Global Warming/Climate Change Info Packet

[Invalid Username]

Here's another good link:

http://www.junkscience.com/

To further support the theory that warming is caused by solar activity, did you know that the icecaps on Mars have been shrinking too? So, it's either solar cycles or the Martian SUV market has been going nutso along with all those evil Martian businessmen and their CO2 spewing factories.

Ice caps on Mars shrinking? BS.

[Invalid Username]

Here's another good link:

http://www.junkscience.com/

To further support the theory that warming is caused by solar activity, did you know that the icecaps on Mars have been shrinking too? So, it's either solar cycles or the Martian SUV market has been going nutso along with all those evil Martian businessmen and their CO2 spewing factories.

Ice caps on Mars shrinking? I call bullshit.

[styky]

THEY'RE OUT TO GET US!
GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE

By: Phil Brennan



It's become the standard response of a lot of my fellow anti-global warming conservatives that back in the seventies the same "liberals" who are now promoting the warming scam were equally shrill about a coming ice age.

Nice try, guys. But the problem is that it wasn't crazy liberals warning about approaching glaciation, as my e-mail pal Ann Coulter wrote recently. It was nothing less than some of the nation's top climate experts who were then still sane and honest.

Listen up - here's what was then the prevailing opinion among the climatologists:

"The present interglacial interval -- which has now lasted for about 10,000 years -- represents a climatic regime that is relatively rare during the past million years, most of which has been occupied by colder, glacial regimes. Only during about 8 percent of the past 700,000 years has the earth experienced climates as warm or warmer than the present.

"The penultimate interglacial age began about 125,000 years ago, and lasted for approximately 10,000 years. Similar interglacial ages -- each lasting 10,000 plus or minus 2000 years and each followed by a glacial maximum -- have occurred on the average every 100,000 years during at least the past half-million years.

"During this period, fluctuations of the northern hemisphere ice sheets caused sea level variations of the order of 100 meters."

Who said that? None other than the National Academy of Sciences! (Understanding Climate Change, published by the National Academy of Sciences in 1975 -- page 181).

On page 189 they asked "When will the present interglacial [period] end?

Their answer: "Few paleoclimatoligists would dispute that the prominent warm periods (or interglacials) that have followed each of the terminations of the major glaciations have had durations of 10,000 plus or minus 2000 years. In each case, a period of considerably colder climate has followed immediately after the interglacial interval.

"Since about 10,000 years have passed since the onset of the present period of prominent warmth, the question naturally arises as to whether we are indeed on the brink of a period of colder climate.

"The question remains unsolved. If the end of the interglacial is episodic in character, we are moving toward a rather sudden climatic change of unknown timing ... if on the other hand, these changes are more sinusoidal in character, then the climate should decline gradually over a period of a thousand years."

Another study prepared for the 95th Congress in 1978 agreed with the National Academy of Sciences position as explained in the above-quoted study. The document "Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy and Potential" warned:

"In geological prospective, the case for cooling is strong ... If this interglacial age lasts no longer than a dozen earlier ones in the past million years, as recorded in deep sea sediments, we may reasonably suppose the world is about due to slide into the next ice age."




In 1997 I wrote that this was the prevailing opinion among paleoclimatologists; it was a case of the past being prologue. If the earth underwent regular cycles of glaciation and interglacial periods, and the geological record proved that to be the case, then obviously we are at the end of the present between-ice-ages period.

To sum up, the historical record shows that the earth undergoes periods of glaciation lasting about 90,000 years, followed by an interglacial, or warming period of 10,000 to 12,000 years.

The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago, and as I written in the past, unless Al Gore and his fellow would-be masters of the Universe have somehow managed to repeal what history has shown to be an iron clad law of nature, we are heading not for increasing global warming but instead for a new period of glaciation.

Since 1997 I have written extensively on the evidence that a new ice age is aborning on my personal website, Wednesday on the Web, and on NewsMax.com, but that is not the matter I want to discuss here. Let it suffice to say that there is far more solid evidence for global cooling than there is for the global warming fantasy.

What concerns me at the moment is that the media-fed hysteria might well cause the nation - and the world - to accept the most punitive kind of restrictions on our way of life - restrictions which will drive a dagger through the heart of our economy to prevent something from happening that is simply not happening .

Mr. Gore and his fellow alarmists have yet to explain exactly what kind of fetters they plan to fasten around our ankles in order to stop the planet from barbecuing us but you can get a good idea just by reading Gore's absurd book "Earth In the Balance." Among the shackles he wants to put on us is the elimination of the internal combustion engine - a modest step that would get rid of all those pesky cars we insist on driving to get where we have to go.

In England, where they have gone completely bonkers over this phony global warming threat they have already begun to force anyone in London who owns and drives an SUV in old London Towne to pay $50 a day for the privilege. It has also been suggested that Brits be allowed only one flight as year, and forced to pay exaggerated "carbon taxes" on their air fares.

There's also talk of imposing World War II rationing. Most Americans weren't around in those days so they are ignorant of what rationing meant. Meat was tightly rationed - a nice juicy steak was worth its weight in gold - gasoline was rationed - you had to have a sticker on your windshield showing just how much gas you could buy with the coupons Uncle Sam gave you - in most cases not much more than a thimble full for those who were deemed to be doing non-essential motoring. Tires were unobtainable.

Housing was scarce, rents controlled. The people of the richest, most well-endowed-with-natural-resources nation on the face of the earth, toiled in an era of thread bare scarcity. After the war, some bureaucrats admitted that there was no scarcity of many of the rationed goods and that the rationing of them was meant to force the folks back home to share in the rigors of warfare. Nice of them, wasn't it?

Few experts will argue against the fact that the cost of implementing the environmentalist grand scheme will be the eventual destruction of the nation's economy. Americans will find themselves living in the early 19th century, shivering in the winter and roasting in the summer, and riding bicycles instead of driving cars. Most Americans that is.

Brother Gore and his friends, however, have devised a means that will enable them to go on their merry way, spewing carbon emissions in every which way as they jet around the world in their private aircraft or hunker down in their many mansions using great gobs of electricity and driving their SUVs to their heart's content. They buy "carbon offsets: - the newest way of buying indulgences to prevent them from suffering the consequences of their environmental sins. They also sell them, by the way. Might just as well make a buck and like the Hawaiian missionaries of old, do well while doing good.

At the root of the environmentalist's motivation is their sheer hatred of mankind. To them man is evil, bent on despoiling the planet. Listen to the nuts over at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). They never shy away from the idea that the world would be better off without us nasty humans - if they had their way we'd all be eliminated and the planet turned over to crocodiles and other such gentle critters who presumably would treat Mother Nature better we evil humans do.

And who will enforce those draconian regulations and restrictions? Why the United Nations, of course - the driving force behind the Global Warming swindle. The peril, we are told, is worldwide so only an international body can deal with it.

So in one fell swoop our national sovereignty would be tossed into the junk science heap and we'd find ourselves the serfs in the new world order presided over by the Marxist commissars of the United Nations who would in their wisdom infirm us what we can and cannot do in the name of saving the planet from being consumed by out-of-control global warming.

Al Gore has told us that we have to change our way of life. He hasn't spelled out the changes because if he did he'd be run out of town. If we want to avoid all of this we had better start demanding that Al Gore and his friends, his acolytes in Congress, and the UN bureaucrats, spell out exactly what they have in store for us. If they do, Americans will understand that they really are out to get us.

<a href=http://www.etherzone.com/2007/bren032107.shtml>source</a>

[TheNovaScotian]

The climate is changing and the evidence backs that up. The cause is probably many different sources(greenhouse gases, urban heat islands, changes in land use patterns, etc)

[Fabulous Fred]

The primary cause is the sun.

When Mount Pinotubo exploded in the early 90's, that one volcanic eruption spewed more CO2 into the atmoshphere than all human activity had produced up to that moment.

Climate change? It is a constant on this planet. That is indisputable.

[TheNovaScotian]

The primary cause is the sun.

Maybe, during the little ice age and early-mid 20th century warming, but solar activity during the later part of the 20th has been far from abnormal.

When Mount Pinotubo exploded in the early 90's, that one volcanic eruption spewed more CO2 into the atmoshphere than all human activity had produced up to that moment.

Big claims like that require big evidence...do you have the numbers to back it up? I have searched around the internet trying to find the numbers to find out how much was really emitted by Pinatubo and find nothing in actual numbers. Just certain blogs claiming Pinatubo emitted 150X or 200X more C02 then all of humanity's history, but no sources with any scientific backing.


However according to the US geological survey:

"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/ ... s.html#CO2

So just for simplicities sake we will assume that has humanity emitted a total of a 100 billion tons of C02(equal to about 5 years of current C02 emissions) then we assume that Mount Pinatubo did emit 150X more C02 then humanity ever has and we get 15 trillion tons of C02????? Hmmm...doesn't sound to realistic.

[styky]

The Temperature Also Rises
By Selwyn Duke
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/ ... rises.html
With the issuing of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on February 2, waxing climactic about the climatic is the order of the day. The esteemed, government-funded scientists with no agenda who rendered the study inform us that man is almost certainly responsible for rising temperatures and, furthermore, that dramatic climate change is unstoppable. But, after seeing various luminaries sound the alarm, I think I can confidently say that, hell's bells, we're darn well gonna try anyway.


And it's about time. We've long known we were going to die unless we stopped spewing that plant-sustaining CO2 into the air. The thing is, though, my botanical sources tell me the plants are fearful that they'll die if they don't stop spewing that human-sustaining oxygen into the air. So our task is clear.


We must beat the plants.


I'm tired of the lies. I remember when I was a wee lad in grammar school and they warned us of an upcoming ice age. That wasn't as scary as the talk about the killer bees, but why, teach, oh, why did you hide the truth about melting glaciers, rising oceans and vicious hurricanes? I suppose the ice age fiction was less unsettling to young minds. At least we could look forward to extra snow days.


This is why I won't sit idly by and watch today's prevarications fobbed off on the next generation.


Can you believe I actually heard some craven, callous individuals try to rationalize away our destruction of the planet with the fancy that weather is cyclical (1500-year cycles of warming and cooling)? So thick is the propaganda that now an elaborate fiction has been woven to convince us that Al Gore, inventor of the Internet, could actually be wrong about global warming. Why, it just makes you hot under the collar. Now I'll share what I've uncovered about the machinations of malevolent manufacturers' minions.


In a tale worthy of Hollywood, some "scientists" are peddling a story about a geological interval occurring between 750 and 600 million years ago, which they fancifully call the "Cryogenian Period." They tell us that during this time the Earth was completely covered by ice and snow. Moreover, they'd have us believe there have been numerous ice ages since then, with the last major one ending about 12,000 years ago and causing glaciers to extend as far south as Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Outrageously, their fiction involves the notion that these alleged events were followed by warming trends that sometimes initiated intervals in which glaciers were completely absent from our planet, all without industrialization, as if we'd believe this beautiful blue orb could experience such wrenching changes without man's meddlesome hands.


This is an insult to our intelligence. We all know that before the curse of humanity - and especially prior to industrialization - the Earth was a pacific place, where birds sang and fish swam and there was love and liberty, serenity and solidarity, and the lion lay down with the lamb.


Continuing with this weather cycle con, we're also told that between 1550 and 1920 there was a "Little Ice Age," a time that saw increased glaciation in the Alps. We can easily put the lie to this, however, for during part of this period CO2 levels were rising, yet, we are to believe that temperatures were dropping?


Conversely, it's also said that there were times when CO2 levels dropped but temperature increased. It is to laugh.


Even the government is in on this charade. We know that anthropogenic glacial melt-off will cause rising sea levels that will inundate Florida and other low-lying regions, such as the Netherlands (don't you realize our inaction could result in the destruction of the prostitution and drug capital of the world?). So, right on cue, the National Park Service claims that during glacial periods Florida's sea level was as much as three-hundred feet lower than today, and during the peak of interglacial ones it was one-hundred feet higher. This, all without man's influence? Poppycock! I bet these are probably the same people who tell us 98 percent of Renaissance painters were white males and that the US wasn't founded by anti-Christian, ACLU lawyers.


Then, I found pro-plant propaganda being disgorged by the odious Center for Global Food Issues. These miscreants actually sing the praises of higher CO2 levels and say,

. . . a warmer planet has beneficial effects on food production. It results in longer growing seasons-more sunshine and rainfall-while summertime high temperatures change little. And a warmer planet means milder winters and fewer crop-killing frosts. . . . Infrared satellite readings show that the Earth has been getting greener since 1982, thanks apparently to increased rainfall and CO2. Worldwide, vegetative activity generally increased by 6.17 percent between 1982 and 1999-despite extended cloudiness due to the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo and other well-publicized environmental stresses. . . . When dinosaurs walked the earth (about 70 to 130 million years ago), there was from five to ten times more CO2 in the atmosphere than today. The resulting abundant plant life allowed the huge creatures to thrive. . . . Based on nearly 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average by 32 percent across species.
And they're not alone in this subterfuge. The National Center for Policy Analysis echoes these sentiments and makes the bold claim that a desire for greater plant yield is why botanists pump CO2 into greenhouses. Even more astoundingly, this organization states that until just recently plants might have been suffering from CO2 deprivation. These people are so low they snidely remarked that our savior, Al Gore, believes in instituting "carbon taxes."


Don't you see what's going on? Those innocuous looking organisms you so lovingly nurture in their pots as you provide water, sunlight and fertilizer, have designs on our civilization. Haven't you ever watched Day of the Triffids? I tell you, we're locked in a battle for survival itself with the plants.


Let not your heart be troubled, though, my friends. The great teacher, the man who really knows vegetative activity, Al Gore, is on the case with his keen intellect and sage stewardship. I hear he's going to make a sequel to An Inconvenient Truth titled Presidential Aspirations in the Balance, in which he will illustrate the direness of our predicament by demonstrating how he can fry an organic egg on his head in Bangor, Maine, at sunrise.


Of course, ardent apologists for industrialization try to put a happy face on the CO2 molecule, but even they can't deny that the gas' levels are rising. So, lo and behold, they try to sell us the line that it's the result of natural processes.


For instance, a vile propagandist named Phillip V. Brennan wrote a piece in which he claims we now know there is much more geothermal activity beneath the ocean floor than scientists had suspected previously. Ostensibly, this process heats up the oceans, causing them to release more CO2 into the atmosphere. Brennan even tries to explain away our more mercurial weather, quoting a colleague who maintains that,

". . . it is not global warming that's causing the oceans to heat, it's heated oceans that are warming the globe and setting up a scenario that includes among its consequences more and increasingly violent hurricanes, tornadoes and blizzards."
Yeah, sure, next he'll tell us tsunamis are caused by underwater earthquakes.


Anyway, this Brennan character has no credibility. Despite the fact we know that every scientist agrees with the anthropogenic global warming thesis, he claims that a petition was signed by,

". . . over 18,000 scientists who are totally opposed to the Kyoto Protocol, which committed the world's leading industrial nations to cut their production of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels."
Next, we hear the Earth destroyers' answer to why our polar ice caps are melting. They point out that the ice caps on Mars are probably melting as well, which is supposed to vindicate the idea that natural cycles are the cause.


But there's something they won't tell you, information I risk my life by divulging.


There's actually a civilization of greedy little green industrialists on the red planet, who drive SUVs, heat their saucers with mahogany and teak, smoke fine cigars and are mean to children and old people. And the only reason this is kept secret is that free traders want our shores inundated with their cheap goods, which are brought in through Area 51.


I now ask you to compare the dubious claims of the industrial apologists with the aforementioned facts. I think it will be clear where the true sanity lies.


The truth is, as Mr. Gore would say, inconvenient. We just don't want to accept that we'll have to radically alter our lifestyles; why, it's ridiculous to think we can maintain our love affair with the combustion engine. As Gore told us in Earth in the Balance, the automobile poses a most grave threat to mankind. And, no, wise guys, it's not because he spent time in a car with Ted Kennedy at the wheel.


So I advise you all to follow the lead of French President Jacques Chirac, who found time between mistresses to warn us that "We are on the historic threshold of the irreversible," as he called for a "revolution" to save mankind. Besides, there is grave concern that Hillary Clinton's personality may melt.


As for me, I'm going to go out and kill a plant. Now, what will I wear? Dang, the weatherman got the forecast wrong again....

[styky]

The primary cause is the sun.

When Mount Pinotubo exploded in the early 90's, that one volcanic eruption spewed more CO2 into the atmoshphere than all human activity had produced up to that moment.

Climate change? It is a constant on this planet. That is indisputable.

http://www.hawaiinews.com/archives/volc ... 0440.shtml

CO2: Humans vs. Volcanoes
Posted by HVO at 9:17 AM on Feb 15, 2007 |
Volcano Watch
People who are fortunate enough to live in or visit Hawai`i, or even those who have seen the right television documentaries, know that the majestic presence of erupting volcanoes attests to their raw power. If we took Kilauea (our own backyard volcano) and collected the lava that it erupted, there would be enough material to fill the gas tanks of about 1,000 Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) in the time it took you to read this sentence. And though Kilauea is a medium-to-small-sized volcano, it has been discharging lava nearly continuously at this rate for the past 24 years.

Demonstrations like this one, or catastrophic eruptions like those of Mount St. Helens or Mount Pinatubo, understandably cause people to sometimes think that human-caused effects on the biosphere are small compared to volcanic ones. But, as the saying goes, "it ain’t necessarily so."


At HVO, for instance, we are often asked about the influence of volcanic gas emissions on the atmosphere and whether these emissions dwarf those from human activity. Anyone who has stood downwind of Kilauea’s vents, and sometimes even people who live in Honolulu, 250 miles away, know first-hand how these emissions can affect air quality and life on the regional scale. It’s a fact that Kilauea has been releasing more than twice the amount of noxious sulfur dioxide gas (SO2) as the single dirtiest power plant on the U.S. mainland.

So it’s also understandable that, with the emerging report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IGCC), some people want to understand how volcanoes might factor into the rise in greenhouse gas concentrations — specifically carbon dioxide (CO2) — that is being reported worldwide. The changes in global CO2 concentration during the past 600,000 years have mimicked the changes in global temperature. And, after all, volcanoes are awesome natural forces that release lots of carbon dioxide (CO2) right? Could volcanoes be a significant global-warming villain?

For numerous reasons, volcanologists have been interested in CO2 release from volcanoes for years and have been working to improve estimates on the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere and oceans by volcanic processes.

Carbon dioxide is released when magma rises from the depths of the Earth on its way to the surface. Our studies here at Kilauea show that the eruption discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day. Actively erupting volcanoes release much more CO2 than sleeping ones do.

Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy’s <a href=http://cdiac.ornl.gov/>Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) </a>website helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

A short time ago (geologically speaking) the question "Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?" would have been answered differently. Volcanoes would have tipped the scale. Now, human presence, activity, and the resultant production of CO2, through the burning of fossil fuels, have all climbed at an ever-increasing rate. On the other hand, looking back through the comparatively short duration of human history, volcanic activity has, with a few notable disturbances, remained relatively steady.

Volcanoes are still awesome, even though they don’t produce CO2 at a rate that swamps the human signature, contributing to global warming. In fact, spectacular eruptions like that of Mount Pinatubo are demonstrated to contribute to global cooling through the injection of solar energy reflecting ash and other small particles.

There is now agreement at the top government level of the Earth’s most prolific fossil fuel CO2 producer—the United States—that we need to reduce our dependence on oil in order to confront the challenge of global warming. As we work toward that goal, let’s look forward to the day when volcanologists will give a different answer to the question: "Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?" Activity Update

This past week, activity levels at the summit of Kilauea Volcano have remained at background levels. The number of earthquakes located in the summit area is low (usually less than 10 per day are large enough to locate).

Eruptive activity at Pu`u `O`o continues. On clear nights, glow is visible from several vents within the crater. Lava is fed through the PKK lava tube from its source on the southwest flank of Pu`u `O`o to the ocean. About 1 kilometer south of Pu`u `O`o, the Campout flow branches off from the PKK tube. The PKK and Campout tubes feed two widely separated ocean entries, at East Lae`apuki and East Ka`ili`ili, respectively. Both entries are located inside Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park.

A third entry, fed by an offshoot of the Campout flow, has been active since December 26. It is located at Kamokuna, about midway between the two older entries. In the last week, intermittent breakouts from the Campout tube have continued on the slope of Pulama pali and on the coastal plain near Kamokuna. A new breakout from the main PKK tube has been advancing down the pali in the past three weeks, more than a kilometer west of the Campout tube. The terminus is now within the rope line above the East Lae`apuki entry.

Access to the sea cliff near the ocean entries is closed, due to significant hazards. The surrounding area, however, is open. If you visit the eruption site, check with the rangers for current updates, and remember to carry lots of water when venturing out onto the flow field.

One earthquake beneath Hawai`i Island was reported felt within the past week. A magnitude-2.8 earthquake at 7:49 p.m. H.s.t. on Sunday, February 11 was located 5 km (3 miles) northwest of Kawaihae at a depth of 25.7 km (16 miles).

Mauna Loa is not erupting. During the past week, earthquake activity remained low beneath the volcano (one earthquake was located). Extension of distances between locations spanning the summit, indicating inflation, continues at slow rates.

This article was written by scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey's Hawaii Volcano Observatory and is republished by HawaiiNews.com with permission.

[DrWright]

The climate is changing and the evidence backs that up. The cause is probably many different sources(greenhouse gases, urban heat islands, changes in land use patterns, etc)

Oh really?

What evidence proves both that it's warming and man is causing it?

That it's still colder than the middle ages warm period?

http://charlie.commonservers.com/~nohlib09/?p=1514

Or this?
http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/?p=21

or this?
http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/?p=17



some bubble head on an msmsays its so because some professor doubling his salary by researching "global warming" said it in an interview?


I want more proof.

I want vinyards in London.

[TheNovaScotian]

The climate is changing and the evidence backs that up. The cause is probably many different sources(greenhouse gases, urban heat islands, changes in land use patterns, etc)

Oh really?

What evidence proves both that it's warming and man is causing it?

The rise of C02 levels and simultaneous rise in temperature, just the basic fact that C02 generally causes higher temperatures, though at times in Earths past C02 has been much lower and still very hot. This was due to the positioning of the continents allowing warm equatorial currents to circulate freely.

However in our current glacial/interglacial climate pattern, C02 does play an important role.

That it's still colder than the middle ages warm period?

This is an absolute myth without backing.

Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic at the end of the 9th century was generalized as proof that the global climate then was warmer than today. In the early days of paleoclimatology, the sparsely distributed paleoenvironmental records were interpreted to indicate that there was a "Medieval Warm Period" where temperatures were warmer than today. This "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Optimum," was generally believed to extend from the 9th to 13th centuries, prior to the onset of the so-called "Little Ice Age."

In contrast, the evidence for a global (or at least northern hemisphere) "Little Ice Age" from the 15th to 19th centuries as a period when the Earth was generally cooler than in the mid 20th century has more or less stood the test of time as paleoclimatic records have become numerous. The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect."

"There are not enough records available to reconstruct global or even hemispheric mean temperature prior to about 600 years ago with a high degree of confidence. What records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century. For example, Mann et al. (1999) generated a 1,000 year Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction (shown above) using data from multiple ice cores and tree ring records. This reconstruction suggests that the 1998 annual average temperature was more than two standard deviations warmer than any annual average temperature value since AD 1,000"

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwa ... ieval.html

[backhoe]

Here's another good link:

http://www.junkscience.com/

To further support the theory that warming is caused by solar activity, did you know that the icecaps on Mars have been shrinking too? So, it's either solar cycles or the Martian SUV market has been going nutso along with all those evil Martian businessmen and their CO2 spewing factories.

Ice caps on Mars shrinking? I call bullshit.

I call you a Troll.

Moby.

Disruptor.

[IRRow]

To R.Webb & the NovaScotian I would like to express my chagrin that even here I must experience the need to wear hip waders and carry a large shovel while simultaneously attempting to find clean air. Perhaps you might find the time to rectify that situation and serve an activist role to improve the environment. Thank you for the opportunity to "rarely" express myself!

[winespius]

"However in our current glacial/interglacial climate pattern, C02 does play an important role. "

that is an absolute myth and totally without substantation..has been debunked more than the hockey stich scam

[styky]

<a href=http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html>Global Warming:
A closer look at the numbers</a>

THis link is a keeper

[styky]

Some facts to keep in mind........
<a href=http://www.bcrevolution.ca/global_warming_good.htm>source</a>
About 95 percent of the greenhouse effect - the atmospheric warming due to the trapping of solar energy that makes life possible on Earth - is due to water vapour, 99.999 percent of which is of natural origin. The other 5 percent of the greenhouse effect is due to carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other miscellaneous gases.

Although carbon dioxide is the most dominant of these gases by volume, comprising about 99.4 percent, the other gases trap more heat. So the contribution of carbon dioxide to the 5 percent of the greenhouse effect not due to water vapour is much less than 99.4 percent - it's about 72 percent.

Carbon dioxide, therefore, is responsible for roughly 3.6 percent of the greenhouse effect (5 percent, representing the percentage of the greenhouse effect not due to water vapour, multiplied by 72 percent, representing the percentage of that 5 percent due to carbon dioxide).

But carbon dioxide is produced both naturally and by humans. About 97 percent of atmospheric carbon dioxide is natural, in fact. Only about 3 percent is from human activity.

That means that only about 0.11 percent of the greenhouse effect (that is, 3 percent of 3.6 percent) is due to human releases of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Put another way, about 99.89 percent of the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon-dioxide emissions from human activity.

Factoring in the other greenhouse gases, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is about 0.3 percent. In other words, about 99.7 percent of the greenhouse effect is due entirely to nature.

When you consider that the greenhouse effect contributes about 60 degrees Fahrenheit to the Earth's average temperature (which would be about zero degrees Fahrenheit without the greenhouse effect), it doesn't really seem like atmospheric carbon dioxide levels - even if they triple or quadruple because of human activities - are all that important to global climate.

If the carbon dioxide-emissions reductions called for by the Kyoto global warming treaty were implemented, human greenhouse contributions would be reduced by about 0.03 percent. Atmospheric physicist Fred Singer says this would have an "imperceptible effect on future temperatures - one-twentieth of a degree by 2050."