Geo-Engineering Slow the Flow in the Drake passage, Melt Antarctica!

It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature.

We fool with mother nature every time we plow a field, nobody is being nice. So, how would it affect the climate? And how quickly? There should be an ever so slight increase in the speed of cold currents up the Chile coast. And what else?

yeah thats it toss a couple of ropes in the water and Palm springs becomes a winter wonderland. sounds so logical.

I think that plowing hundreds of thousands of fields has a lot more effect than dropping 4000 to 10, 000 anchors and attached steel cable and buoys in a single or double line the drake passage. 1 km long cable, would that work, what sort of drag pattern would they cause? The idea is to gently apply the brakes while using the dissipated heat to gently weaken the winds that isolate the Antarctic. Use the distributed cold from the Antarctic to avoid whatever hellish disruptions we are in for as the climate switches from cool house to warm-house.

Plowing is followed by planting, irrigation, plant growth, transpiration and harvesting. All known quantities. Growing food has been going on for eons. It is a good thing.

Your folly is unthinkable, not to mention un-doable.

You can't conceive of the damage this could cause. Plants, animals, shipping, coastal erosion, you are proposing an ecological disaster.

Why would you want to destroy the Antarctica? Dumb idea!

I agree strongly with your post, Lyn

..... well except that little part about agriculture going on for eons. It has been occurring for just a tiny portion of a single eon. For that matter, the time period doesn't approach an entire era, nor period, nor epoch. It hasn't even been going on for ages....just a small portion of a single age, really.

It occurred to me that you might not have been referring to geologic time, and instead using the 'indefinite long time' meaning, but I think we both know is definitely a long time. Nothing indefinite about it.

.

On a more serious note, the possible reduction in albedo both from ice loss at the south pole and changes in precipitation brought on by shifts in ocean currents, could make the proposal do just the opposite of intent. Luckily, the effort required to meaningfully effect the ocean currents is probably not within the bounds of motivation/cooperation of the people of the world today.

Agreed.

Ironically, agriculture had its beginnings at the end of the last ice age, about 10,000 years ago.

Hardly an eon.

I probably have exaggerated a millions times before, too.

You are definitely out of touch with reality.

Plowing of fields improves soil conditions by rotating organic materials under the surface and allowing decomposition of that matter to provide valuable nutrients required for sustainable plant life which in turn purifies the air we breathe and provides higher levels of required oxygen.

The act of plowing actually improves the environment rather than damaging it.

Despite some very limited opinions from uneducated, unknowledgeable people on the subject; dormant natural soil will become sterile within a very short period of time if the soil is never disturbed and/or if the same plant species are allowed to grow year after year in the same area.

This is because each plant species require different minerals and nutrients and if left unchecked will deplete the soil until that particular plant species dies and becomes extinct.

We humans despite our huge egotistical demeanor, do not yet have the knowledge nor the technology to accurately identify the root cause of the current world temperature rise.

It might be negatively influenced by our actions and it may just be that it is a natural phenomenon that would occur whether humans existed on this planet or not.

One only has to read and study the recorded information from ancient redwood tree base rings to see that this earth continually suffers from temperature and drought cycles.

These cycles occurred long before man ever entered the picture and in fact was supposedly responsible for the total demise of all dinosaurs.

Interesting though that many smaller animals, birds, reptiles, and fish species in great numbers survived the same period of time don't you think?

By the way; If you stop the plowing be prepared to starve to death because there will not be any food to eat.

Chicken and egg time. When the Glacial Period ended, approx 10,000 years ago, farming was able to be done on a much larger scale, and at much higher and lower latitudes. Rather than just in the Fertile Crescent, domestic agriculture was able to reach even Norway and Greenland. Did the increase in agriculture aid in the warming after the Ice Age? Or, would the planet, coming out of an extreme cold period, just warm on it's own, slowly, as it always had before, regardless of the agricultural component? I hope this question makes sense.

Ceide Fields About 5 and a half thousand years ago in Ireland. Farmers removed the pine forest, farmed cattle, rain on grassy land caused an iron pan under the ground, ruined the fertility, bog grew and farmers left. So, something like slash and burn perhaps. But probably burning more to keep warm than to fertilize fields. Kind of early version of the dust bowl, but bog bowl instead. I have been near it, one of the bleakest most desolate places in Ireland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A9ide_Fields

"... But probably burning more to keep warm than to fertilize fields. ..."

I agree that it is unlikely fertilizing fields was the motivation for clearing and burning pine forests, but clearing forest to create grassland for livestock seems likely to be a more significant factor than heating in this instance.

Best post in a long time! Many thanks, Mac

"The world is all messed up and the effects of global warming are everywhere "

Which world would that be exactly? The one I live on is doing exactly what it has done within its typical ranges for a few million years now.

Just because some misinformed ignorant nuts don't like how the weather is where they live or some place else doesn't mean the world is ending for everyone or anyone for that matter.

What I do know is if the politicians and government and a bunch of clueless doo gooders feel they need to mess with something to make it better things will end up far worse than had they done nothing at all.

You're arguing both sides of the debate here. FOUL!

First you say: "The one I live on is doing exactly what it has done within its typical ranges for a few million years now".

Then you jump the fence and say, "to mess with something to make it better things will end up far worse than had they done nothing at all".

So which is it? We have no impact on global conditions? Or, is it we can screw up global conditions?

You can't have it both ways.

No fence jumping.

You took part two of your quote of me out of its full context that specified that the actions of politicians governments and clueless ignorant do gooders trying to make things better (typically by their own standards) tend to make things worse than had they done nothing at all.

You poor clueless fool.

You are assuming that their actions will do ANYTHING, instead of nothing at all.

Look at the great job our leaders did with Katrina. Something that we really could have made right.

They can't even keep the country running.

Well I don't see where spending a pile of time effort and money plus making loads of new largely pointless to outrightly detrimental rules and regulations to basically break even or go backwards doesn't count as a negative.

My point is that all the "detrimental rules and regulations" won't have any effect on the climate.

they've been running it........right into the ground!

Yes--The Mayor himself, Nagin, left 70 busses to fill with water, then took off for Dallas to ride out the criticism. Organized gangs from Dallas, Houston and elsewhere terrorized the Hwy in and out of New Orleans, and help loot what the inner city gangs didn't get, effectively blocking escape and supply routes. Friends there have some horrifying stories. My Daughter went with FEMA, building shelters, and such, as a volunteer, and the people were very happy with them, as their own city and burrough leadership failed them miserably. Not surprised that criminal cases went on for years. I would hate too see what would happen if the same disaster hit areas of St. Louis , Detroit , or Baltimore...

PERSONAL FOUL! USING FACTUAL EVIDENCE TO MALIGN POLITICIANS! 15 YARDS OR 15 BEERS TAKE YOUR CHOICE!

LOL! LMAO! RAOTFF!

We have recent valid proof that the EPA does not know what they are doing in Colorado where they failed to review old underground mining site pollution control documents and opened a sealed, heavily contaminated water filled mining shaft.

Not only did they inundate all of their equipment and personnel with heavy metal contaminated waste but their actions placed an aquatic ECO system over 200 miles in length and every living thing around it in serious jeopardy of arsenic and/or lead poisoning and whatever other bad chemicals were in the sludge.

By the way the EPA admitted knowing it was there and that they were looking for it.

I would have thought they would have had enough common sense to core drill the area for accurate identification of the actual location and size/quantity of the stored sludge before opening it up. No?

How could anyone be dumb enough to set up downhill of a site with an unknown quantity of hidden hydraulic pressure behind a headwall then start digging into the wall?

Not only were their actions completely inappropriate and unsafe but according to the local county mine inspector this has occurred more than once in that same area.

You would think they would have learned from earlier mistakes.

I think they all deserve a Darwin Award. Yes?

Lunacy, starting with the first sentence.

Messing with something we hardly understand is recipe for disaster.

Helping where no help is needed leaves the ones in need helpless.

Give up these daydreams and do something useful.

"opening the fridge of Antarctica would improve climate for lots of people" by melting all the ice would raise the sea level around the world by 200 feet.

You've probably killed millions of people and displaced 100's of million more.

And in this post you are confusing geopolitically induced migration with climate induced migration.

No thanks!

We'll be long dead before the sea level rises more than a few inches.

Let's not fool with Mother Nature.

My money's still on Yellowstone to kill us all anyway.

Maybe the Cascadia fault could let go at the same time...

Oooohh! Can we have Cumbre Vieja initiate the mega-tsunami at the same time? Ooh and it would be a good time for Guam to go ahead and capsize as well

Understand the Great Canary Islands slippage could go at any time..That would take care of the East Coast , at the same time.. Better buy some land in Kansas---No--That would be under the Thermo Nuclear bomb launched from a barge in the Atlantic, to wipe out all of our electrical and electronic capabilities…..What to do, Mr. Bill..??

You are completely off your mind.

There is nothing about climate based migration when refugees leave countries like Syria and Irak and coming from Africa.

If you watch the news closely you will find that those are war affected countries and areas. And it is a long stretch to say that climate is the reason. You have all your basics messed up and I would not trust anything you propose to be of value.

"People will have to move, regardless."

Interesting concept as today we have millions of people living in the deserts of the world that 100 years ago was considered inhospitable.

Due to human ingenuity, unwavering persistence, and technological advances these extremely hot, arid regions easily support a much higher population count than could ever be imagined even fifty years ago.

Everything I have read so far indicates the ocean is estimated to rise 1-3 inches in the next 300 years. I cannot imagine there will be a mass exodus from any coastal region nor from any inland regions.

I do remember that during the "dust bowl" there was a pretty sizable migration of people from Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, and Arkansas but it was not the majority of the population.

We as humans tend to procrastinate and wait until the last minute to react but when we do the results are usually amazing.

I have faith in the human race that we will adapt, overcome, and survive regardless of the challenges faced in the future but I do believe some of the lessons learned will be painful to say the least.

Hi, right now sea level rise is over an inch per decade and the projection is 1 to 4 ft by 2100 (because it seems to be accelerating).

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

Go to this site and read for a better understanding of rising ocean levels.

Note:

1. The stated rate of rise in ocean levels is: 3.5mm per year.

2. That equates to 0.1377949 inches per year of rise in ocean levels.

3. The information is admittedly skewed but at the stated current rate of rise the ocean level if nothing changes, will rise 11.85 inches over the next 86 years (2100)

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml

This very respected site further exposes the discrepancy between known and theorized changes in ocean levels.

This documentation indicates differences in recorded ocean levels depending on time of year and location taken that vary from .17mm to a maximum of 3.5mm. This puts the rate of change as: Average = 1.835mm or .07224388 inches per year which would yield 6.2129 inches by year 2100.

Choose your poison. As for me? I will stick with the NOAA documentation and apply sound, logical reasoning to determine the truth until I am shown a better way.

Funny how the alarmist are only using the maximum level change instead of averaging the readings. Wonder why?

What happened to the Scientific Method? Why is it not being used in this instance?

So how do you guys feel about CO2 forcing global warming? And CO2 forcing rapid ocean acidity changes? And wind turbines slowing the wind coming onshore in many countries? And seeding the oceans with Iron Oxides? And airplanes changing the atmosphere reflectivity by depositing ice way up high? Why is this particular subject so taboo that you will not even look at it? I posted this subject "tongue in cheek" but even so, never expected the "I'm afraid of the dark" and the "don't even look at Pandora's box" and "don't go there, you idiot" really inspiring. I actually posted about this elsewhere too. A guy who is interested in geoengineering (belongs to a group that models geo-engineering ideas and their effect on the atmosphere) is afraid to model this! Seriously, are people so scared of the unknown that they refuse to imagine it? I model stuff all the time (physical models of little airlift pumps) and the models often show up undreamed of effects. If climate models are so good, they should be able to model the drake passage obstruction. So why not look into it, run the program and see what happens. If nothing else, it might improve modeling techniques. It's probably going to melt anyway, but maybe not, it might be that if the winds and currents were perturbed, precipitation on Antartica would increase and prevent the ocean levels from rising. (They are rising and the rate of rising is increasing) A couple of ft per year of extra snow in Antarctica might prevent the rising. But it is taboo to even model it! That's daft, quite frankly.

just drop a quarter in his cup and pat him on the head and hope this time he actually uses the money for therapy instead of another hit of crack

If you are interested in shifts in ocean currents cooling and otherwise changing the Earth, it would be worthwhile to study the effects of changes to first the Tethys Ocean and later and more significantly blocking of the Central American Seaway by the emerging Isthmus of Pamama.

These events forced more warm equatorial waters to flow up to higher latitudes. Significant increases in precipitation was followed by glacial growth, increase albedo, cooler temperatures, and glaciers extending to lower latitudes, further increasing albedo, cooler temperatures......

So much ice was locked up on land that sea levels reached levels 100s of meters below prior to the changes in ocean currents. The crust is still rebounding in places where that ice had previously weighted it down.

It is thought that the Drake passage closed around 40 million years ago for a period, but I don't know of much indication it cooled the world significantly, though it did warm Antarctica.

It would probably allow more bang for the buck to shift warm waters to flow past higher latitude land masses that are not already significantly snow covered so that increased snow coverage (portion and time) could increase albedo.

.

How to shift the currents? What, you want me to do all the work?

No, I told you how, anchors, wires and buoys in the Drake passage and that sends more cold water up the west coast of south America. Scientists are not exactly sure when Antarctica separated from South America, from Australia and from India. But they do think that each separation caused quite the change. The big one seems to have been the opening of the drake passage. That is what started the isolation of Antarctica and that seems to be what plunged us into an icehouse world.

"Scientists are not exactly sure when Antarctica separated from South America, from Australia and from India."

"That is what started the isolation of Antarctica and that seems to be what plunged us into an icehouse world."

Just a thought to add to the confusion but:

Considering the context of your statements it appears you are going in a circle.

If we are indeed living in an "icehouse world" what the heck is this "Global warming" thing all about?

If I understand you correctly you are advocating manipulation of ocean currents through the Drake channel to do what?

Create even more warming and add to the already existing problem?

Or are you saying it will provide cooling that will mitigate global warming?

Seriously? Surely you jest or are confused. Well maybe you are not, but I sure am.

If I had to choose a container to describe our world in it's current state I would use the words:

"Half empty ice chest with the lid not quite all the way closed."

Why you ask?

1. It's definitely getting warmer inside the ice chest.

2. Some of the fragile contents are definitely spoiling and may soon perish because of the rising temperature.

3. If the cause of the rising temperature isn't identified soon and corrected, the entire contents of the ice chest will perish.

4. We the "smart" species and the only species by the way that might be able to figure out a solution, cannot decide, nor reach a consciences on whether the root-cause for the temperature rise is from the lid being partially open or because the ice is melting.

5. It appears we are waiting for some outside, unseen force which just might be the real cause for the lid being open to close the lid thereby mitigating the imminent danger.

6. In the meantime however, the ice chest and everything in it is fast becoming at risk of perishing.

In short:

Don't try to fix something that ain't broke!

We are not scared that you model this. We are scared that you try to push this idea in real.

I am scared because you would do something that you have no idea how it works possibly affecting a whole continents population.

Would you please share your source of information on ocean level measurement that indicate ocean levels are rising in "inches-per-year"?

The fact is that a computer modeling program is only as accurate as the program developer's collective knowledge, will only manipulate whatever is entered as DATA then output it skewed or not, and will only respond with output that lies within program boundaries/limitations.

If the entered DATA is not within program variable acceptable range limits, the DATA is usually excluded/dumped and is not allowed to affect the program output.

While in a few cases this may not drastically affect the validity of the program accuracy and performance, I am very sure in the case of Global Warming modeling that excluding valid DATA that does not lie within the acceptable range will definitely skew the model. Exactly how much and which direction is the big question and depends on who is manipulating the report/thesis.

We have already experienced disclaimers and apologies from several scientific agencies admitting their model and/or thesis and/or some of their critical statements pertaining to Global warming, ocean levels, ocean temperatures, and a myriad of other topics have been erroneously reported but usually only after someone else has identified the error(s) in a public forum.

In some cases it is simple human error that is the root-cause of the deviation however, there have been several instances where it has been proven the error(s) were intentionally allowed to sway public opinion one way or another.

Therein lies the critical problem; When those that desperately need to be trusted in the scientific community intentionally manipulate DATA to custom tailor the outcome of a report or thesis for their own purpose such as to justify or secure their budget or help to increase business for a specific business sector, it destroys the creditability of everyone in the scientific community across the board. (Where we are today.)

CO2?

It is produced in large quantity by many different plants, animals, volcanoes, and other natural processes. It's been a few years since my last advanced chemistry class however you need to know that CO2 when combined with water does not produce an extremely low PH (Acidic) solution. We consume this chemical compound AKA "soda pop" in large quantities daily.

I am quite certain that soil and ocean/water PH changes can be and are being affected by free Sulfur, Nitrogen, Hydrogen-sulfide, and some hydrocarbons that are combining with rain water or that are being allowed to get into waterways. (These too are produced in large quantity by nature which makes it extremely difficult to identify the source.)

At what scale use of these compounds by humans impacts our environment has yet to be determined because it is impossible to accurately measure what occurs naturally or is generated by human actions which is why the short term environmental answer so far has been to stop production of, and to remove all suspected harmful chemicals from the marketplace.

While this provides a quick solution it often is not the best solution because the implemented change usually results in the use of a less harmful chemical being used but at two or more times the quantity with the end result being far worse harmful to the environment than if we had kept using the original chemical.

Think about this: When water forms into ice it expands at a fantastic rate which is why a sealed, full bottle of water will explode when it freezes. If the oceanic ice and the polar cap thaws and therefore displaces less volume as water, wouldn't logic dictate that the ocean level actually will become lower?

I read an article recently that included satellite pictures which stated and displayed visual proof that both polar regions suffered extreme increases in ice formation during year 2014. And we are back to the problem. Is the report skewed or completely false? It certainly disagrees with other opinions.

Keep in mind that the number of people accessing remote areas has increased dramatically over the last few years and people that are not scientists are observing phenomenon in nature that has always been part of natural earth cycles but is bizarre to the unfamiliar observer. This all too often results in a very tainted, incorrect point of view getting sensationalized in social media further complicating the issue.

A point of interest: I reviewed a report several years ago spotlighting in detail, the large reflective mirrors being built in outer space by the Chinese to warm their climate and extend their agricultural growing season throughout their entire country. The idea was/is to gather, concentrate, and redirect sunlight in large quantity to warm the soil. I am curious as to if the project was ever started or for that matter has it been completed and is contributing to global warming.

How would we know? Better yet, how do we find out?

And wind turbines slowing the wind coming onshore in many countries?

Ummmmm....... Wind turbines slowing the wind down? What effect do you think buildings and sky scrapers have on wind patterns. I seriously doubt that a wind turbine is going to slow the wind enough to make a marked difference!

This is a marked difference.

I see a disruption in the wind pattern but without an anemometer to measure wind speed the picture is just a neat curiosity.

What about this wind farm?

I'm not arguing, I'm stating my personal observations!

Here is another one about it. I personally like it. But I don't know if it is a "bad" effect or a "good" effect. It is definitely a change. When people cut down trees or plant trees inland, I am sure similar changes occur. Out to sea, these "trees" are a whole new thing. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251721/Pictured-The-stunning-micro-climate-sea-fog-created-Britains-windfarms.html

Lets worry about fog then!

<unsubscribe>

My reply is a single phrase: Unintended consequences.

We do not have anything close to an accurate model for the dynamics of ether the atmosphere or the hydrosphere, let alone the interactions between the two. Lorenz demonstrated why some years ago. (The "butterfly Effect") With all our modeling systems today, we can't even predict the path or strength of a hurricane more than three days in advance.

So you are suggesting making a "small" change to the Oceans' dynamics. What effect will this have to the overall dynamics of this planet? You and nobody else knows or can predict what will happen. This simple change could cause the Earth to becoming another Venus or Ice planet.

I still don't know why people are freaking out and getting mad. This is the forum where lots of people think CO2 is a great gas, the more the better. Small changes have been made before. And actually, the one I suggest is smaller that this one beside Vancouver island. (Such a big explosion that the nuclear guys got interested!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_Rock 1,270 metric tons of Nitramex 2H explosive!

I am sure a few anchors and cables and buoys is cheaper than that. AND you can always release the buoys if the current changes too much.

Actually, Victor Gorshkov and Anastassia Makarieva have said that the reason the meteorolgists cannot model hurricanes is that meteorologists refuse to change their model. They say that hurricanes are powered significantly by the low pressure that is produced by condensation of water vapor to rain, while everyone else say it is a heat engine, pure and simple. (Even thought meteorologists cannot model this heat engine to approach what happens in the real world) http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/6/S59/2009/hessd-6-S59-2009.pdf

Your research has merits. But there is a fundamental flaw in your interpretation.

If the current prediction models (e.x. Tornadoes) are proving wrong but still used, what would ensure that anything you model will be correct and trustworthy?

An engineer gets the best available data, runs the models 3 or 4 times, crosses his fingers and then wings it. A scientist runs the models 50 times, needs more data, and chickens out. That's why I asked the engineers.

Hopeless if the data comes from scientists!

Think about it!

I am dealing with this on a daily basis.

Good luck!

Crossing finger and winging it is not the appropriate level of caution/respect deserved for considering making changes to something as important as ocean currents.

.

Why does your concern about future temperature rise fail to include possible ramifications of the action you suggest? If you are really worried about it getting hot, how can you be so gung-ho about taking action for which you have so little certainty about whether it will cause things to heat up further or cool down?

.

I don't want to dissuade anyone from high stakes reckless gambling if that is their desire....so long as the stakes are really theirs to gamble.

You could make a similar gamble but limit the stakes to your own person by taking a trip to Yellowstone this winter. There are some places where hot springs and cold streams meet...you could jump in at random points....maybe you get really cold or maybe the flesh cooks off your bones, as has hhappened to people a number of times. Wheeeeeeee!

Indeed! However the subject at hand is dealing directly with weather patterns and possibly influencing those weather patterns in some very small way compared to the overall picture by manipulating ocean current paths.

The point is: If we cannot even predict the weather with accuracy how can/could we possibly predict, much less identify the real cause(s) of climate changes?

Don't give up because of the nay-sayers rather keep inviting open discussion and maybe, just maybe it will ignite a thirst for solving the issues at hand.

........just agreeing

A good answer if there ever was one!

It might even save the world this time!

Can nobody speculate or dream any more? Or do you need a modeling program to tuck you in at night? Guys, the original post was a bit tongue in cheek, however even so, I did not expect the insulting, demeaning answers. Really, when you eventually look back on your answers, you might see yourselves as a gang of cheap shot muggers, punching yourselves out. We can speculate about what might happen if the drake passage flow was slightly slower, or no? Unless you are part of the flat earth society, that subject should not be taboo. About 5 million years ago, there were little shrubs and small trees hanging on in Antarctica and anyway as an isolated continent it is less than 25 million years old. So we actually do have a partial idea what the climate would be like if the drake passage flow was a bit slower. Climate would almost certainly be more even from equator to poles. There are a couple of other reasons for looking into this. "Ozone holes" are not going away. But aren't they due to extreme cold air above the Arctic and Antarctic? And you know, if you have a continent where the interior temp is around minus 70 C and extreme low humidity, it might be a great place to dump water from our current sea level rise. ( about 30 mm per decade at the moment and increasing rapidly). But the water vapor cannot get through the southern polar vortex to reach the continent. A slight weakening of the polar vortex can be initiated by slightly slowing the current in the Drake passage. Sure it would change the future a bit. But everything we do as humans changes the future.

that's our problem........we believe in science rather than science fiction. your theory is clownish and almost impossible to test. if you think you can save a planet that doesnt't require saving in the 1st place you go right ahead and do a round of crowd funding. if enough crackpots see the world as you do you can spend that money and be a hero, at this point you sound like a certified fool, but I'm sure a nice person under that Superhero costume

"...Climate would almost certainly be more even from equator to poles. ...."

.

That sounds like a very bad thing. Venus has a very even climate from equator to poles.

.

Just to give you one more chance to grab hold of the big problem, aside from all the unknowable consequences.... What you propose has a good chance of decreasing total ice-covered land area. The reduced reflection of solar energy would effectively be additional heat added to the planet.

You might indeed get less temperature variation between equator and poles, but the idea of 115° F temps everywhere is not appealing.

FYI: There is a somewhat new documentary on the relationship between "Ozone holes" and the ionosphere that you could gain a much better understanding from.

Recent discoveries have opened up the distinct possibility that so called "Ozone holes" are required in order for the earth to maintain equalization and stability between the different layers.

The pictures are awesome! Especially real time photos taken of lightning bolts exiting outward into space.

The documentary points out the importance of obscuring abnormal and extremely destructive solar rays that would wreck havoc to our world.

"For every action there is a reaction."

The outcome of a self induced action on a global scale could very well be fatal.

I am sure this is why people get so upset when anyone starts throwing out ideas focused on attempts to influence any part of nature on a global scale especially when it could cause a catastrophic, irreversible reaction.

It is the unknown that provokes more fear and retaliation rather than the known that humankind can ignore or avoid.

NASA has been measuring sea level rise. Details here. 4 inches in the last 2 decades. At least 32 more inches of sea level rise by 2100 Not sure about their math. The guy says 3 mm per year but 4 inches in 2 decades is 5 mm per year. http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/5e92d30f16ca4e5a86f70cab104909d0.htm

http://www.climatecooling.org/globalcoolingdocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

Great link…Thanks..I had lost it..

http://phys.org/news/2011-08-nasa-satellites-pothole-road-higher.html

GA! Interesting graph.

For some reason my common sense is telling me that there are a great number of influences we as humans are not aware of that can and are affecting ocean levels and our ambient temperature swings.

It also occurs to me that the methods and equipment used ten years ago for measurements were not nearly as sensitive and maybe not as accurate as what is being used today.

Exactly how much does seawater expand and contract per degree of temperature and how does the expansion correlate to change in sea level(s)?

What if the temperature increase is actually a result of increased atomic activity within the core of the earth which in turn is causing the magma to exert more pressure out (up) towards the surface of the earth?

Considering the drastic increase in volcanic activity and the increase in quantity of earthquakes that is occurring, I would surmise something on a very large scale is taking place deep within the earth.

Years ago I noticed some correlation between the DATA gathered from tree rings in respect to annual temperature variations seem to parallel volcanic and seismic activity levels but I've never spent enough time researching or plotting the results to see if there is any validity to my limited observation.

I would think that the atomic reaction that we know is occurring within the earth is no different than those we observe in space in that the severity of the reaction is not controlled therefore it is not constrained in nature.

Rather the atomic reaction fluctuates regularly with cyclic tendencies and in fact the laws of physics dictate that the reaction must suffer asymmetrical periods of time wherein the reaction is severe creating extreme changes in temperature, movement, and shape of the mass.

During those time periods of extreme reaction it would make sense that the temperature of the earth's crust as well as the temperature of all oceans, seas, and the atmosphere would react accordingly by increasing in magnitude.

I would also theorize that given such extreme reactive conditions the atmosphere, stratosphere, and ionosphere would also be affected.

But who am I to blow against the wind?

All you are saying is that in all the climate scam talk there is major point being omitted: What is the energy balance in our system really and how does it swing naturally.

Measuring the temperature and making a statistic over the highest values is what the climatologists are interested in to further their scam. But they have never provided a full energy balance for the system Earth.

Check this out

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance.html

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/planetarytemperatures.html

and this.

I like the second link!

Lets get back to some basic knowledge.

If temperature goes up there is more energy in the system. Did you notice the mention of phase change in above basic knowledge link?

Water seems one of the keys to understand the system Earth.

Recently I found some suggestions that hotter weather is actually attributed to less humidity. And right so. Whoever was asking himself why the tropics are getting less hot than the dry circles around the tropics has the answer right at hand. Its humidity driving, controlling temperature.

In middle Europe there is a clear indication that it was hotter on days being less humid. If we want to have a grasp on temperatures we might want to look at why it is more dry.

In the end of the day it might be more dry because its hotter? Well lets look at the energy balance then. This should clear any doubt.

Well acs just seems to be another organisation riding the wave.

Should have read more.

Its is quiet good science basics but with well hidden agreement on the warming scam.

If you get to the part of ocean acidification on their web site you will know.

Good morning! Happy Labor Day Everyone!

Yes, not only is a major point being omitted but also several other smaller but critical key factors that may be having a much higher impact than realized.

Intentional or not, the omission of these DATA have to be skewing the model results.

As to how much I am unsure.

One of the outstandingly skewed statements in the first document is well hidden and is not further explained in the document.

Below the planetary chart there is the statement that the measured temperature of Venus is 500K higher than their original calculated model value.

A very significant offset don't you think?

Logic dictates that if their calculations are flawed by such excessive difference in the "actual" verses "calculated" temperature(s) of Venus, then the model being used is in no way accurate and should not be used until corrected.

Obviously either the theory is incorrect or the method of calculations or both are extremely flawed otherwise the deviation in temperature would not have been so drastic.

With that much deviation I see no way the model being used could be accurate for predicting temperatures of earth or any other planet being analyzed.

Therein lies the source of my distress; If those responsible for monitoring an event as important and critical to human existence as Global Warming supposedly is, cannot be trusted to exercise due diligence and maintain accuracy in their analyzing methods; What/who then do we turn to?

We depend on and reward those in these types of important positions for applying their knowledge and expertise to provide accurate information so that good, sound decisions can be made on a Global level.

We at least deserve accuracy and honesty in their reporting and analyzing methods.

I do agree that if the models don't work, they need to go back to the drawing board and start from scratch.. There has been incredible push-back against the "biotic pump theory" from the modelers. Essentially the theory says that modelers are not accounting for condensation properly in the models. They say that condensation over the amazon region causes a vast area of pressure drop that sucks in air from over the Atlantic ocean and this is what causes the amazon to get so much moisture. The amazon river should be much smaller than it is according to the models. Which is right, the physical river and the measurements of its volume of flow or the models? I explain the cloud pump differently. My explanation, visualization just for you guys! "The clouds over the amazon are like a vast fleet of solar powered airships with their propellers tilted straight down. During the day they rise, while using their propellers to drive air up and slow down their rate of ascent. By evening, or when they reach a defined height, they control burn enough of their hydrogen to drop down again ready for the next day of rising." So in my case, I am using hydrogen filled airships to explain it but in the case of nature and the clouds, the cloud is both the propeller and the airship. And the water vapor given off by the trees is the power source. It is actually pretty simple. Meteorologists (who used to take their measurements under the clouds in the rain in the old days), measured high pressure way back then, and concluded that the high pressure is pushing the cloud up. This got written down in books and nobody ever questioned it. Until the Russian physicists upset the apple cart! Now they are really going to annoy people because they are applying the pump principle to hurricanes. http://www.bioticregulation.ru/common/pdf/hurr-en.pdf