Deadly by the Dozen: 12 Diseases Climate Change May Make Worse

Yes, but the cyclic shifts in this lovely Planet are a normal event, and has yet to be proven otherwise.

Of course the climate changes, but history proves that those changes are not caused by mankind, or the actions of mankind.

There are those with vested interests who are bleating "Climate change".

As always, see who is benefiting by the triple threats advertised as: "Terrorism, Energy shortages, and Global Warming" scares, and, as usual, to find the real truth, follow the money trail.

Kind Regards....

Of course the climate changes, but history proves that those changes are not caused by mankind, or the actions of mankind.

You should keep up with currant affairs more. History proves that climate has never changed so fast by so much as it has in the last 20-30 years. The sheer size of the body of evidence now collated has meant that even the most die hard of climate change sceptics in the scientific community have admitted the validity of said evidence, and said so at their last few conferences. It may not be palatable, but to deny that we as a race have effected, and continue to effect the climate, is just burying your head in the sand. It's time to face facts.

Or do you subscribe to the chronology of Archbishop James Usher? That would then fit the facts.

Hello PlbMak

Thank you for your observation, but I have done my own research into the "Global Warming" scam.

I do not subscribe to the chronology as expressed by Archbishop James Usher, and in placing that comment, you have posted a red herring

Kind Regards....

I have done my own research into the "Global Warming" scam.

OK. Lets see it.

I'm neither a climatologist or meteorologist, but I'd still like to see any hard evidence that global warming is a scam. I'm sure I could find someone to explain to me anything I don't understand. I would love to think that the reality is we are in the midst of a natural cycle, despite all the evidence to suggest otherwise, but there comes a point were you have to face up to things.

The fact that the US gov.com spent a lot of time and effort trying to diminish the validity of the research results to allow denial of the facts would, I imagine, be enough to convince most people.

But for me, I think it has to be the extremely large and well regarded body of scientists that have me convinced. The geologist Dr Iain Stewart has done some quite accessible work.

Scam

1 -A confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, esp. for making a quick profit; swindle.

2 - To cheat or defraud with a scam

Interesting thought, Sparky. I never thought of Al Gore as a terrorist before. Of course, he DOES strike terror in my heart, but I thought that was just fear that the whale would eat up all the available food, use up all the available air, and find a way to tax ME for it!

Mike

STOP Nature's own Global Warming!!! Recently there have been articles and reviews on the melting Arctic ice and the warming temperatures. While we may blame humans for "global warming," Nature itself has provide a much greater source of greenhouse gases in the form of "Burning Ice" (Methane Hydrates) that in the geological past have outgassed in massive amounts periodically into the atmosphere. I will review the megatons of burning ice later on, but first there is a technical scientific issue to resolve.

The issue of "global warming" brings up the need for good mathematics in analyzing the various data sources to determine the true causes-and-effects ("inputs" and "outputs") and to filter out those causes that either do not affect the output, or in minor ways, or in combined effects that do not show up until certain conditions are correct. As I have spent time in R&D and also getting my series of degrees, I have found that very few scientists and researchers know how to use statistics properly to be able to filter and view data for the actual, true cause-and-effects. Too many times statistical regression methods are used that assume a direct relationship between the causes and effect, which may not be real. Although there are several books on the market, one of the best books I know of that can help researchers, analysts, and scientists is a book entitled, "Statistics for Experimenters," by Box, Hunter, and Hunter.

When it comes to global warming, there are more causes than most scientists have considered. For example, the increase in the number and intensity of solar eruptions has a much higher statistical correlation than the other causes/inputs. There are not many web pages that show these in good ways, but here are two articles for present the correlations rather easily.

http://www.qualitydigest.com/mar98/html/spctool.html
http://www.qualitydigest.com/april98/html/spctool.html

Although these graphs are from the late 1990s, the use of this type of statistical tool, SPC charting, has hardly ever been used by scientific researchers and investigators. Most of them have used other mathematical methods that assume a direct correlation between greenhouse gases and Global warming, as directed and determined by the process modeler. This traditional "assumption" may not be correct, and in some cases may potentially mislead scientists and modelers. These other tools can allow a scientist to purposely minimize the effects from natural causes and to maximize the effects of human sources.

Mars also has global warming:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming030207.htm
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/energy/Al-Gore-Scours-for-Extraterrestrial-SUVs.htm

Some researchers say that they know all the effects that the increased solar flux has on the atmosphere and have included this in their models, and stated that there are no real effects from the solar flux. But then there are other scientists with different theories on the effects of increased flux that present different scenarios for atmospheric reactions, such as the geomagnetic fields and changes, volcanics and their outgassings, etc. You do not hear much in the news about these other scientists and their results.

People should be very cautious about assuming that the global warming "effect" is due solely to "greenhouse" gases. Also, it should be noted that recent satellite data has shown that upper atmosphere is actually cooling:

http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/News/121699text.html
http://ees5-www.lanl.gov/IGPP/Debate2.html
(some of these links may not be working due to computer changes since 9-11)

Some researchers say that their theory and modeling shows that this cooling should occur, while others show differing effects. We see that there is still not complete agreements on the causes and especially the effects of global warming. Then there are some researchers who have purposely manipulated their models, formulas, and analyses to purposely disregard all other inputs and only tie the temperatures to greenhouse gases.

There is the other issue of how some scientists and researchers can purposely change the structure of the formulas used in their models, the mathematical terms used in the formulas, the parameters and scaling factors in the formulas, and the values of any exponentials so as to obtain predetermined results that the scientists wanted to get anyway. This allows the scientist to minimize effects from natural causes and to maximize the effects of human sources. This is "tampering" with the formulas so as to get the predetermined results that someone might want to get, no matter what the real processes are.

In my experiences in the scientific / R&D cultures, I have seen this happen several times, even with Peer Reviews. Peer Reviews are "supposed" to catch incorrect things, inconsistencies, and errors. But this does not always occur. In some cases, the scientific peers involved in those Peer Reviews also wanted "certain" results to come out of the modeling and designs that they were reviewing. In other cases, the peers were not paying attention to critical items and issues.

Also the issue of temperature collection has not been properly resolved. Temperatures are taken in cities that have the heat island effect. I have seen several different approached to handling and correcting these heat effects, but these approaches vary and also give various results. Then there is the issue of thermometer calibration. I have observed where some thermometers for city temperatures were not calibrated properly at the required intervals, and some times not calibrated at all. How can we trust the temperature data if there are these variations in the instruments?

When it comes to Nature's greenhouse generators through the Burning Ice (Methane Hydrates), we soon realize that our gases are very small when compared to the megatons of methane hydrates that are held within our oceans in a manner similar to a bathtub ring. Also the Earth has had major accumulations and releases in its geological past over the eons, some of which scientists now believe may have lead to some great temperature increases in the Earth's past, long before humans were ever around.

Let me give you some web sites that describe the characteristics and issues with the Earth's Burning Ice and the natural abundance of methane greenhouse gases:

General information on chemistry and biology of Methane Hydrates:
--> http://www.at-sea.org/missions/extremes/preview.html

--> http://www-ocean.tamu.edu/Quarterdeck/QD5.3/sassen.html

--> http://ench1.ench.ucalgary.ca/~hydrates/

--> http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates/

--> http://www.mbari.org/ghgases/

--> http://www.mbari.org/ghgases/geochem/gas_hydrates.htm

--> http://www.mbari.org/volcanism/Margin/Marg-Hydrates.htm

--> http://www.netl.doe.gov/scngo/NaturalGas/hydrates/index.html

U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) fact sheets:
--> http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/hydrates/

--> http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html

--> http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs021-01/

--> http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/hydrates/

Germany's research:
--> http://www.mpi-bremen.de/deutsch/biogeo/mumm2.html

--> http://www.gashydrate.de/

In the geological records and how dramatically and even violently the climate has changed, long before modern man came around. There is very strong geological and scientific evidence that the massive Extinction in the Permian Era many millions of years ago in the Earth's geological past was caused both by massive volcanism and by Methane Hydrates.
http://www.terradaily.com/news/deepimpact-05r.html

Climate models overheat Antarctica incorrectly
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Climate_Models_Overheat_Antarctica_999.html
Shame on those computer models!

Study breaks ice on ancient Arctic thaw:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Study_Breaks_Ice_On_Ancient_Arctic_Thaw_999.html
(previous periods of global warming)

And then there is the aspect of climate change from meteors:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzo.html

Outgassing of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) from volcanoes:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs172-96/

Inaccuracies in measurements of climates:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Antarctic_Snow_Inaccurate_Temperature_Archive.html

Ancient Climate Studies Suggest Earth On Fast Track To Global Warming
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ancient_Climate_Studies_Suggest_Earth_On_Fast_Track_To_Global_Warming.html

Green plants also cause Global Warming:
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/22944/
http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/info/publications/week/2006/060113/e-list.html#Wi1
http://www.terradaily.com/news/The_Forgotten_Methane_Source.html
http://www.terradaily.com/news/Could_Forests_Worsen_Global_Warming.html
http://www.terradaily.com/news/Extinctions_Linked_To_Climate_Change.html

Farming Provides Wildlife Habitat And Reduces Global Warming
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Farming_Provides_Wildlife_Habitat_And_Reduces_Global_Warming.html

Prehistoric warming helped preserve fossils:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzi.html

Ancient tropical warming and nature's greenhouse gases
http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzj.html

Volcanic impacts on ocean levels:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/oceans-05y.html

Climate change and massive flooding:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/The_Role_Of_Massive_Floods_In_Climate_Change.html

Late Pleistocene Americans Faced Chaotic Climate Change Environments:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Late_Pleistocene_Americans_Faced_Chaotic_Climate_Change_Environments.html

Global Warming evidence from 55 million years ago:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzzb.html

Tropical ice cores shows two abrupt Global Climate shifts:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Tropical_Ice_Cores_Shows_Two_Abrupt_Global_Climate_Shifts_999.html

How continental splits resulted in global cooling:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/antarctic-05q.html

Earth's burping from wobbling also affects climate:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzt.html

Geomagnetism as one factor in rain / weather:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Magnets_Help_Explain_Rain_Patterns.html

None of the environmentalists or businesses involved in reducing carbon emissions can go and blame massive climate changes in the past on power plants and vehicles!

It is not wise to make international policies on theories that are not agreed upon by the scientists who have been studying these causes and effects. Other scientists have published their works dealing with other causes, but have not been given the publicity such as the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has received.

But if the Solar Sun is the major, primary cause and we are just a minor contributor, then our Governments are imposing on us a major compliance issue that will NOT solve the problem. Control of carbon emissions does NOT equal Control of the Solar Sun and its flux intensities on us. Several environmental groups have told us and openly admitted at other times that they want to use the idea of human sources in order to shut down industrial activities -- their words, not ours.

Retired Univ. of California technical staff member at the Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA campus.

Hello cafrench

from me

For your well researched and carefully reasoned Post.

A great collection of Weblinks.

For information of others: The deep sea deposits are also called "Clathrates".

Kind Regards....

Ok, hold the presses, it's time for a reality check.

While there is no way to be absolutely certain the current money is on the earths climates warming considerably during the 21 century. At the moment by far the majority of the climatologists agree that the underlying cause of this change is the burning of fossil fuels by us, the good old human race.

Now while climates are dynamic and are subject to constant change this happens very slowly and the changes we are currently seeing are at least a couple and more likely 5 of 6 of orders of magnitude greater than have happened in the past and it's the rate of change that's worrying not the actual change.

One of the things that from current figures seems to be that the rate of melting of Antarctic and Greenlandic ice has been greatly underestimated in current climate models. If that's the case and regardless of the cause then anybody living in the world's coastal cities is going to be impacted by the subsequent rise in sea levels.

I haven't read all of cafrench's post or reviewed the links he has posted and I will over the next few days. However, in the meantime may I suggest those that are interested in participating in the thread that they search CR4 for related threads. You will more than likely find that many if not all the concepts being introduced have been previously looked at and discussed in detail.

I just had a read of this article on Antarctic warming on the TerraDaily web site as posted by cafrench.

Unfortunately it appears that the calculations the article reports on do not take into account the latent heat involved in the ice changing state to form water.

If you have a system that contains ice and water in contact with each other as is the case with most of the arctic and a considerable portion of the Antarctic ice adding heat does not cause a rise in temperature. Instead the energy goes into changing the stat of the water from solid to liquid keeping the temperature close to 0° C.

As a result the atmospheric and environment temperatures of the Arctic and Antarctic regions don't rise as much but rather act as a giant heat sink that adds mass to the worlds oceans while reducing the rise overall rise in temperature.

Unfortunately for us Greenland, the Arctic regions and Antarctica are loosing ice at an increasing rate that is greater than most models had predicted. While the arctic ice is mostly floating and therefore add greatly to sea levels the same can't be said for Greenland and Antarctica.

This increased rate of ice loss would tend to indicate that the Earth is absorbing more energy than had been originally thought and that the energy is going into melting arctic and Antarctic ice rather than raising global temperatures.

The following articles have further information on this:

• Antarctic Ice Loss: Bristol University
• Antarctic Ice Loss Faster than Ten Years Ago: National Geographic

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but I should emphasize that the rate of global warming over the last 50 years cannot be explained by Milankovitch cycles alone. The Earth is indeed warming at this point in the current cycle, but Milankovitch cycles operate over geologic time scales - not over mere decades, centuries or even a few paltry millennia.

Nor can the current warming trend be explained by short-term changes in solar insolation; most notably changes associated with the 11-year sunspot cycle. Changes in the Sun's average output have simply not been great enough to warrant the climatic changes we are seeing. Rather, the current trend is a combination of natural and man-made climatic influences, IMO. Both must be given due consideration in the construction of an accurate climate model.

Masu asks: "...but isn't the obliquity of the Earth's spin axis measured to the plane of the earths orbit rather than with respect to the Sun."

I intentionally opted for a for a less rigorous and more intuitive interpretation to convey the basic idea, but you are correct. Obliquity is measured in the way you describe:

Well done Masu. You get my vote!

An interesting point comes from this article that I just recalled and was posted previously on CR4.

Deep Ice Tells Long Climate Story

According the this article we have seen an increase of roughly 30 ppm in the atmospheric levels of CO₂ over the last 17 years. From the ice core samples similar naturally occurring rises took around 1000 years which is roughly a 59 fold increase in the rate atmospheric CO₂ is rising.

For all practical purposes that's awfully close to the 35 fold increase when the current rate of temperature rise was compared to the previous ice age ending warming events. The two are certainly the same within the potential error margin of the charts, records and experiments.

Personally when I first heard about climate change and global warming I was sceptical and thought it was just alarmist rhetoric. However, I have changed my opinion and now firmly believe that the root cause of the changes we are now seeing can only be due in some way to our actions and is most likely related to the woefully inefficient use of fossil fuels.

The evidence is now about as overwhelming as it can get and realistically there is no way to deny that the root cause behind global warming is the human race and our environmental vandalistic ways.

Hello masu

Perhaps the problem is all those elephants which were built and are still crashing around, instead of the mice we should have been building.

Kind Regards....

Ok I'll pay that one!

Of course there's also the second line of that which states:

A mouse in an elephant built to a government budget!

Hello masu

<"....A mouse in an elephant built to a government budget!....">

Surely you intended: A mouse in is an elephant built to a government budget!

That's a problem, even if a Spell-checker is used.

Elephants are terrified of mice, probably since the first mouse ran up inside a pachydermal trunk.

Kind Regards....

G'day Sparkstation

• Elephants are terrified of mice, probably since the first mouse ran up inside a pachydermal trunk.

Strangely enough that is actually true,

I don't know if you watch it or even get it in NZ but the Mythbusters dealt with a series of truisms in an episode not that long back.

One of the truisms they tested was the elephant and the mouse which apparently dates back to Pliney the Elder from around 2,000 years ago.

To test the notion the hollowed out a medium sized lump of elephant dung and attached a thin piece of nylon fishing wire to the top. The was then placed directly in the middle of a know elephant track and a real life mouse concealed beneath the dung. Everybody then retreated to their hides and waited in anticipation that the myth of elephants being scared of mice would soon be busted.

It wasn't long before an elephant approached and when it was a couple of metres from the mouse concealing dung the mouse was revealed.

To everybody's astonishment the elephant not only stopped dead in its tracks but froze fixated on the mouse. After several seconds it then backed up and giving the mouse a wide berth and without taking its gaze away for even a moment negotiated the rodent.

Ok, now I know everybody is going to say, "yea but it was the unnatural movement of the dung that startled the elephant". Well they tested that with the same piece of dung and no mouse and guess what happened. Nothing, nil, zilch, the elephant didn't even bat an eyelid to the movement of the dung.

So there you have it, elephants the largest mammalian land based life form on the planet really are afraid of a tiny little rodent and Pliney's reputation for truthful reporting is intact.

If you don't believe me, or if you do and you would like to see the results here are some links to You Tube clips that deal with it.

• Elephant & Mouse Brief Excerpt: You Tube
• Elephant & Mouse Full Story: You Tube
• Mythbusters Q&A Elephant & Mouse: You Tube

Hello masu

Thanks for the Utube links, very informative.

Kind Regards....

No worries!

Were you as astonished with the results as I was. The way the elephant stopped dead in its tracks when the mouse was revealed was about as close as the real world comes to a cartoon as it gets.

I suppose you could rig it but from what I have seen with their other episodes they're not into fixing the results.

Hello masu

I was not surprised at the automatic response by the elephant.

I think that it is designed into every creature, to be wary of a potential threat or danger.

That's why people have an inherent distrust of snakes and spiders, because so many of those may be poisonous or fatal to us.

Of course in New Zealand we have no snakes, except the draught excluder type.

Kind Regards....

"Of course in New Zealand we have no snakes, except the draught excluder type."

---

Not even those with the letters "esq." appended to their names?

Mercy me. We've got so many of 'em that the NIH is now using them instead of lab rats. For one thing, there are more of them. For another, there are just some things you can't get a rat to do.

PS: You'd think an overdose of Viagra would kill them, but it only makes them taller.

Hello europium

Apologies re those low species of crawlers, which I omitted.

As an aside, your Avatar is the actress "Janet Leigh" in the shower, from the original film by Alfred Hitchcock: Psycho" if I'm not mistaken.

Just shows what a good memory can do, I saw that film just once, back in 1960, although it took an extra minute to locate the actual photo on-line.

Kind Regards....

Yep. I know who she is.

And she didn't appreciate my walking in on her shower like that.

Hello again europium

Your real name is not Kathy Bates, I hope.

Kind Regards....

Yes, htat is another term used for them.