There is no controversy anymore about Global Warming!

I was convinced in 2004 when we got hit by 3 hurricanes in 6wkeeks.

Recognition of global warming and the greenhouse effect are finally coming. But when will action come? I guess we won't get past lip service until 2009. Hopefully, we'll get started then.

I think there is going to be some movement on the issue. More and more, the Congress is getting it.

Yeah, there is still controversy. Nancy Pelosi and 4 members of the IPCC hardly make the issue resolved.

Joe, I just wanted to say it's good to see you back on Gather. I haven't seen you for a few weeks and you've been missed!

It is real, time to at least give it some thought ... it seems gradual now, but soon the 'changes' may begin to increase exponentially ... by then it will be just too late for all of us.

If they still need convincing they should come to South Dakota and witness the effects of a drought that has been going on for 5 years.

Well as car emissions are 3% of the problem and electric power production stations are 39% of the problem, I think it's time to do something about the electric power producing stations.

There have been about twenty ice ages -- four of five of them major. What ended them? It's been reported that the planet Mars is warming. What kind of SUVs are the Martians driving? CO2 is at its highest level in 50 years? 50 years ago there were 2 billion people on the planet --- now there are 6 billion. Last year was the warmest year in 400 years? A bogus statistic when you consider that the period known as the "little ice age" began 500 years ago. I don't deny the planet may be warming. I just think that solar and earth/orbit cycles have more to do with warming than any human activity.

All I know is I want to live until I naturally die... And everyone can make an impact...

As one of the brilliant minds in the Republican party said:

COULTER: I take the biblical idea. God gave us the earth.

PETER FENN (Democratic strategist): Oh, OK.

COULTER: We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees.

FENN: This is a great idea.

COULTER: God says, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."

FENN: Terrific. We're Americans, so we should consume as much of the earth's resources...

COULTER: Yes! Yes.

FENN: ... as fast as we possibly can.

COULTER: As opposed to living like the Indians.

This is the level of "intelligence" the believers in science will have to overcome.

That Ann Coulter, she sure is articulate for a neocon.

Joe: "Will the political will be there to make the necessary incentives for the innovators to do something about it? Will the funding be there?"

I have been fairly impressed with the attention this is getting in the congress - the new congress, that is.

"For the last 12 years … all we've been talking about (on the committee) is, 'Is there global warming?' " Boxer said. "I'm done with that, I'm over it. We need to move forward."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-29-global-warming_x.htm

The sun causes global warming, mystery solved.

Barney - Hummm..if that is true, why did we not have global warming before???? The sun has not changed!! something else must of changed!! so its actually not the sun causing global warming!!! Right......LOL...got you there..... it must be the carbon emissions created by man!!

Amber, reverse everything and then you will be correct.

We have had global warming before.

The sun changes in intensity.

When the earth was at one of its coldest points CO2 was at one of its highest.

Mars is going through global warming.

As I said, mystery solved.

Barney -
You mean think backwards...like a caveman??? LOL?? Sorry Barney, I let you do that type of thinking..... LOL
I'll stick to the scientific method.....observe, record, analyze, and correlate to other data sources than the one your measuring...by doing that.....its obvious something other than the sun's intensity is causing Global warming
But nice try with random thoughts strewn about.. LOL

LMAO, Amber. Don't you mean reject any facts that do not fit your wants?

Amber barney is right, The sun warms the globe and its intensity has grown at the same pace of all this warming the wide eyeds screech about.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976907716

Sci/Tech

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

"How many train cars of coal does your household consume? This alone makes me cry. Forget oil (though this too is a major problem). I love the mountains and they are disappearing."

All fossil fuel is a major problem. You are correct about the mountains. People are driven off their land, children are sickened by leakage of coal slurry into ground water, and schools are literally at risk from potential breaks in slurry "reserviors." The procurement of coal is as destructive as its burning, so the sound byte, "clean coal," is meaningless spin.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/index.html

http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/06-1om/Reece.html

Alternatives to coal:

http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/locator/index.htm

http://www.sterlingplanet.com/

"I work with a guy who designs homes that use 90% less power and no one cares."

Does he have a website? Are your senators and representative aware of him? If not, he should invite them for a tour of his homes.

Marilee. Thanks for the website. I will refer to it often when discussing global warming solutions - as I frequently do. Thank you for doing this work. It is very important!

The science that anything we DO about it will have short term effects is NOT conclusive.
Meanwhile both sides of the aisle keep investing in that waterfront land and refusing to provide places on the high ground for new towns and cities more inline with the coming climate. No planning for what WILL happen, even if it is moderated, gets done while they distract us from that (as usual) with partisan wrangling.

Cosmic rays blamed for global warming
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:08am GMT 11/02/2007



Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.


High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.

He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate.

The controversial theory comes one week after 2,500 scientists who make up the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change published their fourth report stating that human carbon dioxide emissions would cause temperature rises of up to 4.5 C by the end of the century.

Mr Svensmark claims that the calculations used to make this prediction largely overlooked the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover and the temperature rise due to human activity may be much smaller.

He said: "It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds.

"This has not been taken into account in the models used to work out the effect carbon dioxide has had.

advertisement"We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted."

Mr Svensmark last week published the first experimental evidence from five years' research on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. This week he will also publish a fuller account of his work in a book entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change.

A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

They hope this will prove whether this deep space radiation is responsible for changing cloud cover. If so, it could force climate scientists to re-evaluate their ideas about how global warming occurs.

Mr Svensmark's results show that the rays produce electrically charged particles when they hit the atmosphere. He said: "These particles attract water molecules from the air and cause them to clump together until they condense into clouds."

Mr Svensmark claims that the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth changes with the magnetic activity around the Sun. During high periods of activity, fewer cosmic rays hit the Earth and so there are less clouds formed, resulting in warming.

Low activity causes more clouds and cools the Earth.

He said: "Evidence from ice cores show this happening long into the past. We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years.

"Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate.The size of man's impact may be much smaller and so the man-made change is happening slower than predicted."

Some climate change experts have dismissed the claims as "tenuous".

Giles Harrison, a cloud specialist at Reading University said that he had carried out research on cosmic rays and their effect on clouds, but believed the impact on climate is much smaller than Mr Svensmark claims.

Mr Harrison said: "I have been looking at cloud data going back 50 years over the UK and found there was a small relationship with cosmic rays. It looks like it creates some additional variability in a natural climate system but this is small."

But there is a growing number of scientists who believe that the effect may be genuine.

Among them is Prof Bob Bingham, a clouds expert from the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils in Rutherford.

He said: "It is a relatively new idea, but there is some evidence there for this effect on clouds."

Thanks everyone for commenting. I can see that this issue is still unresolved for some of you. I have to say that man made warming is real and must be reduced. This is not a natural cycle. Here in America, we can expect more drought like conditions with sudden outpourings of rain that last for days on end. This isn't good for growing crops or for anything in the agriculture business. Again, thank you for your interest.

I agree wi th you Joe. Pollution and wasting natural resources have to be stopped. I submitted an article in Jan about the Black Mesa mining. This is affecting most of the South Western U.S.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976899718 There is the link. I listed several other links in my comments.

tomi. I went to your article and signed your petition. Thanks for the alert. I have also read of the scourge of natural gas drilling in the SW U.S. What, if anything, can you tell us about that?

http://www.orionmagazine.org/pages/om/06-6om/Clarren-Voices.html

In the 'end times' everything will be exaggerated as to extremities, yet the durations will be ever shorter, IMnsHO.

I think most agree that a warming trend is happening.
I think most agree that or output of emissions from fossil fuels contributes to that.
It is true the sun is dynamic, on the way out in it's life cycle, and will eventually cook the earth to a cinder.
What to do about it is the controversy....
Nobody wants nuke plants, nobody wants to get off oil, most still haven't even dumped their incandescent light bulbs yet- the easiest thing you can do to make a difference. Kyoto is a joke no country will meet, and in reality the signers output of emissions are up, not down.
We need newer better ideas.... Forget Congress, or new conservation laws from them- they are just band-aids. Investment in new technologies without the strings attached by politics, out of the box thinking, and getting off at least oil for fuel is possible.
The UN has it backwards as well. The very countries that should be looked at are the developing countries. Not exempt them. While countries like China continue to grow without even internal environmental concerns, they will be the biggest problem, and the slowest to fix later. They should start out clean, not go back and address it later when they officially become "a developed nation" to fix.

I do not believe in this doomsday scenario. We will have to change but the earth is not in danger and man will continue to live.

Joe, what too few realize, is that all is a balance ... get too far out of balance and a 'tipping point' is reached ... it is all rather sudden at that point and no one knows just where that is.

There is a spiritual message in prophecy ... a 'warning' of sorts ... beware or suffer the consequences. Those that do not learn from history may have to repeat it. There is much about earth world history that is completely unknown. There are cosmic cycles in time frames beyond our written history. There is ample oral history about such, much of it having been written about ... but our superior believed 'sophistication' would classify such as mere fairy tales and silly myths.

There is much to be learned from the spiritual realms once one truly connects ... the most sophisticated will never allow.

Evolution is just how the species survives, TJ. We are not stronger than nature which is why we should not continue to emit greenhouse gases. Perhaps, we can head things off at the pass but we have no time to lose. Read up on this, TJ. People your age are going to be highly affected by global warming.

There IS a relationship to planetary strife and stress via conflicts (and everything else) that do translate in a subjective 'spiritual' sense to the natural cycles of weather patterns and other factors that may be more likely to reflect back to us the 'discomfort' of Mother Earth ... ALL is Spiritually INterconnected !!!

TJ. Humans are neither stronger nor weaker than nature. Humans are part of nature. Whatever man does to nature, he does to himself. Also, global warming and "defending ourselves from people who wish us dead" are not separate issues. As the atmosphere warms, resources (especially water) are going to become more scarce. That will prompt resource wars. This is just another way of saying what Jerry says above. It's all interconnected.

I agree with the spiritual side of things. We really are all one when you think about it. We are the planet earth (along with many other species and other forms of life).

I'm one with Joe's words.
See you and raise you one, Joe (this is Win/Win poker):

Since thought comes before physical manifestation, we humans have the ability and the FREESPONSIBILITY to recognize that not only our personal minds need our self-control, but that our GROUPMIND is producing a lot of harmful manifestations. We can clear our personal subconsciouses of harmful drama patterns which produce unwholesome physical manifestations.
I'm suggesting we can work [one person at a time, in our own ways] at healing our groupmind of these disaster-producing thought patterns.

The operating principle is: as you send healing love, you are receiving healing love.
By sending beautiful healing Light to the groupmind of humanity, you are receiving mental healings for yourself. Beautiful system.

The Biblical directive, translated in English as "have dominion over" the planet - is really a directive to PARTICIPATE IN THE HEALED WHOLENESS OF THE PLANETARY GROUPMIND: TO USE OUR HUMAN GROUPMIND SUBCONSCIOUS TO MANIFEST HEALED WHOLENESS FOR ALL: in other words, GOOD STEWARDSHIP.

I maintain that this good stewardship carries the freesponsibility to keep our subconscious clear of polluting drama patterns, so that when we think, we think clear good thoughts which help all beings.

No one has offered much in the way of science when they claim it isn't us doing this. The only article that does still adheres to us advancing this problem, just less so than others think because of cosmic rays, either way, should we stop worrying?

Even if it is cosmic rays, or an asteroid, that may cause our species harm (that includes wars over water etc... as above mentioned) should we sit around and drive our SUV's in ignorance of our species' concerns with life itself ending, or should we do what we can to help it?

If an asteroid was flinging through space at us, no one would question the science, plus we would do what we can to stop it, we wouldn't sit there and say, "Well the science doesn't prove I had anything to do with it so......". Even if you disagree with all the peer reviewed articles on the subject that claim we are to blame for this (or, at least, partly to blame) and think it is natural, we will still be seeing heat waves and stronger hurricanes, so what is the discussions and sitting on our hands going to prove? That we are no longer smarter than nature?

Stop the posturing and finger pointing and lets get to work stopping this. Who needs all the huge trucks anyway (unless you are shipping products or something, and not one child to soccer practice)? The rest of the world doesn't have as big of vehicles as we do, and they do just fine. Better than us in many ways even.

Like you said, Tyler, those who debunk the science never offer any science to debunk it with. It's mere conjecture. They know it and wish that others would just bury their head in the sand - which is their ultimate goal.

Nice comments from everyone. Thank you for taking an interest in this issue.

Shining stars to you, Joe, for thoughtful planetary service.

You get a lovely Ten... Yea For you!!!! :)

No controversy? Are you kidding, Joe. Global Warming is a hypothsis, not a scientific conclusion. Whether valid or not it is highly controversial in the world of climatology ( the beanch of science that should be studying it). It's not nice to make an assumnption that a hypothosis is fact.