Here is yet another article demonstrating global warming and cooling going on long before man's usage of coal and oil.
Peter
Science 17 February 1995:Vol. 267. no. 5200, pp. 1005 - 1010DOI: 10.1126/science.267.5200.1005
Prev Table of Contents Next
Articles
Iceberg Discharges into the North Atlantic on Millennial Time Scales During the Last Glaciation Gerard C. Bond 1 and Rusty Lotti 1
1 Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964, USA.
High-resolution studies of North Atlantic deep sea cores demonstrate that prominent increases in iceberg calving recurred at intervals of 2000 to 3000 years, much more frequently than the 7000-to 10,000-year pacing of massive ice discharges associated with Heinrich events. The calving cycles correlate with warm-cold oscillations, called Dansgaard-Oeschger events, in Greenland ice cores. Each cycle records synchronous discharges of ice from different sources, and the cycles are decoupled from sea-surface temperatures. These findings point to a mechanism operating within the atmosphere that caused rapid oscillations in air temperatures above Greenland and in calving from more than one ice sheet.
Submitted on October 17, 1994Accepted on December 28, 1994
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES:
Signatures of rapid climatic changes in organic matter records in the western Mediterranean Sea during the last glacial period.
F. Baudin, N. Combourieu-Nebout, and R. Zahn (2007)Bulletin de la Societe Geologique de France 178, 3-13 Abstract » Full Text » PDF »
Near-synchronous interhemispheric termination of the last glacial maximum in mid-latitudes..
J. M. Schaefer, G. H. Denton, D. J. A. Barrell, S. Ivy-Ochs, P. W. Kubik, B. G. Andersen, F. M. Phillips, T. V. Lowell, and C. Schluchter (2006)Science 312, 1510-1513 Abstract » Full Text » PDF »
Transgressive oversized radial ooid facies in the Late Jurassic Adriatic Platform interior: Low-energy precipitates from highly supersaturated hypersaline waters.
A. Husinec and J. F. Read (2006)GSA Bulletin 118, 550-556 Abstract » Full Text » PDF »
The last deglaciation of the southeastern sector of the Scandinavian ice sheet..
V. R. Rinterknecht, P. U. Clark, G. M. Raisbeck, F. Yiou, A. Bitinas, E. J. Brook, L. Marks, V. Zelcs, J.-P. Lunkka, I. E. Pavlovskaya, J. A. Piotrowski, and A. Raukas (2006)Science 311, 1449-1452 Abstract » Full Text » PDF »
Glacial-Marine or Subglacial Origin of Diamicton Units from the Southwest and North Iceland Shelf: Implications for the Glacial History of Iceland.
S. M. Principato, A. E. Jennings, G. B. Kristjansdottir, and J. T. Andrews (2005)Journal of Sedimentary Research 75, 968-983 Abstract » Full Text » PDF »
Morphometry of Coccolithus pelagicus s.l. (Coccolithophore, Haptophyta) from offshore Portugal, during the last 200 kyr..
A. Parente, M. Cachao, K.-H. Baumann, L. de Abreu, and J. Ferreira (2004)Micropaleontology 50, 107-120 Abstract » Full Text » PDF »
Fine-grained sediment lofting from meltwater-generated turbidity currents during Heinrich events.
(2004)Geology 32, 449-452
Bipolar correlation of volcanism with millennial climate change.
R. C. Bay, N. Bramall, and P. B. Price (2004)PNAS 101, 6341-6345 Abstract » Full Text » PDF »
Does the Trigger for Abrupt Climate Change Reside in the Ocean or in the Atmosphere?.
W. S. Broecker (2003)Science 300, 1519-1522 Abstract » Full Text » PDF »
Catastrophic arid episodes in the Eastern Mediterranean linked with the North Atlantic Heinrich events.
(2003)Geology 31, 439-442
Interplay between tectonics and glacio-eustasy: Pleistocene succession of the Crotone basin, Calabria (southern Italy).
(2002)GSA Bulletin 114, 1183-1209
Enhanced aridity and atmospheric high-pressure stability over the western Mediterranean during the North Atlantic cold events of the past 50 k.y..
(2002)Geology 30, 863-866
Ocean circulation and iceberg discharge in the glacial North Atlantic: Inferences from unmixing of sediment size distributions.
(2002)Geology 30, 555-558
Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr.
(2002)Geology 30, 455-458
Calving glaciers.
C. J. van der Veen (2002)Progress in Physical Geography 26, 96-122 Abstract » PDF »
Late Pleistocene glacially-influenced deep-marine sedimentation off NW Britain: implications for the rock record.
S. Davison and M. S. Stoker (2002)Geological Society, London, Special Publications 203, 129-147 Abstract » PDF »
Grain-size characteristics and provenance of ice-proximal glacial marine sediments.
J. T. Andrews and S. M. Principato (2002)Geological Society, London, Special Publications 203, 305-324 Abstract » PDF »
Millennial and sub-millennial-scale variability in sediment colour from the Barra Fan, NW Scotland: implications for British ice sheet dynamics.
L. J. Wilson and W. E. N. Austin (2002)Geological Society, London, Special Publications 203, 349-365 Abstract » PDF »
Glacier-influenced sedimentation on high-latitude continental margins: introduction and overview.
J. A. Dowdeswell and C. O Cofaigh (2002)Geological Society, London, Special Publications 203, 1-9 Abstract » PDF »
Diatom-based conductivity reconstruction and palaeoclimatic interpretation of a 40-ka record from Lake Zeribar, Iran.
J. A. Snyder, J. A. Snyder, K. Wasylik, S. C. Fritz, and H. E. Wright Jr (2001)The Holocene 11, 737-745 Abstract » PDF »
Timing of Millennial-Scale Climate Change in Antarctica and Greenland During the Last Glacial Period.
T. Blunier and E. J. Brook (2001)Science 291, 109-112 Abstract » Full Text »
Modulation and amplification of climatic changes in the Northern Hemisphere by the Indian summer monsoon during the past 80 k.y.
(2001)Geology 29, 63-66
Hydrological Impact of Heinrich Events in the Subtropical Northeast Atlantic.
E. Bard, F. Rostek, J.-L. Turon, and S. Gendreau (2000)Science 289, 1321-1324 Abstract » Full Text »
Millennial-Scale Instability of the Antarctic Ice Sheet During the Last Glaciation.
S. L. Kanfoush, D. A. Hodell, C. D. Charles, T. P. Guilderson, P. G. Mortyn, and U. S. Ninnemann (2000)Science 288, 1815-1819 Abstract » Full Text » PDF »
Century- to millennial-scale sedimentological-geochemical records of glacial-Holocene sediment variations from the Barra Fan (NE Atlantic).
D. Kroon, D. KROON, G. SHIMMIELD, W. E. N. AUSTIN, S. DERRICK, P. KNUTZ, and T. SHIMMIELD (2000)Journal of the Geological Society 157, 643-653 Abstract » Full Text » PDF »
Were the North Atlantic Heinrich events triggered by the behavior of the European ice sheets?.
(2000)Geology 28, 123-126
Seismic stratigraphy of the Gulf of Cadiz continental shelf: a model for Late Quaternary very high-resolution sequence stratigraphy and response to sea-level fall.
F. J. Hernandez-Molina, L. Somoza, and F. Lobo (2000)Geological Society, London, Special Publications 172, 329-362 Abstract » PDF »
Abrupt Climate Change at the End of the Last Glacial Period Inferred from Trapped Air in Polar Ice.
J. P. Severinghaus and E. J. Brook (1999)Science 286, 930-934 Abstract » Full Text »
Late-Holocene climate in central West Greenland: meteorological data and rock-glacier isotope evidence.
O. Humlum and O. Humlum (1999)The Holocene 9, 581-594 Abstract » PDF »
A Mid-European Decadal Isotope-Climate Record from 15,500 to 5000 Years B.P..
U. v. Grafenstein, H. Erlenkeuser, A. Brauer, J. Jouzel, and S. J. Johnsen (1999)Science 284, 1654-1657 Abstract » Full Text »
Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary.
J. Adams, M. Maslin, and E. Thomas (1999)Progress in Physical Geography 23, 1-36 Abstract » PDF »
Ice-flow stages and glacial bedforms in north central Ireland: a record of rapid environmental change during the last glacial termination.
A. M. McCABE, J. KNIGHT, and S. G. McCARRON (1999)Journal of the Geological Society 156, 63-72 Abstract » PDF »
Early-Holocene aridity in tropical northern Australia.
J. Nott, E. Bryant, and D. Price (1999)The Holocene 9, 231-236 Abstract » PDF »
Abrupt Climate Events 500,000 to 340,000 Years Ago: Evidence from Subpolar North Atlantic Sediments.
D. W. Oppo, J. F. McManus, and J. L. Cullen (1998)Science 279, 1335-1338 Abstract » Full Text »
Cyclic sedimentation on the Faeroe Drift 53-10 ka BP related to climatic variations.
T. L. Rasmussen, E. Thomsen, and T. C. E. Van Weering (1998)Geological Society, London, Special Publications 129, 255-267 Abstract » PDF »
Natural gas hydrates: searching for the long-term climatic and slope-stability records.
B. U. Haq (1998)Geological Society, London, Special Publications 137, 303-318 Abstract » PDF »
Thermohaline Circulation, the Achilles Heel of Our Climate System: Will Man-Made CO2 Upset the Current Balance?.
W. S. Broecker (1997)Science 278, 1582-1588 Abstract » Full Text »
A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates.
G. Bond, W. Showers, M. Cheseby, R. Lotti, P. Almasi, P. deMenocal, P. Priore, H. Cullen, I. Hajdas, and G. Bonani (1997)Science 278, 1257-1266 Abstract » Full Text »
Dating and rhythmicity from the last deglacial cycle in the British Isles.
A. M. McCABE (1996)Journal of the Geological Society 153, 499-502 Abstract » PDF »
Response: Testing for Bias in the Climate Record.
D. J. Thomson (1996)Science 271, 1881-1883 PDF »
Abrupt changes in marine conditions, Sunneshine Fiord, eastern Baffin Island, NWT during the last deglacial transition: Younger Dryas and H-0 events.
J. T. Andrews, L. E. Osterman, A. E. Jennings, J. P. M. Syvitski, G. H. Miller, and N. Weiner (1996)Geological Society, London, Special Publications 111, 11-27 Abstract » PDF »
Shelf erosion and glacial ice proximity in the Labrador Sea during and after Heinrich events (H-3 or 4 to H-0) as shown by foraminifera.
A. E. Jennings, K. A. Tedesco, J. T. Andrews, and M. E. Kirby (1996)Geological Society, London, Special Publications 111, 29-49 Abstract » PDF »
Deglaciation of the inner Scotian Shelf, Nova Scotia: correlation of terrestrial and marine glacial events.
R. R. Stea, R. Boyd, O. Costello, G. B. J. Fader, and D. B. Scott (1996)Geological Society, London, Special Publications 111, 77-101 Abstract » PDF »
Rock (mineral)-magnetic properties of post-glacial (16-0.5 ka) sediments from the Emerald Basin (Scotian Shelf), Canada.
F. R. Hall and S. J. Reed (1996)Geological Society, London, Special Publications 111, 103-115 Abstract » PDF »
Late Quaternary glacial history and short-term ice-rafted debris fluctuations along the East Greenland continental margin.
R. Stein, S.-i. Nam, H. Grobe, and H. Hubberten (1996)Geological Society, London, Special Publications 111, 135-151 Abstract » PDF »
Late glacial air temperature, oceanographic and ice sheet interactions in the southern Barents Sea region.
T. O. Vorren and J. S. Laberg (1996)Geological Society, London, Special Publications 111, 303-321 Abstract » PDF »
Interhemispheric Correlation of Late Pleistocene Glacial Events.
T. V. Lowell, T. V. Lowell, C. J. Heusser, B. G. Andersen, P. I. Moreno, A. Hauser, L. E. Heusser, C. Schluchter, D. R. Marchant, and G. H. Denton (1995)Science 269, 1541-1549 Abstract » PDF »
The Seasons, Global Temperature, and Precession.
D. J. Thomson (1995)Science 268, 59-68 Abstract » PDF »
Instability of Glacial Climate in a Model of the Ocean- Atmosphere-Cryosphere System.
A. Schmittner, M. Yoshimori, and A. J. Weaver (2002)Science 295, 1489-1493 Abstract » Full Text » PDF »
Monday, April 30, 2007
North Atlantic Sediments......more
These studies on marine sediments from the recent past in the North Atlantic ought to sound the death-knell on the theory of man-caused global warming. Unfortunately, they are very "conveniently" ignored. Throw out the logic and reason; base your "beliefs" about global warming on your "feelings". Do so at your peril and folly.
Peter
Millennial-Scale Variations in North Atlantic Sediments in the Late
Pliocene and Early Pleistocene
K. Mc Intyre (Ocean Sciences/Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064; ph. 408-459-3123; Internet: kmci@cats.ucsc.edu); A.C. Ravelo, M.L. Delaney (Ocean Sciences/Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064)
Research on millennial scale climate variations has focused on the last 150 kyrs because this is the interval over which there are high resolution records both on land and in the oceans, and the interval over which there are good age constraints. As a consequence, mechanisms to explain these millennial scale variations have evolved that account for them in this late Pleistocene environment. In order to characterize millennial scale events under different boundary conditions we focus on an interval of the late Pliocene and early Pleistocene (~1.4-2.0 Ma).
During this interval, maximum glacial ice sheets were smaller, as small as a third of the last glacial maximum, while the pattern of incoming solar insolation was similar to that of the last 600 kyrs. In order to characterize millennial scale variability during this time period we have measured the concentration of ice rafted debris (IRD) in sediments as a proxy for ice berg flux and we have measured the of % planktonic foraminiferal species N. pachyderma sinistral as a proxy for sea surface temperature and salinity.
To look at variability during specific intervals in detail, we generated records of IRD concentration for relatively short intervals of the late Pliocene (~1.75-1.92 Ma) at the Gardar drift (60N 23W, 1983 meters depth). This drift site had a sedimentation rate of ~22 cm/kyr during this interval, yielding a sample resolution of 200-500 kyrs. Our data suggest that there were large inputs of ice rafted debris reoccurring every 5-8 kyrs during maximum glacial intervals. During glacial build up and decay, inputs of ice rafted debris were more frequent, reoccurring every ~1 kyr, but were also lower in magnitude. There was no deposition of IRD during maximum interglacial intervals.
To look at the pattern of variability over the course of the entire 1.4-2.0 Ma interval, we generated measures of IRD concentration and the % of planktonic species N. pachyderma sin. at the Feni drift (55N 15W, 2173 meters depth ). This drift site has a sedimentation rate of ~6 cm/kyr, and our record has a resolution of ~2 kyrs during this interval. The strongest evidence for millennial scale variability in the lower resolution Feni drift record is between 1.62 and 1.75 Ma. During this 120 kyr period low amplitude peaks of IRD occur approximately every 8 kyrs, and are accompanied by peaks in the %N. pachyderma sin. Before and after this time, the highest concentrations of IRD are limited to de-glaciations, and major variations in the %N. pachyderma sin. occur at the 41 Kyr glacial- interglacial frequency.
Overall our results demonstrate that millennial scale variability in IRD input and sea surface temperature is by no means limited to the late Pleistocene, and that it may be a pervasive feature of geologic record. Synthetic mechanisms to explain the origin of millennial scale events must take into account how these events could have been generated this far in the past, under different boundary conditions of ice volume.
Peter
Millennial-Scale Variations in North Atlantic Sediments in the Late
Pliocene and Early Pleistocene
K. Mc Intyre (Ocean Sciences/Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064; ph. 408-459-3123; Internet: kmci@cats.ucsc.edu); A.C. Ravelo, M.L. Delaney (Ocean Sciences/Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064)
Research on millennial scale climate variations has focused on the last 150 kyrs because this is the interval over which there are high resolution records both on land and in the oceans, and the interval over which there are good age constraints. As a consequence, mechanisms to explain these millennial scale variations have evolved that account for them in this late Pleistocene environment. In order to characterize millennial scale events under different boundary conditions we focus on an interval of the late Pliocene and early Pleistocene (~1.4-2.0 Ma).
During this interval, maximum glacial ice sheets were smaller, as small as a third of the last glacial maximum, while the pattern of incoming solar insolation was similar to that of the last 600 kyrs. In order to characterize millennial scale variability during this time period we have measured the concentration of ice rafted debris (IRD) in sediments as a proxy for ice berg flux and we have measured the of % planktonic foraminiferal species N. pachyderma sinistral as a proxy for sea surface temperature and salinity.
To look at variability during specific intervals in detail, we generated records of IRD concentration for relatively short intervals of the late Pliocene (~1.75-1.92 Ma) at the Gardar drift (60N 23W, 1983 meters depth). This drift site had a sedimentation rate of ~22 cm/kyr during this interval, yielding a sample resolution of 200-500 kyrs. Our data suggest that there were large inputs of ice rafted debris reoccurring every 5-8 kyrs during maximum glacial intervals. During glacial build up and decay, inputs of ice rafted debris were more frequent, reoccurring every ~1 kyr, but were also lower in magnitude. There was no deposition of IRD during maximum interglacial intervals.
To look at the pattern of variability over the course of the entire 1.4-2.0 Ma interval, we generated measures of IRD concentration and the % of planktonic species N. pachyderma sin. at the Feni drift (55N 15W, 2173 meters depth ). This drift site has a sedimentation rate of ~6 cm/kyr, and our record has a resolution of ~2 kyrs during this interval. The strongest evidence for millennial scale variability in the lower resolution Feni drift record is between 1.62 and 1.75 Ma. During this 120 kyr period low amplitude peaks of IRD occur approximately every 8 kyrs, and are accompanied by peaks in the %N. pachyderma sin. Before and after this time, the highest concentrations of IRD are limited to de-glaciations, and major variations in the %N. pachyderma sin. occur at the 41 Kyr glacial- interglacial frequency.
Overall our results demonstrate that millennial scale variability in IRD input and sea surface temperature is by no means limited to the late Pleistocene, and that it may be a pervasive feature of geologic record. Synthetic mechanisms to explain the origin of millennial scale events must take into account how these events could have been generated this far in the past, under different boundary conditions of ice volume.
North Atlantic Sediments.....con't.
I found this almost immediately......hmmmmm.......where the heck is the carbon dioxide causing the warming coming from? Or could it be CO2 plays little if any role?
Peter
Nature 365, 143 - 147 (09 September 1993); doi:10.1038/365143a0
Correlations between climate records from North Atlantic sediments and Greenland ice
Gerard Bond*, Wallace Broecker*, Sigfus Johnsen†‡, Jerry McManus*, Laurent Labeyrie§, Jean Jouzel¶ & Georges Bonani
*Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964, USA†The Niehls Bohr Institute, Department of Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Haraldsgade 6, DK-2200, Copenhagen N, Denmark‡Science Institute, Department of Geophysics, University of Iceland, Dunghaga 3, IS-107 Reykjavik, Iceland§CFR Laboratoire mixte CNRS-CEA, Domaine du CNRS, 91198, Gif-sur-Yvette, Cedex, France¶Laboratorie de Modération du Climat et de I'Environnement, CEA/DSM, CE Saclay 91191, FranceLaboratorie de Glaciologie et Géophysique de 1'Environnement, CNRS, BP96, 38402 St. Martin d'Hères Cedex, France£Institute fur Mittelenergiephysik, ETH Honggerberg, CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland
OXYGEN isotope measurements in Greenland ice demonstrate that a series of rapid warm-cold oscillations—called Dansgaard–Oeschger events—punctuated the last glaciation1. Here we present records of sea surface temperature from North Atlantic sediments spanning the past 90 kyr which contain a series of rapid temperature oscillations closely matching those in the ice-core record, confirming predictions that the ocean must bear the imprint of the Dansgaard–Oeschger events2,3. Moreover, we show that between 20 and 80 kyr ago, the shifts in ocean-atmosphere temperature are bundled into cooling cycles, lasting on average 10 to 15 kyr, with asymmetrical saw-tooth shapes. Each cycle culminated in an enormous discharge of icebergs into the North Atlantic (a 'Hein-rich event'4,5), followed by an abrupt shift to a warmer climate. These cycles document a previously unrecognized link between ice sheet behaviour and ocean–atmosphere temperature changes. An important question that remains to be resolved is whether the cycles are driven by external factors, such as orbital forcing, or by inter-nal ice-sheet dynamics.
References
1.
Dansgaard, W. et al. Nature 364, 218−220 (1993). Article ISI
2.
Broecker, W. S. et al. Quat. Res. 30, 1−6 (1988). Article
3.
Broecker, W. S., Bond, G. & Klas, M. Paleoceanogr. 5(4), 469−477 (1990).
4.
Bond, G. et al. Nature 360, 245−249 (1992). Article ISI
5.
Broecker, W. S., Bond, G., Klas, M., Clark, E. & McManus, J. Clim. Dynamics 6, 265−273 (1992).
6.
Bé, A. W. H. & Tolderlund, D. S. Micropaleontology of Oceans (eds Funnell, B. M. & Riedel, W. R.) 105−149 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1971).
7.
Kellogg, T. B. Boreas 9, 115−137 (1980). ISI
8.
Broecker, W. S. Paleoceanogr. 3(1), 1−19 (1988).
9.
Lehman, S. J. & Keigwin, L. D. Nature 356, 757−762 (1992). Article ISI
10.
Karpuz, N. C. & Jansen, E. Paleoceanogr. 7(4), 499−520 (1992).
11.
Bond, G., Broecker, W., Lotti, R. & McManus, J. in Start of a Glacial (eds Kukla, G. J. & Went, E.) 185−205 (Springer, Berlin, 1992).
12.
Johnsen, S. J. et al. Nature 359, 311−313 (1992). Article ISI
13.
Alley, R. B. et al. Nature 362, 527−529 (1993). Article ISI
14.
Bard, E., Arnold, M., Fairbanks, R. G. & Hamelin, B. Radiocarbon 3(1), 191−199 (1993).
15.
Martinson, D. G. et al. Quat. Res. 27, 1−29 (1987). Article ISI ChemPort
16.
Dansgaard, W., White, J. W. C. & Johnsen, S. J. Nature 339, 532−533 (1989). Article ISI
17.
Taylor, K. C. et al. Nature 361, 432−436 (1993). Article ISI
18.
Heinrich, H. Quat. Res. 29, 142−152 (1988). Article ISI
19.
Ruddiman, W. F. & McIntyre, A. Paleogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 35, 145−214 (1981). ChemPort
20.
Duplessy, J-C. Labeyrie, L., Juillet-LeClerc, A. & Duprat, J. in The Last Deglaciation: Absolute and Radiocarbon Chronologies (eds Bard, E. & Broecker, W. S.) 201−208 (Springer, Berlin, 1992).
21.
Andrews, J. T., Tedesco, K., Briggs, W. M. & Evans, L. W. Can. J. Earth Sci. (in the press).
22.
MacAyeal, D. R. Nature 359, 29−32 (1992). Article ISI
23.
Ruddiman, W. F. in Northern America and Adjacent Oceans during the Last Deglaciation: The Geology of North America (eds Ruddiman, W. F. & Wright, H. E. Jr) 137−154 (Geol. Soc. of Am, Boulder, 1987).
24.
Sancetta, C., Imbrie, J. & Kipp, N. G. Quat. Res. 3, 110−116 (1973). Article
25.
Woillard, G. & Mook, W. G. Science 215, 159−161 (1982). ISI ChemPort
26.
Shakleton, N. J., Imbrie, J. & Hall, M. A. Earth planet. Sci. Lett. 65, 233−244 (1983). Article ISI ChemPort
27.
Bloom, A. L., Broecker, W. S., Chappell, J. M. A., Matthews, R. K. & Mesolella, K. J. Quat. Res. 4, 185−205 (1974). Article ISI ChemPort
Peter
Nature 365, 143 - 147 (09 September 1993); doi:10.1038/365143a0
Correlations between climate records from North Atlantic sediments and Greenland ice
Gerard Bond*, Wallace Broecker*, Sigfus Johnsen†‡, Jerry McManus*, Laurent Labeyrie§, Jean Jouzel¶ & Georges Bonani
*Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964, USA†The Niehls Bohr Institute, Department of Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Haraldsgade 6, DK-2200, Copenhagen N, Denmark‡Science Institute, Department of Geophysics, University of Iceland, Dunghaga 3, IS-107 Reykjavik, Iceland§CFR Laboratoire mixte CNRS-CEA, Domaine du CNRS, 91198, Gif-sur-Yvette, Cedex, France¶Laboratorie de Modération du Climat et de I'Environnement, CEA/DSM, CE Saclay 91191, FranceLaboratorie de Glaciologie et Géophysique de 1'Environnement, CNRS, BP96, 38402 St. Martin d'Hères Cedex, France£Institute fur Mittelenergiephysik, ETH Honggerberg, CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland
OXYGEN isotope measurements in Greenland ice demonstrate that a series of rapid warm-cold oscillations—called Dansgaard–Oeschger events—punctuated the last glaciation1. Here we present records of sea surface temperature from North Atlantic sediments spanning the past 90 kyr which contain a series of rapid temperature oscillations closely matching those in the ice-core record, confirming predictions that the ocean must bear the imprint of the Dansgaard–Oeschger events2,3. Moreover, we show that between 20 and 80 kyr ago, the shifts in ocean-atmosphere temperature are bundled into cooling cycles, lasting on average 10 to 15 kyr, with asymmetrical saw-tooth shapes. Each cycle culminated in an enormous discharge of icebergs into the North Atlantic (a 'Hein-rich event'4,5), followed by an abrupt shift to a warmer climate. These cycles document a previously unrecognized link between ice sheet behaviour and ocean–atmosphere temperature changes. An important question that remains to be resolved is whether the cycles are driven by external factors, such as orbital forcing, or by inter-nal ice-sheet dynamics.
References
1.
Dansgaard, W. et al. Nature 364, 218−220 (1993). Article ISI
2.
Broecker, W. S. et al. Quat. Res. 30, 1−6 (1988). Article
3.
Broecker, W. S., Bond, G. & Klas, M. Paleoceanogr. 5(4), 469−477 (1990).
4.
Bond, G. et al. Nature 360, 245−249 (1992). Article ISI
5.
Broecker, W. S., Bond, G., Klas, M., Clark, E. & McManus, J. Clim. Dynamics 6, 265−273 (1992).
6.
Bé, A. W. H. & Tolderlund, D. S. Micropaleontology of Oceans (eds Funnell, B. M. & Riedel, W. R.) 105−149 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1971).
7.
Kellogg, T. B. Boreas 9, 115−137 (1980). ISI
8.
Broecker, W. S. Paleoceanogr. 3(1), 1−19 (1988).
9.
Lehman, S. J. & Keigwin, L. D. Nature 356, 757−762 (1992). Article ISI
10.
Karpuz, N. C. & Jansen, E. Paleoceanogr. 7(4), 499−520 (1992).
11.
Bond, G., Broecker, W., Lotti, R. & McManus, J. in Start of a Glacial (eds Kukla, G. J. & Went, E.) 185−205 (Springer, Berlin, 1992).
12.
Johnsen, S. J. et al. Nature 359, 311−313 (1992). Article ISI
13.
Alley, R. B. et al. Nature 362, 527−529 (1993). Article ISI
14.
Bard, E., Arnold, M., Fairbanks, R. G. & Hamelin, B. Radiocarbon 3(1), 191−199 (1993).
15.
Martinson, D. G. et al. Quat. Res. 27, 1−29 (1987). Article ISI ChemPort
16.
Dansgaard, W., White, J. W. C. & Johnsen, S. J. Nature 339, 532−533 (1989). Article ISI
17.
Taylor, K. C. et al. Nature 361, 432−436 (1993). Article ISI
18.
Heinrich, H. Quat. Res. 29, 142−152 (1988). Article ISI
19.
Ruddiman, W. F. & McIntyre, A. Paleogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 35, 145−214 (1981). ChemPort
20.
Duplessy, J-C. Labeyrie, L., Juillet-LeClerc, A. & Duprat, J. in The Last Deglaciation: Absolute and Radiocarbon Chronologies (eds Bard, E. & Broecker, W. S.) 201−208 (Springer, Berlin, 1992).
21.
Andrews, J. T., Tedesco, K., Briggs, W. M. & Evans, L. W. Can. J. Earth Sci. (in the press).
22.
MacAyeal, D. R. Nature 359, 29−32 (1992). Article ISI
23.
Ruddiman, W. F. in Northern America and Adjacent Oceans during the Last Deglaciation: The Geology of North America (eds Ruddiman, W. F. & Wright, H. E. Jr) 137−154 (Geol. Soc. of Am, Boulder, 1987).
24.
Sancetta, C., Imbrie, J. & Kipp, N. G. Quat. Res. 3, 110−116 (1973). Article
25.
Woillard, G. & Mook, W. G. Science 215, 159−161 (1982). ISI ChemPort
26.
Shakleton, N. J., Imbrie, J. & Hall, M. A. Earth planet. Sci. Lett. 65, 233−244 (1983). Article ISI ChemPort
27.
Bloom, A. L., Broecker, W. S., Chappell, J. M. A., Matthews, R. K. & Mesolella, K. J. Quat. Res. 4, 185−205 (1974). Article ISI ChemPort
North Atlantic Sediments Demonstrate Global Warming
Can anyone help me find the source of this information I read about North Atlantic sediments?Peter
geoPeter1
Message #5404/30/07 03:57 PM
CurveBall,
There is an enormous amount of extremely high-quality scientific data showing man is not causing global warming, especially by the release of carbon dioxide. For example, sediments deposited in lakes and the oceans do not lie. They can be measured, correlated, tested and dated, with REPEATABLE results by many different scientists, the world over. This is established, universally accepted scientific fact; far different from a "computer climate simulation model" based on countless assumptions.
Just for example, geologists looking at sediments from the North Atlantic recognize layers of "gravel" (large stones) way out in the Atlantic. More important they see these layers repeating themselves every 1400 years, going back tens of thousands of years. How did these rocks get there? There is only one way, they were carried by southward drifting icebergs.
How did the icebergs get there? The melting of arctic glaciers. What caused the melting? GLOBAL WARMING! Of course this warming was followed by cooling, then more warming, over and over again.........LONG before man was around burning oil and coal.
This is just one of many examples of sound scientific observation and fact that is being "conveniently" overlooked by Al Gore and the IPCC to name a few.
geoPeter1
Message #5404/30/07 03:57 PM
CurveBall,
There is an enormous amount of extremely high-quality scientific data showing man is not causing global warming, especially by the release of carbon dioxide. For example, sediments deposited in lakes and the oceans do not lie. They can be measured, correlated, tested and dated, with REPEATABLE results by many different scientists, the world over. This is established, universally accepted scientific fact; far different from a "computer climate simulation model" based on countless assumptions.
Just for example, geologists looking at sediments from the North Atlantic recognize layers of "gravel" (large stones) way out in the Atlantic. More important they see these layers repeating themselves every 1400 years, going back tens of thousands of years. How did these rocks get there? There is only one way, they were carried by southward drifting icebergs.
How did the icebergs get there? The melting of arctic glaciers. What caused the melting? GLOBAL WARMING! Of course this warming was followed by cooling, then more warming, over and over again.........LONG before man was around burning oil and coal.
This is just one of many examples of sound scientific observation and fact that is being "conveniently" overlooked by Al Gore and the IPCC to name a few.
Future Dim For Air Quality Laws
Here are some excerpts from an article in today's "Dallas Morning News". With all the attention global warming and climate change have been getting in the media, one would think legislators would be passing every law limiting polluting emissions of every sort; especially carbon dioxide. You would think it would be a "slam dunk", to paraphrase a former director of the CIA. And you would be WRONG. At least in Texas. And you might not think what happens in Texas is important, and again you might be wrong, as goes Texas might mean so goes the rest of the U.S., maybe more.
I'm not sure of the implications of the activity in the Texas legislature, but it does not look good for environmentalists. It seems reason, caution, and logic are winning out over hype, hysteria, and showbusiness. I get the impression that people are not believing the global warming doomsayers. All the talk in the world about global warming and the impending climate crises is not going to amount to anything unless enforceable laws are passed. It doesn't look like that is going to happen in Texas, and my guess is these kinds of bills are going to get the same chilly reception in Washington, D.C. in Congress. I'm just posting some highlights from the article. Read the entire article and let's hear what you think.
Peter
Go here to read the complete article: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/043007dnpropollution.3d024ea.html
Future dim for air-quality bills
Legislature: Most proposals to make coal plant permits tougher aren't getting a hearing
01:20 AM CDT on Monday, April 30, 2007
By RANDY LEE LOFTIS / The Dallas Morning News rloftis@dallasnews.com
When TXU and other companies announced their huge expansion of coal power in Texas, gaping holes in the state's air pollution rules became apparent.
But a Dallas Morning News review shows that most bills before the Texas Legislature aimed at making the state's air permit system tougher are dying without getting a committee hearing. Others, including bills to halt new coal-plant permits until rules can be tightened, have gotten a hearing but seem destined to get no action.
Strong public reaction to those regulatory shortcomings led legislators to file bills to fix the permitting system and to raise related issues such as global warming. For a while, it seemed possible that the 2007 session might bring fundamental changes to Texas' oft-criticized approach to protecting the public from air pollution. But with a month left before the Legislature adjourns, the chance for comprehensive reform is fading fast.
Although Texas ranks first among the states and seventh worldwide in emissions of carbon dioxide, all the bills attempting to write a Texas policy on global warming are also apparently headed for early deaths. So are bills that would require the sale of cleaner California-standard cars in Texas.
Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, is among the legislators who pushed most aggressively for coal reforms. He filed bills to tax coal, strengthen clean-air technology requirements for coal plants, cut summertime emissions from power plants, and offer incentives for cleaner plants near urban areas. All are stalled. "I'm increasingly bearish on whether we're going to get anything out," Mr. Anchia said.
That happened Friday when a Senate bill aimed at limiting TXU's market share passed the House with some environmental amendments. Environmental lobbyists hope for more such small victories, but they are reluctant to say too much about them for fear of rallying the opposition. "There are many good bills out there that deserve a chance," said Tom "Smitty" Smith, Texas director of Public Citizen.
Environmental advocates are working to salvage as many reforms as possible during this session since half of the originally proposed coal plants are either still in progress or already have their permits.
Even if environmentalists managed to kill or delay Oak Grove, however, this session they won't achieve the same type of sweeping and clear new direction to clean-air regulation that water-development advocates got with the 1997 passage of Senate Bill 1, the state's comprehensive water planning law.
The water law, a response to a 1996 drought, still dictates state water policies a decade later. The clean-air bills, a response to the proposed coal boom, have smashed into a wall of opposition that the water bill never encountered.
Mr. Bonnen said he wants to wait until the furor over the coal boom has calmed down before thinking about which way Texas should go on regulating power plant pollution.
"We need to do this in an unemotional way that's not influenced by how people feel about a particular company's CEO," he said, referring to TXU's John Wilder, who became a lightning rod for criticism of TXU's coal plans.
At least 65 bills in the Legislature deal in some way with clean air. Bills awaiting action by the full House or Senate have passed a committee vote. Bills left pending or with no action in committee have received a hearing but have not had a vote. They could be revived or could become amendments to other bills but most probably will expire with no action. Bills that have received no hearing are probably almost certainly destined to will expire with no action.
(This is just a list of bills directly addressing "global warming", Peter)
Global warming
Awaiting action by full House:
HB 3431. Would extend state tax breaks to future equipment used to capture carbon dioxide emissions.
Passed Senate; awaiting action in the House:
SB 1762. Would order a state study on global warming's impact on the Rio Grande.
Left pending or no action in committee:
HB 722. Would create a state global warming task force.
SB 945. Would require actions and emissions cuts to fight global warming.
No hearing:
HB 2073, HB 2143, HB 2362, HB 3897, 3939, SB 1687. Would require actions and emissions cuts to fight global warming.
I'm not sure of the implications of the activity in the Texas legislature, but it does not look good for environmentalists. It seems reason, caution, and logic are winning out over hype, hysteria, and showbusiness. I get the impression that people are not believing the global warming doomsayers. All the talk in the world about global warming and the impending climate crises is not going to amount to anything unless enforceable laws are passed. It doesn't look like that is going to happen in Texas, and my guess is these kinds of bills are going to get the same chilly reception in Washington, D.C. in Congress. I'm just posting some highlights from the article. Read the entire article and let's hear what you think.
Peter
Go here to read the complete article: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/043007dnpropollution.3d024ea.html
Future dim for air-quality bills
Legislature: Most proposals to make coal plant permits tougher aren't getting a hearing
01:20 AM CDT on Monday, April 30, 2007
By RANDY LEE LOFTIS / The Dallas Morning News rloftis@dallasnews.com
When TXU and other companies announced their huge expansion of coal power in Texas, gaping holes in the state's air pollution rules became apparent.
But a Dallas Morning News review shows that most bills before the Texas Legislature aimed at making the state's air permit system tougher are dying without getting a committee hearing. Others, including bills to halt new coal-plant permits until rules can be tightened, have gotten a hearing but seem destined to get no action.
Strong public reaction to those regulatory shortcomings led legislators to file bills to fix the permitting system and to raise related issues such as global warming. For a while, it seemed possible that the 2007 session might bring fundamental changes to Texas' oft-criticized approach to protecting the public from air pollution. But with a month left before the Legislature adjourns, the chance for comprehensive reform is fading fast.
Although Texas ranks first among the states and seventh worldwide in emissions of carbon dioxide, all the bills attempting to write a Texas policy on global warming are also apparently headed for early deaths. So are bills that would require the sale of cleaner California-standard cars in Texas.
Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, is among the legislators who pushed most aggressively for coal reforms. He filed bills to tax coal, strengthen clean-air technology requirements for coal plants, cut summertime emissions from power plants, and offer incentives for cleaner plants near urban areas. All are stalled. "I'm increasingly bearish on whether we're going to get anything out," Mr. Anchia said.
That happened Friday when a Senate bill aimed at limiting TXU's market share passed the House with some environmental amendments. Environmental lobbyists hope for more such small victories, but they are reluctant to say too much about them for fear of rallying the opposition. "There are many good bills out there that deserve a chance," said Tom "Smitty" Smith, Texas director of Public Citizen.
Environmental advocates are working to salvage as many reforms as possible during this session since half of the originally proposed coal plants are either still in progress or already have their permits.
Even if environmentalists managed to kill or delay Oak Grove, however, this session they won't achieve the same type of sweeping and clear new direction to clean-air regulation that water-development advocates got with the 1997 passage of Senate Bill 1, the state's comprehensive water planning law.
The water law, a response to a 1996 drought, still dictates state water policies a decade later. The clean-air bills, a response to the proposed coal boom, have smashed into a wall of opposition that the water bill never encountered.
Mr. Bonnen said he wants to wait until the furor over the coal boom has calmed down before thinking about which way Texas should go on regulating power plant pollution.
"We need to do this in an unemotional way that's not influenced by how people feel about a particular company's CEO," he said, referring to TXU's John Wilder, who became a lightning rod for criticism of TXU's coal plans.
At least 65 bills in the Legislature deal in some way with clean air. Bills awaiting action by the full House or Senate have passed a committee vote. Bills left pending or with no action in committee have received a hearing but have not had a vote. They could be revived or could become amendments to other bills but most probably will expire with no action. Bills that have received no hearing are probably almost certainly destined to will expire with no action.
(This is just a list of bills directly addressing "global warming", Peter)
Global warming
Awaiting action by full House:
HB 3431. Would extend state tax breaks to future equipment used to capture carbon dioxide emissions.
Passed Senate; awaiting action in the House:
SB 1762. Would order a state study on global warming's impact on the Rio Grande.
Left pending or no action in committee:
HB 722. Would create a state global warming task force.
SB 945. Would require actions and emissions cuts to fight global warming.
No hearing:
HB 2073, HB 2143, HB 2362, HB 3897, 3939, SB 1687. Would require actions and emissions cuts to fight global warming.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
A Glacial Pace On Warming- The Pressure is Building
This is an editorial from the NY Times. Various factions are stepping up the pressure on the Bush Administration and the EPA to take action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I say test the concept in California first. If people don't mind paying ever more for fuel and electricity, then go for it. My guess is people will not be happy. They will be paying more and not seeing any positive effects.
This is going to be an interesting battle of wills and it will not end any time soon. Let your voices be heard.
Peter
Editorial
A Glacial Pace on Warming
('The walls continue to close in on the Bush administration, with the scientists’ warnings, the Supreme Court decision, the escalating pressure from the states and the general public.');
Published: April 28, 2007
Weeks after the Supreme Court’s momentous ruling that the federal government could and probably should regulate greenhouse gases, pressure for decisive action continues to build.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California has warned that he will sue the Environmental Protection Agency unless it gives him the power to regulate automobile emissions.
A New York Times/CBS News Poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans now want immediate steps to deal with global warming. And a leaked draft of the next report from the world’s leading scientists says that the window for action is shrinking — that what governments do over the next 20 to 30 years will determine whether the world can avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
Even so, Washington continues to move as slowly as a melting glacier. This week, Stephen Johnson, the E.P.A. administrator, told a Senate committee that he was still mulling the ramifications of the court’s decision, and he would not say when or even whether he would regulate carbon dioxide. He promised to solicit public comments on Mr. Schwarzenegger’s request but, again, would not say when or whether he would grant that request. Under the law, California can set its own emissions standards — which other states can then adopt — but it needs a federal waiver before putting them into effect.
“I don’t hear in your voice a sense of urgency,” Senator Barbara Boxer, the committee chairwoman, told Mr. Johnson. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, was less charitable. “You astonish me,” he said, a criticism clearly intended for the entire administration.
Nobody is asking Mr. Johnson to design a comprehensive national program for regulating greenhouse gases, an enormous undertaking that is plainly Congress’s responsibility. Ms. Boxer and others are simply asking the administrator to exercise the authority the court gave him.
That would mean promptly approving California’s proposal to reduce greenhouse gases from vehicles by 30 percent by the 2016 model year. That proposal is the centerpiece of a broader state effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all sources by 25 percent by 2020.
California requested a waiver in 2005, but the E.P.A. — hiding behind the now-demolished claim that it lacked the authority to regulate greenhouse gases — has been sitting on it. Eleven other states have adopted the standards and will put them into effect as soon as California gets the green light.
Mr. Johnson’s stalling is a symptom of a larger problem, the administration’s reluctance to take seriously the science of global warming, which in turn explains its reluctance to take meaningful action. Yet the walls continue to close in, with the scientists’ warnings, the Supreme Court decision, the escalating pressure from the states and the general public. If President Bush will not lead, Congress must.
This is going to be an interesting battle of wills and it will not end any time soon. Let your voices be heard.
Peter
Editorial
A Glacial Pace on Warming
('The walls continue to close in on the Bush administration, with the scientists’ warnings, the Supreme Court decision, the escalating pressure from the states and the general public.');
Published: April 28, 2007
Weeks after the Supreme Court’s momentous ruling that the federal government could and probably should regulate greenhouse gases, pressure for decisive action continues to build.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California has warned that he will sue the Environmental Protection Agency unless it gives him the power to regulate automobile emissions.
A New York Times/CBS News Poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans now want immediate steps to deal with global warming. And a leaked draft of the next report from the world’s leading scientists says that the window for action is shrinking — that what governments do over the next 20 to 30 years will determine whether the world can avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
Even so, Washington continues to move as slowly as a melting glacier. This week, Stephen Johnson, the E.P.A. administrator, told a Senate committee that he was still mulling the ramifications of the court’s decision, and he would not say when or even whether he would regulate carbon dioxide. He promised to solicit public comments on Mr. Schwarzenegger’s request but, again, would not say when or whether he would grant that request. Under the law, California can set its own emissions standards — which other states can then adopt — but it needs a federal waiver before putting them into effect.
“I don’t hear in your voice a sense of urgency,” Senator Barbara Boxer, the committee chairwoman, told Mr. Johnson. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, was less charitable. “You astonish me,” he said, a criticism clearly intended for the entire administration.
Nobody is asking Mr. Johnson to design a comprehensive national program for regulating greenhouse gases, an enormous undertaking that is plainly Congress’s responsibility. Ms. Boxer and others are simply asking the administrator to exercise the authority the court gave him.
That would mean promptly approving California’s proposal to reduce greenhouse gases from vehicles by 30 percent by the 2016 model year. That proposal is the centerpiece of a broader state effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all sources by 25 percent by 2020.
California requested a waiver in 2005, but the E.P.A. — hiding behind the now-demolished claim that it lacked the authority to regulate greenhouse gases — has been sitting on it. Eleven other states have adopted the standards and will put them into effect as soon as California gets the green light.
Mr. Johnson’s stalling is a symptom of a larger problem, the administration’s reluctance to take seriously the science of global warming, which in turn explains its reluctance to take meaningful action. Yet the walls continue to close in, with the scientists’ warnings, the Supreme Court decision, the escalating pressure from the states and the general public. If President Bush will not lead, Congress must.
The Real Cause of Global Warming
This photo is proof of the real cause of global warming.....man's excessive release of HOT AIR. Yes, it is that simple. Pictures can not lie.
US Navy Rescues Polar Bears (Top Secret Mission)
In the latest secret information, leaked from highly classified sources only to me, this photo emerged of a US Navy nuclear submarine rescuing polar bears in the warming Arctic Ocean. An unidentified observer from the Worldwide Global Warming Defense Agency claimed the bears were suffering from what he called "post-traumatic stress" caused by the shrinking Greenland glaciers. He claimed this is just one more example of how the climate is warming and how desperate the situation really is. The environmental expert further said, "cost is not a concern when it comes to saving polar bears."
Crew members could be seen weeping with relief as the bears were hoisted aboard ship, and given bowls of warm milk. The expert from the Global Warming Agency was heard saying, "thank goodness the Navy is finally doing something worthwhile."
Navy Commander I.M. Simple released this photo of a polar bear cub the crew of the submarine named Nancy, after the new US Speaker of the House. Isn't she cute?
Friday, April 27, 2007
The Geologic Record And Climate Change
This is one of the best explanations I have seen of why man-induced carbon dioxide emissions ARE NOT causing global warming and hence, climate change. I recommend printing out the entire article and carefully reading it. The key point here is the numerous climate changes in the recent past, at least 33 glacial advances and retreats (global warming and cooling periods) in the last 2 million years, long before man was around burning fossil fuels and releasing carbon dioxide. I am only posting a few highlights from the article.
Peter
From: http://www.tcsdaily.com/printArticle.aspx?ID=010405M
The Geologic Record and Climate Change
By Tim Patterson : 01 Jan 2005
The following remarks were delivered at the Risk: Regulation and Reality Conference by Dr. Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology at Carleton University. The conference was co-hosted by Tech Central Station and was held on October 7, 2004 in Toronto, ON.
I am a Quaternary geologist by profession. That is to say that my research interests are focused primarily on about the last 2 million years of Earth's history. An important aspect of my research is assessing past climate conditions. Thus I am also a paleoclimatologist. Earth's climate has varied considerably during the past 2 million years or so as indicated by the more than 33 glacial major advances and retreats that have occurred through this interval. Based on geologic paleoclimatic data it is obvious that climate is and has been very variable. Thus the only real constant about climate is change. It changes continually.
A primary role for climate researchers at present is to try and determine what the magnitude of natural climate variation is, and what sort of variation may be occurring at the present time is due to human induced causes. A major difficulty that we have is that the thermometer record only reaches back to the tail end of the 19th century. Unfortunately, many of the natural trends and cycles that occur in the natural climate system operate at scales that are longer than our thermometer record. A major question that needs to be addressed then hinges on determining whether the climate variability that has been observed through the 20th century -- during a warm-up that occurred at the end of the Little Ice Age that ended in the late 1800's, is unusual if you look at the larger paleoclimate record?
This is where paleoclimatologists like myself come in. Since thermometer records are so short we have to use what are termed proxy records. We look at records contained in the sediments, fossils, isotopes, etc. and then calibrate these records against thermometer records so that we can accurately determine past climate conditions in deep time.
-------------
A second example is that of North American land temperature trends. The very close correlation between sunspot number and temperature is very clear. At present there have been literally hundreds of studies carried out showing a similar correlation.
And so, the big question a person on the street might ask is, why hasn't it been acknowledged that the sun is the major control over climate variability? Why do so many fingers point to CO2 as the major climate control?
But if the sun is important to climate change what role do greenhouse gases play then? Greenhouse gases are really important. They make up something like 0.1 percent of our atmosphere and are a critical component of the Earths biosphere. If you listen to the rhetoric produced by some environmental groups one would come away with the understanding that , all greenhouse gases must be expunged. However, without them, the earth would be uninhabitable; it'd be too cold.
The media, special interest groups, and even some government produced literature all report that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas. I was at the Canadian Museum of Nature a few months ago where a traveling display was set up that clearly, and erroneously I might add, indicated that CO2 was the most important greenhouse gas. The number one greenhouse gas is actually water vapor.
The bottom chart shows the range of global temperature through the last 500 million years. There is no statistical correlation between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years and the temperature record in this interval. In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present. (What caused the high CO2 values in the past? It couldn't have been man. Peter)
Let's move to a little bit more recent geological history. There have been about 33 glacial advances and retreats through the last two million years or so. Through the last 10,000 years we have been in the Holocene interglacial, a warm episode between the last glaciation and the next one that will begin in the relatively near, geologically speaking, future. The last glaciation peaked about 18,000 years ago with the ice sheets retreating rapidly over just a few thousand years. Before that there was another interglacial that began about 130,000 years ago and lasted about 10,000 years. In Europe that interglacial is known as the Eemian. Here in North America it is known as the Sangamon. As one goes back in time these intervals of about 10,000 years of interglacial interspersed with episodes of about 100,000 years of glaciation continue. (What causes the regular cycles of glacial advance (cooling) and glacial retreat (warming)? Man has only been around driving cars and burning coal for about the past 150 years. Peter)
What I would like to draw your attention to is the level of CO2 levels, as preserved in prehistoric air bubbles, from very high quality ice core records from Antarctica. When researchers first looked at the results from these cores they observed a repeating correlation between CO2 and temperature through several glacial/interglacial cycles. However, when they began to look at higher resolution cycles they say something different. They observed that temperature would go up first, with CO2 coming up later. This correlation indicates that as one might expect, as temperatures warm biological productivity increases, resulting in more CO2 in the atmosphere. The lag between CO2 and rising or falling CO2 levels is something like 800 years.
I teach a general climate change course. To get the significance of this correlation over to the students I use the following analogy. I tell the students that based on these records if you believe that climate is being driven by CO2 then they probably would have no difficulty in accepting the idea that Winston Churchill was instrumental in the defeat of King Herold by Duke William of Orange at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. If you can believe that this historical temporal incongruity could be feasible then you can have no problem believing that CO2 is what's driving Earth's climate system.
In conclusion, the geologic record clearly shows us that there really is little correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Although CO2 can have a minor influence on global temperature the effect is minimal and short lived as this cycle sits on top of the much larger water cycle, which is what truly controls global temperatures. The water cycle is in turn primarily influenced by natural celestial cycles and trends.
Peter
From: http://www.tcsdaily.com/printArticle.aspx?ID=010405M
The Geologic Record and Climate Change
By Tim Patterson : 01 Jan 2005
The following remarks were delivered at the Risk: Regulation and Reality Conference by Dr. Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology at Carleton University. The conference was co-hosted by Tech Central Station and was held on October 7, 2004 in Toronto, ON.
I am a Quaternary geologist by profession. That is to say that my research interests are focused primarily on about the last 2 million years of Earth's history. An important aspect of my research is assessing past climate conditions. Thus I am also a paleoclimatologist. Earth's climate has varied considerably during the past 2 million years or so as indicated by the more than 33 glacial major advances and retreats that have occurred through this interval. Based on geologic paleoclimatic data it is obvious that climate is and has been very variable. Thus the only real constant about climate is change. It changes continually.
A primary role for climate researchers at present is to try and determine what the magnitude of natural climate variation is, and what sort of variation may be occurring at the present time is due to human induced causes. A major difficulty that we have is that the thermometer record only reaches back to the tail end of the 19th century. Unfortunately, many of the natural trends and cycles that occur in the natural climate system operate at scales that are longer than our thermometer record. A major question that needs to be addressed then hinges on determining whether the climate variability that has been observed through the 20th century -- during a warm-up that occurred at the end of the Little Ice Age that ended in the late 1800's, is unusual if you look at the larger paleoclimate record?
This is where paleoclimatologists like myself come in. Since thermometer records are so short we have to use what are termed proxy records. We look at records contained in the sediments, fossils, isotopes, etc. and then calibrate these records against thermometer records so that we can accurately determine past climate conditions in deep time.
-------------
A second example is that of North American land temperature trends. The very close correlation between sunspot number and temperature is very clear. At present there have been literally hundreds of studies carried out showing a similar correlation.And so, the big question a person on the street might ask is, why hasn't it been acknowledged that the sun is the major control over climate variability? Why do so many fingers point to CO2 as the major climate control?
But if the sun is important to climate change what role do greenhouse gases play then? Greenhouse gases are really important. They make up something like 0.1 percent of our atmosphere and are a critical component of the Earths biosphere. If you listen to the rhetoric produced by some environmental groups one would come away with the understanding that , all greenhouse gases must be expunged. However, without them, the earth would be uninhabitable; it'd be too cold.
The media, special interest groups, and even some government produced literature all report that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas. I was at the Canadian Museum of Nature a few months ago where a traveling display was set up that clearly, and erroneously I might add, indicated that CO2 was the most important greenhouse gas. The number one greenhouse gas is actually water vapor.
The bottom chart shows the range of global temperature through the last 500 million years. There is no statistical correlation between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years and the temperature record in this interval. In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present. (What caused the high CO2 values in the past? It couldn't have been man. Peter)
Let's move to a little bit more recent geological history. There have been about 33 glacial advances and retreats through the last two million years or so. Through the last 10,000 years we have been in the Holocene interglacial, a warm episode between the last glaciation and the next one that will begin in the relatively near, geologically speaking, future. The last glaciation peaked about 18,000 years ago with the ice sheets retreating rapidly over just a few thousand years. Before that there was another interglacial that began about 130,000 years ago and lasted about 10,000 years. In Europe that interglacial is known as the Eemian. Here in North America it is known as the Sangamon. As one goes back in time these intervals of about 10,000 years of interglacial interspersed with episodes of about 100,000 years of glaciation continue. (What causes the regular cycles of glacial advance (cooling) and glacial retreat (warming)? Man has only been around driving cars and burning coal for about the past 150 years. Peter)
What I would like to draw your attention to is the level of CO2 levels, as preserved in prehistoric air bubbles, from very high quality ice core records from Antarctica. When researchers first looked at the results from these cores they observed a repeating correlation between CO2 and temperature through several glacial/interglacial cycles. However, when they began to look at higher resolution cycles they say something different. They observed that temperature would go up first, with CO2 coming up later. This correlation indicates that as one might expect, as temperatures warm biological productivity increases, resulting in more CO2 in the atmosphere. The lag between CO2 and rising or falling CO2 levels is something like 800 years.
I teach a general climate change course. To get the significance of this correlation over to the students I use the following analogy. I tell the students that based on these records if you believe that climate is being driven by CO2 then they probably would have no difficulty in accepting the idea that Winston Churchill was instrumental in the defeat of King Herold by Duke William of Orange at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. If you can believe that this historical temporal incongruity could be feasible then you can have no problem believing that CO2 is what's driving Earth's climate system.
In conclusion, the geologic record clearly shows us that there really is little correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Although CO2 can have a minor influence on global temperature the effect is minimal and short lived as this cycle sits on top of the much larger water cycle, which is what truly controls global temperatures. The water cycle is in turn primarily influenced by natural celestial cycles and trends.
Global Warming Debate "Irrational"
The debate goes on, and I think it is a good thing.
Peter
Printed from www.standard-freeholder.com web site Friday, April 27, 2007 - © 2007 Cornwall Standard Freeholder
Global warming debate 'irrational': scientists say
Stephanie Stein
Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 10:00 Local News - The current debate about global warming is "completely irrational," and people need to start taking a different approach, say two Ottawa scientists. Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson said global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet. Patterson said much of the up-to-date research indicates that "changes in the brightness of the sun" are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 19th century. Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate, he said. "I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," said Patterson. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."
Patterson explained CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential plant food. Billions of taxpayers' dollars are spent to control the emissions of this benign gas, in the mistaken belief that they can stop climate change, he said. "The only constant about climate is change," said Patterson. Patterson said money could be better spent on places like Africa. "All the money wasted on Kyoto in a year could provide clean drinking water for Africa," said Patterson. "We're into a new era of science with the discussion of solar forces. Eventually, Kyoto is going to fall by the wayside. In the meantime, I'm worried we're going to spend millions that could have been spent on something better like air pollution."
Tom Harris, executive director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project - an organization that attempts to debunk some of the popular beliefs about climate change - supported Patterson's findings. Global warming assertions are based on inconclusive evidence put forth in science reports that had not been published yet, he said. "The media takes (inconclusive) information that only suggests there could be a climate problem and turns it into an environmental catastrophe," said Harris. "They continually say we only have 10 years left, and they've been saying it for 20 years, and it's ridiculous," he said. "The only reason I got involved in talking to media is that I think our resources are being mismanaged. "Go after something real and tangible like air pollution."
After hearing a second scientist say climate change is part of a natural cycle, Elaine Kennedy - a local environmental activist - is interested in investigating the issue further. She looks forward to examining scientific reports that will be published in a couple of months by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "The problem may not be climate change, but the problem is still pollution," said Kennedy.
She's not alone in her assertion global warming is a pollution problem. David Phillips, a senior government environment expert, believes there is more than one contributing factor to global warming. There's a human element, as well as natural cycles.
Difficult to convince
"I'm a man that's difficult to convince," he said. "What convinces me is the large body of evidence, and highly reputable people promoting global warming, who are not lobbyists, but only seeking truth in science. They say the the earth is warming up faster and greater now than in the past." People who are contradicting the global warming reality, Phillip thinks, have their own motives for doing so. "These skeptics are keeping the debate alive (for their own interests). They try to confuse people into inaction," said Phillips. Phillips believes global warming is solvable. "We solved the ozone and acid rain problem. With effort, and a new way of doing things we could solve this one too," said Phillips.
Peter
Printed from www.standard-freeholder.com web site Friday, April 27, 2007 - © 2007 Cornwall Standard Freeholder
Global warming debate 'irrational': scientists say
Stephanie Stein
Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 10:00 Local News - The current debate about global warming is "completely irrational," and people need to start taking a different approach, say two Ottawa scientists. Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson said global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet. Patterson said much of the up-to-date research indicates that "changes in the brightness of the sun" are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 19th century. Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate, he said. "I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," said Patterson. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."
Patterson explained CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential plant food. Billions of taxpayers' dollars are spent to control the emissions of this benign gas, in the mistaken belief that they can stop climate change, he said. "The only constant about climate is change," said Patterson. Patterson said money could be better spent on places like Africa. "All the money wasted on Kyoto in a year could provide clean drinking water for Africa," said Patterson. "We're into a new era of science with the discussion of solar forces. Eventually, Kyoto is going to fall by the wayside. In the meantime, I'm worried we're going to spend millions that could have been spent on something better like air pollution."
Tom Harris, executive director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project - an organization that attempts to debunk some of the popular beliefs about climate change - supported Patterson's findings. Global warming assertions are based on inconclusive evidence put forth in science reports that had not been published yet, he said. "The media takes (inconclusive) information that only suggests there could be a climate problem and turns it into an environmental catastrophe," said Harris. "They continually say we only have 10 years left, and they've been saying it for 20 years, and it's ridiculous," he said. "The only reason I got involved in talking to media is that I think our resources are being mismanaged. "Go after something real and tangible like air pollution."
After hearing a second scientist say climate change is part of a natural cycle, Elaine Kennedy - a local environmental activist - is interested in investigating the issue further. She looks forward to examining scientific reports that will be published in a couple of months by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "The problem may not be climate change, but the problem is still pollution," said Kennedy.
She's not alone in her assertion global warming is a pollution problem. David Phillips, a senior government environment expert, believes there is more than one contributing factor to global warming. There's a human element, as well as natural cycles.
Difficult to convince
"I'm a man that's difficult to convince," he said. "What convinces me is the large body of evidence, and highly reputable people promoting global warming, who are not lobbyists, but only seeking truth in science. They say the the earth is warming up faster and greater now than in the past." People who are contradicting the global warming reality, Phillip thinks, have their own motives for doing so. "These skeptics are keeping the debate alive (for their own interests). They try to confuse people into inaction," said Phillips. Phillips believes global warming is solvable. "We solved the ozone and acid rain problem. With effort, and a new way of doing things we could solve this one too," said Phillips.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Unveils Her Agenda
Here we have it straight from the horse's mouth, I mean House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. All of us scientific skeptics who doubt the connection between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming might just as well give in, shut up, and pay up; because Nancy Pelosi says so.
She uses all the proper emotional catch phrases, "our beautiful planet", "carbon footprint", "the science of global warming", "sustainable harvest", and "future generations". She even brings God into play, in a smart move to get religious people to join the ranks of the true believer environmentalists. Am I the only one trying to stifle my gag reflex while reading this? The next thing you know Sheryl Crowe will be telling Congress about her ideas for saving the environment.
There are so many absurdities in this kind of logic I barely know where to begin. First, there is absolutely no scientific "consensus" that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming and catastrophic climate change. To state that the debate is over is simply a big LIE. Ignorance can sometimes be excused, but lying cannot.
Have any of these saviors of our "beautiful planet" considered the ramifications of not burning coal to generate electricity? We can reduce demand a little bit, maybe, even without Al Gore cutting his usage, but what are we going to use to generate all the electricity we can not do without? Burn more natural gas? Where is that going to come from? There's not enough, and oh, I forgot, that releases CO2 also. Maybe hydro-electric power......how long does it take to build a few hundred dams, and where are they going to be? Solar power, and wind power? Where, at what cost, and how much can they reasonable contribute. Not near enough. Then there is nuclear energy. Some say it takes TEN YEARS to build one plant. How long can we hold our breaths?
Oh, of course we must reduce our "dependence on foreign oil". I've been hearing that for 40 years, and all that happens is that we become more and more dependent. It is like saying we "must" improve education, and provide health care for all, and reduce crime. Yes, yes......of course Ms. Pelosi, we agree with you. This is just more political hot air. All it is going to mean is a higher cost of electricity, fuel, food, and nearly every other commodity you can think of. We're still going to need foreign oil, but we're not going to have the money to pay for it. That's the real global danger in what these people are proposing. Any comments? Let's hear it folks.
Peter
Democrats Declare July 4 'Energy Independence Day'
By Susan Jones CNSNews.com Senior Editor April 26, 2007(CNSNews.com) -
"Global warming is "one of humanity's greatest challenges," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared on Wednesday. She said House Democrats are "working diligently" on legislation to address global warming challenges, and they expect to unveil their proposals by July 4, which she called "Energy Independence Day."
Speaking at a League of Conservation Voters' dinner in Washington Wednesday evening, Pelosi said future generations "must be first and foremost in our minds as we consider the conclusions of the scientific community: the planet is warming, human activity is responsible, and the effects are already evident around us."
She said the House will lead by example: "It is time for Congress to act on its own carbon footprint," she said, applauding Sen. Barbara Boxer for getting key offices to switch to energy efficient lighting and introducing legislation that will promote energy efficiency in federal buildings."Just last week, I was proud to join other House leaders in announcing a 'Green the Capitol Initiative,' which will result in us operating the House in a carbon neutral manner at the earliest possible date, but certainly by the end of the 110th Congress," Pelosi said."We will adopt innovative solutions, such as purchasing 100 percent renewable electric power, ensuring wood for our furniture is sustainably harvested, and conducting a comprehensive review of our recycling initiative," Pelosi said.
She said Democrats want to convert the Capitol Power Plant to a combined heat and power system and improve the House office building ventilation system. She did not give a cost estimate."It is so exciting to stand before you as Speaker of the House and know that because of all our hard work together, we have elected a Congress that takes real action on behalf of our beautiful planet," Pelosi said. "The days of rejecting the science of global warming are over, as are the days of standing idly by."
Pelosi concluded with a reference to the Old Testament: "To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us."
Some critics have accused liberal Democrats of putting global warming on a par with religion, just as Pelosi did on Wednesday. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs a new House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said last week that climate change is a national security issue.
At the inaugural hearing of the panel he chairs, Markey urged forceful action to "curb our dangerous dependence on imported oil and reduce our emissions of global warming pollution." But Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the ranking Republican on the select committee, has urged a "common-sense" approach to "big questions" about mankind's contribution to recent climate fluctuations."I believe we should continue to foster a healthy economic climate, and at the same time, make responsible decisions and seek innovations to lessen our impact on the global climate," Sensenbrenner said in news release last month."
'Let's Be Responsible' may not grab headlines like 'The Sky is Falling,' but it has the virtue of being correct. It also recognizes that there are two climates this panel, and Congress, have to be concerned with. One is environmental, and the other is economic."
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a leading skeptic of the nation that human activity is impacting the climate, has called global warming the most "media-hyped environmental issue of all time."Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief.
She uses all the proper emotional catch phrases, "our beautiful planet", "carbon footprint", "the science of global warming", "sustainable harvest", and "future generations". She even brings God into play, in a smart move to get religious people to join the ranks of the true believer environmentalists. Am I the only one trying to stifle my gag reflex while reading this? The next thing you know Sheryl Crowe will be telling Congress about her ideas for saving the environment.
There are so many absurdities in this kind of logic I barely know where to begin. First, there is absolutely no scientific "consensus" that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming and catastrophic climate change. To state that the debate is over is simply a big LIE. Ignorance can sometimes be excused, but lying cannot.
Have any of these saviors of our "beautiful planet" considered the ramifications of not burning coal to generate electricity? We can reduce demand a little bit, maybe, even without Al Gore cutting his usage, but what are we going to use to generate all the electricity we can not do without? Burn more natural gas? Where is that going to come from? There's not enough, and oh, I forgot, that releases CO2 also. Maybe hydro-electric power......how long does it take to build a few hundred dams, and where are they going to be? Solar power, and wind power? Where, at what cost, and how much can they reasonable contribute. Not near enough. Then there is nuclear energy. Some say it takes TEN YEARS to build one plant. How long can we hold our breaths?
Oh, of course we must reduce our "dependence on foreign oil". I've been hearing that for 40 years, and all that happens is that we become more and more dependent. It is like saying we "must" improve education, and provide health care for all, and reduce crime. Yes, yes......of course Ms. Pelosi, we agree with you. This is just more political hot air. All it is going to mean is a higher cost of electricity, fuel, food, and nearly every other commodity you can think of. We're still going to need foreign oil, but we're not going to have the money to pay for it. That's the real global danger in what these people are proposing. Any comments? Let's hear it folks.
Peter
Democrats Declare July 4 'Energy Independence Day'
By Susan Jones CNSNews.com Senior Editor April 26, 2007(CNSNews.com) -
"Global warming is "one of humanity's greatest challenges," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared on Wednesday. She said House Democrats are "working diligently" on legislation to address global warming challenges, and they expect to unveil their proposals by July 4, which she called "Energy Independence Day."
Speaking at a League of Conservation Voters' dinner in Washington Wednesday evening, Pelosi said future generations "must be first and foremost in our minds as we consider the conclusions of the scientific community: the planet is warming, human activity is responsible, and the effects are already evident around us."
She said the House will lead by example: "It is time for Congress to act on its own carbon footprint," she said, applauding Sen. Barbara Boxer for getting key offices to switch to energy efficient lighting and introducing legislation that will promote energy efficiency in federal buildings."Just last week, I was proud to join other House leaders in announcing a 'Green the Capitol Initiative,' which will result in us operating the House in a carbon neutral manner at the earliest possible date, but certainly by the end of the 110th Congress," Pelosi said."We will adopt innovative solutions, such as purchasing 100 percent renewable electric power, ensuring wood for our furniture is sustainably harvested, and conducting a comprehensive review of our recycling initiative," Pelosi said.
She said Democrats want to convert the Capitol Power Plant to a combined heat and power system and improve the House office building ventilation system. She did not give a cost estimate."It is so exciting to stand before you as Speaker of the House and know that because of all our hard work together, we have elected a Congress that takes real action on behalf of our beautiful planet," Pelosi said. "The days of rejecting the science of global warming are over, as are the days of standing idly by."
Pelosi concluded with a reference to the Old Testament: "To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us."
Some critics have accused liberal Democrats of putting global warming on a par with religion, just as Pelosi did on Wednesday. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs a new House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said last week that climate change is a national security issue.
At the inaugural hearing of the panel he chairs, Markey urged forceful action to "curb our dangerous dependence on imported oil and reduce our emissions of global warming pollution." But Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the ranking Republican on the select committee, has urged a "common-sense" approach to "big questions" about mankind's contribution to recent climate fluctuations."I believe we should continue to foster a healthy economic climate, and at the same time, make responsible decisions and seek innovations to lessen our impact on the global climate," Sensenbrenner said in news release last month."
'Let's Be Responsible' may not grab headlines like 'The Sky is Falling,' but it has the virtue of being correct. It also recognizes that there are two climates this panel, and Congress, have to be concerned with. One is environmental, and the other is economic."
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a leading skeptic of the nation that human activity is impacting the climate, has called global warming the most "media-hyped environmental issue of all time."Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The Scientific System.....Why We Should Be Skeptical About Global Warming
This is partly why we scientists can be skeptical about global warming.....any opinions?
Peter
ChitownMatt
Please explain what peer-reviewed means. Does that mean some editor agrees with the article? Follow the money.......Do you not believe this?
Every scientist in every field knows that when they're being paid to do a study they had better come up with something that will make the people paying the bill happy. Any graduate student knows they had better make their Thesis Advisor happy or they are not going to graduate and get their degree.
You think all global warming skeptics are bought and paid for by big oil? What about climate modelers being paid for by NASA, NOAA? What about everyone seeking grant money? Nothing attracts grant money like a crisis. The more hysterical and urgent the better. I'm not calling these people liars, they're doing what they have to do to survive in our system. People who have been around in the scientific community for a while know this all too well.
Read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear", he explains this very well. And before you dismiss him as a mere fiction writer, as Al Gore didn't in his Senate testimony, consider that Crichton is an M.D., a doctor. He has more knowledge of science in his little fingernail than Gore does in his entire being.
Peter
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Global Warming: More On Following The MONEY
Here is another article on the politics and economics of global warming. The more I learn about this whole issue the more appalled I become. Making a little fun about Sheryl Crowe, other Hollywood hypocrites, and Al Gore, is kind of missing the bigger point. This is a serious issue, not just because life on Earth will not come to any quick end because of global warming, and not just because the public is being fooled and misled, but because the laws being proposed are going to waste billions, if not trillions of dollars. Money far better spend elsewhere.
Peter
On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!
Monday , February 12, 2007By David Asman
It takes a certain kind of gumption to stand up to the status quo.Folks who challenge the mainstream media and popular culture are subjected to some of the nastiest insults and character assassinations. And such retribution is nowhere more severe than for those who take issue with popular views about global warming.
There are a number of very bright climatologists and meteorologists out there who believe that this century’s warming trend is neither critical nor man made. Now you can agree or disagree with these folks. But you can’t pretend that these folks are crazies or ill informed or just in it for the money. They believe that the models used by the “We’re all going to die!” global warming worriers are far too severe and fail to take enough natural factors into consideration in their climate models. For their audacity to take on the status quo, they have been censured, excoriated and labeled as lackeys for the oil companies.
So who are these folks? Well, it turns out that on the whole they are just a bunch of number-crunching scientists who have been doing their work for years for the love of what they do, rather than the thrill of celebrity status. They include (but are by no means limited to) folks like Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor, Alabama State climatologist John Christy, Colorado State climatologist William Gray and Alabama meteorologist James Spann.
Mr. Spann was particularly upset with the charge that only those with ties to big oil could argue the way he and his colleagues do. In fact, he says, the truth is exactly the opposite: “Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon … Nothing wrong with making money at all. But when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.”
Click here to read the entire blog.Mr. Spann’s suspicions were born out in a terrific bit of investigative journalism by two of my own colleagues here at FOX News, George Russell and Claudia Rosett. In the course of investigating a high United Nation
Peter
ChitownMatt
Please explain what peer-reviewed means. Does that mean some editor agrees with the article? Follow the money.......Do you not believe this?
Every scientist in every field knows that when they're being paid to do a study they had better come up with something that will make the people paying the bill happy. Any graduate student knows they had better make their Thesis Advisor happy or they are not going to graduate and get their degree.
You think all global warming skeptics are bought and paid for by big oil? What about climate modelers being paid for by NASA, NOAA? What about everyone seeking grant money? Nothing attracts grant money like a crisis. The more hysterical and urgent the better. I'm not calling these people liars, they're doing what they have to do to survive in our system. People who have been around in the scientific community for a while know this all too well.
Read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear", he explains this very well. And before you dismiss him as a mere fiction writer, as Al Gore didn't in his Senate testimony, consider that Crichton is an M.D., a doctor. He has more knowledge of science in his little fingernail than Gore does in his entire being.
Peter
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Global Warming: More On Following The MONEY
Here is another article on the politics and economics of global warming. The more I learn about this whole issue the more appalled I become. Making a little fun about Sheryl Crowe, other Hollywood hypocrites, and Al Gore, is kind of missing the bigger point. This is a serious issue, not just because life on Earth will not come to any quick end because of global warming, and not just because the public is being fooled and misled, but because the laws being proposed are going to waste billions, if not trillions of dollars. Money far better spend elsewhere.
Peter
On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!
Monday , February 12, 2007By David Asman
It takes a certain kind of gumption to stand up to the status quo.Folks who challenge the mainstream media and popular culture are subjected to some of the nastiest insults and character assassinations. And such retribution is nowhere more severe than for those who take issue with popular views about global warming.
There are a number of very bright climatologists and meteorologists out there who believe that this century’s warming trend is neither critical nor man made. Now you can agree or disagree with these folks. But you can’t pretend that these folks are crazies or ill informed or just in it for the money. They believe that the models used by the “We’re all going to die!” global warming worriers are far too severe and fail to take enough natural factors into consideration in their climate models. For their audacity to take on the status quo, they have been censured, excoriated and labeled as lackeys for the oil companies.
So who are these folks? Well, it turns out that on the whole they are just a bunch of number-crunching scientists who have been doing their work for years for the love of what they do, rather than the thrill of celebrity status. They include (but are by no means limited to) folks like Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor, Alabama State climatologist John Christy, Colorado State climatologist William Gray and Alabama meteorologist James Spann.
Mr. Spann was particularly upset with the charge that only those with ties to big oil could argue the way he and his colleagues do. In fact, he says, the truth is exactly the opposite: “Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon … Nothing wrong with making money at all. But when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.”
Click here to read the entire blog.Mr. Spann’s suspicions were born out in a terrific bit of investigative journalism by two of my own colleagues here at FOX News, George Russell and Claudia Rosett. In the course of investigating a high United Nation
Climate Models.....Are Just That....Models, Not Proven
To All,
I can't comment personally on the validity of the climate modeler's computer programs. I'm not a programmer, not a mathematician, statistician, or magician. I do know the meaning of the saying about computer programs, "garbage in...garbage out". I know enough about those things to know lots of games can be played with numbers in order to arrive at a pre-conceived notions. And as sure as I know the Earth revolves around the sun I think they're wrong about the causes of climate change and global warming.
I listen to scientists who have studied global climate for a long time, and I trust what I've seen with my own eyes.....(the history of the rocks and sediments and landforms around us and around the world, on all continents). Computer models are just that, models, ideas, what-ifs...... In my opinion, along with many others, it is ridiculous and dangerous to make public policy on such flimsy so-called science. And to ram it down people's throats through scare tactics and with politicians and celebrities making a circus out of it is absurd. Time will tell, truth will prevail. Make sure you have a lifeboat when the ship of man-made global warming starts to flounder.
Peter
I can't comment personally on the validity of the climate modeler's computer programs. I'm not a programmer, not a mathematician, statistician, or magician. I do know the meaning of the saying about computer programs, "garbage in...garbage out". I know enough about those things to know lots of games can be played with numbers in order to arrive at a pre-conceived notions. And as sure as I know the Earth revolves around the sun I think they're wrong about the causes of climate change and global warming.
I listen to scientists who have studied global climate for a long time, and I trust what I've seen with my own eyes.....(the history of the rocks and sediments and landforms around us and around the world, on all continents). Computer models are just that, models, ideas, what-ifs...... In my opinion, along with many others, it is ridiculous and dangerous to make public policy on such flimsy so-called science. And to ram it down people's throats through scare tactics and with politicians and celebrities making a circus out of it is absurd. Time will tell, truth will prevail. Make sure you have a lifeboat when the ship of man-made global warming starts to flounder.
Peter
Global Warming: More On Following The MONEY
Here is another article on the politics and economics of global warming. The more I learn about this whole issue the more appalled I become. Making a little fun about Sheryl Crowe, other Hollywood hypocrites, and Al Gore, is kind of missing the bigger point. This is a serious issue, not just because life on Earth will not come to any quick end because of global warming, and not just because the public is being fooled and misled, but because the laws being proposed are going to waste billions, if not trillions of dollars. Money far better spend elsewhere.
Peter
On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!
Monday , February 12, 2007
By David Asman
It takes a certain kind of gumption to stand up to the status quo.
Folks who challenge the mainstream media and popular culture are subjected to some of the nastiest insults and character assassinations. And such retribution is nowhere more severe than for those who take issue with popular views about global warming.
There are a number of very bright climatologists and meteorologists out there who believe that this century’s warming trend is neither critical nor man made. Now you can agree or disagree with these folks. But you can’t pretend that these folks are crazies or ill informed or just in it for the money. They believe that the models used by the “We’re all going to die!” global warming worriers are far too severe and fail to take enough natural factors into consideration in their climate models. For their audacity to take on the status quo, they have been censured, excoriated and labeled as lackeys for the oil companies.
So who are these folks? Well, it turns out that on the whole they are just a bunch of number-crunching scientists who have been doing their work for years for the love of what they do, rather than the thrill of celebrity status. They include (but are by no means limited to) folks like Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor, Alabama State climatologist John Christy, Colorado State climatologist William Gray and Alabama meteorologist James Spann.
Mr. Spann was particularly upset with the charge that only those with ties to big oil could argue the way he and his colleagues do. In fact, he says, the truth is exactly the opposite: “Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon … Nothing wrong with making money at all. But when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.” Click here to read the entire blog.
Mr. Spann’s suspicions were born out in a terrific bit of investigative journalism by two of my own colleagues here at FOX News, George Russell and Claudia Rosett. In the course of investigating a high United Nations official, one who has become something of a hero to the global warming worriers, they found that the official’s motivations may not have been entirely altruistic. Click here to read their full report.
Maurice Strong is a founding director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), a division of the U.N. that has grown into a bureaucratic monstrosity with an annual budget of $136 million. Mr. Strong left his post at UNEP in the 1970s but kept his ecological credentials and helped organize a 1992 environmental summit in Rio de Janeiro, which become the forerunner of the Kyoto Accords. While Strong has spent a lifetime parlaying his UN contacts into business associations, nowhere has he done so more successfully than with his ecological “credentials.”
Recently Strong has been spending most of his time in China, where he’s been linked, among other things, to planned attempts to market Chinese-made automobiles in North America. But his presence there raises some awkward questions for Russell and Rosett: “For one thing, China, while one of the world’s biggest producers of industrial pollution, has been profiting from the trading of carbon emissions credits – thanks to heavily politicized U.N.-backed environmental deals engineered by Strong in the 1990s.”
Could Mr. Strong be benefiting from deals that he helped put together while he was working at the U.N.? We don’t know. What we do know is that Mr. Strong is now on voluntary leave from the U.N. while questions are sorted out concerning a $1 million check that was passed to him by South Korean businessman Tongsun Park, who was convicted last summer in New York Federal Court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials on behalf of Baghdad.
Now the Maurice Strong story, however it sorts itself out, is not to say that all or even most of the heroes in the global-warming-worriers network are spreading the message just to get rich. I’m sure that they are mostly good people who believe in their views just as sincerely as those on the opposite side. But the ad hominem charges hurled at global warming skeptics, particularly the charge that they’re just in it for the money, can just as easily be hurled right back at some very prominent proponents of the other side of the debate.
Billions of dollars have been invested so far in studying climate change ($20 billion from the Bush administration alone), and very little of that money has landed in the laps of those outside of the global warming orthodoxy. As weatherman James Spann says: “I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.” The only problem is that would leave out an enormous number of scientists who have already cashed in on it.
David Asman is the host of "Forbes on FOX" which airs on the FOX News Channel, Saturdays at 11 a.m. ET.
/**/
Peter
On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!
Monday , February 12, 2007
By David Asman
It takes a certain kind of gumption to stand up to the status quo.
Folks who challenge the mainstream media and popular culture are subjected to some of the nastiest insults and character assassinations. And such retribution is nowhere more severe than for those who take issue with popular views about global warming.
There are a number of very bright climatologists and meteorologists out there who believe that this century’s warming trend is neither critical nor man made. Now you can agree or disagree with these folks. But you can’t pretend that these folks are crazies or ill informed or just in it for the money. They believe that the models used by the “We’re all going to die!” global warming worriers are far too severe and fail to take enough natural factors into consideration in their climate models. For their audacity to take on the status quo, they have been censured, excoriated and labeled as lackeys for the oil companies.
So who are these folks? Well, it turns out that on the whole they are just a bunch of number-crunching scientists who have been doing their work for years for the love of what they do, rather than the thrill of celebrity status. They include (but are by no means limited to) folks like Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor, Alabama State climatologist John Christy, Colorado State climatologist William Gray and Alabama meteorologist James Spann.
Mr. Spann was particularly upset with the charge that only those with ties to big oil could argue the way he and his colleagues do. In fact, he says, the truth is exactly the opposite: “Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon … Nothing wrong with making money at all. But when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.” Click here to read the entire blog.
Mr. Spann’s suspicions were born out in a terrific bit of investigative journalism by two of my own colleagues here at FOX News, George Russell and Claudia Rosett. In the course of investigating a high United Nations official, one who has become something of a hero to the global warming worriers, they found that the official’s motivations may not have been entirely altruistic. Click here to read their full report.
Maurice Strong is a founding director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), a division of the U.N. that has grown into a bureaucratic monstrosity with an annual budget of $136 million. Mr. Strong left his post at UNEP in the 1970s but kept his ecological credentials and helped organize a 1992 environmental summit in Rio de Janeiro, which become the forerunner of the Kyoto Accords. While Strong has spent a lifetime parlaying his UN contacts into business associations, nowhere has he done so more successfully than with his ecological “credentials.”
Recently Strong has been spending most of his time in China, where he’s been linked, among other things, to planned attempts to market Chinese-made automobiles in North America. But his presence there raises some awkward questions for Russell and Rosett: “For one thing, China, while one of the world’s biggest producers of industrial pollution, has been profiting from the trading of carbon emissions credits – thanks to heavily politicized U.N.-backed environmental deals engineered by Strong in the 1990s.”
Could Mr. Strong be benefiting from deals that he helped put together while he was working at the U.N.? We don’t know. What we do know is that Mr. Strong is now on voluntary leave from the U.N. while questions are sorted out concerning a $1 million check that was passed to him by South Korean businessman Tongsun Park, who was convicted last summer in New York Federal Court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials on behalf of Baghdad.
Now the Maurice Strong story, however it sorts itself out, is not to say that all or even most of the heroes in the global-warming-worriers network are spreading the message just to get rich. I’m sure that they are mostly good people who believe in their views just as sincerely as those on the opposite side. But the ad hominem charges hurled at global warming skeptics, particularly the charge that they’re just in it for the money, can just as easily be hurled right back at some very prominent proponents of the other side of the debate.
Billions of dollars have been invested so far in studying climate change ($20 billion from the Bush administration alone), and very little of that money has landed in the laps of those outside of the global warming orthodoxy. As weatherman James Spann says: “I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.” The only problem is that would leave out an enormous number of scientists who have already cashed in on it.
David Asman is the host of "Forbes on FOX" which airs on the FOX News Channel, Saturdays at 11 a.m. ET.
/**/
Sheryl Crowe- "ONE SQUARE FOR YOUR DERRIERE"
Thank you Sheryl Crowe for your creative solution to global warming. You make Al Gore look like a genius. But you didn't stop there, here is another quotation from your website about an even more brilliant idea for saving our forests and preventing global warming:
"I also like the idea of not using paper napkins, which happen to be made from
virgin wood and represent the height of wastefulness. I have designed a clothing
line that has what's called a "dining sleeve." The sleeve is detachable and can
be replaced with another "dining sleeve," after usage. The design will offer the
"diner" the convenience of wiping his mouth on his sleeve rather than throwing
out yet another barely used paper product. I think this idea could also
translate quite well to those suffering with an annoying head cold."I'm so stunned by Ms. Crowe's understanding of global warming and her "solutions" I don't know what to say. Maybe some of my readers can help me out. Please try to be polite, children might be reading this.
Peter
MIKE LESTER'S KILLED CARTOON
Do you think Mike's potty humor cartoon (below) should have been killed? E-mail us and let us know. Here are Mike's comments for the blog:
I didn't contribute anything to the recently published "Killed Cartoons" compilation because it rarely happens and hopefully, I usually kill my bad ideas. But today was different. First, I was surprised when I saw no cartoonists weigh in on the Sheryl Crowe suggestion of, "ONE SQUARE FOR YOUR DERRIERE" as one british publication put it. Frankly, for a conservative like me who loves whacking celebs, it was a "batting practice" fastball story.
The original Ms. Crowe's blog entry can be found here.
An excerpt:
"I propose a limitation be put on how many sqares [sic] of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. When presenting this idea to my younger brother, who's judgement [sic] I trust implicitly, he proposed taking it one step further. I believe his quote was, 'how bout just washing the one square out.'"
Now, if you're a cartoonist and you've already drawn polar bears stranded on a tiny ice berg and the earth as a well done piece of meat on W's grill you've pretty much cast your Global Warming ticket. Me? Not so much. So I penned the cartoon below and for one very big reason was killed: Potty humor. C'est la vie.
Mike Lester
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Links to Information on Global Warming
[Google Video] - The Great Global Warming Swindle
[Powerlineblog] - The Great Global Warming Swindle
[Third Host] - The Great Global Warming Swindle
{YouTube] - Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off
Man-made Global Warming - So What If It's a Hoax? By Geoffrey P. Hunt
EARTH IN THE BALANCE Don't Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming. BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
FREE INQUIRY Climate of Fear Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence. BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock By James Lewis
[PDF] - Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth One-sided, Misleading, Exaggerated, Speculative, Wrong By Marlo Lewis, Jr.
Gorey Truths 25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore. By Iain Murray
Chill out over global warming By David Harsanyi
HOT & COLD MEDIA SPIN CYCLE: A CHALLENGE TO JOURNALISTS WHO COVER GLOBAL WARMING SENATOR JAMES INHOFE CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? By Timothy Ball
There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 By Bob Carter
Resisting Global Warming Panic By J.R. Dunn
A Necessary Apocalypse By J.R. Dunn
GORE'S HOT AIR FLAKY FLICK SUFFERS FROM 'TRUTH' DECAY by Kyle Smith
ALL THAT HOT AIR IS BAD FOR EARTH by Kyle Smith
Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth By Marlo Lewis
Gore's flying visit questioned
Group questions level of energy use at Gore home High electric billing records show 'green power' also was purchased By ANNE PAINE
Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth” Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average
GORE CRITICIZED FOR HIGH ENERGY BILL
Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- $30,000 utility bill
Gore Responds to Charges His House Uses Too Much Electricity
A Modest Proposal to Eco-Celebs Clarice Feldman
Green Power Switch®
Gore may get doctorate By Elena Rozwadowski
Al Gore rains on his party Andrew Bolt
Celebs Who Claim They're Green but Guzzle Gas
Citadel, Shaw, Tudor Shun Global Warming as Short Sales Climb
Say what? The report on global warming you didn't hear about BY TARA SERVATIUS
The IPCC Should Leave Science to Scientists By Marc Sheppard
Global warming activists turn storms into spin
FOX News Poll: Most Americans Believe in Global Warming By Dana Rohinsky
Global Warming Effects Could Be Seen in 10 Years Giant Mirrors to Deflect Sun Suggested as a Possible Solution
AMS CERTIFIED WEATHERMAN STRIKES BACK AT WEATHER CHANNEL CALL FOR DECERTIFICATION
Remember Global Cooling? Why scientists find climate change so hard to predict. By Jerry Adler
[PDF 1975] - Newsweek: The Cooling World
Amazing Mars picture show planet's 'dramatic climate changes'
Cosmic rays blamed for global warming By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed! By David Asman
Who's Afraid of Global Warming? By J.R. Dunn
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged
Del. global warming skeptic stands pat State climatologist on opposite side of governor in court case By JEFF MONTGOMERY
Del. scientist's view on climate criticized Ties to big oil, industry-funded lobbies draw criticism By JEFF MONTGOMERY
NOT THAT SIMPLE GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT WE DON'T KNOW By ROY W. SPENCER
Al Gore, Global warming, Inconvenient Truth Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe "The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists By Tom Harris
Harper's letter dismisses Kyoto as 'socialist scheme'
AEI Critiques of Warming Questioned Think Tank Defends Money Offers to Challenge Climate Report By Juliet Eilperin
Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural, Moderate
The real deal? Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Climatologist Timothy Ball sends PhD to
[Powerlineblog] - The Great Global Warming Swindle
[Third Host] - The Great Global Warming Swindle
{YouTube] - Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off
Man-made Global Warming - So What If It's a Hoax? By Geoffrey P. Hunt
EARTH IN THE BALANCE Don't Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming. BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
FREE INQUIRY Climate of Fear Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence. BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock By James Lewis
[PDF] - Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth One-sided, Misleading, Exaggerated, Speculative, Wrong By Marlo Lewis, Jr.
Gorey Truths 25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore. By Iain Murray
Chill out over global warming By David Harsanyi
HOT & COLD MEDIA SPIN CYCLE: A CHALLENGE TO JOURNALISTS WHO COVER GLOBAL WARMING SENATOR JAMES INHOFE CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? By Timothy Ball
There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 By Bob Carter
Resisting Global Warming Panic By J.R. Dunn
A Necessary Apocalypse By J.R. Dunn
GORE'S HOT AIR FLAKY FLICK SUFFERS FROM 'TRUTH' DECAY by Kyle Smith
ALL THAT HOT AIR IS BAD FOR EARTH by Kyle Smith
Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth By Marlo Lewis
Gore's flying visit questioned
Group questions level of energy use at Gore home High electric billing records show 'green power' also was purchased By ANNE PAINE
Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth” Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average
GORE CRITICIZED FOR HIGH ENERGY BILL
Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- $30,000 utility bill
Gore Responds to Charges His House Uses Too Much Electricity
A Modest Proposal to Eco-Celebs Clarice Feldman
Green Power Switch®
Gore may get doctorate By Elena Rozwadowski
Al Gore rains on his party Andrew Bolt
Celebs Who Claim They're Green but Guzzle Gas
Citadel, Shaw, Tudor Shun Global Warming as Short Sales Climb
Say what? The report on global warming you didn't hear about BY TARA SERVATIUS
The IPCC Should Leave Science to Scientists By Marc Sheppard
Global warming activists turn storms into spin
FOX News Poll: Most Americans Believe in Global Warming By Dana Rohinsky
Global Warming Effects Could Be Seen in 10 Years Giant Mirrors to Deflect Sun Suggested as a Possible Solution
AMS CERTIFIED WEATHERMAN STRIKES BACK AT WEATHER CHANNEL CALL FOR DECERTIFICATION
Remember Global Cooling? Why scientists find climate change so hard to predict. By Jerry Adler
[PDF 1975] - Newsweek: The Cooling World
Amazing Mars picture show planet's 'dramatic climate changes'
Cosmic rays blamed for global warming By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed! By David Asman
Who's Afraid of Global Warming? By J.R. Dunn
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged
Del. global warming skeptic stands pat State climatologist on opposite side of governor in court case By JEFF MONTGOMERY
Del. scientist's view on climate criticized Ties to big oil, industry-funded lobbies draw criticism By JEFF MONTGOMERY
NOT THAT SIMPLE GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT WE DON'T KNOW By ROY W. SPENCER
Al Gore, Global warming, Inconvenient Truth Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe "The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists By Tom Harris
Harper's letter dismisses Kyoto as 'socialist scheme'
AEI Critiques of Warming Questioned Think Tank Defends Money Offers to Challenge Climate Report By Juliet Eilperin
Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural, Moderate
The real deal? Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Climatologist Timothy Ball sends PhD to
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)