spunkmaster

Studiously hidden from public view are some extraordinary findings in physics which are providing new understanding of our planetary history, as well as providing a much more plausible scientific understanding of global warming. Regrettably, the current hysteria about global warming is based much more on fear, political agendas, and computer models that don?t agree with each other or the climate, rather than hard-nosed evidence and science.

The climate forces which have led to the estimated 0.6C degree temperature increase over the past 100 years or more (according to the International Panel on Climate Change) have been assumed to be man-made CO2 emissions from advanced nations including the U.S. We know this can?t be true for several reasons.

The first is that water vapor provides 95 percent of the total of the greenhouse gases, not CO2. The total of the CO2 represents less than 3 percent of the total. The second is that of the total atmospheric CO2 inventory, the manmade fraction is less than 3 percent of the CO2 total and therefore far less than 1 percent of the total greenhouse gas inventories. Third, studies of the recent climate variations are finding, for example, (See article by J. Oestermans, Science, p. 375, April 29, 2005) that glaciers have been receding since 1750 or so, well before any significant man-made CO2 emissions occurred.

The mid 1700s were at the very depths of the Little Ice Age, which we have learned was the coldest climate over the last 5000 years. Obviously, other warming forces were at work before humans had anything to do with it.

It seems more logical that natural forces are still at work with warming and cooling our climate. For example, Fred Singer and Dennis Avery pointed out in their book Unstoppable Global Warming that over the past 1,000,000 years in climate observations, there have been about 600 periods of warming, and we can surmise from these cycles that among them are about 599 periods of cooling.

Now we have learned much more based upon observations of cosmic radiation, their sources, and the Sun?s magnetic fields, combined and new discoveries in the laboratory. A new and more comprehensive understanding of our planetary environment has emerged. This gives us a scientifically defensible explanation of both global warming and cooling.

As the Oesterman study of the 250 years of receding glaciers shows, warming preceded the CO2 increases of the 20th century. That is, man-made CO2 was not significantly involved in this 200 year warming period on the earth. Nor does man-made CO2 explain those 600 periods of warming over the past 1,000,000 years.

We have known that cosmic radiation is a source of very powerful radiation, more powerful than any in those huge manmade accelerators. We also know that the more energetic cosmic rays can reach the surface of the Earth passing completely through the atmosphere. Those of lesser energy can collide with molecules in the air causing an avalanche of nuclear and particle fragments as they pass through the atmosphere. The energy is dispersed in showers of these particles while still in the atmosphere.

These collisions are truly nuclear in nature, highly energetic, and take place in our atmosphere every second. These are the nuclear processes by which the atmosphere acts as a protective shield to inhabitants on the earth. These are well known to airline safety experts, as well as to those astronauts who spend weeks and months outside of our protective atmosphere.

The streams of cosmic radiation originate from deep space sources both within our galaxy, the Milky Way, as well as from galaxies more distant.

Most of the cosmic rays are charged particles (mostly protons) but less prevalent heavier particles are often measured too, and can be of enormous energy. Being charged particles they can be deflected and modulated by the many magnetic fields found in space. In the proximity of our Sun and the solar system incoming particles ?feel? the magnetic field of the Sun and are deflected.

The extent of the deflection depends upon the strength of the magnetic field of the Sun. The solar magnetic field has been known, studied, and measured for only a few decades. As with other stars, the Sun is able to deflect many, but not all, of these particles of cosmic radiation away from our solar system and our planet according to well-known rules of physics and magnetism.

Thanks to some recent excellent experimental work in physics by those such as Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark, we now know that cosmic rays and some of the debris from nuclear collisions with atoms in the atmosphere are directly involved with the initiating mechanisms of cloud formation.

Basically, the more cosmic rays, the more clouds are formed and the cooler the temperature. Since many of the cosmic rays can be deflected by the Sun?s magnet field, the cosmic ray intensity varies inversely with the strength of that field. The stronger the solar magnetic field, the fewer cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, fewer clouds are formed, and the climate becomes warmer.

Today the Sun?s magnetic field is more than twice as strong as it was at the turn of the last century. During the mid 1700s during the Little Ice Age there was a 70 year period when there were no sunspots (called the Maunder Minimum), and the solar magnetic field was very weak.

The cosmic rays were not deflected as much by a weakened solar magnetic field, more clouds were formed, thus a cooler climate at that time. These findings provide a simple plausible explanation, defensible with sound physics, and don?t involve a major role for CO2 at all.

Some of the materials formed in the atmosphere by the cosmic ray collisions are radioactive as well, and are one of many natural sources of radioactivity. These are deposited in the Earth?s surface, and are used to construct a very accurate history of the geology and climate millions of years ago. It can be measured with surprising accuracy.

In this instance some important collision products formed in the upper atmosphere, are carbon-14 (C-14) and berrylium-10 (Be-10). Being radioactive they decay into non-radioactive products. These have accurately known periods of decay and scientists can measure these materials in both ice cores and geologic cores samples.

The amounts measured are directly related to many important natural features. Variations in both C-14 and Be-10 can be used to deduce the historical record of variations in the solar magnetic field. By similar techniques the scientists are able to determine variations in the cosmic radiation rates directly, going back hundreds of millions of years. Since the rate of influx of cosmic rays over time has not been constant, our climate has not been constant either.

What lies ahead are some exciting times in climate physics and our understanding of the environment. Unexplained findings in geological and climate histories are now being explained by these new lines of inquiry. It appears that the Sun?s magnetic field has had a stronger effect on our climate than just the variations in solar irradiance could explain.

Political leaders, environmental advocates, and even Oscar-winning documentarians who claim that ?the debate of climate science is over?, have been shown once again to be very wrong.

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., a science and energy reporter for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level.

__________________

GatorB

you=REATRD. You find a couple of crackheads that agree with your point of view and you're right? If this was 1607 you be arguing against the notion that the earth revolves around the sun.

OG LennyT

Global warming is a hoax, deal with it asshat.

__________________
Tradeking - my online broker | 4.95 a trade | make real $$

notabook

Manmade global warming.

__________________

IllTestYourGirls

what bothers me is that people think global warming is bad. "all these wars are created to scare you out of your freedoms and your money"

__________________

Probono

I guess we should just keep burning oil, adding toxins to the atmosphere and watch things melt faster than ever before since a little flooding will not hurt anyone?

IllTestYourGirls

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz fear monger

__________________

stev0

I love it when people copy and paste "evidence" about something they know nothing about.

GatorB

Well if you live in Canada I guess not. When Florida is mostly underwater yeah I think that's not good.

Pleasurepays

as if florida wasn't always "mostly underwater" - don't blame him for your choice to live in a swamp plagued by alligators, thunderstorms and hurricanes

GreyWolf

There are so many websites with hard solid "evidence", it must be a mental trauma selecting the most appropriate cherry to pick....

This freedom of speech crap has gone too far

fusionx

Al Gore's own charts and graphs show that warming creates CO2, not the other way around. The temps go up before the CO2 levels go up. It's obvious that CO2 is not the cause, but a symptom. Manmade global warming is pure hysteria, politics and big business.

GatorB

YOU=RETARD

Sorry Mr Wizzard WEATHER can not make molecules.

IllTestYourGirls

A lot of the water caused by global warming will go underground, fill up canyons and wet dry lands. It was warmer on the earth in the 1500s that is a fact. Man did not cause that and man is not causing this.

Those who believe in god believe that god will destroy the earth

Those who believe in "science" need a dooms day too, so it was global freezing, ooops wrong, the ozone layer will be gone by 2000, oops wrong, now its global warming, and oops what is next?

Scientists cant even get the weather right but we think we know what is happening and will happen 10, 20, 100 years from now?

Al Gore said the seas would be raising how many feet and how many years ago was that 3, 4, 5 when he started making his myth erm I mean movie? How high are the seas now? FL should already be flooding.

Science save us from ourselves!

__________________

gideongallery

one word

H2O

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

GatorB

YOU=REATRD

Yes seawater going underground is good. they already have that problem in florida with seawater already contaminating fresh water. But you don't know that because you don't read and are in fact retarded. Listen to your MIND not your heart since this is all based on your love for the Bush cock.

GatorB

Weather created that? I'm sure water was created before weather existed.

MetaMan

GatorB your brain is very very small, i feel sorry for you.

IllTestYourGirls

I hate Bush. But since you pointed all that out, it must say something about the way you are thinking. Are you in love with Al's cock? Or are you drunk?

All water was once sea water. It filters through the soil. That is why we have salt mines. But you should know that since you read. Fl will always have water problems because that state is built on trash. Fl is the prime example of what you should NOT do to the environment.

I am all for alt fuels. But I do not think there has been enough research on the subject. Take the H-car; where are we going to get the H from? Are we going to use fresh water are we going to use sea water or are we going to pull it from the air? What is going to happen with all the extra water that comes from the H-car? You think FL is a swamp now wait till everything is run on H.

__________________

SmokeyTheBear

some people are so silly for trying to call global warming a hoax , or even man made global warming.

If any scientist is stupid enough to believe the way we treat the planet has no effect on the weather , they should be shot on site.

its common sense.

moral of the story is "dont paint everything with the same brush "

just because some people "overplay" things doesnt mean they dont exist it just means some people are on one end of the spectrum others are on another end and some people use common sense

__________________
hatisblack at yahoo.com

GatorB

Oh like ethanol? You know where farmers stop growing everything to grow corn, but it's not for FOOD it's for fuel. So the price of food goes up because less corn is grown for food. Other veggies aren't getting grown because farmers are growing corn. Feed for farm animals we eat gets more expensive as the corn that was in them is instead going into your gas tank. So the meat we eat gets more expensive. So hell yeah save 50 cents a gallon on fuel. Of course take into account that ethanol is 15% less efficient than gas it actually only amounts to 15 cents a gallon, and you're food budget is 30% higher. Yeah that's a nice trade off.

IllTestYourGirls

You have no clue about farming. Do you know how much farm land is going unused??? Get a clue. I am spending more on fuel than food right now so I would take that clueless trade off you named.

That and corn is not the only viable fuel source. Next shot is on me.

I am looking for milf sponsors right now, if you have a couple give them to me please

__________________

IllTestYourGirls

I agree with this level headed statement. But my main question is HOW MUCH of a change are we talking? And if we change fuels, what will happen 100 years from now with those fuels? Are we just damed?

__________________

Darkland

Well I have and do study physics, and some of what these people are saying is very true. I find it funny that a person can subscribe to only one belief regardless of new facts or discoveries. I see good points on both sides of this argument but the fact of the matter is, WE DONT KNOW. We have ideas and theories and they are exactly that, we wont have FACTS until there is rock solid proof. One fact in point that I look at is that our world has gone through these periods before when it was IMPOSSIBLE for mankind to be a determinate factor. There are many things we still dont know about our world. Look at the now proven presence of quantum mechanics. In the 1920's when Einstein went out of his way to prove that there was no place in physics for such a crazy notion, he was flat out wrong, along with many other die hard classical physicists.

We are still infants as far as the cosmological clock is concerned. We still have much more to learn and discover. In the field of science there is a continuing of out with the old and in with the new.

What ever your beliefs, we as the human race dont deserve this planet. No matter what we do it is going to continue to exist no matter what. We on the other hand most definitely will not if we cant get over greed, warmongering, selfishness, the list goes on. We are a doomed species by our very existence.

__________________


"The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War now -- with somebody -- and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives." H.S.T. 09/12/01

pocketkangaroo

This is shocking news. A Republican think tank says that global warming is fake. Next thing you'll tell us is that the Catholic Church is in fact AGAINST ABORTION.

IllTestYourGirls

Can I get an Amen?

I NEED MILF SPONSORS! I dislike the ones that I got spammed with earlier

__________________

Libertine

Reading about global warming always kind of reminds me of the X-files... lots of people saying "I don't WANT to believe".


The fact of the matter is that a vast majority of you lack any relevant education whatsoever, don't understand the most basic principles of science, and on top of all that, aren't particularly bright either.

It is a simple and undeniable fact that among scientists working in fields related to climate, an overwhelming majority support the theory that humans are partly responsible for climate change. Yes, some scientists disagree with the majority. By definition, however, these are a minority (duh).

Now, I know fuck all about the subject. The same, in all likelihood, goes for you. (and yes, if you don't have a phd in a relevant field and aren't actively researching the issue as a full time job, that does include you) When you know fuck all about a subject, disagreeing with the experts on the subject is pretty damn stupid. Not because they can't be wrong, but because you simply lack the knowledge to make an informed judgement.

The only sensible option is to recognize the basic facts for what they are. That is to say, to recognize the fact that most experts in the field support this particular theory, and that there is a minority in the scientific community that disagrees with them.

Now, with regards to the original poster - are you seriously that fucking dense? There are thousands and thousands of scientists researching this, and every single one of them would be able to come up with a seemingly reasonable argumentation for either side of this discussion that nobody without years of study in a relevant field could refute.

"Well, the scientific community has been studying this issue for decades, with people spending their entire lives researching it, but hell, I read this one-page article on the internet, and I tell ya, it makes sense!"

Fucking rednecks...

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

pocketkangaroo

Technically we are doomed anyways. Only 400 million years left.

IllTestYourGirls

The fact is that "most experts" were the first ones to say that global warming is man made. The fact is governments knew that this thought will create fear. The fact is the governments have only been funding scientists who say that this is fact. The fact is, people who say man made global warming is real usually stoop to name calling, belittling and out right trashing of anyone who thinks other wise. That is not very scientific at all.

__________________

IllTestYourGirls

damn I better make a will

__________________

pocketkangaroo

We can hope technology will have advanced far enough by then to save civilization (if there still is one).

Libertine

Fuck, you are seriously stupid. And by stupid, I mean borderline retarded.

You actually came up with a conspiracy theory that involves governments promoting the idea of global warming to cause fear?

Newsflash: governments do NOT like the idea of global warming. It forces them to pay attention to the environment. Paying attention to the environment costs money, and forces them to hamper the economy. Lower economic growth results in less wealthy citizens, less money to spend on tax cuts, and less money to spend on popular programs. Lower economic growth costs them votes.

And no, my trashing, belittling and namecalling is not science. It's me being pissed off at being confronted with the awful sight of an intellectual midget like you. That's right, I'm calling you a complete imbecile.

Want to know why? It's because you are talking about subjects you know absolutely nothing about, yet expect to be taken seriously.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

Libertine

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

psili

I've got nothing to really offer.

The best man at my wedding, an environmental scientist, who's not paid to say humans do or don't effect natural ecosystems, says we do. I'm not paid either, yet he's got his facts, I have my own eyes, and there's a shit load of others with more knowledge on the subject than anyone posting on GFY, to know that human action with the environment has an impact. How we, as a human race, deal with this "fact" is a different story; GatorB brought up a good point about Ethanol being somewhat retarded.

Personally, I'm all for population control -- nip the fucking problem at the source, is my opinion.

*shrug*

__________________
Your post count means nothing.

OG LennyT

relax Rambo

__________________
Tradeking - my online broker | 4.95 a trade | make real $$

IllTestYourGirls

Just another sheep who thinks they are thinking outside the box.

Make sure you step inline while you lose your money and your freedoms all for the new god.

The fact is that this only loses the governments a few pennies in the short term. Until everything is taxed beyond belief in the name of our new god; man made global warming.

Here is the box X here is you X

__________________

GatorB

There is not enough farmland to grow enough corn to supply us with enough ethanol to be self sufficeint. FACT. And lots of farmland goes unused because the government pays farmers NOT to grow anything. Nice use of my tax $$$.

I doubt that. Unless you are spending TWICE as much on fuel than food it's not a good trade off. And most people don't.

Corn is the ONLY source that is profitable enough to use. Nothing else will be available in large quantities for at least 5-10 years.

I wouldn't give you a fucking rope if I saw you were drowning and you kids were begging me to save you. And that goes for every other dipshit on this board who wants to argue just to be an ass.

Just put me on ignore

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/profil...=ignore&u=7592

IllTestYourGirls

wow we will have to wait 5 to 10 years to save the earth? and you are not willing to have higher food costs for 5 or 10 years to save the earth??? GOOD GOD this is getting funny.

__________________

GatorB

WOW you are seriously retarded. I thought I told you to put me on ignore.

I wish in addition to BUDDY and IGNORE list they had a RETARD list. That would save me loads of time not having to read useless posts.

IllTestYourGirls

I love you anyway. What are you drinking tonight? I have some Molson

__________________

GatorB

I drink on very rare occasion. I'm not a teetotaler, but I'm close.

IllTestYourGirls

Gotcha, been there done that.

__________________

Libertine

My final post in this thread, and a useless one at that, since any reasonable argument is falling on deaf ears anyway.

In most western countries, there is no such thing as "the government". Instead, there are two or more political parties fighting for votes. The party/coalition in power is the one that has to take action. Taking action has immediate effects in terms of costs and economic growth. The party or coalition in power will be held responsible for these effects, and will likely lose votes because of this. If the effects are big enough, that party or coalition has a large chance of being voted out of office.

Meanwhile, looking at the long term, lower economic growth actually means *less* taxes can be collected - unless the government would choose to raise taxes further, which would hamper economic growth even more, etc.

Perhaps the most baffling thing about your position, though, is your strange conviction that there is an evil government that wants to tax you merely for the sake of taxing you. Where did you get that rather strange idea?

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

tony286

when things are attacked,it leads me to believe its truth because no one attacks bullshit.

HeadPimp

My stand on it is that change happens no matter what. However, if a good bunch of hype makes us take a little bit better care of the world around us, I am all for it.

Humans are stupid, you need to scare them to make them take action in most cases.

Pleasurepays

scare them? you mean like getting them to agree to the patriot act, to go to war, to invade countries under false pretenses and everything else that people whine about?

stickyfingerz

Give me awhile to think of an answer for this one. Ive got to run and shovel some more coal into the furnace at my Styrofoam factory.....

D

One word: Venus.

Go to your local library and check out a book.

__________________
-D.
ICQ: 202-96-31

D

Great post.

__________________
-D.
ICQ: 202-96-31

GreyWolf

Pity these threads end up with two camps, both political and usually based on US domestic politics with "views" from Gore or whatever Republican angle, both of which are totally irrelevant.

Meanwhile, most industrialized countries have already started implementing environmental protection plans and negotiating with emerging industrial countries - they stopped the talking stage years ago.

At the same time, there is a scenario where whatever politician jumps on to the bandwagon for their personal gain, but hell - they don't matter either.