Global Warming

[Soldier4Christ]

Epic Flood Triggered Ancient "Big Chill," Study Says

An epic gush of fresh water into the North Atlantic slowed a deep ocean current and triggered a century-long chill in Europe and North America some 8,200 years ago, according to a new study.

The finding confirms scenarios suggested by previous models of the ancient climate and should raise confidence in predictions made about how the oceans will respond to Greenland's rapidly melting glaciers, an outside expert said.

Some scientists are concerned that Greenland's fast-melting ice could again slow the deep current, sparking changes in weather around the world ranging from reduced rainfall to a new mini ice age.

The current, called the North Atlantic Deep Water, helps keep Europe's climate mild. It shuttles cold, dense waters from the northern seas to the tropics, allowing the warm surface waters of the Gulf Stream to flow north.

Since fresh water is less dense than cold salt water, climate models suggest a flood of fresh water into the North Atlantic should force the current to slow or shut down.

Scientists suspect the sudden draining of North America's ancient glacial lake Agassiz—which was seven times larger than all of the Great Lakes combined—caused a well-studied cold snap about 8,200 years ago. But evidence that the deep-water current slowed was lacking.

Now, a team of European scientists has found the evidence in the contents of a 39-foot (12-meter) plug of seabed mud pulled from some 11,200 feet (3,400 meters) deep in the northwest Atlantic.

"We show that there's a sudden disruption in the deep circulation which takes place just at the time of the flood outburst," said Helga Kleiven, a paleoclimate expert at the Bjerknes Center for Climate Research in Bergen, Norway.

She and her colleagues report the finding in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science.

Evidence Found in Ancient, Tiny Bugs

Kleiven and her colleagues drilled the core off the southern tip of Greenland, where sediment-rich deep waters slow down and deposit their loads.

"The sedimentation rate is 10 to 15 times higher at these drift sites than they are in the rest of the North Atlantic," Kleiven said.

The researchers identified a section of the core that corresponds to a hundred-year period around 8,200 years ago. The chemistry of the sediment there is unlike that from any other time over the past 10,000 years, Kleiven said.

The sediment grains in this section are also much smaller, suggesting the larger, heavier grains had already fallen out of slower-moving waters or were never picked up.

In addition, oxygen isotopes in the shells of microscopic bugs found in this section suggest the surface water temperature was markedly colder.

"Basically, we have this deepwater response which we see in both chemical and sedimentological properties fitting right in time with the [draining of] glacial lake Agassiz," Kleiven said.

"And also on top of that, by looking at … these little bugs, we strengthen the connection between deep ocean change and the climate anomaly."

Richard Alley is a glaciologist at Pennsylvania State University who originally proposed in 1997 that changes in ocean circulation could have triggered the cooling that occurred 8,200 years ago.

He said the core preserves the short-term record beautifully and corresponds well with the climate record detected in ice cores pulled from Greenland.

"The data are just so clean," he said.

No Day After Tomorrow?

The new findings suggest that the changes in the ocean circulation pattern and cooling of the ocean surface happened over the course of a few decades at most, Kleiven noted.

"The response we see in these deep-ocean changes [is that] they occur on timescales which are rapid enough [that] they could impact human societies," she said.

While no immediate freshwater supply the size of lake Agassiz exists today, Greenland's rapidly melting ice sheets could potentially slow the deepwater current and affect global weather patterns.

A slowing could thrust large portions of Europe and North America into a mini ice age and weaken the monsoon rains in Africa and Asia.

"That's the rain that a couple billion people rely on for crops," Alley said.

This fear has even spilled over to Hollywood, where it inspired the 2004 eco-disaster film The Day After Tomorrow. (Read: "'Day After Tomorrow' Ice Age 'Impossible,' Researcher Says" [May 27, 2004].)

To study the possibility of future freshwater-induced disasters, scientists build computer models based on their understanding of past events like the cooling 8,200 years ago.

The new sediment core findings, Alley noted, suggest that these climate models are accurate.

And this, he added, is good news. When scientists plug the melting rates of Greenland's ice sheets into these models, they indicate catastrophe will most likely be avoided.

As an analogy, he equated potential disasters like a shutdown of the North Atlantic Deep Water to drunk drivers on a dark road.

"We now have confidence that there are fewer drunk drivers out there than we thought there were," he said. "But they're not gone."

[Soldier4Christ]

I noticed two things about this article. One, the epic flood theory they discuss here is more evidence of Noah's flood that actually occurred 4,200 years ago not the 8,200 they attest to. The other is that I knew that they would somehow find a way to blame global warming on another ice age which is just what they are saying here. After all they have to cover themselves and account for all incidents in weather change instead of just admitting that they were wrong.

[nChrist]

I noticed two things about this article. One, the epic flood theory they discuss here is more evidence of Noah's flood that actually occurred 4,200 years ago not the 8,200 they attest to. The other is that I knew that they would somehow find a way to blame global warming on another ice age which is just what they are saying here. After all they have to cover themselves and account for all incidents in weather change instead of just admitting that they were wrong.

       It's OK, and it was only a small error that amounts to an opposite. I'm just wondering - is there a Nobel Prize for the BIGGEST LIES?

[Shammu]

I'm just wondering - is there a Nobel Prize for the BIGGEST LIES?

Well Al Gore received a Nobel award, for his lies on global warming.

[Shammu]

Gore caught lying
Posted: December 10, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
by Joseph Farah

The United Kingdom court ruling smacking down Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" as shameless political fantasy unfit for schoolchildren elicited an interesting reaction from the former vice president.

Did he challenge the court's findings?

No.

Did he provide new evidence to bolster his case for any of the specific findings of falsehood and exaggeration by the court?

No.

Did he argue that the court itself was corrupt or incapable of understanding the "science" behind his film?

No.

He didn't do any of those things.

Instead, what Al Gore did was to make scurrilous and unsubstantiated accusations about the concerned parent who brought the case to court, at some personal sacrifice, to protect his child from the mental abuse of being force to watch "An Inconvenient Truth."

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider questioned in a Washington Post online blog whether Dimmock paid for his legal expenses himself or got help from others. Since she could not determine the answer to this question puzzling her, she determined that Dimmock's "motives are quite suspect."

If this is not a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't think I've ever seen one.

The people who created and distributed this propaganda film throughout the world are among the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world. And here they are questioning the motives of one obscure parent who battled, like David vs. Goliath, the national education establishment in the United Kingdom and won!

This is the definition of "chutzpah" – Tennessee-style.

Interestingly, Gore himself has publicly said nothing about the court case – nothing! Apparently, he hopes you won't learn about it. He hopes that by not commenting on it, the amazing story of one parent's battle for truth and justice in the United Kingdom will not be heard here in the United States. And, he may have something there.

This story had no legs whatsoever – which is why I am writing about it two days in a row in this space.

A reputable court of law has heard the facts on "An Inconvenient Truth" and found it seriously wanting. That court has determined the movie is unfit for viewing in public schools in the UK without specific and explicit disclaimers explaining that the assertions offered by Gore are not supported by science. And the reaction in the U.S. is like nothing ever happened. The movie is still being shown in classrooms from coast to coast. It is, besides evolution, the very centerpiece of what passes for science education in American schools today!

This raises some questions in my mind:

    * Why isn't Al Gore being hounded in all his public appearances to address this court ruling and its implications?

    * Why isn't he put on the spot in every venue to answer the specific findings of fact?

    * Since Al Gore won't comment nor dispute the court's findings, why aren't his acolytes in Hollywood and elsewhere, all those involved in the film and supporting it, being asked to take up the challenge?

    * Why aren't U.S. parents challenging the showing of this film in schools the way the UK parent-hero, Stuart Dimmock, did?

    * Is there not even one prominent school authority in America who is willing to re-examine his commitment to the educational value of this film in light of the UK court ruling?

[Soldier4Christ]

This is the definition of "chutzpah" – Tennessee-style.

lol  ...  Let's not put all of the poor Tennesseeans down because of Al Gore. Most of them don't even like him.     

      It's OK, and it was only a small error that amounts to an opposite. I'm just wondering - is there a Nobel Prize for the BIGGEST LIES?

Well Al Gore received a Nobel award, for his lies on global warming.

Other winners of a Nobel Prize:

Thirty-eight Nobel Prize laureates actively support evolution.

Peace, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of IAEA, supporter of terrorism

Peace, United Nations and Peace, Kofi Annan

Peace, Yasser Arafat

    Must be. 

[HisDaughter]

"Yeah!  I stuck it to 'em good this time!"

 

Amazing how some can show their faces when they know that everyone else knows what a lying, thiefing, con man they are.  I would be in hiding somewhere. Actually, I would never have to because I could never do it and be comfortable in my own skin.

[Soldier4Christ]

That picture does fit his attitude.

[Soldier4Christ]

Huck, Mitt, Rudy, McCain blame you for global warming
GOP frontrunners all believe climate change serious threat


The Republican presidential candidates shown leading the race in recent polls all believe global warming is a serious threat and caused by human activity.

When asked at today's Des Moines Register debate in Iowa to raise their hands if they believed climate change were indeed a real problem caused by people, Sen. John McCain, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Gov. Mitt Romney all responded in the positive.

"Climate change is real. It's happening. I believe human beings are contributing to it," Giuliani said, calling for a "Manhattan Project" to wean America off foreign energy sources.

McCain chimed in, saying, "More than contributing, my friend."

"But let me put it to you this way: Suppose that climate change is not real and all we do is adopt green technologies which our economy and our technology is perfectly cable of. Then all we've done is given our kids a cleaner world," McCain said. "But suppose they're wrong and climate change is real and we've done nothing. What kind of a planet are we going to pass on to the next generation of Americans?"

Mitt Romney, who has fallen behind the surging Mike Huckabee in Iowa, said the United States could not act alone.

"We call it 'global warming,' not 'America warming,'" Romney said. "So let's not put a burden on us alone and have the rest of the world skate by without having to participate in this effort. It's a global effort."

Those not raising their hands on the original question of global climate change being a serious threat caused by human activity were former Sen. Fred Thompson, Reps. Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, and Ambassador Alan Keyes.

When Keyes was asked his thoughts, he gave a long answer condemning the betrayal of U.S. sovereignty, elite politicians and the destruction of the Constitution.

Thompson jumped in to say: "I agree with Alan Keyes' position on global warming."

As the audience laughed, Keyes said: "I think the most emission we need to control is the hot air emission of politicians who pretend one thing and don't deliver."

[nChrist]

I just wrote a post on this same subject in another thread. There is a HIDDEN, BIG, AND UGLY STORY HERE SOMEWHERE! Is it political suicide to tell the truth on this issue? I want to find out more information on this before I make any further speculation, but folks other than Keyes on that stage knew the TRUTH and LIED! At this point, I can only assume that BIG POWER AND BIG MONEY OR FEAR = LIES! If everyone will remember, there was also a MAGIC TIME that Bush and others also bought the BALONEY, and the BALONEY was being verified as BALONEY at that very time. In fact, it's Court Ordered BALONEY in the UK, and major sources here have already identified it as BALONEY. It looks like BALONEY, smells like BALONEY, and hard evidence has been presented that it IS BALONEY!

I have to find out more. At this point, I'm wondering if any of the candidates are worth voting for. If power and money from BALONEY are more important than the truth, I have no use for a candidate like that. Keyes bluntly told the TRUTH, so what kind of UGLY game is afoot? I've never heard of or seen Keyes before, but he was the only one with the courage to tell the TRUTH!

[Soldier4Christ]

I have heard quite a bit about Alan Keyes. He was a member of the Reagan administration. Ran for Senator against Barack Obama in Illinois. Ran for President in 1996 and 2000. He has a consistent record of being against abortion, homosexuality, terrorists and being pro-Israel.

He has had a long history though of committing political suicide. While running against Obama he made the comment that Jesus would not vote for Obama because of Obamas stance for abortion. It is believed that this statement was the primary reason that he lost that election. His consistent failures in the political arena have not helped him gain in popularity.

He is currently a commentator for World Net Daily and serves on the Board of Advisors for the Catholic League.

I have to find out more. At this point, I'm wondering if any of the candidates are worth voting for. If power and money from BALONEY are more important than the truth, I have no use for a candidate like that.

I agree completely with that. There is something very foul afoot and I don't like the smell of it. It is another of those things though that gives us another sign of the times.

[Soldier4Christ]

Gore: U.S. blocking climate talks progress 
At Bali talks says next president will likely be more supportive

Nobel laureate Al Gore said Thursday the United States is "principally responsible" for blocking progress at the U.N. climate conference, and European nations threatened to boycott U.S.-led climate talks next month unless Washington compromises on emissions reductions.

The former vice president urged delegates to take urgent action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, and told them that the next U.S. president will likely be more supportive of international caps on polluting gases.

"My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali," said Gore, who flew to Bali from Oslo, Norway, where he received the Nobel Peace Prize for helping alert the world to the danger of climate change.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said Thursday Gore was wrong in blaming the United States for holding up progress. "I think he is incorrect," she said.

Kristen Hellmer, a member of the American delegation in Bali, said of Gore's remarks: "The U.S. is being open and working very constructively with the other countries that are here. We are rolling our sleeves up and really working to come up with a global post-2012 framework."

Earlier, the United Nations warned that time was running out for an agreement aimed at launching negotiations for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012 and the talks in Bali were in danger of "falling to pieces."

The United States, Japan and several other governments are refusing to accept language in a draft document suggesting that industrialized nations consider cutting emissions by 25 percent to 40 percent by saying specific targets would limit the scope of future talks.

European nations said they may boycott a U.S.-led climate meeting next month unless Washington compromises.

"No result in Bali means no Major Economies Meeting," said Sigmar Gabriel, top EU environment official from Germany, referring to a series of separate climate talks initiated by President Bush in September. "This is the clear position of the EU. I do not know what we should talk about if there is no target."

The European Union and others say the proposed emissions caps reflect the measures scientists say are needed to rein in global warming and head off predictions of rising sea levels, worsening floods and droughts, and the extinction of plant and animal species.

The U.S. invited 16 other major economies, including European countries, Japan, China and India, to discuss a program of what are expected to be nationally determined, voluntary cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions.

Perino said that while there were some voices calling for a boycott of the Washington meeting, it did not appear to be the official position of the EU. She said such comments were "not constructive to a conversation where everybody wants to get together for this meeting to talk about a framework for moving forward."

"And it's not just the United States who has expressed concern and surprise that the draft document included a specific reduction number. The specific reduction number was what was supposed to be negotiated after the Bali conference, once a framework was in place," Perino said.

The Bush administration views the major economies process as the main vehicle for determining future steps by the U.S.—and it hopes by others—to slow emissions. But environmentalists accuse the U.S. of trying to undermine the U.N. process.

Gore urged delegates to reach agreement even without the backing of the United States, saying President Bush's successor, who will take office in January 2009, would likely be more supportive of binding cuts.

"Over the next two years, the United States is going to be somewhere it is not now," he said. "I must tell you candidly that I cannot promise that the person who is elected will have the position I expect they will have, but I can tell you I believe it is quite likely."

Gore, who helped in the final negotiation of the Kyoto pact in 1997, also called for implementing a successor agreement two years early, in The first implementation period of the Kyoto pact expires at the end of 2012.

"We can't afford to wait another five years," he said.

U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer said he was worried the U.S.-EU deadlock could derail the process and that a final "Bali roadmap" would contain an agreement to negotiate a new climate deal by 2009, but may not include specific targets for emission reductions.

"I'm very concerned about the pace of things," he said. "If we don't get wording on the future, then the whole house of cards falls to pieces."

The United States delegation said while it continues to reject inclusion of specific emission cut targets, it hopes eventually to reach an agreement that is "environmentally effective" and "economically sustainable."

It also noted that that the conference was the start of negotiations for a new climate pact, not the end.

"We don't have to resolve all these issues ... here in Bali," said Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky, the head of the U.S. delegation.

The United States is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the only major industrial country to have rejected Kyoto, which expires in 2012. It has been on the defensive since the conference began Dec. 3.

The Kyoto Protocol requires 37 industrial nations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by a relatively modest average 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Bush has argued that the pact would harm the U.S. economy and cutbacks should have been imposed on poorer but fast-developing nations such as China and India.

The talks in Bali are scheduled to wrap up Friday.

[Soldier4Christ]

U.S. bows to demands for global warming pact

BALI, Indonesia - In a dramatic finish to a U.N. climate conference, world leaders adopted a plan Saturday for negotiating a new global warming pact by 2009, after the United States backed down in a battle over wording supported by developing nations and Europe.

The U.S. stand had drawn loud boos and sharp rebukes - "Lead ... or get out of the way!" one delegate demanded - before Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky reversed her position, clearing the way adoption of the so-called "Bali Roadmap."

"The United States is very committed to this effort and just wants to really ensure we all act together. We will go forward and join consensus," she said.

The sudden reversal was met with rousing applause.

The upcoming two years of talks, which will hammer out a successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, could determine for years to come how well the world will cut emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. A year of scientific reports have warned that rising temperatures will cause widespread drought, floods, higher sea levels and worsening storms.

"This is the beginning, not the end," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We will have to engage in more complex, long and difficult negotiations."

The document does not commit countries to specific actions against global warming. It was limited to setting an agenda and schedule for negotiators to find ways to reduce pollution and help poor countries adapt to environmental changes by speeding up the transfer of technology and financial assistance.

All-night negotiations had appeared on the brink of collapse several times. Ban made an urgent plea for progress in the final hours of talks, expressing frustration with last-minutes disputes. He later praised the United States for compromising in the end.

"I am encouraged by, and I appreciate the spirit of flexibility of the U.S. delegation and other key delegations," he told The Associated Press.

European and U.S. envoys dueled into the final hours of the two-week conference over an EU proposal to suggest an ambitious goal for cutting the emissions of industrial nations - by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

The guidelines were eliminated after the U.S., joined by Japan and others, argued that targets should come at the end of the two-year negotiations, not the beginning. An indirect reference was inserted as a footnote instead.

Just when it appeared agreement was within reach Saturday morning, developing nations argued that their need for technological help from rich nations and other issues needed greater recognition in the document. China also angrily accused the U.N. of pressuring nations to sign off on the text even as sideline negotiations continued.

In an apparent resolution, India and others suggested minor adjustments in the text that encouraged monitoring of technological transfer to make sure rich countries were meeting that need.

The EU backed the changes, but the United States objected, calling for further talks. Delegates by turns criticized and pleaded with Dobriansky to reverse course.

"We would like to beg them," said Ugandan Environment Minister Jesca Eriyo.

The applause that followed the Dobriansky's reversal was one of the few times the U.S. won public praise at a conference studded with accusations that Washington was blocking progress.

She told reporters later that other delegations had convinced the U.S. that developing nations did not intend to dilute their commitment to take steps to stop global warming.

"After hearing the comments ... we were assured by their words to act," she said. "So with that, we felt it was important that we go forward."

Environmentalists and other critics of the U.S. position cheered the reversal.

"We have learned a historical lesson: if you expose to the world the dealings of the United States, they will ultimately back down," said Hans Verolme, director of WWF's Global Climate Change Program.

For developing countries, the final document instructs negotiators to consider incentives and other means to encourage poorer nations to curb - voluntarily - growth in their emissions. The explosion of greenhouse emissions in China, India and other developing countries potentially could negate cutbacks in the developed world.

The roadmap is intended to lead to a more inclusive, effective successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which commits 37 industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gases by an average of 5 percent between 2008 and 2012.

The United States - the largest producer of such gases - has rejecting Kyoto, seriously weakening an initiative that scientists agree was already not strong enough to have an impact on the environment. President Bush has argued that the required gas cuts would hurt the economy, and he opposed the lack of cuts imposed on China and other emerging economies.

Critics - including former Vice President Al Gore - accused Washington of stonewalling progress at Bali. But many pointed out that with Bush's departure from office in early 2009, chances were high that the next American president would be much more supportive of ambitious cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

Another clash at the conference was between rich and poor nations.

Developing nations, led by China, have demanded that industrialized countries - which have grown rich by polluting for many decades - acknowledge their primary responsibility for resolving the problem. Poorer countries fear that they will be forced to sacrifice economic growth for the sake of cleaning up a mess caused by the industrialized world.

Richer nations, meanwhile, are concerned about skyrocketing rates of greenhouse gas emissions in the developing world. China is a primary concern, and many have estimated that it has already eclipsed the United States as the No. 1 emitter.

[Soldier4Christ]

Climate change 'hard man' breaks down at summit 
Dutch diplomat in charge of talks burst into tears, led away by colleagues

He is known as the "hard man" of climate-change negotiation.

But after 12 exhausting days of trying to reach a worldwide agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it was suddenly all too much for Yvo de Boer.

As the 200-nation Bali conference wrangled over a minor procedural matter, the Dutch diplomat in charge of the talks burst into tears and had to be led away by colleagues.

Moments earlier, Mr de Boer had been warning delegates that failure to reach an agreement on global warming could "plunge the world into conflict".

Officials from China, which feels Western countries should do more to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, accused UN negotiators of ignoring conference protocol.

Mr de Boer, distinctively dressed in a floral shirt, stepped up to the microphone to defend his staff - only to find that the words would no longer come.

As his unfinished sentences trailed away, he broke down and walked off the platform to supportive applause.

"He wasn't just wiping his eyes, he was in floods of tears," said one observer.

"Three colleagues - one of them a woman - formed a protective group around him and escorted him out of the hall. It was all very dramatic."

Mr de Boer's breakdown came after nearly a fortnight of squabbling over proposals to cut carbon emissions.

The European Union went to the conference demanding that industrialised nations commit to cuts in CO2 emissions of 25-40 per cent by 2020, a stance which was strongly opposed by the US, Canada and Japan.

America's representatives had also been jeered for insisting on firmer commitments from developing countries --despite President Bush's refusal to sign up to the previous targets laid down in the Kyoto Protocol in 2001.

In the end, a compromise was reached with a text that did not mention specific targets but acknowledged that "deep cuts in global emissions will be required".

A wave of relief swept the hall as US delegation chief Paula Dobriansky finally declared: "The United States is very committed to this effort and just wants to really ensure we all act together.

"With that, Mr Chairman, let me say to you we will go forward and join consensus."

The resulting treaty, known as the "Bali road map", sets in motion a two-year process of negotiations designed to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Under the deal, a new pact will be agreed at a meeting in Copenhagen in 2009.

By then, members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change - the organisation of which de Boer is executive secretary - should have agreed on a comprehensive plan involving wealthy and developing nations.

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn hailed the Bali deal as "an historic breakthrough" and a "huge step forward" in tackling climate change.

But Prime Minister Gordon Brown sounded a note of caution. "The Bali road map agreed today is just the first step," he said. "Now begins the hardest work."

The deal will come as a relief to Mr de Boer, who is known in the Netherlands for his passionate advocacy on the subject.

His reputation as an incisive --and tireless - negotiator has earned him the "hard man" tag.

However, former colleagues said his behaviour in Bali was not entirely out of character.

Political adviser Matthijs Spits said: "We Dutch can become quite emotional --surprisingly so for other nations who think we are cold."

[Soldier4Christ]

If you don't get your way just break down and start crying. I can't believe that our representative bought into this.