posted 03-30-2003 10:43 PM            

Reference resource:
http://www.safesun.com/uv_map.html

Is it reasonable for those living in the southern portion of the US to expect skin damage from UV after 15 minutes of exposure?

posted 03-30-2003 11:52 PM            

>>14. How are you related to the Chemtrails? How do you know that this is what is happening?

I would prefer to not state who I am or how I am related to all of this.<<

Too bad the fellow (Deep Shield) won't give out his name or related field. Does he perhaps fear for his life?

>>To insure that the chemicals are not tampered with, they are mixed and sprayed over random nations.<<

I wonder if this includes China?

>>To further insure that the shield is not used as a weapon, non participant nations are sprayed by participants who must spray in order to get enough material to maintain their nations shield. It is understood that not spraying is as much a military offense as shooting at them.<<

So china is getting sprayed whether it wants to or not? Why no reports of chemtrails in China then?

>>Without the shield, UV poisoning would cause great death. The threat is a common one, which has brought nations together in defense.<<

So the US and Iraq are shaking hands on this joint Shield project?

>>11. Why all the secrecy?

Due to the severity of the situation it is mandatory to maintain public calm for as long as possible. The Earth is dying. Humanity is on the road to extinction - without the Shield mankind will die off with in 20 to 50 years. Most people alive today could live to see this extinction take place. This means that an announcement of the situation we face boils down to telling every man, woman and child on earth that they have no future, they are going to be killed. People would panic. There would be economic collapse, the production and movement of goods would collapse. Millions would die in all cities on earth, riots and violence would reduce civilian centers to rubble within days. Half of the population in dense metropolitan areas would try to leave the cities seeking 'safety' in the rural areas thinking that they would be safe. Those left behind in the cities would be at war with their neighbors, fighting for the remaining supplies. We would be telling the world that the world is coming to an end, and even with the Shield the chances of survival are small.<<

Really? With all the gloom-and-doom soothsayers claiming the world will end in X days you think people would take such an announcement to heart? If someone told me I was dying I'd think "big deal, we're all dying from the moment we're born". No panic at all.

>>12. When will spraying stop?

C. When the other problems become too big to make the maintenance of the shield worth the effort. The estimated date for this is 2025 to 2050.<<

Now where have we heard a prediction of when the spraying will end before, huh?

>>The shield acts like one plate of the electrode, when tickled with certain radio waves; it produces an opposite charge to stratospheric layers producing low atmosphere to stratosphere lightening. Creating ozone where it is needed.<<

This is an interesting concept. Wonder if this implies silent, horizontal lightening, like I have witnessed?

posted 04-02-2003 04:45 PM            

once they would break silence and tell the mainstream media they would be safe...and so would everyone else...

but they don't....hmmmm....considering you can't go anywhere on the net without someone tracking you...I'd say throat fell for a nuther'n.....

anyway...think I'll go work on my tan...

posted 09-30-2003 01:09 AM            

-------------------------=>

Monday 9/29/03
By "David"
Just my 2 cents worth

Any of you who know me (which a few do) know that I have been in contact with a person who claims to be an insider.

His claim is that his job is to work on atmospheric models, create computer models of weather patterns and the effects of certain chemicals on the atmosphere. He also predicts how long these will stay up, how they will spread and their effect on the heat absorption of the atmosphere in sprayed areas.

I am the source through which the Deep Shield letters came.

In August of this year I met face to face with 'Deep Shield' [a name coined by another for my source.] We spent a week on a 'camping trip'. This week was spent discussing Chemtrails, the history, the reasons for and the future of this project.

Much of what he and I talked of was a rehash of things we had already talked about before. Though I made the mistake - yes mistake - of posting what I knew on another group, my source has been willing to offer me more information.

People would assume that this means he is willing to come out and stand at the forefront of this 'fight' but he is not, never has been and may never willingly come out.

The Shield Project (his name, this is not the name of the project officially) is a poor attempt to reduce the damage of Global warming and Ozone Depletion.

The materials used for the Spray Program are used because of their reflection qualities and because they can carry an electrical charge.

Further, they are less toxic than other materials suggested in the past.

The Shield's primary mission is to reflect UV and infrared radiation back out into space. This is to mitigate the greenhouse effect and also to replace (hopefully on a temporary basis) the missing ozone.

However, as we have seen this past year, the Shield Project is not perfect.

My source held up the Record breaking Tornado season, the Killer European Heat wave and the Atlantic's unseasonable cooler waters as evidence that we are in a period of climatic crises. According to him the Shield Project was basically worthless when it came to reducing these issues. Though he strongly believes that without the Shield Project these would have been far worse than they were.

HAARP may or may not have anything to do with this. If it does, then it would not be for a military application, but a poor attempt to create ozone where it is needed - that is up there. I checked into the this idea. It appears that we make ozone all the time with electricity - however that is ground level ozone which is not really good for our health. It is possible (there is no way to verify this through my source who is just a cog in a very, very big machine) that HAARP or something similar to it is being used to tickle the material of the Shield to create an electric field which could produce ozone high up in the atmosphere.

This is just a theory - take it or leave it.

What disturbs me most is that my source came out and said that the project is failing to do as it should. Security at his lab is tight, in that there are security cameras all over the place, nothing is allowed to leave the lab, but at the same time they are allowed to talk freely. There are more arguments (screaming matches) of the top brass and obviously civilian dressed military who come and go at his lab. The arguments appear (to my source) to be due to several factors, such as the expense of all of this, the effectiveness and the long term outlook for humanity and Earth (which according to my source is not good).

If you are looking for a stack of bodies who have been killed by chemtrails you will not find it. However, if you start really digging you will find that there is a growing stack of bodies none of whom officially died from Chemtrail poisoning, but have died from related or 'similar' diseases.

Start by looking in East Texas, where the initial tests of these materials was done back in the mid 1990's.

The 'official' off the record estimate is that over the next 50 years there will be 2 billion causalities. This does not mean 2 billion will die - it means that 2 billion will be affected directly by exposure to the material of the chemtrails. From asthma to death - and there is a very, very wide range of other illnesses between.

The continual denial of Chemtrails is made far easier when we are given an outlandish 'NWO' death sentence on humanity - these tales are put forth and make it far easier for people to not listen. Part of these tales may have been started by official debunkers whose job was to cause doubt and to make any claims of 'chemtrail spraying' appear to be just another conspiracy theory.

All we have to do is pull up weather records for the past century and we can see that it is in the late 20th century we had a rapid increase of severe weather. We will also note that UV issues and Ozone Depletion have been around for a while. We also find that he reports of 'strange' and unusual contrails started in the 1990's. Odd at best, suggestive to me, if no one else.

My source also told me to look at the political climate of the world. We find that there has been a marked change in the willingness of the world to cooperate to a greater extent than ever.

Sure there are plenty of wars going on, but in general the nations are seeking ways to get along economically and politically - doing things which post WWII were impossible. All suggestive that there is a threat from the outside which is forcing nations to cooperate.

Scalar Weapons, A Genocide program by TPTB, Aliens, Lizards, and all that rot just does not stand up under scrutiny. Besides which we all know that the powers that be are where they are by standing on the backs of the masses. If we are foolish enough to think otherwise, then and only then does a mass genocide make sense. However, our civilization is only possible because we are many - most of whom are mere workers. Our technology and science only work because there is enough cannon fodder to throw at the problems. The parasites of the 'Elite' need us and would protect us in order to serve their own best interests. Think on that.

They will take great strides to control us (ie better security, Digital Angel, etc.) but killing us off will lead to their own destruction.

The only logical reason for any spray program is to protect the earth (a system of life which is delicate to the extreme) from some threat. The disadvantages of using known toxins must be outweighed by the advantages. I can only draw one conclusion - that the threat of UV summer and Major Climatic, global warming is worth the risk of poisoning 30% of the earth, humanity and otherwise.

The issue of global warming is not just a weather issue - it is also an economic one. After all, who pays for the clean up after these storms? Where does the money come from? Do we honestly think that insurers would not balance 2 billion sick and dead against the far costlier expense of rebuilding cities after major tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, etc???

What was the total cost of Europe's Killer Heatwave not in lives but in Euros, Francs and Dollars?

Given the political climate (which with the gentle treatment of Bush and his lies suggests that the international community is at best putting on a front while not willing to take risks to jeopardize something far bigger and unseen), The economic push by nearly every nation on earth for a global economy - weighed against what must be a very expensive project, The fact that weather and climate have not been 'normal' for a decade - we can only conclude that if there is a spray program in place (which there is plenty of evidence to suggest that something is taking place) then it has to be for some threat which would affect the whole world.

In August my source told me that things will continue to get worse, not better. He also told me that new materials, more toxic materials will start showing up in samples of rain water and air. He also warned me that sooner or later the governments of earth will basically release the information everyone wants - simply because the costs are so high that there will be no choice but come clean and tell world what it faces.

He thinks (based on the information he has) that this will happen by 2005. He also thinks that the climate and weather issues we have seen to date will get far worse during the next two years. These will become so noticeable that no one will doubt that we are in serious hot water.

posted 10-05-2003 06:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:
question...why do these type "deep" whistleblowing people never seem to make it to the abc's or cnn's or fox news' where they could do some good ?

once they would break silence and tell the mainstream media they would be safe...and so would everyone else...

but they don't....hmmmm....considering you can't go anywhere on the net without someone tracking you...I'd say throat fell for a nuther'n.....

anyway...think I'll go work on my tan...

[Edited 2 times, lastly by theseeker on 04-02-2003]

---

Are you aware that CNN, FOX and such major media outlets failed to report on the Meteorite that fell on india and damged two homes and injured and ultimately lead to the deat of one person?

Are you aware that the next day a man in New Orleans lost his Bathroom to a meteorite?

Then you ask why these people do not come out to the main stream media.

posted 10-05-2003 06:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deborah:
I wish I had the time right now to respond to this piece-by-piece. Will attempt to do that later in the week. Meanwhile, I think this is worth copying out in here. Very interesting summation. Thank you, halva.

---

Of course, I would love to hear it - I'm not being sarcastic.

Note that since I was first introduced to this particular person who has been a wealth of information for me, I have doubted and questioned and hope that it was just a cruel trick played on one who is gullible (Me) to the extreme.

But then, if he is right........

Cheers

David

posted 10-05-2003 06:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sore Throat:
http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/shieldproject.html

Reference resource:
http://www.safesun.com/uv_map.html

Is it reasonable for those living in the southern portion of the US to expect skin damage from UV after 15 minutes of exposure?

How about Hawaii ? ...less than 10 minutes?
http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/ozone/docs/hlthdat-home.html
http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/ozone/rtm/uvsens.html

[Edited 2 times, lastly by Sore Throat on 03-30-2003]

---

More data to wonder about (sigh) Such is life. pardon me if I point out that there are other parts of the world too which have been getting a little too much uv as of late.

Cheers

posted 10-22-2003 04:07 PM            

Ozone depletion/Global warming lies/Holmestead article

this in regards to an article given to me by this forum's
moderator, "i_don't_chat":
http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/shieldproject.html

in this article, a highly-placed secret source(deep shield), in the
chemtrail program, 'claims' to be able to shed some light on the
chemtrail spraying going on across the globe. he boils it down to
global warming/ozone depletion. obviously there is a ton of
scientists and scientific evidence that disagree and believe that the
global warming and ozone depletion is a complete fraud and lie.

here is what happened when i sent this article to Eduardo Ferreyra
President of FAEC- Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology.
they happen to have an excellent website for exposing the lies and
misconceptions regarding global warming/ozone depletion:
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Ozone.html

he replied to me with this e-mail(please excuse its length):

"Dear Bruce:

Thanks you for getting in touch with us. I went to the link you
provided and
spent quite a long time reading ALL the page with the "interview" (via
telephone, perhaps?) with an "insider" in the Chemtrails Programme. I
downloaded the page to my harddisk for a more deep study and further
research on the matter (I have contacts in "some places" in the US),
but for
now I can only give you my first impression:

Firstly, the matter would do an excellent script for a Hollywood
movie, in a
Steven Seagall fashion, and I wouldn't be surprised to find it in the
screens soon.

What comes clear from the "interview", is that the insider is a
disciple of
the Club of Rome, a hard core environmentalist reciting their holy
litany of
damage caused on Earth by mankind, the industry and all human
activites. He
throws everything on the table from global warming, ozone depletion,
sea
level rise, to animal extictions, pollution, you name it.

I have the impression this man, that pictures himslef as an
atmospheric
scientist, actually is Stephen Schneider, working for the NOAA in
Colorado.
It sounds like him, because the wording he uses sounds terrible
familar to
my ears. Of course, that's only a hunch I have, and there is no way to
confirm this.

I believe this "project" is just that: a project in the feverish
minds of
some wackos. If it really were for real, it would be, of course, a
tremendous crime going on, but there are no signs for being in
action. There
are many reasons for this. These people, who are pushing the hoaxes of
global warming and ozone depletion (the main reasons for the
existence of
this project) know for sure they are not happening. They are not
fools, they
are smart, of course, but no fools at all. Everything they do is for
money
and power, and the way to get it is through geopolitics. They
infiltrate all
levels of governments with the lobbying of big foundations, that
takes their
share of the looting.

It does not makes sense to them to spend money (their money) in
scientific
research on the climate change and ozone depletion hoaxes, because
they
already know are not happening (I am referreing to the big fish here,
not
the lower ranks of "believers") but they try to earn their money
making the
government to spend huge amounts of money (taxpayers money) in
research -
and they collect it, of course. All these scientists working in
official
organizations as the NASA, NOAA, Scripps Institute, Woods Hole, etc,
live
from government grants and subsidies for investigating something that
they
know it does not exist. The only way to keep the money flowing in is
by
scaring ignorant people (like politicians) to urge them to give the
money to
"save the planet" from destruction.

Do you think that they don't know that CO2, for instance, is not the
main
greenhouse gas? That the main greenhouse gas is water vapour? They do
know
that ozone levels ALL OVER THE WORLD have not decreased a bit, apart
from
the normal latitudinal, seasonal, monthly, daily and hourly
variations - all
natural? They have acces to the data showing this. We have it in
Buenos
Aires, measuring the ozone levels above Argentina for the past 30
years, and
there is not a difference with 1970 levels. They know that UV levels
decreased in the period 1974-1985 by 7%? (Scotto et al., Biologically
Efective Ultraviolet Radiation: Surface Measurements in the United
States,
1974-1985", Science, Feb. 12, 1988). They also know that CFCs are 4,5
times
heavier than air, so there is an almost nil chance that they can
reach the
stratosphere in the amounts needed for releasing chlorine - especially
knowing that CFCs have been found the highest at 30 km altitude, a
region of
the troposphere where there is no UV radiation strong enough to break
apart
CFC molecules.

As you know, UV-C radiation (<290 nanometers, or 2900 Angstroms) the
one
with energy enough to dissociate molecules with a strong atomic bond
as CFC,
oxygen and nitrogenm are found above 40 km in altitude. Moreover, to
show
the utter uselessness of the ozone layer, the energy absorbed by an
ozone
molecule from the UV photons, is not morethan 32 kcal/mol, while
oxygen
steals nothing less than 111,000 kcal/mol, and nitrogen 170,000
kcal/mol.
Still more, the man n the interview says ozone is present at 10 ppm,
when
the real figure is 0,000003%, that is, 3 millionths percent, not 10
millionths percent. That almost inexistent concentration of ozone
cannot
compete aganist the 21% of oxygen and 78% of nitrogen in the
atmosphere.

Take another visual image: when three oxygen molecule are broken by
UV-C
radiation they make two ozone molecules. Oxygen, with its enormous
capacity
fro absorbing energetic UV radiation are thus compared with
Scharzeneggers,
while ozone molecules, with their weak absorbing capacity can be
compared to
midgets or dwarfs. Then, if we wanted to defend a fortress, what
would we
choose? Three Terminators or two midgets?

Another thing they know (but try not to let the people know) because
the
chemical laws governing the gaseous phase in Chemistry, chlorine
atoms
cannot react with ozone molecules in mid air: It only reacts with
ozone
molecules over the hard surfaces of the Polar Stratospheric Clouds
(PSC),
frozen gas crystals forming in Antarctica's stratosphere, These
clouds do
not form anywhere else in the world, so there is no chlorine action
on ozone
outside Antarctica.

They also know, that CFC and other halocarbons in the environment are
degraded by bacteria found mainly in swamps, marshes and wetlands, at
surface level, a place where they are mostly found - not in the
straposphere. That's called biodegradation, a term greens love to
speak
about.

There is also the "global conspiracy". How can anyone can imagine an
association between Americans and Russians (not to mention French,
Germans,
Italians, British, etc) on a project like this? They hate their guts
in any
sense (the European Union and America are not such good friends as to
make
they embark on a lunacy like this). And the Russians have excellent
scientists advising their government, and would never allow Rusia to
play
along, spending huge amounts of money they don't have, or need for
other
more urgent business.

So, I think this is only in the dreams of those too smart scientists
that
thrive on government money, throwing the idea to the arena and hoping
some
moron like Al Gore would bite the hook. The power of the propaganda,
the
Goebble's moto "Lie, lie, lie, that something always stays..." is the
basic
principle of these people. Trying to scare people with the Apocalypse:
"Mankind has only 20-50 years before dissapearing...", reminds me of
Paul
Erhlich predictions that the world was going to starve to death by
1975, or
the US population would drop to 50 million because of mass starvation
by
1990. These people should drag their soap boxes to Hyde park in
London and
shout "Repent! The End is coming,". It makes me laugh.

There are so many inaccuracies and blatant lies in what the "deep
throat"
said in the interview, that it would take a long, long article to
analyze
and refute his idiotic sayings. But I believe you did recognize many
(if not
all) the nonsense in what the guy said. However, I will think in
writing an
article on the subject, once I finish the needed research.

I hope to have answered to your doubts - in case you had some.

Kind regards,

Eduardo Ferreyra
President of FAEC

Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology"

posted 10-26-2003 12:37 PM            

Eduardo Ferreyra
President of FAEC states:

"These people, who are pushing the hoaxes of global warming and ozone depletion (the main reasons for the existence of this project) know for sure they are not happening."

Here are some FACTS overlooked by Mr. Ferreyra:

"Arctic Temps Show Rise, NASA Study Says"
http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Science&storyId=793618

NEW YORK (AP) -- New evidence of a rise in Arctic temperatures may be a further warning sign of global warming, according to a NASA study to be published next month.

The study _ which used satellite images taken from space _ found that most of the Arctic warmed significantly over the last 10 years, rising 1.08 degrees per decade.

The biggest temperature increases occurred in North America , with an increase of 1.9 degrees in 10 years.

"The warming rate is quiet high compared to what we observed previously," Dr. Josefino C. Comiso, the study's author, told APTN.

Comiso, the senior research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, said the study looked at surface temperatures taken from satellites between 1981 to 2001.

Last year, another NASA study found that sea ice in the Arctic was declining at a rate of 9 percent per decade. That study also found that in 2002, summer sea ice hit record low levels.

Scientists fear that these trends are a result of greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere.

According to NASA's new study, the rate of warming in the Arctic over the last 20 years is eight times the rate of warming over the last 100 years.

The new study also found that temperature trend varied by region and season. While warming was prevalent over most of the Arctic, some areas, such as Greenland, appear to cool.

However, warming trends may still affect ocean processes, said Michael Steele, senior oceanographer at the University of Washington.

Water absorbs the sun's energy rather than reflecting it into the atmosphere the way ice does. As the oceans warm and ice thins, more solar energy is absorbed by the water, creating further melting, said Steele.

This changes the temperature of ocean layers and marine habitats, he said.

The new Arctic warming study, to appear in the November issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, was conducted to record Arctic changes and develop a better understanding of climate worldwide.

The surface temperature records were obtained through thermal infrared data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellites.

....

and perhaps the esteemed Preseident Ferreyra also missed this article:

"Study: S. America Glaciers Melting Faster"
http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Science&storyId=791450

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Melting of glaciers in the Patagonian ice fields of southern Argentina and Chile has doubled in recent years, caused by higher temperatures, lower snowfall and a more rapid breaking of icebergs, a study suggests.

Using satellites from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Defense Department, researchers measured the loss from two ice fields on the southern tip of South America and found that the rate of melting doubled from 1995 to 2000 when compared with earlier measurements.
...more

Of course, this is only occurring in Ferreyra's back yard.
*****************************************

"Warmest September on Record, Experts Say"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031017/ap_on_go_ot/warm_september_1

WASHINGTON - Last month was the warmest September on record, federal climate experts said Friday.

Worldwide, the average temperature for the month was about 60 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius), according to Jay Lawrimore of the National Climate Data Center. That's 1.0 degree Fahrenheit above average on records going back to 1880.

The second and third warmest Septembers on record occurred in 1997 and 1998, respectively. ...more

*******************************************

Ozone Depletion ...
http://jwocky.gsfc.nasa.gov/eptoms/dataqual/ozone.html
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/sbuv2to/ozone_hole_plot.png
*******************************************

"Antarctic Ozone Hole Biggest Ever"
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/22224/story.htm

LONDON - The gaping, man-made hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica has hit record proportions for this time of year and could get bigger still within the next few days, a leading scientist said last week.

At just short of 10.81 million square miles, the hole is a fraction under the absolute record of 11 million, but it has historically peaked in the second week in September and therefore could theoretically grow further, British Antarctic Survey (BAS) scientist Jonathan Shanklin told Reuters.
"It was the largest it has ever been during August, and we are waiting to see what happens over the next few days," Shanklin told Reuters by telephone from BAS headquarters in Cambridge.

The stratospheric ozone layer protects the earth's surface from damaging ultraviolet rays that can cause skin cancer.

...more

Consequences:

Eye Damage:
http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/UV/resources/uveyes_final.pdf

Skin Cancer:

"Ozone depletion increases skin cancer risk"
http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/08/08282001/s_44222.asp

******************************************

So Halva, I have to wonder....just what was your point in posting what is clearly disinformation by Eduardo Ferreyra
President of FAEC- Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology ? ? ?

posted 10-26-2003 08:48 PM            

.....All these scientists working in official organizations as the NASA, NOAA, Scripps Institute, Woods Hole, etc, live from government grants and subsidies for investigating something that they know it does not exist. The only way to keep the money flowing in is by scaring ignorant people (like politicians) to urge them to give the money to "save the planet" from destruction.....

Wow.

Talk about IGNORANCE.

There is apparently no such thing as middle ground with people who represent this particular point of view. Ergo, they are incapable of understanding that others who do not agree with them can, in point of fact, be coming from the middle and NOT from an extreme position such as is represented above.

posted 10-27-2003 03:41 AM            

Answer: He is being consulted by posters at the chemtrailtrackingusa forum who like his idea that global warming is a myth and conclude that therefore those who try to understand chemtrails in terms of answers or pseudo-answers to the problem of global warming are deluded or lying.

The posting is also something in the way of a challenge to debate. It seems to me that Eduardo Ferreyra is not in the first instance an anti-chemtrail debunker and would not respond with relish to an invitation to expose his unfamiliarity with the relevant facts.

posted 11-14-2003 09:10 AM            

Not that I want to convince anyone about anything. Only you can convince yourself -- given you have the right, truly scientific information (not merely New York Times newsbriefs, press releases, or Greenpeace newsletters, etc) because the "science by press releases", and "science by convenient and friendly peer-review" have gone too far. I'll try to provide such information for evaluation and analysis, and, if you have the scientific knowledge enough to deal with the information, then life could change for you.

Many years ago I gave up trying to convince "believers". Is like trying to convince a Muslim, or a Catholic, or an Atheist he's wrong, and should believe in other gods, or oher things. So it is not I who's going to convince you about anything: that's up to you. I would like to point that the use sarcasm and ironic comments, sometimes, show a lack of argumentation strength. The same with insults, or shouting; as Leonardo Da Vinci said: "When there is shouting, there is no real knowledge".

Please wait a couple of days, and I'll be back. In the meantime, if you really want to see what I am to, or what is my way of thinking about the environment, myths and frauds in science, pay a short visit to our website at the Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology at:

Ecology: Myths and Hoaxes

and if you happen to understand Spanish, then go to:

Ecología: Mitos y Fraudes

posted 11-14-2003 04:04 PM            

A Not So Brief “About Us”

I am Eduardo Ferreyra, president of the Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology, founded in 1994. My role is to coordinate and assemble the information, scientific or otherwise, that becomes available on environmental matters and scientific and technological advances. Although I am not involved in research on any of the specific matters related with ecology and earth Sciences, I have the scientific ground as to distinguish between sound and flawed science. One has just to compare both sides of the issue and contrast them against the basic laws of physics, chemistry, optics, thermodynamics, biology, etc. The truth should emerge intact.

The members, permanent and occasional contributors to the foundation’s work are (among others):

Prof. Cesar Miranda, Emeritus from the Cordoba National University, Argentina, standing member of the national Academy of Arts, and a renown explorer and expert in Amazon jungle en Indian cultures.

Dr. Enrique Lerena de la Serna, ethologist, Honoris Causa at the Max Planck Institute, Germany. Lead the team that discovered the way to make Siberian tigers to reproduce in captivity. His work pursuing the scientific truth by exposing environmental hoaxes has made him the victim of several arson, shooting and bombing attacks from eco-terrorists in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Carlos Wotzkow, Cuban ornithologist, exiled in Switzerland, and the victim of Castro’s regime persecution, for his continuing exposure of the way the Cuban environment is being devastated by the Revolution favouring Spanish tourist vacationing sites.

Dr. Willie Soon PhD in Astrophysics, works at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division in the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Author of many peer-reviewed papers on solar activity and its influence on Earth’s climate.

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, PhD in Astrophysics from Harvard University, former Deputy director for the Mount Wilson Observatory, works at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Contributing editor to the IPCC Report on Climate Change. Awarded the Newton-Lacy-Pierce Prize from the American Astronomical Society, and Harvard’s Bok Prize. Specializes in climate solar activity and climatic change. Author of more than 200 papers and articles on the subject.

Mr. John Daly, from Tasmania, Australia, publisher of Still waiting for Greenhouse, author of "The Greenhouse Trap", (Bantam Books, 1989), and also of articles and papers in New Zealand Science Monthly, New Woman, Forest Industries Journal , Norwegian Oil Review, papers in "Climate Change" (Univ. of Western Sydney) and for the 1990 ANZAAS Congress. Written and verbal submissions to the Industry Commission and the 1996 National Greenhouse Response Strategy Review. Participated in many public debates with climatic scientists.
Year 2000: Written submission to the Australian parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, 2000
May 2000 - Presentation to the inaugural conference of the Lavoisier Group, Melbourne
July 2000 - Presentation on the current state of climate science to a group of 42 Government Members of Parliament at Parliament House, Canberra.

Dr. Fred Singer, PH.D, Singer did his undergraduate work in electrical engineering at Ohio State University and holds a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University. He is the author or editor of more than a dozen books and monographs, including Is There an Optimum Level of Population? (McGraw-Hill, 1971), Free Market Energy (Universe Books, 1984), and Global Climate Change (Paragon House, 1989).

Now President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, a non-profit policy research group he founded in 1990, Singer is also Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. His previous government and academic positions include Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89); Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71); Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70); founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67); first Director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64); and Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62).

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworoski, PhD, MD, a multidisciplinary scientist at the Laboratory of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland. Former head and present member of UNSCEAR, (United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiations). He is the author of Chapter 12 “Chernobyl”, in my book “Ecology: Myths and Frauds”, available on the web at ”Chapter 12., alas, in Spanish, but I think the original article in 21st Century Science & Technology, (1998) can be obtained through this link: All Chernobyl’s Victims: A Realistic Assessment of Chernobyl’s Health Effects by Zbigniew Jaworowski.

There are more contributors to FAEC´s work, as Dr Bruce Ames (world famous toxicologist at University of California at Berkeley), but they are not involved in atmospheric sciences, so there is no use in mentionig them here..

After this not so brief introduction, I`ll resume my posts as soon as I have them ready, for what seems to be an interesting interchange of opinions - and not a discussion.

Thank you for your attention.

Eduardo Ferreyra
President
Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology

posted 11-15-2003 11:43 AM            

The "Distinguished" Eduardo Ferreyra has chosen to enter into this Internet discussion thread, which at this point has a total of 18 posts (two of which are his) and 87 views.

How gracious of you to spend your valuable time gracing us with your scientific expertise on global climate change, especially when this board would appear to be populated largely by "believers" who are unlikely to "have the scientific knowledge enough to deal with the information" which you promise to provide us.

Since my concern about global climate change is based on actual DATA, rather than belief, I would greatly appreciate any information that you were able (and willing) to provide in the following areas:

1. Plankton productivity in the world's oceans and it's role in maintaining CO2 balance.

2. Size changes in glaciers throughout the world, and what these changes might indicate.

3. Size changes in the polar ice cap, and the environmental consequences of such changes.

4. Environmental impact of cloud cover created by the global air traffic.

5. Trends in marine life in the NE Pacific (where there is a large historical data set) and the cause for such a trend.

6. Health of the world's coral reefs and what this suggests for climate change.

7. Size of the ozone hole over Antarctica and ozone depletion in higher latitudes and the resulting consequences for life on earth. (I would think this would be of interest to you given the exposure of your countrymen in southern Argentina).

These topics would be a good start. Please use simple words and I'll do my best to try to understand. Don't forget to provide references to legitimate peer reviewed journals, no "science by press release".

posted 11-15-2003 04:28 PM            

********************************************

The post by Sore Throat shows he's the "copy-and-paste newsbriefs and press releases" type of person, so abundant in forums, even though he could claim to base his knowledge on good scientific papers. As I don't know at the moment his actual level of knowledge, I'll give him the benfit of doubt and assume he really know about what`s he`s talking about.

But according to the blunder he gave me so gently, he deflects the responsibility of the link content of the sources and, adding insult to offense, he makes his customary sarcastic remarks. This may work on less informed people, of course, that believes whatever is published in the web. Not so with more informed people.

On the contrary, the work done at our foundation relies on the analysis of scientific papers, discarding news briefs by BBC, CNN, The New York Times, etc, as being the result of journalists not acquainted with the real scentific methodology necessary to later convey the correct information. They just take the "abstract" or the "conclusions" of scientific papers - in the best of cases - without reading, analizing, understandig, contrasting the theory or the results with hard and undisputed facts coming from basic laws ruling specific sciences.

But, most of the times, journalists makes a 3000 word article from the press release taking from granted the accuracy of the study, and the validity of the results. This is not science, it is not journalism: it is plain sensationalism, the old "yellow press" common in tabloids. Of course, it is junkscience at its best.

quote:

---

Here are some FACTS overlooked by Mr. Ferreyra:
"Arctic Temps Show Rise, NASA Study Says"

---

You should use the word FACTS with more caution. The mentioned study is not a fact, it is merely a research that will stand scrutiny from other scientists and probably, as usual, will be shown flawed, as many of the work coming from NASA and the NOAA. Can anyone expect that these government agencies will get their huge funds by saying "the world is OK"? NASA got big money when the "space race" was going on. When the soviet union disappeared as a space power, NASA almost went bankrupt, because their funds were cut abrutly. Then they had to invent something that would provide them the precious money. They jumped onto de "ozone hole" and "global warming" hoaxes and got their ancient flow of money. As Agent 86 would say: The old trick of "scare the people, they'll put pressure on the Congress".

No, we didn't overlooked the "facts", and I beg you to be more accurate in your claims. I am sure you really mean "I think Ferreyra overlooked", while you didn't know doodley-squat. Your sarcasm adds no weight to your arguments.

quote:

---

and perhaps the esteemed Preseident Ferreyra also missed this article:
"Study: S. America Glaciers Melting Faster"

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Melting of glaciers in the Patagonian ice fields of southern Argentina and Chile has doubled in recent years, caused by higher temperatures, lower snowfall and a more rapid breaking of icebergs.
Of course, this is only occurring in Ferreyra's back yard.

---

Nope. It wasn't overlooked, either. But the story stops short there. It says "two ice fields", but does not mention we have "many ice fields" that are advancing, as the world famous Perito Moreno Glacier, in the province of Santa Cruz, Patagonia. The causes of glacier receding are always local or regional - never global. Some glaciers in the Peruvian Andes are receding, most of them, as the Quelccaya glacier (5670 m, 13.56ºS 70.50ºW) is growing.

Glaciers are monitored by the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) at http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/wgmshome/links.html where you can get lots of valuable information.

From their database, easily accesed, you can get this very brief information. We asked for the name and its "tongue activity". Tongue activity is classified as

Activity of tongue

0 uncertain - 1 Marked retreat - 2 Slight retreat - 3 Stationary - 4 Slight advance - 5 Marked advance - 6 Possible surge - 7 Known surge . 8 Oscillating

In the Pacific Side of the Chilean Patagonia, the list shows (only relevant glaciers are given for this post, because the list comprises hundreds of ice fileds)

Copahue A, to Copahue D-3 = 0 (29 glaciers) - Puntillas Flores = 3 - Del Diablo = 3 - Paredones = 3 - Don Manuel: = 1 - Cortaderal = 1 - De la Galeria = 0 - Cachapoal = 4 - Marmolejo = 2 - Del Meson Alto = 3 - etc, etc.

In this list, two glaciers are on class 1 (marked retreat), the huge majority in class 3 (stationary) and some in class 4 (slight advance),

On the Peruvuan Andes region:

Quiulacocha 1 = 0 to Quiulacocha 4 = 0 - Tarata = 0 - Tarata 2 = 0 - Huagoruncho = 0 - Huagoruncho 1 = 0 - Huagoruncho 2 = 0 - Tarata 3 = 0 - Nausanca 1 = 0 - Nausanca 2 = 0 - etc, etc....

In the Entire region of the Peruvian, Ecuadorian and Bolivian Andes there is not a single glacer marked as 1 = marked retreat, or 2 = slight retreat. All of them are marked as "0 - uncertain".

If the cause for the "glaciar melting" is global warming (emphasis on "global"), that is the warming is general everywhere on Earth, why some glaciers melt and, in the same area, other glaciers grow? Does not fit into the "global warming" hypothesis.

More info in this horrible webpage: http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

quote:

---

"Warmest September on Record, Experts Say"

WASHINGTON - Last month was the warmest September on record, federal climate experts said Friday. Worldwide, the average temperature for the month was about 60 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius), according to Jay Lawrimore of the National Climate Data Center. That's 1.0 degree Fahrenheit above average on records going back to 1880. The second and third warmest Septembers on record occurred in 1997 and 1998, respectively. ...more

---

Of course, they take the surface temperature records for their scary story, but will never show the satellite records, that show there was not warming, but a slight cooling. This is the result of the known "urban heat island effect", suffered by surface meteorological stations that gives about 3 to 6º C more than rural (open spaces areas) stations, that show similar records with satellite readings. That's the reason for the "broken record" in England this summer, reading taken from the heathrow airport (nice hot place for taking readings - square miles of concrete slabs and thousands of jet engines emiting thousands of degrees from their exhausts). Curiously, the same day, temperatures at England's coast (just a few miles away, northeast) were 10º C lower than Heathrow airport, some 8ºC lower than London's. (Taken from the records at Brtish MET)

This an article written be me (in my poor English) about the subject: Heat Wave in Europe: the Mystery Unveiled", that had a great acceptance from the public (and many climatologists that emailed me their congratulations).

Here, about the cold wheather on last July in Alaska: July Snow Chills Interior. I would give you the link to the pages telling about the snow in Moscow in June, but you already know about such an abnormal event - while there was a Heat Wave west of it! Crazy weather, don't you think so?

Recommended reading (scientific papers - and some newsbriefs):

Index of English Version of FAEC's Website whre you'll enough scientific information (disinformation according to Sore Throat and Deborah) that will put you to bed.

quote:

---

Ozone Depletion ...

"Antarctic Ozone Hole Biggest Ever"
LONDON - The gaping, man-made hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica has hit record proportions for this time of year and could get bigger still within the next few days, a leading scientist said last week.

---

Sometimes it gets boring hearing the same story onece and again. Do you remember how many times the press has released this same headlines "Antarctic Ozone Hole Biggest Ever"? According to the predictions (prophecies?) of computer models, the hole should have reached the Amazon jungle by now. The story says: "It was the largest it has ever been during August, and we are waiting to see what happens over the next few days," What happened? What happens every year. The hole shrinks and disappear. As it has been doing for the last couple, dozens, thousands? million years. George Gordon Dobson discoverred the "hole" in 1957, along with scientists in the Antarctic french station Dumont D'Urvlle. Even he recognized immediately that it was a pure natural event, and called it "The Southern Anomaly".

But the anti-CFCs campaign launched and sponsored by ICI and duPont needed a "scape goat", a "smoking gun" for pushing the CFCs ban. Their patents had expired, and the people in China were embarked in a national plan of cheap fridges for every familiy. Of course, they would not pay royalties for an expired patent. Money Talks. The rest is history.

quote:

---

Consequences:
Eye Damage:
Skin Cancer: "Ozone depletion increases skin cancer risk"

---

This is utter misinformation. Exposure to the sun's rays will increase the risks of squamous and basal cell tumors (non malignant), while it has no consequences on the development of melanomas, as any dermatologist (aptly updated) knows. Worse yet, the use of protective or blocking creams just worsen the matter: they are formulated for blocking the beneficial UV-B wavelenghts (essential to the synthsis of vitamin D on the skin, and the most important contributing factor to bone formation), while it lets pass through UV-A. longer wavelenghts that damages the skin, causing aging and wrinkles - and the formation of basal and squamous cells. Solar beds, that gives you thousand more levels of UV-A than a normal sun exposure, should be banned.

We have in our records the news about "babies getting skin cancers in Punta Arena, Chile, because the ozone hole reached that location". (Punta Arenas is in the sothernmost tip of Chile, very close to the south Pole). Also, Al "Ozone Man" Gore (what a jerk!) went out shoutnig about the sheeps in Patagonia that went blind because the ozone hole. The investigation uncovered the facts: the ashes from Mount Hudson eruption in 1991 had provoked the onset of a bacterial conjunctivitis.

Then it comes the research made in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, by scientisits from the National University of Buenos Aires, Drs. isidoro Orlansky and Ernesto A. Martínez, measured the UV rays coming through a ozone mini-hole above Ushuaia. Their study reveals: "Typical global radiation values (according to annual averages) are about 300 watss/m2 in Buenos Aires, about 100/150 Watts/m2 in Ushuaia, and below 100 watts/m2 in the Antarctic. Levels directly belw the ozone hole do not reach average values found at Buenos Aires at the same moment."

So the values of UV-B radiation coming through an ozone hole in Ushuaia are half the UV-B radiation falling over Buenos Aires at the same moment. Then, why people in Buenos Aires are not already dead from melanomas, or suffering from cataracts? Considering that UV radiation increases at the rate of about 10% for every 100 kilometers going towards the Equator, UV radiation falling over the city of Salta (200 km north of Buenos Aires) is about 200% higher than in Buenos Aires. Worse yet, UV radiation increases about 1% for every 50 meters of elevation, and as Salta is at 900 meters above sea level, they get an additional 18% more UV radiation. Curiosly, health statistics show no difference in skin tumors or melanomas, or cataracts, than the rest of the country - from Patagonia to the jungles.

Read, for the fun of it, an article by this humble "presiedent" about the number of years it would take for chlorine to destroy the ozone layer - if there were not many things that would prevent it, mainly, chemistry's gaseous phase.

Amazing Calculations

quote:

---

So Halva, I have to wonder....just what was your point in posting what is clearly disinformation by Eduardo Ferreyra, President of FAEC- Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology ? ? ?

---

Disinformation. Good Lord! I have just answered, now take the information provided and start your own reading, understandig, analysis, etc, etc, and perhaps you'll get a clearer picture of the issues being discussed. Then return here and tell us what you have discovered. Please, no more links to press releases mentioning next month publishing of still unread papers.

posted 11-15-2003 06:35 PM            

You come across as a characteristic pompous "academic", on the take from those who rape and pillage the earth to support their profits through maintaining the status quo. Your condescending attitude is a futile facade for a thoroughly discredited point of view. You are a classic example of the "best science" that money can buy. Which by the way, you haven't mentioned your source of funding...I imagine that would be quite revealing.

What is clear to an impartial reader is that your attempt to discredit entire institutions (NASA, NOAA, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Woods Hole Oceanograhic) is pathetically ludicrous.

The use of "cut and paste" to sources on the Internet is to provide others to resources, no different than what you have provided. It certainly doesn't change the essence of the articles.

For those interested, here are some FACTS that the "Distinguished" Eduardo Ferreyra failed to address:

1. Plankton productivity in the world's oceans and it's role in maintaining CO2 balance.

Plunging plankton levels may be disastrous
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=946502002

GLOBAL warming is being accelerated by a massive drop in the tiny organisms that absorb CO2 in the North Atlantic, NASA satellites have revealed.

The latest results are highly significant and could help explain some of the decline in fish stocks and weather changes.

They are based on a 20-year snapshot of the ocean which has seen phytoplankton levels drop by 14 per cent in the North Atlantic and 30 per cent in the North Pacific. ...

more...

Ocean Plant Life Slows Down and Absorbs Less Carbon

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/0815oceancarbon.html

Plant life in the world's oceans has become less productive since the early 1980s, absorbing less carbon, which may in turn impact the Earth's carbon cycle, according
to a study that combines NASA satellite data with NOAA surface observations of marine plants.

Microscopic ocean plants called phytoplankton account for about half the transfer of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the
environment into plant cells by photosynthesis. Land plants pull in the other half. In the atmosphere, CO2 is a heat-
trapping greenhouse gas.

Watson Gregg, a NASA GSFC researcher and lead author of the study, finds that the oceans' net primary productivity (NPP)
has declined more than 6 percent globally over the last two decades, possibly as a result of climatic changes. NPP is the
rate at which plant cells take in CO2 during photosynthesis from sunlight, using the carbon for growth. The NASA funded study appears in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters. ...

Have you ever published in Geophysical Research Letters Senior Ferreyra? Sufficiently "peer reviewed for you?

Warming waters identified as cause of marine life depletions off California

http://www.brightsurf.com/news/nov_03/SIO_news_110703.php

CalCOFI data used to pinpoint mechanism underlying decline

In the mid-1970s, the abundance of marine life along the western coast of the United States began a momentous decline, the start of a trend that today has yet to rebound. Numbers of fish, seabirds, kelp beds, and zooplankton-the critical base of the oceanic food web-plummeted.

A recent study led by a scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, has found warming ocean temperatures as the likely driving force behind the 25-year deterioration.

Scripps's John McGowan and his colleagues used data recorded by the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI) to examine the mechanism behind the changes seen in the California Current, the large current originating in the northern Pacific Ocean that passes along the western coast of North America.

"We had seen a big change in the California Current ecosystems since the late 1970s, and in this report we looked at the possible mechanisms accounting for that change. We found that the most likely cause is a change in the upper-ocean heat content," said McGowan, who published the results in Deep Sea Research Part II, in a special edition that focused on the California Current and CalCOFI. The paper was coauthored by Steven Bograd and Ronald Lynn of the National Marine Fisheries Service and Arthur Miller of Scripps. ...more

Have you ever published in Deep Sea Research Senior Ferreyra? Sufficiently peer reviewed for you? By the way, what data set do you have that is as comprehensive as the CalCOFI data?

Changes in Ocean Productivity
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16317

Plant life in the world’s oceans has become less productive since the early 1980s, absorbing less carbon, which may in turn impact the Earth’s carbon cycle. Watson Gregg, a NASA GSFC researcher, finds that the oceans’ net primary productivity (NPP) has declined more than 6 percent globally over the last two decades, possibly as a result of climatic changes. NPP is the rate at which plant cells take in CO2 during photosynthesis, using the carbon for growth.

“This research shows ocean primary productivity is declining, and it may be a result of climate changes such as increased temperatures and decreased iron deposition into parts of the oceans. This has major implications for the global carbon cycle,” Gregg said. Iron from trans-continental dust clouds is an important nutrient for phytoplankton, and when lacking can keep populations from growing.

...more

2. Size changes in glaciers throughout the world, and what these changes might indicate.

Rwenzori Glaciers Melting

http://allafrica.com/stories/200310280382.html

Kampala

AN international team of scientists has recently observed a rapid decline in the extent of glaciers that cap the Rwenzori Mountains in western Uganda.

Field observations from one, the Speke glacier, indicate that it has receded more than 300m in the last decade. The team from Makerere University, the University College London in the UK, the University of Innsbruck in Austria and the Water Resources Management Department of Uganda, will estimate the area covered by this and other glaciers on the mountains over the next year.

...more

Alaskan glaciers melting faster
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2137205.stm

US scientists have found that glaciers in Alaska are retreating much faster than originally thought.

The researchers say the resulting melt waters are sufficiently large to drive up global sea levels by 0.14 millimetres per year.

...more

Kazakhstan's glaciers 'melting fast'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3077422.stm

The political stability of a key central Asian state could be imperilled by climate change, researchers say.

They say glaciers are melting so fast in parts of Kazakhstan that the livelihoods of millions of people will be affected.

They found the area's glaciers were losing almost two cubic kilometres of ice annually during the later 20th Century.

With regional temperatures rising, they believe climate change is responsible.

The scientists, led by Dr Stephan Harrison of the University of Oxford, reported their findings at the annual conference in London of the UK's Royal Geographical Society and Institute of British Geographers.

...more

Largest Arctic ice shelf breaks up, says report

http://www.enn.com/news/2003-09-23/s_8679.asp

WASHINGTON — The largest ice shelf in the Arctic, a solid feature for 3,000 years, has broken up, scientists in the United States and Canada said Monday.

They said the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, on the north coast of Ellesmere Island in Canada's Nunavut territory, broke into two main parts, themselves cut through with fissures. A freshwater lake drained into the sea, the researchers reported. Large ice islands also calved off from the shelf, and some are large enough to be dangerous to shipping and to drilling platforms in the Beaufort Sea.

Local warming of the climate is to blame, they said — adding that they did not have the evidence needed to link the melting ice to the steady, planet-wide climate change known as global warming.

Warwick Vincent and Derek Mueller of Laval University in Quebec City, Canada, and Martin Jeffries of the University of Alaska Fairbanks lived at the site, flew over it, and used radar satellite imaging for their study.

Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, Vincent's team said all of the fresh water poured out of the 20-mile-long Disraeli Fjord. This in turn has affected communities of freshwater and marine species of plankton and algae, said Mueller, a graduate student who has studied the tiny creatures.

...more

I presume Senior Ferreyra that the journal Geophysical Research Letters meets your exacting requirements for "peer reviewed science".

South American Glaciers Melting Faster, Changing Sea Level
http://www1.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/oct/HQ_03336_So_Amer_glaciers.html

The Patagonia Icefields of Chile and Argentina, the largest non-Antarctic ice masses in the Southern Hemisphere, are thinning at an accelerating pace and now account for nearly 10 percent of global sea-level change from mountain glaciers, according to a new study by NASA and Chile's Centro de Estudios Cientificos.

Researchers Dr. Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.; Andres Rivera of Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile; and Gino Casassa of Centro de Estudios Cientificos, Valdivia, Chile, compared conventional topographic data from the 1970s and 1990s with data from NASA's Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, flown in February 2000. Their objective was to measure changes over time in the volumes of the 63 largest glaciers in the region.

Results of the study, published this week in the journal Science, conclude the Patagonia Icefields lost ice at a rate equivalent to a sea level rise of 0.04 millimeters (0.0016 inches) per year, during the period 1975 through 2000. This is equal to nine percent of the total annual global sea-level rise from mountain glaciers, according to the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Scientific Assessment. From 1995 through 2000, however, the rate of ice loss from the icefields more than doubled, to an equivalent sea level rise of 0.1 millimeters (0.004 inches) per year.

In comparison, Alaska's glaciers, which cover an area five times larger, account for about 30 percent of total annual global sea-level rise from mountain glaciers. So what's causing the increased Patagonia thinning?

Rignot and his colleagues concluded the answer is climate change, as evidenced by increased air temperatures and decreased precipitation over time. Still, those factors alone are not sufficient to explain the rapid thinning. The rest of the story appears to lie primarily in the unique dynamic response of the region's glaciers to climate change.

"The Patagonia Icefields are dominated by so-called 'calving' glaciers," Rignot said. "Such glaciers spawn icebergs into the ocean or lakes and have different dynamics from glaciers that end on land and melt at their front ends. Calving glaciers are more sensitive to climate change once pushed out of equilibrium, and make this region the fastest area of glacial retreat on Earth," he said.

Rignot said the study underscores NASA's unique contributions to understanding changes in Earth's cryosphere. "From the unique vantage point of space, the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission was able to provide the first complete topographic coverage of the Patagonia Icefields," he explained. "Researchers can now access data on this remote Earth region in its totality, allowing them to draw conclusions about the whole system, rather than just focusing on changes on a few glaciers studied from the ground or by aircraft," he said.

Rignot said scientists are particularly interested in studying how climate interacts with glaciers because it may be a good barometer of how the large ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica will respond to future climate change. "We know the Antarctic peninsula has been warming for the past four decades, with ice shelves disappearing rapidly and glaciers behind them speeding up and raising sea level," he noted. "Our Patagonia research is providing unique insights into how these larger ice masses may evolve over time in a warmer climate," he said.

The Northern Patagonia Icefield in Chile and the Southern Patagonia Icefield in Chile and Argentina, cover 13,000 and 4,200 square kilometers (5,019 and 1,622 square miles), respectively. The region, spanning the Andes mountain range, is sparsely inhabited, with rough terrain and poor weather, restricting ground access by scientists. Precipitation in the region ranges from 2 to 11 meters (6.6 to 36 feet) of water equivalent per year, a snow equivalent of up to 30 meters (98.4 feet) a year. The icefields discharge ice and meltwater to the ocean on the west side and to lakes on the east side, via rapidly flowing glaciers. The fronts of most of these glaciers have been retreating over the past half-century or more.

The study benefited from ground experiments led jointly by Centro de Estudios Cientificos; Universidad de Chile; University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.; and University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, with funding by NASA, Fondecyt (Chilean National Science Foundation) and the National Science Foundation International Program.

The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission is a cooperative project of NASA, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, and the German and Italian space agencies. Information about the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission is available at: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/

Glacial Retreat
Scientists say glaciers are melting at alarming rate.
http://www.techtv.com/news/scitech/story/0,24195,3514925,00.html

GLACIER NATIONAL PARK, Mont. -- On the fabled Going-to-the-Sun Road, which clings to the mountainside here and provides breathtaking views of the Continental Divide, Glacier National Park looks as healthy as ever.

Snow and glaciers can be viewed as far as the eye can see. But for scientists who study glaciers, all they see are remnants of glaciers, which are melting and shrinking at an alarming rate.

"Predictions are that within 30 years, almost all the glaciers will be gone from Glacier," said Blase Reardon, a biological sciences technician with the U.S. Geological Survey.

"One of the problems of the last 10 years is that the glaciers have been fragmenting into smaller pieces," he added.

Now there's proof of just how fast the massive blocks of moving ice are retreating. For the first time in 35 years, the USGS has conducted an exhaustive photographic evaluation of the million-acre park. By comparing historic photos taken around the turn of the 20th century, scientists can point to a rapidly diminishing number of glaciers.

...more

****************************************

I notice Senior Ferreyra that you selectively excluded any reference to item 4. Environmental impact of cloud cover created by the global air traffic.

Surprising actually, since this is central to the theme of this discussion group...hummm...must think on that somewhat.

I will leave you some time to chew on the above information. Hopefully you can come up with something a little more profound than throwing mud balls at the premier oceanographic research institutions in the United States.

Are you really that deluded in your own superiority complex?

Readers should note that the "Distinguished" Senior Ferreyra will not directly address the facts presented above, but rather that I am providing this information in a "cut and paste" manner. From my point of view this is clearly a diversionary tactic, and so clearly transparent. In fact, it reeks of desperation.

Readers will have to decide for themselves where the Truth resides.

Don't worry people...nothing to worry about...nothing is getting worse.

What is the likelihood that all th