Advertisement

A cold spell soon to replace global warming

topic posted Tue, January 8, 2008 - 1:10 PM by  Psi
Share/Save/Bookmark

en.rian.ru/analysis/200...94768732.html

Like so many wise scientists have been saying for years!
posted by:
Psi
offline Psi
United Kingdom
Advertisement
  • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

    Wed, January 9, 2008 - 12:46 PM
    I have done some reading on the melting ice sheets

    Especially the situation in Greenland seems more dangerous then previously thought..

    A scramble to understand Greenland's melting ice sheets
    By Andrew C. Revkin
    Published: January 7, 2008


    The ancient frozen dome cloaking Greenland is so vast that pilots have crashed into what they thought was a cloud bank spanning the horizon. Flying over it, one can scarcely imagine that this ice could erode fast enough to raise sea levels dangerously any time soon.

    Along the flanks in spring and summer, however, the picture is very different. For a lengthening string of warm years, a lacework of blue lakes and rivulets of meltwater have been spreading ever higher on the ice cap. The melting surface darkens, absorbing up to four times as much energy from the sun as unmelted snow, which reflects sunlight. Natural drainpipes, called moulins, carry water from the surface into the depths, in some places reaching bedrock. The process slightly, but measurably, lubricates and accelerates the grinding passage of ice toward the sea.

    Most important, many glaciologists say, is the breakup of huge semi-submerged clots of ice where some large Greenland glaciers, particularly along the west coast, squeeze through fjords as they meet the warming ocean. As these passages have cleared, this has sharply accelerated the flow of many of these creeping, corrugated, frozen rivers.

    All of these changes have many glaciologists "a little nervous these days - shell-shocked," said Ted Scambos, the lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, and a veteran of both Greenland and Antarctic studies.

    Some say they fear that the rise in seas in a warming world could be much greater than the upper estimate of about two feet in this century made last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Seas rose less than a foot, or 30 centimeters, in the 20th century.) The panel's assessment did not include factors known to contribute to ice flows but not understood well enough to estimate with confidence. All the panel could say was, "Larger values cannot be excluded."

    A scientific scramble is under way to clarify whether the erosion of the world's most vulnerable ice sheets, in Greenland and West Antarctica, can continue to accelerate. The effort involves field and satellite analyses and sifting for clues from past warm periods, including the last warm span between ice ages, which peaked about 125,000 years ago and had sea levels 12 to 16 feet higher than today's.

    The Arctic Council, representing countries with Arctic territory, has commissioned a report on Greenland's ice trends, to be completed before the 2009 round of climate-treaty talks in Copenhagen, at which the world's nations have pledged to settle on a long-term plan for limiting human-caused global warming.
    ............................
    www.iht.com/articles/200...ience/ice.php

    Very telling was that Noble prize winner Rajendra Pachauri pleaded to include this risk in the next IPCC report..


    Antarctic and Greenland ice may melt at same time: scientist
    Doug Mellgren | January 9, 2008 - 6:27AM

    OSLO - The next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change should deal with the "frightening" possibility that the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets start melting at the same time, the chief UN climate scientist said today.

    The panel, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with US activist and politician Al Gore, has released four climate assessment reports already, including summaries for policy makers that are approved by government representatives.

    Though there are no firm plans for a fifth report, the panel is still inviting scientists to submit material on glaciers in both the far north and south, IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said.

    "My hope is in the next report, if there is one, will be able to provide much better information on the possibility of these two large bodies of ice possibly melting, in what seems what seems like a frightening situation," Pachauri said during a visit to Oslo.

    Pachauri is set to visit Antarctica next week with a Norwegian delegation, after being invited during his December visit to Norway to accept the Nobel prize with Gore.

    He said evidence of climate change was most apparent at the world's poles, especially in the Arctic, where the climate panel says the melting of the vast glaciers of Greenland could cause a four-metre rise in sea levels in coming centuries.

    Less is known, he said, about the impact of global warming at the Earth's opposite pole - on the vast West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a wasteland of ice and snow roughly the size of Texas.

    "Unless you go to these places, you just don't get a feeling for the reality," Pachauri said. "You can read as much as you want on these subjects but it doesn't really enter your system, you don't really appreciate the enormity of what you have."

    If ice sheets at both poles begin melting simultaneously, the results could be extreme, he said.

    "Both Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are huge bodies of ice and snow which are sitting on land. If through a process of melting they collapse and are submerged in the sea then we really are talking about sea level rises of several metres," he said.
    www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/...3.html
    • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

      Wed, January 9, 2008 - 12:50 PM
      Bundle up kids!

      It is so obvious once I did look past the Warming and melting.. to the actual results of this giant matter transformation (Ice to Liqs)

      Tssssssssss! Thats the sound Her skin will make
      • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

        Thu, January 10, 2008 - 11:44 AM
        PRESS RELEASE: SSRC 1-2008

        Changes in the Sun’s Surface to Bring Next Climate Change

        January 2, 2008

        Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun’s surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era.

        Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research he led that independently discovered the sun’s changes are the result of a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to warm and back again.

        “We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun’s surface. This will have only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not however a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news to this and the next generations. It is but the normal sequence of alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next series of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the accuracy of these cycles’ behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%.”

        As to what these changes are Casey says, “The sun’s surface flows have slowed dramatically as NASA has indicated. This process of surface movement, what NASA calls the “conveyor belt” essentially sweeps up old sunspots and deposits new ones. NASA’s studies have found that when the surface movement slows down, sunspot counts drop significantly. All records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back 6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot counts lower then 50 it means only one thing - an intense cold climate, globally. NASA says the solar cycle 25, the one after the next that starts this spring will be at 50 or lower. The general opinion of the SSRC scientists is that it could begin even sooner within 3 years with the next solar cycle 24. What we are saying today is that my own research and that of the other scientists at the SSRC verifies that NASA is right about one thing – a solar cycle of 50 or lower is headed our way. With this next solar minimum predicted by NASA, what I call a “solar hibernation,” the SSRC forecasts a much colder Earth just as it has transpired before for thousands of years. If NASA is the more accurate on the schedule, then we may see even warmer temperatures before the bottom falls out. If the SSRC and other scientists around the world are correct then we have only a few years to prepare before 20-30 years of lasting and possibly dangerous cold arrive.”

        When asked about what this will mean to the average person on the street, Casey was firm. “The last time this particular cycle regenerated was over 200 years ago. I call it the “Bi-Centennial Cycle” solar cycle. It took place between 1793 and 1830, the so-called Dalton Minimum, a period of extreme cold that resulted in what historian John D. Post called the ‘last great subsistence crisis.’ With that cold came massive crops losses, food riots, famine and disease. I believe this next climate change will be much stronger and has the potential to once more cause widespread crop losses globally with the resultant ill effects. The key difference for this next Bi-Centennial Cycle’s impact versus the last is that we will have over 8 billion mouths to feed in the next coldest years where as we had only 1 billion the last time. Among other effects like social and economic disruption, we are facing the real prospect of the ‘perfect storm of global food shortages’ in the next climate change. In answer to the question, everyone on the street will be affected.”

        Given the importance of the next climate change Casey was asked whether the government has been notified. “Yes, as soon as my research revealed these solar cycles and the prediction of the coming cold era with the next climate change, I notified all the key offices in the Bush administration including both parties in the Senate and House science committees as well as most of the nation’s media outlets. Unfortunately, because of the intensity of coverage of the UN IPCC and man made global warming during 2007, the full story about climate change is very slow in getting told. These changes in the sun have begun. They are unstoppable. With the word finally starting to get out about the next climate change, hopefully we will have time to prepare. Right now, the newly organized SSRC is the leading independent research center in the US and possibly worldwide, that is focused on the next climate change. Some of the world’s brightest scientists, also experts in solar physics and the next climate change have joined with me. In the meantime we will do our best to spread the word along with NASA and others who can see what is about to take place for the Earth’s climate. Soon, I believe this will be recognized as the most important climate story of this century.”

        More information on the Space and Science Research Center is available at: www.spaceandscience.net

        The previous NASA announcement was made at:

        science.nasa.gov/headlines...grange.htm
        • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

          Thu, January 10, 2008 - 12:16 PM
          I just read that Japan is expected to get hit very hard by greenhouse gas (mostly CO2) induced warming...


          Japan Sees Temperatures Up 4.7 C on Global Warming
          REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
          JAPAN: January 10, 2008


          TOKYO - The average temperature in Japan could rise by up to 4.7 degrees Celsius (8.5 Fahrenheit) this century unless steps are taken to combat global warming, the Environment Ministry said on Wednesday.


          Japan, the world's second-biggest economy, could face a rise in the average temperature of 1.3-4.7 C (2.3-8.5 F) in the 2070-2099 period from levels registered in 1961-1990, the ministry said in a report.

          The rise in temperatures could boost rainfall in Japan by up to 16.4 percent, the report said.

          A panel of experts set up by the ministry will analyse the possible impact of rising temperatures and produce an outline in May of steps Japan could take to combat it.

          The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected a "best estimate" last February that world temperatures would rise by 1.8 to 4.0 C (3.2-7.2 F) this century.

          The UN body also said rising temperatures could lead to more hunger, water shortages and ever more extinctions of animals and plants.

          It said crop yields could drop by 50 percent by 2020 in some countries and projected a steady shrinking of Arctic sea ice in summers. (Reporting by Teruaki Ueno)

          • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

            Thu, January 10, 2008 - 12:33 PM
            Contradictory nonsense!
            When there have been previous 'warm periods' humans have flourished with abundant food and great development for decades.
            All this 'could' happen 'if' 'maybe' 'perhaps' is all computer models based on what is put it and not what is actually happening or happened historically!
            • where does the electricity come???

              Fri, January 11, 2008 - 12:16 PM
              But where does the electricity come from to power the car?

              About 30% of all fossil fuel consumed in the United States is used to make electricity. Conversely, most electricity, about 70%, produced in the US is generated using fossil fuels, especially coal.

              Then the power travels down resistance (power line) where a substantial amount of the power is lost before it gets to the car.

              Is it really any more eco friendly to produce electricity for your car by burning oil/coal at a power plant vs. your 3 liter V6? Or is it just an illusion to make as feel better about our selves?
        • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

          Thu, January 10, 2008 - 12:43 PM
          Interesting NASA article you posted there...
          But it does not talk about the temperatures on Earth..

          The position of NASA on global warming is very clear..



          Global Warming
          ................................
          The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.
          ..................
          the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.
          ..................
          www.nasa.gov/worldbook/g...rldbook.html
          • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

            Thu, January 10, 2008 - 1:27 PM
            We have to also take into account Our reality, and the effect we have on alternate out-sourcing energies.. for we all influence change across the spectrum.

            The human race is not only responsible for the unnatural gas presence.. But the negative energies that we as individual entities add to the whole dimensional network. This is a harder medium to explore than the inside of the sun.. yet I'm glad that we are aware of so many influential properties to come to some sort of reasonable conclusion on Change's source by the end of this century!
          • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

            Sun, January 13, 2008 - 4:27 PM
            "The position of NASA on global warming is very clear.."

            Yes lots of scientists in NASA are rightly against the AGW theory because it is based only on computer models and theories and dismisses so much hard science! In fact, according to scientists who work within NASA and who are associated with NASA and its projects know very well that NASA itself is virtually split 50-50 on the subject of AGW. So to claim that NASA somehow is united in its views is a pure fantasy and typical of those who rely on theories and models!

            As Michael Griffin NASA Administrator said earlier last year, "First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."
            www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html
            www.space-travel.com/reports...999.html

            And then when the AGW zealots reacted with rage Griffin said: “Unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical, and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it.” “All I can really do is apologize to all you guys.... I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this."

            One of Griffin's most angry critics was James Hansen (another employee of NASA), who in the 1970s was talking about global cooling and a coming ice age (then changed his mind in the mid-eighties) and whose more recent figures and projections (which have formed the basis for so much IPCC modelling) have been shown to be seriously flawed by the research of Steve Macintyre (so much so that NASA revised its climate figures dramatically down!).

            As any true scientists in NASA and everywhere else know, CO2 is less than 10% of greenhouse gases and humans are responsible for less than half of that percentage, while the majority (around 90%) of greenhouse gas is water vapour. Which means that humans are directly responsible for less than 5% of AGW. Which means that AGW based on human created CO2 is a nonsense based on flawed computer models and nothing to do with objective science.
            When people who should know better keep saying the same lie (about CO2 caused AGW) over and over again, it raises the very serious question about their motives, agendas and who is directing them!
            • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

              Sun, January 13, 2008 - 11:00 PM
              I posted a link to the NASA site, you did not..tells me enough..

              Either way, anybody that states that predicted human induced global heating clearly shows a lack of understanding of Climate Science..People should not critisize what they don't understand..

              The prediction of future global heating is not based on models but on basic physics..
              There is a great article about it on Real Climate..

              .............
              Prelude: It's the physics, stupid
              ......................
              The anticipated increase in temperature was predicted long before it was detectable in the atmosphere, indeed long before it was known that atmospheric CO2 really was increasing; it was first predicted by Arrhenius in 1896 using extremely simple radiation balance ideas, and was reproduced using modern radiation physics by Manabe and co-workers in the 1960's. Neither of these predictions rests on general circulation models, which came in during subsequent decades and made more detailed forecasts possible.

              Still, the basic prediction of warming is founded on very fundamental physical principles relating to infrared absorption by greenhouse gases, theory of blackbody radiation, and atmospheric moist thermodynamics. All these individual elements have been verified to high accuracy in laboratory experiments and field observations. For a time, there was some remaining uncertainty about whether water vapor feedback would amplify warming in the way hypothesized in the early energy balance models, but a decade or two of additional observational and theoretical work has shown that there is no real reason to doubt the way in which general circulation models calculate the feedback. When modified by inclusion of the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols, the theory gives a satisfactory account of the pattern of 20th and 21st century temperature change.

              No other theory based on quantified physical principles has been able to do the same. If somebody comes along and has the bright idea that, say, global warming is caused by phlogiston raining down from the Moon, that does not make everything we know about thermodynamics, infrared absorption, energy balance, and temperature suddenly go away. Rather, it is the job of the phlogiston advocate to quantify the effects of phlogiston on energy balance, and incorporate them in a consistent way beside the existing climate forcings. Virtually all of the attempts to poke holes in the anthropogenic greenhouse theory lose sight of this simple and unassailable principle.
              ...............
              www.realclimate.org/index.ph...h_lang/in

  • Unsu...
     

    Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

    Sun, January 13, 2008 - 11:04 PM
    Interesting....

    Thx.

    It sure doesn't feel to cool right now.... my experience here in BC is it is warmer than usual. Melting all around me in the Kootenays when it should be snowing white fluffy's. It does dump snow, but then it gets warm and either rains or lets a lot of the top snow. It feels like March, but its January.

    The Sun is very active. It is not just Earth warming, the solar system seems to be warming right now according to Space News.

    I do not doubt Psi that we are heading toward a freeze at some point, but right now it seems abit warmer than usual. The old timers around here said that Kootenay Lake use to freeze every year so much that they could drive cars on it. The Lake has not frozen in 50 years.

    I wonder when the freeze is going to start? When the sun is at Solar Max? Will the other planets freeze too?
    • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

      Sun, January 13, 2008 - 11:37 PM
      my grandfather told me a story about driving horses across okanogan lake and its not frozen like since the 30s probably
      • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

        Mon, January 14, 2008 - 1:11 PM
        From the 40s to the mid 70s, when the global temperatures were falling despite ever increasing CO2, here in the UK we had frozen rivers and lakes, lots of skating, extreme cold winters and lots of snow. We had a very warm drought summer in 1976 and then an extreme cold winter in 1980 and all kinds of other years in between.
        What climate scientists know is that the weather and global temperatures have been changing regardless of CO2 levels for thousands of years. What the fear-mongers want humanity to believe is that humans are causing it, so that there will be lots of fear and easy to control and manipulate populations. And look the hype is working!
        While the scare-mongers claim that it is warmer than ever before, the real climate scientists are showing very clearly that it has been far warmer than now when there was an insignificant level of atmospheric CO2 and even far colder when CO2 was rising rapidly. The CO2 causes 'global warming theory is just plain wrong when the true science is known. Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas and every objective scientist knows that, so the people who are claiming that CO2 is driving climate changes are wrong (which means that many of them are devious manipulators or brainwashed into working for the nuclear agenda, for centralised governments and to prevent the evolution of humanity through the long-prophecied shift of ages!).
        So the false 'theory' that humans can prevent the climate changes through reduction of CO2 is not scientific but politically motivated. It is about stopping necessary preparations and instilling a belief in a false doctrine. It is about focus on fear, guilt and shame and bears all the hallmarks of a 'religion'.

        What is amazing is to see people who claim to believe in a living 'Gaia' but who would like us all to believe that Gaia is full of fear, is under threat from humans, cannot cope with the changes, is not a conscious evolving 'being' after all!
        Yet just like a living being, Gaia has a frequency and a 'heartbeat', and, just like another living being, the Sun has a frequency and a 'heartbeat', just as the Moon and all the planets have their own frequencies and heartbeats.
        So the planetary elders have repeatedly stated that humans must come to know the cycles of the Sun and must work with the energies of the Sun again (just as they did for thousands of years before the Piscean Age - building solar altars and solar energy storage structures, holding coordinated solar ceremonies around the globe), partly because it is vital for humans to balance the masculine aspect and move into the Fifth World/Golden Age/Aquarian Age.
        And many objective scientists have repeatedly revealed the power of the Sun and its cycles, and how the Sun can clearly be shown to have the same frequencies as the peaks and troughs of Gaia's atmospheric temperatures, which has lead lots of scientists to understand that when the Sun's energy wanes after 2012, the planet faces rapid cooling, and humans will be well-advised to prepare. These cycles of warming and cooling have been going on since the planet was created and can be shown through the massive body of gathered data from around the globe.
        In these ways humanity can understand that there is NO prevention of the climate changes because they are with us now. There is only preparation for the purifications that are necessary for humanity to be ready for the vibrational shifts.
        These are the realities of the living conscious planet and Sun, of the living and conscious other planets and the greater reality which the fear-mongers do not want humans to work with because it reveals the weakness of the focus on the physical aspect and how reality is far greater than the eyes can see and humanity are 'Children of the Gods' and 'Children of the Earth', being invited to 'grow up'!

        As the wise Hopi said "there is a river flowing very fast" and to "let go of the shore.." "to flow with the river", "look around see who is there and celebrate". They did not suggest fear and separation but have spoken consistently about the great change from the Two-Hearted path to the One Heart, which as been the same type of message from various traditional planetary elders, including Maya and Australian Aborigines.

        There is NO prevention, ONLY preparation!
        • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

          Mon, January 14, 2008 - 1:23 PM
          "While the scare-mongers claim that it is warmer than ever before, the real climate scientists are showing very clearly that it has been far warmer than now when there was an insignificant level of atmospheric CO2 and even far colder when CO2 was rising rapidly. The CO2 causes 'global warming theory is just plain wrong when the true science is known."

          Apparently the "fear-mongers" are getting far more articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, which tend to be the litmus test of real science.

          scholar.google.com/scholar
          • Jim
            Jim
            offline 2

            Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

            Tue, January 15, 2008 - 10:10 PM
            I am loath to memtion politics, but it is interesting that the preachers of "global warming" are primariy people who are attempting to create fear in order to push their own economic and social theories and agenda's.

            .....Having said that, to me, global warming/cooling is just weather on a somewhat grander scale. Yes we humans would be well advised to reduce/ recycle/become more efficient. for many reasons. ...But out of fear is not one of them.

            For me, respecting Earth, and the People's of Earth, (Stone, Plant, Animal and Human), is the reason to behave ourselves.
            • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

              Tue, January 15, 2008 - 10:45 PM
              "I am loath to memtion politics, but it is interesting that the preachers of "global warming" are primariy people who are attempting to create fear in order to push their own economic and social theories and agenda's."

              That's what "preachers" do. The same goes for the global warming deniers. The difference is that there's stronger scientific support for global warming than there is against it.
              • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                Wed, January 16, 2008 - 4:38 PM
                "The difference is that there's stronger scientific support for global warming than there is against it."

                In my understanding, that statement is exactly the converse of how the scientific method actually works.

                Just saying.
                • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                  Wed, January 16, 2008 - 4:41 PM
                  How so? I'm simply saying that one side has presented more evidence than the other side.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     

                    Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                    Wed, January 16, 2008 - 6:08 PM
                    But if Global Warming continues or A Severe Cold Spell happens, we will be in the middle of it and all the Discussions won't change it one way or the other!
                    Read each others answers with an open mind, don't charge in and ridicule. It doesn't lead anywhere.....I can see both sides of what is being said. Why argue!
                    We have a saying here in Australia..... The Tall Poppy Syndrome!
                    What if all the People that are saying Global Warming, just what if it does swing the other way....you just don't know!
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Jim
                    Jim
                    offline 2

                    Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                    Wed, January 16, 2008 - 10:20 PM
                    "One side has more ev..."

                    That's among the many problems of the claims to ...anything.

                    Science isn't about consensous. A collection of facts doesn't prove anything. Opinions and beliefs don't "prove" anything, ....scientifically that is. A theory is only proved when it has been proven by time and study and repeated experiments.

                    None of that has been done to "prove" the theory of "global warming".

                    So far all we really know is that some places on Earth seem to be warming. Some places on Earth are cooling. Some are about the same. That's called natural cycles of Nature. It's also called weather.
                    And if Earth should be warming, which is by no means proven, then a very good case can be made that Earth is warming by the same process that presently seems to also be warming the other planets of our solar system.

                    "Bard" is so right. Things will be as things will be. Life changes. Climate changes. We've had ice ages. We've had dinosuar jungles. Just ask the Native Peoples of the ice bridge from Siberia, or the Vikings of Greenland, or the Neanderthals of Europe.

                    Live. Breathe. Be happy. Try to be the best steward of Earth and All as you can. Not from fear. But from the recognition of the Unity of Life.
                    • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                      Wed, January 16, 2008 - 10:32 PM
                      Proof does not belong to the realm of science. There is only evidence, and that evidence indicates that global temperatures have risen over the past century. In addition, it seems that a majority of scientists(though certainly not all) believe that the evidence points to anthropogenic cause for this warming. Furthermore, the vast majority of those who've had their finding published in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals support this theory.
                      • Unsu...
                         

                        Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                        Wed, January 16, 2008 - 11:51 PM
                        But what if this is the warming before the cold spell. If and when the Major current stops flownig through to the Arctic regions. When that current stops completely, will it trigger another Cold Spell like it has happened many times in the Past!
                        If it does, will it be in our lifetimes, if so....be Prepared to start building Igloos or move South for the Winter, cause it will be a long One!
                        Here, we have had a cool, wet Summer.....nothing like this in the Last 8 years.
                        But, what IF!
                        • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                          Thu, January 17, 2008 - 12:03 AM
                          There are a lot of "what ifs," which is the reason there's any debate at all on this issue. Long term climate models are hard to predict, as there are a number of variables. Greenland's ice sheet MAY melt to the point that it shuts off the Gulf Stream, bringing about another ice age. i think that's one of the more extreme predictions, and probably won't happen if we take quick action in reducing carbon emissions.
                          • Unsu...
                             

                            Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                            Thu, January 17, 2008 - 2:10 AM
                            But that current has all but stopped now, It is not "what if" anymore, but when. Too much Melt Water or fresh Water will push it over the edge. It won't take that long to get cold where you are!
                            It not only shuts off the Gulf Stream but the whole System that works between the Pacific and the Atlantic and Hell freezes over. That means Most of North America And Europe. The current will no longer take warm waters past your fair Countries. It won't be as severe in the Southern Hemisphere and that is where I live...hehehe!!
                            If you take action now, with what is already in the atmosphere, it isn't going to change things quick enough, if the current stops. Start building your igloos!
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                    Thu, January 17, 2008 - 8:58 AM
                    Well I think it's simple really. Skepticism is not a theory to prove, it's a stance with an lack of statement about reality.

                    For instance, we're all probably quite familiar with the concept of a theist vs an atheist. An atheist is not someone with a different belief set, they are someone WITHOUT belief (at least as pertains to supreme beings). These are not equivalent concepts. To be a theist you MUST believe something. To be an atheist you must reject belief.

                    To believe in global warming you must believe in it. To be a skeptic about it is an absence of belief, not a different sort of belief.

                    The scientific method is about rigorously testing something, a theory, and trying to make it fail. A true scientist will always welcome an attack on his theory because it gives a chance to see whether it holds up or falls.

                    Questions about the anthropogenic global warming theory (some of which have constituted genuine attacks because they're robust) generally seem to be replied to in this forum with such doctrine as "the debate is over"...

                    A true scientist with investment in the AGW theory will welcome any attack that may prove to destroy or make stronger the theory. I see none of that here, I see dogmatists with an emotional attachment to a theory.

                    But to return to your question, presenting evidence to support a theory is one thing. Presenting evidence to support skepticism seems backward. As a proponent of AGW you're demanding that the skeptics present evidence, but to support what theory? No theory, just skepticism. But that means you must have evidence to be skeptical???? WTF?????

                    A skeptic can attack a theory without evidence. A skeptic's job is to ask questions. And when those questions are dealt with this way, "the debate is over", the skeptic's job is to laugh in the face of the dogmatist.

                    Ha Ha.
                    • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                      Thu, January 17, 2008 - 10:27 AM
                      "The scientific method is about rigorously testing something, a theory, and trying to make it fail."

                      But thats just the point..

                      The theory of human induced Greenhouse Gas Global Heating is more then 110 years old.

                      All this time scientist tried to falsify the theory but nobody succeeded..
                      There is no alternative scientific theory that has any significant scientific backing..
                      All other theories have been falsified succesfully..
                      The last two decades the skeptics did not bring new arguments..
                      They just repeat debunked crackpot theories (like sunspot or they confuse people with the Milankowitz cycle or other irrelevant facts)

                      And that is also the way science works..
                      If you bring something new to the table..gerne..

                      But if you just repeat your old debunked dogma you will not get passed peer review nor get published in a scientific magazine..



                      This article is more then ten years old for example but it still stands scientific scrutiny..


                      NASA Facts
                      Global Warming

                      Global Change/Climate Change

                      The prediction of climate change due to human activities began with a prediction made by the Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius, in 1896. Arrhenius took note of the industrial revolution then getting underway and realized that the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere was increasing. Moreover, he believed carbon dioxide concentrations would continue to increase as the world's consumption of fossil fuels, particularly coal, increased ever more rapidly. His understanding of the role of carbon dioxide in heating Earth, even at that early date, led him to predict that if atmospheric carbon dioxide doubled, Earth would become several degrees warmer.
                      ........................
                      www.maui.net/~jstark/nasa.html
                      • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                        Thu, January 17, 2008 - 6:08 PM
                        "They just repeat debunked crackpot theories (like sunspot or they confuse people with the Milankowitz cycle or other irrelevant facts)"

                        Notwithstanding the emotional language used to define one thing as another (crackpot, irrelevant), we're talking about reasonable doubt. We can address one of the above points for an example.

                        Fact: sunspot number closely correlates to global temperature.
                        Fact: the sun comprises more than 98% of the mass of the solar system.

                        until you can disprove any potential causation between the sun and earth's global temperature, I will consider your theory non-falsifiable (read popper sometime).

                        The reason I say this is that there is a reasonable doubt that your model accounts for all possible inputs, especially when the biggest input cannot be addressed.

                        However calling a competing theory, or its proponent names doesn't seem to me like acting in good faith, nor does it address the questions it brings about in your theory.

                        I think they're both ghosts because neither are falsifiable. But the premise that the globe is warming, upon which both theories are based, is itself falsifiable with very little data due to we have not been measuring such things accurately enough for long enough.

                        You don't seem to realize how much power this little play gives certain people. They're creating a new class of criminal, one that can be defined by whomever sounds authoritative enough. New criminal class gives a reason for incarceration and enslavement.

                        I understand concern for the earth. I don't understand from an experiential point of view the amount of UTISM that must exist for someone to grasp the global warming phenom just to hate on others. But what other reason can there be except to assign culpability (elsewhere of course)?
                        • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                          Fri, January 18, 2008 - 12:10 PM
                          "They just repeat debunked crackpot theories (like sunspot or they confuse people with the Milankowitz cycle or other irrelevant facts)"

                          Notwithstanding the emotional language."

                          There is nothing emotional about my language..
                          Crackpot is another word pseudoscientific theory and that is exactly what the sunspot theory is..

                          "Fact: sunspot number closely correlates to global temperature."

                          Not
                          Exactly what i mean..
                          Repeating debunked myths..

                          'Sun not responsible for climate change'

                          By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
                          Last Updated: 12:01am BST 11/07/2007

                          The strongest evidence to date that the sun is not responsible for recent global warming has been set out by scientists.

                          The new study by Prof Michael Lockwood of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Oxfordshire, and Claus Fröhlich of the World Radiation Center in Davos, Switzerland, overturns claims by climate sceptics who say that the planet's climate has long fluctuated and that current warming is just part of that natural cycle - the result of variation in the sun's output and not greenhouse gas emissions. Their study appears in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

                          The sun not responsible for global warming

                          A new study further enforces the view that the sun is not responsible for recent climate change

                          The study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays.

                          Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation.

                          Prof Lockwood said that the comprehensive study was a response to misleading media reports. He cited 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', a television programme shown in March by Channel 4, as a prime example.

                          "All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged afterwards. You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said. "The key point of our paper is that since 1985 all the possible solar influences have been in the wrong direction to give warming," said Prof Lockwood.
                          .......................

                          A spokesman for the Royal Society said: "This is an important contribution to the scientific debate on climate change. At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day. We have reached a point where a failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and dangerous."
                          www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml
                        • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                          Fri, January 18, 2008 - 12:31 PM
                          "They just repeat debunked crackpot theories (like sunspot or they confuse people with the Milankowitz cycle or other irrelevant facts)"

                          Notwithstanding the emotional language."

                          There is nothing emotional about my language..
                          Crackpot is another word for pseudoscientific theory and that is exactly what the sunspot theory is..

                          "Fact: sunspot number closely correlates to global temperature."

                          Not
                          Exactly what i mean..Ignoring the real science..Repeating debunked myths..

                          'Sun not responsible for climate change'

                          By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
                          Last Updated: 12:01am BST 11/07/2007

                          The strongest evidence to date that the sun is not responsible for recent global warming has been set out by scientists.

                          The new study by Prof Michael Lockwood of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Oxfordshire, and Claus Fröhlich of the World Radiation Center in Davos, Switzerland, overturns claims by climate sceptics who say that the planet's climate has long fluctuated and that current warming is just part of that natural cycle - the result of variation in the sun's output and not greenhouse gas emissions. Their study appears in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

                          The sun not responsible for global warming

                          A new study further enforces the view that the sun is not responsible for recent climate change

                          The study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays.

                          Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation.

                          Prof Lockwood said that the comprehensive study was a response to misleading media reports. He cited 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', a television programme shown in March by Channel 4, as a prime example.

                          "All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged afterwards. You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said. "The key point of our paper is that since 1985 all the possible solar influences have been in the wrong direction to give warming," said Prof Lockwood.
                          .......................

                          A spokesman for the Royal Society said: "This is an important contribution to the scientific debate on climate change. At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day. We have reached a point where a failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and dangerous."
                          www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml
                        • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                          Fri, January 18, 2008 - 1:02 PM
                          Further more..

                          Calling irrelevant facts does not make a theory..

                          "Fact: the sun comprises more than 98% of the mass of the solar system."

                          True..
                          But it has no relation with global warming..Again exactly what i mean..
                          Completely irrelevant and i don't say that because i am emotional but just because its true..

                          Furthermore
                          The global warming theory is far more robust then only the correlation between the global temperatures and the concentration of greenhouse gases..This correlation has been measured and does exist but the theory is based on solid Physics..

                          Human induced global warming happened the way the climate scientist predicted...It is not the other way around..

                          This is a good article that really hits the core on this..


                          Prelude: It's the physics, stupid

                          …which of course is a paraphrase of Bill Clinton's famous quote regarding the economy. We put the last word in small letters since we've learned that it is not a good debating technique to imply (even inadvertently) that those who are having trouble seeing the force of our arguments might be stupid. What we wish to emphasize by this paraphrase is the simple fact that the expectation of a causal link between increasing long-lived greenhouse gases (like CO2) and increasing temperature does not rest on some vague, unexplained correlation between 20th century temperature and 20th century greenhouse gas concentration.

                          The anticipated increase in temperature was predicted long before it was detectable in the atmosphere, indeed long before it was known that atmospheric CO2 really was increasing; it was first predicted by Arrhenius in 1896 using extremely simple radiation balance ideas, and was reproduced using modern radiation physics by Manabe and co-workers in the 1960's. Neither of these predictions rests on general circulation models, which came in during subsequent decades and made more detailed forecasts possible.
                          ................
                          www.realclimate.org/
                          • Unsu...
                             

                            Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                            Fri, January 18, 2008 - 1:34 PM
                            But THE FLAT EARTH THEORY was a robust theory until they found out otherwise!
                            Don't just trash another because you see things differently. Calling another "Stupid' is silly and arrogant!
                            You believe one thing backed up by Scientific Fact and so do others....When the TIME comes, we will all see one way or the other!
                            • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                              Sat, January 19, 2008 - 1:48 AM
                              "Calling another "Stupid' is silly and arrogant!"

                              I called nobody stupid..
                              I posted an article that made a reference to a famous statement from the first Clinton campaign.
                              It is important to note that most climate skeptics do not seem to grasp basic global warming theory..
                              And you should not critisize what you don't understand..It could make you look stupid..

                              " But THE FLAT EARTH THEORY was a robust theory until they found out otherwise! "

                              Wrong..
                              The flat earth theory was never a robust scientific theory..
                              Infact, It was science that debunked the flat earth theory..
                              But if you want to draw the anology,
                              I think the natural variability climate theory should be seen as flat earth science..
                              It has been replaced in science by the human induced global warming theory..

                              Here is an interesting read on it..

                              Greetings From the New Flat Earth
                              By Matthew Wheeland, AlterNet. Posted February 4, 2005.

                              Global warming deniers beware – that means you, Rush! – or you may end up the recipient of a new award given to those who belittle the very real threat of global warming.
                              www.alternet.org/environment/21164
                              • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                Thu, January 24, 2008 - 10:18 AM
                                "I called nobody stupid.. "

                                Yes you did! Now you're a liar too!

                                I will post again to show how clear is the evidence of correlation between Sun and weather and climate changes.
                                Not only that but I have shown repeatedly that the Southern Hemisphere IS getting colder and therefore is is NOT 'global warming'. So when brainwashed people go on and on about 'global warming' all the time, all it shows is how duped and dogmatic they truly are. And as has already been pointed out, dogma has no place in science and scientists who repeat old and dis-proven models are not true scientists!
                          • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                            Fri, January 18, 2008 - 8:13 PM
                            How can more than 98% (99% by some sources) of the mass and energy in a system be irrelevant to discussions about the existence or cause of fluctuations in the system?

                            You can call a mouse a banana but that does not necessarily make it so. Call it what you will, but I think you'll find that the sun is anything but irrelevant in our solar (hehehe) system.
                            • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                              Sat, January 19, 2008 - 1:25 AM
                              The mass of the Sun is irrelevant for the warming of the earth..
                              That i even have to explain this to you boggles my mind..

                              To answer your second question..
                              Ofcourse the AMOUNT of energy from the sun is very important in our climate system..
                              The VARIABILITY of the suns energy output is so extremely small it can not play an important role in the warming..
                              As i said, debunked ten years ago..
                              And free for everybody to google on every respected scientific institute..


                              NASA - Goddard Institute for Space Studies
                              FIND IT @ NASA
                              Science & Research
                              Link Between Solar Cycle and Climate is Blowin' in the Wind
                              Apr. 8, 1999
                              ...............................

                              "Solar variability changes the distribution of energy," said Shindell. "Over an 11-year solar cycle, the total amount of energy has not changed very much. But where the energy goes changes as wind speeds and directions change." During the suns 11-year cycle, from a solar maximum to a solar minimum, the energy released by the sun changes by only about a tenth of a percent.

                              .....................

                              According to Shindell, the new study also confirms that changing levels of energy from the sun are not a major cause of global warming.

                              Many scientists have argued that the radiation change in a solar cycle — an increase of two to three tenths of a percent over the 20th century — are not strong enough to account for the observed surface temperature increases. The GISS model agrees that the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases, leading Shindell to conclude that greenhouse gasses are indeed playing the dominant role.
                              ......................
                              www.giss.nasa.gov/research/.../19990408/
                              • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                Sat, January 19, 2008 - 8:22 AM
                                As I understand it, mass and energy are equivalents in the currently popular cosmology. Have you read einstein?

                                The presence or absence of the sun in the sky makes the difference between day and night temperature, all across the planet, most of the time. This is an observation about the natural world. A postulate about this might be "the sun influences the earth's temperature" which is a falsifiable theorem. By which I mean you can design experiments which would, if possible, disprove the theory. For example prove that the sun does NOT influence the earth's temperature.

                                I would love to see such a proof. I have had a sunburn before, I have made a solar oven. I have grown plants, and in my experience the amount of energy reaching the earth from the sun dwarfs the amount of energy reaching the earth from anywhere else. And that's just visible electromagnetic spectra. The FACT that this blazing ball of fusion constitutes the vast majority of mass/energy of the system, by a factor of at least TWO orders of magnitude, indicates that it MUST have some influence on the system.

                                I think if these scientists told you that the sun was NOT the cause for the day/night temperature difference, you would believe them about that too.
                                • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                  Sat, January 19, 2008 - 8:50 AM
                                  I think what he's trying to say is that fluctuations in solar activity do not make a significant enough difference to account for climate change. My understanding is that it can account for some, but not all, climate shift in the earth's past, and that the majority of climate scientists today believe there is sufficient evidence that the current climate change is most likely attributable to man-made greenhouse emissions.
                                  • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                    Sat, January 19, 2008 - 10:57 AM
                                    "I think what he's trying to say is that fluctuations in solar activity do not make a significant enough difference to account for climate change."

                                    Thank you

                                    That is indeed what i am trying to say..

                                    And that we should try to focus the discussion on the future now.


                                    Global Warming Report Blunt About Rising Temperatures, Bleak Future
                                    Temperatures to Climb 2-11.5 Degrees Fahrenheit by 2100
                                    By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP
                                    Posted: 2007-11-25 18:26:49

                                    PARIS (Feb. 2) - A panel of international scientists predicted Friday that global warming will continue for centuries no matter how much people control pollution, in a bleak report that blamed humans for killer heat waves, devastating droughts and stronger storms.

                                    The report said people were "very likely" the cause of global warming - the strongest conclusion to date - and placed the burden on governments to take action.

                                    "It's later than we think," said Susan Solomon, co-chair of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

                                    Man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are to blame for fewer cold days, hotter nights, heat waves, floods and heavy rains, droughts and stronger storms, particularly in the Atlantic Ocean, the 21-page report said.

                                    It highlighted "increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level."

                                    Authors of the report called it conservative: It used only peer-reviewed published science and was edited by representatives of 113 governments who had to agree to every word.
                                    reference.aol.com/globalwar...3309990002
                                    • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                      Sat, January 19, 2008 - 12:10 PM
                                      Looks like solar activity has contributed half or more to the observed global warming since 1900:

                                      www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta...008437.pdf

                                      ...and that contribution is expected to wane significantly beginning around 2011.
                                      • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                        Sat, January 19, 2008 - 1:40 PM
                                        1. That is not what this paper says..It says IF these assumptions are true then the impact is....These assumptions are quite wild..See point 2..

                                        2. This paper is heavily critisized..
                                        Here you have a critique from Dr. Rasmus Benestad..
                                        It gets very technical but you just remember this..
                                        The paper by Scafetta and West makes very bold assumptions on sun-climate sensitivity that are not supported by the current state of the art science.


                                        Another study on solar influence
                                        31 March 2006
                                        .................
                                        "S&W's sun-climate sensitivity (Zeq =0.21K/Wm-2), on which the given solar influence estimates predominantly depend, is thus based solely on a very crude calculation that contradicts the knowledge of climate physics.
                                        ...............................
                                        From regression analysis cited by the authors (Douglass and Clader 2002, White et al. 1997), it seems possible that the sensitivity of global surface temperature to variations of total solar irradiance might be about 0.1K/Wm-2. S&W do not present any convincing result that would point to noticeably higher sensitivities to long-term variations. Their higher values are based on unrealistic assumptions. If they would use a more realistic climate transfer sensitivity of 0.11K/Wm-2, or even somewhat higher (0.12 or 0.13) for the long-term, and use trends instead of smooth curve points, they would end up with solar contributions of 10% or less for 1950-2000 and near 0% and about 10% in 1980-2000 using the PMOD and ACRIM data, respectively.

                                        We have alread discussed the connection between solar activity, and this new analysis does not alter our previous conclusions: that there is not much evidence pointing to the sun being responsible for the warming since the 1950s.

                                        www.realclimate.org/index.ph...nd-round/

                                        Here you have his bio..
                                        Dr. Rasmus Benestad
                                        www.realclimate.org/index.php
                                        • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                          Sat, January 19, 2008 - 2:22 PM
                                          "We have alread discussed the connection between solar activity, and this new analysis does not alter our previous conclusions: that there is not much evidence pointing to the sun being responsible for the warming since the 1950s."

                                          Be careful when you pull out the fallacy card after using emotional adjectives to try and drive an argument. Because then when you quote others' fallacies you start looking like their stoolie lol:

                                          "The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a logical fallacy of the following form:

                                          * "X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

                                          It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:

                                          * "A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist".

                                          However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:

                                          * "A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist."."
                                          (wikipedia)
                                          • Re: A negative proof

                                            Sat, January 19, 2008 - 2:45 PM
                                            I love wikipedia:

                                            "In some cases a reversed burden of proof may be appropriate. This occurs when there are two competing explanations, and neither can be confirmed by observation. For example: when an empirical relationship has been observed, but the underlying mechanism is unknown, it may be reasonable to infer from the lack of conflicting evidence that the observed relationship is most likely causal. (c.f. Correlation does not imply causation) (See also: Inference to the Best Explanation)

                                            Criteria for selecting the best explanation in this case could involve Occam's razor, which states that the best explanation tends to be the one requiring the fewest additional assumptions. Such an explanation invokes the fewest intermediate factors while maintaining its predictive power; that is, its ability to explain current data and to predict future data.[1] However, according to the scientific method, the relationship is not formally proven in this instance, and to assert that it is so until disproven is fallacious."

                                            Or, in other words, if we start with the premise that global temperature is increasing, and the two competing explanations are "99.8% of the mass and energy of the system controls the system" and "humans control the system"... occam's razor points to the former as being the best explanation because it requires fewer assumptions (such as the status and effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas).

                                            Furthermore an empirical relationship between earth's atmosphere and the sun is much more well established than such a relationship between earth's atmosphere and humans. We have known from time before history that the sun controls the earth's climate and weather. And weather and climate have always been more of a controlling factor for human behavior, than vice-versa. So it's a hell of an assumption to chose the latter over the former. I don't see this statement being disputed or even lacking a citation on wikipedia:

                                            "Energy from the Sun, in the form of sunlight, supports almost all life on Earth via photosynthesis, and drives the Earth's climate and weather."

                                            And of course that's just visible electromagnetic spectra as I mentioned before. The forces of gravitation and electromagnetism on the earth from the sun are easy to observe. Perhaps less easy to observe and measure are the quantum effects of proximity to a great mass, or the fluid vortices of iron crystals in the earth's core and how our magnetosphere interacts with the sun's(or rather, how our miniscule portion of the sun's magnetosphere corresponds to the sun at large).

                                            AGW is all about who to blame and how to punish them. That's all I see in it. Power.
                                            • Re: A negative proof

                                              Sun, January 20, 2008 - 1:59 AM
                                              I don't love wikipedia because you don't see the source..

                                              But again i think you are in the discussion backwards..

                                              It is not the case of :
                                              We saw the temperature rise on earth and tried to find an explenation..

                                              No, it is:
                                              We understood the energy balance of the earth, we predicted a temperature rise and it happened as we predicted.

                                              "What we wish to emphasize by this paraphrase is the simple fact that the expectation of a causal link between increasing long-lived greenhouse gases (like CO2) and increasing temperature does not rest on some vague, unexplained correlation between 20th century temperature and 20th century greenhouse gas concentration.

                                              The anticipated increase in temperature was predicted long before it was detectable in the atmosphere, indeed long before it was known that atmospheric CO2 really was increasing; it was first predicted by Arrhenius in 1896 using extremely simple radiation balance ideas, and was reproduced using modern radiation physics by Manabe and co-workers in the 1960's. Neither of these predictions rests on general circulation models, which came in during subsequent decades and made more detailed forecasts possible.

                                              Still, the basic prediction of warming is founded on very fundamental physical principles relating to infrared absorption by greenhouse gases, theory of blackbody radiation, and atmospheric moist thermodynamics. All these individual elements have been verified to high accuracy in laboratory experiments and field observations."
                                              • Re: A negative proof

                                                Sun, January 20, 2008 - 8:35 AM
                                                "It is not the case of :
                                                We saw the temperature rise on earth and tried to find an explenation.."

                                                That is the scientific method.

                                                "No, it is:
                                                We understood the energy balance of the earth, we predicted a temperature rise and it happened as we predicted."

                                                I think you'll find this second technique is called prestidigitation. We can't understand the weather 7 days from now but we understand the "energy balance of earth"... I predict that car over there is going to crash into the wall. Oh, it did. Therefore my theory about the faulty steering apparatus is proved. Even if you call into doubt the effectiveness of the nut behind the wheel, since my prediction was borne out then my premise must be correct.
                                          • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                            Sun, January 20, 2008 - 1:10 AM
                                            "We have alread discussed the connection between solar activity, and this new analysis does not alter our previous conclusions: that there is not much evidence pointing to the sun being responsible for the warming since the 1950s."

                                            * "A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist."."

                                            I would never had said it like that..
                                            I think he is just to careful in his statement..

                                            I would probably have said..
                                            We have evidence contradicting the sun being responsible for the warming since the 1950s..

                                            Second..
                                            I have to say in his defence ..This is is a partial quote..
                                            The actual quote was..

                                            "We have already discussed the connection between solar activity (here, here , here and here), and this new analysis does not alter our previous conclusions: that there is not much evidence pointing to the sun being responsible for the warming since the 1950s."

                                            With the heres pointing to other articles..So there are a lot of arguments backing up his claim..

                                            This being the most important in my opinion..
                                            3 August 2005
                                            Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?
                                            by Raimund Muscheler

                                            Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.
                                            www.realclimate.org/index.php


                                            Here is his Bio..
                                            Raimund Muscheler
                                            www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/
                                        • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                          Sat, January 19, 2008 - 8:50 PM
                                          Harmen: >>It says IF these assumptions are true then the impact is....<<

                                          Yes, indeed, that is what all climate models do... rely on assumptions to make predictions.

                                          >>Here you have a critique from Dr. Rasmus Benestad..<<

                                          Thank you for the link to Dr. Benestad's blog comment. Scrolling down, I see that the response of Dr. Scafetta easily refutes the critique of Dr. Benestad. Not too surprising -- blog comments are generally not the stuff of rigorous science, since they are merely personal opinions expressed without the benefit of peer review. I would prefer to see a link to some scientific paper that has been peer-reviewed and published in a mainstream scientific journal -- such as the paper by Drs. Scafetta and West in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
                                          • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                            Sun, January 20, 2008 - 1:40 AM
                                            "Yes, indeed, that is what all climate models do... rely on assumptions to make predictions. "

                                            Ofcourse they do...
                                            The difference is that the assumptions of the IPCC stand scientific scrutiny and the Scafetta and West article does not..
                                            For models always goes garbage in, garbage out..
                                            In the S&W article Dr. Rasmuus Benestad pointed out the garbage that was put in..
                                            So the conclusion is garbage too..
                                            Only if you have a good model then it is science in and science out..

                                            But more importantly as i pointed out earlier in this thread, the predictions of the IPCC don't rely solely on models..
                                            That is a common misconception about climate change science..

                                            The prediction (1896) is far older then any climate model..Arrhenius prediction still stands scientific scrutiny..
                                            The models added clouds , wind and ocean currents, water vapour, Aerosols but the basics assumption remained the same since Arrhenius..

                                            I post this article again because it deals with this misconception...


                                            Prelude: It's the physics, stupid
                                            18 December 2007

                                            The anticipated increase in temperature was predicted long before it was detectable in the atmosphere, indeed long before it was known that atmospheric CO2 really was increasing; it was first predicted by Arrhenius in 1896 using extremely simple radiation balance ideas, and was reproduced using modern radiation physics by Manabe and co-workers in the 1960's. Neither of these predictions rests on general circulation models, which came in during subsequent decades and made more detailed forecasts possible.

                                            Still, the basic prediction of warming is founded on very fundamental physical principles relating to infrared absorption by greenhouse gases, theory of blackbody radiation, and atmospheric moist thermodynamics. All these individual elements have been verified to high accuracy in laboratory experiments and field observations. For a time, there was some remaining uncertainty about whether water vapor feedback would amplify warming in the way hypothesized in the early energy balance models, but a decade or two of additional observational and theoretical work has shown that there is no real reason to doubt the way in which general circulation models calculate the feedback. When modified by inclusion of the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols, the theory gives a satisfactory account of the pattern of 20th and 21st century temperature change.

                                            No other theory based on quantified physical principles has been able to do the same. If somebody comes along and has the bright idea that, say, global warming is caused by phlogiston raining down from the Moon, that does not make everything we know about thermodynamics, infrared absorption, energy balance, and temperature suddenly go away. Rather, it is the job of the phlogiston advocate to quantify the effects of phlogiston on energy balance, and incorporate them in a consistent way beside the existing climate forcings. Virtually all of the attempts to poke holes in the anthropogenic greenhouse theory lose sight of this simple and unassailable principle.

                                            www.realclimate.org/index.ph...#more-504

                                            Also interesting that he explains the minor role of solar forcing in this article..
                                            .....................

                                            "Let's set the stage by noting that, as a significant competitor to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing of recent climate change, the direct radiative forcing by solar irradiance variations is dead on arrival. The solar output has been monitored by accurate satellite instruments since 1978. Measured peak to trough over the 11 year solar cycle, averaging over the Earth's surface and allowing for albedo, the radiative forcing amplitude is under 0.2 W/m2. The trend left after averaging over the solar cycle is even smaller. This pales by comparison with over 2 W/m2 of radiative forcing arising from long-lived greenhouse gases that have accumulated in the atmosphere since 1750; it pales yet more by comparison with the forcing to come in the future if action is not taken to control emissions. There is nothing in climate physics to suggest that the sensitivity of climate to solar irradiance variation differs substantially from the sensitivity to infrared radiative forcing arising from greenhouse gas changes. As far as the climate cares, a Watt is (for the most part) a Watt, regardless of whether it comes from changes in the incoming solar energy or greenhouse-induced changes in the infrared radiation loss."
                                • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                  Sat, January 19, 2008 - 9:48 AM
                                  "For example prove that the sun does NOT influence the earth's temperature. "

                                  Strawman argumentation..
                                  Of course the sun influences the earth's temperature..I never claimed otherwise..It is just a fact..
                                  The entire human induced global warming theory is also based on that fact..(The gases trap the heat of the sun)..
                                  But that does not mean that the sun plays an important role in the recently measured global warming..It does not..

                                  Here is another well backed up read on it from the New Scientist.
                                  environment.newscientist.com/cha...1650

                                  As a scientist i understand the concept of falsifiability..I read Popper..
                                  The problem is; we only have one earth and it does not fit in a test tube..

                                  So as a human i would like to say the following..
                                  The future is important in this debate..not the past..

                                  The question "what caused the observed global warming?"
                                  Interesting from a scientific perspective is almost settled..
                                  The grand majority of recently observed global warming warming is "very likely"* due to the increase of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere...(*statement from the latest IPCC report)
                                  But that only deals with the past and yesterday is gone..

                                  From a human perspective the following question is far more important..
                                  " What is the consequence of the growth in greenhouse gases concentration in our atmosphere?"
                                  "What is most likely? What is the worst cas? what are other possible scenario's?"


                                  This about our future and the future of our children and grandchildren..(and their children and grand children)

                                  We have to go with scenario analysis based on state of the art scientific knowledge..
                                  That is why the IPCC was founded and it did good work..

                                  This video also deals with this problem very well..
                                  "Risk aversion and Climate change" was the name of my thesis in 1995.
                                  The message was very much like the message from this video..
                                  www.youtube.com/watch

                                  While i like Popper and Einstein..
                                  Keeling is my hero,

                                  I applaud the fact Al Gore and the IPCC won the Noble prize but the fact that Keeling never received a Noble prize is a true embarrassment for the Noble Committee and i think they realize that now.

                                  Almost 50 years ago this man started his measurements on Mauna Loa, i don't know where we would be now without this..His contribution to understanding Gaia is enormous..

                                  Thank you Charles David Keeling..


                                  Earth monitoring: Cinderella science
                                  December 2007
                                  Euan Nisbet1

                                  1. Euan Nisbet is in the Atmospheric Group, Department of Geology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK.


                                  On-the-ground monitoring is unglamorous work, seldom rewarded by funding agencies or the science community. But we neglect it at our peril, warns Euan Nisbet.

                                  Sometimes discovery comes slowly, not with a flash of revelation but creepingly, as larger patterns emerge painfully from years of data. Researchers who work in Mauna Loa, Hawaii, are celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of a measurement programme responsible for the longest continuous recording of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Seldom can such insight have grown (and continued to grow) over so long a time. Now that we look back, the resulting 'Keeling curve' of CO2 concentrations ranks very high indeed among the achievements of twentieth-century science.


                                  Charles David Keeling's work made us aware of rising amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

                                  Charles David Keeling's account of his tribulations1, "Rewards and penalties of monitoring the Earth", should be compulsory reading for politicians and science administrators. Idealistic young scientists, as yet unscarred, should read it and take note: courage and perseverance are required. Before Keeling, little was known about CO2 in the atmosphere and available measurements had little value. Success came from Keeling's painstaking years of effort and innovation. Despite the import of the results, the work was often threatened, as is attested by a gap in 1964 when underfunding briefly halted measurement.

                                  Monitoring is science's Cinderella, unloved and poorly paid. Sustaining a long-term, ground-based programme that demands high analytical standards remains challenging. Funding agencies are seduced either by 'pure' notions of basic science as hypothesis-testing, or by the satanic mills of commercial reward. Neither motive fosters 'dull' monitoring because meeting severe analytical demands is not seen as a worthwhile investment. At one stage, Keeling was ordered to guarantee two discoveries per year and today, modern research has become a planned journey through set 'milestones' to deliverable destinations.

                                  No longer do we blindly cast our bread on the ocean of truth. Keeling's long-term CO2 measurements began in 1957 with the first flask collection at the South Pole. Hawaiian measurements started in March 1958. That air had 316 parts per million of CO2. By March 2007 the comparable value was 384 parts per million. As data curves lengthened, patterns emerged. Seasonal changes and hemispheric differences traced the breathing of the biosphere, dominated by springtime CO2 uptake and autumn release in the Northern Hemisphere. Keeling measured the isotopic abundance of carbon-13 in CO2 to show that the seasonal changes were caused by land plants.

                                  The Mauna Loa curve thrust itself before humanity's eyes, changing our view of the world.

                                  Keeling's first report is a landmark2, documenting the seasonal cycle and, more gloomily, the annual rise in CO2. By the 1970s, the biological influence of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation became clear as climate shifts altered the seasonal CO2 cycle. And the connection between rising CO2 and fossil-fuel burning was firmly established, showing that a substantial fraction of CO2 added by humans remains in the atmosphere and is not removed by the biosphere.

                                  The Mauna Loa curve, simple and unambiguous, thrust itself before humanity's eyes, changing our view of the world. Keeling's work was far ahead of its time. It was the 1970s before other quality-controlled data sets got going. Had we not had his long back-record, awareness of global change would have come more slowly. Sudden events, such as the marked fluctuations in global CO2 uptake after the 1991 volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo, may have looked very different in the context of a 15-year rather than a 30-year record.

                                  Global understanding is underpinned by rigorous in situ (measured on the surface) long-term data series. Since 1957, satellites have patrolled the skies, and they are crucial for the wider picture. But they need to work in partnership with the much more accurate in situ monitoring. Satellite monitoring originally missed the ozone hole, found by careful ground measurements. Following Keeling's example, in situ measurement spread across the globe. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) set up the Global Atmosphere Watch, widening the coverage of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) network, to monitor long-lived CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases on a global scale.

                                  ..........................
                                  www.nature.com/nature/jou...50789a.html
                                  • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                    Sat, January 19, 2008 - 1:53 PM
                                    You've quoted me out of context, but I'll admit what I said did not fit together quite well. Allow me to elucidate:

                                    ""For example prove that the sun does NOT influence the earth's temperature. "
                                    Strawman argumentation.. "

                                    is what you quoted... but what I really said was:

                                    "A postulate about this might be "the sun influences the earth's temperature" which is a falsifiable theorem. By which I mean you can design experiments which would, if possible, disprove the theory. For example prove that the sun does NOT influence the earth's temperature."

                                    I did not ask you to create a straw man for me, I was giving an example of the general goal of any experiment designed to falsify a particular theory.

                                    Not your comment but I think it gives me another way to say what I mean:

                                    "I think what he's trying to say is that fluctuations in solar activity do not make a significant enough difference to account for climate change."

                                    So fluctuations in 99.8% of the mass and energy in a system, even minor fluctuations, are big ones when you compare them to an earth-proportion of the system, approximately 1:333000th of the total mass and energy of the system.

                                    From another perspective, the earth is merely a denser portion of the sun's outer atmosphere, and a pretty insignificant portion at that. So saying that the sun has no influence on earth's temperature is like saying that all the winds of the earth have no effect on a single cumulus cloud.

                                    To put it another way, the Sun *IS* our solar system, and everything else is a drop in the pond. How could a drop in the pond NOT be affected by even minor fluctuations in the pond at large?
                                  • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                    Sat, January 19, 2008 - 2:14 PM
                                    "So as a human i would like to say the following..
                                    The future is important in this debate..not the past.. "

                                    Yes I hear that a lot from the AGW campaign, because the debate is over. But this fallacy is called "Appeal to Consequences":

                                    "Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin: argument to the consequences), is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not address the truth value of the premise. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view." (Wikipedia)

                                    Or, to put it another way, you're saying then that the debate on the existence and causes of so-called anthropogenic global warming is OVER precisely because the consequences of this theorem are so dire?

                                    Come on I've seen you debate in here, I know you can do better than that.

                                    ;-}

                                    I, for one, welcome the new global temperature. I'm sure that I'll be one of the first up against the wall for being a "denier" as the new criminal class of carbon bandits is created, thus giving people more power to coerce others. Yay!

                                    lol scientism, you gotta love it
                          • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                            Sun, January 20, 2008 - 12:01 PM
                            so, let me get this:

                            ""Fact: the sun comprises more than 98% of the mass of the solar system."
                            True..
                            But it has no relation with global warming"

                            so,
                            the sun has nothing to do with global warming?....

                            what warms the earth, then?
                            i will worship Her as a goddess,
                            long before i will say that my awesome mathematical abilities
                            are bigger than She is.
                    • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                      Thu, January 17, 2008 - 10:32 AM
                      "A true scientist with investment in the AGW theory will welcome any attack that may prove to destroy or make stronger the theory. I see none of that here, I see dogmatists with an emotional attachment to a theory."

                      I readily admit that I am not a scientist, which is why I rely on scientists to inform my opinion.

                      "But to return to your question, presenting evidence to support a theory is one thing. Presenting evidence to support skepticism seems backward. As a proponent of AGW you're demanding that the skeptics present evidence, but to support what theory? No theory, just skepticism. But that means you must have evidence to be skeptical???? WTF????? "

                      What they are doing is trying present evidence for alternative explanations, which I find relatively unconvincing. I'm not demanding that they present evidence. I'm judging the evidence they've presented.
                      • Jim
                        Jim
                        offline 2

                        Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                        Sat, January 19, 2008 - 9:03 PM
                        This is all so funny on a tribe named .."Gaia..is alive".

                        Maybe the above discussion should take place on a tribe called...."Science proves science exists".

                        On this tribe, "Gaia", I don't really care if Earth is getting warmer or colder because of sun or man or cloudy skies. The particulars aren't particularly important.
                        I am much more interested in what's it all mean and how do we think about it and how do we personally respond to it.

                        I have spent many years with Native Elders and have been taught Prophecy. Back in the '70's, when Time magazine and "all" the scientists were screaming about the coming ice age, the Elders said the period of transition between the 4th World and the 5th World would begin in 1987. They said the 4th World would end by fire and ice and earth quake and flood. They said how each area would be made ready for a new lesson didn't really matter. What mattered was how you would meet the Changes, and what you could learn now to carry to the next world in order to help the children live in the 5th World.

                        To me, all this chatter about warming, not warming, doesn't matter.
                        To me, how do I have a relationship with "Gaia, the living Earth" , is what matters.
                        • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                          Sun, January 20, 2008 - 8:28 AM
                          "This is all so funny on a tribe named .."Gaia..is alive"."

                          Hey, I think it's great. We're the living, breathing, walking talking fingernails of Gaea AND at least we're having a polite discussion about it instead of coercing each other to "decrease carbon footprint" or something...

                          hehehhe
                        • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                          Sun, January 20, 2008 - 12:26 PM
                          aaaaa mennnnnnn.
                          thinking about stuff is great; i do a lot of it.
                          mostly, about the inter-relatedness of things, of It.
                          that includes a whole freekin lot of time spent
                          trying to keep my arrogant mind Quiet....
                          and, Listen...

                          then She speaks loud enough to be heard.
                          no, then i am capable of hearing Her quiet whisper.
                          no, but i am.

                          then, i can bring my heart to my math, every day.
                          know what? it still adds up.
                          actually, much better, without all those imaginary and irrational "numbers",
                          with their always-inaccurate infinitely repeating "decimels"...

                          One is at the Centre,
                          not nothing ("zero?")

                          go gaia, it's your birthday,
                          go gaia, it's your birthday...

                          may there be Peace, cool fluffy powder in the mountains, warm breezes on the beach,
                          fresh water everywhere, and green buds in everyones' bowls.
                        • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                          Thu, January 24, 2008 - 10:35 AM
                          Nice one Jim! Pretty much what I have been consistently saying all the way through.
                          The pseudo-Gaians here are trying to impose their dogmatic 'science' on humanity for the usual guilt and shame, fear-based agendas. It is designed to prevent any awakening and preparation for the coming changes in consciousness before and into the Shift of Ages.

                          As I have consistently said, the Hopis, Mayas and many others have warned about these times and how the cleansing and purification would be by the four elements before the next great Age. Some wise elders said that "the Children of the Earth will survive", not because they will be full of fear and guilt about climate changes but because they will be prepared in communities and awakened by ceremonies and deep inner work.

                          There may be no appealing to people who are so stuck in dogma and cannot understand what has been said for generations by far wiser people.
                          We can be Hawk messengers and give the message without attachment to a result. Those who are ready will know the truth (and some more will awaken in time)!
                          One thing for sure - Gaia has no fear!
                          • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                            Thu, January 24, 2008 - 12:52 PM
                            I love how you refer to science as dogma and then talk about an ancient prophecy as if it had greater validity. I think we can safely judge the level of your scientific education.
                            • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                              Fri, January 25, 2008 - 11:10 AM
                              Misquote all you like. I did not say 'all science is dogmatic' but consistently expose the models that are used that are shown to be based on old flawed data and ignore the recent true science. I do so with lots of serious scientific information from well qualified scientists who know that the debate is definitely NOT over and have been saying so for years. And I quote from scientists who are recognised as leaders in their fields rather than part-timers in Tribe. Even the IPCC is revising its figures with each report.
                              Objective scientists like Steve Macintyre have shown how the figures that were being used by the politically-motivated biased science were seriously incorrect and actually suggested that weather stations were positioned in tarmac areas to give inflated temperature figures (the most logical conclusion of so much reference to wrong data!). As a result NASA changed its global temperature figures with no apology from people like Hansen who had been using the false data. This is just one example of thousands!

                              Which all goes to show that you couldn't 'judge' a mud wrestling contest!
                              • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                Fri, January 25, 2008 - 12:01 PM
                                "I did not say 'all science is dogmatic'"

                                lol
                                You mean only the science you don't like is dogmatic??

                                DeSmogBlog has a great listing on the science part..



                                The Science is Clear

                                The following is a list of the best resources we know of. The DeSmogBlog does not exist to argue the science of climate science – instead we leave that to people like the experts listed below.

                                * UK Guardian Climate Change Q and A: clear and concise explanation of what climate change is.

                                * IPCC: The Scientific Basis: link to the latest report issued by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, supported by the world’s leading climatologists.

                                * The Royal Society - A guide to facts and fictions about climate change (PDF): a debunking of the 12 most common climate change myths.

                                * RealClimate: A climate change blog, run by climate scientists.

                                * New Scientist: "Climate Change; a guide for the perplexed.

                                * The Scientific Evidence is Overwhelming: not one of 928 randomly selected climate change studies disagreed with the conclusion that human behavior is to blame for the current warming.

                                * The Scientific Case for Human-Induced Global Warming: here's an article written by renowned author, Ross Gelbspan, that summarizes the scientific evidence on man-made climate change.

                                * G8 Climate Statement (PDF): here's a joint declaration on the realities of global warming signed by the heads of the chief scientific advisors for all the G8 countries (China, Canada, Brazil, Russia, United States, Japan, Italy, India, Germany).

                                www.desmogblog.com/is-clima...ange-real (the sources are linked here)
                                • Unsu...
                                   

                                  Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                  Fri, January 25, 2008 - 12:25 PM
                                  Science is nothing but a lot of Theories made by insignificant Humans, modified and changed to suit the Whims of Massive Egos!
                                  It seems as though you have a Massive one at that!
                                  Mother earth will prove it one way or the other and we will not be able to do anything about it....all the Arguing will not make a scrap of difference!
                                  You may be well intentioned, but you may also be wrong!
                                  • Unsu...
                                     

                                    Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                    Fri, January 25, 2008 - 3:03 PM
                                    >>>>>>>>> Science is nothing but a lot of Theories made by insignificant Humans, modified and changed to suit the Whims of Massive Egos! <<<<<<<<<<<


                                    Bard, hehe, nownow brother.... that seems like a haughty egotistical thing to say? And overly generalized.

                                    All humans are significant I believe, even the dark ones. And science, well, Science comes from the Latin word "scientia", which means 'knowledge'. In a historical sense, it refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. There is a specific science in any one course one wishes to master in this life: Yoga, music, art, geometry, biology, mysticism, spiritualism, nano-technology, etc.... it is all a part of science - knowledge. There is a system to each one. And the more we practice our craft, the deeper we become.

                                    You are right though my friend, Mother Earth WILL restore balance aided by the harmonic convergence of our Sun within the many suns born to follow the cosmic Universal Law of Light. What an incredible galaxy we are riding in!

                                    :-)

                                    • Unsu...
                                       

                                      Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                      Fri, January 25, 2008 - 4:36 PM
                                      I would not critersize Science,but it a lot of theory as well as fact, it is just that some individuals wield this at others and try their damnest to talk others down. If you go further down into the thread, you will see what I mean....hehehehe!
                                      To talk, instead of one versus the other....that is how it should be and that is what I have already tried to say!
                                      Lana, you can have a bit of a laugh if you read back through this thread, I already have. Nature will take it's course, no matter what we do. If Humanity plays with the System, there could just be a much more violent reaction at a later date.
                                      If Gaia does react to us in that fashion, we will be powerless to stop it, I have been following the Experiments being done on the Atmosphere in the NAME of SCIENCE, they don't know what the consequences will be....it comes back to Educated Guesses or Theory!
                                      Why is it that the layers of Air over the Arctic have been disrupted and why is the North Magnetic Pole moving east quickly. The HAARP experimnt in Alaska has been in operation for as long and the severe climatic conditions have accelerated, especially since that Array has gone to full power.... things have changed even faster.
                                      I think that you have spoken about this yourself....maybe it is all just coincidence.
                                      No matter what, if this does come to pass in our lifetime, I do not think there will be too many smiling faces. Who will be left to say " Told you I was right " .....hehehehe!!!!
                                      I would advise everybody to read all the relevent SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION INSTEAD OF TAKING BITS FROM HERE OR THERE TO CONDUCT THEIR ARGUMENTS.....THIS IS ONLY COMMON SENSE!
                                      • Unsu...
                                         

                                        Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                        Fri, January 25, 2008 - 4:57 PM
                                        Another Angle to what I am saying, when one Talks all or most down, because they know they are right and TELL everybody that!
                                        That is not Science....look at what has been done thoughout history to suppress people that have spoken and been ostrasized because of that.....only to be proven right by the very system that condemned them in the first place.
                                        There has to be freedom of speech and being able to look at all angles Rationally. A Good Scientist will weigh up all the Information and if nothing can be proven, it becomes an hypothesis, NOT FACT!
                                        HAARP and other experiments are all part of the Equation and leaving out Crucial Information....it becomes nothing more than a Battle of the Strong Willed and becomes a farce and not worth the time spent typing it on to the Black Screen......Does this make sense.
                                        This is why I mentioned the Ego!
                                      • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                        Fri, January 25, 2008 - 7:36 PM
                                        "Nature will take it's course, no matter what we do."

                                        More like, nature will take its course in RESPONSE to what we do. Nature includes us, and what we do has an effect on it. If you don't believe me, try going to San Bernardino, California, and breathing the air. Then tell me if nature would have taken that course regardless of what we did.
                                        • Unsu...
                                           

                                          Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                          Fri, January 25, 2008 - 8:30 PM
                                          When I say that nature its Course, I mean that because of man's intervention. Not just with greenhouse gases , but other games that the Military has and is playing with to affect the Atmosphere.
                                          Go to Haarp and the other devices that they are playing with to heat the Atmosphere, their stupid little war games for control. Don't just blame greenhouse gases on their own!
                                          Gaia is already trying to repair itself, it is just that the ways that she has to do it isn't necessarily compatibile with the Human Race.You let Bush and Cheney back in....go and ask them what they are really doing in their Quest for Power!
                                          You should do what I have done, gone and looked for the information, instead of breathing foul air!
                                          PS. I am not trying to be nasty in any way , shape or form. You have taken one line out of all I have said, if you do that, that is your fault, not mine. Try reading some of my blog and you will see that I have been trying to get people to listen about what their future may not Hold!
                                          We either evolve or become extinct!
                                  • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                                    Sat, January 26, 2008 - 2:39 AM
                                    I don't think i have a massive ego..
                                    That sounds like a personal attack to me and that is something we should try to avoid..

                                    I do think i have a strong ego in the sense that i form an independent opinion on all subjects after researching it myself..
                                    But i do not see that as a negative..
                                    That gave me the possibility to study the theory of climate change almost 13 years ago when it was still very unpopular..
                                    I try to be a homo universalis, always ready to learn something new..

                                    "Science is nothing but a lot of Theories made by insignificant Humans"
                                    I do understand that even science is flawed but i care about humans and its the best we have..

                                    Why we need a strong and healthy ego???
                                    answers.yahoo.com/question/index
                          • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

                            Thu, January 24, 2008 - 1:17 PM
                            Lets not smear each other with terms like "Pseudo Gaians"
                            My bond with Gaia is very strong and she supports me with everything i do..

                            There is also nothing dogmatic about science..Science changes continuously..
                            Science is a way of communicating and i think its an important asset to humanity..
                            While i love science i also love the indigenous cultures..
                            I learned my strong bond with Gaia from them at an early age and it grew later
                            But the indigenous cultures where among the first to warn on climate change..

                            I think
                            Because they have such a strong bond with the earth they noticed earlier..



                            Indigenous peoples voice urgency on global warming
                            Posted: January 05, 2006
                            by: Brenda Norrell / Indian Country Today

                            Approximately 40,000 indigenous from around the world took part in the Dec. 3 International March for Climate in Montreal as part of the U.N. Climate Summit held there. Aboriginal peoples, including Canadian First Nations and members of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy, stood in solidarity with other indigenous peoples whose ways of life are threatened by global warming.

                            MONTREAL - American Indians, Alaska Natives and the First Nations of Canada stood in solidarity with indigenous peoples globally during the U.N. conference on global warming, developing the Tiohtia:ke Declaration addressing climate change and indigenous peoples.

                            In the Arctic, Sheila Watt-Cloutier said global warming is devastating Inuits.

                            ''Inuit are an ancient people. Our way of life is dependent on the natural environment and animals. Climate change is destroying our environment and eroding our culture.

                            ''Climate change is amplified in the Arctic. What is happening to us now will happen soon in the rest of the world.''

                            Watt-Cloutier, chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, submitted a petition to the Washington, D.C.-based Inter-American Commission on Human Rights seeking relief from violations of Inuit human rights by global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

                            The ICC petition urges the commission to recommend that the United States adopt mandatory limits to its emissions of greenhouse gases and cooperate with the global community of nations to ''prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,'' the objective of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

                            The petition also requests the commission declare that the United States has an obligation to work with the Inuit to develop a plan to help Inuit adapt to unavoidable impacts of climate change, and to take into account the impact of its emission on the Arctic before approving all major government actions.

                            Watt-Cloutier said, ''This petition is not about money: it is about encouraging the U.S. to join the world community to agree to deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions needed to protect the Arctic environment and Inuit culture and, ultimately, the world.''

                            The U.N. gathering on climate change and global warming attracted 189 world government leaders and 10,000 observers. Indigenous peoples came from Arctic regions, the United States, Canada, Mexico, Ecuador, Panama, Norway, Russia, Greenland, India, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands.

                            Ian Aujare-Zazao, indigenous from the Solomon Islands in the Pacific, said indigenous wisdom must be respected and guide decisions on global warming.

                            ''We are here to present our voices to the parties of the conference on matters that concern our special knowledge and relationship with mother earth, as well as the survival of our communities and of the world.

                            ''It is essential that the contributions of our age-old indigenous knowledge systems to the greater body of climate sciences are respected and given equal recognition.''

                            Aujare-Zazao said the small island on which he lives is in danger of being submerged by rising sea levels as a result of global warming. Global warming is causing a rise in sea level from thermal expansion as the sea warms up and from the melting of the planet's ice caps.

                            Tom Goldtooth, director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, said climate change is not just a scientific term to those who live close to the earth.

                            ''We are here to put a human face to this issue. Climate change is a human rights issue when it concerns the devastating effects of climate change and global warming on indigenous communities in the U.S. as well as throughout the world,'' Goldtooth said.

                            IEN partnered with the Environmental Justice Climate Change initiative to bring 15 American Indian and Alaska Native people, including youth, to the global meeting.

                            The global meeting was the 11th session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. It was the first meeting of the parties since the Kyoto Protocol was implemented last February.

                            World leaders came to Montreal to continue implementation of mechanisms to reduce emission targets, adopt decisions to implement the Kyoto Protocol, ponder ways to meet the targets in the Kyoto treaty and decide what measures to follow when the protocol expires in 2012.

                            The Tiohtia:ke Declaration, which is a Mohawk word for Montreal, reaffirmed previous positions of indigenous peoples who have participated in U.N. climate conferences since the late 1990s.

                            IEN said the Tiohtia:ke Declaration provided the heart and voice of not only indigenous peoples, but also all humanity that links human rights, fossil fuels and climate change.

                            ''The burning of oil, gas and coal as fossil fuels is the primary source of human-induced climate change. Indigenous Peoples have experienced systematic and repeated violations by oil, gas, mining and energy industries infringing on our inherent right to protect our traditional lands,'' reads the declaration, which was endorsed by most indigenous groups at the U.N. meeting.
                            www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm
    • Re: A cold spell soon to replace global warming

      Sun, January 20, 2008 - 11:47 AM
      solar max is around 2012....
      go figure.
      • Re: The cold spell - plenty of examples!

        Thu, January 31, 2008 - 3:50 AM
        Freak Storm Causes Blizzard Conditions
        By Cornelia de Bruin - New Mexico Daily Times
        Jan 30, 2008 - 10:32:01 AM

        New Mexico - The Wyoming-style blow topped out with a 58 mph gust recorded at 8:11 p.m. at Four Corners Regional Airport. In its wake was an inch-thick slab of ice with hail and snow grains embedded within it, and a deceptive inch to inch and a half covering of powdery, wind-blown snow.

        Remarkably, San Juan County emergency dispatch logged only 11 accidents between 7 a.m. and 9:10 a.m. All were minor, according to the center's supervisor.

        New Mexico Highway and Transportation Department Maintenance Yard workers claim all three of the county's snow trucks hit the streets at 9 p.m. and worked all night spreading salt and sand on the roads.

        All San Juan County schools are on a two-hour delay this morning, scheduled to open at about 10 a.m. Many area roadways were also snow packed and very icy this morning, causing a number of government offices to open later in the day.

        The winter of 2007 is becoming more likely by the week to feature prominently in conversations for years to come.

        That's because the Four Corners area is dead center in the storm track that's set up this winter.

        At the beginning of this winter, meteorologist Ken Drozd said forecasters thought a La Niña weather pattern was setting up for the area.

        "The storm track has been focusing on New Mexico for the last couple months," he said. "Usually a La Niña weather pattern means warmer than usual weather, but that's not a 100-percent guarantee."

        Some La Niñas, such as the one in place now, have above normal precipitation because of the colder temperatures.

        "The storm track that's normal for La Niña is to our north, but that didn't happen this winter," Drozd said. "It's been coming right over us."

        Another storm with snow is expected Wednesday, with another "significant system" coming in Sunday and Monday.

        "The Sunday/Monday storm will be a bigger storm than Wednesday's," Drozd said.

        San Juan County has been hit with several days of minus zero temperatures this month, along with more than a foot of snow over about a three-week period.


        China's Crops Badly Damaged by Icy Storms
        By Reuters
        Jan 30, 2008 - 10:19:10 AM

        BEIJING - China's Agriculture Ministry said on Wednesday that the unusually harsh winter had dealt a serious blow to the country's wheat and vegetable crops and warned that damage could rise because of persistent cold.

        The ministry said in a statement on its Web site that 103 million mu of farm crops had been hurt by the freak weather, which has plagued southern, central and eastern China over the past week.

        Of that total, it said 11 million mu had been ruined, while another 53 million mu were badly damaged.

        The crops affected included rapeseed, vegetables, wheat, tangerines and tea leaves, although the ministry did not specify how much of each had been damaged.

        Beijing is sending out experts to the most damaged areas: Hunan, Guizhou, Hubei, Anhui, Shaanxi, Henan, Jiangxi and Jiangsu.

        "They will survey the damage and lead rescue work, to guide these areas to resume winter production as quickly as possible and ensure efficient market supply of farm products," it said.

        Grains traders and industry officials were most nervous about damages to rapeseed, an oilseed grown mainly along the Yangtse River that is harvested after March.

        While record vegetable oil prices have raised the country's rapeseed acreages this year by possibly as much as 30 percent from a year earlier, any crop loss would lead to higher imports of edible oils or oilseeds, including soybeans.

        "The most important thing to watch out for is the local rapeseed crop," said a trader at an international house in Shanghai.

        "This year, if the weather is normal, the crop should be around 11 million. If bad weather continues in the next 1-2 weeks, we'll have to cut our forecast."

        A small 2007 rapeseed crop, which some traders estimated at 8-9 million metric tons -- or well below the government think-tank estimate of 12 million -- has helped push up the country's imports of soybeans and vegetable oils last year.

        The Shanghai trader added that so far China had booked 6-7 cargoes of canola, or rapeseed from Canada, for December to February shipment at $570-620 per metric ton, including costs and freights.

        The traders and industry officials said though the icy weather would reduce the country's 2007 winter wheat crop, they expected the damages to be small. It was also unlikely to lead to any supply shortages due to its ample stocks in the grain.

        "I do not have great concern about wheat supply at this moment," said one industry official in Beijing. "The Chinese government has enough wheat stocks."

        He said the top wheat producing in the north, such as Shandong, Hunan, Hebei should be fine, though damages might be done in less crucial producers such as Jiangsu, Anhui and Hubei.

        "According to weather department forecasts, rain and snow is persisting in most southern areas and some are still experiencing snow storms, so the disaster may continue to develop," the National Development and Reform Commission said in a statement.

        The NDRC said in a separate statement that prices of some vegetables, including cabbage, carrots, eggplant and cucumbers, have risen by more than 50 percent in some regions because of the storms.
        • Re: The cold spell - plenty of examples!

          Thu, January 31, 2008 - 3:52 AM

          With a record cold winter in China being called a "disaster", record cold temperatures in parts of the USA, record cold and snows in Scotland and various parts of Europe, record cold temperatures having been recorded all over the world in the last few months, it really is showing humans everywhere that 'global warming' is a nonsense.
          As we enter solar cycle 24 and experience even more severe conditions, every human will be able to see that the Sun does indeed drive most of our planet's weather and has been driving most of the planets major climate changes. Then the lies about human responsibility will be exposed fully and the scam of the scare-mongering to create more fear, centralisation, nuclear power, fuel from food, 'green' taxation programmes, millions spent on conferences that achieve nothing, will all be seen for what it really is.

          It simply is NOT possible to have a living conscious Earth and Sun and then blame humans for what happens on the planet. Humans are a small part of a vast story and need to 'get with the program' if they want to survive. That means alot of work, much more respect and humility, an end to all wars and environmental destruction, dealing with anger and negativity, collective action and decentralisation of power, equality and fair distribution of resources, teaching the children and all people the nature of responsibility and 'living lightly'.
          But what is certain is that if humans go on believing that CO2 is driving the climate changes they will be controlled by purely political and economic agendas and by the brainwashed and liars who support the false story.
          Reality is so much more than most humans imagine and much more than the 'system' want humans to understand, because when humans can truly connect with the greater reality they will see the scam of nationality, central control, private banking and economic manipulation, arms dealing and wars, politicians and their elite masters. The scam is all designed to keep humans as slaves, providing massive (and increasing) wealth to a small minority and their stooges.

          Gaia is a living, conscious being and everything is happening as scheduled, for the shift of ages that our solar system and entire Galaxy is a part of.
          It is time let go of the idea that we humans can prevent what is happening and time to wake up and prepare!
          • Re: The cold spell - plenty of examples!

            Thu, January 31, 2008 - 7:28 AM
            "it really is showing humans everywhere that 'global warming' is a nonsense. "

            I'm still not convinced that there's anything to AGW, but if we chastise the proponents for holding up examples of extreme weather or change and saying "this is due to global warming" then we must be vigilant about not doing the same thing ourselves.

            Psi, I understand the difference between the two examples but some may not and I think we need to keep our standards as high as possible with everyone on the bandwagon calling us crackpots, "deniers" and quite possibly soon enough, prisoners ;-}

            So please explain the difference between holding up a melting glacier and saying "the globe is warming" and holding up examples of unusual cold from all over, and saying "the globe is not warming". In your own words of course; I think you have a certain eloquent concision.
          • Re: The cold spell - plenty of examples!

            Fri, February 1, 2008 - 11:02 AM
            I think you are confusing weather and climate again...
            The snow storms in China are related to La Nina..

            This is an interesting read on it..

            China's Snow Storms Not Climate Change - Scientists
            AUSTRALIA: February 1, 2008


            SYDNEY - Snow storms in China that have killed more than 60 people are not directly linked to climate change, say scientists, but simply an extreme event caused by very cold winter temperatures and a La Nina weather pattern.

            La Nina has brought moist air over southern China at a time of very cold winter temperatures, resulting in heavy snow falls, said Chinese weather experts.

            "This is mainly related to abnormal atmospheric circulation and the La Nina event," Dong Wenjie of the National Climate Centre told the official People's Daily.

            "The National Climate Centre predicts that this La Nina event will continue at least up to summer 2008 at a medium to strong level," Dong said. "With climate warming, extreme weather events are clearly increasing in frequency and intensity."

            The worst snows in 50 years in southern China have hit as tens of millions of people attempt to return home to celebrate the Lunar New Year with families.

            Australian climate scientist Penny Whetton, one of the authors of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fourth assessment report, said the Chinese explanation for the storms was valid, adding the bad weather was not linked to climate change.

            "Those conditions are things that occur naturally and so every few years, few decades, everything just comes together right to produce an extreme event," said Whetton, who wrote the IPCC chapter "Regional Climate Projections". The panel's four reports were released last year in phases.

            "My guess is this is a natural event without any particular reason to link it to climate change. The climate change models are not predicting increases in snow events like this," Whetton told Reuters on Thursday.

            She said China could expect a less stable climate because of global warming, with various regions experiencing drier, wetter, hotter conditions, as well as more intense tropical storms.

            "Cold extremes are generally not predicted to become more intense and frequent because we have a warming climate," she said.


            WORLD'S CLIMATE UNBALANCED

            But as China warms, its cold northern regions might experience more intense snow storms as moisture levels in the atmosphere rise, creating similar conditions to those that have caused the snow storms now in southern China.

            "Snow will hang around for less but you will probably get more heavy snow events in winter," said David Jones, head of climate analysis at Australia's National Climate Centre.

            "We are seeing that in places like northern Canada, where there's been almost a doubling of rain and snow in the last few decades, and that's exactly what you expect cold polar desert regions to become, a lot wetter in a warmer world."

            Jones also said China's snow storms could not be directly linked to climate change, unlike floods, heat waves and fires that are a result of rising world temperatures and rainfall.

            "Winter is a time of year in the northern hemisphere where you often get these extreme events. We have always had them and we will always have them," he said.

            One of the world's largest scientific bodies, the American Geophysical Union, says the world's climate is now out of balance and the rate of climate change is no longer natural.

            In its first revised climate change report since 2003, the union said last week that the world's climate system was "now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural".

            The AGU has a membership of 50,000 researchers, teachers and students in 137 countries.

            "Not only are we moving into a hotter world but a different world," said Jones.

            "You get more and more surprises as the world changes, because you are moving into a world where the atmosphere and climate just doesn't behave like it used to." (Additional reporting by Chris Buckley in Beijing; Editing by David Fogarty)
            • Re: The cold spell - plenty of examples!

              Fri, February 1, 2008 - 12:55 PM
              The usual disinformation. The tropospheric temperatures are falling - scientific fact.
              To suggest that 'global warming' alsoi means colder temerpatures is the usual gobbledegook from the political elite agenda.
              It's just like Gore being totally unethical using 10 times more energy than most other people and not walking his talk at all - designed to confuse and all for political gain.
              And then the siting of weather stations in inner cities on tarmac where temperatures are consistently higher that average and suggesting that the gathered data reflects the true mean temperature levels.
              And on and on and on with cherry-picking and ignoring the facts - clear evidence of greater cycles, falling and record cold temperatures, colder temperatures in the south and warmer in the north, millions of undersea volcanoes known to be warming the oceans (conveniently ignored for years), and now NASA showing that ENSO (El Nino) is driven by the Sun!
              What is the point of arguing with blinkered people who will use whatever happens as 'proof' that there is 'global warming'.
              "simply an extreme event caused by very cold winter temperatures" When it gets even colder they will still be saying "look proof of global warming - it's colder!" D'uh!

              The shift of ages means great changes for everyone, in weather and all levels of being as has been prophecied repeatedly.
              What is more important is that Gaia IS a living being and is directing what is happening on her own body with help from the Sun and Cosmic energies. To suggest that humans can direct the Earth and its changes is more human arrogance, just like the false suggestions that humans own the Earth and can control its destiny.
              None of the human caused 'global warming' is anything to do with understanding and relating to Gaia as a living conscious and evolving being.
              • Re: The cold spells don't proof a thing

                Fri, February 1, 2008 - 1:16 PM
                Sure and the American Geophysical Union is a political organisation..ofcourse..:*)


                "One of the world's largest scientific bodies, the American Geophysical Union, says the world's climate is now out of balance and the rate of climate change is no longer natural.

                In its first revised climate change report since 2003, the union said last week that the world's climate system was "now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural".

                The AGU has a membership of 50,000 researchers, teachers and students in 137 countries. "

                www.agu.org/about.shtml
                • Re: The cold 'spells'? Coldest for many decades!

                  Sun, February 10, 2008 - 6:42 AM
                  China Battles "Coldest Winter In 100 Years"
                  By Reuters
                  Feb 4, 2008 - 1:14:48 PM

                  CHENZHOU, China - Millions remained stranded in China on Monday ahead of the biggest holiday of the year as parts of the country suffered their coldest winter in a century.

                  Freezing weather has killed scores of people and left travelers stranded before the Lunar New Year, or Spring Festival -- the only opportunity many people have for a holiday all year.

                  It has also brought China unwanted negative publicity six months before the Summer Olympics in Beijing.

                  President Hu Jintao chaired an emergency Politburo meeting on Sunday for the second time in a week to discuss rescue efforts.

                  "We have to be clear-minded that the inclement weather and severe disaster will continue to plague certain regions in the south," said a statement issued after Sunday's meeting. "Relief work will continue to face challenges, posing a tough task."

                  The China Meteorological Administration said the weather was the coldest in 100 years in central Hubei and Hunan provinces, going by the total number of consecutive days of average temperature less than 1 degree Celsius (33.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

                  But it expected brighter weather ahead, though fog could become a problem and temperatures at night would likely still be below freezing, slowing the thaw.

                  "It is still necessary to remain alert for possible low temperatures, frozen rain, snow, freezing and heavy fog," said administration head Zheng Guoguang.

                  He added the cold snap had caught the country off guard, in an area unprepared for such heavy snow. But climate change could see more extremes in weather in China, Zheng warned.

                  Four people died after a snow-laden roof collapsed at a fuel station in the eastern city of Nanjing on Sunday, Xinhua news agency said. One person was killed in a stampede at Guangzhou railway station in the south as people rushed to board trains.

                  Roads and railways, some of which have been blocked for days, have started to move again, and fewer flights were being cancelled, state media said, offering a glimmer of hope.

                  The United States and Singapore pledged emergency aid of $150,000 and $500,000 respectively, Xinhua said, as several other countries sent condolence messages.

                  CAJOLED TO SKIP HOLIDAY

                  Authorities in the southern city of Guangzhou said their priority was to clear the backlog of travelers, having cajoled millions of migrant workers to stay put and skip the holiday.

                  Elsewhere, efforts turned to restoring power and water, which some cities, such as Chenzhou in the south, have been without for more than a week, causing some to question China's ability to handle emergencies months before Beijing holds the Olympics.

                  "Without power the only information we have been getting is by SMS from the government," said Chenzhou resident Zheng Ninghong, tending a fruit stall amid the slush.

                  "There was one, I think, that said it would get warmer, but what we need is electricity."

                  China has largely avoided unrest throughout the crisis, in part due to the 519,000 soldiers and more than 1.6 million paramilitary police that have been deployed throughout the country to help with disaster relief and crowd control.

                  The government continued to lionize those working to restore normalcy, giving three policemen who died during the storms the title of "hero and model of all Chinese policemen."

                  Pictures from Wuhan, capital of the central province of Hubei and lying at the middle reaches of the Yangtze and Han rivers, showed cars blanketed not by snow, but by ice. Riverside barriers and trees were draped in huge icicles.

                  The China Daily quoted an economic planning official as saying power plants in Beijing and Shanghai had only enough coal for less than seven days.
                  "But top economic planners said the country had reversed a sharp decline in coal reserves. There was enough coal on Saturday to generate electricity for the entire country for the next eight days," the newspaper added.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    The cold 'spells' still don't proof a thing..

                    Sun, February 10, 2008 - 8:57 AM
                    Good replies on Yahoo..Saves me a lot of work


                    Why would the cold China winter disprove anthropogenic global warming?

                    It seems like the only logical argument is that if China is having its coldest winter in 100 years, that means the planet can't be warming.

                    But that doesn't make sense, because we know the planet is warming:
                    data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/...2.lrg.gif
                    continued here..
                    au.answers.yahoo.com/answers...question

                    Also check out this..

                    How many uninformed "It's cold in China" questions today?

                    Anyone with a little knowledge and honesty agrees that global warming is neither proved or disproved by any short-term regional (that includes entire countries) HOT or COLD spells. Yet the uninformed continue to clutter the yahoo board with the same stuff over and over again.

                    So among the regulars, how many posts do you think we'll see today by asserting that somehow the cold in China proves global warming isn't occurring?
                    ....................
                    continued..
                    answers.yahoo.com/question/...6IX;_ylv=3
                    • Re: The cold 'spells' still don't proof a thing..

                      Mon, February 11, 2008 - 4:12 PM
                      Record cold temperatures around the world in the last few months prove that the cooling is happening.
                      The steady fall in the tropospheric temperatures prove that the cooling is happening.
                      The fact that the northern hemisphere is getting slightly warmer (but nowhere as warm as it was in the Middle Ages) while the southern hemisphere is getting colder and experiencing record cold temperatures, proves that the warming and changes that are happening are NOT 'global'!!
                      But the biggest fact of all is the one about 90% of greenhouse gases being water vapour and only 10% or less being CO2. Which means that humans are mostly not responsible for the climate changes because most CO2 is created by natural forces.

                      So the arguments for AGW are lies created for economic and political reasons, with the full might of the Illuminati forces, their media, educations systems, politicians and many more brainwashing the human populations with guilt shame and fear at saturation levels. And all the while bringing in new taxation, new nuclear power programmes, new laws and greater centralisation.

                      But the nutty eco-zealots are claiming that when it gets dramatically colder and there are record cold temperatures happening that it's proof of 'global warming'.
                      Yes of course!. When it's colder that means it's actually warmer!
                      And anyway all those cold temperatures and records being set are just part of a plot by the oil companies. They're setting up giant freezers and running them with the doors open to make it appear that there are record cold temperatures (rather like Bush's plan to have giant air-conditioners for the USA). Yes, that's it!
                      Oh and all those volcanoes around the world and the millions of active undersea volcanoes warming the oceans, they're having no effect at all (except that big one heating the sea by the Antarctic ice shelf)!
                      D'uh!
                      • Unsu...
                         

                        Re: The cold 'spells' still don't proof a thing..

                        Mon, February 11, 2008 - 4:32 PM
                        I feel like it has been said about 23423 times on this tribe... that we aren't talking about 'Global Warming' we are talking about 'Climate Change'.

                        This means extremes of all sorts, including more hurricaines, volcanic eruptions, tornados, melting, freezing... and more.
                        • Climate Change

                          Mon, February 11, 2008 - 11:07 PM
                          {{{{"I feel like it has been said about 23423 times on this tribe... that we aren't talking about 'Global Warming' we are talking about 'Climate Change'."}}}}

                          Your on the mark Kaiya! True wisdom spoken here. *~*

                          {{{{"This means extremes of all sorts, including more hurricaines, volcanic eruptions, tornados, melting, freezing... and more."}}}}
  • Unsu...
     

    hmmm....

    Fri, January 25, 2008 - 2:50 PM
    What about weather manipulation? I wonder how this plays into the big picture?

    It is intresting that the US Government's Project 2025 site pointing to an ongoing project about the US Government and military manipulating the weather, was taken down just before Hurricane Katrina arrived. In 1957, the president’s advisory committee on weather control explicitly recognized the military potential of weather modification, warning in their report that it could become a more important weapon than the atom bomb.

    "In the broadest sense, weather-modification can be divided into two major categories: suppression and intensification of weather patterns. In extreme cases, it might involve the creation of completely new weather patterns, attenuation or control of severe storms, or even alteration of global climate on a far-reaching and/or long-lasting scale." - Project 2025, Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, US Air Force, 1996, pg 5-6


    What I know now thru my experience, without scientific data, is that currently this Earth is warming up. You can see the signs in the lakes, rivers and ice fields. I do not deny that there will be an ice age at some point. I agree that both extremes are happening and will happen. I think what we have to look at on a deeper level is "WHY THE CHANGE" in our weather pattern?

    The sun DOES effect all the planets in it's solar system. That is plain to see. How can it not? Everything is inter-connected. The Sun is very active right now, and will contiue to be that way until it's solar MAX. The galaxy is shifting it's trajectory. After that I sense that things will cool down abit for sure.

    What changes are causing the abnormal weather patterns all across the globe out into our solar system? There are so many variables to consider. What, if any, is the consequence of trying to control our weather? Why not let nature runs it's course? Denying the fact that pollution adds to abnormalities in the weather is like denying the fact that junk food is bad for your body. As if we can keep on polluting our environment without any consequence. And as if we can also deny that we are undergoing a major shift electro-magnetically in the physics of our solar system. It is all relative.

    Many things are happening here on Earth all at the same time: electro-magnetic shifting is speading up (magnetic north is no longer in Canada), the sun is heading into another solar MAX (which is predicted to be fairly strong this time around), we are polluting this planet beyond means and some beings are actively busy experimenting with weather modification programs.

    What is the point of arguing over whether our planet is warming or cooling when we should ALL be actively doing our part to help harmonically balance our lives in order to create a better, more sustainable world to live in? In the NOW.

    The Hopis said that one of the signs of our shifting paradigm into the Fifth World would be weather changes. They said that in places where it was cold would be hot, and places that were hot, it would be cold. The Sun will rise in the West instead of the East. This could very well be a reality if the there was a dramatic shift on a solar level - especially if Einsteind and Hapgood are correct in their calculations. They said that a crustal displacement would happen in a blink of an eye, and that this has happened many times before. Who is to say we are not heading this way now?




    • Re: hmmm....

      Sat, January 26, 2008 - 11:23 AM
      AHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: hmmm....

        Sat, January 26, 2008 - 2:53 PM
        If you are referring to me Harmen, you are the one that has been talking everybody else down. You should not be quite the bombastic towards others.
        If you don't like another Strong entity speaking, you can always have me removed from this tribe....it doesn't really matter to me, there are many other tribes.
        Your Way of thinking is too rigid to the point of everybody else being wrong....only you being right!
        That is not the way do do things!
        Yours Sincerely, bard
        • Re: hmmm....

          Sun, January 27, 2008 - 12:40 AM
          "If you are referring to me Harmen, you are the one that has been talking everybody else down. "

          I have no idea what you are talking about but you do not have the authority to talk for everybody else..
          It is certainly not my objective to talk anybody down..

          "Your Way of thinking is too rigid to the point of everybody else being wrong....only you being right! "

          Not true.
          I am not interested in being right, i want to learn and educate..

          I am still learning on the topic every day
          But i do know the basics
          I have involved with this problem since the early 90ies and i want share the info..
          That is my right..

          For example..
          I just read this interesting article about to anthropocene..
          A new term for me..
          I wanted to share it with you..

          The Anthropocene
          What is It?

          New geological ages are characterized by changes in global environmental conditions and large scale shifts in types of species. Recently Earth has entered into a new geological age: The Anthropocene, from anthropo = man and cene = new [geological age]. Humans are now changing the world on a global scale and ushering in the new era in geologic time.
          oceanworld.tamu.edu/resource...ocene.htm

          "You should not be quite the bombastic towards others.
          If you don't like another Strong entity speaking, you can always have me removed from this tribe.."

          I am not going to ask for anybody being removed.
          I like strong personalities but personal attacks are useless..
          I hope you try to convince me that i am wrong on this topic and avoid attacks on my character.

          In other words
          Lets discuss the topic not the person..
          • Re: hmmm....

            Sun, January 27, 2008 - 2:45 PM
            this is in no way a personal attack.

            if people are having interpersonal issues i would kindly ask that they use the private messages feature of tribe rather than have a flame war in front of the group.

            thank you from your humble moderator.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: hmmm....

        Sat, January 26, 2008 - 5:47 PM
        I do hope your ok Family Fairy.... there really is nothing to fear. Knowledge is good.

        If you have something wise to say, I would really love to hear your heart. :-)


        Peace*
        xo
        Lana
        • Re: hmmm....

          Mon, January 28, 2008 - 12:19 PM
          hi lana,
          please check out the images of real weather on my blog,
          that i am really experiencing.
          did storm always used to be so perfectly formed like that,
          as if with a canoe paddle?

          what are they tryin to do now,
          take down the california levy system too?

          yes, everyone!!
          we know what to do. breathe, love, be kind, try to help,
          do the right (left) thing.

Recent topics in "GAIA - the earth is alive"