Rexa, there's a "ton" of information concerning chemical engineering, so, are you looking are highly tech discussion or science/political type of discussion? Nothing personal, but I'm probably the slowest typing person on the forum in speed -- one too many "crashes-what goes up-- comes down" in my younger years, my responses are painfully slow.

Rexa, this "stand in front of the radar" was a poorly phrase example.

Unfortunately you're idea is a bit off the track I think.
I'm on NASA's mailing list and I don't recall any data coming in from their solar observatories such as Chandra showing an increase in solar x-ray flux. Even if there was and it was enough to be heating up the earth's surface we would not be having this interesting discussion, I suspect most life on earth would be gone.

As far as I know total heating from the sun of the earth is in decline due to cyclic shifts in our orbit. It will continue to decline for quite some time before it starts to increase again. I don't recall the figures but I'm certain it's 1,000s of years away.

To answer your original question of why was one recent solar storm was worse than the previous ones. Two reasons come to mind. Firstly we use more and more radio communications and have more and more electronics closer to the poles, so even if they were the same they'd have a greater impact. Secondly, just as tornadoes come at certain times of the year and some years are worse than others you need to apply statistical analysis to determine if they're getting worse or just random variations.

That's why determining if the planet is heating up isn't a trivial matter. Deciding if it's natural or man made is hard too. With not enough data you can only project best case / worse case. The cause of some concern very recently is as more data comes to light the best case is moving towards the worst case predictions.

You also have to remember the tiping point problem. Once a glacier starts to retreat the dark rock under the ice absorbs heat compared to the ice that used to reflect it. So to get the glacier back you'd have to cool the planet down below the temperature that it was before it started to melt. Then you're into the reverse problem, the cooling effect starts to run away with itself.

Bob.

". The cause of some concern very recently is as more data comes to light the best case is moving towards the worst case predictions."

That, and the fact that the time line has been GREATLY accelerated beyond what scientists originally believed.

Johnmeyer:
Here are the facts as stated by JJK: (worked in Greenland for 10 years)
It isn't global warming the scientists are worried about, it's the "rate" of global warming which is unprecedented in the Earths history. The leading "ice core" scientist says the increased melt from Greenland is ending up as snow in Antartica because of increased temperatures there instead of raising the oceans. The Greenland Ice cap is approximately 12000 feet thick in the middle sitting on top of a mountain range with peaks of approximately 3500 ft. proven by ice core borings near Dye Three, which is sitting on approximately 10,700 feet of ice cap. Dye Three ( abandoned) moves about 3 ft per year. The NASA satellite photos of 1985/2005 reveal the melting during that period while the annual buildup of snow on the ice cap is 3 feet per year. Warmer temperatures make for more snow on the ice cap. The ocean cores reveal the ocean temperatures and are correlated with the ice cores and have recorded of all things mini ice ages (2000 years) caused by huge "super" volcanos, one of which is Yellowstone and is 40,000 years overdue to pop it's cork. Volcanos put huge amounts of particulate into the atmosphere which blocks the sun altogether. Cure global warming? Drop a couple of nukes on Yellowstone and we will be into an ice age caused by a 50 year blockage of sunlight. Yellowstone is buldging upward at the present time 1 foot per year by satellite measurement. CO2 measurements during volcanic action are prolific but the problem now is there is little volcanic action and gobs of CO2, a new "world" condition.
The only thing I worry about are the two "shit holes" created by the two Dye sites on the ice cap which when they melt the runoff won't be so pure anymore. This is where the excrement pipe dumped raw human crap through a tunnel about 1/4 mile away from the site. Ok, so it wasn't that much crap, but don't drink the water. Also the Air Force dumped three C-130's full of older canned beer on the edge of the ice cap and I suppose some of it will float away through the ocean currents of the world.
JJK

As for Global Warming:

1. If you have watched the indoctrination film, "An Inconvenient Truth," a good antidote, is The Great Global Warming Swindle." It's available on DVD, but you can also go here: The Great Global Warming Swindle. Unlike the Gore/Moore political film, complete with people viewing hanging chads (never figured out what that had to do with Global Warming), this one contains real science.
====================

The so called "documentary's" website states that Durkin's film "brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that carbon dioxide released by human industrial activity is the cause of rising global temperatures today."

In an April 25 article in the UK's The Scotsman it was reported that he film is "under fire" for claiming "that the world was hotter during the 'Medieval Warm Period' based on a graph that ended in 1975, and that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than humans. According to one study, volcanoes produce about 2 per cent of the emissions from human use of fossil fuels.

Then there was the film Durkin made in 1999 in which he argued that silicone implants reduce the incidence of breast cancer

And then there was the 1997 UK Channel 4 film Durkin made in which he "compared environmentalists ... to Nazis, conspiring against the world's poor"

As a result of this according to an article in The Guardian the UK's Independent Television Commission decided to:

hand down one of the most damning verdicts it has ever reached: the programme makers "distorted by selective editing" the views of the interviewees and "misled" them about the "content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part". Channel 4 was forced to make a humiliating prime time apology.

Similar articles appeared in the London Times.

On the April 30 edition of CNN's right wing talk show host Glenn Beck Durkin found a friend. Durkin stated:

"Oh, the recycling thing has just gone crazy. There's a kind of -- I suppose once you've got the end of the world hovering over the horizon, it's an excuse for doing almost everything." So Durkin is claiming that recycling is a waste of time as well.

Discussing the criticism Durkin received Beck fed into this by stating:

"We're doing our special on global warming this week. How much trouble are we in, do you suppose? What should I expect after airing a documentary very similar to yours?"

Durkin replied "Oh, welcome to Hell."

Yeah John, Durkin's film represents "real science" given his "credibility".

John

To summarize my post it boils down to this. Nothing can change in terms of addressing human exascerbated global warming unless the US joins the world effort. Republicans run this country and will continue to do so with the help of the news media. Republican philosophy is simple and is evidenced by watching the House and Senate in session nearly every day (which few people do).
The philosophy is:

"If industry doesn't want to do something that costs them money whether it be safety, pollution, health benefits, pensions, etc they don't have to and we will block any attempt at making them do so.

Key to the philosophy is keeping the public dumb using their minions in the news media and consolodating the news media so that there are fewer corporations to have to control. Global Warming is only a raging controversy in the United States. That is why those of you from other countries are hearing these inane arguments against doing something about it from some of the Americans on the forum. They are thoroughly brainwashed by the news media here. Unfortunately you all will have to continue to suffer as a result of it whether it be the mess in the Middle East, Global Warming, or the World's Economy.

John

So let me get this straight: Bush and his administration, who are either as dumb as rocks or as evil as Hitler (or both) have this lock on what the press says and does?
===========
No Riredale,

Bush is as dumb as rocks.

His administration are evil as Hitler.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

John

hope tom coughlin is ok,, the global warming did one hell of a job on his face last night

What never ceases to amaze me is the way those that get "religion" believe, to their core, that theirs is the only "true" religion. Elevating any scrap of information, or misinformation, to gospel status, and turning a blind eye to any evidence that doesn't buttress their beliefs. And when they can't dismiss out of hand anything that doesn't advance their agenda, that becomes part of a vast conspiracy.

It would do well to recall Dr. Banks' corollary to Napoleon's "Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence." Dr. Banks stated "Never ascribe to conspiracy that which may be adequately explained by random acts of stupidity."

"Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence." Dr. Banks stated "Never ascribe to conspiracy that which may be adequately explained by random acts of stupidity."
====================
It can't be explained that way. I would have to believe that the vast majority of those in the news media are stupid. I do not believe that.

The proof is in the details. That is why when I give examples of it I detail them. And that is why I issue the open challenge to anyone to pick the subject in the news media and a time frame and we'll compare notes and offer data to support the so-called "conspiray theory".

I make the challenge because there is no "agenda" other than being fed up with lies that adversely affect everyone who lives here and in the rest of the world and watching the very people victimized by it defend the people doing it to them.

John

I live in a small island nation with few natural resources. So I think this issue is important to us, to me, to my family etc...
Reading through this post, and gobs of information on both sides of the issue, some of which I'll admit is beyond me, I think that there is one main issue, that was only touched upon earlier:
Too many people in the world. I believe this is the root of all of the pollution and resource depletion problems. Too many people, breeding too quickly, living much longer than ever before, and consuming too much. There's only so much life that this planet can support, and other species are paying our price-for now. Eventually, at the expected population growth rates, we will have to reach some kind of breaking point. Whether that point leads to better resource management policies from private and public sectors (that ain't coming from MY short sided and fairly corrupt government I'll tell you that!) or a way overpopulated planet fighting over the few insignificant resources that are left, who knows.

I'll tell you one thing. I live in Brazil and most of the Amazon is gone. If you don't believe me, download Google Earth and take a look at the Amazon Forest. What the Brazilian Government is doing? The President went to Cuba on board of his new Presidential Airbus to donate 1 billion "Reals" to help the public health in that country - our currency is called real: 1 real makes about 1.70 dollars.
Please note that the public health in Brazil is a CHAOS and we don't even know how to speak Spanish here LOL LOL So, who are the ones complaining about the land of the free? lololol

I know Bush is not doing very good job but the drums were beating way back in the 70's on this. We are as much as to blame. The blance of power is uneven now and it's a runway train. We were rolling high in the U.S. and did not bother with the isues. As long as we base everything on growth, we'll pay the piper. No one root to the problem but population has a huge part in this. World population has out paced the resourses. By product is pollution. It was a warning ignored for many years. We can not let big companies run the USA just for profit. The balance will return either by us or by nature. Neither one will be pleasent.

The human race just doesn't know its limitations nor understand the physical laws and constants that exist in the Milky Way Galaxy.

JJK

Too many people, breeding too quickly, living much longer than ever before, and consuming too much. There's only so much life that this planet can support, and other species are paying our price-for now.

I think this belief system is at the core of why some people "believe" in the concept of man's actions having a significant and irreversible impact on climate, but without ever actually taking the time to understand whether the science supports such a conclusion. The belief stated above is formed a priori, i.e., without regard for facts and logical reasoning. Even scientists make this mistake, where they start with a "gut" feeling and then try to fit facts to that feeling. The most obvious relevant example is Paul Ehrlich, who made apocalyptic predictions forty years ago in his famous book The Population Bomb. Here's the key quote from his book, which you can find in the link above:

"in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death ...".

Didn't happen did it? But charlatans like Al Gore (and others) still like to make these over-the-top gloom and doom predictions in order to get people to follow whatever agenda they are pushing. It is an age-old technique for obtaining control. As for the food issue, in spite of Erhlich's false predictions, we learned to feed the growing populations, and most current cases of massive food shortages, especially those in Africa, are due not to inability to grow the food, but to political forces, where tribes or governments horde food and subjugate others.

Errors in the "Swindle" film ...

The Great Global Warming Swindle film did indeed provide bad data about the contribution of volcanoes. That error has been acknowledge by the producers (I noticed it right away when I first viewed the film) and I believe it was corrected in the DVD version. However, the rest of the argument against this film would get an "F" in any course on logic or debate because it seeks to discredit anything in the film based on what the producer did on other projects. This would be like trying to discredit Charles Lindbergh's daring solo flight across the Atlantic because twenty years later he became a Nazi sympathizer. The two are independent, and his original accomplishment stands on its own merits. So, this film does indeed contain one serious error, which has been corrected, but that error was not a key component of the science presented, and the rest of the film scientifically shows how CO2 cannot possibly be the cause of climate change, and in fact the very data cited by Gore and others actually proves just the opposite of what they are claiming.

Republicans run this country and will continue to do so with the help of the news media.

I had to humor my schizophrenic mother-in-law when she harangued us with her delusions. But wow, the idea that the news media is controlled by the Republicans?? I've heard this before from the same source, and to believe such a thing truly requires a major break from reality. It fails the reality check on two levels: first, that any outside group could in any concerted way affect tens of thousands of writers, reporters, and editors in any coordinated fashion in order to achieve a desired outcome. Like most conspiracy theories it requires us all to believe that everyone except the "enlightened" person making the ridiculous claim, is under some sort of spell or influence.

The other reality check failure is the absurd idea that the Republican party could affect any group in such a massive fashion. For those out of the country (or just out of their mind), the Republican Party in the U.S. is out of power at the Federal level in both the House and Senate; the have lost most state elections in the past eight years, and the only power they cling to is the Executive branch of the Federal government, and the guy who heads that is a lame duck (very little power in a final term), and has a record-low approval rating. Yeah, the newspapers are going to roll over for the Republicans.

Finally, the destruction of the Brazilian rain forest is a horrible thing, and has impacts far beyond that country. Of course, George Bush is responsible for that as well.

"Gore/Moore film"

I don't think Michael Moore had anything to do with An Inconvenient Truth.

I have stated before, that we have seen an real increase of active volcanoes in the pacific. Plus Greenland has seen the same increase of their "hot" spots.

About melting ice, the NY times printed this today;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scientists Find Active Volcano in Antarctica


By KENNETH CHANG
Published: January 21, 2008


In an article published Sunday on the Web site of the journal Nature Geoscience, Hugh F. J. Corr and David G. Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey report the identification of a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards frozen within an ice sheet in western Antarctica.

For Antarctica, “This is the first time we have seen a volcano beneath the ice sheet punch a hole through the ice sheet,” Dr. Vaughan said.

Heat from a volcano could still be melting ice and contributing to the thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island Glacier, which passes nearby, but Dr. Vaughan doubted that it could be affecting other glaciers in West Antarctica, which have also thinned in recent years. Most glaciologists, including Dr. Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause.

Volcanically, Antarctica is a fairly quiet place. But sometime around 325 B.C., the researchers said, a hidden and still active volcano erupted, puncturing several hundred yards of ice above it. Ash and shards from the volcano carried through the air and settled onto the surrounding landscape. That layer is now out of sight, hidden beneath the snows that fell over the subsequent 23 centuries.

Although out of sight, the layer showed up clearly in airborne radar surveys conducted over the region in 2004 and 2005 by American and British scientists. The reflected radio waves, over an elliptical area about 110 miles wide, were so strong that earlier radar surveys had mistakenly identified it as bedrock. Better radar techniques now can detect a second echo from the actual bedrock farther down.

The thickness of ice above the ash layer provided an estimate of the date of the eruption: 207 B.C., give or take 240 years. For a more precise date, Mr. Corr and Dr. Vaughan turned to previous observations from ice cores, which contained spikes in the concentration of acids, another byproduct of eruptions. Scientists knew that an eruption occurred around 325 B.C., plus or minus a few years, but did not know where the eruption occurred. “We’re fairly confident this is the same eruption,” Dr. Vaughan said.

Now, they know both time and place.

“It’s probably within Alexander the Great’s lifetime, but not more precise than that,” Dr. Vaughan said.

The under-ice eruption was probably similar to one in Iceland in 2004. Although explosive, spewing ash more than seven miles in the air, the Iceland eruption was much less powerful than Mount St. Helens, the volcano in Washington State that blew off its peak in 1980.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even admitting an active volcano is melting a hole thru the ice, they still claim warmer ocean water is the cause,------ funny-------- active volcano = cold rock = political correct speech = volcano heat doesn't really melt ice or warm water, just co2 == who knew

Of course, I think improving "air" from power plants and industrial complexes thru-out the is an real issue. I think mercury is a problem, but it is an element, so its not containable, but we can managed it in production issues I think.

But I really believe the solar radiation is the greatest long term threat besides bio-war or asteroid strike or ---------- cartech & friends becoming World Leader ;-)

"Gore/Moore film" I think the meaning was:

Gore = Moore = political spin thru claiming "documentary " film.


The Gore team, director and producers used less mocking humor and used more formal presentation style vs. Moore style, a better fit for Gore --- a smarter choice.

"I think this belief system is at the core of why some people "believe" in the concept of man's actions having a significant and irreversible impact on climate

"we learned to feed the growing populations, and most current cases of massive food shortages, especially those in Africa, are due not to inability to grow the food, but to political forces, where tribes or governments horde food and subjugate others."
===============================================================


It is also foolish to "believe" that man's actions do not have an impact on the climate or the world around us. I have worked with a lot of scientists locally, and have talked to generations of fisherman, and there is NO QUESTION, that we are diminishing our resources.

There has been quite a bit written about the subject of famine in Africa. It is argued (logically and statistically) that food shortages are actually what is driving the political instability, not the other way around.

It would be foolish to think that our current use of resources and our current rate of population growth is sustainable. I'm not saying its the end of the world tomorrow, but its a real problem that needs real solutions, not bickering about whether Gore is a "charlatan".

"Finally, the destruction of the Brazilian rain forest is a horrible thing," I question the logic in it. But are some interesting science in this issue, concerning trap water vapor under the tree canopy. Using deep holding ponds can retain the same "volume" trapped under the canopy on open land, but with so little top soil-- a reflect of a recent grow cycle, the heating of the rock from direct sun this "could \ may " become the next great plains or desert, like further southwest in South America. Earth history reflects a moving Bio system, like a wave, but very cyclic in nature;-).

Putting Gore and Moore into the same film can is proper since they have both established themselves as adept in the creation of crockumentaries.