🚀 go-pugleaf

Daniel Packman wrote:
> In article <pDmAd.1688993$SM5.135099@news.easynews.com>,
> Sam Stone  <sirian@mental.org> wrote:
> 
>>Daniel Packman wrote:
> 
> 
>  
> 
>>>>That unseats the pseudo scientists who'd grab the eco-high ground and 
>>>>claim fossil fuels to be the root of all warming.
> 
>  
> 
>>>The numbers now are pretty clear.
> 
> 
>>Lol!
> 
> 
>>Oh are they???
> 
> 
> The results summarized are from the EPA and backed by actual
> research and actual numbers. Do you have *specific* reasons
> to question these results? Have you done some calculations
> that the research community should be aware of?

Do you really intend to set the EPA as the final arbiter of all research 
on global warming?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com

Global cooling, everywhere
By STEPHEN STRAUSS

 From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

For Canadians who have spent the summer asking where summer has gone, 
new satellite observations show we're not alone.

According to an analysis by scientists at the University of Alabama at 
Huntsville, July was the coldest worldwide since 1992. That year's cool 
spell was precipitated by the eruption of the Philippine volcano 
Pinatubo, which spewed 20 to 30 million tonnes of sunlight-deflecting 
dust into the atmosphere.

Scientists astonished by underwater eruption

Associated Press

Tuesday, June 08, 2004

Washington � Hoping to learn more about undersea volcanoes, scientists 
sent a camera-equipped submarine down to take a look. They got more than 
they bargained for, witnessing a deep-sea eruption.

�At first we really didn't understand what was going on,� said Bob 
Embley, chief scientist on the mission, which involved nearly three 
dozen researchers.

�We were seeing billowing clouds coming up and turning yellow.

http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/newsroom/pr.cfm?ni=15300000000132

�Of all the components of climate change, the aerosol indirect effect 
has the greatest potential cooling effect, yet quantitative estimates 
are highly uncertain,� said Nenes. �We need to get more rigorous and 
accurate representation of how particles modify cloud properties. Until 
the aerosol indirect effect is well understood, society is incapable of 
assessing its impact on future climate.�

Current computer climate models can�t accurately predict cloud 
formation, which, in turn, hinders their ability to forecast climate 
change from human activities.

The indirect aerosol effect is counteracting greenhouse warming now, but 
will stop at some point, Nenes explained. �One of our goals is to figure 
out how long we�ll have this cooling effect so we can respond to changes.�

> 
> 
>>>"most of the warming is over the last 50 years is attributable to
>>>human activites."
>>>http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html
> 
> 
>>Funny there is no mention in the increased frequency of undersea 
>>volcanism and its impact on the global conveyor...
> 
> 
> So, what measurements are you using to characterize this over
> time? Have you calculated the energy budget of this mechanism?

http://www.scjai.com/technote143.html

A group of researchers from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 
California and elsewhere have suggested that large volcanic eruptions 
cooled the lower troposphere (the layer of atmosphere from the Earth's 
surface to roughly 8 km above it) more than the surface, and likely 
masked the actual warming of the troposphere. They reached this 
conclusion by examining temperature data from 1979 to 1999.

This research helps explain the apparent difference in warming rates at 
the Earth's surface and in the lower troposphere. While the surface has 
warmed markedly over the past 20 years, temperatures in the lower 
troposphere have shown little or no increase. This paradox has been the 
focus of considerable scientific and political debate.

The paper attempts to quantify volcanic influences on surface and 
tropospheric temperatures. However, the effects of volcanism are masked 
by the temperature changes caused by El Ni�o events. The eruption of El 
Chich�n in Mexico in 1982 coincided with a large El Ni�o event during 
the winter of 1982-83, while the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the 
Philippines in 1991 occurred at the same time as El Ni�o of 1991-92. To 
study volcanic effects on temperature, El Ni�o influences had to first 
be removed.

(oooh...here's a hint...guess what may have been fueling Pacific ocean 
warming? )

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/01/MNGEL5B7VE1.DTL

A puzzling heating trend on the bottom of the North Pacific has left 
oceanographers scratching their heads.

Since 1985, just south of the Aleutian Islands and about 3 miles beneath 
the waves, in a pitch-black realm haunted by "Finding Nemo"-style fish 
with nasty fangs and glowing antennae, the temperature has risen by a 
tiny fraction of a degree -- five-thousandths of a degree Centigrade, to 
be exact.

Sounds slight, right? But the temperature shouldn't be rising at all, or 
hardly at all, over such a geologically short time, according to 
respected computer models. The history of science shows that slight 
discrepancies occasionally lead to big discoveries, hence oceanographers 
are carefully scrutinizing the find.

"We find that the deepest waters of the North Pacific Ocean have warmed 
significantly across the entire width of the ocean basin," Japanese and 
Canadian scientists report in the current issue of the journal Nature.

...the Fukasawa finding indicates that computer models of ocean 
circulation -- which are vital for monitoring climate change -- are 
badly in need of a tuneup. The discovery was not explicitly predicted by 
any known computer models of ocean circulation.

...Normally, ocean currents circulate the heat vertically and 
horizontally throughout the sea, from pole to pole, much as cooling 
fluids circulate through a refrigerator or air conditioner.

A slight disruption in currents can bring climate change.

>>Funny there is all this attention paid to fossil fuels and not the 
>>slightest mention of that massive microwave transmitter in the northern 
>>attitudes known as HAARP.  ......
> 
> 
> So, what measurements are you using to characterize this over
> time? Have you calculated the energy budget of this mechanism?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0964881209/ref%3Dase%5Ffreedomdomain/102-1412126-9900938

In an age where people are concerned about global warming this is a very 
interesting concept - some of the HAARP technology can be used to heat 
up the ionosphere in order to bounce lasers off of it and back to earth.

http://www.earthpulse.com/haarp/wakeup.html

http://www.alaska.net/~logjam/HAARP.html

http://viewzone.com/haarp33.html

"The potential exists for generating such waves by ground-based heating 
of the ionosphere. The heater is used to modulate the conductivity of 
the lower ionosphere, which in turn modulates ionospheric currents. This 
modulated current, in effect, produces a virtual antenna in the 
ionosphere for the radiation of radio waves. The technique has already 
been used to generate ELF/VLF signals at a number of vertical HF heating 
facilities in the West and the Soviet Union.

>>Sorry, we've been down this path before and I suspect that despite any 
>>emissions we may have accelerated that the macro results we see today 
>>are largely pushed by natural phenomena and to an extent response to our 
>>presence. .....
> 
> 
> Thank you for your input.
> Your detailed research in this area will be given due weight.

Oh I kinda doubt it will be more than dismissed...

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0415gyre.html

A North Atlantic Ocean circulation system weakened considerably in the 
late 1990s, compared to the 1970s and 1980s, according to a NASA study.

http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/lec19.htm

Cold climate and glacier expansion during the Little Ice Age are 
documented from all continents (except Antarctica) and on major islands 
from New Zealand to Svalbard (Grove 1988). The best historical evidence 
comes from the Alps, Scandinavia, and Iceland. The Little Ice Age was 
not a single, uniformly cold climatic episode. Distinct variations in 
climate and in glacier activity took place on a regional basis. In 
Europe and North America, at least six phases of glacier expansion 
occurred and were separated by milder intervals.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/14/103443.shtml

WASHINGTON � Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels says fears of 
catastrophic global warming are scientifically unfounded and "alarmist."

Michaels outlined three periods of atmospheric change in the last 100 
years of U.S. history, noting a warming in the first part of the 20th 
century, a cooling in the middle part of the century and a warming in 
the latter part of the century.

The scientific proof that man could not affect our environment with 
emissions of greenhouse gases in any catastrophic way already exists, 
Michaels believes.

"Paleo records indicate that the concentration of the greenhouse gas 
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was up to 14 times higher than it is 
today when the Earth was but 8 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today," 
Michaels said, referring to the climate of millions of years ago.

There is no way we can get Earth that hot again, he said, even "if we 
burn everything as fast as we could."

Earth was not unpleasant during the period of high CO2 concentrations 
and higher temperatures, according to Michaels.

"The planet was greener than a [casino] crap table. That is where all 
that coal came from that we are burning now," he explained.