|
|
mmmmbarium
tagged & banned
Joined: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 385
Location: Hell on Earth |
 Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:03 am
|
 |
|
quote:
Originally posted by PAK
No Way, You're dealing with Sorethroat the Cyborg on autopilot.
bwhaha...so true   |
| |
|
|
No Way Oligarchs
Joined: 05 Jun 2007
Posts: 305
Location: Entropia, South-west England |
|
Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:53 pm
|
|
|
I acknowledged that two posts ago, but it seemed like a good opportunity for innocent bystanders to get an opportunity to learn to recognize one of the tactics of the shills that frequent boards like this. The truth is being concealed folks. For the record, here it is:
Climate change is real, but man's contribution is miniscule.
Climate change is being used to justify a carbon tax.
The carbon tax and related costs will be used to bleed small businesses, drive people out of their homes and restrict freedom.
Climate modification is real and it is being carried out by semi-covert military operations.
Climate modification is damaging our health.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
_________________
Parsons used the lavatory, loudly and abundantly. It then turned out that the plug was defective and the cell stank abominably for hours afterwards. George Orwell. 1984. |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| Trolls
Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:20 pm
|
|
|
Respose to the trolls
Climate change is real, but man's contribution is miniscule.
What an utterly baseless assertion on your part, one which entirely disregards a tremendous amount of hard scientific data and the consensus of the vast majority of the world's scientists. A parallel was the supposed "controversy" regarding tobacco and cancer. We all have vivid memories of the executives of all the major tobacco companies testifying under oath before Congress that cigarettes did NOT cause cancer. What did they all have in common? ...a substantial financial interest in selling a product that kills people. Did they lack access to scientific data that provided the truth of the matter? ...not at all, it was simply locked up in their files. Today it is only those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo that promote a continued reliance on a fossil fuel (oil & coal) based energy technology. Just as in the case of tobacco, they will hire the best "scientists" that money can buy to create a "controversy" which will enable them to pursue their profits regardless of the ultimate consequences. Why they might even employ lackies to do their bidding by trolling on the Internet. In doing so, they ignore the deaths and financial hardships that are the consequences of accelerating climate change. You profess a concern for the people of the planet, yet you promote a perpetuation of a status quo which is not sustainable. What if you are wrong in your assumption that all but a "miniscule" portion of climate change is the result of purely "natural" causes? You are gambling with the fate of the planet. What if there is a false alarm about the ultimate consequences of CO2 buildup in the atmosphere? What damage is there to be moving rapidly to renewable, green energy technologies? Damage that is, other than to the oil and coal companies profits...which you seem determine to protect above all else...and certainly above the health and well being of the majority of the inhabitants of this planet.
Climate change is being used to justify a carbon tax.
Rapid changes in technologies and lifestyles are essential to combatting the problem. Taxes (and financial incentives) can speed this process. Many companies are reaping significant financial benefits from adopting green technologies. Once again, it is those with a financial vested interest in maintain a reliance on coal and oil that are threatened by this approach.
The carbon tax and related costs will be used to bleed small businesses, drive people out of their homes and restrict freedom.
Propaganda unsupported by facts.
Climate modification is real and it is being carried out by semi-covert military operations.
Generally in agreement
Climate modification is damaging our health.
You are obviouisly a newbie to such discussion boards otherwise you would be well aware that I have been posting such concerns about this for years. It just happens that is not the topic of this particular thread - "Accelerating Global Climate Change". You are welcome to start your own thread on the threats of the oligarchy. People can participate in that if they wish. Good luck on attracting any participation.
Last edited by Sore Throat on Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:16 pm; edited 3 times in total |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| Heatwaves will 'boost death rate'
Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:26 pm
|
|
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6245370.stm
Heatwaves will 'boost death rate'
The increasing number of deaths caused by heatwaves as the climate changes will not be offset by fewer deaths in milder winters, US research claims.
The study in Occupational and Environmental Medicine said the death rate in 50 US cities rose more sharply in very hot spells than very cold ones.
People had already adapted to the cold with central heating, the study said, but remained unused to intense heat.
Many more people currently die in cold weather conditions than hot ones.
In the UK for instance, there are 20,000 cold-related deaths each year and 1,000 heat-related.
Many experts believe we will see fewer deaths as a result of the milder winters climate change may bring, and that getting warmer is far preferable to getting colder.
Air conditioning
Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health looked at the deaths of more than 6.5 million people in 50 US cities between 1989 and 2000.
They found that during two-day cold snaps there was a 1.59% increase in deaths because of the extreme temperatures, but during similar periods of extremely hot weather death rates rose by 5.74%.
While all 50 US cities showed similar rises in deaths when temperatures plummeted, more deaths were seen during extreme temperature hikes in cities with usually milder summers and less air conditioning.
The authors suggest that this is because the use of central heating is widespread, whereas fewer people have air conditioning in their homes.
They did say however that the problem could be reduced by greater access to air conditioning facilities.
Professor Bill Keatinge of Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry in London said the study's findings did not present any cause for alarm.
People were learning to protect themselves against both the cold and the heat. Even now, he said, "we're seeing fewer cold-related deaths without a big rise in heat-related deaths".
"In the long term we may have to make some lifestyle changes - working at different times for instance, but nothing that is not manageable." |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| The path to a clean energy future
Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:32 pm
|
|
|
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/18/EDGGTP3DHH1.DTL&hw=green+technologies&sn=033&sc=121
The path to a clean energy future
Dan Adler
Everything brown is green again. As awareness of the energy challenge has increased, investment in clean energy technologies has grown even faster, more than tripling globally since 2004. Policy initiatives emerge from every level of government, and before we have implemented last year's efforts, we debate our next aggressive steps. Businesses are reinvented, or at least re-branded, to tout environmental stewardship. Everybody's got a carbon footprint.
The virtues of clean energy are evident in concept and available in practice. But the truth is we are many steps from the goal, and the path is not clear. In this period of heightened awareness and bullish investors, we risk losing sight of the magnitude of the challenge and the timeframes inherent in the energy industry. Power plants run for generations; mines and wells, once opened, are kept open by their depreciating economics; washing machines, refrigerators and other consumer durables, purchased on the basis of short-term prices, linger in their inefficiency. Meanwhile, for all its promise and goodwill, solar photovoltaic power provides just 35 seconds of the globe's daily energy needs, according to New Energy Finance (www.newenergyfinance.com).
In identifying these challenges and appreciating the blend of policy and markets that will address them, we can begin to see the way toward our long-run goals. There will be setbacks, and the public mind will, no doubt, be distracted. But we can remain engaged with the real issues by being honest about the challenge -- and, perhaps, by giving citizens an ownership stake in the new economy of new energy. Today, the California Clean Energy Fund will convene its first annual conference to think critically about the challenges before us and discuss California's role in advancing clean-energy initiatives.
Among topics for discussion at this event are the facts that California will not reach its renewable energy goals without major expansion of our electric transmission infrastructure. This is the missing piece that separates the market forces advancing renewable technology from the policy imperative of a new clean energy system. Market forces are not filling this gap, and the the state government has yet to step forward to solve the problem. The analogy is to the U.S. highway system constructed in the 1950s -- a social good, undertaken via public effort, that enabled a form of economic progress envisioned by public leadership. Apply this model to our renewable energy challenge, and the market will do its part. Without an effort like this, it simply will not.
Other examples of missing planks in the bridge to a clean energy future abound in California. Tomorrow's energy technologies, whose risks cannot be modeled by traditional methods, are not properly financed or nurtured to a scale where their relevance can be ascertained. Energy efficiency programs, while vibrant, still struggle to aggregate individual short-term economic incentives into a system that captures all the benefits of this most vital resource. Markets will not bet on distribution systems for biofuels until demand is certain, and demand will not be certain until these fuels are widely available. Add up these challenges, and subtract the headlines and euphoria of recent months, and we arrive at our present position -- making halting progress in the transformation of our energy system, in the face of exploding population growth and energy consumption in California, the United States and beyond.
Since our electricity crisis five years ago, California policy makers have emphasized a balance of incentives to business with dictates from government -- a "third way" between free markets and strict regulation. Our major policy efforts reflect this balance: energy efficiency and renewable energy programs emphasize competition and third-party engagement; the California Solar Initiative provides declining incentives that encourage both market adoption and technological advancement; and the new Low-Carbon Fuel Standard sets a fixed target that private initiative can aim for. And these policies are appropriately long-run in nature - goals are set for today, tomorrow, and beyond.
This third-way balancing act is encouraging to the private investors who, in our economic system, must do the heavy lifting. Investors and entrepreneurs prefer markets to regulations, as a rule.
But as energy exemplifies, market forces only go so far in shaping industries. Broad rules may liberate capital to pursue the social good of a clean energy system. But in the world of infrastructure and facts on the ground, there are real impediments that market forces seem ill-prepared to solve.
This is the nature of the energy transition -- enormous potential paired with massive social, economic and technological challenges. The extent to which potential is overmatched by challenge is the question for the emerging post-honeymoon period in clean energy. And now is the time, when optimism and collective creativity reign, to ask these hard questions. We must recognize that turning the tide will take decades, not quarters or years, and that stewardship must keep the long-term goal in sight. While California has both the will and the means to surmount them, we should not fool ourselves into thinking these challenges are insubstantial.
Dan Adler is the vice president of the California Clean Energy Fund (CalCEF), a nonprofit venture capital funds formed to accelerate investment in California's clean energy economy (www.calcef.org). |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| Extreme weather wakes US up to climate change
Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:20 pm
|
|
|
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2720076.ece
Extreme weather wakes US up to climate change
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
US public opinion is rapidly waking up to the threat posed by global warming, despite the best efforts of the Bush Administration and much of industry to deny the problem.
There has been a double-digit increase in the proportion of Americans who say environmental problems are a major global threat - from 23 per cent to 37 per cent, according to a comprehensive survey published this week by the Pew Centre in Washington.
The environment is increasingly in the news in the US, thanks to violent and unusual weather patterns - mainly floods and severe drought - combined with the rising cost of petrol. The past few days have seen dramatic rainfall across the southern states. More than a foot of rain fell across central Texas and Oklahoma yesterday, with more storms predicted.
Hardly a day passes without a report being issued pointing to new environmental threats. A study released yesterday revealed how much damage Alaska, which is currently experiencing forest fires, would suffer from higher temperatures, melting permafrost, reduced polar ice and increased flooding.
The cost of repairing Alaska's roads, runways and railroads which are being swept away as the permafrost melts is due to leap from $6.1bn (£3bn) at present to $40bn, according to the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska.
Despite the growing evidence of the economic cost of climate change on the US, opinion remains polarised. Peter Larsen, the author of the Alaska report, pointed out that while "Alaska is warming more quickly than any other place on the planet right now," his concerns were usually greeted with scepticism.
"On more than one occasion I had people laugh at me on the phone," he said, when he had asked colleagues elsewhere in the US how much climate change is affecting infrastructure.
The Pew survey bears out the fact that concern about the environment is still sharply lower in the US than in any other advanced industrial country, with the exception of the UK. In every other Western European country large majorities view global warming as a serious problem, ranging from 57 per cent in Italy to 70 per cent in Spain.
The survey of some 10,000 people worldwide by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found that public opinion in Great Britain mirrors the US view. In the UK, less than half (45 per cent) say it is very serious while another 37 per cent rate it as a somewhat serious concern.
The survey found that the Chinese are far more likely than Americans to cite environmental problems as a major global danger (70 per cent against 37 per cent).
Worldwide, most people in the surveyed countries agree that the environment is in trouble and most blame the US and, to a much more limited degree, China.
President George Bush refused to sign up to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and at this month's G8 summit he was the driving force behind the omission of a specific target for reducing carbon emissions in the final climate-change communique. The EU, Canada and Japan had been pushing for a 50 per cent cut in global emissions by 2050.
In 34 of the 37 countries surveyed by Pew, the United States is named by a majority as the country that is "hurting the world's environment the most."
This finger-pointing at the US spills over into a more general Americanism. Majorities in many countries are also deeply opposed to US foreign policy and express distaste for American-style democracy, the survey found. Favourable views of the US tend only to be found in the "New Europe", some parts of Africa and the Far East. |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| The time to solve global warming is now
Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:28 am
|
|
|
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/321836_trahant01.html
Editorial Page Editor: The time to solve global warming is now
By MARK TRAHANT
P-I EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
The weather looked awful when I peeked out of the airplane window last week: Torrential rain, lightning and wind gusts that seemed to lift the Boeing 757 off the ground. But none of that was as striking as the announcement that the flight was canceled. Nearly every passenger seemed to know that once we stepped off that plane our options would be worse. Too many people were trying to go too many places. (We all had hope: At one point in the 6 1/2 hour journey from New York's JFK Airport's Gate 20 to Gate 27 we were No. 1 for takeoff.)
I heard several people on board repeat the notion that they expect more dreadful weather in the months and years to come. Unsettled weather patterns are now the assumption; it is the perception of climate change. Every bad storm, winter or summer, every hurricane, every allergy season that seems way too early or comes too late fits the narrative of global warming. These stories are important to the civic discourse because they reflect what ordinary Americans tell one another about our world. We get it.
The ordinary stories we tell are observational. They explain the world we think we see -- rather than one that's based on specific evidence (even if the stories happen to fit the pattern nicely). Humans have always done that as storytellers. We find ways to explain our world. And we need these stories in order to significantly reduce our consumption of energy. We need these stories to explain why we do what we do.
But we need more. We also need to be clear about the evidence. We need to match the science with the stories we tell.
Think about the nature of evidence on a range of issues. In a criminal court, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Or the nation went to war in Iraq with hardly any real proof -- it was more like a feeling that the venture would turn out well.
But, in general, how much evidence is enough evidence? What does it take to say, "Enough! We know!" How about now?
Naomi Oreskes says the best thing scientists and engineers could do is to conclude the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and apply their remarkable brainpower to solving the problems.
Oreskes is a science historian -- she studies how we know what we know. She spoke last month in the U.S. Senate.
If you listen to critics of global warming (or more precisely, those who do not believe that humans have contributed to climate change), they say that science is always changing its story. That's flat out wrong, Oreskes says. The big picture view hasn't changed since a National Academy of Science report in 1979. The main difference is that the evidence is clearer now than it was back then. We're seeing observed facts, not theoretical atmospheric models.
But what makes science different from, say, storytelling, is that there are standards for developing and testing evidence. These standards range from induction from observed facts, deduction based on a hypothesis, a falsification test -- or disproving an idea -- and other evaluations of evidence.
Perhaps the most important scientific test is the consilience of evidence. Oreskes defines that as multiple, independent lines of evidence converging on a single coherent account. The Mauna Loa Observatory has been measuring the steady increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1958, corresponding to temperature changes.
And both studies are corroborated by climate measures in tree ring data.
In other words, studies from a variety of sources, different disciplines -- some atmospheric, others geological, or those who measure carbon dioxide -- tell the same story. Oreskes says if you look at the big picture, the science is compelling, clear and consistent.
It is the sheer amount of data, the variety of studies, the multiple layers of peer review unique to the history of science. The standard of evidence about human contributions to global warming -- at least in our political discourse -- has to be the best ever, way beyond reasonable doubt.
While it's the critics of global warming who have failed to incorporate scientific methods, even skipping basic tests such as peer review.
Do we know enough? Of course -- and clearly it's time to act. This, to me, is why it's time to unleash the human spirit of enterprise. We need the same zeal as putting a man on the moon or the Manhattan Project.
We can complain about the weather and talk about how it is changing now more than ever. Or we can write the next chapter.
We can animate the future with a new narrative: how global warming was solved. The only thing we need to do is unleash the most magnificent scientific and engineering venture ever attempted.
You can find Naomi Oreskes' presentation on the Web at: www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/environmentalsssarchives.html |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| UN issues desertification warning
Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:12 pm
|
|
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6247802.stm
UN issues desertification warning
Tens of millions of people could be driven from their homes by encroaching deserts, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia, a report says.
The study by the United Nations University suggests climate change is making desertification "the greatest environmental challenge of our times".
If action is not taken, the report warns that some 50 million people could be displaced within the next 10 years.
The study was produced by more than 200 experts from 25 countries.
This report does not pull any punches, says BBC environment reporter Matt McGrath.
One third of the Earth's population - home to about two billion people - are potential victims of its creeping effect, it says.
"Desertification has emerged as an environmental crisis of global proportions, currently affecting an estimated 100 to 200 million people, and threatening the lives and livelihoods of a much larger number," the study said.
The overexploitation of land and unsustainable irrigation practices are making matters worse, while climate change is also a major factor degrading the soil, it says.
People displaced by desertification put new strains on natural resources and on other societies nearby and threaten international instability, the study adds.
"There is a chain reaction. It leads to social turmoil," said Zafaar Adeel, the study's lead author and head of the UN University's International Network on Water, Environment and Health.
The largest area affected was probably sub-Saharan Africa, where people are moving to northern Africa or to Europe, while the second area is the former Soviet republics in central Asia, he added.
Way forward
The UN report suggests that new farming practices, such as encouraging forests in dryland areas, were simple measures that could remove more carbon from the atmosphere and also prevent the spread of deserts.
"It says to dryland dwellers we need to provide alternative livelihoods - not the traditional cropping based on irrigation, cattle farming, etcetera - but rather introduce more innovative livelihoods which don't put pressure on the natural resources," Mr Adeel said.
"Things like ecotourism or using solar energy to create other activities."
Some countries like China have embarked on tree-planting programmes to stem the advance of deserts.
But according to the author, in some cases the trees being planted needed large amounts of water, putting even more pressure on scarce resources. |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| No Link Between Cosmic Rays and Global Warming
Wed Jul 04, 2007 7:50 pm
|
|
|
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between.html
No Link Between Cosmic Rays and Global Warming
By Fraser Cain
The scientific consensus is in: human-produced carbon dioxide is causing a rise in temperatures across the planet. There are still those who reject the evidence that humans have an impact on global temperatures, and instead maintain that natural processes are at the root.
One of these natural causes, they say, could be from cosmic rays.
According to one paper, published in 2000 to Physics Review Letters, the Hunacayo neutron monitor detected a heightened number of cosmic rays from regions that had low clouds, less than 3.2 km in altitude. The quantity of these cosmic rays depends on the intensity of the solar wind, since the Earth's magnetosphere grows and shrinks depending on the strength of particles streaming from the Sun. Periods of warming appear to correlate with a decreases in cosmic rays over the 20th century.
When the cosmic rays interact with the Earth's atmosphere, especially the low level clouds, they create ions of varying strength and charge. These ions would then contribute to the formation of dense clouds, blocking the Sun's rays and reducing the effect of heating.
This connection between the Sun's 11-year cycle of sunspot and solar wind activity and the Earth's deflection of cosmic rays was offered up as a possible natural explanation for global warming.
But T. Sloan from the University of Lancaster and A.W. Wolfendale from Durham University have looked carefully at the evidence and found it unconvincing. They published their results in a new paper called Cosmic Rays and Global Warming. Their research will be presented at the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, held in Merida Mexico from July 3 - July 11, 2007.
According to Sloan and Wolfendale, the 2000 paper highlighting the connection between cosmic rays and low-level clouds completely avoids clouds at other altitudes. This is surprising because cosmic ray ionization should increase with altitude. Cosmic rays should be intercepted earlier by the atmosphere and turned into clouds, not down at the lowest altitudes. If cosmic rays were to blame, you would expect the exact opposite, with more high-altitude clouds.
It can't be ruled out, but it's pretty unlikely.
The next piece of skeptical evidence is the likelihood that cosmic rays will create ions that turn into water droplets. The researchers estimated the density of cloud droplets that could be produced by cosmic rays at the lowest altitudes. They found that the rate of ion production was too low generate the number of water droplets required to create clouds.
Global warming skeptics explain the cosmic ray/cloud cover/global warming natural cycle as the interaction between the Sun's 11-year cycle of solar activity and the magnitude of cosmic rays that reach the Earth's atmosphere. As the solar wind increases, it buffets away cosmic rays that would reach the Earth's magnetosphere.
Ionized particles are channeled towards the Earth's poles, which is why we see the beautiful auroras at the highest latitudes. If cosmic rays were causing additional cloud cover, you would expect the greatest variations around the poles. This isn't the case; in fact, the opposite is true.
Furthermore, there's known to be a 6-14 month delay between the decrease of cosmic ray activity, and the increase in the number of sun spots. Based on these cycles, the researchers found almost no correlation between the rise and fall of sun spots, and levels of cloud cover. They estimated that less than 15% of the 11-year cycle warming variations are due to cosmic rays and less than 2% of the warming over the last 35 years is due to this cause.
If scientists wanted to study the interaction between radiation and cloud cover they could always perform a highly unethical experiment: release a tremendous amount of radiation into the atmosphere and see what it does to clouds in the environment.
Unfortunately, that experiment has already been performed... accidentally: the Chernobyl disaster.
On April 26th, 1986 the reactor released a huge cloud of radioactive particles into the atmosphere. If radiation increases cloud cover, there should have been clouds surrounding the facility for weeks. There was no evidence of unusual cloud coverage surrounding the facility after the disaster.
Sloan and Wolfendale reviewed the cosmic ray connection to global warming, and found several different ways that discount the explanation. Of course, no matter how good their evidence, for some people this is a political matter now - no amount evidence will ever be enough.
"There is no connection between global warming and cosmic rays. That's because there's no trend in cosmic rays. It's completely bogus," remarked Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt, a NASA researcher and contributor to Realclimate.org. |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics
Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:35 pm
|
|
|
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/448008a.html
No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics
Sun not to blame for global warming.
Quirin Schiermeier
A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows 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 (M. Lockwood and C. Fröhlich Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880; 2007). Some researchers had suggested that the latter might influence global warming through an involvement in cloud formation.
"This paper is the final nail in the coffin for people who would like to make the Sun responsible for present global warming," says Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.
Claims that the Sun, rather than raised levels of greenhouse gases, has been responsible for recent warming have persisted in a small number of scientists and in parts of the media. Mike Lockwood, a physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Chilton, UK, says he was "galvanized" to carry out the comprehensive study by misleading media reports. He cites 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', a television programme shown in March by Britain's Channel 4, as a prime example.
Together with Claus Fröhlich of the World Radiation Center in Davos, Switzerland, Lockwood brought together solar data for the past 100 years. The two researchers averaged out the 11-year solar cycles and looked for correlation between solar variation and global mean temperatures. Solar activity peaked between 1985 and 1987. Since then, trends in solar irradiance, sunspot number and cosmic-ray intensity have all been in the opposite direction to that required to explain global warming.
In 1997, Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, suggested that cosmic rays facilitate cloud formation by seeding the atmosphere with trails of ions that can help water droplets form (H. Svensmark and E. J. Friis-Christensen J. Atmos. Solar-Terrest. Phys. 59, 1225–1232; 1997). He proposed that, as a result of this, changes in the Sun's magnetic field that influence the flux of cosmic rays could affect Earth's climate. This led to claims that cosmic rays are the main influence on modern climate change.
Even in the face of the new analysis, Svensmark insists that solar theories should not be dismissed. "If you look at temperatures in the troposphere, there is a remarkable correlation with solar activity," he says. Lockwood insists that none of the tropospheric data show the trend that the solar theory would need.
Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem who has championed a Sun–climate link, argues that there may be a lag in Earth's reaction to the Sun because of the thermal inertia of the oceans.
But other climate researchers find the idea of a 'hidden' time lag unconvincing. "With each year, and with each new set of data that comes in, a time lag becomes ever more unlikely," says Urs Neu, deputy head of ProClim-, the climate and global change forum of the Swiss Academy of Sciences in Bern.
On other timescales, however, Sun–climate links may remain worthy of study. "Climate change is a cocktail of many effects," says Jasper Kirkby, a physicist at CERN, the European particle-physics laboratory near Geneva in Switzerland, who is leading an experiment aimed at simulating the effect of cosmic rays on clouds. "Past climate changes have clearly been associated with solar activity. Even if this is not the case now, it is still important to understand how solar variability affects climate."
Ken Carslaw, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Leeds, UK, points out that solar effects might still be possible. They might have acted to cool the climate in recent decades, but been overwhelmed. If so, the climate could be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than is generally thought, and future temperature increases might be greater than expected if a countervailing solar effect comes to an end.[/b] |
| |
|
|
vinn
Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 100
|
|
Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:35 pm
|
|
|
No Way
i agree with you 100%
you forgot 1 thing though
global climate change is real and used to establish a global govmnt |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| Mount Everest Ravaged by Warming
Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:39 am
|
|
|
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/07/06/everest_pla.html?category=earth
Mount Everest Ravaged by Warming
July 6, 2007 — Global warming is radically changing the face of Mount Everest, the sons of the men who first reached its summit 54 years ago said in an interview published Friday.
The sons of Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay told British newspaper The Independent that their fathers would no longer recognize the world's highest mountain, saying the base camp is now 132 feet lower than it was 53 years ago.
"Climate change is happening. This is a fact," Hillary's son Peter said.
"Base camp used to sit at 5,320 meters. This year it was at 5,280 meters because the ice is melting from the top and side. Base camp is sinking each year," said Peter Hillary, who himself has twice reached Everest's summit.
"For Sherpas living on Mount Everest this is something they can see every day but they can't do anything about it on their own," he added.
The glacier where Hillary and Tenzing made their base camp before ascending the 29,198-foot summit on May 29, 1953 has retreated three miles (five kilometres) in the past 20 years, The Independent said.
Scientists, it said, predict that all glaciers in the Himalayas, which range from half a mile to more than three miles long, could end up as small patches of ice within 50 years if global warming is not checked.
"The glaciers have receded a great deal since my father's time," said Jamling Tenzing, who climbed Everest with Peter Hillary in 2002.
"There are many things he wouldn't recognize today. The glacier on which base camp sits has melted to such a degree that it is now at a lower altitude. I think the whole face of the mountains is changing," he said.
Peter Hillary warned of devastating effects if glaciers continue to melt, form huge lakes and then burst their banks.
"I've seen the result of glacial lakes bursting their banks and it's catastrophic," he was quoted as saying.
"It's like an atomic bomb has gone off. Everywhere is rubble. The floods of the past are nothing compared with the size of what we are threatened with," he added. |
| |
|
|
mmmmbarium
tagged & banned
Joined: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 385
Location: Hell on Earth |
|
Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:29 am
|
|
|
OK Sore throat.....
What do you propose we do about "GLOBAL WARMING" then?
And dont tell me change my light bulbs and drive a prius, because thats a buch of $#@#! and you know it.
Instead of posting things about how we are all doomed from "GLOBAL WARMING" , why dont you post solutions to this "problem"?
BTW...
No way Oligarches, you have yet to reply to Sore throat's comments..... |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| Global Warming Spreads Killer Virus
Sat Jul 07, 2007 4:07 pm
|
|
|
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1274132,00.html
Global Warming Spreads Killer Virus
Global warming is being blamed for an outbreak of dengue fever that has killed hundreds in south-east Asia.
Vietnam and Malaysia have raised concerns over the spread of the mosquito-borne virus, which has infected tens of thousands this year.
Warmer weather and heavy rains have helped it spread through the region, with a Malaysian official saying the epidemic could get worse because of global warming.
"We are going to see a rise in vector-borne and water-borne diseases," Ramlee Rahmat, deputy director-general of health, told reporters.
Vietnam's health minister said he was worried about the spreading outbreak, citing 27 deaths this year and a jump in the number of cases.
"The risk of the dengue epidemic outbreak in southern and central provinces is very high in the coming time," said Health Minister Tran Thi Trung Chien.
Some experts have said 2007 could be the worst year on record for the disease, which is transmitted by the Aedes aegypti mosquito. |
| |
|
|
mmmmbarium
tagged & banned
Joined: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 385
Location: Hell on Earth |
|
Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:09 pm
|
|
|
Thats what I thought Sore Throat.
You want to post all this Fear Mongering s!@#........
F All this Global Warming Crap......Its all A bunch of Lies
The Elite know what is coming coming to this planet, and its going to happen between now and 2012...... |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 5:47 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
