# Global Cooling?



## goldsilverpro (Sep 28, 2013)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html


----------



## g_axelsson (Sep 28, 2013)

Or global warming... The Telegraph : Arctic ice cap on course to shrink to its lowest level
Just a month earlier.

By just looking on this diagram you can see that the arctic ice sheet is shrinking.






But I have no idea of what data lies behind any of the articles or this diagram. My personal belief is that the global warming is true and man-made. As I live up in the north I've seen the climate change during my lifetime, getting a lot milder with a shorter winter. New species is appearing in the nature that was never heard of in these areas before.

Göran


----------



## Buzz (Sep 28, 2013)

> My personal belief is that the global warming is true and man-made.



I live in the UK and i'm sure the other Brits on here will agree that our weather patterns over the last decade, at least, have got totally screwed up. There's no doubt that the climate here in the UK is changing.

Man-made? Not so sure myself Goran.
There are plenty of sites on the internet showing evidence that Mars and Venus are also warming up at the same rate.
There are a few sites suggesting that it could be caused simply by the solar sytem passing through a "warmer" area of the galaxy.

It all makes for a good debate though 8) 

Buzz


----------



## g_axelsson (Sep 28, 2013)

Buzz said:


> There are a few sites suggesting that it could be caused simply by the solar system passing through a "warmer" area of the galaxy.


I'm not going to get into a deep debate about global warming as I'm not an expert in that area. But the above statement is plainly wrong. The climate on the Earth is dominated by the closest star, Sun, and we are enclosed in a bubble created by the solar wind. We have just barely sent some space probes to the edge of the bubble (heliopause). So there is no cold or hot gas reaching the planetary system. That leaves radiation as a heat source and the suns around us and the cosmic background radiation is very stable in the short time span we are talking about.

The activity of the sun is very much connected to our climate but it doesn't seem to explain all the recent warming. A quick googling came up with this research report.


Judith Lean said:


> Solar total and ultraviolet (UV) irradiances are reconstructed annually from 1610 to the present. This epoch includes the Maunder Minimum of anomalously low solar activity (circa 1645–1715) and the subsequent increase to the high levels of the present Modern Maximum. In this reconstruction, the Schwabe (11-year) irradiance cycle and a longer term variability component are determined separately, based on contemporary solar and stellar monitoring. The correlation of reconstructed solar irradiance and Northern Hemisphere (NH) surface temperature is 0.86 in the pre-industrial period from 1610 to 1800, implying a predominant solar influence. Extending this correlation to the present suggests that solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55°C surface warming since 1860 and one third of the warming since 1970.


This was written in 1995 but is still cited by a lot researchers. Agreed, there has been a lot more research done since then, so I'm not going to say that this is the best reference available. Feel free to dig out some better and more recent research.

Göran


----------



## Palladium (Sep 28, 2013)

Al Gore = global warming = carbon tax = $$$$$$


----------



## AndyWilliams (Sep 28, 2013)

Palladium said:


> Al Gore = global warming = carbon tax = $$$$$$



Wish I could get me in on some of that money! Of course, Algore is the preeminent hypocrite, using as much energy in a year as many small cities.


----------



## patnor1011 (Sep 28, 2013)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7q6rsXn15s[/youtube]


----------



## 9kuuby9 (Sep 28, 2013)

When someone wants you to pay carbon tax that implies that they "own" the planet.

Like the famous royal families and wealthy bankers.

They are playing with the weather by spraying 200 million tons of aluminium nano particles. and this was admitted by the leading group on GeoEngineering, They however still need to work out an article on the matter but "apparently" do not have enough time to do it. Remember Aluminium has a very big surface area compared to other elements so it almost covers the whole world with those volumes mentioned above.

Their apparently is a big increase in the arctic ice cap.

Because the population of the penguins and polar bears are currently experiencing an explosion in population growth.


----------



## ericrm (Sep 28, 2013)

i dont know about all that stuff and whos is trolling who with global warming but i can say without lying that the temperature right over my house in the last 15 years have got hotter in winter. i remember that i had to get the shovel 10 to 15 time in the winter been young and those last years i have "shoveled" 3 to 5 time by winter . the snow that we where having before, now fall in rain ...


----------



## 9kuuby9 (Sep 28, 2013)

ericrm said:


> i dont know about all that stuff and whos is trolling who with global warming but i can say without lying that the temperature right over my house in the last 15 years have got hotter in winter. i remember that i had to get the shovel 10 to 15 time in the winter been young and those last years i have "shoveled" 3 to 5 time by winter . the snow that we where having before, now fall in rain ...



Some places experience a colder weather, some places on the other hand experience a warmer weather.

But when put together ("globally") the planet since this last year is getting colder.

The planet was experiencing a warm up prior to 2012, due to the sun. Sun spot's and solar flares are the cause and not of apparently too much CO2?

It's well admitted by now that Global warming is a hoax, intended to keep the population busy whit a branch as so called "science".

Some things do really happen but the media gives other causes and arguments by means of their agenda. I always support freedom of choice, and as not to be forced to comply with "modern western media knowledge" otherwise you are seen as backward and an outcast. Seek knowledge for yourself as everyone eventually has a different conclusion of comprehending and living this experience we call 'life".


----------



## goldsilverpro (Sep 28, 2013)

So what happens with global cooling? Do you get paid for more CO2 generation?


----------



## its-all-a-lie (Sep 28, 2013)

ericrm said:


> i dont know about all that stuff and whos is trolling who with global warming but i can say without lying that the temperature right over my house in the last 15 years have got hotter in winter. i remember that i had to get the shovel 10 to 15 time in the winter been young and those last years i have "shoveled" 3 to 5 time by winter . the snow that we where having before, now fall in rain ...




I have to agree with you Eric! I remember as a kid how cold it was in the winter time, having to bundle up in heave clothing and coats to keep warm. For the last several years i have only had to wear a jacket/heavy coat just a few times. Last winter i only remember getting frost on the ground 2 times, could be why the ant population is so high. I would love to see a few feet of snow on top of 2-3 inches of ice for a month or so, we need it.


----------



## Harold_V (Sep 29, 2013)

A recent report indicates that the projected increase in ambient temperature has failed to materialize, but they also noted the FACT that the mean temperature of the oceans is rising. That would account for the lack in increase of air temperature, and, sure as the sun rises in the morning, the fact that polar ice is diminishing at an astonishing rate. The primary concern, now, is what to do about the rising sea level, which is going to be instrumental in huge areas of land being submerged. What we witnessed in Louisiana (by Katrina) will be nothing, by comparison. 

Where any of you find a reference to polar ice increasing is a mystery. You can't have it both ways, and evidence certainly doesn't support an increase. 

Argue all you wish about global warming, but the harsh reality is it's real. Whether it's man made, or not, may by questionable, but it is reality, in spite of all you naysayers who appear to choose to bury your heads in the sand, as if in doing so it doesn't exist. 

It is well accepted that the earth goes through mini warming and cooling sessions. Perhaps we're in one now, but if the science that has been reported is true, we are dangerously close to a tipping point in which there can be no reversal. The earth will go merrily on its way, but the environment will no longer be conducive to life as we know it. 

Pretend to ignore this, as if by doing so it isn't reality, and we may pay the ultimate price. The choice is ours. Be conservative and do what we can to prevent what could well be the end of humanity (as well as many other life forms), or ignore it and pay the price, assuming the data of today is correct. 

Harold


----------



## niteliteone (Sep 29, 2013)

Harold_V said:


> (snip)
> ... assuming the data of today is correct.
> 
> Harold


That is where the whole dilemma lies.
They clearly state they are using data from the 1600's forward by means of "reconstructing" older measurements :?: 
Can someone tell me how do scientists "accurately" reconstruct temperature readings from yesterday, let alone 400 years ago :?: 
IMHO their is no way to get the accuracy in measurements needed for this claim/sham without using NIST certified (or previous and/or foreign equivalent) digital equipment that hasn't even been in existence as long as I have been alive, if not less.
Also I have read in many places that the "antarctic" ice is growing almost equivalent to the shrinkage of the "artic" ice.

Harold here is a link that shows the artic ice is greater than the previous 3 years. They didn't say if the data reflects surface area or volume though.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Though this is not a scientific related site it talks about the "Antarctic" ice growing at record levels.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/

I personally believe the Planet is doing what it always does. It gets hot melting all the ice, then cools of into a snowball, just like it has done several times over the last few million years. Scientifically proven with ice core samples dating back hundreds of thousands of years, unlike the current Global Warming claim/sham.


----------



## solar_plasma (Sep 29, 2013)

The clima simulations are not precise enough. Only changing the approximated parameters a little will change the result completely. So, we only know clima is changing, we don't know if it will be a period of warmth or a new ice age and we cannot know, if any approach or non-approach will help or make it all worse - or if we can influence it at all. Yes, clima is changing, - it has always done. If it is man-made, the biggest problem are planes (H2O vapor in the stratosphere) and maybe our oversized meat production (methane). CO2 is the most important fertilizer, I think we should produce even more of it, when we look at the ages of high CO2, which always have been a benefit to all living organisms on earth.

On the other side, there are good reasons to save oil. It is too valuable just to burn it all up.

But if any industry or lobby wants to pay my bills, I might review my conclusions. *LOL*  *sarcasm*


----------



## g_axelsson (Sep 29, 2013)

niteliteone said:


> They clearly state they are using data from the 1600's forward by means of "reconstructing" older measurements :?:
> Can someone tell me how do scientists "accurately" reconstruct temperature readings from yesterday, let alone 400 years ago :?:
> IMHO their is no way to get the accuracy in measurements needed for this claim/sham without using NIST certified (or previous and/or foreign equivalent) digital equipment that hasn't even been in existence as long as I have been alive, if not less.


These are some of the indirect temperature measurements I can think of... tree core ring thickness (1000's of years), marine sediments (milions of years), ice core data (100.000' of years). I know there are more ways but this is only what I know about. You don't need digital devices to get high accuracy, good measurements were made long before NIST were founded.



niteliteone said:


> Also I have read in many places that the "antarctic" ice is growing almost equivalent to the shrinkage of the "artic" ice.
> 
> Harold here is a link that shows the artic ice is greater than the previous 3 years. They didn't say if the data reflects surface area or volume though.
> http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm


Probably surface, but volume should be more interesting. The thinner ice shows itself in the diagram as the ice sheet in the summer melts and breaks up a lot more than during previous decades.
That diagram also shows that 2012 was the year with least ice in a long time, although 2013 seems to have more ice than the two previous years (2007 is not among the 3 previous years) it is still well below the mean ice sheat 2000-2010. The long term trend is diminishing ice sheets, base a theory on a cooling world on just one year that the ice increased is bad science.

When following the next link I found an article showing the arctic ice sheet size in august over several years (1979-2013)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/18/arctic-sea-ice-has-not-recovered-in-7-visuals/
I include the diagram here as it speaks for itself.




Here we can see that there have been as dramatically increases in the ice sheet before as during 2013 but the trend is clear to me, and it scares the shit out of me. If we get to a point where the ice is breaking up, the driving force behind the Gulf stream northern branch. (Dense salt brine drops to the bottom and create a suction when the ice freezes, if the ice is broken up storms will mix the water and no denser water is created.) could weaken the flow of warm water up along northern Europe and lead to localized cooling in large areas of Europe.



niteliteone said:


> Though this is not a scientific related site it talks about the "Antarctic" ice growing at record levels.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/
> 
> I personally believe the Planet is doing what it always does. It gets hot melting all the ice, then cools of into a snowball, just like it has done several times over the last few million years. Scientifically proven with ice core samples dating back hundreds of thousands of years, unlike the current Global Warming claim/sham.


The climate is a fragile balance and I believe we should try to do our best to not tip the balance. As the Chinese curse goes, "May you live in interesting times!", a new ice age or run off global warming would cost us humans dearly. If we tip the balance towards an ice age large parts of the Earth could become uninhabitable. On the other hand, an increase in global temperature would rise the sea level, drowning a lot of communities along the coast lines. Higher temperature will also increase the energy in the atmosphere and create heavier storms and more rain, creating floodings.

I don't want to sound like the guy on the street with a sign "The end is near", I just hope we aren't too late to stop before it is too late. It will be interesting to see the climate changes in the comming years, but I don't think I will like the result. I would rather be safe than sorrow, reducing the CO2 and methane emissions seems safer than pushing the climate closer to a point where it will be out of balance. We still don't know enough about the climate to do accurate modelling as the Antarctic ice sheet shows us now. But what we do know is that the recent historical values seems to be within a stable region.
Just as you don't add acids randomly to an unknown solution and hoping for pure gold, I don't think we should change the atmosphere and hope for a bright future. Not without knowing what would happen.

Göran


----------



## solar_plasma (Sep 29, 2013)

Göran, I agree it is very important to research climate further, but do you agree, we still don't know, what will happen. The climate data from 9/11, when almost all air traffic stopped, even shows, it is possible, global warming would have been worse without man-made polution. Which is no reason to be happy. There is a big problem indeed. But we don't even know, if we make things worse by changing ANY parameters. I only see CO2 is big business, which is corrupting many scientists who are addicted to the industry. How many % of them get money for their research from the industry or persons and organisations near the industry?

I find it very dangerous, that researching scientists get money at all from the industry. As long they do, they aren't independant.

Björn


----------



## rickbb (Sep 29, 2013)

National Geographic did a really good piece on this a few years back. 

The premise of the article was;

The earth is actually in a natural cooling phase, but has been stopped, even reversed starting with the industrial revolution.

The evidence they presented was very well done and compelling.


----------



## patnor1011 (Sep 29, 2013)

There is so much of data available so any side of this argument will find many which will suit their arguments.
To say cooling or warming is dead wrong. They started calling it differently.
Global weather change.

But instead of doing anything all is just used to extract money from people and businesses. All this is just perfect tool for governments and people with interests to make monetary gain from whatever they deem usable in their quest of "ruling".


----------



## g_axelsson (Sep 29, 2013)

I don't know what data came from 9/11, but it is such a short period that it is hard to draw any far reaching conclusions. I guess that you are talking about condensation trails from air traffic that reflects some of the sun light. It is a constant effect that decreses the heat from the sun but it is a short term effect and it isn't cumulative as the rising level of CO2 and methane is.
It is plausable that we could tolerate higher than normal levels of green house gases while compensating with condensation trails in the sky, but we can't compensate rising levels, that would demand a continuous rise in number of trails just to keep up.

Göran


----------



## solar_plasma (Sep 29, 2013)

I can't find my source to the study about the relation between air traffic and water vaporizing rate on surface level. I hope I will find it in my chronic the next days. I remember that 3 groups of scientists on three continents who didn't know about each other came to the same conclusion and I remember the pike in the vaporizing rate was *significant *on 9/11 and a few days after.


----------



## niteliteone (Sep 30, 2013)

Anyone that relies on CO2 levels being "The" man made cause, are forgetting the last 2 ice age events where CO2 levels also rose before the ice age events, but modern man didn't have an existence during either event.

Study the mean temperature of Mars and you will find the temperature rise is of the same percentage as here on Earth for the same periods of time. How can that be true if MAN is the cause of Global Warming.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe the Climate is changing, it always has and always will. I just don't accept the Tax reasons for dealing with it.


----------



## g_axelsson (Sep 30, 2013)

niteliteone said:


> Study the mean temperature of Mars and you will find the temperature rise is of the same percentage as here on Earth for the same periods of time. How can that be true if MAN is the cause of Global Warming.


We only have measurements from Mars since the 1970:es and only over the last part on a global Martian scale. The climate on Mars is dominated by other factors than on Earth, huge dust storms that lasts for half a year or longer, evaporation of the polar ice caps, gyration of the axis of Mars. The fact that there is a very weak atmosphere makes the temperature swing up to 100 C between day and night.
I couldn't find any references that showed the trend until this page appeared
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-intermediate.htm
We have a few measurements in 1977 then some 20 years later and in the last 10-15 years we have a global covering, but that is too little to say anything about trends in Martian global climate.

And besides, the solar energy influx has been practically constant since 1970, why would then the temperature go up if it was only related to the solar flux?
http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/asr2004.pdf


N.A. Krivova said:


> We show that at least in the most recent past (since about 1970) the solar influence on climate cannot have been
> significant.



Göran


----------



## niteliteone (Sep 30, 2013)

I guess I should rephrase my skepticism to say I will Never take the word of a scientist that depends on the funding from the source that profits from the reported data.

That statement applies to both sides of the topic. 
Our current weather forecasters can't even get a 5 day forecast correct using every major weather forecasting program available, but yet they expect us to believe they can accurately forecast "the Exact Climate" of any point in the past necessary to accurately show this is Man Made Global Warming and not "Natural" climate change.

Follow the money that supports the families of the scientists making these forecasts that will bring more tax money into the funding provider (government) of the scientists and convince me these are not tainted results that keeps the funding coming.
HAARP creating ionic bubbles in the upper atmosphere is causing more heat trapped in the upper atmosphere than man made sources. I think it kind of strange that Global warming started after HAARP was starting operation.


----------



## g_axelsson (Sep 30, 2013)

niteliteone said:


> HAARP creating ionic bubbles in the upper atmosphere is causing more heat trapped in the upper atmosphere than man made sources. I think it kind of strange that Global warming started after HAARP was starting operation.


Do you have a reference for that statement?

The power in the transmission that station can put out is microscopic compared to the constant radiation received from the Sun. If HAARP could affect the ionosphere with any long time effect I would have heard of it. I have a lot of friends that is working at EISCAT and they have a very good insight in what happens in the ionosphere.
The green house effect is affecting the lower part of the atmosphere and the ionosphere is not affected by the climate, it is coupled to Earth's magnetic field and interactions with the solar wind. I have several friends that is doing research in this area.

HAARP was established in 1993, global warming started long before that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2012.svg

Göran


----------



## niteliteone (Sep 30, 2013)

I ill have to go back and remember where I found this information to state any references, But I do remember it dealt with a new "Global Radar Array" where from a central US location, our military can bounce a radar signal off these ionic bubbles and monitor the entire Northern Hemisphere. It is part of the Radar array they have built in Texas and the EU, where they claim they can monitor "in real time" every object above the surface of the planet. (ie. planes, satellites, missiles and space debris to name a few)
I do remember reading an article years back in "Popular Science" (LOL) where HAARP was able to affect the Jet Stream and thus alter natural weather patterns. Our government spokesman was actually pleased to report this fact. That is where I searched and followed links, ending up finding what I read about uses of HAARP. Which was originally described as a ELF transmitter used to communicate with our Navel and Sub fleet world wide. That story has been updated several times over the last few years, to where the 3 Norther Hemisphere installations are now part of the military Radar System.
In a nut shell HAARP can alter weather patterns and be used as a weapon against other countries, which is where this Global Warming scheme got its feet to run where it is today. Using the archived NOAA satilite weather maps you can see times where clouds unnaturally reverse direction and head west against the natural flow of nature for days at a time and form a weather system above Alaska before Mjor sever weather systems cause devastating weather systems that destroy American infrastructure. (ie. Hurricane Sandy and a few tornado's lately) Look into the "Precision Strike" that Sandy did to New Jersey and think why it turned west instead of following its normal path of heading east like every other storm has for as long as I remember.

Edit to add;
I just noticed that in the chart you linked to your last post showing the "Global Temperature Anomaly" that the 2 major down turns occur during times of World War, Where massive amounts of greenhouse gases from war activities are greatest. That seems a little strange to me. Something to think about though.


----------



## denim (Sep 30, 2013)

When anyone is considering debating this topic I believe they should first read a book titled Fixing Climate, written by Wallace S. Broecker & Robert Kunzig. In it they reveal that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and the United States' GNP/GDP grew in absolute lock step between the early 1900's to date. This points to our industrial revolution, and our ensuing major economic expansion, as being a great contributor to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Past climate changes have indeed occured, but the time frame in which the CO2 in the atmosphere raised enough then to cause climate change took much longer (100's to 1000's of years) than the 100 or so years it has taken for the CO2 to raise to almost the same levels today. Everyone should read Fixing Climate before they make any statements as to whether or not mankind is creating a disaster for itself. I really feel sorry for future generations. They will look back on our lifestyles, and our desire for materialism, and say to themselves- "Wow, they saw it coming but did nothing about it, except to argue about it."

Dennis


----------



## JHS (Sep 30, 2013)

I think i recall learning something about a mini ice age in the 17th century.I wonder what man made event could have 
caused that.
At some point in the past most of my texas land was surrounded by ocean.
I see the future as returning my ocean front property,or a least my island.
By the way where,if not the poles, did the water go in the first place.
I say buy a texas hill today,have an island for your kids tomorrow.
john


----------



## artart47 (Sep 30, 2013)

The government, like all the kings of the past, isen't going to squander thier gold, (oil,coal, natural gas) on the common people so that we can prosper. The only reason they did so from WW11 till the fall of the Soviet Union was because they needed a trained work force making cars appliances,,all the things of the american dream so that if war broke out with the USSR we could build their war machines to win the war and keep washington in power! As soon as the Soviet threat was gone, they started closing the factories, taxing everything or restricting it so the people could not afford it. there is no reason now why they would want us to use the raw materials so we can have a decent life. we are of no use to them now. There is no enemy .
Global warming/climat change is the excuse they are giving for taking the use of fuels away from the common people and letting a congresional commity export it overseas. 
If they ever get cap-and-trade in effect, you will see drilling everywhere their is oil, the price will be jacked up and the usa will be the largest exxporter of oil, coal, and natural gas in the world and we will walk or ride a bike.
Just my opinion! artart47


----------



## AndyWilliams (Sep 30, 2013)

I've actually enjoyed reading this thread. So much chance to blow up, but it hasn't!

Hi, I'm Andy, and I'm a denier.

_(Hi Andy!)_

Yeah, so I became a denier naturally. It all began with Eoanthropus Dawsoni. I remember reading about this missing link in a scientific reader, I think I was about six or seven. What a disappointment that was! But not nearly as much of a letdown as finding out that science had been wrong about the Rabbit Mother. I mean, think of the possibilities! Nevertheless, as I got older, and continued finding examples of scientists being duped (archaeoraptor), or duping the politicians (Just say no to Cake!), I just couldn't bring myself to being scared about the environment when some of the largest proponents of climate change (is that the right term, currently?) carry on like nothing's happening. Think Algore.


----------



## glondor (Sep 30, 2013)

Being in the "north" I for one welcome the warmer weather in winter as well as the MUCH reduced cost of heating my home. After all, why should youse guys in the southern climes get all the good weather? Share a bit, I say !


----------



## solar_plasma (Oct 1, 2013)

A climate sceptical scientist goes blinded into a dark room searching a black cat.
A hired scientist goes blinded into a dark room searching a black cat, which isn't in there.
The climate council (or the hired scientist, who loves his job and the money) goes blinded into a dark room searching a black cat, which isn't in there, and suddenly shouts: We've found it!!


----------



## niteliteone (Oct 1, 2013)

solar_plasma said:


> A climate sceptical scientist goes blinded into a dark room searching a black cat.
> A hired scientist goes blinded into a dark room searching a black cat, which isn't in there.
> The climate council (or the hired scientist, who loves his job and the money) goes blinded into a dark room searching a black cat, which isn't in there, and suddenly shouts: We've found it!!


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## solar_plasma (Oct 1, 2013)

@Göran




> The power in the transmission that station can put out is microscopic compared to the constant radiation received from the Sun.



I am as sceptical against HAARP theories as I am against CO2-inquisitors and all people who wants to tell me The Truth, - since science is not about truth but probabilities. I just wonder: The sun's radiation hits the earth homogeniously, but if HAARP, whatever it is made for, produces hot spots of microwave or ILF waves or radiation on whatever frequencies in the upper atmosphere, isn't it even if at "microscopic" 3,6 MWatt an probably uncalculatable intervention into the complex system (as described in chaos theory) weather?

Since you ARE a scientist, I am afraid of, if you WOULD have an opinion against the mainstream, you could not and would not post it due to your reputation.

I don't know and I understand only half of, what scientists want to tell me. I, like most other people, can only choose between thumb belief or scepticism. This choice is easy.


----------



## niteliteone (Oct 1, 2013)

> The power in the transmission that station can put out is microscopic compared to the constant radiation received from the Sun.


Even though HAARP's power is "microscopic compared ... sun", it is additive to the effects of the sun's radiation. We both know that when you heat the atmosphere it expands, which will actually increase transmissibility to the energy of the sun, thus allowing more energy to hit the planet.
Remember the "Ozone Holes" in the atmosphere ??? they claimed they were caused by CFC's from Freon. So America has banned CFC containing Freons, but the rest of the world "Didn't", but yet Ozone Holes are no longer a problem, at least until the patents on the current refrigerants are ready to expire. OK, that's just my opinion, but the point is there.


----------



## Lou (Oct 1, 2013)

Good job keeping it nice and civil.



In any event, I think we're along for the ride. What happens, happens and there's really not much to do about it now--if it were caused by man, history tells me that we'll be late in trying to correct it, *if even we can.*


That said, I'll keep calm, carry on! Figure I'm putting my own small dent in it by recycling precious metals--takes a heck of a lot more resources to get them out of the ground!


----------



## gold4mike (Oct 1, 2013)

When I was in High School (40 years ago) we visited a site in Northern Ohio where you could see large scrape marks in the bedrock caused by large boulders moving across the ground beneath a glacier. 

The glaciers were gone long before man. 

I guess we've been in a warming trend for quite some time!


----------



## rickbb (Oct 1, 2013)

JHS said:


> I think i recall learning something about a mini ice age in the 17th century.I wonder what man made event could have
> caused that.
> At some point in the past most of my texas land was surrounded by ocean.
> I see the future as returning my ocean front property,or a least my island.
> ...



That mini ice age was in the early 1800's and was caused by the explosion of Krackatoa, a volcano island in the south pacfic. It created a world wide ash cloud that blocked the sun for 2 years. It snowed in most of the northern hemisphere every month of the year.


----------



## patnor1011 (Oct 2, 2013)

I can point out to one global problem which is hard to deny it is man made and every person on earth will suffer from it.
Fukushima fuel pools.
While tsunami was unpredictable it is proven that they store way too much in not safe way it might cause global catastrophy to which CO2 caused global warming is nothing.
So while we discuss and worry about some minuscule temperature rise we are in for something we cant even comprehend.


----------



## JHS (Oct 2, 2013)

Even though HAARP's power is "microscopic compared ... sun", it is additive to the effects of the sun's radiation. We both know that when you heat the atmosphere it expands

Now this really concerns me.if it expands enough the solar winds will blow it away.
I for one am going to make sure my scuba tanks are full.
john


----------



## Harold_V (Oct 3, 2013)

gold4mike said:


> When I was in High School (40 years ago) we visited a site in Northern Ohio where you could see large scrape marks in the bedrock caused by large boulders moving across the ground beneath a glacier.
> 
> The glaciers were gone long before man.


Not so. Man has been known to have inhabited this planet in excess of a couple million years (although some would argue that the critters "weren't man"). The last ice age was just over 12,000 years ago, with ice covering the vast majority of the North American continent. The Great Lakes have been attributed to the retreating of the ice. 

In Utah, Little cottonwood Canyon was, more or less, created by a glacier, which scoured the rock much like the rock you described. I'd be inclined to suggest to you that what you mentioned is actually relatively new, most likely the result of the last ice age. 



> I guess we've been in a warming trend for quite some time!


Indeed. With minor fluctuations along the way. If that was not the case, how would one explain the retreating glaciers, as well as the retreating polar ice? Average temperatures have risen, something that has been well documented. And---keep in mind---it takes only a couple degrees difference in the mean temperature to make a huge difference in weather patterns. 

Things are changing, just as they always have. We may or may not be responsible for any or all of the changes, but to pretend that there is no change serves no purpose. One does not resolve issues by pretending they don't exist. 

Harold


----------



## artart47 (Nov 14, 2013)

Hi !
I just can't help but think that if we put CO2 into the atmosphere, it, will come down as one of the components of the acid rain that we hear so much about. I would assume that the carbonic acid would react with the soil... carbonate minerals would end up in the sea and water table and be depsited back in the crust.
Also! If I were the dictator and climate change was real, carbon fuels were truly the cause, and I really was wanting to do something about it, then I would not be doing trivial things to not use those fuels.
I would be engeneering an anarobic organism that can digest and distroy all of the oil,gas and coal in the rock. I would inject it down the wells to make sure that nobody ever will use those fuels in the future! But! I don't see any of the dictators embarking on such a mission.
I believe it will all be used. But, by whom?
artart47
Just my opinion!


----------



## 9kuuby9 (Nov 14, 2013)

Well I Don't think that the carbon "eating" organism would be the solution for our problem.

You can cut down a tree and use it for a lot of different ends. But a "moral" person would plant another seedling for the tree he cut down to preserve nature and the world at large.

You see the problem here is called "men" If we do not stop with this corruption and mass exploitation of the earth, we will pay the price for it and we are already doing so.

I think it's fine to seek the bounty's of the earth but we have to do it in such a manner that we do not do it in a harmful way. Especially when an old helpless tribe is living just above the Oil. What do we do?

We kick them out and so called "buy" the place with their permission while it's not. And if the state really wants the place the will call it from now on a "national park". Very clever!

And the worst of "men" now get to be leaders of country's around the world and owners of the big company's. And this is where we end up where we are now... So this is why the corruption and incorrect exploitation is employed on such a large scale.


----------



## Palladium (Nov 15, 2013)

Australia just told the UN to go jump in a lake if they thought they were going to pay any carbon tax's. 
I hope the rest of the world follows!


----------



## niteliteone (Nov 15, 2013)

Too bad our gov. has never seen a tax they didn't like :shock:


----------



## 9kuuby9 (Nov 15, 2013)

The landmass of Australia and Canada is owned by the Queen of England. So if anything passes in the Parliament she doesn't like, it's immediately removed. She has done this many times.


----------

