caused by humanity (and capitalism) should always be required to answer. When I was a child there was much hand wringing and gnashing of teeth over global cooling and the next coming ice age. How did humans cause the global warming that brought us out of the last ice age and presumably, any that had come before it?

The following link is a graph from NASA showing the cycle of previous ice ages.
http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/l...bal/tchga1.gif

And here is a similar graph from the PaleoMap Project
http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg

This evidence is quite compelling. Could it be that Al Gore is trying to stop a natural process?


So we think that the Earth is warming (again). It seems odd that those with a political or ideological axe to grind often point the finger of blame at man (read capitalism or republicans) instead of that great space heater in the sky and scorn anyone else who would dare suggest otherwise. Those of us who have taken a good college level astronomy class know quite well how sun cycles can affect global temperatures.

The Max Planck Institute says that “the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html


NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...rradiance.html


Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
By Robert Roy Britt Senior Science Writer 20 March 2003

In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the sun’s radiation has increased by 0.05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.

(This graph shows global temps in comparison with solar activity)
http://www.space.com/images/suncycle_temps_0108_02.gif
Long-term: A previous study showed that changes in the Sun's output appear to be related to temperatures on Earth, based on studies of tree rings, sunspots and other data.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ut_030320.html





It has been reported that the Mars ice caps are melting, could it be that the Mars Rover is an SUV? You know how they say misery loves company – examine the following.


Jupiter seems to be undergoing global warming as well.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12631330/

and Triton…

“We’re not the only ones experiencing global warming… Neptune’s largest moon, Triton, seems to have heated up significantly since the Voyager space probe visited it in 1989…

“At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming. Percentage-wise, it’s a very large increase,” said James L. Elliot, (MIT) professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and director of the Wallace Astrophysical Observatory. The 5 percent increase on the absolute temperature scale from about minus-392 degrees Fahrenheit to about minus-389 degrees Fahrenheit would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of about 22 degrees Fahrenheit.”

Halber, Deborah. MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune’s largest moon. MIT News, June 24, 1998.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/1998/triton.html


and Pluto...

Halber, Deborah. Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find. MIT News, Oct. 9. 2002. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2002/pluto.html



I for one, demand to know what Al Gore is going to do about this!

Speaking of Al Gore, he claims that there is a consensus in the scientific community that global warming is real and that man is the cause. Oh contraire!

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia, a global warming believer stated, “We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.”
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

OK, so maybe Al Gore doesn’t have a lot of credibility. Perhaps that is why the new version of Gore’s movie poster doesn’t have Al Gore’s name on it at all. Don’t believe… take a gander.

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/...thonesheet.jpg

Speaking of inconvenient pictures, may I present to you a photo of the quintessential global warming media darling, the one, the only, and the lovely, Arianna Huffington as she pulls up to the 2005 Sierra Club’s national summit in San Francisco. They call this piece of tonnage, the Huffmobile.
http://exposetheleft.com/images/huffmobile.jpg

Besides the Huffmobile, let us talk about something that IS real and most frightening. The vicious and highly personal attacks that some scientists have come under when they dare to sway from certain preconceived conclusions in their research.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT has spoken about the climate of fear that exists in the scientific community when he stated that “global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence” and that “Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers”.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220


_________________
I can answer the question but I cannot understand it for you.

Watch Matt Mainen get owned in his own Global Warming thread where he would not back himself up and finally fled the thread - http://forum.protestwarrior.com/view...r=asc&start=15

and http://forum.protestwarrior.com/view...16802#11116802

Capitalism needs no defense. It is people who propose alternatives that need to defend their failures. Capitalism has brought more prosperity to more people in the history of the world than any other system. Every other system has brought misery, disappointment and failure. But capitalism, this country, is the richest country in the world. We feed the world; we feed ourselves. We defend the world. We defend ourselves. - Rush Limbaugh

[wodinoneeye]

Originally Posted by Christian IV

I suppose everyone here is familiar with the concept of greenhouse gasses and the greenhouse effect - without our atmosphere with its contents of greenhouse gasses - the earth would be a much colder place to live - 30-35C or so colder.

So my question is this: Knowing that the amount of greenhouse gasses within the atmosphere IS currently drastically increasing (that is a well known fact from measurements) and knowing that greenhouse gasses do have a warming effect - what should be the reason for the current increase greenhouse gasses NOT to lead to a warming?

I would very much like to see that simple question answered.

Take a look at the graph to see the lack of linkage between Atmospheric CO2
and World Temperature. Other factors obviously have much greater impact.


http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...s_climate.html

[Christian IV]

Originally Posted by wodinoneeye

Take a look at the graph to see the lack of linkage between Atmospheric CO2 and World Temperature. Other factors obviously have much greater impact.

You somehow managed NOT to answer my question.

Yes, I am aware that lots of factors influence atmospheric temperature as well. Now, that you're so fond of showing temperature variations on geological time scales, an example of an important factor is of course the distribution of land and water on the earths surface. A factor which has changed a lot during the times. Another important factor is of course the Milankovich cycles which are also of great importance on such time scales. Of all that I am of course well aware, and I suppose, you are too.

But this is really of no importance in this discussion. First - the Milankovich cycles work on a time scale much different from the time scale of the current warming and can therefore not explain this.

Secondly - knowing the huge effect of the distribution of land masses - it really only makes sense to look at a time frame where this distribution is more or less the same as we see today which reduces our relevant time "window" to only a few million years - the period of shifting ice ages and warm periods. So presenting as an argument the graph you showed, proves only one of two things - either that you're trying to pull the discussion off track, or that you simply don't really understand the subject.

Thirdly - even if I take your argument as being a sound one - it still doesn't answer my simple question. Telling me, that other factors are important AS WELL (which I know already), is not an answer to my question of, why the well known physical fact that (more) greenhouse gasses warms the atmosphere (more) should suddenly not work.

And finally - the reason why I see your presentation of 100 million year data as pulling the debate off track is that I'm not interested in how things were when Earth was populated by dinosaurs, trilobites or primitive single cell organisms. I'm interested in how things have been in the period where Man has walked upon Earth. That's what matters, as I'm Man - not Trilobite. And during Mans existence, the climate has been very stable compared to earlier times. That's what matters. And that's what I don't really think anyone wants to see changed. But the one important lesson to be learned from your graph is, that climate IS capable of changing and doing so very dramatically and spectacularly, if pushed enough. Du YOU want to push it? I don't.


And here at last - just for arguments sake - what IS your answer to my question:

" Knowing that the amount of greenhouse gasses within the atmosphere IS currently drastically increasing (that is a well known fact from measurements) and knowing that greenhouse gasses do have a warming effect - what should be the reason for the current increase greenhouse gasses NOT to lead to a warming?"

[MAX-1]

Hi Christian IV,
You must be new here. I know this because it still says you're a Vagrant.

Welcome to the forums.

As far as your question goes, I'm not sure if I follow what you're saying.

Is it that since greenhouse gasses do promote the capture OF heat in the atmoshire, and since there is an increase of greenhouse gasses why isn't the heating levels increasing to match current greenhouse measurements?

If so, the answer is simple.

An overlooked aspect to HOW the balance of heat gain/loss is maintained by the earth is key to understanding what the mechanisms are having on the total effect. Specifically, heavy pollutants trapped in evaporates reflect the incoming rays that would get trapped in the atmosphire. http://www.tiltedmill.com/forums/sho...50&postcount=5

[MarkDuffy]

Looks like the word is finally getting out, Max. We were lied to about 9/11 by the bush regime.

No jets in the air following the attacks. No response at all. The Defense Department lied to Congress.

I know, not news.

[MAX-1]

Originally Posted by MarkDuffy

Looks like the word is finally getting out, Max. We were lied to about 9/11 by the bush regime.

No jets in the air following the attacks. No response at all. The Defense Department lied to Congress.

I know, not news.

LOL
Talk about hijacking there Mark.
LOL

But this is knewz???
I guess confirmation that the Commission was lied to and that the Commission that was set up to find out what happened/went wrong actually considered investigating those that created deceptions and possibly bringing charges against them might be good enough for those that this Knewz musters from their slumber.

LOL,
Many people point and laugh at those that questioned their "OFFICIAL" story as being nutzies. Labeled them "CONSPIRACY THEORISTS."
But what they failed to do was actually acknowledge is factual evidence:

• Conspiracies require a concerted effort by more than one person. Even the Commission found that at least 19 hijackers were acting in concert with each other. What, you didn't think that one person, acting alone, crashed all four(?) planes on his/her own, did ya???
• Theories require nothing more but suspicion of "what might be." Similarly, Saddam's possession of reconstituted bio/chem weapons programs, "Yellow Cake Uranium" purchased through Niger, or that ON 9/11 Saddam was already being peddled as being an agent in concert with al-Qaeda that brought us 9/11. NO PROOF. NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE. JUST A THEORY.

So what about those 9/11 theories???
FACTS LIKE:

~ Emma E. Booker Elementary.
This was a publicized event. In fact, it was a big deal in Florida. The press had been invited to Emma Booker Elementary to watch the President and the kids read. It was announced almost a week prior. In fact, the White House had a press engagement already scheduled to occur at 9:30am that Tuesday from the school. Scheduled the day prior to be broadcast live, across the Nation.

IF we are to believe the reports of that day, the President was aware of the first plane strike BEFORE he went to the children. The second plane strike minutes later after sitting with the children. Andy Card's own report says he said to the President that, "America was under attack." Shortly after, the President prepared a statement for the public. Bush delivered it on time (9:30am) his address to the Nation, "America was under attack." His motorcade left Emma Booker Elementary at 9:34am, the Pentagon was struck minutes later.

The guard of the President is the Secret Service. Their role is to guard and protect the President at all costs. To ensure that ALL locations are secure both prior to arrival and during. The S.S. ARE the first line of defense for the President during times of immediate and imminent crisis, like an attack on the Nation.

IF we are to believe the events of that day, then we are to believe that the S.S. had the interests of the Nation in hand and were acting to protect the President, at all costs. However, the S.S. did know prior to Bush finishing the reading session, that multiple planes may have been hijacked, and the President was informed shortly there after.

IF there was a suspicion of multiple planes being hijacked, one of which was not responding to Air Traffic Control:

HOW DID THE SS KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SAFE IN HIS PRESENT LOCATION?

WHY DID THE SS FEEL THAT LEAVING THE PRESIDENT IN A PUBLICIZED LOCATION WAS THE BEST SAFETY MANEUVER?

HOW WAS THE SS TO GUARANTEE THE SAFETY OF THE PRESIDENT KNOWING THAT MULTIPLE PLANES HAD BEEN HIJACKED BY DOING NOTHING?

Many people point out that maybe they didn't want to frighten the children.

THEN WHY PROP THEM UP AS THE BACKDROP TO THIS GRAVE ANNOUNCEMENT, SCHEDULED LIVE, ON NATIONAL TEE VEE?

Impact, perhaps?

For those that doubt the critical thought, keep in mind that just moments after the second plane strike on the WTC, the Vice President was rushed into a bunker for protection by the S.S. These two events DO NOT square with each other and cause those that use critical deduction to conclude that somehow, the S.S had knowledge that Bush was safe in his public location that was publicized for the entire week previous. How did they know this?

~ 441 days passed before the President initiated an investigation, AND THEN only after a lawsuit was filed. What took so long to get the ball rolling?

~ Who has ever, EVER been cited for their poor performance on the job that day? No air traffic controller, NORAD, FBI, CIA, or superiors have EVER been held accountable for their poor performance that culminated in the deaths of 3000 people. WHY NOT?

It is unacceptable to think that those that are in a position to provide the Nation it's protections and that fail to carry out their jobs faithfully, do not get a reprimand. This IS why border security ONLY became an issue AFTER the immigration issue was raised by the GOP running Congress. That was more than FOUR YEARS LATER.

~ Why is the only, ONLY video(stop motion film) of the Pentagon strike missing frames? Why is that film dated Sept, 12, 2001? And the Military time set at 5:20(?)PM? And why is this the BEST film/video/security system our DoD can buy on a budget that allows them to hyper-compute millions of bits of data that they mine from the American people's private information, obtained through our phone records, E-mails, and bank records. And is this the best that the DoD can buy while they have video cameras that they attach to drones they fly over our borders or computer systems that take ultra high resolution pictures of people from MILES in space?

Shamelessly so, their stop motion film that they gave us as "The OFFICIAL film" of the Pentagon strike SHOWS NO PLANE at all. Instead, what it does is instill that TRUST element that the Government wants the American people to keep on believing in. It is the same element that has allowed the President to grab all this power that he does. It is the same "TRUST US" element that dictates to the American people that Congress must be right, that they ARE working on our behalf and doing their job faithfully, looking out for our rights, in this 'TIME OF WAR'.

~ Yes, Three buildings were hit, TWO by jumbo planes caught on film, the third by a Unidentified Flying Object(UFO). Yes, several buildings subsequently collapsed due to FIRE alone, never to be repeated before or after. A one in a MILLION anomaly. That the ONLY EVER three steel buildings to collapse from fire happened to occur on the same day. Who can do the odds on this? You stand to win the LOTTO before this EVER can be repeated. And Shanksville, no plane crash ever has spread it's debris over an 8 mile area, unless it broke up in mid air first.

========================================
Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
========================================

PNAC called it a catalyzing event. A "New Pearl Harbor."
But this was not a new idea. There have been MANY false flag operation perpetrated upon mankind. Some to wage war(CHECK), some to gain power(CHECK), and some to over throw political ideologies(CHECK). 9/11 gave all of that to the GOP and especially the Neoconservatives, who's global hegemony doctrine is one that simply states, "Don't mess with the USA."

This is why we are in Afghanistan, Iraq, threatening Syria and Iran, North Korea, and backing Israel air strikes on Lebanon. This is why we accept the dictatorship of Pakistan and their ability to AIDE and ABED the "EVIL DOERS".

It is why we have the implementation OF the Patriot Act. A duplicate of Hitler's "Enabling Act."

The collection of data on the populace of America is the seed of DARPA. This seed was planted long ago. Before there were terrorists attacking our soil. And while you contemplate this remember, the REASONS given are because of the terror attacks of 9/11. ON OUR SOIL. And to prevent further attacks, therefore making us more secure.

Rationalize it in your mind, if you will. Collection of data PRE-9/11 versus justification of the collection of data POST-9/11.

PRE-9/11 there was no REASON, and with no reason for the vast collection data, people might get worried and Congress might enforce oversight.

POST-9/11, the Government gives Americans a reason to worry - TERRORISTS - and look, people willingly give up information, securities, and Liberties through their blind faith and trust in a system that has them by the balls.

And finally, remember, the terrorists want to inflict as much damage to American Principles, Freedoms and Liberties. Similarly, Congress gives the terrorists what they want; The erosion OF our Bill of Rights.

I would suggest that EVERYONE watch a film called Don't be a Sucker. Produced in 1947 by the US War Department. This film explores exactly what is happening here in America. Funny and sad that the insight we had back in 1947 can not be utilized today. America is becoming exactly what America loathed and fought against over 60 years ago.

[wodinoneeye]

Originally Posted by Christian IV

You somehow managed NOT to answer my question.
"

I showed that your question is flawed by its assumption that 'greenhouse gases' are as influential as you think.

Likewise do you think that the CO2 shifted all that much more than 1000 years ago (and 5000) when the temperatures shifted significantly? Both these shift patterns were long before man was adding any appreciable CO2 to the atmosphere.

The people who are pushing the 'global warming' hysteria stay away from examining the long term natural trends, because their being the most significant factors breaks the 'theory'.

[wodinoneeye]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/0....o0mynclv.html


Information you wont hear on your Nightly 'News' or in you Daily paper.....
(Dont you wonder why ???)



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

Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for 100 years: study
breitbart ^ | 8/21/06


Posted on 08/21/2006 2:28:46 PM PDT by finnman69


Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, according to a Danish study, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming.

Danish researchers from Aarhus University studied glaciers on Disko island, in western Greenland in the Atlantic, from the end of the 19th century until the present day.

"This study, which covers 247 of 350 glaciers on Disko, is the most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements of Greenland's glaciers," glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde, who carried out the study with Niels Tvis Knudsen, told AFP.

Using maps from the 19th century and current satellite observations, the scientists were able to conclude that "70 percent of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880s at a rate of around eight meters per year," Yde said.

"We studied 95 percent of the area covered by glaciers in Disko and everything indicates that our results are also valid for the glaciers along the coasts of the rest of Greenland," he said.

The biggest reduction was observed between 1964 and 1985.


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

The Fox Glacier in New Zealand has been melting since it was first discovered in about 1775 or so. When you drive up the road to the base of the Fox there is a sign that reads "in 1775 the Fox Glacier was here". You drive on about 1/4 mile and there is another sign that reads "in 1850 the glacier was here" . As you continue down the road in another 1/4 miles you find the base of the glacier. Those early SUV's of the Maoris were hard on the Fox Glacier. (Distances are approximate)

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

In July 1942, twenty-five U.S. Army Air Corps crewman were forced to ditch two new B-17 Flying Fortresses and six new P-38 Lightnings on Greenland’s ice-cap when bad weather kept them from delivering the warplanes to Great Britain. Forty-six years later, Pat Epps and Richard Taylor joined the list of aviators who had long-dreamed of recovering the eight planes by managing to locate the treasures under 268 feet of snow and ice.
I guess not all of the glaciers are shrinking.


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

[wodinoneeye]

Russian scientist predicts global cooling
United Press International ^ | 8/25/2006 | UPI
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.ph...5-091321-7556r

Posted on 08/26/2006 12:18:52 AM PDT by carlo3b



NewsTrack - Science
Russian scientist predicts global cooling
MOSCOW, Aug. 25 (UPI) -- A Russian scientist predicts a period of global cooling in coming decades, followed by a warmer interval.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov expects a repeat of the period known as the Little Ice Age. During the 16th century, the Baltic Sea froze so hard that hotels were built on the ice for people crossing the sea in coaches.

The Little Ice Age is believed to have contributed to the end of the Norse colony in Greenland, which was founded during an interval of much warmer weather.

Abdusamatov and his colleagues at the Russian Academy of Sciences astronomical observatory said the prediction is based on measurement of solar emissions, Novosti reported. They expect the cooling to begin within a few years and to reach its peak between 2055 and 2060.

"The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times," he said. "The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth's global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol."

[wodinoneeye]

http://english.pravda.ru/science/ear...5628-climate-0


(...) Khabibullo Abdusamatov also explained the structure of solar activity cycles that last for 11 and 100 years. The scientist said that 11-year cycles do not affect the Earth's climate. Eighty-year cycles do not have much influence either, although 200-year cycles are much more powerful. The theory, the scientist told Pravda.Ru, was not considered a common scientific theory in the world. “The whole world has recognized the global warming theory, which pictures catastrophic situations in the future. I do not march in step with the world at this point. However, my theory has raised a certain interest in other countries. Hardly had I made a statement to RIA Novosti when I received several messages from scientists living in the USA, Iceland and other countries. They wanted to know more of my theory. They also want to know if I have delivered a detailed report on the matter and where it was published,” the scientist said."

[Christian IV]

I just thought this little thing might fit well here.

[wodinoneeye]

The main issue is not 'Global Warming' but 'man-made Global Warming' -- whether it exists or not. So many people will tell you that 'all scientists agree', and that will be a lie as seen by numerous posts above about all the natural influences (solar cycles, glacial cycles, etc....). So many who are caught up in the hysteria totally ignore the historic longterm temperature change patterns. Theories are made to be broken, and many who used the term 'global warming' as a battle cry have switched to 'global changes' as
record cold temperatures have happened in recent years in parts of the world.
(whether any of those 'changes' are man-made is still just theory, probably again overriden by the natural trends).

[wodinoneeye]

THIS is 'Global Warmings' chief spokeman ??????



http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------

GORE: CIGARETTE SMOKING 'SIGNIFICANT' CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMING
Drudge Report ^ | Today | Brainhose


Posted on 09/30/2006 1:42:18 AM PDT by Brainhose



GORE: CIGARETTE SMOKING 'SIGNIFICANT' CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMING
Fri Sep 29 2006 09:04:05 ET



Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore warned hundreds of U.N. diplomats and staff on Thursday evening about the perils of climate change, claiming: Cigarette smoking is a "significant contributor to global warming!"



Gore, who was introduced by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, said the world faces a "full-scale climate emergency that threatens the future of civilization on earth."



Gore showed computer-generated projections of ocean water rushing in to submerge the San Francisco Bay Area, New York City, parts of China, India and other nations, should ice shelves in Antarctica or Greenland melt and slip into the sea.



"The planet itself will do nicely, thank you very much what is at risk is human civilization," Gore said. After a series of Q& A with the audience, which had little to do with global warming and more about his political future, Annan bid "adios" to Gore.



Then, Gore had his staff opened a stack of cardboard boxes to begin selling his new book, "An Inconvenient Truth, The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It," $19.95, to the U.N. diplomats.

Developing...

[wodinoneeye]

Cosmic Rays May solve Global Warming Problem
The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 10-4-2006 | Roger Highfield
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ncosmic04.xml

Posted on 10/03/2006 8:57:31 PM PDT by blam


Cosmic rays may solve global warming problem

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
(Filed: 04/10/2006)


Cosmic events could help soften the impact of global warming by triggering cloud formations, suggests research published yesterday.

A team of Danish scientists concluded in the Proceedings of the Royal Society that making clouds is plausible, using the Sun's magnetic field.

The Sun has been at its strongest for more than 60 years and a period of high solar activity could be approaching its end. "This would produce a cooling effect that could counter part of the global warming predicted for the next century," said Dr Jens Olaf Pedersen, of the Danish National Space Centre.

advertisement When cosmic rays, high energy particles from distant exploding stars, fall to Earth they knock electrons off atoms in the atmosphere, making them electrically charged, or ionized. The ions form clusters of molecules that can grow into droplets forming low-lying clouds.

More cosmic rays would produce clouds that would increase the rate at which sunlight was reflected away from the planet and so cool it.

[Rnett]

Originally Posted by wodinoneeye

THIS is 'Global Warmings' chief spokeman ??????



http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------

GORE: CIGARETTE SMOKING 'SIGNIFICANT' CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMING
Drudge Report ^ | Today | Brainhose


Posted on 09/30/2006 1:42:18 AM PDT by Brainhose



GORE: CIGARETTE SMOKING 'SIGNIFICANT' CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMING
Fri Sep 29 2006 09:04:05 ET



Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore warned hundreds of U.N. diplomats and staff on Thursday evening about the perils of climate change, claiming: Cigarette smoking is a "significant contributor to global warming!"

..

That's it blame it on the sinners, then use it as a excuse to create another sin tax...

[wodinoneeye]

The 'wobble' that wipes out life on Earth every 2.5m years
The Daily Mail ^ | October 12, 2006 | JULIE WHELDON


Posted on 10/11/2006 11:43:56 PM PDT by MadIvan


If you are the kind of person who worries about the future, this might not make happy reading.

Scientists have found that on average mammal species enjoy only 2.5 million years of life before being wiped out because of the Earth's "wobble."

They say when the tilt and orbit reach key points it can spark dramatic global cooling - and the last time this happened was 2.6 million years ago.

This suggests we are overdue a wave of extinction.

However, before you panic, scientists say our planet has changed beyond all recognition in the last 3 million years.

The new research published in the journal Nature (must keep) however sheds new light on just why individual mammal species seem to come and go with mysterious regularity.

The study, conducted by researchers at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, involved looking at 22 million years of data on rodent species to see which ones appeared and died out at key points.

They then studied the pattern of the Earth's wobble, which is caused by two factors, our orbit around the sun and the tilt of the planet.

Both of these can be slightly altered by the gravitational pull of other planets, in the case of the tilt it can adjust by as much as two degrees, and the orbit can vary from a circle to an ellipse.

Lead researcher Dr Jan van Dam said when the tilt reaches a certain point and the orbit is almost a perfect circle it can trigger ice sheet expansion.

This could then lead to colder summers, changes in humidity and significant climate cooling.

He found a clear pattern between the Earth's wobble and mammal species dying out.

There were two distinct cycles of species turnover, one with peaks every 2. 5 million years and the other every million years.

Dr van Dam said the last peak was 2. 6 million years ago.

However he said this does not necessarily mean we are on the brink of dramatic global cooling.

'The last three million years are not representative of those we studied,' he said.

"Northern hemisphere glaciation is fully developed and that also affects the climate system."

He said global warming and destruction of habitats could also change the patterns of the past.

He also thinks people may well be able to survive global cooling, give the way our ancestors coped with past Ice Ages.

"Humans have survived ice ages which were quiet extreme and are well adapted to survival," he said.

Based on the fossil record it appears on average we have lost around 10 to 100 species - including insects, bacteria, fungi and mammals - each year.

There are currently around 5,000 known species of mammal at present and in the past 400 years 89 mammals have died out.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

[Rnett]

Strange you bring this up, we had snow flurries this morning in the Chicago area. It's not even halloween yet.....

[MAX-1]

Originally Posted by Rnett

Strange you bring this up, we had snow flurries this morning in the Chicago area. It's not even halloween yet.....

Hottest day on record here in Seattle.
Second hottest summer here, too.

[wodinoneeye]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/sc...nt&oref=slogin



October 11, 2006
Dust Linked to Storm Frequency
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Scientists studying 25 years of satellite images have found that the frequency of hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean was substantially reduced in years when sandstorms and trade winds combined to send millions of tons of dust streaming west over the sea from the Sahara Desert. The correlation, measured by a team of scientists from the University of Wisconsin and federal agencies, is described in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. Layers of dry, dusty air, moving at up to 50 miles an hour, can disrupt tropical storms in several ways. The research shows that many factors can affect hurricane seasons, complicating efforts to determine whether global warming has played a role recently, some of the authors said.