NAS says earth likely hottest in 2000 years.

[altitudelou]

Obviously a few scientist, according to this NAS study, must be catching on to the fact that global warming is becoming an in your face reality.


www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/22/global.warming.ap/index.html

Study: Earth 'likely' hottest in 2,000 years
Panel: 'Warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years'

Thursday, June 22, 2006; Posted: 3:46 p.m. EDT (19:46 GMT)


CLIMATE REPORT FINDINGS:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- It has been 2,000 years and possibly much longer since Earth has run such a fever.

The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.

This is shown in boreholes, retreating glaciers and other evidence found in nature, said Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University who chaired the academy's panel.

The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-New York, to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.

Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.

Boehlert said Thursday the report shows the value of having scientists advise Congress.

"There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change," he said.

Other new research Thursday showed that global warming produced about half of the extra hurricane-fueled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005, and natural cycles were a minor factor, according to Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a research lab sponsored by the National Science Foundation and universities. Their study is being published by the American Geophysical Union.

The Bush administration has maintained that the threat is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs. (Watch as lawmakers argue saving the planet could ruin our economy-- 2:24)

Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years. Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.

The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member. The conclusions from the '90s research "are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.

The panel looked at how other scientists reconstructed Earth's temperatures going back thousands of years, before there was data from modern scientific instruments.

For all but the most recent 150 years, the academy scientists relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps.

Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the academy said.

Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.

The scientists said they had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600. But they considered it reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.

Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, it said.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. [ Bla, Bla, Bla, so sue me !]

[Mech]

Its overhyped.

FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR.

Funny,

Iv e recently walked behind my house and for the first time in about 10 to 15 years...the footpath is overgrown with lush growth..there are more treefrogs, birds and bugs than I have seen in years. Not just a "casual " observation either.

Ill say it again.

The earth ain't in trouble.

The human race is.

Period.

We are headed for another ice age if anything.

People should be more concerned with what the globalists are doing to the planet.

Not your exhaust pipe or your McDonalds Cartons.

[Swamp Gas]

Could also be that the growth is due to the extremely wet weather the East Coast is having. Here in NJ, the Meadowlands is growing pretty thick too. Global warming will of course bring lushness more likened to the Amazon than the Mojave in areas like NJ and Mass. When you get into the Dust Bowl and Great Plains, the result will be a desert like climate. The Mojave will then become more like the Sahara, and so on.

I really do think that CO2 emissions starting from say 1850 until now, has never been seen as much before in the history of the planet, and this is mainly from industry. The present danger is that there is no historical markers for humans rapidly going into Global Warming, and then perhaps going into an Ice Age just as rapidly. I don't think we will have to wait from 10,000 to 100,000 years for this cycle.

I agree that the NWO/Globalists are a problem that is just as bad as Global Warming. The Climatologists would probably say we are over-hyping the Zionist/NWO/Globalist threat. I feel like both situations are a major problem, and the oil companies, who could care less if thick black smoke made them money, have always been at the bottom of the Illuminati business practices. Environmentalists were hijacked by NWO types that knew that the dreaded "hippies" or "tree huggers" would be a problem for their world dominance.

[Mech]

Ill put it in a nutshell.

the EARTH does not need us to survive...our presence MABYE has caused it some temporary injury.

But..that which is desecrated..cannot be destroyed.

The earth is destined to survive..after all of our tinkering and molestation and DEFINATELY after OUR expiration as a species..the earth will most certainly survive and it will still be turning...undergoing renewal for the next creative cycle.

[Mech]

The powers that be want to use "Global Warming" as an excuse to not only raise energy prices...but to herd people into compact cities and "save the rest of the planet" (for whom?). Its ALL about controlling the population with more regulation, taxes, tyranny, fascism.

It has little or NOTHING to do with "saving the planet".

The rulers of this world would have no qualms about getting rid of us...

Mabye the "global warming"issue might be the PRETEXT to start CULLING EXESS POPULATION..ie USELESS EATERS in order to "save mother earth".

Wouldn't suprise me in the least.

[Mech]

The IMF and World Bank are behind a lot of the funding of the professors and scientists in the so-called "global warming" research field.

NASA scientists are saying the next sun cycle will be 50% brighter than the sun has ever been recorded..they are actually scared about it.

So THE SUN is heating up..HENCE..the PLANET is heating up as well.

THAT isn't your "gas guzzling car" (you BAD, bad human)...they're not causing the sun to heat up. Your Honda civic isn't melting the ice caps.

The RADIATION from THE SUN is what drives THE PLANET.

We are set to go into another ice age in 1000 years or less...global warming or not.

First the ice caps shrink...then they get bigger and radiate the heat back into the atmosphere and it generates an ICE AGE.

In summary...

RIGHT BEFORE AN ICE AGE YOU HAVE A HEATING.

The earth has ALWAYS had climate change.

Always will.

But the IMF and the World bank want to stampede you with a false threat.

PROBLEM...(global warming).....REACTION....(FEAR, FEAR... the sky is falling.)......SOLUTION (we will tax the living daylights out of you and regulate your daily life in perpetuity in order to save the planet) Global Tax, Kyoto.


Mt. ST Helens in 1980 Blew out more pollution and CO during its eruption than did all the cars did in the past 100 years.

Thats OFFICIAL, fact.

[Swamp Gas]

I got different figures from Mt St Helens CO2 and sulfur dioxide emissions

volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html

At Mount St Helens the maximum measured emission rate was 2.2X10^7 kg per day. The total amount of gas released during non-eruptive periods from the beginning of July to the end of October was 9.1X10^8 kg . I do not have an estimate for the volume of CO2 released during the Plinian eruptions. As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15 kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2. Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from man-made sources. For more detail, see Morse and Mackenzie, 1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates.

Scott Rowland, University of Hawaii Steve Mattox, University of North Dakota

Source of Information:
Harris, D.M., Sato, M., Casadevall, T.J., Rose, Jr., W.I., and Bornhorst, T.J., 1981, Emission rates of CO2 from plume measurements, in Lipman, P.W., and Mullineaux, D.R., (eds.), The 1980 eruptions of Mount St. Helens, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1250, p. 3-15.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This one says Mt St Helens is 10% of the total

www.kptv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2635531


12-01-04

VANCOUVER -- Since it began erupting in October, Mount St. Helens has been Washington's worst air polluter.

The volcano spews 50 to 250 tons of sulfur dioxide into the air each day. That compares with about 120 tons a day from all the state's industries combined.

The coal-fired power plant in Centralia had been tops on the list -- still producing 27 tons a day after $250 million in pollution controls.

Sulfur dioxide is the gas that causes acid rain and contributes to haze.

Bob Elliott of the Southwest Clean Air Agency in Vancouver says its fortunate for people that the volcano is pretty remote. US Geological Survey scientist Terry Gerlach says Mount St. Helens also produces 500 to 1,000 tons a day of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas blamed for global warming.

That's about a tenth of the amount of carbon dioxide produced by all the cars, homes and businesses in Washington.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This one says volcanoes are high polluters, but nothing compared to Man-Made sources

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002105397_volcano01m.html

Mount St. Helens the state's No. 1 air polluter

By Sandi Doughton
Seattle Times staff reporter
ELLIOT ENDO / USGS
Mount St. Helens' lava dome, seen from Johnston Ridge Observatory early last month, is the state's biggest single source of sulfur dioxide.

Environmentalists hooted when Ronald Reagan claimed — wrongly — that trees produce more pollution than cars.

But right now, the biggest single source of air pollution in Washington isn't a power plant, pulp mill or anything else created by man.

It's a volcano.

Since Mount St. Helens started erupting in early October, it has been pumping out between 50 and 250 tons a day of sulfur dioxide, the lung-stinging gas that causes acid rain and contributes to haze.

Those emissions are so high that if the volcano was a new factory, it probably couldn't get a permit to operate, said Clint Bowman, an atmospheric physicist for the Washington Department of Ecology.

All of the state's industries combined produce about 120 tons a day of the noxious gas.

The volcano has even pulled ahead of the coal-fired power plant near Centralia that is normally the state's top air polluter. In the mid-1990s, when the facility's emission rate was about 200 tons a day, regulators pressed for $250 million in pollution controls to bring it down to today's level of 27 tons.

Government doesn't wield much power over a volcano, though.

"You can't put a cork in it," said Greg Nothstein, of the Washington Energy Policy Office.

Because the area around St. Helens is so sparsely populated, officials say they haven't heard complaints about respiratory problems linked to the emissions. But if the volcano were right next to Seattle or Portland, some of the most sensitive residents would probably feel the effects, said Bob Elliott, executive director of the Southwest Clean Air Agency in Vancouver.

"We are very fortunate, in terms of the impact on human health, that Mount St. Helens is pretty remote."

Italy's Mount Etna can produce 100 times more sulfur dioxide than Mount St. Helens — and sits in the middle of a heavily populated area. The volcano spawns acid rain and a type of bluish smog that volcanologists call vog, which can affect large swaths of Europe, said Terry Gerlach, a U.S. Geological Survey scientist who studies volcanic gases.

Kilauea Volcano on Hawaii's Big Island churns out 2,000 tons a day of sulfur dioxide when it's erupting, creating an acid fog that damages local crops. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines blew out so much of the gas that the resulting haze spread around the globe and lowered average surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere by nearly one degree.

Some localized impacts are probably occurring on a much smaller scale near St. Helens' crater, Gerlach said.

"If you were to go and collect rainwater just downwind of the volcano, I suspect you would see some acid rain."

Worldwide, sulfur dioxide emissions from volcanoes add up to about 15 million tons a year, compared to the 200 million tons produced by power plants and other human activities.

While the fraction due to volcanoes is small, it can have an impact, Gerlach said.

"You can't call it trivial, compared with human activity."

Volcanic gases bubble out of magma as it rises to the surface, and the amount and type of emissions depend on the chemical makeup of the molten rock. In addition to sulfur dioxide, volcanoes also release smaller amounts of other noxious gases, including hydrogen sulfide and hydrogen chloride.

And they churn out large quantities of carbon dioxide. Though not considered an air pollutant, carbon dioxide is the so-called greenhouse gas that's primarily blamed for global warming.

Compared to man-made sources, though, volcanoes' contribution to climate change is minuscule, Gerlach said.

Mount St. Helens produces between 500 and 1,000 tons a day of carbon dioxide, he estimates.

Nothstein, of the state energy office, says the Centralia coal plant puts out about 28,000 tons a day. Statewide, automobiles, industries, and residential and business heating systems emit nearly 10 times that amount.

On a global scale, the difference is even more dramatic, said Gerlach, who often gets calls from power-plant operators and oil-company executives who believe nature is just as responsible for global warming as man. His answer always disappoints them.

"I tell them the amounts don't even come close and I usually never hear from them again."

Worldwide, people and their activities pump 26 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, he said. The total from volcanoes is about 200 million tons a year — or less than 1 percent of the man-made emissions.

The irony of being surpassed by a volcano on the state's pollution source list hasn't escaped the folks at the Centralia power plant, owned by the Canadian firm TransAlta.

"I hope they're going to call Mother Nature and have her put some scrubbers on there," joked company spokesman Richard DeBolt.

In a way, that will happen, said Bowman, the Ecology Department atmospheric scientist.

As wet winter storms sweep through the area, the rainwater acts as a natural scrubber, washing the sulfur dioxide from the air.

And once the volcano stops erupting, the gas emissions will vaporize — but geologists say the current lava flows could continue for months, or even years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The IMF also funds defense contractors and Oil Companies, they in turn get huge tax breaks from the government, and then hire PR mouthpieces and scientists, especially the Far Right Talk Show hosts.

I still say that there is no gauge on this planet to say how the last Ice Age was actually kicked off and cycles in. We do know that extremely high CO2 in Glaciers indicate that there was a greenhouse effect occurring. So, with Solar Cycles occurring, this rapid change and heating up, accelerated by the unprecedented pollution levels from 150 years of industry, could like some scientists could lead to a Venus-like effect.

The Earth cannot survive a massive asteroid hit, and then all bets are off. The earth is fragile, and we humans should practice all ways of helping it out, and it will give us the wisdom to do things like travel far into space, and tap otherdimensions.

our checklist:

1) Go vegetarian

2) Get a car that gets the highest mileage, be it gas, diesel, hydrogen fuel, ethanol, or electric

3) Give the land back to the people.

4) Respect Nature in all of its forms

5) Keep space migration always in our minds

6) Put 300 square mile solar panels in deserts to supply electricity for the entire planet

7) Stay away from Nuclear

8- Reforest land stripped for graving

9) Use lots of hemp products

10) Drink pure or distilled water

11) Stop the Privitization of our government

[altitudelou]

I have to say from reading the post on this subject that I agree with all that's been said thus far.

Obviously the earth itself is in no immediate danger of being destroyed by human induced global warming but we humans sure are in danger of going extinct or near extinct again as we keep pumping the toxic poisons into our air, water and land, I have said many times over the years that we / humans are the ultimate endangered species due to our self destructive nature.

I have my suspicions that human evolution has in the past reached similar highest as that we are currently seeing in our so called modern society of today but due to mistakes made and lessons not learned we may now go the way of past civilizations and their achievements, ashes to ashes, dust to dust only to be unearthed a few thousand years from now by modern archeologist of the time who are trying to understand how and why our civilization perished and mysteriously disappeared at seemingly such a high state of technology and human advancement, Hmmm, that subject is better left to another debate.

We humans seem bent on eradicating any vestige of natural self-preservation with regard to treating the planet with respect as a living being that we only share space with in a symbiotic relationship, why is that, what driving force within our world society could possibly supercede the natural driving force of preserving our very lives in the best possible and healthy manner as to insure our societies preservation as a whole.

One has to ask the question, since we treat our planet with such disrespect, is it because we are just greedy users, total control freaks bent on using up every natural resource until there are no more natural resources, are we even indigenous to this planet or are we aliens put here on this unsuspecting blue orb in space like some flesh eating virus as an experiment, I wish I had the book with all of the answers in it but I guess that would be cheating.

Is there hope for us as a civilization, Hmmm, that's the big money question, it sure doesn't look like we have learned much in the past couple of thousand years, we are still warring and killing each other off over petty religious and cultural differences, poisoning our environment just as fast as we can, starving a good portion of the worlds population when we could be feeding them, we are creating bigger and better ways through technology of destroying ourselves everyday, I don't hold out much hope for us becoming the enlightened age this time around, maybe next time.