I’ve broached this subject before, but I think it’s well worth mentioning again because now you can register your angst about the fate of the Arctic polar bears and send a message to Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper.
As you know, temperatures are rising in the Arctic at twice the rate of anywhere else on the planet, which severely affects the entire ecosystem. Since 1978, the ice has shrunk by more than 8 per cent per decade.
What you may not know is that polar bears are the world’s largest land-based predator. While this should put them in an enviable position, they are actually in danger of extinction. Because the Arctic has less packed ice, polar bears have less space on which to hunt for food.
Therefore, I am asking you to call on the Government of Canada to protect the habitat of these bears by taking decisive action to stop those things that cause global warming. It doesn’t matter where you live in the world. Please let Prime Minister Steven Harper know that we care about the polar bears.
Please sign the petition at: http://go.care2.com/e/R4i5/c2QP/S3Ht
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 21
Scientists blame sun for global warming
The Sun is more active than it has ever been in the last 300 years
Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth.
Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may be unusual - but a mini ice age could soon follow.
The sun provides all the energy that drives our climate, but it is not the constant star it might seem.
Careful studies over the last 20 years show that its overall brightness and energy output increases slightly as sunspot activity rises to the peak of its 11-year cycle.
And individual cycles can be more or less active.
The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years.
That, say scientists in Philadelphia, could be a more significant cause of global warming than the emissions of greenhouse gases that are most often blamed.
The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.
Ancient trees reveal most warm spells are caused by the sun
Using ancient tree rings, they show that 17 out of 19 warm spells in the last 10,000 years coincided with peaks in solar activity.
They have also studied other sun-like stars and found that they spend significant periods without sunspots at all, so perhaps cool spells should be feared more than global warming.
The scientists do not pretend they can explain everything, nor do they say that attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be abandoned. But they do feel that understanding of our nearest star must be increased if the climate is to be understood.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm
Like the Creationists, Jeff has been latching on to insignificant anomalies in order to defend an unscientific conclusion.
The "debate" about global warming ended before the millenium began. Carbon emissions are contributing to global warming at a rate unprecedented in geological history.
There are a few dissenting voices hired by Exxon Mobil and other deep pockets trying to buy an alternate universe, but the scientific consensus is enormous and unchallenged.
Hope that Canada will act before the Polar Bears lose the critical mass needed for survival in changing climates.
Can you PROVE to me that the sun will rise every morning, does the fact that some scientists BELIEVE this make it so. You can't be this stupid about how scientific hypotheses are tested, examined, challenged, become accepted as they are the only viable explanation to explain natural phenomena, etc.
This is so like the Creationist controversy.
After the massive public condemnation by the US scientific community of statements on climate change (National Climatic Data Center) that Bush political appointees repeatedly tweaked to minimize the effects of human activity, the Bush administration was forced to begin releasing the findings of the non-politically-supervised scientific studies authorized four years earlier, in 2002.
Here is the summary:
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments that concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone) [6]. The study said that observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone...
The last phrase is the key that you continue to ignore, Jeff.
The sun cycles, the orbital patterns, the natural carbon exchange fluctuations -none of these processes can explain what is happening now.
There are about six dozen sites, from every enironmental science organization around the world -you might want to check at least one before you start dropping references to sun spots and 10,000 year variations -try nothing like this in 20 million years ("The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years.." the current data from the NCDC).
Here is the Joint G8 douument issued with China, India, and Brazil
http://www.royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3222
Hope your cave has air-conditioning.
The Weather Channel Mess
January 18, 2007 | James Spann | Op/Ed
Well, well. Some "climate expert" on "The Weather Channel" wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent "global warming" is a natural process. So much for "tolerance", huh?
I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can't find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:
*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at "The Weather Channel" probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. 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.
*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.
If you don't like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.
In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.
WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.
I have nothing against "The Weather Channel", but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won't go.
You forget how governments have always used fear and smear to hold on to power. They once used religion now its the faith of Al Gore based global warming. You are a tool for those who try to scare everybody into supporting agendas that financially support them.
I don't fear a cave and rarely use an air conditioner as I believe in energy conservation.
Your faith reached its high point and the truth is coming out. Every day peter you are looking more and more like a fool for your blind climate fearing faith.
I am not surprised that an operational meterologist (you read the weather on the local cable station?) can hardly take on the consensus of scientists about global warming.
Didn't see a peep about what is aknowledged, even by the science-denying Bush administration, in the links above.
No one likes censorship, but no one likes purported news outlets to hype false security in the name of "science" either.
That is equivalent to saying that the tobacco companies can advertise that "science proves the healthiness of smoking" because they have a paid hack who will say so.
You also haven't shown me a date and study that proved the Al Gore based global warming theory to become an actual fact. You love to quote Bush when he says something that you agree with but Peter.....he's a politician. Wise up.
You are right, weathermen who actually get paid to study weather trends and historic patterns (all that are based on facts by the way) cant take on the big environment lobby and the billions spent to advance their agenda. Priests, I mean globel warming scientists don't do anything for financial gain. They are in it for the nobel cause.;)
The analagy to smoking is entirely appropriate - the scientific consensus on Global Warming exists to the same extent -you are the only one who seems not to have heard of it.
What I showed you is the proof of a scientific consensus. That is what I was arguing. Al Gore has nothing to do with it.
Al Gore is concerned about this issue - he is not a scientist.
The Bush example is employed to illustrate how even the dullest and the most dogmatic have had to reckon with scientific evidence. If you read my Comment as an endorsement of Bush, you have greater problems than can be addressed by comments.
It sounds like the Creationist label I used has struck home -since you are attempting to apply it to me.
It hardly fits. I am not defending a faith-based system (despite your wierd Creationist arguments that "science is a faith") against scientific evidence.
And I am not denying (as you are doing) a huge body of scientific evidence or trying to create controversy by quibbling about insignificant details of the main thrust of scientific findings.
Read the Commissions findings, Jeff. Global Warming is the scientific consensus in this country.
The scientific consensus is that earth is in a warming period. The cause is still hotly debated and funding is controlled by those who believe in Al Gores theory so scientists who want to be employed tend to be motivated into believing the ridiculous Idea that CO2 emissions are warming the globe when there is actually scientific proof that solar activity have increased almost at the exact pace of the warming trends for the past 300 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
Peter you are a liberal and being a former liberal myself I have no problem with the ideology although admittedly I have changed. I am surprised though that you lack the liberal tradition of questioning establishment especially when monetary interests are obviously controlling the debate on BOTH sides.
this guy related the story of how one year he ran out his door barefooted with his gun to shoot or scare away one of the bears, he forgot about the plank with the nails and he nailed himself OUCH!!
anyhow I thought I'd return your article responses to one about da'Bears:>)
How can ANY sane person not recognize global warmiing! Look at your own lifetime, look in your own backyard for peties sake! I won't be returning to this article, so don't bother trying to make me feel like an idiot for not being afraid to state what any non-scientist with open eyes can see!
And since it was thrown out there, I'll also make this comment. Tell God when you stand before Him on judgement day, that He didn't create the universe!! (If you're able to speak at all.)
Martha, I AM with you about those polar bears!!
Marsha: Thanks for your support on this. It is very much appreciated.
They are the resident polar bears.