{Author's Note: The author's goal was to write a one page article on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). It is not possible! There is simply too much disinformation, and the media does not understand the science affecting global warming. the new goal is to provide a comprehensive explanation of the many facets of global warning using official data wherever possible. jtb} [note: anthropogenic in this context means caused-by-man.]

Some of the climate researchers on the IPCC CLIMATE MODEL are NASTY INDIVIDUALS, concludes Joe, who has read every one of the tens of thousands of articles written on Global Warming and/or Anthropogenic Global Warming [i.e. man made] and/or Global Warming/ Cooling. ...[those articles are contained on this site in one of the following articles]............................. we now have access to the FORTRAN program used by IPCC for climate forecasting. It is written in FORTRAN, a programming language that we have used for nearly 50 years;...............................The program resides on the Russian computer situated at the East Anglia Hadley Research Center in England. Of course, this is where the hackers also gained access and obtained the damaging emails written by ‘corrupt’ researchers on the “hows and whys” the climate model was being manipulated. The program’s internal documentation contains ample notes on the “hows and whys” that certain fudge factors were used to adjust the outputs to make them more in line with what the researchers expected. Pretty bad behavior for such a serious effort. We hope to share all of this with you as we continue to research this corrupt effort................................. YOU MAY ASK:.................................... WHY WOULD A RESEARCHER ADJUST THE MODEL........ WELL, YOU KNOW, LAST YEAR WAS NOT A NORMAL YEAR SO WE HAVE TO ‘FIX’ THE OUTPUT TO ADJUST FOR THE ABNORMALCY........................................It's hard to believe how fast the IPCC and Global Warming Issue are losing credibility. Everything seems to be going wrong for the IPCC & AGW advocates at this time, and for good reasons..............New science has revealed that the polar ice melt was caused by the North Atlantic Oscillation (which has changed direction again bringing back frigid air). Professor Latif, Liebnitz U, the most prominent scientist for IPCC, forecasts mini ice age conditions for the next 20 to 25 years..............................Wow!!!......................The unfortunate illegal hacking of the Hadley Research Center produced documents that the IPCC foolishly attempted to hide the fact that temperatures, for the most part, have been declining during the past 15 years....................what???.................This is as bad as hiding income on your tax return; the IRS is going to get you......ugh!!!.............................

{Author's 2nd Note: this article is being rearranged and updated. The author recommends reading the CONCLUSIONS: toward the end, and then returning the read the entire artricle.}


{Author's 3rd Note: Recommend you watch this Video: THE KISS OF DEATH FOR GLOBAL WARMING.}


With all the talk about Glacial Melt, why are not the Sea Levels Rising? Remember VP Gore predicted in his documentary that sea levels would increase 20 feet in our lifetime. This terrified some young students who were shown the graphic videos of violent flooding while at school, and many were students in grade school. Some school districts prohibited showing the film. Later the IPCC issued a disclaimer with a revised estimate of 7 to 23 inches by the year 2100. The disclaimer was issued just a few days before the evening that VP Gore received the Nobel Peach (sic) Prize.

The author apologizes for this mean spirited gore (sic), since he plans to discuss the issues on a factual rather than emotional basis, but serious researchers on the issues know full well from the internet commentary and chatter that a substantial number of those opposed to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) blame the global warming on all the HOT AIR generated by VP Al Gore.


Well, well, Then Before Delving into Glacial Melt, Just Who is the IPCC?

In the 1980s, PM Margaret Thatcher, concluded that the UK needed Nuclear Power energy and she expected strong opposition from her constituents. About the same time the first crude computer simulations were predicting disaster and catastrophe from the release of CO2. PM Thatcher latched on to these disaster scenarios as a political tool, to support her case for more Nuclear Plants. With her strong endorsement, the IPCC was established. PM Thatcher also established the Hadley Climate Research Center for further study of the effects of CO2. With the Cold War ending, the news media also latched on to the imaginary disasters and catastrophes from Global Warming. So the birth of the IPCC and Global Warming had a political birth. The IPCC has been criticisized for arrogant computer simulations predicting global temperatures in the year 2100, when in fact the IPCC has missed its projections in 7 of the last 15 years.

So the IPCC is the International Panel on Climate Control, an extension of the UN. The IPCC is an important organization and they have done good work. In 1992, the IPCC developed the IS92a Scenario model on Anthropogenic Global Warming - AGW (now in 4th edition). The short definition: the report uses 40 differing demographic scenarios and projects global warming from CO2 emissions and its consequences, particularly with respect to changes in Global Mean Temperatures and rise in sea levels. The serious researcher must read and understand the report, particularly its assumptions and limitations. The IPCC effort lacks credible historical data, particularly with respect to global mean temperatures. And, in fact they seem to ignore the geological and astronomical record. The IPCC made a bold assumption about cause and effect of Anthropogenic Global Warming - AGW (discussed in depth later in this article.) The IS92a report is full of uncertainties and there is much controversary about its assumptions. But the media states that the scientific community is in total agreement (when they are far from agreement) with the report, denying all the uncertainty and controversy; the media reports about the inevitable man-made global warming pontifically and with absolute certainty. The media seems more comfortable with the political spin and fails to provide a balanced coverage of the news and events. This probably occurs because the media does not understand the complex science disciplines underlying global warming. Hopefully, this indepth report on all the important issues affecting global warming may be of assistance to the media as a reference for future articles. The main criticism the author has with the IPCC report is that it assumes CO2 buildup causes Global Warming, when in fact there are cogent arguments and a scientific theory supporting the contrary argument, viz. Global Warming causes CO2 buildup in the atmosphere. Additionally, the global temperatures assumed during the next decade, totally disregard the global cooling that we have experienced in the past 7 years. partially because of reduced Sunspot activity. (citations are contained within the CAPTION ZOGBY POLL later in article) (citation needed: see article, being updated, on Sunspot and Global Cooling elsewhere on this site) The author argues: what is the point of talking about conditions in year 2100 when the IPCC cannot get the current data right. In 1993 the IPCC predicted that both CO2 levels and global temperatures would rise. CO2 did rise annually and temperatures rose for 8 years but have decreased for the past 7 years. Three of the Four government reporting agencies (NCDC, NOAA, NESDIS, NASA; acronyms and agencies explained later) agree on these findings. NASA admits to only 4 of the 7 years. But NASA Chief James Hansen, Goddard Institute of Space Studies is a known AGW activitist and has been criticisized for manipulating the data, as reported in the NYTimes. Addionally, the cooling over the last 7 years has “overpowered” the rate of warming of the previous 13 years, so that these same 4 groups show a net cooling 20 year trend for the Globe over the last 18 months. This result is way outside their 90% confidence levels – even their most conservative “C” estimate – yet the IPCC continues to predict AGW is accelerating.

When you look at the IPCC track record of 8 correct guesses out of 15, you might conclude that from an actuarial or statistical perspective this is nothing more than a crapshoot. More on this subject later.

The IS92a report and links will be discussed later in this article. Check out The Intergovernmental Commission on Climate Change .

So Why No Sea Rise? First, melting sea ice doesn’t increase sea levels because of Archimedes Principle. (The ice already displaces its weight in water!). Secondly, Antarctica contains 91.49% of the world's ice, and believe it or not, the Antarctica ice mass is increasing or thickening (references and citations later in this document). Another 7.9% of the world's ice is in Greenland. Less than 1% is in the northern polar ice cap. The ice aggregation in Greenland and Antartica are both above their 20 years norms.

Some important takeaways here: [1] There is no Synchrony!! The north polar cap melts while the south polar cap accretes!!! Asynchoronous weather on the polar caps is not rocket science. It happens every year with the Change in the Seasons! But there are longer term biases and cycles at work as well: The earth has [a] a variable tilt (Obliquity) causing the annual change and longer term changes in seasons during a 41,000 year cycle; [b] a variable wobble, like a top (Precession) , known as the Platonic Cycle, which determines whether January in the northern hemisphere is summertime or wintertime during a 21,000 year cycle; and [c] variable Orbit ( Eccentricity) as the earth's orbit changes every so slowly from a barely elliptical orbit to a more nearly circular orbit every 100,000 years. Also the earth's [d] variable Magnetic Field, which fends off charged particles from the Sun, changes polarity on average every 200,000 years and changes intensity during the transitions. It is also very important to mention the best kept secret by the media: [e] the 11 Year Sunspot Cycle. We are just finishing up a very significant Sunspot Minima and not a peep from the media. And you were wondering why the weather this year had been out of synch!! More on Sunspots later in the article.

[2] The Second Take Away is the importance of Antarctica on both short and long term global weather patterns. Antartica is 5.5 million square miles and parts of it jut out into the tropical currents. It contains nearly 92% of the world's ice. The ice is more than a mile thick and getting thicker. It is so cold that is would take thousands of years for ice melt to have a meaniful impact on world sea levels, because of Archimedes Principle. (citiation required.)

Parts of Antarctica exposed to tropical currents have experienced some melt but the events have been hyped by the media. And none of the glacial calving reported inaccurately by the media will have an impact on sea levels. We are so fortunate it is so cold because the Antarctica ice could raise sea levels by nearly 242 feet. We need to recognize that it is the weather in Antartica, not the Northern Hemisphere that affects sea levels by a factor of more than 10 to 1. These obvious known facts were lost on National Georgraphic Magazine when they hyped the Aklaskan Glacial Melt and the plight of the Polar Bear (see comments on Polar Bear near end of this article).

All these astronomical events (and others not mentioned here) are known to affect long term weather. But the interactions or interplay of the cycles are not well known. These phenomenon will be discussed later in this article in connection with Milankovitch's Theory. See graphs later in presentation, and see references on sea, lake and river volumes in The Physics Fact Book – Water Volumes


Well then, what does happen when the Polar Ice Melts? Not Much! The Northern Polar Ice Cap is sea based; i.e. floating in the sea. Actually all the glaciers and sea ice represent less than 1% of the Ice Mass. Check out Water Encyclopedia

If it melts, so what! Most of it is already displacing its weight in water and will not increase sea levels as it melts, according to Archimedes Principle. Check out Archimedes Principle at Wikipedia: Archimedes Principle & Buoyancy

Also check out the real time satellite observations of the northern and southern polar caps at Real Time Views of Polar Caps/cryosphere


OK, Nice Satellite Pictures BUT the Cryosphere graphs at this site show the Polar Sea Ice decreasing. Surely this is caused by heat generated from trapped CO2 and Greenhouse Gases. First, you stand to be corrected. Check the graphs at this site again. The South Polar sea ice is increasing. More on this later in the article.

As for the trapped gases, unfortunately, the arguments are controversial. There is much speculation but not much scientific evidence, so one is forced to conclude that the claims are baseless, unprovable or better still, political in nature; there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting the claim, other than statements and colorful photos in National Geographic magazine which appears to hype the phenomena in an alarming way.

The National Geographic article focuses on the alarming dissipation of the Alaskan Glaciers. If the truth be known, Alaskan Glaciers, measured with laser from a low-flying airplane, have been reported as thinning rapidly and contributing as much as 0.14 millimeters (0.005 inches) per year to sea level. (editorial comment: as a researcher on this project, one has to be underwhelmed by this rise in sea level, considering all the other factors that we are dealing with.)

(Citation Needed - source of graph)

You May Be Having Difficulty Following this Argument!

Nobody said it was going to be easy!!


Please Note that 95% of the Greenhouse Gases are water vapor that VP Gore reluctantly acknowledged under heavy bipartisan critical questioning on Global Warming from members of Congress in 2008. Aslo note that .28% of the Greenhouse Gases are attributed to CO2. Also note that the amount of CO2 in the athmosphere is sometimes overstated by a factor of 20 (deliberately or through ignorance, by ignoring the effects of the 95% water vapor present.) Refer to link: A Closer Look at the Greenhouse Numbers

OK, Let's Also Talk About CO2 in the Atmosphere?

(citation: Check Out: Sources of CO2 & the 4 graphs on the right and below)

The graph above shows that .28% of the greenhouse gases are CO2; and the graph on the above right shows 95% of the emissions (some citiations claims 97%) are contributed by natural causes - our vast oceans, lungs and forests. Carrying out the arithmetic, .05 x .0028 = .00014 or .014% of the greenhouse CO2 is anthropogenic or man made. This is a very small number. This represents 1.4 particles per 10,000 particles in the greenhouse atmosphere. There seems very little room to blame man for CO2 and AGW.

What about natural sources? It has been estimated that thawing of the Siberian tundra (Yedona Permafrost) releases as much as one hundred times more carbon than ALL of man made carbon emissions! The pro-anthropogenic magazine (Time, April 2006) stated that Humans are responsible for 7 gigatons of emission but naturally occurring emissions account for 80 to 100 gigatons. Check Out: Siberian Yedona Permafrost?

The politicos are quick to blame man for the CO2, but then who do they blame for Methane? In October 2009 two MIT Climatologists unloaded a bombshell when they reported an unexplained increase in several hundred million metric tones of Methane into the atmosphere. Methane is 25x more toxic than CO2. See the CAPTION MIT & METHANE below for links to the MIT paper. Of course, cows produce Methane when they fart, (BOZINE POOP or flatulence in more gentile circles) and some humans toot too! It is knows to contribute as much as 16% to emissions. We have known this for some time but the media conveniently ignores the facts because they do not fit the story.

A CO2 Sink, is the vehicle to dissipate CO2 traces in the athmosphere, as shown in the graph on the right.

Nature has put in place a vast resevoir, in terms of oceans and forests to provide for the orderly transitions of CO2, a molecule that is vital to life on earth. Consider that there are 4.62x10^46 (nearly a trillion trillion trillion trillion) molecules of water in our rivers, lakes and oceans working as CO2 Sinks. Yet there is a cadre of uniformed media carrying out the dictates of poitical lobbyists and agents that have the collosal arrogance [author's opinion] to believe they can fool the public in an effort to manage nature or perhaps, politically speaking, to manage energy - follow the money trail. .


How Can You Continue to Blatantly Blame the Media for Everything?

Please study the graph on the right. The graph shows concentrations of CO2 increased to 370 ppm by 1999. What does this really mean? 370 ppm means 370 particles per million, or translated .037% of the atmoshere. Note that .037% is three one-hundreths of one-percent. Did you know that a single person exhales 40,000 ppm of CO2 on a daily basis. That is 1000 times greater than 370 ppm. Did you know that the Navy maintains the air quality in submarines at 8000 CO2 ppm with no adverse effects; (See citation under CAPTION: A GOOD WORD ABOUT CO2.) What the author finds most intriguing: AGW is an unsubstantiated theory; not even a hint of a partial proof has been rendered. Look carefully at the graph and the zig-zags. The zigs are summertime measurements and the zags are wintertime measurements. THIS IS A CLUE lost to many. the zigs and the zags are caused by the tilt of the Earth towards and away from the sun each year. Celestial Mechanics overpowers any meaningful discussion on weather. WHERE IS THE BEEF in AGW?

How can Al Gore be permitted to threaten us with Global Flooding when there is no substantiated theory? How can we turn the world upside with AGW when there is no substantiated theory? WHERE IS THE MEDIA?

. .


There are new polls reported in the summer 2009. Readers are encouraged to read the summarizations and the comments and chatter associated with the blogs publishing the polls. References are as follows:

[1] GALLUP: First Time in 25 Years, Economy Takes Precedence Over Environment

[2] ZOGBY: Only 30% of Americans Support Cap and Trade

Americans have long supported faithfully the cause of Environment. It is clear from reading the polls and commentary that both government and the media have abused their responsibilities to provide the public with relevant scientific and cost information.

Both polls mirror each other. The public has grown skeptical. Less than 30% support cap and trade because of the unfavorable tax consequences and loss of at least 2 million jobs. The public has also grown weary and skeptical of the global warming debate.



Let's Get On with the Story: How Does CO2 Cause Global Warming?

The Earth has trapped gases in its upper atmosphere which in turn traps heat and reflects it back to Earth; otherwise the heat might otherwise radiate away from the Earth. And it is a good thing. If the Earth did not trap heat, the base global mean temperature would be significantly lower and probably would not support life as we know it.

How much lower? The Global Mean Temperature would be about minus 18 degrees Celsius, or about 33 degrees Celsius lower than the estimated global Mean Temperasture of 15 degrees Celsius.

The first big hurdle that must be overcome when analyzing Global Warming is: What Was? What Is? What Will be? the Earth's Global Mean Temperature?

Towards the end of this article is a CAPTION: NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER. Please read it before you listen to your local politician opine on AGW and check out NCDC on wikipedia.

The NCDC has been collecting data for more than 150 years, and recieves about 224 gigabytes of weather data every day. As you probably know, temperature varies by weather conditions, photosyntheses, latitude, longitude, altitude, currents, thermals, sunspots, precession, orbital eccentricity, polar tilt, strength and direction of magnetic field, and catastrophic events, and more pedestrian measures like time of day/nite, month of year, etc.

Calculating the Global Mean Temperature requires many assumptions and is an art as much as it is a science. Can you imagine what it takes to estimate the Global Mean Temperature in the year 2100?

Here are some takeaways: When measuring temperature, we are dealing with major assumptions. Secondly, remember that CO2 is good; it is not a pollutant; we need it to support life. The same for the Greenhouse Effect. Without it, life would not exist as we know it today.

Here are the Pieces of the Story: The historical record from ice core samples shows several periods in the distant past when the Earth's temperature was much warmer than today; and it can be determined that CO2 levels were higher. More recent ice core samples in Greenland for the past centuries show no increase in CO2 levels until about 250 years ago: the start of the Industrial Revolution. Since then the amount of CO2 measured in ppm (parts per million) as shown in graphs above have increased about 20%. Meanwhile, Other studies have shown that the Global Mean Temperature has increased about 6/10ths of a degree Centigrade. Then the IPCC developed models predicting that the Earth's temperature will increase between 2.5 - 3.5 degrees Centigrade by the year 2100; and Gore's Model and Documentary showed destructive flooding within 25 years.

OK, so what are the underlying facts; assumptions and hidden conclusions? [1] First, there were no automobiles emissions in the distant past, and humankind as we know it today, was a tiny fraction, if any, of our current population. [2] So a question arises: what caused the Global Warming and What Caused the Increased CO2 levels? Did the Warming cause the increase in CO2 levels, or Did the CO2 cause the Global Warming? No one has the answers yet. [xxx] The DrudgeReport cited a report claiming that the UN Warned "That We Have Only Four Months Left to Save the Planet!" Really? Believe It or Not; these two Graphs above are the Crux of the Alarm. This is shocking that this is the paltry data that politicians, the IPCC and others base their case on! In an effort to understand the mindset that supports the case for AGW, the author has selected three comments made by scientists in response to claims made by other scientists discussing AGW issues on the internet chatter.

[1] “Incidentally, it is a well-known fact that "global warming is part of Earth's natural cycle" and climate scientists do not dispute this; however, this current warming episode is inconsistent with what we see in previous cycles and the best explanation we have for it is that it is - either largely or fully – anthropogenic.” {editorial comment: a condescending statement; we know so little about previous cycles, how is it inconsistent and how can we so certain that this is inconsistent! }

[2] “look at footprint of man on earth(…from satellite pictures); surely the cause of something” {editorial comment: photosynthesis is at the core of global warming/cooling. Humankind represents less than (at best) .5% (one-half of 1%) of the dry biomass weight of all living things. ants are 50 to 100 times larger by dry weight than humankind. some activists have an exaggerated sense of impending doom associated with human activities. See the CAPTION: DISTRIBUTION OF BIOMASS later in article}

[3] “global warming has become a multibillion dollar industry affecting the jobs of millions of people worldwide.” {editorial comment: Follow the Money Trail for enlightenment.}

The CO2 arguments and controversy goes back more than 100 years. In 1895, Professors Svante Arrhenius and Arvid Hogboms suggested CO2 played a role in the advance and retreat of glaciers. Their theories were eventually discredited. See links to their remarkable insights and stories which are very interesting at the end of this article.

There is much speculation but simply no evidence that sea ice is melting from heat generated by trapped greenhouse gases. There is yet another theory that trapped CO2 gases create high hanging Cirrus Clouds which trap heat. While this could be true, it seems nature has a way of correcting the problem with lower hanging Thunder Heads that bring cooling showers. See Cirrus Clouds Wikipedia

Of course, this begs the question: Why in heavens are the northern ice caps and glaciers melting? The answer is Sublimation. Wikipedia-Sublimation

Radiation energy from the Sun, primarily in the form of photons, melt the ice through Sublimation. Snow and Ice change from a frozen state directly into a gaseous state through Sublimation caused by radiation. That is what Sublimation means. We also see this happening at Mount Kilimanjaro in central Africa. We know Sublimation is occurring because the melting ice and snow take a peculiar shape.

(Source: Climate4You - The Penitentes)

Example of ice and snow penitentes (insert citation from Wikipedia) from tropical areas. The individual blades are between 1.5 and 2m in height, but may be as high as several meters. Because penitentes are formed by sublimation driven by direct solar radiation and not by air temperature their axis indicate the approximate position of the sun at noon at this latitude and time of the year. Snow penitentes was first described by Darwin (1839). The term penitente dates back at least to the beginning of the Little Ice Age, referring to Los Penitentes, the flagellant orders in Spain and Italy.

Well, if it is not the sea ice, what happens when Glaciers Melt or Calve? Glaciers are on land, and Archimedes Principle no longer applies! So it is true that glacial melt or calving can cause sea levels to rise. It is a well know fact that the glaciers on Antarctica (South Polar Caps), if melted, would cause sea levels to rise about 242 feet (The Physics Handbook). Of course, a 242 rise in sea level would dramatically alter the geography of the World.

The entire Glacial melt on Greenland would cause sea levels to rise another 20 feet (The Physics Handbook). BUT there is a big BUT here. The Antarctica and Greenland are desert like in climate. There is little precipitation (it doesn't rain or snow.) BUT when glaciers begin to melt, the weather patterns change. Moisture is introduced into the air and causes precipitation around the polar regions. It begins to snow, and Antarctica and Greenland begin to accrete ice mass. And not surprisingly this is what seems to be happening. The ice continues to thicken at Antarctica.

But do not be fooled by claims of large calving at Antarctica. The Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica is the largest ice shelf today: it is the size of the state of Texas. In 2000, one of the largest icebergs ever observed broke off the Ross Ice Shelf near Roosevelt Island. Designated as B-15, its initial 11,000-square-kilometer (4,250-square-mile) area was almost as large as the state of Connecticut. But remember these Ice Sheets are not land based and do not contribute to sea rise.

Do not be fooled by statements about warming in Antarctica. They are usually GIVEN out of context. The following paragraph was taken directly from Wikipedia: "Nearly all of Antarctica is covered by an ice sheet that is, on average, at least 1.6 kilometers thick. Antarctica contains 90% of the world's ice and more than 70% of its fresh water. If all the land-ice covering Antarctica were to melt — around 30 million cubic kilometers of ice — the seas would rise by over 60 meters. This is, however, very unlikely within the next few centuries. The Antarctic is so cold that even with increases of a few degrees, temperatures would generally remain below the melting point of ice. Warmer temperatures are expected to lead to more snow, which would increase the amount of ice in Antarctica, offsetting approximately one third of the expected sea level rise from thermal expansion of the oceans. During a recent decade, East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8 centimeters per year while West Antarctica showed an overall thinning of 0.9 centimeters per year (Davis et al., Science 2005) doi:10.1126/science.1110662. For the contribution of Antarctica to present and future sea level change, see sea level rise. Because ice flows, albeit slowly, the ice within the ice sheet is younger than the age of the sheet itself." Climate of Antarctica. While temperatures in the interior of Antarctica have remained fairly steady since scientists arrived on the continent, the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed about 2.5°C over the last half of the twentieth century. The media frequently points to this warming as evidence of Global Warming. The media fails to inform their readers that the peninsula is less than 1% of the mass of Antarctica, and juts out into the tropical currents which have caused the warming.

Why are you so confident that melting is not a threat? We have actually covered this topic several ways in this article. But this article might be helpful: What If All the Ice Melts? Myths and Realities Climate of Antarctica

But Sea Level is an important subject and should not be dismissed. For example: at the last glacial maximum, about 18,000 years ago, the growth of ice sheets and glaciers caused sea level to lower by about 120 meters (395 feet). Most of that change was due to the formation of large ice sheets in northern North America and Europe, but mountain glaciers, too, had their role.

Better still, let's examine the well know Jakobshavn Isbrae Glacier in Greenland to gain a better understanding of Glacial Melt or Glacial Calving. We are in for a few more surprises.

(Source: Climate4You - jakobshavnisbrewithfrontalpositions1851-2003

Frontal positions of calving Jakobshavn Isbræ since 1851, after reaching the maximum Little Ice Age position around 1850 (Bauer et al. 1968). Between 1893 and 2003 the glacier front retreated about 34 km. According to Inuit legends, the embayment Tissarissoq used to be glacier-free in the past and was used as hunting area (Hammer 1883), most likely before the Little Ice Age glacier advance (Weidick et al. 2004). Picture source: Google Earth.

Stop the Train! Not so Fast! Are you suggesting that the Jakobshavn Glacier was formed during the Little Ice Age? Are you suggesting that the glacier has been melting ever since the Little Ice Age. Should we put any faith in the Inuit Legend: that the embayment Tissarissoq was glacier free prior to the Little Ace Age, and was a hunting and fishing ground for the ancestral Inuits? This might suggest that the Jakobshavn Glacier is not melting from some man made source, but is simply returning to its natural state.

We Need to Talk More About the Little Ice Age! And maybe the Medieval Warm Period. Could Global Warming/Cooling be a cyclical phenomenon? AND IF SO – WHAT MIGHT BE THE CAUSE?

The Little Ice Age was associated with a long period of about 75 years with very little sunspot activity. During this period Glaciers grew in mass. This aggregation of glacial ice accumulation continued through the middle of the 19th century, capped again by another period of minimum sunspot activity called the "Dalton Minimum."

How do Sunspots, or Lack of Sunspots affect Climate? During the Grand Maxima, or Medieval Warm Period, sunspot activity was very high. Earth temperatures were as much as 3° higher than today. During the Medieval Warm Period, Greenland was named “green land” by Irish and Norse explorers (citation needed). The Grand Minima was known as the Maunder Minimum or Little Ice Age, during a 70 year period of virtually no Sunspots, and accompanied by unusually cold temperatures, crop failures , and even famine (see March 2009 Issue, page 30, Sky & Telescope; and August 2009 issue, page 27, Sky & Telescope). In the 1800s another period of low sunspot activity contributed to the "Dalton Minimum" and low temperatures and glacial buildup.

What's wrong with the Sun? The current sunspot cycle is in its 13th year - an unusual aberration from its typical 11 year cycle.  There have been much fewer sunspots in the past 36 months. We are in a period of Global Cooling on Earth which is contrary to the hype of Global Warming. The media has been avoiding the Sunspot issue so as not to spoil their advocacy for Global Warming.

So what is happening. Will the Global Cooling continue - no one knows;  we can only guess based on historical records.   

A sunspot is caused by a burst of hot plasma from 1000 Kms below the sun's surface, creating a dark spot on the surface, as it flares out into the atmosphere above the surface of the sun.  The flare then loops or falls back to the surface of the sun creating another dark spot. The sunspots are cooler than the surrounding area of the sun and appear darker when viewed with a telescope.

On average, sunspots follow an 11 year sunspot cycle. At the beginning of the cycle (i.e. the minima),  there is very little sunspot activity.  In the middle of the cycle (the maxima) there is heightened sunspot activity. As the cycle completes, it returns to the minima at the end of the 11 year period, on average. Sunspots occur in pairs. The plasma (and electrons and sometimes protons) are hot charged particles with magnetic qualities. So one dark spot is positively charged and the other negatively charged.

During periods of heightened sunspot activity, the magnetic field of the earth has been disturbed causing radio interference as an example.  Global cooling has been associated with  periods of minimal sunspot activity.  Shouldn't this provide a clue about Global Warming.

Sunspots occur in pairs, one positively charged and the other negatively charged.Sunspots are cooler and therefore appear darker than their surrounding area.They appear to move along the surface as the Sun rotates on its axis every 25 days. Because of the rotation, the Sun has a magnetic field, like the Earth.However the equatorial plane of the Sun rotates faster than its poles.  Some believe this causes the Sun's magnetic field to become entangled and periodically erupt with flares of plasma which are essentially free electrons.  The Sun contains all four forms of matter:  solid, liquid, gas and plasma. .



The more we delve into the details; we discover the devil is in the details. We are beginning to understand that there are a great many scientific uncertainties surrounding not only Global Warming, but even more uncertainty surrounding AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). There is no scientific debate on the issues. One would hope that Congress would bring together all the science disciplines in an open forum for better public understanding. Positions seem to be hardened leading one to believe that the underlying issue is religious or political rather than scientific. It is difficult to find cohesive analyses and scientific evidence linking CO2 as the cause of Global Warming. There is also the question of the Chicken and the Egg? Does increased CO2 in the atmosphere cause global warming or does global warming cause increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere? We find a great deal of activist support for Global Warming Legislation; so much so that one is forced to conclude it really is a political issue and not a scientific issue.

The scientific studies seem to indicate clearly the following:

[1] Climate is variable, cycling through warm and cold periods. The historical records show that we are in a long term period of global cooling which may be ending. Within the long term cycle, there are many short term cycles, and the most recent short term record shows that we are in an up-cycle of global warming. The Phanerozoic Climate Change records for the past 540 million years shows four 100,000 year cycles of glaciations. Also four 100,000 year cycles of increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Our current warming peaks, however are all below the four historical peaks for what ever that is worth.

[2] The ice core samples used to create the historical record are “coarse” samples; meaning they are sufficient to discern changes in 100,000 year increments but not “fine” enough to understand periods of only 200 years which is the period of investigation. The current CO2 episode which spans about 200 years is referred to as a “hockey stick,” see pictures above. We have no way of knowing whether previous CO2 cycles had “hockey stick” curves associated with the period of warming. Scientists do agree the “coarseness” of the ice core samples has dampened the peaks and valleys of the historical measurements; meaning that if we had more detail samples, the oscillations (or peaks and valleys, or amplitudes) would have been greater.

[3] Solar output is variable +/- 1%. (citation needed). (a) The Sun is the dominant force in our solar system. (b) The radiation and solar winds from the Sun protect us from radiation from other galaxies. When the solar output decreases, we are more vulnerable to external debris and particles. (c) The force of the radiation from the Sun is inversely proportional to the square of the distance an object is from the Sun. Distance is therefore very important, particularly when taking measurements of temperature. (d) Solar Variations cannot account for the anomalies of the recent “hockey stick” measurements of Global Mean Temperature. (e) The Planets Jupiter and Mars, however are also warming, so astronomers have few choices for causality but Solar Output and/or Eccentricity of Orbit which alters the force of the magnetic field, and/or natural causes like the thawing Siberian Permafrost.

[4] The Earth’s Magnetic Field changes polarity on average every 200,000 years. The Earth is currently overdue, since the last change was about 780,000 years ago. The Earth’s Magnetic Field is now changing and has moved from the North Pole to Siberia; and many astronomers believe it will flip to the South Pole. At the same time the strength of the Magnetic Field has reduced about 10% since it was first measured by the Great Mathematician Carl F. Gauss in 1845. There are some important considerations here: (a) the changes in the strength of the Magnetic Field are coincident with the period of the “hockey stick” measurements. (b) Like Solar Winds, when the Magnetic Field weakens, the polar caps become vulnerable to more radiation from the Sun and the Galaxies because the Magnetic Shield deflects charged particles toward the poles. (c) The Northern Hemisphere is more vulnerable to temperature increase from solar and external sources because it has more land than the southern hemisphere. It is known that land heats and cools faster than water. (d) Consequently we find melting in the Arctic and ice aggregation in Antarctica. (e) With the Magnetic Pole situated in Siberia, we have seen significant thawing in the Siberian “Yedona” Permafrost. This is caused by a process called Sublimation whereby solar rays convert ice to gas without going through the intermediate phase of liquidity. We know Sublimation is occurring because we have pictures of it. See Graph of Penitentes above. This means the Permafrost is being thawed by radiation and not necessaryily heat from Greenhouse gases.

[5] The Earth’s Orbit is variable, shifting during the course of 100,000 years from slightly elliptical to more nearly circular and back again. The phenomenon is called Eccentricity. Additionally, the planets, (with the exception of Pluto which is no longer classified as a planet) are all coplanar – all lying roughly in the same plane with the same directional orbits. Consequently, the planets gravitationally influence each other, and the influence can be a greatly reinforcing or greatly reducing influence based on positions over the millenium. [ author"s note: the point being that some cycles can have more exaggeratged effects on climate change, as an example, than other cycles.] By sheer coincidence, the Earth’s orbit is presently entering the “more nearly circular” orbital phase in its 100,000 variable cycle. The circular orbit is very significant given the statement in [3](c) above, viz. the force of solar rays are inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

{The Surface Record a report on measuring global mean temperatures, given to the Greening Earth Society, described the disastrous results in NASA GMT Reporting because small errors in temperature measurements disproportionately vitiated the measurements.}

The significance of this is: (a) in a circular orbit, Sublimation will be more prominent because of shorter the distances from the Earth to the Sun. Therefore, glacial melting can be attributed to radiation rather than higher global temperatures resulting from Greenhouse Gases. This seems more plausible because glacial melt began in 1729, long before the introduction of oil in 1840. (b) It also supports the thawing of the Siberian “Yedona” Tundra, and release of huge quantities of methane and CO2 in the atmosphere. (c) Eccentricity is part of the Milankovitch Cycle (see Wikipedia) which includes the changing tilt of the polar axis every 21,000 years, and the wobble, every 41,000 years. When these cycles have converged, about every 2.5 million years, the Earth has gone through a period of even more significant and sustained global cooling. There exists yet another cycle among Paleontologists; referred to as the Mean-Life-of-Mammals which is also about 2.5 million years, and may be associated with coincident changes in climate. And, rightfully so, not all paleontologists are convinced on this statement since they too have fiercely religious conviction about their theories.

[6] Another observation relates to glacial and polar melt. There seems to be absolutely no evidence of potential rise in sea level. The Glacial Melt contributes to .05 inches per year rise in sea level and is of no consequence. The Northern Polar Cap ice represent less than 1% of all the world’s ice and is already displacing its weight in water, which according to Archimedes Principle, causes no increase in sea level. On the other hand, the ice in Antarctica is accreting, and thankfully, because it is so cold, it would take thousands of years for melt to have a meaningful impact.

[7] So what is contributing to the rise in CO2 particles per million from 315 ub 1958 to 370 in 1999? The data shows that most of the particles in the atmospherevolume are water vapor. CO2 ppm represents about .28% of the volume. Of this amount, about 95% of the .28% appears to come from natural causes. So it would appear that we ought not to be focusing on the anthropogenic CO2 but rather the CO2 from natural causes. We do have a few clues: (a) the weakening and shifting of the magnetic pole to Siberia and the associated thawing of the Siberian Yedona Permafrost. Another clue can be gleaned from the MIT Report by Climatologists Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, who reported that several million metric tons of methane was released from the oceans, unexplainably, into the atmosphere. (c) A third clue comes from the measurement techniques and the monitoring device infrastructure used for measurement of Global Mean Temperatures. The transition from land based to satellite monitoring seems to have produced a hodge-podge measurements that may very well be inaccurate or misleading. (d) A fourth clue might be the IPCC Model may be creating high or unrealistic expectations or anxieties.

[8] The IPCC model was created in 1992, called the IS92a report, now in its fourth edition. It uses 40 different demographic scenarios (like popuation trends) that might favorably or unfavorably change the amount of CO2 being placed in the atmosphere. About 15 years ago, they predicted that CO2 and temperatures would continue to increase eventually producing a temperature increase of 1.5 to 3 degrees higher than today. Although CO2 levels have continued to increase, temperature have not increased. Temperatures only increased in 8 of the past 15 years. From an actuarial or statistical viewpoint this is like a crapshoot. In fact, the past 18 months have shown a net 20 year cooling trend.

[9] There is little doubt that the scientist working on the measurements of global mean temperature are first class. But there are over-arching bureaucratic as well as political pressures to fit the data to expected results. This is common. (a) The paper “the Surface Record” produced for the Greening Earth Society on the measurement of Global Mean Temperature is enough to rattle anyone’s confidence in the measurement process. (b) ground and satellite measurements were contradictory. (c) Satellite measurements are combined with Ground measurements, and all the historical data has been “normalized,” whatever that means. At least so they say that is has been normalized but that does not make it correct. It is an unbelievably thankless job, and may be an impossible task. And the report explains why. (c) The historical ground data should not be used for global mean temperature measurements. (d) Satellite observations should be used exclusively. The points and elevations of observation should be modelled and sensitivity tested. The data should be made public for scrutinization.

[10] The historical global mean temperature records should not be used for "global calculations." Any global measurements more than 30 years old are probably prone to GIGO (garbage in - garbage out.) The variance around currently published numbers are simply too small or to narrow. The concept that lots of measurement help out wash out errors is simply wrong.

[11] The principle contributing (celestial mechanical) factor is the vagaries of the 11 year (on average) sunspot cycle which greatly influences solar output “on the margin.” The effect of the Sunspot Cycle on global warming and particularly Global Cooling is amazingly not understood and has not been considered by Climatologists.

[12] The radiation produced by the sun, through a process called Sublimation, contributes to the glacial melt rather than heat generated by greenhouse gases.

[13] Volcanoes play a major role in global warming, particularly sea based volcanoes. Volcanic activity has increased about xxx% in the past xxx years. Major plate tectonics have been underway in the xxx years. The US National Geological service maintains a list of earthquakes for more than 4,000 years. Their list shows more earthquakes in the past 200 years {note this period coincides with the period under investigation} than in the preceding 3800 years. This parallels the CO2 ‘hockey stick,' lCOMPLETE WITH FACTS AND REFERENCES

[14] The weight of evidence seems to point to natural forces for global warming. Man certainly contributes to anthropogenic global warming but man’s contribution may be 1%. There are bigger fish to fry.

[15] Some advocates like renowed physicist Dyson Freeman and renowed inventor Burt Rutan believe a warmer planet is preferred,. They belive that poorer societies should be allowed and encouraged to use coal to improve their economies and welfare. .

[16] Other points to consider: CO2 is not a pollutant. Submarines maintain CO2 levels at 8000 ppm without any ill affects, compared to 370 ppm in the atmosphere. Others point to the Michaelis-Menton equation in biology whereby plants thrive when exposed to higher lovels of co2 "pollution." Need to talk about El Ninos.





CAPTION: Global Warming: Forest or Trees? Check Out: Forest or Tree?

This link by Ipsism provides cogent commentary supported by very useful graphs on long term global warming and cooling and the associated changes in CO2 levels. The disciplines of physics, astronomy and geology have developed a great deal of research and knowledge about the Earth's historical record which seem to be ignored by AGW activists. This leads Ipsism to pose the question: How does the Tree relate to the Forest? The current 200 year "hockey stick" measurements about global mean temperatures should be examined in light of the plethora of scientific data on historical global warming and cooling periods from the historical record.

The data for the past 540 million years (referred to as the Phanerozoic Climate Change) obtained from ice core samples show four cycles of warming/cooling; and that we are currently in a long term cooling cycle. The graph suggests that we are probably at the tail end of the cooling period and one might suspect the graph to turn upward towards a long term cycle of warming. The four cycles have a period of about 100,000 years, coincident with the 100,000 year Eccentricty Cycle of the Earth's orbit, described previously.

The above graph shoes that the CO2 volumes have tracked the temperature variations in the preceding graph, with a notable exception, the last 200 years, referred to as the "hockey stick" projection.

Note the insert in the graph showing the graph of the hockey stick. It is color coded to relate it to segments of the curve on the left of the graph. Ipsism is quick to point out that the statement that the Industrial Revolution caused a dramatic increase in CO2 is an assumption only; and no proof of this assertion has been rendered. For example, glaciers begain to retreat in 1720, long before automobiles and industrialization. Another important point to understand is that the ice core samples are "coarse measurements." So the amplitudes or peaks of the curve are probably understated. We do not know, and probably will never know, whether these peak warming periods were accompanied by a hockey stick peaks. However, the scientific evidence does show that the CO2 buildup lagged behind the warming.


CAPTION: MEASURING GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURES: The`Surface Record' is an important paper produced for the Greening Earth Society on the subject of calculating `Global Mean Temperatures' and how temperatures are determined at surface level. Check out The Surface Report

. CAPTION: Will the Polar Bear Survive Global Warming? Yes, according to an article by Peter Worthington published July 17th, 2009 in the Toronto Sun. "Despite the warnings of various environmental groups, the Canadian government doesn't believe the polar bear is an endangered species requiring special protections. The government is probably right according to Peter Worthington. While groups like the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada accept that the polar bear is not at immediate risk of extinction due to global warming and Inuit hunting, they do realize there is "special concern" about the future of the world's largest land carnivore that is classified as a marine animal.

Disappearing summer ice in the Arctic is a concern, Of the 25,000 polar bears in the world, 15,000-plus live in Canada and thrive in the world's harshest and most unforgiving environment. Polar bears can swim 100 miles in frigid Arctic water. They are so well insulated that satellite readings show heat emerging only from the nose and rear end of polar bears. Arguably, they are strongest of all animals, the most resourceful, resilient and adaptable of all nature's creatures, capable of killing a walrus or pulling a whale out of the water. Big polar bears can weigh a ton, and eat 100 pounds of meat at a time. Ironically, in summer when sea ice is gone, polar bears risk starvation. Usually cubs are born in pairs, because surviving is so hazardous only one is likely to survive. It's fashionable to blame global warming for the shrinking of Arctic ice that makes life more difficult for polar bears. But if global warming is merely cyclical change, the polar bear will exist in today's numbers long after "experts" predict its extinction.

check out: Will Polar Bears Survive? .



Humans can make a big mess in short order; and also fix things that are broken very quickly, like rivers. Humans can also make a bigger mess fixing things that nature can do better, and the best selling book The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg is replete with meaningful examples. People who contribute their time to the environment and work hard at the task, learn early on not to underestimate the power of other life forms and invasive species. So it is important never to forget that humans at best represent less than 1/2 of 1% of the world's biomass. And for every human on Earth there are about 15 million ants and termites.

(1)capepon are plankton, the largest and most successful of all animal groups, estimated at .7% of world's biomass.

CHECK OUT WIKIPEDIA: Weight of Biomass (Ecology)




to be completed .


MIT & METHANE For links to the MIT paper.

to be completed.


Photosynthesis Defined: Humans breath in oxygen and exhale CO2 into the atmosphere. Green plants take in CO2 from the atmosphere and give out oxygen in a process called photosynthesis which is performed in the presence of sunlight and chlorophyll .


A GOOD WORD ABOUT CO2: Scientist Tells Congress: Earth in ‘CO2 Famine’ Plants, and our own primate ancestors evolved when the levels of atmospheric CO2 were about 1000 ppm (PARTS PER MILLION), a level that we will probably not reach by burning fossil fuels, and far above our current level of about 380 ppm. We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels.” .



The following two sites contain a good discussion of both the technical issues and the political issues surrounding global warming. Give the video a few seconds to get to the global warming commentator.

check out this Video Discussion on Global Warming

check out this website: Is There Global Warming?




[1] Global Warming FAQ & MYTHS: This site contains useful information to help correct much of the disinformation that has been propagated by an uninformed media.

[2] There Was No Global Warming Before 1997: This site provides a powerful argument attacking the notion of an "accurate" Global Mean Temperature. How can we possibly know what the Global Mean Temperature was 100 years ago without satellite measurment devices? How dare scientists publish speculative conclusions about the planet warming or cooling without a full scale exposition of the assumptions and selection of comparative data sets. How dare NASA's Hansen publish that 2008 was warmer than 2007 when November 2007 was compared erroneously or intentionally to October 2008; and without a public apology for the grevious error.

[3] Rutan, Canada's Best Engineer Debunks Global Warming: Burt Rutan, Canada's Renowned Aviation Pioneer, Engineer and Test Pilot believes we should have a warmer planet.

[4] Greenland Loves Global Warming: Renowned Physicist Freeman Dyson says the people in Greenland Love Global Warming. Dyson joins many skeptics who believe we should have a warmer planet

[5] Check Our: Test Your Global Warming Knowledge




In 1895, Professors Svante Arrhenius and Arvid Hogboms suggested CO2 played a role in the advance and retreat of glaciers. Their theories were eventually discredited. See links to their papers below. Follow the links around and you will find lots of interesting graphs dating back 100 years or so.

1895: Arrhenius suggests that CO2 may trigger glacial advances and retreats

Arvid Högbom's geochemical investigations on atmospheric CO2



Areas of Discussion for Future Extensions of this Article

[1] The potential impact of ants and termites on climate change; estimates vary but ants and termites represent as much as one-third the biomass of Earth, about 100 times greater than the human biomass.

[2] How is global mean temperature actually sampled and calculated? Who is responsible for the standards of measurement? What is the margin of error? How accurate are samples made prior to satellite observation?

[3] Discuss the Methane Story in greater detail. Between 1978 and 1987 atmospheric methane levels increased by more than 1% per year then slowed down. Recent measurements (in 2006) report a rather abrupt halt to the rise in this powerful greenhouse gas for years 1998 through 2005. Why did Methane Levels in the atmosphere stop increasing? What caused the sudden and massive release of several million metric tons of additional Methane in the atmosphere in 2007 as reported by MIT scientists Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn ? Do the MIT findings contradict AGW. Methane is naturally broken down in the atmosphere. Can the free radical hydroxyl (OH), a naturally occurring process that breaks-down Methane be commercially produced?

Check out MIT Say Global Warming Part of Earth's Natural Cycle?

Check out MIT Discussion - Global Warming Controversay

Check out Methane Leveling Off in Atmosphere

[4] Volcanoes and Plate Tectonics. Volcanic activity has increased 300% during the past 2,000 years. What potential impact can these phenomena have on sea levels as well as release of methane gases? Papers have been written that the oceans released massive amounts of methane during the xxxx Period.

[5] Discuss the Chicken and Egg Scenario after an exhaustive search. Did global warming cause CO2 buildup or did CO2 cause global warming? Both theories are supported by scientific papers. A recent finding concluded that Global Warming precedes the buildup of CO2 by 800 years +/- 200 years.

[6] Discuss the pros and cons of a warmer climate. Some experts believe that when we have a better understanding of the celestial and other mechanics of climate change, we will opt for a warmer plantet.

[7] Discuss The Paleontological Cycle. Some researchers believe that the more or less 2.5 million years of the “mean species life” span in mammals may be related to the 2.5 million year earth orbit cycle. Both cycles seem to be correlated with periods of global cooling. One leading scientist said: “the Earth has entered the critical stage corresponding to a relatively circular orbit. But any period of high turnover may be tens of thousands of years away,” he said. “And it may be good news for both mice and men that the climate system has changed significantly in the last three million years.” Writing in the Nature Oct2006, they argued that turnover rates among rats studied showed a complex pattern consisting of two different cycles. One, longer, has peaks roughly every 2.5 million years; the second peaks every million years. Their timing mirrors oscillations in the Earth's behavior, they added. The 2.5-million-year peaks occur when the Earth's orbit is closer to being a perfect circle, and the million-year peaks come when the Earth is shifting its degree of tilt on its axis. Both processes result in ice-sheet expansion, global cooling and changes to precipitation patterns, the researchers argued. The Paleontological Cycle is an extension of the Milankovitch Cycle.

notes: rss=remote sensing unit; msu=microwave sounder unit; gmt flat since 1998; uah=university of alabama

largest catastrophic temp increase from ocean floor, 20000 years, increased 6 degrees.

deforestation: more trees today than 400 years ago, first colonized

michaelis-menten kinetics, plant growth faster exposed to co2

warming of planets

paleo-eocene thermal max

magnetic field shifting to siberal magnetic field 10% weaker, carl gauss, more solar radiation thawing of siberian tundra, 14x greater than car emissions time(april 2006) man=7 gigatons; naturally occuring= 80to 100 tos dynamo theory 11 the current peak in temperature is LESS than temperature peaks of ALL of the past four (4) cycles (400,000+ years). Likewise, the volume of ice is consistent with past cycles

This rise is referred to as the ‘hockey stick` of CO2 rise. The Wikipedia authors have attributed this rise to “The Industrial Revolution”, even though they point out, “The true magnitude of the PETM is likely to be understated in this figure due to coarse sampling.” This means that no one can tell if there was a “hockey stick” rise associated with prior peaks. The coarse measurements do not examine small enough time increments for comparison to a few hundred years

The US National Geological service maintains a list of earthquakes for more than 4,000 years5. Their list shows more earthquakes in the past 200 years than in the preceding 3800 years. This parallels the CO2 ‘hockey stick`, as well. While we don`t pay attention to them (out of sight, out of mind), there are literally thousands of active sub-oceanic volcanoes releasing lava, daily6. Naturally, the heat from that lava is dissipated into ocean waters. That means that the oceans are warming – at least in part - due to sub-oceanic volcanic activity.

NASA photographs suggest that Mars and Saturn are warming as well.

bovine flatulence contributes about one-sixth (18%) of the greenhouse gasses emitted. That`s MORE than all transportation produced carbon emissions. What about the amount of CO2 emitted from natural sources? Not only do decay processes contribute but also it`s estimated that thawing of the Siberian tundra releases as much as one hundred times more carbon than ALL of man made carbon emissions!8 Even a pro-anthropogenic publication (Time, April 2006) stated that man is responsible for 7 gigatons of emission but naturally occurring emissions account for 80 to 100 gigatons

All of these findings militate the anthropogenic model

They must also explanation of how the small increase of carbon dioxide causes a ‘one way valve‘ to allow energy to enter Earth without impediment yet prevent energy`s outward escape into space. Yes, CO2 does cause a thermal reflection but it is not a discrete, impenetrable atmospheric layer that only reflects heat back to the earth. The theory of glacial reflection and a positive feedback loop does not prove a greenhouse effect over natural climatic cycles. Both will produce the same effect. Where are the scientific studies showing that such a small change in carbon dioxide concentration will repel radiant energy as claimed by anthropogenic theorists? The comparison to the thick soup of an atmosphere on Venus falls short of explaining how a 0.000100 (100 ppm or 0.01%) change in CO2 can cause global warming.

Remember - sunshine is a radiant form of energy that varies by the square of the distance, i.e., if you halve the distance you don`t just double the intensity: its square is four time the intensity.

lA Serbian physicist, Milankovitch, in 1930, described the relationship of earth`s wobbling rotations about the sun and it`s variation from essentially circular to slightly elliptical. These variations are now known as Milankovitch Cycles. His theory is now widely accepted as the reason for earth`s glaciations

As tectonic palates move, they allow release of heat and gases from the asthenosphere. Since the escapes occur at the ocean floors, they are not readily apparent to visual inspection. Thousands of oceanic volcanoes (commonly called a `Ring of Fire` in the Pacific basin) erupt daily. Their warming of the oceans undoubtedly affects global warming as the oceans serve to buffer temperature. [Geology tells us that the earth has a thin crust, called the lithosphere, which floats on a plastic, semi fluid, molten layer known as the asthenosphere. ]

There is a more substantial and consequential risk that has not been addressed by the anthropogenicists. That is the shifting magnetic pole. The change in locus of the magnetic pole does not, necessarily, indicating impending doom, even if it were to go neutral or change polarity. What is important is what the changing pole signifies. That is a movement of the internal layers of the earth`s core. With the movement of the core, there will be compressions and shifts of the Earth`s crust, the land masses. As the crust compresses, there will be contralateral extrusions and, consequentially, an increase in quake activity due to the shifting land masses. Milankovitch Cycles are sufficient to postulate a phase shift with the Earth`s core moving at a differential speed compared to the Earth`s crust, causing magma flow changes and crust movement. Recently, abnormal and unexpected plate movement has been observed12. This was associated with a fourfold increase in the rate of movement, compared to the expected. It approached the accepted speed of the Indian Continental shift of billions of years ago. No, this is not to suggest that there is an imminent continental shift such as may have destroyed the dinosaurs.

From Malthus to Exxon Valdez, the doomsayers have been wrong

1 Misunderstanding Global Warming: Alexander Cockburn versus Reality. Mike Byron, Ph.D..

2 (coolong for 100 million years)

3 (shifting to siberia)

4 Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation (1729 glaciation greenland)

5 Significant Worldwide Earthquakes (2150 B.C. - 1994 A.D.) 4&SEARCHRANGE=NO&SUBMIT= Submit+Search&SYEAR=&SMONTH=&SDAY=&EYEAR=&EMONTH=&EDAY=&LMAG=&UMAG= &NDEP1=&NDEP2=&IO1=&IO2= &SLAT2=0.0&SLAT1=0.0&SLON2=0.0&SLON1=0.0&CLAT=0.0&CLON=0.0&CRAD=0

6 (volvanoes releasing lava)


9 (watervapor most abundant)

10 American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source Ock•ham's razor also Oc•cam's razor: A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony


12 Earthquake_Scientists_999.html (recent significant tectonic movement)

13 178&tbnid=rLyEvjMU7O_2-M:&tbnh=122&tbnw=124&prev= /images%3Fq%3Dlithosphere%26start%3D160%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

make sure to include this website on variious warming colling issues


In the August 24&31 Issue of Newsweek, an editor reported: It's Too Late to Stop Global Waming. The article can be viewed at the above website. The article shows a complete lack of understanding of the real issues underlying anthropogenic global warming (AGW). (the end)

Brophy Sunday 01 May 2011 - 10:47 pm | | Global Warming

No comments

(optional field)
(optional field)
To prevent automated comment spam we require you to answer this silly question.
Remember personal info?
Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.