posted 03-08-2004 12:05 AM               

In one of the pictures, the caption says: "A dramatic image looking down the Calvo Glacier in Chile" – What gives a clear picture, not of retreating glaciers, but of Cherry Picking examples (as poor Throatie usually does himself).

Why didn’t the BBC published a picture of the Pio XI, or Perito Moreno, or other big glaciers that are advancing? They really are more impressive – but they don’t support their claim of “melting” glaciers. As neither glaciologists do support the “melting” theory for the retreat of some glaciers.

Now give us a scientific PAPER stating clearly that glaciers are “melting” and then I’ll give you the reason – after reviewing the paper, of course, and see if their conclusions are scientifically sound and accurate.

But there is a scientific mechanism I asked Throatie to explain us, but he has failed to do so: why “global warming”, that is acting everywhere (hence “global”), is making some glaciers to “melt” and other glaciers to grow. Why Throatie? WHY?

Perhaps is the same reason why “global warming” is making people freeze to death in the Northern Hemisphere (why didn’t you say anything about the Swiss lake in front of Bienne that froze completely three days ago – first time since 1961, and 1928).

And don’t give us that crap about the thermohaline currents in the Gulf Stream: that hype has been discarded, to Gagossian's dismay. The favorite scenario of certain climate modelers is one in which the North Atlantic oceanic “conveyor belt” and Gulf Stream are turned off, thereby turning Western Europe into Siberia. But more realistic models show that the warmer European temperatures are not set by the Gulf Stream but by the perturbation of the atmospheric circulation induced by the Rocky Mountains of the Western US [Seager, Richard. 2003. Quart. J Royal Meterorol. Soc].

Another model shows that even as there is a freshening of the North Atlantic, the conveyor belt is strengthened not weakened [Wu, P., Wood, R., and Stott, P., 2004. "Does the recent freshening trend in the North Atlantic indicate a weakening of the thermohaline circulation?" Geophys. Res. Lett. 31: 10.1029/2003GL018584.]

Finally, we have the direct evidence from the atmosphere: Previous warmings, the Holocene optimum (8000-5000 BP) and the Medieval Climate Optimum (ca. 1000 AD), did not cause any abrupt cooling.

Of course Nature and Science will never publish any work written by me – or any other notorious “global warming” dissenter. That’s why peer-review is there for: preventing the intrusion of dissenting views from “outsiders” of the “climate change establishment”.

This is part of my friend John Daly’s last essay, “The Peer Review System: Is Climate Science Politically Corrupt?”, finished a week before is sudden death on January 29th. You can read it in extenso at:
http://www.john-daly.com/peerrev1.htm

So there is no use in trying to go peer-reviewed – is the same as getting the approval of my arguments from most people in the Chemtrail forum.

You need global warming for a support to your belief in those sprayings. Anything contradicting the gospel is heresy – Be anathema! Kill them, burn them, chop their heads off! So you will keep believing in a theory of impending doom that's hard to test, since the proof is 100 years away. In the meantime, you could argue that it has become a form of welfare for liberal scientists.

Scientists have created a global-warming paradigm for themselves that benefits them - as a cause and as a livelihood. They won't easily be dissuaded from it. Scientists tend to resist new information that upsets their paradigm till a new paradigm from a new generation finally supersedes it. In the meantime, when their hypotheses don't work out, it's typical to see them come up with more and more complicated explanations and lash out personally at their critics.

posted 03-08-2004 12:15 AM               

But here is the article:

Columbia research reveals that Gulf Stream is not responsible for mild winters in Europe

Research suggests that ocean circulation plays less of a role in climate change than previously thought

New research shows that the Gulf Stream has little effect on the contrast in winter temperatures between Europe and eastern North America, dispelling a long-held assumption. Instead, atmospheric circulation, augmented by the Rocky Mountains, plays a larger role, say Dr. Richard Seager of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Dr. David Battisti of the University of Washington, and their colleagues.

Published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, this new data suggests that atmospheric circulation is more important to understanding climate variability than is the ocean circulation.

What Seager, Battisti, and their co-workers found was that much of the difference in temperature between eastern North America and western Europe can be explained by the simple and well-known fact that the ocean stores heat in the summer and gradually releases it in winter. Where winds blow from west to east, as across the North Atlantic, the heat released in winter preferentially warms the land areas to the east of the ocean. That this is a big effect is well known, but the new research shows that the winter temperature contrast is much bigger than can be accounted for by this simple difference between a warm 'maritime' climate in Europe and a frigid 'continental' climate in North America.

The Rocky Mountains play a major role. Analogous to an island in a stream, the Rockies set up a persistent wave in the winds downstream that brings cold winds from the north into eastern North America and warm winds from the south into western Europe. This pattern of movement of heat by the winds accounts for half of the total difference in winter temperatures between the two regions, with much of the other half attributable to the release of heat stored in the ocean.

"That the Gulf Stream heat transport has a minor effect while the Rocky Mountains loom large in causing the differing winter conditions of western Europe and eastern North America will 'certainly require some rewriting of textbooks as well as tourist guides'" says Seager. "But now we must also look differently at theories of climate change, which in the past have revolved around water circulation in the Atlantic Ocean."

The research team analyzed observational data to first make their argument and then performed a set of experiments with computer models of the atmosphere and ocean to prove it. In some model experiments they accounted for the movement of heat by ocean currents and in others they stopped the ocean from moving. In other experiments they removed mountains and made the Earth flat. When the Rocky Mountains were removed from the model, temperatures in eastern North America warmed, and they dropped in western Europe.

Richard Seager is a Senior Research Scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a research unit of the Earth Institute of Columbia University. The research reported in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, http://www.royal-met-soc.org.uk/, was supported by funding from NOAA.

###

The Earth Institute at Columbia University is the world's pioneer academic center for mobilizing the sciences and public policy in pursuit of a sustainable future, especially for the world's poor. Its director is international economist Jeffrey D. Sachs. More than 800 scientists with strength in Earth science, ecology, health, social science or engineering are working together to reduce poverty, hunger, disease and environmental degradation. The Institute brings their creative knowledge to bear through teaching, research and outreach in dozens of countries around the world. In all it does, the Earth Institute remains mindful of the staggering disparities between rich and poor nations and the tremendous impact that global-scale problems – from the AIDS pandemic to climate change to extreme poverty in much of the developing world – will have on all nations.

The Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory is among the world's leading research centers examining the planet from its core to its atmosphere, across every continent and every ocean. From global climate change to earthquakes, volcanoes, environmental hazards and beyond, Observatory scientists continue to provide the basic knowledge of Earth systems that must inform the difficult decisions that will determine the future health and habitability of our planet. For more information, visit http://www.earth.columbia.edu

posted 03-08-2004 12:32 AM               

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L02301, doi:10.1029/2003GL018584, 2004

Abstract

[1] It is widely expected that the thermohaline circulation of the ocean will slow down as greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere increases. This is partly due to an intensified hydrological cycle in a warmer climate. Is the recent observed freshening trend in the North Atlantic an indication of what has been expected? We report a similar freshening trend reproduced in an ensemble of four coupled model simulations with all major historical external (natural and anthropogenic) forcings. The modelled freshening trend originates from the Arctic Ocean where sea ice decrease and river runoffs increase with the same trend. Instead of weakening, we find an upward trend in the North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation.

Received 9 September 2003; accepted 3 December 2003; published 20 January 2004.

Hey Throatie, don't you get sick of being disproved on all your gloomy catastrophic predictions? You are really having a hard life.

posted 03-08-2004 01:23 AM               

In any case I thought it was part of scientific method to at least TRY to exude an aura of impartiality. Disproving gloomy catastrophic predictions for the sake of preserving one's emotional well-being does not seem to me to be one of the tasks of science.

posted 03-08-2004 02:40 AM            

Thank you for that link to FAEC. I will definitely check out the information after (or more than likely DURING) my finishing of Felix’s site. I find the whole ice age cycle theory quite captivating as well as plausible. I am quite shocked that I am only now coming across this material! Where has it been? I’ve been reading Discover magazine since it’s inception in 1990 – I DO NOT recall ever reading about this before. As I said before, I am no scientist, but I have always followed science’s movement through those type of magazines. As far as I’m concerned, the information you provided on censorship applies to EVERYTHING that has any level of educating the masses involved. There is no such thing as free thinking especially in the sciences. The information that is suppressed or altered to promote an agenda is enough to drive one mad!

It’s interesting you bring up Chernobyl. I am first generation American, my nationality is Ukrainian. I still have family in Ukraine, not far from Kiev! They’re all fairly healthy now (never lost their hair or teeth or had skin problems) but after the accident they were quite sick! Guess that strong Slovic DNA kept them healthy – ha!

I’d like to ask you some questions that I hope you will answer. This will help me get through this concept:

1. Since trees are the earth’s lungs, isn’t global deforestation (which is at 40%? now) having an adverse effect on our planet by adding CO2 into the atmosphere which will ultimately aid the ice age effect?

2. What are the adverse planetary effects of burning fossil fuels?

3. I’m not sure where you stand on chemtrails, but I believe a MULTI-PURPOSE spraying operation exits. Since a huge amount of moisture is necessary for an ice age to commence, is it possible that one purpose of chemtrails might be to absorb moisture and divert it elsewhere, say to the polar regions?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edufer:
So there is no use in trying to go peer-reviewed – is the same as getting the approval of my arguments from most people in the Chemtrail forum. You need global warming for a support to your belief in those sprayings.

---

Why do you say that chemtrail believers need global warming to support the theory?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edufer:
don't you get sick of being disproved on all your gloomy catastrophic predictions?

---

posted 03-08-2004 09:58 AM               

Since, in his claimed view, global warming is a myth, chemtrails/contrails/geoengineering/aerosol spraying must also be a myth because they would serve no purpose and therefore could not possibly be occurring.

QED.

posted 03-08-2004 11:43 AM               

And I am just teasing Sore Throat. He is so up there in his self made pedestal of arrogance and despise for anyone not sharing his views, that he is utterly ridicule and I can not resist the temptation of having an innocent laugh.

Now JerseyBlueEyz:

quote:

---

It's interesting you bring up Chernobyl. I am first generation American, my nationality is Ukrainian. I still have family in Ukraine, not far from Kiev! They're all fairly healthy now (never lost their hair or teeth or had skin problems) but after the accident they were quite sick!

---

You must read what Jaworowski says about Chernobyl, and all scientific facts about it (radiation levels, mrem, or grays, or whatever absorbed by people, etc. And he – as the rest of the thousands of scientists gathered in Vienna in 1976 for the “International Conference: A Decade After Chernobyl” – read it at: http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/Safety/Chernobyl/concls17.html
Said that the worst consequences suffered by people in Chernobyl, Belarus and Ukraine was a psychological disorder (radiation neurosis) instilled by the media and the really bad governmental policies of relocating people – when it was not needed.

You could ask 21st Century Sci-Tech magazine to send you the Spring 1998 issue of their magazine, where there is the article by Jaworowski on Chernobyl. The link is: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/hilt08.html and the Article is titled: “All Chernobyl's Victims: A Realistic Assessment of Chernobyl's Health Effects” - by Zbigniew Jaworowski. (As you have been reading Discover from its beginning (I also did – until I “Discovered” it was misinforming), I have been subscribed to 21st Science & Technology since it was first called “Fusion magazine”, back in 1980. I have the complete collection, so if you want a scan of any article on the magazine, just ask me: shuara@fullzero.com.ar

quote:

---

1. Since trees are the earth's lungs, isn't global deforestation (which is at 40%? now) having an adverse effect on our planet by adding CO2 into the atmosphere which will ultimately aid the ice age effect?

---

quote:

---

2. What are the adverse planetary effects of burning fossil fuels?

---

quote:

---

3. I'm not sure where you stand on chemtrails, but I believe a MULTI-PURPOSE spraying operation exists. Since a huge amount of moisture is necessary for an ice age to commence, is it possible that one purpose of chemtrails might be to absorb moisture and divert it elsewhere, say to the polar regions?

---

I have access to the real time images of our Argentinean meteo satellites Hugo-1 and 2, and there is nothing as spraying going on in South America – from the Equator to the south, the range of the satellite coverage. So, in the same way I cannot deny there is somebody spraying, I cannot say there is a spraying being conducted. Who knows the truth?

quote:

---

Why do you say that chemtrail believers need global warming to support the theory?

---

So, I wouldn't be surprised if the sprayings were really being carried in order to control overpopulation – but there is a BUT: they are doing it in the wrong country. The US is not overpopulated, in spite of what Paul Ehrlich and Lester Brown say. They would have a 50.000 million population for the USA – and they wouldn't hesitate a second to push a button (if they had one) for erasing 200 million people from the US, and 4 billion from the rest of the Earth. But their button is their environmental policies. They are slower, but as good and effective as Zyklon-B gas.

quote:

---

Isn't an approaching ice age a gloomy catastrophe too? Either way (hot or cold) our planet is in BIG trouble!

---

I have been in about two or three bloody Revolutions down here, and had some experinces in the jungle while in the Brazilian Army, so risk is my food.

The Earth has been in BIG trouble since it was formed. Mankind has been in Big trouble since it appeared over our planet's surface. But, leaving aside some asteroid impacts, both of us have managed to survive – and to improve a lot. The New Ice Age is not far away, as we are past about 500 years the natural cycles - the Holocene should have lasted 10,000 years, and we are now in the year 10,500 of it. Dr. Theodor Landscheidt predicts a Little Ice Age during the next Double Gleissberg Minimum – starting about 2020 – barely 17 years from now. Temperatures in the 2030 will be the same as those experienced during the Little Ice Age of the 1400 until the 1700s. You can also read some of Dr. Landscheidt's papers in http://www.john-daly.com/guests.htm , along with material you have never dreamed it existed.

posted 03-08-2004 08:08 PM               

Apparently Ferreyra is still having trouble distinguishing between an isolated weather event and the much broader issue of a trend of climate change.

Perhaps a sophomoric review of the basics is in order.

Please note the information that Ferreyra attempts to exclude from the discussion complaining that the paper was "too long"

"The team combined data from a space shuttle mission in 2000 and survey data gathered on the ground to study the 63 largest Patagonia ice fields.

(Note...these are hardly the "snow fields" that Eduardo Ferreyra attempts to obfuscate with above)

They compared ice loss rates between 1968 and 1975, and from 1975 to 2000. As well as the general increase in melting, the team also found accelerated ice-mass loss between 1995 and 2000."

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

Here's some more graphic evidence, and hardly from a "snow field".
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=8268

The San Quintín Glacier is the largest outflow glacier of the Northern Patagonian Ice Field in southern Chile. Its terminus is a piedmont lobe just short of the Golfo de Penas on the Pacific Ocean and just north of 47°S. Like many glaciers worldwide during the twentieth century, San Quintín appears to be losing mass and possibly retreating. Such a change is evident in these two photographs taken by astronauts only seven years apart. The first was taken by the crew of STS-068 in October 1994 and the second by the Increment 4 crew of the International Space Station in February 2002.

I'll keep this one short...wouldn't want to tax Ferreyra's reading.

I actually thought the pictures might help him.

posted 03-08-2004 08:13 PM               

Melting of Glaciers Requires Urgent Action

by Gustavo Gonzalez

SANTIAGO - The melting of glaciers in the Patagonian region at the southern tip of Latin America requires urgent international action, without waiting for the United States to sign the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, Chilean environmentalists and government experts are saying.

The glacial retreat in Patagonia, a region shared by Argentina and Chile, was highlighted by a recent month-long expedition by a team of 25 scientists and activists on the Greenpeace vessel Arctic Sunrise.

The expedition, which ended in mid-February, set out from Amsterdam and toured Patagonia, observing the Perito Moreno and Upsala glaciers in Argentina, as well as six other glaciers on the Chilean side after passing through the Strait of Magellan.

Chilean experts joined the Arctic Sunrise for that part of the journey, whose mission was to document the state of the glaciers and the damages caused by climate change, a phenomenon blamed on the greenhouse effect caused by emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.

The team observed the Grey, San Quintin, San Rafael and Pius XI glaciers, as well as glaciers number 31 and 12 in the Southern Patagonian Ice Field. Greenpeace noted that all of them, with the exception of Pius XI, are in retreat.

Prominent local environmentalist Sara Larran, president of the non-governmental organization Sustainable Chile, told IPS that the first to feel the effects of global warming are small island states and countries with extensive shorelines, due to the rise in the sea level caused by the melting of glaciers and of the ice caps at the poles.

But global warming also affects the migration of species, she added.

''It has been estimated that for every one degree rise in the average global temperature, ecosystems, or more specifically flora, shift 100 kms away from the equator, in the direction of the North or South Poles,'' she explained.

''This is an issue that directly affects biodiversity and the biological wealth of nations,'' because in these shifts or migrations of ecosystems, species that are unable to swiftly adapt to the changes will be lost, said Larran.

She also said there would be an enormous impact on agriculture and on the farming methods that are used.

Scientific studies estimate that the greenhouse effect drove up the average global temperature by 0.6 degrees Celsius in the 20th century, and researchers project that the temperature will rise between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees over the next 100 years, if the current levels of emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not reduced.

Larran also pointed out that for every one degree increase in the global temperature, the sea level rises around 50 cms.

Using data from the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Shuttle Topographic Radar expedition, Chilean scientists Gino Casassa and Andrs Rivera calculate that the retreat of the glaciers in Patagonia accounts for nine percent of the increase in the sea level, or 0.11 mms a year.

Gonzalo Villarino, executive director of Greenpeace-Chile, said in an interview with IPS that this Southern Cone country of 16 million produces 0.02 percent of all greenhouse gases, compared to the United States, which accounts for 25 to 30 percent of the global total.

Villarino and Larran concurred that it is essential for the United States and Russia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The head of the Climatology Department in Chile's Meteorological Agency, Jorge Carrasco, also told IPS that developing countries must lobby hard to get the international treaty approved and ratified.

''All countries must make progress towards that goal, acknowledge the problem, and begin to work in support of renewable energy sources, an aspect in which Chile is lagging,'' said Villarino.

Larran observed that at the 2002 Summit for the Environment and Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, the countries of Latin America pledged to move towards the goal of making renewable sources, like solar, wind and geothermal energy, account for 10 percent of their total energy production.

''Many countries made similar commitments, and there are also other routes to be taken. Governments must come up with the solutions and political instruments, instead of waiting for the United States,'' said the activist.

''The United States has not only failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol,'' she underlined. ''It has not ratified the Biosafety Convention, or disarmament treaties, either. Although it talks about taking part in the multilateral system, in the end it doesn't sign the international conventions,'' said Larran.

Developing countries must join efforts to influence international negotiations, she added, saying Latin America should strengthen its cooperation ties, on the financial and technological levels, with the European Union, which is determined to move towards the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol even without the United States.

''Chile has a huge capacity for using solar, wind, and geothermal resources, but it is not developing them, with the exception of small isolated projects in rural areas, because there is not enough investment, and renewable energy sources generally require a large initial investment,'' said Larran.

Carrasco said Argentina and Chile should promote truly sustainable development, based on ''clean energy'', and should use the mechanisms created by the Kyoto Protocol to help countries incorporate clean technologies.

posted 03-08-2004 10:00 PM            

I understand what you are saying about trees and CO2 levels. I would love to see more stringent reclamation acts passed where loggers, or mountaintop coal miners HAVE TO remove the debris and valley fill, or replant new growth all within set time limits – especially at sites where, for example, sludge accidents have occurred.

How interesting you brought up abiotic, or non-living fuel. A CTC member recently posted a rather interesting article, The Origins of Oil and Petroleum.
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-petroleum%20is%20not%20a%20 _fossil%20fuel_-humphrey.htm

This article briefly discusses the concept of oil being an abiotic and renewable fuel. I used to wonder where the MASSIVE AMOUNTS of dinosaurs came from that it would have taken to create all that oil we’ve extracted!? This article seemed to answer that curious claim for me. Once again, another concept brought to my attention that I never read before. I MUST be reading the wrong literature. BTW, I also noticed that Discover magazine, especially over the last 5-6 years, is published with more than its fair share of information that must be weeded through. Such a shame - that publication is no longer “different”. Hopefully 21st Century Science & Technology won’t turn out to be too technical for me.

Speaking of coal, I read the other day that there are plans to fire up a total of 94 coal-burning electric power plants in 36 states!
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0226/p01s04-sten.html

Since burning coal is known to emit noxious gases with adverse effects, I am NOT too happy about this project!

- mercury = a nervous system toxin
- sulfur = leads to formation of acid rain
- nitrogen = also contributes to acid rain as well as to smog
- carbon dioxide = the chief global warming gas (oops – how did that get in there? Ha!)

The chemtrail issue is a tough one. You know that the purpose of a forum is to discuss theories. Because there are so many questions and answers are lacking, theories abound. I believe that chemtrails serve multi-purposes and that different types are used. From what has been confirmed, the residue can contain various poisonous chemicals, genetically altered viruses and bacteria, human DNA, and fibers. A friend of mine, that was involved with government exprementation for 25 years, once explained to me that ELF transmissions from the HAARP project activates these viruses and contaminants. I also believe that chemtrails aid in weather modification and Lord knows what else. I do know that what I see is not right. Don’t you know that Americans are the world’s guinea pigs? Experiments usually begin here and then spread elsewhere. Be thankful your country is not a part of this ugly bandwagon!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edufer:
What a coincidence – I was brought up in my grandmother's huge house (until the age of 10, that is 1948) where the butler and chief of the servants team was Ukrainian…

---

You must have a lot of your grandmother’s rebel rousing DNA! Ha! My father and his parents stopped in Venezuela for at least 10 years on their way out of Ukraine before they continued on to the U.S. in the late 50’s. Before Communism came to Ukraine, by family line was very prominent. MANY thousands of acres of land were taken away from my great grandfather when the Reds came.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edufer:
I have an optimistic nature. I am the type that always thinks the bottle is half full – not half empty. I am no coward. I like challenges. I have been running risks (big ones) during all my life, because it makes me feel alive. I was a skydiver until my wife and children burned my parachute, I have explored the Amazon jungle since 1970, making long solitary expeditions to far places.

---

Are you still running around in those jungles and up mountains or are you retired? I briefly looked at your links and your photos of the expeditions you’re been on! Looks interesting! Did you ever discover or find something not previously charted? As a child I used to dream of going into the jungles and discovering an ancient and lost civilization. That’s when my fascination in ancient civilizations began.

Sorry to be nosey but I have to ask - did you get another parachute or did you just expend that energy somewhere else?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edufer:
If you are young to be alive then, start buying land near the Equator, and finding a job in warmer countries. If I am still alive, I will be living in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, 15ºS, tropical area. However, when Santa Cruz was founded (1565 for the first time, and 1591 the last one), chroniclers described the region as temperate with nice summers, “but winters are so harsh that tree trunks split in half because the terrible frosts.” Can you imagine that? Trunk-splitting frosts in the tropics!

---

posted 03-08-2004 11:51 PM               

In the summer of 2002, graduate student Derek Mueller made an unwelcome discovery: the biggest ice shelf in the Arctic was breaking apart http://www.cesargroup.org/default.asp

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/wardhunt/
The bad news didn’t stop there. Lying along the northern coast of Ellesmere Island in northern Canada, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf had dammed an epishelf lake, a body of freshwater that floats on denser ocean water. This epishelf lake, located in Disraeli Fiord, was host to a rare ecosystem, and it was the largest and best-understood epishelf lake in the Northern Hemisphere. When the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf fractured, the epishelf lake suddenly drained out of Disraeli Fiord, spilling more than 3 billion cubic meters of fresh water into the Arctic Ocean.

This ice shelf, in existence for at least three millennia, has now encountered conditions it can no longer survive.

"""“Sea ice cover has been shrinking about 3 percent per decade over the past few decades. We saw a record minimum in September 2002, and the summer of 2003 almost set a new record,” said Mark Serreze, a research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado."""

A hypothesis that has gradually developed since the 1960s postulates that between 800 and 600 million years ago, the Earth underwent a series of global glaciations, a time nicknamed the Neoproterozoic “Snowball Earth.” It was after this period of worldwide freezing that multicellular life forms began leaving a rich fossil record.

Among the changes in the Northern Hemisphere that Serreze has recently reported are earlier spring breakups of river ice, increased freshwater runoff, shrinking glaciers, and trees and shrubs invading Arctic tundra. “The Arctic is changing. This is fact,”

“We’ve seen changes in the Arctic, and in recent years, the changes seem to be occurring faster.”

posted 03-09-2004 12:10 AM               

But then came the 2002 winter, and 2003 winter, that were so cold, that schools were forced to shut their doors because children couldn't go. They are not used to those colds: they had below zero Centigrade temperatures for the first time since the 1700s! High in the Andes (Sucre, Potosi, La Paz, etc) died more than 600 people - and about 50.000 vicunas, llamas, alpacas and guanacos.

So probably they will get freezing temperatures in Santa Cruz again by 2020. Remember Santa Cruz is at 340 meters asl. la paz, Potosí, Sucre, are about 4000 to 5000 meters high. (About 12,000 to 15,000 feet)

Yes, I am still active. I went horse back riding for 10 hours into the Andes in Mendoza, in early February, just to survey all those melting glaciers, that Sore Throat won't believe are snow patches that became ice after two of three mild summers. You must have seen the pictures I posted here two days ago.

I didn't buy a new parachute (I had a vintage Strato Star, one of the first square canopy parachutes, back from 1975, but it was reliable), because they are too expensive. Instead I kept going to the jungle in summer (it is cooler then - rainy season) or skiing in the winter.

And in my trips to the Jivaro indians, we discovered their origin can be traced to the island of Okinawa, Japan. Jivaros speak an ancient dialect spoken in Okinawa, and they have the same technique for building their houses - to the last detail!

The tip on the dialect was given to us by the wife of sensei Miyahira, the President of the World's Karate Federation, from Okinawa. She is a linguist, expert in ancient dialects of Okinawa. During a lecture we gave at Cordoba University, she saw a TV documentary we made with Professor Miranda, and told us she could understand about 60% of what the Jivaros were saying.

posted 03-09-2004 12:17 AM               

So the 1994 photo has much more snow (you see that by the snow in the top of the ridges at the bottom of the picture) than the lower one, taken in March 7th, at the end of the Summer, when most of the snow has melted and only the ice remains. Even so, if we take a closer look at the pictures, we see that the main difference among the photos is in the patch in the center, top, where there is more snow (not ice) and in the 2002 picture the snow has melted because the summer heat.

But comparing the bottom of the pictures, we can see that there is more ice in 2002 than in 1994. Just compare and see for yourself. Tremendous proof of melting snow, Throatie, but the ice is still there, the snow is about to come. If he really wants to compare, then he must show photos taken at about the same date of the year. It came out as another of his usual “shots in the foot”.

Then his usual piece or garbage. His link to:
http://www.commondreams.org/

All of them are here. From Noam Chomsky to Ralph Nader, from Barbara Ehrenreich to Michael Moore, links to the green-watermelon-net, Worldwatch, Sierra Club, Z-magazine, the cream of the “progressive” left is there – and of course, nothing else could be expected from the reading of the article posted by Poor Throatie.

Well, they had to “save face” after the scandal the Arctic Sunrise went through in the Amazon River on last December 2003. The chief of police in Pará, Brazil, described the crew as “unadapted hippies running away from their personal problems with sex and booze,” and the British Mail on Sunday said the Arctic Sunrise was known as a “locale of sex and booze in excess.” The police said the crew had embarked in Pará more than 2000 bottles of beer and “cachaça” for their “erotic nights” – until one of their crewmembers, Emily Craddock jumped overboard into the river. The Mail on Sunday and the Brazilian magazine IstoÉ, published a complete account of the Arctic Sunrise mishaps in the Amazon River.

According to Emily's personal diary, she discovered that José Gomes Ferreira, the security guard on board, her lover for the past two months, “was married with children” (not Al Bundy, of course!), so the police theory is that Emily, depressed, loaded with alcohol (and pot) committed suicide. Of course, Greenpeace said Emily could have been kidnapped by local loggers that wanted the Arctic Sunrise out of Brazil. After the atmosphere became dense and hot, Greenpeace rushed to a cooler air in the Chilean cold waters.

But 50 centimeters for every degree centigrade? She is a lunnie...

A friend of mine sent me this in early December, and I want to share it with you:

posted 03-09-2004 05:23 PM               

Senate committee backs $60 million ``abrupt climate change'' research program

JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer

A $60 million program for researching sudden or unexpected changes in the climate would be created under legislation that won approval Tuesday by a Senate committee.

By voice vote and with little discussion, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee sent the bill to the full Senate for consideration.

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, told fellow committee members the bill was important for Alaska. He had previously expressed concern with climate warming problems in his home state such as melting permafrost, possible village relocations, receding Alaskan forests and submerged air strips.

Under the bill, the research program for studying "abrupt climate change" -- rapid alterations that people, animals and plants have difficulty adapting to -- would be established within the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

It would be run by NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.

In October, the Senate rejected a plan to address global warming. Senators voted 55-43 to defeat a bill co-sponsored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., who heads the Commerce committee, and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., that would have cut industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

All the sponsors of the abrupt climate change bill -- Maine Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, Washington state Democratic Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, and Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt. -- voted for the McCain-Lieberman bill, while Stevens voted against it.

McCain and Sen. Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, the committee's most senior Democrat, also have asked congressional investigators to detail the effects of global warming on federally owned lands and coastal waters, an environmental group said Tuesday.

posted 03-09-2004 07:28 PM               

quote:

---

Senate committee backs $60 million ``abrupt climate change'' research program

JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer
A $60 million program for researching sudden or unexpected changes in the climate would be created under legislation that won approval Tuesday by a Senate committee.

---

But neurosis and paranoia are widespread nowadays, so it will not surprise me if Congress gives more money to investigate what we already know. Climate change is already swallowing more than 4 billion a year, like a modern Moloch. How pitiful... and how despicable!

posted 03-09-2004 07:55 PM               

Blair to be asked if US played role in silencing of chief scientist

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Tony Blair is to be questioned about an attempt to silence the Government's chief scientific adviser after he claimed that global warming was more serious than terrorism.

Norman Baker, the environment spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said he would write to Mr Blair asking him whether he had come under pressure from the US government to rein in the scientist Sir David King.

Sir David had publicly criticised the Bush administration for failing to take climate change more seriously, which led to him being rebuked by Ivan Rogers, the principal private secretary at 10 Downing Street. Mr Rogers wrote to Sir David advising him to avoid media interviews and to play down the comparison between climate change and international terrorism.

Mr Baker wanted to know whether the Prime Minister was behind the attempt to silence Sir David and whether Mr Blair had come under pressure from Washington to act against his own chief scientist.

"Sir David has a duty, on behalf of the nation, to speak up," Mr Baker said. "He must not be pushed around like some trainee civil servant. His advice that climate change is at least as big a threat to us as terrorism is clear, and has been echoed by Hans Blix [the former UN chief weapons inspector]."

posted 03-09-2004 07:57 PM               

I couldn't agree more.

posted 03-10-2004 01:34 AM               

Reynolds, your reference point in the United States, has gone down.

posted 03-10-2004 02:38 PM               

Sir David King and the thousands of reptuable scientists and Nobel Laureates from around the world that agree with his position...

or a self-published, supremely egotistical contrarian with ties to the oil and energy companies?

For the time being it's still a free country.

Make your choice and act accordingly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3498830.stm

Scientist urges US climate help

The US will have to help combat climate change if extreme weather events are to be avoided, the government's chief scientist has warned.

Sir David King told a Lords select committee inquiry into climate change of concerns about possible environment changes if global temperatures rise.

Last summer's European heat wave and flooding two years earlier could occur more frequently over time, he said.

Action to "reduce the risks" needed to be taken by nations, including the US.

Possible changes could include ocean currents, monsoons and melting polar ice caps if global temperatures are allowed to rise unchecked through carbon fuel burning.

"These severe events will occur more frequently, and the understanding of what is driving this will become more apparent," Sir David said.

"I think nations around the world will understand that in order to reduce the risks action will have to be taken.

"And amongst those nations has to be the United States, which is currently responsible for emitting about a quarter of the world's carbon dioxide."

The US has been criticised worldwide since President Bush pledged not to support the Kyoto Protocol, which sets legally binding global warming reductions.

Sir David's appearance at the select committee came a day after he denied reports that he was being "muzzled" by Downing Street.

No 10 had sent a memo to him after he said climate change was a bigger problem than the threat of terrorism.

However, Sir David has continued to conduct media interviews.

In January, Sir David wrote an article for the American journal Science criticising the US Government for failing to take global warming more seriously.

"In my view, climate change is the most severe problem we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism," he wrote.

Predictions coming true

We've now had ten of the hottest years on record over the last two thousand. And all of the predictions are now coming true unfortunately.

He told the Lords committee that the scientific community had reached a consensus that global warming was man made and "is essentially fossil fuel burning".

Sir David also disclosed that BP, Amoco and Shell were in talks about putting money into a new UK energy research centre.

He said this would have a key role in predicting climate change and temperature rise.

A key energy research laboratory, part of the old Central Electricity Generating Board, was shut down when the electricity industry was privatised in the 1980s.

Details about the new research unit will be unveiled shortly, he said.

Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/3498830.stm

posted 03-10-2004 06:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sore Throat:
or a self-published, supremely egotistical contrarian with ties to the oil and energy companies?

---

Although I feel both sides make valid points, my mind is not made up. What can I say? I'm still reading and absorbing all the info I’ve come across. The moral of my post was – just because everyone says things are a certain way does not make it right.

posted 03-10-2004 11:24 PM               

Global warming has gone to the bogs

By Robert C. Cowen

Forget the melting glaciers. Global warming is revealing itself in subtler ways. Think methane. Swedish bogs are releasing more methane as climate warms and permafrost melts. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with 25 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide (CO2). With more methane in the air, climate warming could accelerate.
Meanwhile, just as global warming theory predicts, the atmosphere's highest layers are getting colder and thinner. Contrary to expectations, high atmospheric cooling is the way greenhouse gases, such as CO2 and methane, interact with infrared (heat) radiation. At low altitudes, they absorb heat coming up from below and radiate some back downward.

But where astronauts live, these gases release most of their heat out into space, which cools the higher altitudes. The outer atmosphere contracts as it cools, thinning out its density.

Satellites orbiting a few hundred miles out would feel less drag as the air through which they travel becomes thinner.

That's how John Emmert and colleagues with the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington found evidence that this long-expected global warming effect is under way.

They report in the Journal of Geophysical Research that 30 years of tracking data for 27 satellites and space junk show a steady decline in outer atmospheric density.

That's good news for satellite owners who can use less rocket fuel to keep their birds aloft. The news from Sweden is more troubling.

Bacteria in wetlands release methane as they break down organic matter. It's the marsh gas that sometimes ignites to make spooky lights in the night. This activity slows down when bogs freeze.

Northern peat bogs - especially in subarctic Eurasia - are major sources of methane, which spreads throughout the world. Scientists have wondered what will happen as permafrost continues to melt and bogs become even more biologically active.

An international research team recently provided a window into that future. The group, led by Torben Christensen and colleagues at Lund University's GeoBiosphere Science Center in Sweden, studied 30 years of changes in Sweden's Abisko region. Their results, published in Geophysical Research Letters, show Sweden's sub-arctic bogs are losing permafrost rapidly. It's completely gone in some areas. And Dr. Christensen says that, at the Stordalen site, methane emission is up "at least 20 percent, but maybe as much as 60 percent, from 1970 to 2000."

His team report warns that if its findings are typical of the northern subarctic, global warming could accelerate as bogs thaw.

Laurence Smith at the University of California at Los Angeles and colleagues with a joint Russian-American research team expressed a similar concern last January in Nature.

Their studies of vast peat lands in Siberia show the bogs currently absorb a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere while releasing methane. But this could change. If global warming continues, the researchers warn that chemical and biological activity in the bogs could break down organic matter that now stores CO2, releasing a major new source of the gas back into the atmosphere.

The bottom line is that we have to pay attention to subtle effects. We're not going to be drowned by melting glaciers, but we might be bitten by what's sneaking up on us.