* Warming, Yeah Right!!!*

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Found a site that claims its bogus.
2. Seems the sun affects our weather more than anything else, just like I been saying for ever, gets hot in the summer folks, some summers are hotter than others..
3. Here's the link:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0


"The real deal?
Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.


Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.


Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.



View Larger Image
ice
AFP Getty

Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font: ****Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.




The series

Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X


Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."




Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Labrocca]

Nice read. As a skeptic of global warming being caused by humans with our doom inevitable I thought the story was very interesting. Rarely is there such a long well thought out paper about global warming in relation to the greenhouse effect.

[Mayberry]

I still find it extremely arrogant of people to think that our meager existence and activities really could cause so much mayhem. There is a system at work here that I believe is WAY beyond all of our understanding. Just a slight tilt of the Earth's axis can bring on an ice age, and solar flares can alter our weather. For Pete's sake, they can't even get TOMORROW's weather right. And there was this summer's hurricane predictions (what hurricanes?) How do they expect me to buy their predictions for 50 years from now? 30 years ago the sky was falling due to "global cooling". All these so-called "educated" people are just parrots jumping on the trendy train. Meanwhile, with all this "global warming", South Texas is having the coldest winter we've had in 10 years (damn it!). I live 2 blocks from the water, and the tides are no higher now than they were 20 years ago. I chalk it all up to the media having to have some sort of impending doom to keep themselves busy, and their ratings up. If they can keep the dull masses in a state of alarm, they've got you hook, line, and sinker. Gimme a break.

[sbannon]

And see, I find it extremely convenient for people to be willing to accept and believe the opinions of a few, such as an Astrophysicist like Shariv in this piece, rather than the researched, peer reviewed and corroborated findings of over 600 scientists from 40 countries who work on climatology every day--which is what the latest IPCC report published on Friday provides.

Then again, I guess that shouldn't surprise me as we are a nation of convenience after all.

[Labrocca]

And see, I find it extremely convenient for people to be willing to accept and believe the opinions of a few, such as an Astrophysicist like Shariv in this piece, rather than the researched, peer reviewed and corroborated findings of over 600 scientists from 40 countries who work on climatology every day--which is what the latest IPCC report published on Friday provides.

Then again, I guess that shouldn't surprise me as we are a nation of convenience after all.


Those reports are generally full of maybe and if's. Also 600 scientists getting paid to find out that the weather is warm is ludicrous. Ok so for the past 20-50 years it's been getting warmer on the billions of years old earth...by what? 2 degrees? 5 degrees? Give me a break!

And yea...this winter has been rather cold.

[Oedipus Rex]

Let me post this link again...

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/

October 15, 2004
Global Warming Bombshell

A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

By Richard Muller

________________________________________________

This is a good piece to read.

[Labrocca]

WOW...great link Rex! I haven't read that before.

[Oedipus Rex]

WOW...great link Rex! I haven't read that before.


Glad you enjoyed the read.:)

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But here is the link, both pages, in its entirety that Oedipus Rex posted.

October 15, 2004
"
Global Warming Bombshell
A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

By Richard Muller

PrintÂ*Â* E-mailÂ*Â* Bookmark »Â*Â*Digg thisÂ*Â*Add to del.icio.usÂ*Â*Add to RedditÂ*Â*Add to NewsvineÂ*Â*Add to ConnoteaÂ*Â*Add to CiteUlikeÂ*Â*Add to FurlÂ*Â*Googlize thisÂ*Â*Add to RojoÂ*Â*Add to MyWebÂ*Â*
Â*Â*Â*Â*




Other readers liked:
•Â*Â*Medieval Global Warming
12/17/2003
•Â*Â*Environmental Heresies
5/1/2005
•Â*Â*The Gulf Coast: A Victim of Global Warming?
9/24/2005
•Â*Â*Storing Carbon Dioxide under the Ocean
8/8/2006
•Â*Â*The Messenger
7/17/2006

Progress in science is sometimes made by great discoveries. But science also advances when we learn that something we believed to be true isnt. When solving a jigsaw puzzle, the solution can sometimes be stymied by the fact that a wrong piece has been wedged in a key place.

In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest wrong piece may be the hockey stick, the famous plot (shown below), published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and colleagues. This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago--just at the time that the burning of coal and oil led to an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

I talked about this at length in my December 2003 column. Unfortunately, discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. My earlier column was largely a plea to let science proceed unmolested. Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science difficult to pursue.



But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress into a short technical discussion of how this incredible error took place.

In PCA and similar techniques, each of the (in this case, typically 70) different data sets have their averages subtracted (so they have a mean of zero), and then are multiplied by a number to make their average variation around that mean to be equal to one; in technical jargon, we say that each data set is normalized to zero mean and unit variance. In standard PCA, each data set is normalized over its complete data period; for key climate data sets that Mann used to create his hockey stick graph, this was the interval 1400-1980. But the computer program Mann used did not do that. Instead, it forced each data set to have zero mean for the time period 1902-1980, and to match the historical records for this interval. This is the time when the historical temperature is well known, so this procedure does guarantee the most accurate temperature scale. But it completely screws up PCA. PCA is mostly concerned with the data sets that have high variance, and the Mann normalization procedure tends to give very high variance to any data set with a hockey stick shape. (Such data sets have zero mean only over the 1902-1980 period, not over the longer 1400-1980 period.)

The net result: the principal component will have a hockey stick shape even if most of the data do not.
October 15, 2004

Global Warming Bombshell
Continued from page 1

By Richard Muller

PrintÂ*Â* E-mailÂ*Â* Bookmark »Â*Â*Digg thisÂ*Â*Add to del.icio.usÂ*Â*Add to RedditÂ*Â*Add to NewsvineÂ*Â*Add to ConnoteaÂ*Â*Add to CiteUlikeÂ*Â*Add to FurlÂ*Â*Googlize thisÂ*Â*Add to RojoÂ*Â*Add to MyWebÂ*Â*
Â*Â*Â*Â*



McIntyre and McKitrick sent their detailed analysis to Nature magazine for publication, and it was extensively refereed. But their paper was finally rejected. In frustration, McIntyre and McKitrick put the entire record of their submission and the referee reports on a Web page for all to see. If you look, youll see that McIntyre and McKitrick have found numerous other problems with the Mann analysis. I emphasize the bug in their PCA program simply because it is so blatant and so easy to understand. Apparently, Mann and his colleagues never tested their program with the standard Monte Carlo approach, or they would have discovered the error themselves. Other and different criticisms of the hockey stick are emerging (see, for example, the paper by Hans von Storch and colleagues in the September 30 issue of Science).

Some people may complain that McIntyre and McKitrick did not publish their results in a refereed journal. That is true--but not for lack of trying. Moreover, the paper was refereed--and even better, the referee reports are there for us to read. McIntyre and McKitricks only failure was in not convincing Nature that the paper was important enough to publish.

How does this bombshell affect what we think about global warming?

It certainly does not negate the threat of a long-term global temperature increase. In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick are careful to point out that it is hard to draw conclusions from these data, even with their corrections. Did medieval global warming take place? Last month the consensus was that it did not; now the correct answer is that nobody really knows. Uncovering errors in the Mann analysis doesnt settle the debate; it just reopens it. We now know less about the history of climate, and its natural fluctuations over century-scale time frames, than we thought we knew.

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously--that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small--then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.

A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one--if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution. "

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[sbannon]

And again, Muller is not a climate specialist, he's a physicist who published an online op-ed almost 3 years ago that even he admits isn't actually supported upon research and review. He says that the measurements he hoped would bolster his case for periodic swings through a patch of cosmic dust as the culprit so far failed to turn up (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1208/p01s03-usgn.html).

The entire "Hockey Stick" theory, which wasn't even originally his, he just parrots it, has been fully discredited upon peer-review. source (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11) (see #4)

Labrocca, you mentioned above about 600 scientists getting paid... as if earning a living for your life's work is a bad thing? The only way this matters is in

A) what they're being paid for (real science or favorable to one side opinions), and

B) who's paying them. If it's an oil company or other special interest group, that's a red flag. If it's the scientist's national government seeking out the truth to base good future policy on, not so much.

Sorry, I know it's easier to accept the opinions of the few who say there's room for debate on man's impact because that means we can sit back and do nothing, but it's pure laziness.

None...nada...not-a-single-one of the so called skeptics and debunkers of man's impact on global warming has been able to pass any kind of peer-review with their opinions or theories. In over ten years of this issue being politicized, not a single one.

The research behind the latest report from the IPCC has been peer-reviewed, and corroborated. I'll take that over unsupported op-eds any day.

[Stoner]

Awesome link OR. Thanks.

[Mayberry]

Sorry, I know it's easier to accept the opinions of the few who say there's room for debate on man's impact because that means we can sit back and do nothing, but it's pure laziness.
Well the doomsday bunch says it's already too late anyway. Guess we'd better build some levies and such, the rising sea level is lapping at my door! Did all the scientists pass a peer review 30 years ago with the consensus predicting global cooling? Blah blah blah. We know so little about how things tick here. All these self appointed "experts" know next to nothing, it's all guess work. I would like just one of these guys to look me square in the eye and tell me without a doubt that global warming is caused exclusively by man and in 50 years my home will be under water. Hell, it'll be good for me, I'll have waterfront property and it'll triple in value! We could be hit by a meteor tomorrow, knocking the earth 1/2 degree off angle and Texas will be covered by glaciers. We are but a mere speck in the grand scheme of things. Let Chicken Little keep crying the sky is falling. Intelligent people know that there really is no way of knowing.

[BoogyMan]

WOW...great link Rex! I haven't read that before.


Glad you enjoyed the read.:)


I had read that somewhere before Rex, thanks for bringing it back to mind!

[piratemonkey]

None...nada...not-a-single-one of the so called skeptics and debunkers of man's impact on global warming has been able to pass any kind of peer-review with their opinions or theories. In over ten years of this issue being politicized, not a single one.

The research behind the latest report from the IPCC has been peer-reviewed, and corroborated. I'll take that over unsupported op-eds any day.


Key, key points.

And points apparently lost by the cheerleading squad, here.

"Hey, I found botanist Uruguay who says Global Warming isn't real!"
:D

[Mayberry]

And points apparently lost by the cheerleading squad, here.
Well then if you're so freakin concerned by it, unplug your house, get rid of the car, grow a garden, and give it a rest. That's the biggest problem with all you chicken littles is that you whine incessantly about this stuff, but you do nothing about it. Do you bicycle to work? Got solar panels on your house? A windmill? What are you doing about it personally? I see all these tree hugging Hollywood types crying a river of tears about this, then hopping into their limos, SUVs, and private jets and going home to 15,000 square foot mansions that consume tens of thousands of kilowatts every month. I'm not saying you're one of those, but I bet you like your car and air conditioning. Things aren't going to change over night. There's a massive infrastructure change that needs to occur. And most of the new technologies just aren't viable alternatives to what we have. So until we perfect cold fusion, we're stuck with what we've got. You can't retrofit solar panels onto every building. Electric and hybrid cars are too expensive, and they suck. You treehuggers won't allow nuclear power, or clean coal technologies. And you're not going to get everyone to huddle up in cities and ride a stinking bus or train. So like I said, we have what we've got, so deal with it. And maybe see your doctor about your rectal-cranial inversion that doesn't allow you to think beyond what you see on TV or read in the liberal rags. Until any of this is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'm not buying it, plain and simple, and as far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1, But this is more of the, *Republicans Ruining The World*, crazy man talk.
2. Seeing its the Liberals going on and on about this, be assured everything's fine.
3. *Consider the Source*, its been said.
4. If you really believe that Al Gore created the Internet, then maybe believe this too.
5. Maybe you can then move to the moon.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[piratemonkey]

WOW...great link Rex!Â*Â*I haven't read that before.


Just for the record, since y'all think this editorial is fact:

Op-ed piece in tech magazine/=peer reviewed research of 2500 scientists.

And, your op-ed piece is wrong:
Mann (supported by Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa and Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit) has disputed the claims made by McIntyre and McKitrick [14] [15], saying "...MM have made critical errors in their analysis that have the effect of grossly distorting the reconstruction of MBH98...".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

[AlonzoMourning23]

And points apparently lost by the cheerleading squad, here.
Well then if you're so freakin concerned by it, unplug your house, get rid of the car, grow a garden, and give it a rest. That's the biggest problem with all you chicken littles is that you whine incessantly about this stuff, but you do nothing about it. Do you bicycle to work? Got solar panels on your house? A windmill? What are you doing about it personally? I see all these tree hugging Hollywood types crying a river of tears about this, then hopping into their limos, SUVs, and private jets and going home to 15,000 square foot mansions that consume tens of thousands of kilowatts every month. I'm not saying you're one of those, but I bet you like your car and air conditioning. Things aren't going to change over night. There's a massive infrastructure change that needs to occur. And most of the new technologies just aren't viable alternatives to what we have. So until we perfect cold fusion, we're stuck with what we've got. You can't retrofit solar panels onto every building. Electric and hybrid cars are too expensive, and they suck. You treehuggers won't allow nuclear power, or clean coal technologies. And you're not going to get everyone to huddle up in cities and ride a stinking bus or train. So like I said, we have what we've got, so deal with it. And maybe see your doctor about your rectal-cranial inversion that doesn't allow you to think beyond what you see on TV or read in the liberal rags. Until any of this is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'm not buying it, plain and simple, and as far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out.


You guys seem to spout ridiculous solutions. If we did what you guys wanted we'd be sitting in a dark cabin in the woods, cut off from everything and in a place where we can't possibly change anything.

[piratemonkey]

You guys seem to spout ridiculous solutions. If we did what you guys wanted we'd be sitting in a dark cabin in the woods, cut off from everything and in a place where we can't possibly change anything.


This argument is the equivalent to demanding that ALL war supporters enlist immediately.

Absurd.

[lily]

Sorry bout that,

1, But this is more of the, *Republicans Ruining The World*, crazy man talk.
2. Seeing its the Liberals going on and on about this, be assured everything's fine.
3. *Consider the Source*, its been said.
4. If you really believe that Al Gore created the Internet, then maybe believe this too.
5. Maybe you can then move to the moon.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Bush, state of the union speech 2007. It isn't much, Chess but even Bush admits there is a problem with global warming. That is now the signal that the Repuplicans can now also admit it, if you want to be a "Good American".

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment – and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

[Elrathin]

4. If you really believe that Al Gore created the Internet, then maybe believe this too.


The only ones that believe Al Gore created the Internet are the retarded Conservatives that keep repeating this statement.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But hey, all I'm saying is if you believe that Al Gore invented the Internet, then okay you can also believe in Al Gore was first to recognize *Global Warming* as real.
2. Just putting things into prospective for you.
3. And those who read this.
4. Don't get your panties in a bunch Elrathin!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Red Dragon]

The way I see it we are affecting our planet in some way. Though the whole earth warming thing I don't but that too much, I say this because we know pretty much nothing about what affects the weather. But we are changing our little planet; I mean all that smog doesn't just float out into space. Personally I think it won't be a warming. The poles are melting at a significant rate and there's a lot of water there. But we're also melting the icebergs, which are melting at a much faster rate due to their size. 6% of the fresh water is in lakes, 1% is in rivers, and 2% is in groundwater. And then the 91% left is frozen in the Antarctic ice cap - 80%, the Greenland ice cap - 9%, and the Alpine glaciers - 2%. The first affects of global climate change are not going to be heat waves, but massive storms and floods.

My national plan would be to start using more nuclear power plants, there safe clean and efficient. And also most of the waste can be reused. And if that doesn't work out we can always live under water. Also I think that the whole global climate change will destroy our planet is a little pit overstated. It will just change the planet, not destroy it. The Earth will still be in its orbit and it will still rotate around the sun. So unless we detonate a nuclear warhead capable of breaking apart the earth into rocks the size of my fist our little planet will still live on. Though we may not be on it, while it spins through space.

[lily]

Well said, Red Dragon. I freely admit that I don't know if global warming is real or not...........but why not take precautions, just in case?

[Saigio]

Well said, Red Dragon. I freely admit that I don't know if global warming is real or not...........but why not take precautions, just in case?


Exactly. But nooo. We have to deny it is possible and keep pumping toxins and pollutants into the air.
Is it too much to ask for? Is that hard to do at least a little good? Why must we poison our home?

[Stoner]

I don't know if global warming is real or not...........but why not take precautions, just in case?


We don't know for a fact that there are little purple leprechauns who can turn invisible and sneak into your house and do evil, naughty things to you while you're sleeping exist but maybe we should take precautions for that too, huh?

And what about the unicorns? Shall we take precautions in case unicorns appear? What about Bigfoot?

[Elrathin]

We don't know for a fact that there are little purple leprechauns who can turn invisible and sneak into your house and do evil, naughty things to you while you're sleeping exist but maybe we should take precautions for that too, huh?


I think you have been smoking too much pot if you think that is a valid comparison to global Warming.

We see Global Climate change around us, this is FACT. I don't see evidence of purple leprechauns. Maybe you do after smoking pot.

[piratemonkey]

Â*Shall we take precautions in case unicorns appear?Â*Â*

Show me 2500 peer-reviewed scientific studies backing up the idea that unicorns are real and you'll make a believer out of me.

[lily]

We don't know for a fact that there are little purple leprechauns who can turn invisible and sneak into your house and do evil, naughty things to you while you're sleeping exist but maybe we should take precautions for that too, huh?

I lock my door.

And what about the unicorns? Shall we take precautions in case unicorns appear? Â*

Unicorns are extinct.........probably from global warming.

What about Bigfoot?

I don't live that far North.......now can we get real?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But it's so cold outside, up north.
2. They are getting hammered by snow and more snow.
3. Shouldn't some one remind *Mother Nature* that we are in *Global Warming*?
4. Eight feet of snow and more on the way.
5. Yup sounds like it's climate change time.
6. Hehehehehehehe,...........
7. Here's the link:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070210/D8N73TO00.html

"


N.Y. Weathers 100-Plus Inches of Snow


Email this Story

Feb 10, 4:52 PM (ET)

By JOHN KEKIS

(AP) Dave Chase, left, and Ken Capstraw clear snow from a roof in Parish, N.Y., Saturday, Feb. 10, 2007....
Full Image



Google sponsored links
Lake Oswego, OR Homes - Free, No Hassle MLS Search. View Pictures, Features & Virtual Tours.
RealEstate.com/Oregon/LakeOs

Flurry - Snow Machines - A Blizzard of Simulated Flakes + Most Popular + High-Output +
www.nightclubstore.com







PARISH, N.Y. (AP) - Sunshine provided a respite Saturday for residents of an area buried by more than 8 feet of snow, but the blue sky turned gray in the blink of an eye during the afternoon as another intense snow squall cut visibility almost to zero.

"This is bad," said 67-year-old Dave DeGrau, who has operated an auto repair shop on Main Street for 45 years. "We had a very easy winter until now. Last fall during hunting season it rained every time I went out. I kept saying 'I'm glad this isn't snow.' Now, it's snow."

Persistent bands of lake-effect snow squalls fed by moisture from Lake Ontario have been swinging up and down this part of central New York along the lake's eastern shore since last Sunday.

The National Weather Service said Parish - about 25 miles northeast of Syracuse - reached a milestone early Saturday with 100 inches of snow during the past seven days. Unofficial reports pegged totals at 123 inches in Orwell and 122 in Redfield, but those numbers include snow from another storm a couple of days before the current weather system. All three towns are in Oswego County.


(AP) Letter carrier Don Feltt makes his appointed rounds delivering the mail in Oswego, N.Y., Saturday,...
Full Image


A warning in effect until Monday morning said 2 to 4 more feet of snow was possible with wind gusting up to 24 mph.

"That's all we need," Mike Avery said as he took a brief break from loading dump trucks with snow to be hauled to a pile outside town. "It's getting monotonous."

The fluffy new snow was a magnet for snowmobilers, but stopping was out of the question.

"You can't stop or you're done," said Dan Hojnacki, 23, of Syracuse, after he ground to a halt in a field. "I never got stuck until today, and I've been snowmobiling for 10 years."

Residents of the nearby town of Mexico see 5- to 6-foot snowfalls every two or three years, but this time even hardened locals are amazed. The only sign of parked SUVs are their radio antennas or roof racks sticking up above the snow. Front doors are buried and footprints lead to second-story windows. Sidewalks that have been dug out look like miniature canyons.


(AP) Otto Shaw chops down some icicles on a home in Parish, N.Y., Saturday, Feb. 10, 2007. Sunshine...
Full Image


The state transportation department said 125 workers from elsewhere in the state had been sent in with snow equipment to help.

The region is located along the Tug Hill Plateau, the snowiest region this side of the Rocky Mountains. It's a 50-mile wedge of land that rises 2,100 feet from the eastern shore of Lake Ontario. It usually gets about 300 inches - roughly 25 feet - of snow a year.

The hamlet of Hooker, near the boundaries of Jefferson, Lewis, and Oswego counties, holds the state's one-year record with 466.9 inches, about 39 feet, in the winter of 1976-77.

Still, less than a month ago it seemed more like spring.

"Gosh, three weeks ago there was green on the ground. We got spoiled," Parish Mayor Leon Heagle said. "This just came fast. This is not normal. God, we can't catch a break. I feel like getting right in the car and driving south, but I'd probably get in trouble."

The intense blast of snow hasn't been blamed for any deaths in Oswego County. Elsewhere, however, more than a week of bitter cold and slippery roads have contributed to at least 20 deaths across the northeastern quarter of the nation - five in Ohio, four in Illinois, four in Indiana, two in Kentucky, two in Michigan, and one each in Wisconsin, and Maryland and elsewhere in New York, authorities said.
"

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[lily]

Persistent bands of lake-effect snow squalls fed by moisture from Lake Ontario have been swinging up and down this part of central New York along the lake's eastern shore since last Sunday.

Chess........do you know anything about lake effect snow? It happens because the water is warmer than the air. They also are getting the heavy wet snow, becuase the air is not cold enough to make the light fluffy stuff.

[Buck Laser]

Persistent bands of lake-effect snow squalls fed by moisture from Lake Ontario have been swinging up and down this part of central New York along the lake's eastern shore since last Sunday.

Chess........do you know anything about lake effect snow? It happens because the water is warmer than the air. They also are getting the heavy wet snow, becuase the air is not cold enough to make the light fluffy stuff.


This really sounds like a Flat Earth debate, y'know..."I can look at the horizon and I can see it's flat, so don't try to tell me it's round--and besides, Gawd said it's flat.":D

To argue from conditions observed--like the current nasty weather in the upper midwest and east--that global warming couldn't be happening sounds to me like something they do over at Free Republic. I like to visit FR occasionally to see if arch-conservatives are as far out on the fringes of reason as they seem to get here. So far, they're still a bit crazier over there.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But are we saying that *Global Warming*, isn't effecting the Winter?
2. It is only effecting the Summer months eh?
3. How convenient, seeing it is usually hot in the summer.
4. Hehehehehehehehe,.....
5. Now that's a cop out if you asked me!
6. Will next Summer be worse than the last one?
7. What about the boils brought on by the suns rays when the *Last Days* arrive?
8. Will that be blamed on *Global Warming*?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[lily]

Chess........I tried to explain it as simply as I could. Both the water and the air are warmer, that is why they are getting the snow that they are getting.

[Buck Laser]

Sorry bout that,

1. But are we saying that *Global Warming*, isn't effecting the Winter?
2. It is only effecting the Summer months eh?
3. How convenient, seeing it is usually hot in the summer.
4. Hehehehehehehehe,.....
5. Now that's a cop out if you asked me!
6. Will next Summer be worse than the last one?
7. What about the boils brought on by the suns rays when the *Last Days* arrive?
8. Will that be blamed on *Global Warming*?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

7. What about the boils brought on by the suns rays when the *Last Days* arrive? Cheese, you're taking allegories written in another time and place with far different circumstances and trying to make them fit you peculiar eschatology. I can't stoop you from believing, but I'm not bound in any way to respect it, nor would a single responsible governmental organization base policy on it. Can you get that through your head??

6. Will next Summer be worse than the last one?Whiz, it's gonna be warmer in some places and cooler in others...as it always is. But the trend is pretty unmistakeable, and I really don't know why you're so damned insistent on a dumb-ass flat earth view of weather.

Cheesy, you need to go back and read your bible--only this time, concentrate on the gospels. You might even rip Revelation out of your bible. All it will do is make you crazy.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I don't understand why you think I think the world is flat.
2. Its in the Bible that is round dude a rooney.
3. You seem to be getting a bit angry in your posts.
4. I don't do angry very well, is that a problem for you?
5. Anyway, *It Is Written* that there will be painful boils on the surface of some peoples skin, during the *Last Days*, those who have not found Jesus anyways.
6. Followers of Jesus shall be protected.
7. Your trying to say that part of the Bible is a lie, eh?
8. I don't think I will listen to that lie, dude a rooney, your totally off base there.
9. You have got a lot to learn dude a rooney.
10. I love using dude a rooney at times.
11. Hehehehehehehehehe,.......

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Buck Laser]

7. Your trying to say that part of the Bible is a lie, eh?
I s'pose you could think that. What I actually believe is that you don't have the foggiest idea of when or why or how the apocalyptic books of the bible were written, so your interpretation is just flat wrong Mr. Cheezy Whiz.

The Bible is a most difficult book to understand, and we learn new things from history and archeology every day that cast new light on the meaning and intent of the scriptures. There is a vast change even in the Hebrew scriptures from the cruel, hard codes of the desert to the glory days of the Jewish kingdom, and the scriptures reflect that.

You've made enemies for yourself because you spout off your cockamamie biblical interpretations based on your own conviction that you have a direct line to Dog. But it's all bullshit when you spout it, because it comes off as arrogance.

CWN, I spent two years in college Latin, one in classical Greek, three years in NT greek in seminary, and 2 and a half years in Hebrew in order to try to come to a better understanding of what the bible is about. And like most serious students, the older I get, the less I'm sure of. I'm sorry if I don't habve patience with your biblical scholarship, but I've heard that stuff so many years before and dismissed it, that I don't want to bother again.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But wait a second BuckWheat.
2. So you are saying that the Bible is full of lies?
3. And your also saying that you went to some Bible college to learn this?
4. Damn dude a rooney, you should ask for a refund!
5. So what interpretation is wrong?
6. Are you saying that every interpretation I have is wrong?
7. Damn your grumpy as hell today, dude a rooney! :)
8. If I have enemies they are Gawds enemies first.
9. Who are my enemies here?
10. Are you?
11. Your Dog reference is a sign of desperation, for an old fart, you sure seem immature.
12. If I were you I would tear up those diplomas you spent all that pointless time and finances on, you surely got the raw deal that time.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Buck Laser]

2. So you are saying that the Bible is full of lies?
Nope. You said that. I said, and can prove, that there are conflicting accounts of the same events in the Bible. The fact that accounts conflict don't keep them from being true.

3. And your also saying that you went to some Bible college to learn this?
I went to Southern Methodist University and earned a BA in philosophy and a Master's in Theology. Call it a "bible college" if it'll make you feel better.

7. Damn your grumpy as hell today, dude a rooney! :)
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Being in the presence of entropy always makes me grumpy, Cheese, and you seem to capture the very essence of entropy.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But where am I wrong dude a rooney?
2. You said I was wrong, explain it.
3. Open statements that claim I am this and or that, without some sort of detail is bogus dude a rooney.
4. Am I supposed to feel insulted here?
5. When you bring out those big words?
6. *Entropy*
7. ^ What the hell is it?
8. Is it a rash you got recently that's making you so grumpy?
9. Also I *The Great CWN* didn't say the Bible lied, you did, your getting more desperate dude a rooney, now you've lied twice.
10. Not that I'm keeping count and all, I am sure I missed some of your lies.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Buck Laser]

5. When you bring out those big words?
6. *Entropy*
7. ^ What the hell is it?
Maybe we could take up a collection to buy you a dictionary, Cheesy. Or if you'll send me your address, I'll send you one. We have several lying around the house.

8. Is it a rash you got recently that's making you so grumpy?
No, it was a heart attack.

9. Also I *The Great CWN* didn't say the Bible lied, you did, your getting more desperate dude a rooney, now you've lied twice.
10. Not that I'm keeping count and all, I am sure I missed some of your lies.
How about you show me where I said the Bible lied? I said there are contradictions within the Bible, and I stand by that. A contradiction is not a lie.

PS: To save you the trouble, entropy is the tendency for everything in the universe to run down. Living things grow old and die, elements decay into other elements, orbits decay over very long periods of time--all that is entropy. And I believe the main cause of entropy is stupidity.

[lily]

PS: To save you the trouble, entropy is the tendency for everything in the universe to run down.Â*Â*Living things grow old and die, elements decay into other elements, orbits decay over very long periods of time--all that is entropy.Â*Â*And I believe the main cause of entropy is stupidity.

I don't know......my physical therapist told me my muscle entropy was due to coddling my shoulder and not using it.............oh not using it.........never mind.;)

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

CWN Wrote: (7. What about the boils brought on by the suns rays when the *Last Days* arrive?) [/color]
Cheese, you're taking allegories written in another time and place with far different circumstances and trying to make them fit you peculiar eschatology.Â*Â*I can't stoop you from believing, but I'm not bound in any way to respect it, nor would a single responsible governmental organization base policy on it.Â*Â*Can you get that through your head??

1. ^ First lie in combo with this--->

6. Will next Summer be worse than the last one?Whiz, it's gonna be warmer in some places and cooler in others...as it always is.Â*Â*But the trend is pretty unmistakeable, and I really don't know why you're so damned insistent on a dumb-ass flat earth view of weather.

Cheesy, you need to go back and read your bible--only this time, concentrate on the gospels.Â*Â*You might even rip Revelation out of your bible.Â*Â*All it will do is make you crazy.
[/quote]

2. But who's counting man!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I found more fuel for my fire.
2. They tried to have a forum of the effects of humans on the weather and *Global Warming*..
3. Yup, it was canceled, to damn cold and freezing.
4. Hehehehehehehehe,.....
5. Here's the link:
http://drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

"
HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER SNOW/ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?�

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.

DC WEATHER REPORT:

Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning...then a chance of snow in the afternoon. Ice accumulation of less than one quarter of an inch. Highs in the mid 30s. Northwest winds around 20 mph. Chance of precipitation 80 percent.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.

"
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Red Dragon]

Chess one a global climate change won't just happen in one day, and besides a global climate change may not warm the entire planet just some areas. Okay so we keep polluting the air and it keeps getting hotter. But then once the ice has melted sea levels will rise and since it is now warmer more water will be evaporated. This will cause large storms over some areas. Now ask yourself will theses new changes cause more changes in our climate, the answer is yes. No combine this with all the unknown variables of the weather system, and we get some very strange and destructive weather.

See this is why I don't like the name global warming it implies that we know exactly how this climate change will affect us. But the fact is we do not know everything about the weather. We do know our climate is changing but we don't what it will change in to.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But maybe we will get a giant non-ending red spot hurricane like Jupiter?
2. Where it levels every square inch of the planet every 30 days.
3. As it roams every square inch of the Earths surface.
4. Will mankind make it back to the Sea fast enough to save themselves?
5. Can man dig tunnels fast enough to save enough mankind?
6. All this and a bag of chips right here on DF.
7. Hehehehehehehehe,...

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Red Dragon]

Not likely and if we do it won't be red, due to our atmosphere. But also chess, let me pose a question to you. If three feet of snow were to fall in your neighborhood during the time when winter turns into spring, would you think that spring is not going to come? No I'm guessing you would not, and Chess the Drudge report, seriously this is even beneath you.

You still don't listen. We provide you proof, saying that global climate change is happenening, and it's caused by us, yet you dismiss it as a myth.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Oh yeah right all the hurricanes of 2005 is why *Global Warming * is real.
2. I forgot about that.
3. Damn last year was kinda calm thou, seems we had a BIG *0*, hurricanes.
4. I am so worried that this year we will be the 06 backlash, seeing we didn't get any hurricanes, now we will get 50 this year in 07.
5. Al Gore has promised the WORLD that more hurricanes will hit USA, that evil Nation.
6. Heheheheheheheheheheheheh,.........
7. Here's a link:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/14/151325.shtml?s=al&promo_code=2DA2-1

"

Analysis: Al Gore Ducks Northeast Blizzard
Phil Brennan
Thursday, Feb. 15, 2007

Reprint Information
Analysis: Al Gore Ducks Blizzard

Guard Presence Drops Illegal Crossings 62 PercentÂ*Â*
Air Force Strips Sergeant for Playboy Pose
John Edwards to Congress: Cut Iraq War Funds
Hillary Clinton Warns Bush About Iran Action


As a blizzard of snow and ice pummels the Northeast after trouncing the Midwest, and waves of Arctic cold fronts drop much of America below sub freezing weather, the $64,000 question is, Where is Al Gore?

Gore claims that global warming is an immediate problem facing the United States and the world, and places like New York and Chicago could feel like Caribbean haunts.

If there is any doubt that God has a sense of humor, it has to be dispelled by a headline in Wednesday's Drudge Report: "House hearing on 'warming of the planet' canceled after ice storm."

He followed up with this: "Save it for a sunny day: Maryville Univ. in St. Louis area canceling screening of Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' because of a snowstorm."

What must have evoked the loudest laugh in heaven is the notion that if global warming is really occurring, puny mankind is going to overcome it by legislation and business regulation that would strangle the U.S. economy and be overseen by the super efficient United Nations. [Editor's Note: Read more about how Al Gore and his friends spin and fib about global warming -- Go Here Now.]



Story Continues Below

Â*Â*In a NewsMax.com column, I made a prediction that was greeted with scorn by the promoters of the global warming theory. One even called me "evil."

Here's what I wrote: "Within the next 24 months, some areas of the U.S. will have 20 feet of snow falling in just one storm." This was around the time parts of Japan got hit by a 13-foot snowfall.

Last month Colorado had about 20 feet of snow fall in little more than a week's time. Now areas of northern New York State are reeling under more than 12 feet of snow.

Picture a person 6 feet tall with 6 feet of snow above the top of his head, and you'll get an idea of what a dozen feet of snow amounts to.

My prediction was based on a very simple fact. Over the past two years, areas of the United States, including New England, had twice experienced rainfall of 20 inches in a single storm.

If 20 inches of precipitation fell as snow, it would total 20 feet.

And there are solid reasons why an area that got hit with 20 inches of rain in the summer and fall would be a prime candidate to experience 20 feet of snow in the winter, especially if levels of precipitation are rising.

And precipitation levels are rising — for a very good reason.

The world's oceans are being heated by underwater tectonic activity — underwater volcanic eruptions and blisteringly hot magma seeping up from cracks in the sea floor.

The heated ocean water creates high levels of CO2 that it sends aloft along with huge amounts of moisture. That moisture becomes precipitation — rain in the spring, summer, and fall, and snow in the winter. Increased amounts of moisture in the upper atmosphere equals increased amounts of precipitation.

The hotter the oceans, the more water vapor sent heavenward and the heavier the precipitation. This explains the large number of record-breaking rainfalls we've been seeing in the past couple of years — with as noted above, areas of the United States getting 20 inches of rain in a day or so.

As for that dreaded greenhouse gas, CO2, atmospheric levels of which now exceed 400 parts per million (ppm), it is important to note that paleological records show that every time CO2 levels have exceeded 300 ppm there has been an ice age. Every time — without exception.

The same records show that there have been a series of ice ages over the past 5 million years, naturally occurring every 100,000 years, with about 90,000 years of glaciation followed by about 12,000 years of interglacial climate.

The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago. Clearly we are in line for the next period of glaciation. But more about that later.

Suffice it to say that unless Al Gore has managed to repeal a demonstrated law of nature, the iceman cometh.

The befuddled Gore keeps blathering about how the oceans are being heated by global warming, instead of the warming being created by the oceans, as the facts clearly show.

On his Web site iceagenow.com, Robert W. Felix provides the following information about ocean warming as a result of hydrothermic activity under the seas.


"A new type of volcano may be heating up the floor of the western Pacific Ocean," says an article posted on National Geographic News and on Yahoo. "Scientists suspect the new volcanoes occur at cracks in tectonic plates caused by stress as the plates slide past each other. A group of small volcanoes called petit spot volcanoes has been discovered far from the tectonic-plate boundaries (like mid-oceanic ridges) that often spawn volcanoes, earthquakes, and other geologic activity.


"Geoscientist Naoto Hirano's team believes that the source of these volcanoes is melted rock from the upper mantle, which has been squeezed through cracks in the tectonic plate above. This type of [activity produces] tiny volcanoes, possibly now active, on the old, cold subducting Pacific plate,' said Hirano from his office at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. 'This petit spot volcano theory suggests that this type of eruption can occur wherever the oceanic plate is flexed. These small volcanoes may be widespread on ocean floors where the mantle just under the crust is squeezed out by tectonic forces when one plate moves under another, the researchers explained.


"'Dubbed "petit spots," these new types of volcanoes are difficult to spot using satellite technology. Specific geophysical and sampling expeditions would have to be carried out in order to locate them,' Hirano explained."



Scientists working in the southern Atlantic Ocean have found a 407 degree centigrade hydrothermal vent, the hottest yet known on an ocean floor. Expedition leader Andrea Koschinsky of International University in Bremen, Germany, and her team found the hydrothermal vent just south of the equator on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at a depth of 2,990 meters. The vent is located on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, where the African and South American continental plates are moving apart at the relatively sedate rate of 3.2 centimeter a year. In the Pacific, by comparison, the Pacific and Nazca plates are speeding apart at some 15 centimeter per year.


German-American researchers discovered more hydrothermal activity at the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean than anyone ever imagined. The Gakkel ridge is a gigantic volcanic mountain chain stretching beneath the Arctic Ocean. With its deep valleys 5,500 meters beneath the sea surface and its 5,000 meter- high summits, Gakkel ridge is far mightier than the Alps. Two research icebreakers, the USCGC Healy from the United States and the German PFS Polarstern, joined forces in the international expedition AMORE (Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge Expedition). In attendance were scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and other international institutions.

The scientists had expected that the Gakkel ridge would exhibit "anemic" magmatism. Instead, they found "surprisingly strong magmatic activity in the west and the east of the ridge and one of the strongest hydrothermal activities ever seen at mid-ocean ridges." The Gakkel ridge extends about 1,800 kilometers beneath the Arctic Ocean from north of Greenland to Siberia, and is the northernmost portion of the mid-ocean ridge system. To their surprise, the researchers found high levels of volcanic activity. Indeed, magmatism was "dramatically" higher than expected.



Hydrothermal hot springs on the seafloor were also far more abundant than predicted. "We expected this to be a hydrothermally dead ridge, and almost every time our water measurement instrument came up, they showed evidence of hydrothermal activity, and once we even 'saw' an active hot spring on the sea floor," said Dr. Jonathan Snow, the leader of the research group from the Max Planck Institute.


Remember, that "magmatism" is red hot magma seeping up from the ocean floor. It's like putting a burner under a pot of water.


In short, heated oceans are warming the globe and setting up a scenario that includes among its consequences more and increasingly violent hurricanes, tornadoes, and blizzards.


In 1979, Genevieve Woillard, a pollen specialist in France, concluded from detailed studies that the shift from a warm, interglacial climate to ice age conditions at the beginning of the last ice age, some 100,000 years ago, took "less than 20 years." Her observations of the decline of European forests led her to conclude we may be in a similar period of rapid climatic change.


Research has shown that this 20-year period is one in which Mother Nature wreaks havoc on humanity.



If the unchallenged results of the work of Woillard and others who studied past ice ages are any indication of the pace of glaciation, once it starts, the transition period is a mere 20 years or so. And we may be well into that 20-year period now. Woillard estimated that the period before that final 20 years — when the earth began gearing up for an end to the interglacial period — could be as long as 150 years and as short as 75 years."


According to Woillard's studies and those of other paleological climate researchers, the transition between interglacial and glacial periods is one of increasing violence — more volcanic eruptions, storms, earthquakes, and other natural disasters.


We are being bombarded with horror stories about how the arctic regions are warming and the polar bears are disappearing (actually their number numbers have increased by some 20,000) but we are not informed by Mr. Gore and his acolytes as to how a warming arctic region can continue to send more and more record breaking cold waves southward, creating the incredibly frigid weather much of the northern U.S. is shivering under.


If your refrigerator is running low on freon it will not keep its contents cold. If the arctic is our refrigerator, and the refrigerator is rapidly running out of coolant, how can it create colder and colder weather fronts?


The mechanics here are simple. The earth is getting warmer in some areas thanks to the heat being given off by the seas – picture standing next to a pot of boiling water – you'll feel the heat. Stand next to a heated ocean and you'll feel the warmth. That melting ice in part of the arctic regions is probably the result of hydrothermal activity in the Gakkel Ridge under the Arctic Ocean.


When that warm air coming north from the tropics meets the frigid air coming south from the pole, it creates violence. And the hotter the air from the south and the colder the air from the north, the more violent the collision will be. Tornadoes, violent storms, and blizzards are some of the results.


This process feeds on itself. As the amount of atmospheric moisture increases more precipitation is sent poleward, resulting in more snowfall to build heavier and heavier polar ice packs which fail to decrease in summertime because the cloud cover created by the moisture-laden air transported from the tropics prevents any thawing.


As the ice packs grow deeper and heavier, more magma is squeezed out and sent toward the equators, creating more volcanic activity, which spews more and more volcanic ash into the upper atmosphere, along with enormous quantities of greenhouse gasses. This results in greater and greater amounts of moisture-laden clouds being sent poleward. And so on.


As the glaciation process continues, winters will get longer and longer; that's colder air reaches farther and farther toward the equator. Summers will get shorter and shorter, and growing seasons will slowly vanish.


Areas previously blessed with temperate climates are transformed into subarctic regions, and the subtropics turn colder and colder.


And all this can happen in a matter of a very few years. So few, that the world may very well learn that the interglacial period has been replaced by the glaciation process before the end of the next decade — or even earlier.


On his Web site, Bob Felix cites facts ignored or lied about by the global warming alarmists. He shows that despite their claims that the worlds glaciers are melting, fully 75 percent are actually growing.


In response to claims that oceans levels are rising and threatening to drown New York City, he shows they are actually falling.
"


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[piratemonkey]

Articles like the one above only appeal to those ignorant of science.

Anyone who has any clue how science works understands the difference between anecdote and statistically significant data.

There are some nice random theories in that article. I wonder which ones can be supported by the data.

[Stoner]

Articles like the one above only appeal to those ignorant of science.



Ever notice how every time someone posts an article Monkey doesn't like he whines about it being biased? But yet he can never argue any of the points in it.

Just a casual observation.

[Elrathin]

Ever notice how every time someone posts an article Monkey doesn't like he whines about it being biased? But yet he can never argue any of the points in it.

Just a casual observation.


I haven't noticed it, however, I have noticed you dodging the articles that PM posts and don't argue the points within them. Just a casual observation.

[Stoner]

I haven't noticed it

http://my.opera.com/newlifenarrabri/homes/blog/1Ostrich%20head%20in%20sand.jpg

[Elrathin]

I haven't noticed it

http://my.opera.com/newlifenarrabri/homes/blog/1Ostrich%20head%20in%20sand.jpg


What a cute picture you posted of the "There is no Global Warming crowd".

Thanks Stoner, you aren't such a bad guy after all :D