An Inconvenient Truth

I see the arrogance is not limited to man-made global warming. I am not a scientist. I am not saying you should believe or disbelieve the artical I referenced. It is just 1 of many that seem to poke holes into some of the theories presented by the alarmist. I do think global warming MAY be taking place. We are talking about a celestial body that is over 3.5 billion years old!!! You are using data collected over 15-20 years or so (data that whether you like it or not is debatable) to come to a conclusion that human consumerism (a phrase I borrow from another poster) is the catalyst for the global warming. Is it 10 years, 15 years or maybe 30 years we are using for analysis? We are comparing this to what? The last 50 years? 100 years? 100 years is a long time to us humans but it is a blink of the eye to a planet that has been around over 3.5 billion years.

I'm sorry I have disappointed you in that my research isn't up to the high standards you have obviously set for yourself and others. I am not out to "disprove" anything. The onus is on the "man-made global warming " crowd to come up with the proof. Proof that has yet to be conclusive and inclusive as to the data that seems to be conveniently over looked or omitted.

My research methods may be lacking mainly because: 1. I'm not an alarmist,
2. Common sense tells me 10-20 years of data out of sample size of about 75-125 years from a variable that has over 3,500,000,000 years is about as worthless as a George Bush fundraiser at Barbara Streisands house and 3. I have a life. Why do I have this strange feeling that if there is a Democrat in the White House the global warming debate will gradually fade away (remember the homeless during the Reagan & Bush I years).

There's whiskey out there older than the only 150 years we've been pumping oil out of the ground to burn in the atmosphere. This has all happened in the last few generations. War for oil does it for me. There's got to be a better way. Trying to micro-manage the Middle East is not our government's highest calling, is it?

Trying to micro-manage the Middle East is not our government's highest calling, is it?

this has been my take from the get-go. we should be focusing our attention and our money here.

Al Gore has been nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

lead-in from the story:

eb. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and Canadian activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier were nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of their efforts to raise awareness about the threat of climate change.

``They are both key figures who put climate change on the agenda in global politics,'' said Heidi Soerensen, a Norwegian member of parliament, who made the nominations with fellow MP Boerge Brende. ``The threat to the climate is so important that if it isn't solved, it could lead to huge conflicts as people fight over access to water and land.''

Link:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aitdeJI9Ezk0

Al Gore has been nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

lead-in from the story:

eb. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and Canadian activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier were nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of their efforts to raise awareness about the threat of climate change.

``They are both key figures who put climate change on the agenda in global politics,'' said Heidi Soerensen, a Norwegian member of parliament, who made the nominations with fellow MP Boerge Brende. ``The threat to the climate is so important that if it isn't solved, it could lead to huge conflicts as people fight over access to water and land.''

Link:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aitdeJI9Ezk0

Who could ever argue with Heidi Soerensen and Boerge Brende? Not me!

There's whiskey out there older than the only 150 years we've been pumping oil out of the ground to burn in the atmosphere. This has all happened in the last few generations. War for oil does it for me. There's got to be a better way. Trying to micro-manage the Middle East is not our government's highest calling, is it?

Domestic off-shore drilling?

While man-made Global Warming is well accepted among most scientists
there is still credible debate on "whether" it contributes to stronger hurricanes.

See article below for a ?chilling? prediction.

International Herald Tribune

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/01/europe/EU-GEN-France-Climate-Change-Hurricanes.php

Panel: Global warming makes stronger hurricanes

The Associated Press
Thursday, February 1, 2007
PARIS

Global warming has made stronger hurricanes, including those in the Atlantic Ocean such as 2005's Katrina, an authoritative panel on climate change has concluded for the first time, participants in the deliberations said Thursday.

During marathon meetings in Paris, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved language that said an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 "more likely than not" can be attributed to man-made global warming, according to Leonard Fields, of Barbados, and Cedric Nelom, of Suriname.

In its last report in 2001, the same panel had said there was not enough evidence to make such a conclusion.

"It is very important" that the language is so strong this time, said Fields, whose eastern Caribbean island is on the path of many hurricanes. "Insurance companies watch the language too."

The panel did note that the increase in stronger storms differs in various parts of the globe, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced, according to another participant.

Fields said that the report notes that most of the changes have been seen in the North Atlantic.

The report ? scheduled to be released Friday morning ? is also a marked departure from a November 2006 statement by the World Meteorological Organization, which helped found the IPCC.

The meteorological organization, after contentious debate, said it could not link past stronger storms to global warming. The debate about whether stronger hurricanes can be linked to global warming has been dividing a scientific community that is otherwise largely united in agreeing that global warming is human-made and a problem.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Kerry Emanuel, who pioneered much of the research linking global warming to an uptick in hurricane strength, looked at the original language in an IPCC draft and called it "a pretty strong statement."

"I think we've seen a pretty clear signal in the Atlantic," Emanuel said. The increase in Atlantic hurricane strength "is so beautifully correlated with sea surface there can't be much doubt that there's a relationship with sea surface temperature."

But U.S. National Hurricane Center scientist Christopher Landsea has long disagreed with that premise. While he would not comment on the IPCC decision, Landsea pointed to the meteorological organization's statement last fall.

Domestic off-shore drilling?

That sounds like a dare. How about, get this, cause it's really, really radical. How about we try to use something other than Texas Tea that washes up on beaches from time to time. Here's a really wacked out idea. Maybe we take the 5 billion a month spent replicating Vietnam without the humidity and put the money in R and D for a renewable energy source. We will just go over to the Middle East and bomb when NASCAR runs dry from time to time.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/01/news/companies/exxon/ Exxon/Mobil the good guys from Irving, Texas Uhmerika

...earning more than $75,000 every minute of 2006... awesome.

...Maybe we take the 5 billion a month spent replicating Vietnam without the humidity and put the money in R and D for a renewable energy source...

or, teacher salaries, or insurance for all of us, or paying off the our credit holders, or anything but the "war".

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Watch "Iraq for Sale; The War Profiteers"
Actually watch it, don't go by heresay, as some seem to be doing about An Inconvenient Truth. It'll p*ss you off royally.

By the way, AIT is over 30 years worth of research of a billion years or so worth of evidence.

But of course the Holocaust never happened either. Just a hoax.

"It'll be a fine day when our schools have all the money they need for books, supplies, proper teacher salaries, and the Air Force has to have a bake sale to buy F-16s."

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/01/news/companies/exxon/ Exxon/Mobil the good guys from Irving, Texas Uhmerika

Exxon's profit margin was 10%. Too much (i dunno)? Maybe if we can get the profit margin down to 3% or in the negative we can solve this "man-made" Global Warming problem. Who was making all the money the other times the Earth has warmed?

While man-made Global Warming is well accepted among most scientists
there is still credible debate on "whether" it contributes to stronger hurricanes.

See article below for a ?chilling? prediction.

International Herald Tribune

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/01/europe/EU-GEN-France-Climate-Change-Hurricanes.php

Panel: Global warming makes stronger hurricanes

The Associated Press
Thursday, February 1, 2007
PARIS

Global warming has made stronger hurricanes, including those in the Atlantic Ocean such as 2005's Katrina, an authoritative panel on climate change has concluded for the first time, participants in the deliberations said Thursday.

During marathon meetings in Paris, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved language that said an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 "more likely than not" can be attributed to man-made global warming, according to Leonard Fields, of Barbados, and Cedric Nelom, of Suriname.

In its last report in 2001, the same panel had said there was not enough evidence to make such a conclusion.

"It is very important" that the language is so strong this time, said Fields, whose eastern Caribbean island is on the path of many hurricanes. "Insurance companies watch the language too."

The panel did note that the increase in stronger storms differs in various parts of the globe, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced, according to another participant.

Fields said that the report notes that most of the changes have been seen in the North Atlantic.

The report ? scheduled to be released Friday morning ? is also a marked departure from a November 2006 statement by the World Meteorological Organization, which helped found the IPCC.

The meteorological organization, after contentious debate, said it could not link past stronger storms to global warming. The debate about whether stronger hurricanes can be linked to global warming has been dividing a scientific community that is otherwise largely united in agreeing that global warming is human-made and a problem.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Kerry Emanuel, who pioneered much of the research linking global warming to an uptick in hurricane strength, looked at the original language in an IPCC draft and called it "a pretty strong statement."

"I think we've seen a pretty clear signal in the Atlantic," Emanuel said. The increase in Atlantic hurricane strength "is so beautifully correlated with sea surface there can't be much doubt that there's a relationship with sea surface temperature."

But U.S. National Hurricane Center scientist Christopher Landsea has long disagreed with that premise. While he would not comment on the IPCC decision, Landsea pointed to the meteorological organization's statement last fall.

Regarding the part of the quote "While man-made global warming is accepted among most scientist....", where is the data that ever has suggested that? Most of the articles linked on this thread refer to scientific data suggesting that the Earth is indeed warming, not that man is the cause. I ask again, what has cause the Earth to warm in the past. Are you saying this is the first time it has happened? Does the Sun also gone through warming and cooling activity? Do ya thing that maybe it might have something to do with warming and cooling patterns of the Earth? Just a few questions from someone who doesn't listen to NPR.

"Mankind to blame for global warming say scientists"

Fri Feb 2, 2007 3:32 PM ET
REUTERS

By Gerard Wynn and Alister Doyle

PARIS (Reuters) - Mankind is to blame for global warming, the world's top climate scientists said on Friday, sending governments a "crystal clear" warning they must take urgent action to avert damage that could last for centuries.

The United Nations panel, which groups 2,500 scientists from more than 130 nations, predicted more droughts, heatwaves and a slow gain in sea levels that could continue for more than 1,000 years even if greenhouse gas emissions were capped.

The panel's report predicts a "best estimate" that temperatures would rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 Celsius (3.2 and 7.8 Fahrenheit) in the 21st century.

"Faced with this emergency, now is not the time for half measures. It is the time for a revolution, in the true sense of the term," French President Jacques Chirac said. "We are in truth on the historical doorstep of the irreversible."

The scientists said it was "very likely" -- or more than 90 percent probable -- that human activities led by burning fossil fuels explained most of the warming in the past 50 years.

That is a toughening from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) last report in 2001, which judged a link as "likely", or 66 percent probable.

Extreme weather may be becoming more frequent. Fourteen people died in storms and at least one tornado in central Florida on Friday. Other possible signs include drought in Australia or record high winter temperatures in Europe.

Many governments, U.N. agencies and environmental groups urged a widening of the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, which binds 35 industrial nations to cut emissions by 2012 but excludes top emitters led by the United States, China and India.

"The signal we've received from the scientists today is crystal clear and it's important that the political response is also crystal clear," said Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Secretariat.

GREEN SUMMIT

He wants an emergency environment summit of world leaders this year to push for wider action. Kyoto has been weakened since the United States pulled out in 2001 and emissions by many backers of Kyoto are far above target.

The Bush administration played down the U.S. contribution to climate change even though the country is the biggest single source of greenhouse gases, with a quarter of the world total.

"We are a small contributor when you look at the rest of the world," U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said of greenhouse gas emissions after the IPCC report. "It's really got to be a global discussion."

A 21-page summary of IPCC findings for policy makers outlines wrenching change such as a possible melting of Arctic sea ice in summers by 2100 and says it is "more likely than not" that greenhouse gases have made tropical cyclones more intense.

The report projects a rise in sea levels of between 18 and 59 centimeters (7 and 23 inches) in the 21st century -- and said bigger gains cannot be ruled out if ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland thaw.

Rising seas threaten low-lying islands, coasts of countries such as Bangladesh and cities from Shanghai to Buenos Aires.

Temperatures rose 0.7 degrees in the 20th century and the 10 hottest years since records began in the 1850s have been since 1994. Greenhouse gases are released mainly by burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.

President Bush says Kyoto-style caps would harm the economy and that Kyoto should include developing nations. His policies will brake the growth of emissions but stop short of caps favored by most of his industrial allies.

Democrats who control both houses of Congress want tougher action.

The president of Kiribati, a group of 33 Pacific coral atolls threatened by rising seas, said time was running out.

"The question is, what can we do now? There's very little we can do about arresting the process," President Anote Tong said.

"There is no single solution," the International Energy Agency said. It wants more energy savings, more renewable energy, nuclear power and efforts to make fossil fuels cleaner.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.
aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2007-02-02T203228Z_
01_L01923284_RTRUKOC_0_US-GLOBALWARMING-WRAP.xml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html

The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.
Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."



--There you go, TripleB. There is a 90% chance that this problem falls at the foot of mankind. There is the statistic, and now I look forward to your cleverest, most dismissive response yet.

Anyone else looking forward to Al Gore's acceptance speech at the academy awards? :roll:

Sorry, but "The world's top climate scientists (according to who?) said..." is not scientific proof! Now I see that the hottest years on record (since 1850's) fall after 1994. Earlier in this thread, the top ten hottest years on record were given. The rankings showed that only 4 out of the 10 years listed were after 1994. The 1930's remain the hottest decade on record.

Scientist projections, opinions, ideas etc.... isn't scientific data. I agree, the data seems to show warming but the J U M P from that to "its our fault" isn't scientific at all. Lets face it though, you don't really think its our fault. You think its "big oil", the gluttonous USA and of course conservatives because they don't "care" as much as you do.

We have a devestating tornado last night in FL (it was referenced earlier) so it was due to GW (implied). Hurricane projections for this past fall were ominous but no major storms. I sure this is due to GW too, I just haven't figured out the angle. I must go now and see if there is still snow in my backyard

Sorry, but "The world's top climate scientists (according to who?) said..." is not scientific proof! Now I see that the hottest years on record (since 1850's) fall after 1994. Earlier in this thread, the top ten hottest years on record were given. The rankings showed that only 4 out of the 10 years listed were after 1994. The 1930's remain the hottest decade on record.

Scientist projections, opinions, ideas etc.... isn't scientific data. I agree, the data seems to show warming but the J U M P from that to "its our fault" isn't scientific at all. Lets face it though, you don't really think its our fault. You think its "big oil", the gluttonous USA and of course conservatives because they don't "care" as much as you do.

We have a devestating tornado last night in FL (it was referenced earlier) so it was due to GW (implied). Hurricane projections for this past fall were ominous but no major storms. I sure this is due to GW too, I just haven't figured out the angle. I must go now and see if there is still snow in my backyard

You forgot to add that the groundhog saw his shadow with unprecedented swiftness this morning. Hello spring, goodbye Greenland.

Scientist projections, opinions, ideas etc.... isn't scientific data. I agree, the data seems to show warming but the J U M P from that to "its our fault" isn't scientific at all. Lets face it though, you don't really think its our fault. You think its "big oil", the gluttonous USA and of course conservatives because they don't "care" as much as you do.

Let me correct you-

I think it is MY fault. In my mind, global warming is MY fault. I am the cause of global warming. I want to change. I want to do/be better.

You have the propensity to disbelieve the assertion that man could cause such a change as global warming in the dynamics of an environment; whereas, I am inclined to believe that this is so. The reason this movie is useful pertains to how much it is a collection of the data that you keep requesting me to provide. Have you seen the movie? I'll agree with anyone who says it may have been a little heavy-handed in spots, but the data he provides is very straight-forward and compelling. Even a simple line graph of the earth's human population over time was completely illuminating. It gave perspective as to what you seem so skeptical about- that there are enough of us to change a planet.

World consensus of scientists and governments released a grave statement yesterday stating that they are over 90% sure that the World climate change is being caused by humans.

Listen to this quick clip from NPR. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change offers the most definitive word on the science of global warming.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7137290


:shock:

Sorry, but "The world's top climate scientists (according to who?) said..." is not scientific proof! Now I see that the hottest years on record (since 1850's) fall after 1994. Earlier in this thread, the top ten hottest years on record were given. The rankings showed that only 4 out of the 10 years listed were after 1994. The 1930's remain the hottest decade on record.

Scientist projections, opinions, ideas etc.... isn't scientific data. I agree, the data seems to show warming but the J U M P from that to "its our fault" isn't scientific at all. Lets face it though, you don't really think its our fault. You think its "big oil", the gluttonous USA and of course conservatives because they don't "care" as much as you do.

We have a devestating tornado last night in FL (it was referenced earlier) so it was due to GW (implied). Hurricane projections for this past fall were ominous but no major storms. I sure this is due to GW too, I just haven't figured out the angle. I must go now and see if there is still snow in my backyard

TripleB you have alluded to the idea that the Global Warming debate may be an attempt to get a democrat into the white house. Today I feel a deep sense of shame, and I will tell you why. I voted for Bush when he was running against Al Gore. That's right I voted for Bush, not the guy who made the movie that I feel everyone needs to see. After hearing Bush's response to the IPCC report I am more ashamed of my decision than ever before. I am not ashamed that I voted republican, but rather specifically that I voted for George W. Bush. This issue is not about politics, and I am neither Democrat nor Republican. Bush's administration stated that even though the IPCC said there is more than 90% certainty humans are causing global warming they will not change their policies because that would be detrimental to the American economy. OH MY GOD!!!!! I am completely blown away by this statement, and I am directly responsible for putting this man into power originally. What is even worse, I helped put him in power over a person who has dedicated his life to trying to better our children's futures. I am, in many ways, a very conservative person, and I believe what Bush is doing is completely wrong and absolutely immoral. I believe Bush is making his decisions based on his religious beliefs. I think he believes the end times are soon, Christ is coming, and so there is no need to worry about the state of the planet. I make this statement based on direct statements made by Bush and his administration. How is Bush's decision any different than those made by Hitler. I honestly believe Hitler thought he was making decisions based on what was "best" for the German people. I know these are very strong statements, and they are not aimed at anyone's religious or political beliefs. They are aimed at the "arrogance" of a leader who is willing to jeopardize the world population in order to assure his government's overriding power. That is what the strength of the American economy provides when it boils down to it. I am a deeply spiritual person, but I would never allow my spiritual beliefs to affect others in such a negative way. This probably sounds like an alarmist thing to say, and it is. I freely admit it, "I am now alarmed".

I would like to also state that I have just instated a new policy for D&A Maintenance. If a customer purchases a tree and plants it, they can subtract the cost of that tree from their bill, provided they include a copy of the receipt for the purchase of the tree. I am doing this to help offset the carbon dioxide emissions created in order to power the tools used by my business.

I would encourage other businesses to instate similar practices.

We have a devestating tornado last night in FL (it was referenced earlier) so it was due to GW (implied). Hurricane projections for this past fall were ominous but no major storms. I sure this is due to GW too, I just haven't figured out the angle. I must go now and see if there is still snow in my backyard

We can't leave out the west coast for this past fall. The Atlantic coast did not see any storms because of upper level winds, but the pacific coast had a very unusual season. This is what NASA said in the beginning of the pacific season:
"The 2006 East Pacific hurricane season is now in full swing with 2 active storms in the heart of the season. The total number of named storms so far is near the climatological average and near the number from last year. Recently, Tropical Storm Kristy became the 11th named storm of the 2006 season. However, in terms of intense storms, this year's pace is well above normal and far outdistances the 2005 season. When Hurricane John reached Category 3 intensity on the 29th of August 2006, it became the 5th major hurricane of the season. There were only two major hurricanes in 2005 with four being the typical average for the entire season."

Type "pacific coast 2006 storms" into the google search bar and see the number of newspaper articles that describe the storms of the Pacific coast's 2006 hurricane season with words like "freakish".

Averages:
The average seasonal activity in the East Pacific Basin is 16 named storms, 9 hurricanes and 4 major hurricanes.

2006 season summary:
Nineteen named storms formed in the East Pacific Hurricane basin during the 2006 season, which is above average. Eleven of these storms were classified as hurricanes and 6 storms were major hurricanes (category 3-5 on the Saffir-Simpson Scale). Perhaps the most notable hurricane of the season was Ioke, which became a category 5 hurricane on August 26th. Ioke crossed the International Date Line into the western Pacific, the first category 5 storm to do this since 1994. Super Typhoon Ioke continued on a westerly track before weakening. For more information on Ioke, see the August summary below.

Three tropical storms made landfall in Mexico during the 2006 season. John was a category 2 storm when it came ashore near the southern tip of the Baja Peninsula in August. Hurricane Lane was the strongest storm to make landfall in the East Pacific during the 2006 season. This storm was a category 3 when it hit land in the Sinaloa State of Mexico in mid-September. Hurricane John came ashore as a tropical depression in October also in Sinaloa.

In November, Tropical Storm Rosa and Hurricane Sergio formed: the first time since the 1961 season two named storms formed in November in the East North Pacific basin. Sergio strengthened into a strong category 2 storm and became the strongest hurricane to form or exist in this basin during the month of November. For additional information on these and all the 2006 season storms, see the summaries below.

More statistical information may be found on NCDC's 2006 Northeast Pacific Tropical Cyclone statistics page.

We mustn't forget Global Warming is a "Global" phenomenon, so we have to look at the entire planet when determining whether things are steadily getting worse.

TripleB please, please, please watch "An Inconvenient Truth" and then come back to this thread. I ask this in all sincerity. The film addresses all of your points. It talks about how Global Warming affects pockets of the planet at different times. One area of the planet may be experiencing the worst floods ever, while their neighbor less than 100 miles away will be experiencing their worst drought ever. I know you have mentioned all the unusual snow fall out west as a indicator that Global Warming may not be as bad as everyone is saying, but on the contrary it is saying the exact opposite. I honestly believe that if you watch the film you may begin to see things differently not because you have been duped by hollywood, but rather because you will see all the discussions from all sides together in one comprehensive overview.

Please allow me to clarify in further detail D&A Maintenance's new policy.

If a customer purchases a tree and plants it, they can subtract the cost of that tree from their bill, provided they include a copy of the receipt for the purchase of the tree. This is not a one time thing either. Customers can purchase one tree for every bill they receive. These trees must be planted in the ground and their cost can not exceed 1/4 the labor costs on bills $100 or less. If your bill is over $100 you can discuss with me what your options are. I am doing this to help offset the carbon dioxide emissions created by powering the tools used by my business. Remember, we come to your home to do the work so we will notice if you are planting trees. If you don't have room in your yard to plant new trees, include dated (by the camera) photographic proof of yourself planting the tree on your receipt and you will receive the same deal. This policy relies on the honor system and the integrity of my customers. Feel free to send pictures of the trees you plant or questions to azalace@earthlink.net. We may start a web site showing all the trees that have been planted. I would also like to encourage other businesses to take up similar practices.

For Triple B & others who have not seen the movie yet...
There will be a showing of AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH on Wednesday, Feb. 21 at 7pm in the meeting hall theatre as part of the Independent Film Series.

Another group is showing it in March at the South Walton library, I think. I'll find out the details and post later.

One article among a very interesting series on global warming...I wonder why this information isn't getting any press? ;-)

Look to Mars for the truth on global warming
The Deniers -- Part IX

Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post


Friday, February 02, 2007


January 26, 2007

Climate change is a much, much bigger issue than the public, politicians, and even the most alarmed environmentalists realize. Global warming extends to Mars, where the polar ice cap is shrinking, where deep gullies in the landscape are now laid bare, and where the climate is the warmest it has been in decades or centuries.

"One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age," NASA scientist William Feldman speculated after the agency's Mars Odyssey completed its first Martian year of data collection. "In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated." With each passing year more and more evidence arises of the dramatic changes occurring on the only planet on the solar system, apart from Earth, to give up its climate secrets.


NASA's findings in space come as no surprise to Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at Saint Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. Pulkovo -- at the pinnacle of Russia's space-oriented scientific establishment -- is one of the world's best equipped observatories and has been since its founding in 1839. Heading Pulkovo's space research laboratory is Dr. Abdussamatov, one of the world's chief critics of the theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions create a greenhouse effect, leading to global warming.

"Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."

The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.

"It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

The real news from Saint Petersburg -- demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world's oceans -- is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60" lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again.

Because of the scientific significance of this period of global cooling that we're about to enter, the Russian and Ukrainian space agencies, under Dr. Abdussamatov's leadership, have launched a joint project to determine the time and extent of the global cooling at mid-century. The project, dubbed Astrometry and given priority space-experiment status on the Russian portion of the International Space Station, will marshal the resources of spacecraft manufacturer Energia, several Russian research and production centers, and the main observatory of Ukraine's Academy of Sciences. By late next year, scientific equipment will have been installed in a space-station module and by early 2009, Dr. Abdussamatov's space team will be conducting a regular survey of the sun.

With the data, the project will help mankind cope with a century of falling temperatures, during which we will enter a mini ice age.

"There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now. It does not have to come into force until at least 100 years from no w," Dr. Abdussamatov concluded. "A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse- gas emissions."

Lawrence Solomon@nextcity.com

- - -

- Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation. www.Urban-Renaissance.org

CV OF A DENIER:

Habibullo Abdussamatov, born in Samarkand in Uzbekistan in 1940, graduated from Samarkand University in 1962 as a physicist and a mathematician. He earned his doctorate at Pulkovo Observatory and the University of Leningrad.

He is the head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academies of Sciences' Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometry project, a long-term joint scientific research project of the Russian and Ukranian space agencies.