Global Warming

[Shammu]

You are right in not agreeing with it. It has been proven that some of the environmentalists have faked the data on receding glaciers. It is common for glaciers to recede somewhat during a short period in the summer months. It was during the summer months that this data on shrinking glaciers were taken not during the winter months when they actually grew significantly. It is just like the pictures that were taken of Polar Bears being stranded on a melting ice float. The people that took this made it seem like this occurred during the winter. Instead they were taken during the summer when such incidents are normal.

One I can think of off the bat is Michael Mann .

Air Pollution is man's problem, But other then that. It is documents by Soho in 1998 the Sun spike and the Earth was hit with a solar flare. a month later the Earth's core temp rose by 3 degree's

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that so many people are gullible enough to believe the global warming baloney from Al Gore. So-called SCIENCE is now at a new low. This global warming nonsense has become almost sacred to self-proclaimed intellectuals, second only to the theory of evolution. The difference is that the theory of evolution is a bigger quantity of baloney, and it's spoiled - long past the expiration date. However, many intellectuals own the spoiled baloney and refuse to throw it out.

These things are really giving SCIENCE AND BALONEY a bad name!

[Soldier4Christ]

Yes, it does give science a bad name. For the portion on global warming it is far from science. As Brother Bob has posted in the thread "Signs of the Lord's Return and the End of the Age" in Prophecy/Current Events it is in fact a false religion called Gaia that is driving this movement.

[Soldier4Christ]

U.N. climate head welcomes 'Marshall Plan' fund
Says U.S. ready to pay billions for clean-tech transfer to China, India

UN climate chief Yvo de Boer on Wednesday hailed as a "Marshall Plan" for climate change news that the United States will set up a multi-billion dollar fund to help developing nations acquire clean power technologies.


The "clean technology fund" would help the developing nations meet the estimated US$30 billion cost of acquiring expensive low carbon emission power technologies in place of cheaper, but far dirtier, old technologies.

"This clean technology fund is perhaps a Marshall Plan on climate change beginning to emerge where we stop worrying about the short term woes and focus much more on taking a bold step forward ... towards a clean future," de Boer told Reuters.

The Marshall Plan was a major investment project set up by the United States after World War Two to help rebuild Europe's shattered economies.

"The notion of this clean technology fund, announced by the United States, represents a sea change in thinking on climate change," de Boer, the head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said in a telephone interview from Germany.

"Up to now there has been a lot of concern, certainly in the United States, that helping developing countries like China and India on climate change would take jobs away from Americans and give them to the Chinese," he added.

Few details are yet available about the proposed new fund, such as whether it would be loans or grants, who would administer it and over what period.

Extending the analogy of the Marshall Plan which combined public with private money, de Boer said the clean technology fund would facilitate private investment in clean technologies.

"This clean technology fund is seen as a way of mobilising private capital, of opening up new markets," he said.

"This is a signal that a solution is beginning to emerge, that the conductor that connects rich country action to poor country action in terms of technology and finance is beginning to be seriously thought about," he added.

The fund is expected to draw finance from the major developed nations who have pumped most of the climate warming carbon into the atmosphere in the first place, and who the poorer developing countries insist bear the burden of cost.

De Boer said that while the main thrust of the new fund, announced in Washington on Monday, was to promote low carbon economic growth, security was also a serious issue -- as it was with the Marshall Plan which had a sub text of shoring up European democracies against the threat of Communism.

"I see a number of economic and security issues emerging as a result of climate change which make it all the more imperative to come to grips with this issue in time," he said.

"If I look at the potential impact of sea level rise on metropolitan centres around the world and if I realise that within 20 years time 25 million Africans could be impacted by water stress and looking for somewhere to move," he added.

[Soldier4Christ]

Ice returns as Greenland temps plummet

While the rest of Europe is debating the prospects of global warming during an unseasonably mild winter, a brutal cold snap is raging across the semi-autonomous nation of Greenland.

On Disko Bay in western Greenland, where a number of prominent world leaders have visited in recent years to get a first-hand impression of climate change, temperatures have dropped so drastically that the water has frozen over for the first time in a decade.

'The ice is up to 50cm thick,' said Henrik Matthiesen, an employee at Denmark's Meteorological Institute who has also sailed the Greenlandic coastline for the Royal Arctic Line. 'We've had loads of northerly winds since Christmas which has made the area miserably cold.'

Matthiesen suggested the cold weather marked a return to the frigid temperatures common a decade ago.

Temperatures plunged to -25°C earlier this month, clogging the bay with ice and making shipping impossible for small crafts, according to Anthon Frederiksen, the mayor of the town of Ilulissat, where Disko Bay is located.

'On the other hand, it's an advantage for fishermen who rely on dogsleds for transportation,' Frederiksen said.

The mayor cautioned against thinking that the freezing temperature indicated that global warming claims were overblown. He noted that a nearby glacier had retracted more in the past two decades than in recorded history.

'We Greenlanders have acclimated to changing conditions over the past 1100 years,' said Frederiksen. 'Temperatures change at regular intervals.'

Although Greenland's capital, Nuuk, and much of the island saw temperatures drop below -25° C yesterday, milder temperatures appeared to be on the way in the near future.

[Soldier4Christ]

Light bulb ban will increase CO2
Exclusive: Andrew Longman has good laugh at Congress after doing science on new law

The world has seen that if ever a utopian scheme becomes law, that law achieves the opposite of the intended utopian effect. Call it "Longman's Lemma" if someone else doesn't already claim it. And nowhere can that proverbial truth be observed more laughably than in Congress' compact fluorescent light bulbs.

Echoing around my head from some required eco-indoctrinaire experience in my educational past was this unconnected fact: "Some homes in Sweden are heated entirely with incandescent light bulbs." I don't remember where I'd heard this; it was being held up as an example of what errant Americans could do if only we let Bob Villa overwhelm our R-factors and insulate our attics properly. In colonial days, we were to be ashamed of our immorality; today we are supposed to be ashamed of our Owens-Corning.

Anyway, that idea wandered through my mind in search of something to connect with.

When it found Congress' latest law on eco-madness, click, the light went on.

Regular, Thomas Edison-style, incandescent light bulbs throw off a large amount of heat. When you purchase a "100-watt" light bulb, that power rating refers to what the bulb consumes, not so much what it illuminates. Today we are told that a 15- or 20-watt compact-fluorescent will produce as much light as a 100-watt incandescent.

American leftists, intent on hating the chemicals they are made from, work very hard to force other people to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted during existence. Being mostly liberal arts majors, and not engineers, these folks have quickly come to equate energy efficiency with lower CO2 emission. Based on those vague facts, and a strong sense of female social emotion, Congress recently passed a law yanking incandescent lights from production and replacing them all with compact fluorescents. Wisdom has been mandated.

The net result, of course, will be more fossil fuels burned and more CO2 released. The lemma says so. And as a conservative, I'm OK with that and think it's funny. But of course, facts shall never intrude on the feelings of idealism possessed by the utopian instigators of these stupefying laws. But I would invite everyone who thinks this Congress is a bunch of loonies to laugh at them with me.

Heating a home is far more energy consumptive than cooling it. And, according to National Public Radio, "on average, heating an American home with natural gas produces about 6,400 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2, a major warming gas). Use electricity, and CO2 emissions average about 4,700 pounds." One must recognize that whereas electric heat comes from a mix of nuclear power, coal and other sources, natural gas heating comes exclusively from burning things. So, electric heat, chiefly because nuclear power produces no oxidized carbon, pollutes less.

But how many pounds of C02 does it produce for two environmentalists to screw in a light bulb? Well, it's about 17 percent more hot air than if you'd asked two conservatives to do it. See, if we remove a 100-watt incandescent, and replace it with a 20-watt compact-fluorescent, the light in the room may not dim, but the warmth in that room has been cut by about 80 watts.

Let's consider an American home at 1,700 square feet, using 10 watts per square foot over the course of a year for heating, and lit with 30 incandescent, 100-watt light bulbs. In such a normal home, 17 percent of the wattage needed for winter heating would be supplied by the electric lights, when the lights were turned on. If you replace those incandescents with compact fluorescents, only 3 percent of the average heat necessary to heat the house would now be available from the light bulbs.

The conservation of energy points out that if the thermostat doesn't change its setting, the lost wattage will have to come from your furnace or boiler. That means the 2,400 watts you otherwise would have been buying from the electric company you would now buy from your heating company. The furnace would run more often. Your heating bill would go up.

So, a regular natural gas home that would have been getting 83 percent of its heat from gas and 17 percent of its heat from electric light will now fall to 97 percent of its heat from gas and 3 percent of its heat from electricity. If NPR's statistics are correct, that means a home using natural gas and incandescents would produce about 1,000 pounds more per year of CO2 by switching to compact fluorescent bulbs. Since most American homes are heated with natural gas, which costs less than electricity, it is an economic gain.

So, switching to compact fluorescents will save you money, raise the amount of hydrocarbons burned and make a mockery of the latest leftist utopian scheme. Conservatives should do it, and liberals should avoid it. But, of course, if you wanted lighting that lowered the humidity, lowered hydrocarbon pollution and employed green power from wind farms or solar, the Democratic Congress has prevented all that now.

As a conservative, I switched to compact fluorescents years ago to make more money and emit more pollution. I would encourage conservatives and liberals everywhere comply with the new law so they can do the same.

[Soldier4Christ]

...... and with the increased CO2 you will be helping produce healthier plant growth that will produce more oxygen into the atmosphere. Let's aid the environmentalists in producing more CO2.

[nChrist]

...... and with the increased CO2 you will be helping produce healthier plant growth that will produce more oxygen into the atmosphere. Let's aid the environmentalists in producing more CO2.

It sounds like we would be much better off to get the Three Stooges to take the place of Al Gore. YES - I know the Three Stooges are deceased, so we wouldn't have to pay them and their advice would be better.   

[Shammu]

But how many pounds of C02 does it produce for two environmentalists to screw in a light bulb? Well, it's about 17 percent more hot air than if you'd asked two conservatives to do it.

[Soldier4Christ]

Gore: Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared 
Says some forecasts see North Pole ice caps disappearing in summer within 5 years

Climate change is occurring far more rapidly than even the worst predictions of the UN's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change, Al Gore said on Thursday.

Recent evidence shows "the climate crisis is significantly worse and unfolding more rapidly than those on the pessimistic side of the IPCC projections had warned us," climate campaigner and former US vice-president Gore said.

There are now forecasts that the North Pole ice caps may disappear entirely during summer months within five years, he told a gathering at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a massive report the size of three phone books on the reality and risks of climate change, its 4th assessment in 18 years.

Global warming is a key theme at this year's meeting of the world's business and political elite in Davos.

[Soldier4Christ]

Al Gore still hasn't learned his lesson. Scientists have already proven this lie false as the have many of his other ones. Gore turned back to the myth on the North pole melting because many top scientists recently exposed his lies about the South Pole melting.

__________

Theory On Thin Ice

Global warming alarmists have made a big deal out of North Pole ice melting and polar bears suffering due to climate change. Before they mouth off again, they should look at a new NASA study.

From 2002 to 2006, scientists and researchers from NASA and the University of Washington's Polar Science Center at the Applied Physics Laboratory observed a meaningful ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation. The cause is atmospheric circulation changes that vary in decade-long periods and the effect is, well, let the scientist who led the study explain it:

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said the University of Washington's James Morison.

But listening to the ecozealots and Al Gore acolytes, one would think the North Pole was melting because too many conservatives drive too many SUVs and don't have enough social responsibility to tame their wicked fossil-fuel burning ways.

This isn't the first time that real science has exposed hyperbole concerning melting ice at the North Pole. In August 2000, the New York Times ran an apocalyptic story that said the pole was free of ice for the first time in 50 million years.

"It was retracted three weeks later as a barrage of scientists protested that open water is common at or near the pole at the end of summer,"writes environmental scientist Pat Michaels.

"Further, it's common knowledge in the scientific community that there has been no net change in Arctic temperatures in the last 70 years."

Apparently unwilling to learn its lesson, the Times published a fretful story Oct. 2 about Arctic ice loss. Good for shipping across the pole, and fishing and oil exploration in the region. But not so good, the article said, for polar bears that could be in for a "particularly harsh jolt."

The alarmists like to scare the public with harrowing stories of bears drowning when they get trapped on melting ice and can't swim the long distances needed to reach safety. The specter of their extinction has been raised.

So how to explain the increase in the polar bear population from 5,000 in 1950 to 25,000 today, as documented by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service? The alarmists are noticeably quiet. Could it be that the facts don't fit with their campaign of exaggerations, half-truths and outright lies?

[nChrist]

 ;D   ;D

Hello Pastor Roger,

We must remember that common sense and facts aren't allowed.  After all, pesky facts and common sense might hurt Al Gore's book sales and his reputation. This is the most ridiculous example of the vanity of man that I've ever seen.

Everything is extremely SIMPLE for Christians. THE CREATOR - THE GREAT I AM - ALMIGHTY GOD is in complete control of everything HE CREATED!

Brothers and Sisters, everything really is this SIMPLE!

Love In Christ,
Tom

Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable GIFT, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour Forever!

[Def]

  

Hello Pastor Roger,

We must remember that common sense and facts aren't allowed.  After all, pesky facts and common sense might hurt Al Gore's book sales and his reputation. This is the most ridiculous example of the vanity of man that I've ever seen.

Everything is extremely SIMPLE for Christians. THE CREATOR - THE GREAT I AM - ALMIGHTY GOD is in complete control of everything HE CREATED!

Brothers and Sisters, everything really is this SIMPLE!

Love In Christ,
Tom

Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable GIFT, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour Forever!

Brother Tom can i put the "KISS" here.just for laugh

[nChrist]

Brother Tom can i put the "KISS" here.just for laugh

    

Hello Sister Def,

YES - I had forgotten about the "KISS" principle until someone reminded me of it recently. As Christians, the ULTIMATE realities for us are as simple as one can get.

We belong to CHRIST, and HE should be the CORE and FOCUS of this short life.

Love In Christ,
Tom

 

[Soldier4Christ]

Russian scientist says Earth could soon face new ice age
Claims data shows temperature peak already passed, cooling ahead

Temperatures on Earth have stabilized in the past decade, and the planet should brace itself for a new Ice Age rather than global warming, a Russian scientist said in an interview with RIA Novosti Tuesday.

"Russian and foreign research data confirm that global temperatures in 2007 were practically similar to those in 2006, and, in general, identical to 1998-2006 temperatures, which, basically, means that the Earth passed the peak of global warming in 1998-2005," said Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of a space research lab at the Pulkovo observatory in St. Petersburg.

According to the scientist, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has risen more than 4% in the past decade, but global warming has practically stopped. It confirms the theory of "solar" impact on changes in the Earth's climate, because the amount of solar energy reaching the planet has drastically decreased during the same period, the scientist said.

Had global temperatures directly responded to concentrations of "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere, they would have risen by at least 0.1 Celsius in the past ten years, however, it never happened, he said.

"A year ago, many meteorologists predicted that higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would make the year 2007 the hottest in the last decade, but, fortunately, these predictions did not become reality," Abdusamatov said.

He also said that in 2008, global temperatures would drop slightly, rather than rise, due to unprecedentedly low solar radiation in the past 30 years, and would continue decreasing even if industrial emissions of carbon dioxide reach record levels.

By 2041, solar activity will reach its minimum according to a 200-year cycle, and a deep cooling period will hit the Earth approximately in 2055-2060. It will last for about 45-65 years, the scientist added.

"By the mid-21st century the planet will face another Little Ice Age, similar to the Maunder Minimum, because the amount of solar radiation hitting the Earth has been constantly decreasing since the 1990s and will reach its minimum approximately in 2041," he said.

The Maunder Minimum occurred between 1645 and 1715, when only about 50 spots appeared on the Sun, as opposed to the typical 40,000-50,000 spots.

It coincided with the middle and coldest part of the so called Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters.

"However, the thermal inertia of the world's oceans and seas will delay a 'deep cooling' of the planet, and the new Ice Age will begin sometime during 2055-2060, probably lasting for several decades," Abdusamatov said.

Therefore, the Earth must brace itself for a growing ice cap, rather than rising waters in global oceans caused by ice melting.

Mankind will face serious economic, social, and demographic consequences of the coming Ice Age because it will directly affect more than 80% of the earth's population, the scientist concluded.