Alert : Global Cooling Is Coming !!!

Some things are just to strange to make up........

Frostbite ends Bancroft-Arnesen trek By PATRICK CONDON, Associated Press Writer
Mon Mar 12, 5:28 PM ET

MINNEAPOLIS - A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.

"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.

On Monday, the pair was at Canada's Ward Hunt Island, awaiting a plane to take them to Resolute, Canada, where they were to return to Minneapolis later this week.

Bancroft, 51, became the first woman to cross the North Pole on a 1986 expedition. She and Arnesen, 53, of Oslo, Norway, were the first women to ski across Antarctica in 2001.

But the latest trek got off to a bad start. The day they set off from Ward Hunt Island, a plane landing near the women hit their gear, punching a hole in Bancroft's sled and damaging one of Arnesen's snowshoes.

They repaired the snowshoe with binding from a ski, but Atwood said the patch job created pressure on Arnesen's left foot, which led to blisters that then turned into frostbite.

Then there was the cold — quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.

"My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said.

She said Bancroft and Arnesen were applying hot water bottles to Arnesen's foot every night, but had to wake up periodically because the bottles froze.

The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft's 1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted.

Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.

"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."

I personally think the entire global cooling/warming thing is just a reason to keep pouring our tax dollars into those grants for those scientists. They have to come up with something to keep their jobs and trying to scare people with the normal climate changes that the earth has gone through over the ages is as good as any other way.

Yes FEAR of Loss is the prime human motivator.....

UPDATE....

I have a prediction that you will see this global warming issue die out...
Son, have you been out in the heat too long today?, you ask?
(no pun intended)

Here's why: Now that the organic army, vegans, vegetarians, PETA, etc. etc., have seen the studies from the university of Illinois and some research out of London that meat eating causes a bigger carbon footprint than driving a big SUV.....

Well folks, there are some HUGE special interests out there that don't want this to become an issue or THE Issue as the primary way to reduce global warming.......

India would come out looking pretty sweet on this deal, China not so hot
(no pun intended) with the US in the middle overall if not per capita.

Here's one example "A Meateater on a Bicycle leaves a bigger carbon footprint than a Vegan in a Hummer!"

This quote is at www.myspace.com/biteglobalwarming

Hmmmmm, what about fish on fridays only in a Honda CRV ?

The law of unintended consequences strikes again.......

I wonder what Al Gore's diet is ?

I read that also. I found it quite amusing. You know ,there was a reason the old timers called storms, snowfall and other things the 100 year storm,drought etc. They have happened all along, just every 100 years or so. Guess our generation just got out of the habit of ACTUALLY LISTENING to the what our elders said.

Not sure about his diet but his energy use is...well...read for yourself.....

Al Gore?s Personal Energy Use Is His Own ?Inconvenient Truth?
Gore?s home uses more than 20 times the national average

Last night, Al Gore?s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore?s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh?more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh?guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore?s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore?s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore?s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore?s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

?As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,? said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

According to today's (aug 17 2007) report, no.


by Dr Jeff Masters:

Arctic sea ice shrinks to record low
The National Snow and Ice Data Center announced today that Arctic sea ice has just surpassed the previous single-day (absolute minimum) record for the lowest extent ever measured by satellite. Satellite measurements began in 1979. Sea ice extent has fallen below the 2005 record low absolute minimum and is still melting. Sea ice extent is currently tracking at 5.26 million square kilometers (2.02 million square miles), just below the 2005 record absolute minimum of 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles). This new record was set a full five weeks before the usual late September minima in ice extent, so truly unprecedented melting is occurring in the Arctic. The most recent images from the North Pole webcam show plenty of open water and rainy conditions at the Pole.



Figure 2. Current extent of the polar sea ice, compared to the normal for this time in August (pink line). Image credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Interesting.
From 1979 is not a very long time.

Check out this article from 1922
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070814/NATION02/108140063

D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."



Cycles... turn turn turn, there is a season

see now i really know why I come from Alaska!

Interesting.
From 1979 is not a very long time.

Check out this article from 1922
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070814/NATION02/108140063

D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."



Cycles... turn turn turn, there is a season

Natural cycles of warming/cooling should not be confused with the unnatural speeding-up-of & extreme re-warming of our planet's atmosphere by humans. The mixture of gases in the air we evolved to live & thrive in, was naturally developed millions of years ago. But within the last 150 years, we have been rapidly changing that atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels -- coal & oil. For example, carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere increased by about 30% in the 20th Century.

That excess carbon was originally in the atmosphere over 300 million years ago, when this planet was much too warm for humans. Gradually, that carbon got locked-up under ground by decaying prehistoric plants & sea-creatures, etc., fossilizing into coal & oil. Now, by rapidly burning those fossil fuels, we are turning our atmosphere back toward that high-carbon, pre-human mixture that causes exreme global warming.

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/education/energylessons/coal/gen_howformed.html

Thank goodness we still have time to listen to the majority of scientists, & to develop truly modern, non-fossil-fuel energy sources, including solar, wind, tidal, geo-thermal, & bio-fuels.

Yes Scientists are on both sides of this argument (not a 4 letter word to an Irish man) And 1922 is a LONG time after the industrial revolution of the 1700's

Funny when you think of putting your faith in someone telling you that they understand the weather on this planet 300 million years ago and they cannot
tell you the weather with certainty 7 days out from now.

Just unbelievable .

Also a few days ago they revised that the hottest year was not 1988
but 1934 See: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246027

Well I was wrong about more people clicking on GLOBAL WARMING vs.
Global Cooling.....

I was also wrong on Sept. 16th 1999

And on March 9th 1995

Also a few days ago they revised that the hottest year was not 1988
but 1934 See: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246027

I think you meant to type, "... was not 1998..."

Right the hottest was not 1998 the hottest was 1934 the dustbowl year

Yes Scientists are on both sides of this argument (not a 4 letter word to an Irish man) And 1922 is a LONG time after the industrial revolution of the 1700's

Funny when you think of putting your faith in someone telling you that they understand the weather on this planet 300 million years ago and they cannot
tell you the weather with certainty 7 days out from now.

Just unbelievable .

Also a few days ago they revised that the hottest year was not 1988
but 1934 See: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246027

"Scientists on both sides" sounds equally divided. But it is not. The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming has gotten out of hand.

Global warming is naturally caused by the "greenhouse effect" of certain gases like carbon dioxide. When normal, it makes human life on Earth possible. But when humans drastically change our planet?s atmosphere in just two centuries, we are in trouble. Increasing the greenhouse gases is the same as turning up our planet?s thermostat. And more than increased warmth, it causes climate change: bringing droughts, floods, polar ice melting, extinctions, sea-level rise, wars over scarce resources, refugees, etc. Now that we know better, let?s work at keeping our atmosphere clean & normal as it should be.

Let?s aim for life on Earth to thrive? Thank you!

Well I was wrong about more people clicking on GLOBAL WARMING vs.
Global Cooling.....

I was also wrong on Sept. 16th 1999

And on March 9th 1995

You just became my favorite person in all of the political threads with those 3 little words: "I was wrong." You now have more credibility in my book than anyone else.

When I read the stuff about global warming/cooling I end up thinking of Carl Sagan for some reason. He liked to point out out incredibly tiny we are. It seems like the people who want to tell us we are destroying our planet have something of a Napoleon complex going on: 1) Mother Earth and Mother Nature are some big mamas who know how to keep their houses in order. 2) (Disclaimer: religious belief ahead) Creation is amazing. I believe our Creator is aware of the damage we can do, and that he is a step ahead of us on it. It's freakin' amazing to watch how nature will clean up our crap.

I don't mean that we have no responsibility for keeping our place clean and healthy. Certainly we should keep our messes under control as we become more educated about the impact we have. But I laugh at the doomsday prophets; Take care of your space, enjoy your world, and teach your children to do the same. (As opposed to driving hybrids while taking painkillers.)

You just became my favorite person in all of the political threads with those 3 little words: "I was wrong." You now have more credibility in my book than anyone else.

When I read the stuff about global warming/cooling I end up thinking of Carl Sagan for some reason. He liked to point out out incredibly tiny we are. It seems like the people who want to tell us we are destroying our planet have something of a Napoleon complex going on: 1) Mother Earth and Mother Nature are some big mamas who know how to keep their houses in order. 2) (Disclaimer: religious belief ahead) Creation is amazing. I believe our Creator is aware of the damage we can do, and that he is a step ahead of us on it. It's freakin' amazing to watch how nature will clean up our crap.

I don't mean that we have no responsibility for keeping our place clean and healthy. Certainly we should keep our messes under control as we become more educated about the impact we have. But I laugh at the doomsday prophets; Take care of your space, enjoy your world, and teach your children to do the same. (As opposed to driving hybrids while taking painkillers.)

"the Sky is always falling somewhere"
SON

Hey Ya'll I've got Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic here
with a few words about this warming business (click link please)

Take it away Vaclav
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e9df7200-19c7-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621.html

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070818214642.2288blmn&show_article=1

Assuming there is warming.....

http://www.myspace.com/biteglobalwarming

How many people want to walk the talk....

btw, Since China isn't as po as they used to be their consumption of
*meat has risen from just 5% in 1978 to 25% by 2005.

* industry which has bigger carbon footprint than auto industry

Keep working on those spaceships.......

Today will be a high of 65 degrees in New York. :shock:

The Middle ground on the Global Weather Thang

http://geology.about.com/b/a/257924.htm

From the article:
The redoubtable Andrew Revkin wrote in the New York Times on 1 January about the evolution of the debate over global warming into a more nuanced, sensible discussion. (Read it soon before it disappears from the public Web.) He or his headline writer labeled the voices between the previous extremes as a "new middle stance." But from my viewpoint the middle has always been there, annoyed with both Greenpeace and the Greening Earth Society. Carl Wunsch, quoted by Revkin, is a great example: "It seems worth a very large premium to insure ourselves against the most catastrophic scenarios. Denying the risk seems utterly stupid. Claiming we can calculate the probabilities with any degree of skill seems equally stupid."

-Most astonishingly, they concluded that global cooling will result for at least the next two decades, as the longer cycles are now both in downward motion.

Science Latest Research Erodes CO2's Role in Global Warming
Michael Asher (Blog) - August 24, 2007 11:16 AM


document.context='YTowOnt9';

Researchers on three different continents agree; CO2 is not the devil we once thought.

Last week I reported on a new study by the Belgium Royal Meteorological Institute that stated the effects of CO2 on world temperatures had been "grossly overstated". The RMI's conclusion is supported by a pair of recent papers, both of which severely downgrade the warming effect of carbon dioxide.
The first is by atmospheric scientist Stephen Schwartz, of Brookhaven National Labs. Entitled, "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System", the paper is based on more accurate estimates of feedback processes in the Earth's atmosphere. It concludes the IPCC estimate of 2 - 4.5C degrees warming (from the anticipated 1900-2100 doubling of CO2 levels) is much too high, and the actual figure should be closer to 1.1 degree.
The conclusion is very significant as we've already experienced some 0.7 degrees of that warming. That means over the next century, only an additional 0.4 degrees warming is expected. And after that, the warming effect will nearly vanish.
The reason why is CO2 only absorbs in a very narrow band of infrared. Climatologist Timothy Ball, who was not associated with this study, explains with an analogy: "The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint."
The second study is by Chinese researchers Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian. Using a technique called Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), they decoded temperature changes into three natural cycles-- 6-8 years, 20 years, and 60-years, along with a fourth signal, a non-periodic rising trend, which they associated with CO2-based warming. They found that the largest effect on temperature change was due to these natural cycles, and that the CO2-based trend could only be responsible for a maximum of 40% of the warming attributed to it.
Most astonishingly, they concluded that global cooling will result for at least the next two decades, as the longer cycles are now both in downward motion.
The factor all three of the above studies have in common? That CO2's role has been massively overstated. The political consequences of this are widespread-- is it worth spending trillions of dollars to reduce emissions of a gas that will have almost no effect over the next century, and essentially none at all after that?