http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100855

http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=24

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_Antarctica/index.html

It seems an undersea volcano caused the Larsen B
ice shelf to collaspe. I didn't see this in the news.
*****************************************

Evidence of the volcano came as an unintended bonus
from a research plan to investigate why a massive ice
sheet, known as the Larsen B, collapsed and broke up
several years ago.

Scientists hope to understand whether such a collapse is
unique or part of a cycle that extends over hundreds of
thousands of years.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...0385&from=news

And plenty of evidence of major melting going on.. which is too bad.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message ...
It seems an undersea volcano caused the Larsen B
ice shelf to collaspe. I didn't see this in the news.
*****************************************

Evidence of the volcano came as an unintended bonus
from a research plan to investigate why a massive ice
sheet, known as the Larsen B, collapsed and broke up
several years ago.

Scientists hope to understand whether such a collapse is
unique or part of a cycle that extends over hundreds of
thousands of years.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...0385&from=news

Yeah, some evidence:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=776766

Lloyd



"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
And plenty of evidence of major melting going on.. which is too bad.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message ...
It seems an undersea volcano caused the Larsen B
ice shelf to collaspe. I didn't see this in the news.
*****************************************

Evidence of the volcano came as an unintended bonus
from a research plan to investigate why a massive ice
sheet, known as the Larsen B, collapsed and broke up
several years ago.

Scientists hope to understand whether such a collapse is
unique or part of a cycle that extends over hundreds of
thousands of years.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...0385&from=news

Yes, thanks for point that out.

"In the past 10 years, the warmer temperatures over the eastern part of the
Antarctic ice sheet have allowed that air to gather more moisture. Snow has
been falling and causing part of the ice sheet to thicken slowing the rise
of the sea level by a tiny amount."

Operative word, "tiny."

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
...
Yeah, some evidence:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=776766

Lloyd



"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
And plenty of evidence of major melting going on.. which is too bad.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message ...
It seems an undersea volcano caused the Larsen B
ice shelf to collaspe. I didn't see this in the news.
*****************************************

Evidence of the volcano came as an unintended bonus
from a research plan to investigate why a massive ice
sheet, known as the Larsen B, collapsed and broke up
several years ago.

Scientists hope to understand whether such a collapse is
unique or part of a cycle that extends over hundreds of
thousands of years.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...0385&from=news

What about this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11...ts_thickening/

In the northern hemisphere where the "warming" is supposed to be the most.

But then:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0130074839.htm

And growing glaciers:

http://www.awra.org/state/alaska/nre.../aknr0301.html

Now I'm really, really worried:

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

Now sea ice is declining:

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928...scontinue.html

When ice melts in a full glass does the glass overflow?

Melting sea ice actually causes a drop in sea level.

Lloyd


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Yes, thanks for point that out.

"In the past 10 years, the warmer temperatures over the eastern part of
the Antarctic ice sheet have allowed that air to gather more moisture.
Snow has been falling and causing part of the ice sheet to thicken slowing
the rise of the sea level by a tiny amount."

Operative word, "tiny."

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
...
Yeah, some evidence:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=776766

Lloyd



"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
And plenty of evidence of major melting going on.. which is too bad.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message ...
It seems an undersea volcano caused the Larsen B
ice shelf to collaspe. I didn't see this in the news.
*****************************************

Evidence of the volcano came as an unintended bonus
from a research plan to investigate why a massive ice
sheet, known as the Larsen B, collapsed and broke up
several years ago.

Scientists hope to understand whether such a collapse is
unique or part of a cycle that extends over hundreds of
thousands of years.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...0385&from=news

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
And plenty of evidence of major melting going on.. which is too bad.

Yeah, some evidence:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=776766

Lloyd

There is a positive mass balance in the West ice sheet as well. I provided
a reference in my other post to Jon.

Considering that Antarctica comprises 90% of the world's ice, that's
significant.

Max

Here's a good reference for a potential cause of cloud cover:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133.stm


This articles references the sun as a source of ion causing radiation.

The decrease in the earth's magnetic field also allows the creation of more
ions, hence more clouds and more insular effect of the clouds.

The other thing to consider is the core of the earth. The core's rotation is
slowing and may reverse or change direction. The heat conduction to the
outer crust will increase with slowing core velocity.

I feel guilty about being a human and humans are the cause of global warming
and total planetary destruction. I want to do something so I can feel better
about this whole tragedy (the tragedy being the external world changing
before my eyes). I will make myself feel better by forcing my neighbor to
drive a car (only on odd numbered days) powered by his own fecal matter.
There, I feel better now. Symbolic gestures are always better than real
action and understanding in solving the world's problems. Symbolism gives me
immediate gratification.


Lloyd


"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
And plenty of evidence of major melting going on.. which is too bad.

Yeah, some evidence:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=776766

Lloyd

There is a positive mass balance in the West ice sheet as well. I
provided a reference in my other post to Jon.

Considering that Antarctica comprises 90% of the world's ice, that's
significant.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

And plenty of evidence of major melting going on.. which is too bad.

Not true. There is evidence that the net ice mass change in Antarctica is
positive, not negative. Satellite and ground station date both point to a
slight cooling trend in Antarctica over the past 20 years.

Joughin, I, and Tulaczyk, S., 2002, "Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice
Streams, West Antarctica," Science 295: 476-80.

Thompson, D.W.J., and Solomon, S., 2002, "Interpretation of recent Southern
Hemisphere climate change," Science 296: 895-99.

Comiso, J.C., 2000, Variability and trends in Antarctic surface temperatures
from in situ and satellite infrared measurements," Journal of Climate 13:
1674-96.

Look 'em up.

Max

Title: GLOBAL WARMING NATURAL, MAY END WITHIN 20 YEARS
Source: Ohio State Research News
URL Source: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm
Published: Mar 14, 2006
Author: Pam Frost Gorder
Post Date: 2006-03-14 23:08:06 by RussKon45


COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Global warming is a natural geological process that could
begin to reverse itself within 10 to 20 years, predicts an Ohio State
University researcher.


The researcher suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide -- often thought of
as a key "greenhouse gas" -- is not the cause of global warming. The
opposite is most likely to be true, according to Robert Essenhigh, E.G.
Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation in Ohio State's Department of
Mechanical Engineering. It is the rising global temperatures that are
naturally increasing the levels of carbon dioxide, not the other way around,
he says.

Essenhigh explains his position in a "viewpoint" article in the current
issue of the journal Chemical Innovation, published by the American Chemical
Society.


Many people blame global warming on carbon dioxide sent into the atmosphere
from burning fossil fuels in man-made devices such as automobiles and power
plants. Essenhigh believes these people fail to account for the much greater
amount of carbon dioxide that enters -- and leaves -- the atmosphere as part
of the natural cycle of water exchange from, and back into, the sea and
vegetation.

"Many scientists who have tried to mathematically determine the relationship
between carbon dioxide and global temperature would appear to have vastly
underestimated the significance of water in the atmosphere as a
radiation-absorbing gas," Essenhigh argues. "If you ignore the water, you're
going to get the wrong answer."

How could so many scientists miss out on this critical bit of information,
as Essenhigh believes? He said a National Academy of Sciences report on
carbon dioxide levels that was published in 1977 omitted information about
water as a gas and identified it only as vapor, which means condensed water
or cloud, which is at a much lower concentration in the atmosphere; and most
subsequent investigations into this area evidently have built upon the
pattern of that report.

For his hypothesis, Essenhigh examined data from various other sources,
including measurements of ocean evaporation rates, man-made sources of
carbon dioxide, and global temperature data for the last one million years.

He cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the
United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of
human-induced climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90
billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the
earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange
between the vegetation and the atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per
year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all
atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small
amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And
if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is
difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising
temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

Some scientists believe that the human contribution to carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, however small, is of a critical amount that could nonetheless
upset Earth's environmental balance. But Essenhigh feels that,
mathematically, that hypothesis hasn't been adequately substantiated.

Here's how Essenhigh sees the global temperature system working: As
temperatures rise, the carbon dioxide equilibrium in the water changes, and
this releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. According to this
scenario, atmospheric carbon dioxide is then an indicator of rising
temperatures -- not the driving force behind it.

Essenhigh attributes the current reported rise in global temperatures to a
natural cycle of warming and cooling.

He examined data that Cambridge University geologists Nicholas Shackleton
and Neil Opdyke reported in the journal Quaternary Research in 1973, which
found that global temperatures have been oscillating steadily, with an
average rising gradually, over the last one million years -- long before
human industry began to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Opdyke
is now at the University of Florida.

According to Shackleton and Opdyke's data, average global temperatures have
risen less than one degree in the last million years, though the amplitude
of the periodic oscillation has now risen in that time from about 5 degrees
to about 10 degrees, with a period of about 100,000 years.

"Today, we are simply near a peak in the current cycle that started about
25,000 years ago," Essenhigh explained.

As to why highs and lows follow a 100,000 year cycle, the explanation
Essenhigh uses is that the Arctic Ocean acts as a giant temperature
regulator, an idea known as the "Arctic Ocean Model." This model first
appeared over 30 years ago and is well presented in the 1974 book Weather
Machine: How our weather works and why it is changing, by Nigel Calder, a
former editor of New Scientist magazine.

According to this model, when the Arctic Ocean is frozen over, as it is
today, Essenhigh said, it prevents evaporation of water that would otherwise
escape to the atmosphere and then return as snow. When there is less snow to
replenish the Arctic ice cap, the cap may start to shrink. That could be the
cause behind the retreat of the Arctic ice cap that scientists are
documenting today, Essenhigh said.

As the ice cap melts, the earth warms, until the Arctic Ocean opens again.
Once enough water is available by evaporation from the ocean into the
atmosphere, snows can begin to replenish the ice cap. At that point, the
Arctic ice begins to expand, the global temperature can then start to
reverse, and the earth can start re-entry to a new ice age.

According to Essenhigh's estimations, Earth may reach a peak in the current
temperature profile within the next 10 to 20 years, and then it could begin
to cool into a new ice age.

Essenhigh knows that his scientific opinion is a minority one. As far as he
knows, he's the only person who's linked global warming and carbon dioxide
in this particular way. But he maintains his evaluations represent an
improvement on those of the majority opinion, because they are logically
rigorous and includes water vapor as a far more significant factor than in
other studies.

"If there are flaws in these propositions, I'm listening," he wrote in his
Chemical Innovation paper. "But if there are objections, let's have them
with the numbers."

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

And plenty of evidence of major melting going on.. which is too bad.

Not true. There is evidence that the net ice mass change in Antarctica is
positive, not negative. Satellite and ground station date both point to a
slight cooling trend in Antarctica over the past 20 years.

Joughin, I, and Tulaczyk, S., 2002, "Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice
Streams, West Antarctica," Science 295: 476-80.

Thompson, D.W.J., and Solomon, S., 2002, "Interpretation of recent
Southern Hemisphere climate change," Science 296: 895-99.

Comiso, J.C., 2000, Variability and trends in Antarctic surface
temperatures from in situ and satellite infrared measurements," Journal of
Climate 13: 1674-96.

Look 'em up.

Max