Martin Hertzberg, PhD, a scientist with a meteorological background in the Navy…he had this to say:
As Hertzberg says, water in the form of oceans, snow, ice cover, clouds and vapor “is overwhelming in the radiative and energy balance between the Earth and the sun….
Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases are, by comparison, the equivalent of a few farts in a hurricane.” And water is exactly that component of the Earth’s heat balance that the global warming computer models fail to account for.
Excerpts from the Glenn Beck Show
In the 1970s, global cooling was the consensus. This article from the "L.A. Times" in 1978: "No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere". Or "TIME" magazine`s big spread from 1974, asking "Another Ice Age?" "Newsweek" said global cooling evidence had "begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard pressed to keep up with it." Just switch out warming for cooling, and they`ve written it before. The only thing that has changed is the temperature of the catastrophe. Take a look at this headline for the "New York Times" in 1959 claiming "A Warmer Earth Evident at the Polls". But just two years later, in the same newspaper, we find this: "Scientists Agree World is Colder." Even in the mid-`90s, the "Times" was talking about a frozen earth, except it wasn`t the 1990s. It was 1895. You get whiplash reading these things. Climate changes all the time. Get used to it.
On Inconvenient Truth…..
GORE: There`s not a single fact or date or number that`s been used to make this up that`s in any controversy. Isn`t there disagreement among scientists about whether the problem is real or not? Actually, not really. Meet people that aren`t really real. ROY SPENCER, PHD, FORMER SENIOR CLIMATE SCIENTIST, NASA: Politicians and some of the scientists like to say that there`s a consensus now on global warming or the science has been settled, but you have to ask them, what is there a consensus on? Because it really makes a difference. What are you talking about? The only consensus I`m aware of is that it`s warmed in the last century. They completely ignore the fact that there`s this thing called the Oregon petition that was signed by 19,000 professionals and scientists who don`t agree with the idea that we are causing climate change. JOHN CHRISTY, PHD, ALABAMA STATE CLIMATOLOGIST: One of the statements in the SPM was the statement that, if you boil it down, it says we are 90 percent certain that most of the warming in the last 50 years was due to human effects. I don`t agree with that. I think things are much more ambiguous
How about the so-called hockey stick graph. This is the version shown by Al Gore. However, the original version used by the IPCC contained a wide margin of error not shown in "An Inconvenient Truth." Inconvenient, huh? Critics say there`s even more missing. PATRICK MICHAELS, PHD, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA STATE CLIMATOLOGIST: There are two factors that most climatologists think happened that don`t seem to be included in it, which are the little Ice Age, which is a very cold period that ended in the late 19th century, and the medieval warm period, around 1000 or so. CHRIS HORNER, "POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING": Since the third U.N. report, for which this was the smoking gun, there`s been a fourth U.N. report. Does anybody see a hockey stick in there anywhere? I can`t see you. It`s not in there. Guess what? It`s air-brushed out, in classic fashion, and they don`t even mention why it`s not here. What hockey stick? I didn`t see any hockey stick.
What about that really cool animation of Florida and Manhattan drowning? Huh, cool, huh? You`ve seen these horrific scenarios everywhere based purely on catastrophic hypotheticals that dramatically exaggerate even what the U.N. says. It`s Al Gore`s best supporting actor, the word "if." GORE: If we have an increase of five degrees, if Greenland broke up and melted...... if this were to go, sea level worldwide would go up 20 feet. MARIO LEWIS, PHD, GOVERNMENT POLICY ANALYST: Where he`s misleading is that he gives the impression that this is something that is likely to happen. The likelihood of this is next to nil. DAVID LEGATES, PHD, CLIMATOLOGIST, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: The IPCC report is that the upper limit of sea level rise by the year 2100 is going to be about 23 inches. Al Gore makes up 20 feet. The truth isn`t scary. The bottom line is, no one is denying that the globe has warmed. It has, 0.74 degrees Celsius.But there`s a disagreement on why, and there`s even more disagreement on if it will be catastrophic or not. The tactics Al Gore uses in "An Inconvenient Truth" deserve an Oscar. We all have to remember: There`s a difference between science and science fiction.
A "New York Times" story reported that 84 percent of Americans now see human activity as at least contributing to warming. What they didn`t put in that same story is that 75 percent of those think that it is just one factor of many. Another survey from a New York-based educational provider shows kids are now more scared of global warming than terrorism, cancer and car crashes. The organization that took the survey said one of the main reasons was the media coverage of tragedies, like the tsunami. The tsunami was caused by an earthquake. And as far as is known, even Al Gore isn`t claiming a link between global warming and earthquakes. I think to solve these problems, we need to take a step back. Isn`t it amazing that fossil fuels have become the enemy? The rise in our CO-2 emissions have coincided with the rise in our wealth, our life expectancy, and technological advancement. Fossil fuels are, in some ways, a victim of their own success. They`ve helped us in so many ways: We`ve stopped worrying about whether we can heat our homes or get sick people to the hospital. Instead, we now focus on developing new kinds of energy simply to avoid the possibility of future environmental problems. When you think about the history of the Earth, that`s a pretty good problem to have, isn`t it? Now, that doesn`t mean that we don`t want clean air. No one wants the Earth to die. But it`s what we do about it that`s at question. The correct decisions will not be made when fueled by frantic alarmism. Kids are now being shown "An Inconvenient Truth" completely unchallenged, not just in science class, but in art and math classes. A green hotel in California has just replaced the traditional in-room Bible with an in-room copy of "An Inconvenient Truth." Al Gore`s version of climate change has no longer become science. It`s dogma. And if you question it, you are a heretic. For now, all we can do is look for sober solutions in a world drunk on hysteria. The debate is not over. I have a feeling it`s just beginning.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
more on climate
Hi Kes,
I’d like to begin where you left off. The Will Ferrell piece is quite funny but it is this continual cross pollination of topics that prevents reasoned out debates that would actually help people make better decisions. When I (and others) think this is just a huge political football, it is because politics is always thrown in for extra measure—the clear message being that if we get rid of the Republicans in the U.S. all our problems will be over.
When you and I find scientific evidence to back up our point of view doesn’t it seem to you that even the scientists disagree. So who is right and who is wrong?
There are a couple of points on CO2 and solar output. Go to CO2 science.com to get a more complete picture of what is actually happening.
Terry Ball is not at the centre of a huge media counter attack. In fact, he is a retired Canadian climatologist, living in a leaky apartment, driving a 1992 vehicle and trying to use his knowledge and that of others to show people that we should not be watching Al Gores movie and swallowing it hook line and sinker.
If you dug a little deeper into the information provided in that movie you would determine that the predictions and data they are using is based on ‘computer models’.
I am paraphrasing here but;
Computer models have been wrong on every single 'prediction' to date and they leave out two of the major solar factors that cause climate change. They do not include negative feedack, they do not cope with particulates in the atmosphere and they barely include clouds at all - this include the latest research by Svensmark. NASA got the official temperature record wrong. This agency is under the direction of James Hanse, ardent Gore supporter. Ironically, the error makes all the staetments in Gore's movie about temperatures of the last few decades incorrect. Now we learn that four of the warmest four years in the record were in the 1930s before humans began producing much CO2. We learned 1998 was not the warmest year, it was 1934. These changes change the slope of the temperature curve so that the claim of 0.6°C increase over the last 130 years is wrong and well within natural variability contary to the claims it wasn't. These were the only pieces of evidence of a human signal. Apart from anything else the ice core and other records show that temperature changes before CO2, not as is assumed and as built into the computer models.
I know this is a little more of the ‘he said she said’ kind of rhetoric that doesn’t add much to the real questions but since you mentioned them as a source of information:
Desmogblog is a web site paid for by a Canadian who pleaded gullty to massive fraud. It was set up by James Hoggan who is Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation. Hoggan also has a publicity company and the Suzuki Foundation is one of his clients along with Ballard Fuel, wind turbine companies and others that stand to profit from the 'go green' philosophy. The Foundation also receives money from three oil companies but somehow that is acceptable because it doesn't have an agenda.
The claim in Dessmogblog that Terry Ball is paid by the energy companies is false and when he helped set up Friends of Science (FOS) he warned them about the slur campaigns that would occur. They put the money they received in a blind trust run by the University of Calgary.
When David Anderson said he had consulted Canadian climate experts on Kyoto, eight Canadian climate experts including Terry Ball went to Ottawa and held a press conference saying we were not consulted. Terry Balls expenses of about $800 were paid by Friends of Science. It subsequently turned out that a very small percent, about 2%, of FOS money came from an oil company. From this Desmogblog argued that since a small percentage of the expenses came from an oil company that he was paid by the oil companies to spout their line.
No spin here eh?
As for Kyoto…
True 160 countries signed the original agreement but most were not required to meet any reductions including China and India. Can you name any countries that met their Kyoto commitments? . The truth is if every country met its requirements the reduction would be so small no scientist in the world would be able to detect the difference. Why? Because CO2 is less than 4% of the Greenhouse Gases and the human generated portion a minute fraction of that.
Ironically, the US using George Bush's voluntary program achieved a greater reduction in the growth of their CO2 production than any other developed nation.
The entire Kyoto thing is political and was made so by Maurice Strong (board member of the Suzuki Foundation) and his formation of the IPCC(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Their rules require the scientific report be written, then a Summary for Policymakers is produced by politicians. This is then released to the public but also goes back to the scientists to make sure the technical report fits with the political conclusions. India sent a single delegate.
Its true about information. Its amazing what’s out there when you done a little research and there’s lots for both sides of any question.
This is a good discussion and I think that in many respects we’re not that far apart because we both understand that polluting is bad and if each of us takes personal responsibility to do our small part it can make a huge difference.
I don’t know however how emerging economies especially like those in India and China can be made to buy in when they’re just getting an appetite for a consumer based society. Its difficult enough here where we figure that we have access to all this information that can help us make better decisions.
I recently heard a UBC professor(can’t remember his name) who has just completed a significant study that looked at the human ability to make better decisions based on more information.
His findings basically were that better educated people do not show any better ability to make better decisions. I thought this was pretty radical coming from a professor. He said better educated people tend to make more money and spend that money on more of the products that we claim are ruining the planet ie big suvs, living spaces much bigger than required and then filling them with all kinds of ‘stuff’.
In my eyes this is a form of ‘elitism’ and I really don’t like that concept which basically anoints a privileged few while telling everyone else they should follow a different set of rules. If you want to learn about the extreme condition that develops when this sort of thing is out of control, study the rise and fall of communism in Russia.
Signing off for now,
Love,
Dad
P.S.
I actually had a copy of Inconvenient Truth in hand and was going to buy it so that I would have that information on a first hand basis. I opted for not spending the 30 bucks but I will rent it sometime.
I did more research that continues to debunk a lot of what is said and i was going to send that to you but I won't unless you are interested in reading it or add it to the blog.
A lot of people are debating this issue and I especially reespect and enjoy the fact that we can be part of that conversation.
I’d like to begin where you left off. The Will Ferrell piece is quite funny but it is this continual cross pollination of topics that prevents reasoned out debates that would actually help people make better decisions. When I (and others) think this is just a huge political football, it is because politics is always thrown in for extra measure—the clear message being that if we get rid of the Republicans in the U.S. all our problems will be over.
When you and I find scientific evidence to back up our point of view doesn’t it seem to you that even the scientists disagree. So who is right and who is wrong?
There are a couple of points on CO2 and solar output. Go to CO2 science.com to get a more complete picture of what is actually happening.
Terry Ball is not at the centre of a huge media counter attack. In fact, he is a retired Canadian climatologist, living in a leaky apartment, driving a 1992 vehicle and trying to use his knowledge and that of others to show people that we should not be watching Al Gores movie and swallowing it hook line and sinker.
If you dug a little deeper into the information provided in that movie you would determine that the predictions and data they are using is based on ‘computer models’.
I am paraphrasing here but;
Computer models have been wrong on every single 'prediction' to date and they leave out two of the major solar factors that cause climate change. They do not include negative feedack, they do not cope with particulates in the atmosphere and they barely include clouds at all - this include the latest research by Svensmark. NASA got the official temperature record wrong. This agency is under the direction of James Hanse, ardent Gore supporter. Ironically, the error makes all the staetments in Gore's movie about temperatures of the last few decades incorrect. Now we learn that four of the warmest four years in the record were in the 1930s before humans began producing much CO2. We learned 1998 was not the warmest year, it was 1934. These changes change the slope of the temperature curve so that the claim of 0.6°C increase over the last 130 years is wrong and well within natural variability contary to the claims it wasn't. These were the only pieces of evidence of a human signal. Apart from anything else the ice core and other records show that temperature changes before CO2, not as is assumed and as built into the computer models.
I know this is a little more of the ‘he said she said’ kind of rhetoric that doesn’t add much to the real questions but since you mentioned them as a source of information:
Desmogblog is a web site paid for by a Canadian who pleaded gullty to massive fraud. It was set up by James Hoggan who is Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation. Hoggan also has a publicity company and the Suzuki Foundation is one of his clients along with Ballard Fuel, wind turbine companies and others that stand to profit from the 'go green' philosophy. The Foundation also receives money from three oil companies but somehow that is acceptable because it doesn't have an agenda.
The claim in Dessmogblog that Terry Ball is paid by the energy companies is false and when he helped set up Friends of Science (FOS) he warned them about the slur campaigns that would occur. They put the money they received in a blind trust run by the University of Calgary.
When David Anderson said he had consulted Canadian climate experts on Kyoto, eight Canadian climate experts including Terry Ball went to Ottawa and held a press conference saying we were not consulted. Terry Balls expenses of about $800 were paid by Friends of Science. It subsequently turned out that a very small percent, about 2%, of FOS money came from an oil company. From this Desmogblog argued that since a small percentage of the expenses came from an oil company that he was paid by the oil companies to spout their line.
No spin here eh?
As for Kyoto…
True 160 countries signed the original agreement but most were not required to meet any reductions including China and India. Can you name any countries that met their Kyoto commitments? . The truth is if every country met its requirements the reduction would be so small no scientist in the world would be able to detect the difference. Why? Because CO2 is less than 4% of the Greenhouse Gases and the human generated portion a minute fraction of that.
Ironically, the US using George Bush's voluntary program achieved a greater reduction in the growth of their CO2 production than any other developed nation.
The entire Kyoto thing is political and was made so by Maurice Strong (board member of the Suzuki Foundation) and his formation of the IPCC(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Their rules require the scientific report be written, then a Summary for Policymakers is produced by politicians. This is then released to the public but also goes back to the scientists to make sure the technical report fits with the political conclusions. India sent a single delegate.
Its true about information. Its amazing what’s out there when you done a little research and there’s lots for both sides of any question.
This is a good discussion and I think that in many respects we’re not that far apart because we both understand that polluting is bad and if each of us takes personal responsibility to do our small part it can make a huge difference.
I don’t know however how emerging economies especially like those in India and China can be made to buy in when they’re just getting an appetite for a consumer based society. Its difficult enough here where we figure that we have access to all this information that can help us make better decisions.
I recently heard a UBC professor(can’t remember his name) who has just completed a significant study that looked at the human ability to make better decisions based on more information.
His findings basically were that better educated people do not show any better ability to make better decisions. I thought this was pretty radical coming from a professor. He said better educated people tend to make more money and spend that money on more of the products that we claim are ruining the planet ie big suvs, living spaces much bigger than required and then filling them with all kinds of ‘stuff’.
In my eyes this is a form of ‘elitism’ and I really don’t like that concept which basically anoints a privileged few while telling everyone else they should follow a different set of rules. If you want to learn about the extreme condition that develops when this sort of thing is out of control, study the rise and fall of communism in Russia.
Signing off for now,
Love,
Dad
P.S.
I actually had a copy of Inconvenient Truth in hand and was going to buy it so that I would have that information on a first hand basis. I opted for not spending the 30 bucks but I will rent it sometime.
I did more research that continues to debunk a lot of what is said and i was going to send that to you but I won't unless you are interested in reading it or add it to the blog.
A lot of people are debating this issue and I especially reespect and enjoy the fact that we can be part of that conversation.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Kes responds
Thanks for the reply.
I would like to point out a few more things to you though.
"I never got from Timothy Ball that there is no need for concern."
Once again I would like to point out his organization is making radio commercials saying it's ok to pollute (they claim C02 isn't harmeful). Do you not find this even a little bit irrisponsible? Especially for an organization claiming to want to better our enviroment?
"I am sending you some other information regarding solar warming of other planets etc."
Here is some great information on the sun and it's solar output: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html
"While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues."
I found it interesting that a lot of reports that point out increased solar activity as a likely cause for global warming show data that ends in 1980. Why? Because after 1980 there was a decline in sunspots on the surface of the sun and a decline in solar output.
More information here:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4CF1-4202-1508-820283414B7F0000http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm
In regards to other planets one must take into account all planets and moons in the solar system not simply point out a few planets and one moon that could possibly be warming. I think it's important to point out that we know far less about the geological makeup of the other planets in our solar system then we do our own.
More information can be found here:
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11642http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html
"These should be two different arguments. What is causing Climate Change? And how should all of the rich people of the world be proactive in reducing the levels of pollution and polluting activities?"
I disagree, the vast majority of our wealth is in the hands of a few. It's not a few that are going to make a change it's the masses. It is the consumer is the one who ultimately holds the power with there buying dollars. Why are the major north american car makers in deep trouble? Because they failed to see the growing demand for more efficient less polluting vehicles where as the Japanese manufactures did. The irony of this is one of the main reasons the Japanese automakers put so much effort into cleaner vehicles and new hybrid technologies is due to some of the strict laws that were passed in California. I would like to recommend watching a move called "Who killed the electric car".
"Just because the herd is following doesn't’t mean it is necessarily right. Back in the 1400’s most of the civilized world thought the earth was flat and if you went past the horizon you’d just fall off."
Once again I disagree. :) Back in the 1400's people didn't go to school, you were burned at the stake if you didn't believe in what the church said and the internet and other forms of modern communication did not exist. I think that we have progressed considerably in our views on sharing information and making informed decisions based on the most accurate information we have at our disposal.
"Lobbying to have your data recognized is no more biased than having a multi million dollar organized movement headed by a high profile politician(Al Gore ) that makes a movie supporting only 1 point of view and then try to proliferate that point of view in ways such as trying to deliver it into the hands of the public school system for mass consumption as completely factual and true."
I was waiting for this. :) Al Gore... Have you seen his movie? Do you know anything about his story? I think you should at least view his movie before making claims against his cause. The only other thing I will say about this is no matter what his motivation he seems to at least have some concern with what is happening on our planet and the gross over consumption that is going on in the US; which is more then can be said about most politicians. His movie isn't about spreading fear, if you've seen it you should know that. He is trying to educate people or at least bring up the subject of global warming to people who otherwise might think twice about it. Right or wrong at least he is making people aware and asking questions; the first step in solving any kind of problem. Even if he is set to make some money off this wouldn't it be nice to see some GREEN companies making some coin other then all the oil companies? Aren't we tired of throwing $20 bills out our window as we drive down the road?
"Even today its pretty common scientific knowledge that domesticated animals are one of the largest contributors to green house gasses on the planet. Did this planet become so overrun with giant animals that the earth shutdown in its ability to support them or did some humongous cosmic event occur that wiped them out and created this incredible energy supply in the ground?"
I am aware of the theory on animals being a contributor to green house gasses. A few interesting stats on cattle in the US:
Fifty percent of the wetlands, 90% of the northwestern old-growth forests, and 99% of the tall-grass prairie have been destroyed in the last 200 years.
Eighty percent of the corn grown and 95% of the oats are fed to livestock.
Fifty-six percent of available farmland is used for beef production.
Kind of scary isn't it? The forests and wetlands that act as C02 sinks and remove carbon from our atmosphere are being destroyed for more farting cattle.. Maybe we should be eating less fast food?
You are correct, a huge cosmic event did wipe the slate clean so to speak and create the vast amount carbon based resources we have in the ground. The big thing here is that these resources took millions of years to develop and we are now using them up as fast as we can find them. So lets just say it takes 3 million years to produce x amount of carbon resources through natural processes and we then release these same carbon resources back into the atmosphere in 1,000 years isn't pretty easy to conclude it might have some adverse effects?
Also I think you might be missing my point on population. Never before in the history of our planet have the inhabitants created pollution outside the natural processes with the exception of man. So if cattle can have an effect on our environment isn't it reasonable to then think that human waste and pollution will as well?
Its a radical point of view that after however many thousands or millions of years there has been life on this earth that we suddenly have a few hundred scientists who say we have 20 years to save the world. Its much more realistic to think they have a bigger political and economic agenda than a real concern to encourage the global community to be more thoughtful in its stewardship of the vast resources we have at our disposal on this planet we call home.
A few hundred scientist? 160 countries have ratified Kyoto, I would think that each of the governments in these countries have more then a few scientist studying climate change and have be providing their governments with information. We are talking about some of the smartest science institutes in the world! NASA? They put men on the moon and have developed the vast majority of the technology that has allowed us to even begin to understand the effects we have on our planet and what is happening around our solar system. How can we just simply disregard something as someone out to make a quick buck when so many different countries and people of all religions, ages and ethnic backgrounds seem to think something is so important. On top of all that the facts are there, cold hard data that show some very scary trends on how we are impacting the plant.
Isn't it better to error on the side of caution when it's our planets future that could be at stake?
I will leave you with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxpEqln5EdQ
Love,Kes
I would like to point out a few more things to you though.
"I never got from Timothy Ball that there is no need for concern."
Once again I would like to point out his organization is making radio commercials saying it's ok to pollute (they claim C02 isn't harmeful). Do you not find this even a little bit irrisponsible? Especially for an organization claiming to want to better our enviroment?
"I am sending you some other information regarding solar warming of other planets etc."
Here is some great information on the sun and it's solar output: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html
"While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues."
I found it interesting that a lot of reports that point out increased solar activity as a likely cause for global warming show data that ends in 1980. Why? Because after 1980 there was a decline in sunspots on the surface of the sun and a decline in solar output.
More information here:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4CF1-4202-1508-820283414B7F0000http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm
In regards to other planets one must take into account all planets and moons in the solar system not simply point out a few planets and one moon that could possibly be warming. I think it's important to point out that we know far less about the geological makeup of the other planets in our solar system then we do our own.
More information can be found here:
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11642http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html
"These should be two different arguments. What is causing Climate Change? And how should all of the rich people of the world be proactive in reducing the levels of pollution and polluting activities?"
I disagree, the vast majority of our wealth is in the hands of a few. It's not a few that are going to make a change it's the masses. It is the consumer is the one who ultimately holds the power with there buying dollars. Why are the major north american car makers in deep trouble? Because they failed to see the growing demand for more efficient less polluting vehicles where as the Japanese manufactures did. The irony of this is one of the main reasons the Japanese automakers put so much effort into cleaner vehicles and new hybrid technologies is due to some of the strict laws that were passed in California. I would like to recommend watching a move called "Who killed the electric car".
"Just because the herd is following doesn't’t mean it is necessarily right. Back in the 1400’s most of the civilized world thought the earth was flat and if you went past the horizon you’d just fall off."
Once again I disagree. :) Back in the 1400's people didn't go to school, you were burned at the stake if you didn't believe in what the church said and the internet and other forms of modern communication did not exist. I think that we have progressed considerably in our views on sharing information and making informed decisions based on the most accurate information we have at our disposal.
"Lobbying to have your data recognized is no more biased than having a multi million dollar organized movement headed by a high profile politician(Al Gore ) that makes a movie supporting only 1 point of view and then try to proliferate that point of view in ways such as trying to deliver it into the hands of the public school system for mass consumption as completely factual and true."
I was waiting for this. :) Al Gore... Have you seen his movie? Do you know anything about his story? I think you should at least view his movie before making claims against his cause. The only other thing I will say about this is no matter what his motivation he seems to at least have some concern with what is happening on our planet and the gross over consumption that is going on in the US; which is more then can be said about most politicians. His movie isn't about spreading fear, if you've seen it you should know that. He is trying to educate people or at least bring up the subject of global warming to people who otherwise might think twice about it. Right or wrong at least he is making people aware and asking questions; the first step in solving any kind of problem. Even if he is set to make some money off this wouldn't it be nice to see some GREEN companies making some coin other then all the oil companies? Aren't we tired of throwing $20 bills out our window as we drive down the road?
"Even today its pretty common scientific knowledge that domesticated animals are one of the largest contributors to green house gasses on the planet. Did this planet become so overrun with giant animals that the earth shutdown in its ability to support them or did some humongous cosmic event occur that wiped them out and created this incredible energy supply in the ground?"
I am aware of the theory on animals being a contributor to green house gasses. A few interesting stats on cattle in the US:
Fifty percent of the wetlands, 90% of the northwestern old-growth forests, and 99% of the tall-grass prairie have been destroyed in the last 200 years.
Eighty percent of the corn grown and 95% of the oats are fed to livestock.
Fifty-six percent of available farmland is used for beef production.
Kind of scary isn't it? The forests and wetlands that act as C02 sinks and remove carbon from our atmosphere are being destroyed for more farting cattle.. Maybe we should be eating less fast food?
You are correct, a huge cosmic event did wipe the slate clean so to speak and create the vast amount carbon based resources we have in the ground. The big thing here is that these resources took millions of years to develop and we are now using them up as fast as we can find them. So lets just say it takes 3 million years to produce x amount of carbon resources through natural processes and we then release these same carbon resources back into the atmosphere in 1,000 years isn't pretty easy to conclude it might have some adverse effects?
Also I think you might be missing my point on population. Never before in the history of our planet have the inhabitants created pollution outside the natural processes with the exception of man. So if cattle can have an effect on our environment isn't it reasonable to then think that human waste and pollution will as well?
Its a radical point of view that after however many thousands or millions of years there has been life on this earth that we suddenly have a few hundred scientists who say we have 20 years to save the world. Its much more realistic to think they have a bigger political and economic agenda than a real concern to encourage the global community to be more thoughtful in its stewardship of the vast resources we have at our disposal on this planet we call home.
A few hundred scientist? 160 countries have ratified Kyoto, I would think that each of the governments in these countries have more then a few scientist studying climate change and have be providing their governments with information. We are talking about some of the smartest science institutes in the world! NASA? They put men on the moon and have developed the vast majority of the technology that has allowed us to even begin to understand the effects we have on our planet and what is happening around our solar system. How can we just simply disregard something as someone out to make a quick buck when so many different countries and people of all religions, ages and ethnic backgrounds seem to think something is so important. On top of all that the facts are there, cold hard data that show some very scary trends on how we are impacting the plant.
Isn't it better to error on the side of caution when it's our planets future that could be at stake?
I will leave you with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxpEqln5EdQ
Love,Kes
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
I sent Kes's opinions to Terry Ball
From: TIM BALL To: Glenn Allen Subject: Re: FW: RE: Climate ChangeDate: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 21:33:12 -0700This is such arrant nonsense I don't know where to begin. Maybe we can start with the obvious fact that the "thoughtful"young man didn't do his research anywhere near adequately. I would fail him if he submmitted this as a Grade X paper let alone a university one. If he listened to all the tapes, interviews, and documents on our web site he would see we provide answers and explanations with what is wrong with the 'official' position. If he read my complete research record starting with my PhD, which was written when the official and scientific consensus was the threat of global cooling he would have a better understanding of my knowledge of the subject. I defy him to show one single shred of evidence that human CO2 or CO2 at all is causing climate change. This would exclude computer model outputs. They are the only source of evidence for such claims, especially those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Worse, they can't even forecast the weather 10 days from now let alone 50 years. These computer models have been wrong on every single 'prediction' to date, which isn't surprising. They leave out two of the major solar factors that cause climate change. They do not include negative feedack, they do not cope with particulates in the atmosphere and they barely include clouds at all - this include the latest research by Svensmark et al. The thoughtful young man lists NASA as a source but we have just learned how they got the official temperature record wrong. This agency is uner the direction of James Hanse, ardent Gore supprter. Ironically, the error (I personally think it was more than an error) makes all the statments in Gore's movie about temperatures of the last few decades incorrect. Now we learn that four of the warmest four years in the record were in the 1930s before humans began producing much CO2. We learned 1998 was not the warmest year, it was 1934. These changes change the slope of the temperature curve so that the claim of 0.6°C increase over the last 130 years is wrong and well within natural variability contary to the claims it wasn't. It's gone, the hockey sitck is gone and these were the only pieces of evidence of a human signal. Part from anything else the ice core and other records show that temperature changes before CO2 not as is assumed and as built into the computer models.
He should also look at his comments on CO2 and plants, which show a complete lack of understanding of the science. He should visit CO2 science.com to get a better idea of what is actually happening. He could also learn that his beloved government agencies such as NASA are saying the increased CO2 in the atmosphere has caused an expansion of global vegetation.
Of course, this won't happen because he, like so many others, become instant experts in climate and climate change when they would fail even the most basic climate science quiz.
He talks about Desmogblog a web site paid for by a Canadian who pleaded guillty to massive fraud. It was set up by James Hoggan who is Chair of the David Suzuki Fooundation. Hoggan also has a publicity company and the Suzuki Foundation is one of his clients along with Ballard Fuel, wind turbine companies and others that stand to profit from the 'go green' philosophy. The Foundation also receives money from three oil companies but somehow that is acceptable because it doesn't have an agenda.
The claim in Dessmogblog that I am paid by the energy companies is false. When I helped set up Friends of Science (FOS) I warned them about the slur campaigns that would occur. They put the money they received in a blind trust run by the University of Calgary. When David Anderson said he had consulted Canadian climate experts on Kyoto, eight of us went to Ottawa and held a press conference saying we were not conuslted. My expenses of about $800 were paid by Friends of Science. It subsequently turnd out that a very small percent, I believe it was about 2%, of FOS money came from an oil company. From this Desmogblog argued that since a small percentage of the expenses I received had, unbeknown to me, a percentage of that money then I was paid by the oil companies to spout their line. It is a bloody insult. If I was paid by them I woudn't be living on a pension, living in a leaky apartment block or driving a 1992 car.
The "thoughtul young man"should also do his homework on Kyoto. True 160 countries signed the original agreement but most were not requird to meet any reductions including China and India. He should also check on how many met their commitment or came even close. The truth is if every country met its requirements the reduction would be so small no scientist in the world would be able to detect the difference. Why? Because CO2 is less than 4% of the Greenhouse Gases and the human portion a minute fraction of that. Indeed, the entire human production is within theerror of the estimates of three of the major natural contributors to atmospheric CO2.
Ironically, the US using George Bush's voluntary program (the author and his son seem to detest with a passion that colours their judgment), achieved a greater reduction in the growth of their CO2 production than any developed nation.
The entire issue is political and was made so by Maurice Strong and his formation of the IPCC wose reports are ludicrous. Their rules require the scientific report be written, then a Summary for Policmakers is produced by politicans. This is then released to the public but also goes back othe scientists to make sure the technical report fits with the political conclusions. China fought desperately against what was going on to the point here they reduced the exremes so much that it ws noticed immediately by the media. India showed its disdain for the entire process by sending a single delegate.
The political nature of the science fits well with the clear political biases of the father and son. Mybe they could get one of their political friends to give me clear proff that human CO2 is causing global warming or climate change. I doubt it will happen because their searches are selective and limited by political blinkers, which they don't seem to realize they are wearing.
I am sick and tired of people who know nothing about the sceince claiming I have the science wrong because people who attacke me personally say i have it wrong. what they don't even realize is that bcause of heir lack of knowlegde or nderstanding they end up with a personal attack - but it is somehow acceptable becaause they have the right political perspective. What arrogant rubbish - like father like son. I could point out many more errors of facts and conclusions as el s more politcal bis, but they are not worth my time. I am simply doing this for you.
Tim Ball
He should also look at his comments on CO2 and plants, which show a complete lack of understanding of the science. He should visit CO2 science.com to get a better idea of what is actually happening. He could also learn that his beloved government agencies such as NASA are saying the increased CO2 in the atmosphere has caused an expansion of global vegetation.
Of course, this won't happen because he, like so many others, become instant experts in climate and climate change when they would fail even the most basic climate science quiz.
He talks about Desmogblog a web site paid for by a Canadian who pleaded guillty to massive fraud. It was set up by James Hoggan who is Chair of the David Suzuki Fooundation. Hoggan also has a publicity company and the Suzuki Foundation is one of his clients along with Ballard Fuel, wind turbine companies and others that stand to profit from the 'go green' philosophy. The Foundation also receives money from three oil companies but somehow that is acceptable because it doesn't have an agenda.
The claim in Dessmogblog that I am paid by the energy companies is false. When I helped set up Friends of Science (FOS) I warned them about the slur campaigns that would occur. They put the money they received in a blind trust run by the University of Calgary. When David Anderson said he had consulted Canadian climate experts on Kyoto, eight of us went to Ottawa and held a press conference saying we were not conuslted. My expenses of about $800 were paid by Friends of Science. It subsequently turnd out that a very small percent, I believe it was about 2%, of FOS money came from an oil company. From this Desmogblog argued that since a small percentage of the expenses I received had, unbeknown to me, a percentage of that money then I was paid by the oil companies to spout their line. It is a bloody insult. If I was paid by them I woudn't be living on a pension, living in a leaky apartment block or driving a 1992 car.
The "thoughtul young man"should also do his homework on Kyoto. True 160 countries signed the original agreement but most were not requird to meet any reductions including China and India. He should also check on how many met their commitment or came even close. The truth is if every country met its requirements the reduction would be so small no scientist in the world would be able to detect the difference. Why? Because CO2 is less than 4% of the Greenhouse Gases and the human portion a minute fraction of that. Indeed, the entire human production is within theerror of the estimates of three of the major natural contributors to atmospheric CO2.
Ironically, the US using George Bush's voluntary program (the author and his son seem to detest with a passion that colours their judgment), achieved a greater reduction in the growth of their CO2 production than any developed nation.
The entire issue is political and was made so by Maurice Strong and his formation of the IPCC wose reports are ludicrous. Their rules require the scientific report be written, then a Summary for Policmakers is produced by politicans. This is then released to the public but also goes back othe scientists to make sure the technical report fits with the political conclusions. China fought desperately against what was going on to the point here they reduced the exremes so much that it ws noticed immediately by the media. India showed its disdain for the entire process by sending a single delegate.
The political nature of the science fits well with the clear political biases of the father and son. Mybe they could get one of their political friends to give me clear proff that human CO2 is causing global warming or climate change. I doubt it will happen because their searches are selective and limited by political blinkers, which they don't seem to realize they are wearing.
I am sick and tired of people who know nothing about the sceince claiming I have the science wrong because people who attacke me personally say i have it wrong. what they don't even realize is that bcause of heir lack of knowlegde or nderstanding they end up with a personal attack - but it is somehow acceptable becaause they have the right political perspective. What arrogant rubbish - like father like son. I could point out many more errors of facts and conclusions as el s more politcal bis, but they are not worth my time. I am simply doing this for you.
Tim Ball
I replied to Kes
Hi Kes,
Obviously, there is more information out there than the one organization Terry Ball is associated with. Like you said we should look at information from both sides and draw our own opinion.
I am sending you some other information regarding solar warming of other planets etc.
I never got from Timothy Ball that there is no need for concern. He said and I agree that all of us need to be concerned about pollution and polluting and being proactive in reducing our consumption of hydro carbons. Nobody disputes that 15 percent of the worlds population controls and uses 85 percent of the worlds man produced wealth.
The difference in scientific opinion is that the main stream thinking follows the ‘people are to blame for global warming’ theory. A much smaller scientific community believes that there is a bigger universal picture that needs to be recognized in that regard.
These should be two different arguments. What is causing Climate Change? And how should all of the rich people of the world be proactive in reducing the levels of pollution and polluting activities?
Just because the herd is following doesn’t mean it is necessarily right. Back in the 1400’s most of the civilized world thought the earth was flat and if you went past the horizon you’d just fall off.
Lobbying to have your data recognized is no more biased than having a multi million dollar organized movement headed by a high profile politician(Al Gore ) that makes a movie supporting only 1 point of view and then try to proliferate that point of view in ways such as trying to deliver it into the hands of the public school system for mass consumption as completely factual and true.
These are your words Kes and I couldn’t agree more with them.
“The key to finding unbiased information is finding the facts and creating your own opinion. In this case real scientific data not some group scientist who's hands are in the back pocket of the industries at blame and over eager to start pointing fingers. Actually look at both sides of the story and decide from there.”
When you talk about the population levels and their effect on climate, I would use the vast amount of hydrocarbon reserves in the ground, oil, gas, coal etc.as pretty strong evidence that it took a pretty massive amount of population of some kind to produce it. Even today its pretty common scientific knowledge that domesticated animals are one of the largest contributors to green house gasses on the planet. Did this planet become so overrun with giant animals that the earth shutdown in its ability to support them or did some humongous cosmic event occur that wiped them out and created this incredible energy supply in the ground?
Personally I don’t have any problem with controlling our consumption. What each person does in their day to day lives can do a lot to reduce pollution and consumption. You’re right if you think that most people don’t give a rats butt or if they do its okay as long as it doesn’t affect the plans they have to buy this that and whatever so they can live the life they ‘deserve”.
The more people that buy into energy conservation, less consumption , less polluting the better it will be for all of us. But those emerging middle classes in India and China aren’t too worried. In our shrinking global village they are learning to be consumers and they’re not going to stop anytime soon.
There are historic examples that it is impossible to stop what and where humanity migrate to. Whether it’s the poor people of Europe coming by the millions to North America, Millions of Latin and South American migrating to the United States or the massive desire for a consumers society in India and China.
Its true these events cause radical changes.
Its a radical point of view that after however many thousands or millions of years there has been life on this earth that we suddenly have a few hundred scientists who say we have 20 years to save the world. Its much more realistic to think they have a bigger political and economic agenda than a real concern to encourage the global community to be more thoughtful in its stewardship of the vast resources we have at our disposal on this planet we call home.
I admit to not knowing too much about the specific goals of Kyoto and I probably should correct that. Typically broad political documents are hardly worth the paper they’re written on in terms of how closely the governments that sign them actually follow the directions that are outlined.
Lets compare our carbon footprints one of these days. Other than the fact our house is too big for us I think were not that different.
Thank you very much for the effort you made to respond. I really appreciated it. I always enjoy and respect the thoughtful opinions you have about the world around you.
Love,
Dad
Here is the research I came up with
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
RELATED
Climate Change Predictions Not Exaggerated, Analysis Says (February 1, 2007)
New Mars Pictures Show Signs of Watery "Aquifers" (February 16, 2007)
Photo Gallery: Global Warming
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
Solar Cycles
Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.
Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.
By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.
All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.
These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.
Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.
"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too,"
Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.
He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.
But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.
Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.
Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.
"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."
Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University who monitors studies and news reports of asteroids, global warming and other potentially apocalyptic topics, recently quoted in his daily electronic newsletter the following from a blog called Strata-Sphere:
“Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets ... Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?”
Peiser included quotes from recent news articles that take up other aspects of the idea.
“I think it is an intriguing coincidence that warming trends have been observed on a number of very diverse planetary bodies in our solar system,” Peiser said in an email interview. “Perhaps this is just a fluke.”
In fact, scientists have alternative explanations for the anomalous warming on each of these other planetary bodies.
The warming on Triton, for example, could be the result of an extreme southern summer on the moon, a season that occurs every few hundred years, as well as possible changes in the makeup of surface ice that caused it to absorb more of the Sun’s heat.
Researchers credited Pluto’s warming to possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its last close approach to the Sun in 1989.
And the recent storm activity on Jupiter is being blamed on a recurring climatic cycle that churns up material from the gas giant’s interior and lofts it to the surface, where it is heated by the Sun.
Sun does vary
The radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate over the course of its 11-year solar cycle. But the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent—not substantial enough to affect Earth’s climate in dramatic ways, and certainly not enough to be the sole culprit of our planet’s current warming trend, scientists say.
“The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record,” said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann.
The link between solar activity and global warming is just another scapegoat for human-caused warming, Mann told LiveScience.
“Solar activity continues to be one of the last bastions of contrarians,” Mann said. “People who don’t accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change still try to point to solar activity.”
The Maunder Minimum
This is not to say that solar fluctuations never influence Earth’s climate in substantial ways. During a 75-year period beginning in 1645, astronomers detected almost no sunspot activity on the Sun. Called the “Maunder Minimum,” this event coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, a 350-year cold spell that gripped much of Europe and North America.
Recent studies have cast doubt on this relationship, however. New estimates of the total change in the brightness of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum suggest it was only fractions of a percent, and perhaps not enough to create the global cooling commonly attributed to it.
“The situation is pretty ambiguous,” said David Rind, a senior climate researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has modeled the Maunder Minimum.
Based on current estimates, even if another Maunder Minimum were to occur, it might result in an average temperature decrease of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, Rind said.
This would still not be enough to counteract warming of between 2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit from greenhouse gases by 2100, as predicted by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
LiveScience staff writer Andrea Thompson contributed to this article.
Neptune is the planet farthest from the Sun (Pluto is now considered only a dwarf planet), Neptune is the planet farthest from the Earth, and to our knowledge, there has been absolutely no industrialization out at Neptune in recent centuries. There has been no recent build-up of greenhouse gases there, no deforestation, no rapid urbanization, no increase in contrails from jet airplanes, and no increase in ozone in the low atmosphere; recent changes at Neptune could never be blamed on any human influence. Incredibly, an article has appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters showing a stunning relationship between the solar output, Neptune’s brightness, and heaven forbid, the temperature of the Earth. With its obvious implications to the greenhouse debate, we are certain you have never heard of the work and never will outside World Climate Report.
In case you have forgotten your basic science lessons on the planets, Neptune orbits the Sun at a distance 30 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun and Neptune revolves around the Sun once every 164.8 Earth years. Neptune has 17 times the mass of the Earth, its atmosphere is primarily composed of hydrogen and helium, with traces of methane that account for the planet’s distinctive blue appearance. It was the only planet discovered mathematically – scientists noted variations in the orbit of Uranus, they calculated the orbit and position of a yet undiscovered planet that could cause the variations noted for Uranus, they determined where the planet should be, and on the first night they searched for it (September 23, 1846), they discovered the large planet sitting within 1 degree of their predictions. The new planet was named for Neptune, Roman god of the sea, given its distinctive blue color. Observations from Earth and a 1989 Voyager 2 flyby have revealed that Neptune’s cloud tops are extremely cold (−346°F) being so far from the Sun while the center of the planet has a temperature of 13,000°F due to high pressure generating extremely hot gases.
In the recent article, Hammel and Lockwood, from the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory, note that measurements of visible light from Neptune have been taken at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona since 1950. Obviously, light from Neptune can be related to seasons on the planet, small variations in Neptune’s orbit, the apparent tilt of the axis as viewed from the Earth, the varying distance from Neptune to Earth, and of course, changes in the atmosphere near the Lowell Observatory. Astronomers are clever, they are fully aware of these complications, and they adjust the measurements accordingly.
As seen in Figure 1, Neptune has been getting brighter since around 1980; furthermore, infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that the planet has been warming steadily from 1980 to 2004. As they say on Neptune, global warming has become an inconvenient truth. But with no one to blame, Hammel and Lockwood explored how variations in the output of the Sun might control variations in the brightness of Neptune.
Figure 1 (a) represents the corrected visible light from Neptune from 1950 to 2006; (b) shows the temperature anomalies of the Earth; (c) shows the total solar irradiance as a percent variation by year; (d) shows the ultraviolet emission from the Sun (Source: Hammel and Lockwood (2007)).
What would seem so simple statistically is complicated by the degrees of freedom in the various time series which is related to the serial correlation in the data (e.g., next year’s value is highly dependent on this year’s value). Nonetheless, they find that the correlation coefficient between solar irradiance and Neptune’s brightness is near 0.90 (1.00 is perfect). The same relationship is found between the Earth’s temperature anomalies and the solar output. Hammel and Lockwood note “In other words, the Earth temperature values are as well correlated with solar irradiance (r = 0.89) as they are with Neptune’s blue brightness (r > 0.90), assuming a 10-year lag of the Neptune values.” The temporal lag is needed to account for the large mass of Neptune that would require years to adjust to any changes in solar output.
Hammel and Lockwood conclude that “In summary, if Neptune’s atmosphere is indeed responding to some variation in solar activity in a manner similar to that of the Earth albeit with a temporal lag” then “Neptune may provide an independent (and extraterrestrial) locale for studies of solar effects on planetary atmospheres.”
World Climate Report has covered many articles in the scientific literature showing that variations in solar output, including variations within specific wavelengths (e.g., cosmic, ultraviolet, visible, infrared) are highly correlated with temperature variations near the Earth’s surface. Believe it or not, when the Sun is more energetic and putting out more energy, the Earth tends to warm up, and when the Sun cools down, so does the Earth. The Hammel and Lockwood article reveals that the same is true out at Neptune; when the Sun’s energy increases, Neptune seems to warm up and get brighter given a decade lag.
If for some reason you do not believe that the Sun is a significant player in determining the temperature of the Earth (after all, we are told repeatedly that humans are causing most of the observed warming on the Earth), then asked yourself if you believe that Neptune’s temperature is controlled by the Sun. How is it possible that the Earth’s temperature is so highly correlated with brightness variations from Neptune? The news from Neptune comes to us just weeks after an article was published showing that Mars has warmed recently as well.
If nothing else, we have certainly learned recently that planets undergo changes in their mean temperature, and while we can easily blame human activity here on the Earth, blaming humans for the recent warming on Mars and Neptune would be an astronomical stretch, to say the least.
Reference:
Hammel, H. B., and G. W. Lockwood, 2007. Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth’s temperature, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L08203, doi:10.1029/2006GL028764.
Other planets are warming up too.Well, the thing is that it is not only "Mars" and "Pluto" that are warming, but pretty much every planet, and moon with an atmosphere in the solar system is warming/undergoing climate change, and in most cases what is happening to every planet in the solar system, is worse than what is happening on Earth.
Global Warming on Pluto.http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_02100...
Climate change/warming on Jupiter.http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jup...
Global warming on Triton. (Neptune's largest moon)http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc...
Global warming on Enceladus. (A moon of Saturn)http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20060419/Featu...
Climate change on Saturn.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6135450.stm...
Obviously, there is more information out there than the one organization Terry Ball is associated with. Like you said we should look at information from both sides and draw our own opinion.
I am sending you some other information regarding solar warming of other planets etc.
I never got from Timothy Ball that there is no need for concern. He said and I agree that all of us need to be concerned about pollution and polluting and being proactive in reducing our consumption of hydro carbons. Nobody disputes that 15 percent of the worlds population controls and uses 85 percent of the worlds man produced wealth.
The difference in scientific opinion is that the main stream thinking follows the ‘people are to blame for global warming’ theory. A much smaller scientific community believes that there is a bigger universal picture that needs to be recognized in that regard.
These should be two different arguments. What is causing Climate Change? And how should all of the rich people of the world be proactive in reducing the levels of pollution and polluting activities?
Just because the herd is following doesn’t mean it is necessarily right. Back in the 1400’s most of the civilized world thought the earth was flat and if you went past the horizon you’d just fall off.
Lobbying to have your data recognized is no more biased than having a multi million dollar organized movement headed by a high profile politician(Al Gore ) that makes a movie supporting only 1 point of view and then try to proliferate that point of view in ways such as trying to deliver it into the hands of the public school system for mass consumption as completely factual and true.
These are your words Kes and I couldn’t agree more with them.
“The key to finding unbiased information is finding the facts and creating your own opinion. In this case real scientific data not some group scientist who's hands are in the back pocket of the industries at blame and over eager to start pointing fingers. Actually look at both sides of the story and decide from there.”
When you talk about the population levels and their effect on climate, I would use the vast amount of hydrocarbon reserves in the ground, oil, gas, coal etc.as pretty strong evidence that it took a pretty massive amount of population of some kind to produce it. Even today its pretty common scientific knowledge that domesticated animals are one of the largest contributors to green house gasses on the planet. Did this planet become so overrun with giant animals that the earth shutdown in its ability to support them or did some humongous cosmic event occur that wiped them out and created this incredible energy supply in the ground?
Personally I don’t have any problem with controlling our consumption. What each person does in their day to day lives can do a lot to reduce pollution and consumption. You’re right if you think that most people don’t give a rats butt or if they do its okay as long as it doesn’t affect the plans they have to buy this that and whatever so they can live the life they ‘deserve”.
The more people that buy into energy conservation, less consumption , less polluting the better it will be for all of us. But those emerging middle classes in India and China aren’t too worried. In our shrinking global village they are learning to be consumers and they’re not going to stop anytime soon.
There are historic examples that it is impossible to stop what and where humanity migrate to. Whether it’s the poor people of Europe coming by the millions to North America, Millions of Latin and South American migrating to the United States or the massive desire for a consumers society in India and China.
Its true these events cause radical changes.
Its a radical point of view that after however many thousands or millions of years there has been life on this earth that we suddenly have a few hundred scientists who say we have 20 years to save the world. Its much more realistic to think they have a bigger political and economic agenda than a real concern to encourage the global community to be more thoughtful in its stewardship of the vast resources we have at our disposal on this planet we call home.
I admit to not knowing too much about the specific goals of Kyoto and I probably should correct that. Typically broad political documents are hardly worth the paper they’re written on in terms of how closely the governments that sign them actually follow the directions that are outlined.
Lets compare our carbon footprints one of these days. Other than the fact our house is too big for us I think were not that different.
Thank you very much for the effort you made to respond. I really appreciated it. I always enjoy and respect the thoughtful opinions you have about the world around you.
Love,
Dad
Here is the research I came up with
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
RELATED
Climate Change Predictions Not Exaggerated, Analysis Says (February 1, 2007)
New Mars Pictures Show Signs of Watery "Aquifers" (February 16, 2007)
Photo Gallery: Global Warming
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
Solar Cycles
Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.
Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.
By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.
All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.
These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.
Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.
"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too,"
Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.
He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.
But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.
Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.
Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.
"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."
Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University who monitors studies and news reports of asteroids, global warming and other potentially apocalyptic topics, recently quoted in his daily electronic newsletter the following from a blog called Strata-Sphere:
“Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets ... Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?”
Peiser included quotes from recent news articles that take up other aspects of the idea.
“I think it is an intriguing coincidence that warming trends have been observed on a number of very diverse planetary bodies in our solar system,” Peiser said in an email interview. “Perhaps this is just a fluke.”
In fact, scientists have alternative explanations for the anomalous warming on each of these other planetary bodies.
The warming on Triton, for example, could be the result of an extreme southern summer on the moon, a season that occurs every few hundred years, as well as possible changes in the makeup of surface ice that caused it to absorb more of the Sun’s heat.
Researchers credited Pluto’s warming to possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its last close approach to the Sun in 1989.
And the recent storm activity on Jupiter is being blamed on a recurring climatic cycle that churns up material from the gas giant’s interior and lofts it to the surface, where it is heated by the Sun.
Sun does vary
The radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate over the course of its 11-year solar cycle. But the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent—not substantial enough to affect Earth’s climate in dramatic ways, and certainly not enough to be the sole culprit of our planet’s current warming trend, scientists say.
“The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record,” said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann.
The link between solar activity and global warming is just another scapegoat for human-caused warming, Mann told LiveScience.
“Solar activity continues to be one of the last bastions of contrarians,” Mann said. “People who don’t accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change still try to point to solar activity.”
The Maunder Minimum
This is not to say that solar fluctuations never influence Earth’s climate in substantial ways. During a 75-year period beginning in 1645, astronomers detected almost no sunspot activity on the Sun. Called the “Maunder Minimum,” this event coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, a 350-year cold spell that gripped much of Europe and North America.
Recent studies have cast doubt on this relationship, however. New estimates of the total change in the brightness of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum suggest it was only fractions of a percent, and perhaps not enough to create the global cooling commonly attributed to it.
“The situation is pretty ambiguous,” said David Rind, a senior climate researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has modeled the Maunder Minimum.
Based on current estimates, even if another Maunder Minimum were to occur, it might result in an average temperature decrease of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, Rind said.
This would still not be enough to counteract warming of between 2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit from greenhouse gases by 2100, as predicted by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
LiveScience staff writer Andrea Thompson contributed to this article.
Neptune is the planet farthest from the Sun (Pluto is now considered only a dwarf planet), Neptune is the planet farthest from the Earth, and to our knowledge, there has been absolutely no industrialization out at Neptune in recent centuries. There has been no recent build-up of greenhouse gases there, no deforestation, no rapid urbanization, no increase in contrails from jet airplanes, and no increase in ozone in the low atmosphere; recent changes at Neptune could never be blamed on any human influence. Incredibly, an article has appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters showing a stunning relationship between the solar output, Neptune’s brightness, and heaven forbid, the temperature of the Earth. With its obvious implications to the greenhouse debate, we are certain you have never heard of the work and never will outside World Climate Report.
In case you have forgotten your basic science lessons on the planets, Neptune orbits the Sun at a distance 30 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun and Neptune revolves around the Sun once every 164.8 Earth years. Neptune has 17 times the mass of the Earth, its atmosphere is primarily composed of hydrogen and helium, with traces of methane that account for the planet’s distinctive blue appearance. It was the only planet discovered mathematically – scientists noted variations in the orbit of Uranus, they calculated the orbit and position of a yet undiscovered planet that could cause the variations noted for Uranus, they determined where the planet should be, and on the first night they searched for it (September 23, 1846), they discovered the large planet sitting within 1 degree of their predictions. The new planet was named for Neptune, Roman god of the sea, given its distinctive blue color. Observations from Earth and a 1989 Voyager 2 flyby have revealed that Neptune’s cloud tops are extremely cold (−346°F) being so far from the Sun while the center of the planet has a temperature of 13,000°F due to high pressure generating extremely hot gases.
In the recent article, Hammel and Lockwood, from the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory, note that measurements of visible light from Neptune have been taken at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona since 1950. Obviously, light from Neptune can be related to seasons on the planet, small variations in Neptune’s orbit, the apparent tilt of the axis as viewed from the Earth, the varying distance from Neptune to Earth, and of course, changes in the atmosphere near the Lowell Observatory. Astronomers are clever, they are fully aware of these complications, and they adjust the measurements accordingly.
As seen in Figure 1, Neptune has been getting brighter since around 1980; furthermore, infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that the planet has been warming steadily from 1980 to 2004. As they say on Neptune, global warming has become an inconvenient truth. But with no one to blame, Hammel and Lockwood explored how variations in the output of the Sun might control variations in the brightness of Neptune.
Figure 1 (a) represents the corrected visible light from Neptune from 1950 to 2006; (b) shows the temperature anomalies of the Earth; (c) shows the total solar irradiance as a percent variation by year; (d) shows the ultraviolet emission from the Sun (Source: Hammel and Lockwood (2007)).
What would seem so simple statistically is complicated by the degrees of freedom in the various time series which is related to the serial correlation in the data (e.g., next year’s value is highly dependent on this year’s value). Nonetheless, they find that the correlation coefficient between solar irradiance and Neptune’s brightness is near 0.90 (1.00 is perfect). The same relationship is found between the Earth’s temperature anomalies and the solar output. Hammel and Lockwood note “In other words, the Earth temperature values are as well correlated with solar irradiance (r = 0.89) as they are with Neptune’s blue brightness (r > 0.90), assuming a 10-year lag of the Neptune values.” The temporal lag is needed to account for the large mass of Neptune that would require years to adjust to any changes in solar output.
Hammel and Lockwood conclude that “In summary, if Neptune’s atmosphere is indeed responding to some variation in solar activity in a manner similar to that of the Earth albeit with a temporal lag” then “Neptune may provide an independent (and extraterrestrial) locale for studies of solar effects on planetary atmospheres.”
World Climate Report has covered many articles in the scientific literature showing that variations in solar output, including variations within specific wavelengths (e.g., cosmic, ultraviolet, visible, infrared) are highly correlated with temperature variations near the Earth’s surface. Believe it or not, when the Sun is more energetic and putting out more energy, the Earth tends to warm up, and when the Sun cools down, so does the Earth. The Hammel and Lockwood article reveals that the same is true out at Neptune; when the Sun’s energy increases, Neptune seems to warm up and get brighter given a decade lag.
If for some reason you do not believe that the Sun is a significant player in determining the temperature of the Earth (after all, we are told repeatedly that humans are causing most of the observed warming on the Earth), then asked yourself if you believe that Neptune’s temperature is controlled by the Sun. How is it possible that the Earth’s temperature is so highly correlated with brightness variations from Neptune? The news from Neptune comes to us just weeks after an article was published showing that Mars has warmed recently as well.
If nothing else, we have certainly learned recently that planets undergo changes in their mean temperature, and while we can easily blame human activity here on the Earth, blaming humans for the recent warming on Mars and Neptune would be an astronomical stretch, to say the least.
Reference:
Hammel, H. B., and G. W. Lockwood, 2007. Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth’s temperature, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L08203, doi:10.1029/2006GL028764.
Other planets are warming up too.Well, the thing is that it is not only "Mars" and "Pluto" that are warming, but pretty much every planet, and moon with an atmosphere in the solar system is warming/undergoing climate change, and in most cases what is happening to every planet in the solar system, is worse than what is happening on Earth.
Global Warming on Pluto.http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_02100...
Climate change/warming on Jupiter.http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jup...
Global warming on Triton. (Neptune's largest moon)http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc...
Global warming on Enceladus. (A moon of Saturn)http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20060419/Featu...
Climate change on Saturn.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6135450.stm...
The Great(Grate) Climate Change Debate
The debate is raging world wide. A spark of it ignited at our house Sept 30 when family got together to celebrate the first 40 year old sibling. The day after I sent a link to Kes. The information there goes against the common theme getting all the publicity these days that the production of CO2 by human activity is the major cause of temperature change on the planet and we are running out of time to change catastophic consequences.
The link to Terry Ball is at the bottom of the page. I had heard him recently on a T.V. show. His common sense talk made a lot of sense to me and I located his website and wrote him an e-mail in support.
The preceeding comments are Kes's reply.
Thanks for the link. I read through the website and was unimpressed, they don't present any information on what they think is happening with climate change. There whole view seems to be that it's a natural process and there is no need for concern, but fail to present any solid data supporting there claims.
I dug a ittle deeper and read some of Timothy Balls articles not posted on his website; once again he just points fingers at people trying to cause a so called "fear" and fails to present any real data on what he feels is happening. For someone who has a doctorate in climatology it would be nice if he spent a little less time writing about how all the other scientist are wrong and would start doing some of his own research. On top of all that he was on Fox news, definitely the worlds most reliable source of unbiased and accurate information...
Also it looks like the founder of NRSP (Timothy Egan) coincidentally a lobbyist who happens to have clients of the likes of the Canadian Electricity Association and the Canadian Gas Association. Both of these organizations represent the industries that do most of our polluting and generate the vast majority of C02 in Canada. I found it hilarious there claim that the more C02 the better!?! What?!? Sure maybe plants in very controlled environments have benefited from increased levels of C02 but they failed to mention that plant growth is also linked to a few other more important elements - sunlight, water, temperature etc.. not strictly C02. Smoking is good for us too right? Come on this defies common sense!
Read this: http://www.desmogblog.com/nrsp-controlled-by-energy-lobbyists
The key to finding unbiased information is finding the facts and creating your own opinion. In this case real scientific data not some group scientist who's hands are in the back pocket of the industries at blame and over eager to start pointing fingers. Actually look at both sides of the story and decide from there.
For me it boils down to this. When you think the population of our planet has gone from around 3 billion people in the 1960's to over 6.5 billion present day how can you not think we've had some kind of drastic effect on our planet. Parts of the world (India & China) with some of the highest population density have an increased growing middle class and are starting to modernize at increased rates. If everyone lived like we do in North America we would need 6 planet earths to sustain our current rate of consumption.. Ill let you draw your own conclusions from that.
How can anyone sit down look at the data on C02 emissions into our atmosphere and say that we haven't had anything to do with it? It's completely insane to think that if you cut down the planets forests and start using up all the fossil fuel reserves (stored sources of carbon from dead animal and plant life) that you are not having an impact on C02 emissions. Sure maybe we account for only 20% (now) but what happens in 20 years?? what happens if it only takes 5% to tip the balance? Is it better to be ignorant about it and say it's ok it's ok and not really know? Or is it better to think that even if there is the slightest possibility we have an impact that maybe we should change our ways? There is a lot of information out there that shows earth temperature is directly tied to C02 levels in our atmosphere. C02 emissions are a the highest levels in possibly 26 million years, and as crazy as it may seem the increase started somewhere around the start of industrialization. Coincidence? Maybe. Cause for concern I should think so.
I could go on and on but I won't, the information is out there. I find if funny that people get all bent out of shape at the idea of a carbon tax or a tax to those who choose to abuse the environment when America spends over a billion dollars a day to fight a war over oil. Maybe George will yet find those WMD's and we can all pat him on the back. Isn't it odd that 160 counties in the world have ratified Kyoto realizing there is a problem and are trying figure out what is exactly happening? They are working together to find ways to solve it and once again it's the finger pointing we are right you are wrong style attitude coming from the US and for now our own government it seems. When will people learn.I will leave you with a few links that are more factual in nature:
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.html
http://eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarmingUpdate/global_warming_update.html
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/Resources/pointers/glob_warm.html
http://biophile.co.za/climate-change/global-warming-fact-and-fiction/
Kes
From: "Glenn Allen"To: keswicka@hotmail.com, y2kdragon@hotmail.com, cathy@tvfacts.org, hjranch@telus.netSubject: Climate ChangeDate: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 17:56:11 -0700
Hi,
Great conversation aways happens when we have a little get together. Like the climate change topic which Kes, Scott, Dave, Howard and I had a lively time tossing around for awhile
This is the website for Timothy Ball, the guy I heard on T.V. a while ago and was referring to.
Thought I'd pass it along fyi.
Great seeing everybody and thanks so much for coming over. We really appreciate it.
http://www.nrsp.com/strategy.html
The link to Terry Ball is at the bottom of the page. I had heard him recently on a T.V. show. His common sense talk made a lot of sense to me and I located his website and wrote him an e-mail in support.
The preceeding comments are Kes's reply.
Thanks for the link. I read through the website and was unimpressed, they don't present any information on what they think is happening with climate change. There whole view seems to be that it's a natural process and there is no need for concern, but fail to present any solid data supporting there claims.
I dug a ittle deeper and read some of Timothy Balls articles not posted on his website; once again he just points fingers at people trying to cause a so called "fear" and fails to present any real data on what he feels is happening. For someone who has a doctorate in climatology it would be nice if he spent a little less time writing about how all the other scientist are wrong and would start doing some of his own research. On top of all that he was on Fox news, definitely the worlds most reliable source of unbiased and accurate information...
Also it looks like the founder of NRSP (Timothy Egan) coincidentally a lobbyist who happens to have clients of the likes of the Canadian Electricity Association and the Canadian Gas Association. Both of these organizations represent the industries that do most of our polluting and generate the vast majority of C02 in Canada. I found it hilarious there claim that the more C02 the better!?! What?!? Sure maybe plants in very controlled environments have benefited from increased levels of C02 but they failed to mention that plant growth is also linked to a few other more important elements - sunlight, water, temperature etc.. not strictly C02. Smoking is good for us too right? Come on this defies common sense!
Read this: http://www.desmogblog.com/nrsp-controlled-by-energy-lobbyists
The key to finding unbiased information is finding the facts and creating your own opinion. In this case real scientific data not some group scientist who's hands are in the back pocket of the industries at blame and over eager to start pointing fingers. Actually look at both sides of the story and decide from there.
For me it boils down to this. When you think the population of our planet has gone from around 3 billion people in the 1960's to over 6.5 billion present day how can you not think we've had some kind of drastic effect on our planet. Parts of the world (India & China) with some of the highest population density have an increased growing middle class and are starting to modernize at increased rates. If everyone lived like we do in North America we would need 6 planet earths to sustain our current rate of consumption.. Ill let you draw your own conclusions from that.
How can anyone sit down look at the data on C02 emissions into our atmosphere and say that we haven't had anything to do with it? It's completely insane to think that if you cut down the planets forests and start using up all the fossil fuel reserves (stored sources of carbon from dead animal and plant life) that you are not having an impact on C02 emissions. Sure maybe we account for only 20% (now) but what happens in 20 years?? what happens if it only takes 5% to tip the balance? Is it better to be ignorant about it and say it's ok it's ok and not really know? Or is it better to think that even if there is the slightest possibility we have an impact that maybe we should change our ways? There is a lot of information out there that shows earth temperature is directly tied to C02 levels in our atmosphere. C02 emissions are a the highest levels in possibly 26 million years, and as crazy as it may seem the increase started somewhere around the start of industrialization. Coincidence? Maybe. Cause for concern I should think so.
I could go on and on but I won't, the information is out there. I find if funny that people get all bent out of shape at the idea of a carbon tax or a tax to those who choose to abuse the environment when America spends over a billion dollars a day to fight a war over oil. Maybe George will yet find those WMD's and we can all pat him on the back. Isn't it odd that 160 counties in the world have ratified Kyoto realizing there is a problem and are trying figure out what is exactly happening? They are working together to find ways to solve it and once again it's the finger pointing we are right you are wrong style attitude coming from the US and for now our own government it seems. When will people learn.I will leave you with a few links that are more factual in nature:
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.html
http://eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarmingUpdate/global_warming_update.html
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/Resources/pointers/glob_warm.html
http://biophile.co.za/climate-change/global-warming-fact-and-fiction/
Kes
From: "Glenn Allen"
Hi,
Great conversation aways happens when we have a little get together. Like the climate change topic which Kes, Scott, Dave, Howard and I had a lively time tossing around for awhile
This is the website for Timothy Ball, the guy I heard on T.V. a while ago and was referring to.
Thought I'd pass it along fyi.
Great seeing everybody and thanks so much for coming over. We really appreciate it.
http://www.nrsp.com/strategy.html
Sunday, September 02, 2007
The Myth of a Christian Nation
The Myth of a Christian Nation by Gregory A. Boyd
Excerpts and thoughts…
P. 135
If we loved as Jesus loved we would become humble servants of humanity.
If we offer unconditional love, worth and acceptance that can’t be found any where else, we would become known as people who do not judge, who make no claim for themselves but who simply live to serve others.
People will want to hang out with us just as they did Jesus.
“If we would simply internalize Jesus’ teaching that we are to consider our own sin to be tree trunks in our eyes and other people’s sin – whatever it is – to be a mere dust particle, we would quickly become known not as self righteous judgers” (as is too often the case when we say we are “Christians) “but as the most humble, self-effacing people on the planet.”
“If you want to judge someone you have to be sinless. Of course, if you are sinless, like Jesus, you won’t have any inclination to do so.”
P. 27
“Any peace achieved by violence is a peace forever threatened by violence, thus ensuring that the bloody game will be perpetuated.
Followers of Jesus must realize – and must help others realize ….the hope of the world lies in a kingdom that is not of this world, a kingdom that doesn’t participate in tit for tat, a kingdom that operates with a completely different understanding of power. It is the kingdom established by Jesus Christ and a kingdom that is expanded by people committed to following him. It is the kingdom of God…it is a kingdom where greatness is defined by serving and sacrificing for others.”
I have had my beliefs in the roots of democratic government (mainly North American) changed by reading Gregory Boyd’s viewpoint.
I had always reasoned that democratic law was rooted in biblical law and that is why we enjoy the security and freedom we do in North America. The erosion of those laws I saw as fueling the downfall of our society. Thus I favored actions that defend our laws. I assimilated the sacrifices that both my parents made in WWII with the need to fight against those who seek to destroy the freedom that comes with democracy.
Mr. Boyd clearly defined that the way of the sword is an historical and ongoing abuse of assuming that we are fulfilling God’s commission when we use violence.
If we do not look like Jesus then we are not fulfilling his commission.
Excerpts and thoughts…
P. 135
If we loved as Jesus loved we would become humble servants of humanity.
If we offer unconditional love, worth and acceptance that can’t be found any where else, we would become known as people who do not judge, who make no claim for themselves but who simply live to serve others.
People will want to hang out with us just as they did Jesus.
“If we would simply internalize Jesus’ teaching that we are to consider our own sin to be tree trunks in our eyes and other people’s sin – whatever it is – to be a mere dust particle, we would quickly become known not as self righteous judgers” (as is too often the case when we say we are “Christians) “but as the most humble, self-effacing people on the planet.”
“If you want to judge someone you have to be sinless. Of course, if you are sinless, like Jesus, you won’t have any inclination to do so.”
P. 27
“Any peace achieved by violence is a peace forever threatened by violence, thus ensuring that the bloody game will be perpetuated.
Followers of Jesus must realize – and must help others realize ….the hope of the world lies in a kingdom that is not of this world, a kingdom that doesn’t participate in tit for tat, a kingdom that operates with a completely different understanding of power. It is the kingdom established by Jesus Christ and a kingdom that is expanded by people committed to following him. It is the kingdom of God…it is a kingdom where greatness is defined by serving and sacrificing for others.”
I have had my beliefs in the roots of democratic government (mainly North American) changed by reading Gregory Boyd’s viewpoint.
I had always reasoned that democratic law was rooted in biblical law and that is why we enjoy the security and freedom we do in North America. The erosion of those laws I saw as fueling the downfall of our society. Thus I favored actions that defend our laws. I assimilated the sacrifices that both my parents made in WWII with the need to fight against those who seek to destroy the freedom that comes with democracy.
Mr. Boyd clearly defined that the way of the sword is an historical and ongoing abuse of assuming that we are fulfilling God’s commission when we use violence.
If we do not look like Jesus then we are not fulfilling his commission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)