The occurrence of the warming of the Earth and other planets of the Solar System is science based on observed natural phenomena made in the last century. The Climate Variability and the Global Warming are natural phenomena. As a scientist, I am obliged to catalogue like pseudoscience and dogmatism the attribution to the human beings of a 100% natural phenomenon. The climate science has been distorted and manipulated to instill fear on people.

MEANING

Global Warming refers to any cyclical positive trend of the variability of the Earth's temperature due to multiple natural factors. Those changes always happen and have always happened through the evolution of Earth. The only difference is that we have now political groups and owners of oil companies which have made coalition with some scientists for creating a belief about a fictitious climatic catastrophe.



DISCREPANCIES ON CLIMATE CHANGE
By Nasif Nahle, scientist on Biology
January 30, 2005

Roland Emmerich, author and director of the movie "The Day After Tomorrow", based his argument on some real data, presenting a possibility that our planet might be in the thresholds of a new Ice Age speeded up by the Greenhouse Gases generated by the human industry.

The thematic was extremely striking and it moved to the shows fans to change their minds and to get more documented on the issue of a “Global Warming" caused by the activities of human beings. However, for scientists that attended to the movie exhibition it seemed extremely exaggerated on the management of the scientific knowledge.

We know that the Climate Change is occurring in our days as a consequence of an increase in both solar irradiance and interstellar cosmic radiation. Some disasters can be attributed to Climate Change and human activities; for example, the desertification -that erroneously has been addressed only to humans- has increased disturbingly by Global Warming, which is not responsibility of human beings. The degradation of coral reefs had been attributed only to human activities, but we now know that the solar irradiance has much to see with the phenomenon. The declining of the population of polar bears is not true because the population of polar bears has not declined; indeed, the population of polar bears has increased since 1940.

We can list hundreds of examples of alterations aggravated or motivated by humans and/or Global Warming, which have acted together as the main cause of the deterioration of the Biosphere, but we are sure that the Climate Change and the Global Warming are NATURAL phenomena and our efforts to revert the Climate Change will be useless. The Climate on Earth and the variability in the tropospheric temperature have changed many times, from the origins of our planet.

We do not know why warming periods in ancient times have been more abrupt than the icy periods. However, it doesn't mean that climate changes cannot be abrupt, as the Younger Dryas was. An abrupt cooling is always a possibility, like the past coolings registered in the Greenland ice core. (Schmidt/Miller, NASA GISS/Columbia University, NYAS, New York, NY. 2004)

We have not to worry about abrupt climate changes because the most consistent models show that the present global warming is advancing not too fast as the last warming period that took place some 8,200 years ago, but as slowly that we should not be concerned for the next 100 years.

WE MUST NOT ESTABLISH SCIENCE ON "CONSENSUSES" –OR POLLS - AMONG EXPERTS, BUT ON EVIDENCES EXTRACTED FROM NATURE. We have to accept honestly that the models presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been flawed. THERE ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC SUBSTANTIATIONS ABOUT THE INFLUENCE OF HUMAN BEINGS’ ACTIVITIES NEITHER ON CLIMATE CHANGE NOR IN GLOBAL WARMING. Whatever thing that has been said thus far with respect to the influence of the human beings on the Climate Change has been squeezed from “voting-on-Line” schemes among scientists of several academies of sciences; nevertheless, there is not realistic evidence on that warm pseudo-closure. The evidence shows that the global warming and the climate change are natural and cyclical phenomena.

The subject has been politicized in such way that the allegations are not based on observed facts but on manipulated models. For example, it is said that the scientists only are able to know the climatic history from 100 years up till now, being that we really know the dominant climate in our planet from the Precambrian Period.

BACK TO TOP ^^



1. THE COLLAPSE OF THE THERMOHALINE CURRENT

Some scientists are worried because the melting of the arctic ice could release immense volumes of freshwater to the North Atlantic Gyre, which would be able to interfere with the Thermohaline Conveyor Belt stopping it. They think that the melting of ice would release enormous volumes of freshwater to the North Atlantic Ocean; we know that the assumption is true, but we also know that the main contribution of freshwater is the intensification of rains and snowstorms on the arctic ice core. The reduction of the ice sheet would expose a larger surface of the ocean, which would permit a higher evaporation and consequently a higher atmospheric humidity, which would force to more rains.

Saline water is denser and heavier than freshwater, thus a decline of the salinity of the North Atlantic waters would make lesser dense surface waters, which would be maintained on the upper layer. This would lead to a change in the oceanic currents because the superficial waters must sink to form a main oceanic circulation known as the “Great Conveyor Belt” (Thermohaline Current). The deflected waters flows toward South through the oceans floor toward the equator, while the superficial warm waters at tropical latitudes flow towards North replacing the waters that were redirected to the oceanic floor, maintaining a slow circulation of the Thermohaline Current. Any increase of freshwater would avoid the sinking of warm superficial waters degrading or stopping the North Atlantic Current. Now we know that those changes have occurred many times in the past of the Earth because they are natural and cyclical trends.

Bryden and colleagues have discovered that the Thermohaline Current has slowed by 30% since 1957 (5), thus the interpretation for this new data is that the Climate Change will vary to an extremely cold period in Europe and North America (Canada, USA and Mexico). The cooling would be about 4 to 10° Celsius below the global normal mean. It was also verified that the concentration of tropospheric CO2 increases naturally when the current diminishes its speed. (6)After all... we humans are innocent about Climate Change.

BACK TO TOP ^^



2. THE ARCTIC OSCILLATION

The winds originated from latitudes between the Arctic Circle and 30° of north latitude enlarge the pressure in the Subpolar Circle and diminish the atmospheric pressure over the arctic layer of ice. These events would force a decline in the speed of the polar winds, which are erratic, and would cause the engrossment of the ice polar layer.

When the opposing phenomenon occurs, the layer of ice thins and reduces in size. This is a natural cyclical phenomenon. From the recent findings by scientists of NASA, the Goddard Space Flight Center, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, of the University of Colorado and the University of Washington, the Arctic oscillation has lowered its effect on the Arctic’s climate; nevertheless, defrosting continues. The phenomenon has a reasonably simple explanation: For a greater ice exposed surface, a greater reflection of the solar incident radiation (higher Albedo); for a smaller exposed ice area, a smaller reflection of the solar radiation that leads to a higher radiative forcing conducted by the darkness of the oceans water augmented by the decline in the sea ice. This has directed to an increase in the evaporation-condensation of water in the Atlantic Ocean, being transferred it to a larger number of tropical storms, cyclones and hurricanes. The radiative forcing has been favored by the fenlands and the vegetation that now have been exposed by the defrosting. To more extended darker areas, a higher radiative forcing, i.e., a warmer inferior Troposphere layer.(4)



3. THE ARCTIC SUBPOLAR GYRE (ASG). 

The Arctic Subpolar Gyre is a maritime current that together with the Labrador Current contributes to chill the Thermohaline Current.

During the last 20 years scientists have detected a decrease in the speed of the Arctic Subpolar Gyre (ASG). If the ASG continues decreasing, the Labrador Current could collapse and it would increase the pluvial precipitations in the region, contributing with more freshwater to the ocean, which would interfer with the Thermohaline Current. However, the degradation of the Arctic Subpolar Gyre is a cyclic and natural event.

BACK TO TOP ^^



4. A GLOBAL WARMING AND ICE AGE AT THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD

The last Glacial Age finished about 18,000 years ago; however, during the Medieval Age, the global temperature increased some 6° C over the normal values, deriving a Global Climate Change of great impact for the epoch that conducted to the Little Ice Age (LIA).

The Global Warming occurred from 700 AD to 1450 AD and preceded the LIA, which extended from 1645 AD to 1715 AD.

The period of Medieval Global Warming obeyed to various factors, among them the fluctuations in the density of energy emitted by the Sun.  The melting of polar ice contributed to a desalinization of marine water provoking the degradation of the Thermohaline Current, which impeded the warming of the continental latitudes above 30° N and 30° S conducting to a glacial that finished near to 1950.

Also, it has been demonstrated that those global warming periods happen before the occurrence of glacial periods and that they are caused by cyclic fluctuations in the energy radiated by the Sun and, in some cases, by vigorous volcanism.



5. MANY ERRORS BY IGNORING THE MITIGATING EFFECT OF AEROSOLS

IN ALL THE MODELS offered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the warming factor employed is 67%, when actually it must be a value around 37% attributable to the mitigating effect of some natural and produced-by-human-industry aerosols.

The commission of the IPCC disdained the effect of the organic aerosols, like SO2 (Sulfur Dioxide), which reflect almost 46% of the radiant energy received from the Sun. Besides, aerosols diminish the amount of Radiative Forcing in the troposphere. All the related information about the mitigating effect of aerosols and other natural elements has been ignored by the IPCC and by the authors of the Protocol of Kyoto.


6. DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE DATA OBTAINED FROM SATELLITES AND THE DATA REGISTERED ON LAND.

There is a notable discrepancy between the data provided by NASA derived from Spatial Observatories (Meteorological Satellites like GRACE, CERES, etc.) and the data provided by land stations (NOAA, NERC, etc). For example, the increase in the global temperature registered by NASA is only 0.2° C, while on-ground stations registered a variation of 0.6° C.

The discrepancy occurred because the on-land observations were made at inappropriate areas; for example, thermometers placed in cities or in areas very near to forests, where the temperatures are higher than at the surface of lakes or ponds. It occurred also with the measurements taken at the oceans, doing measurements in areas near the coastline, where the superficial water are finally warmer than at the pelagic zone by its proximity with continental areas where heat is absorbed and then transferred to the oceans by conduction.

The increase in the global temperature of 0.4° C that has been open to the public scrutiny is actually a standard of both temperatures given by each group of investigation. This hypothetical increase of 0.4 C is not real. As I have remarked it in the previous paragraph, the 0.4 C like a supposed decadal trend is an average obtained from the temperature at two meters registered by on-surface weather stations, which is 0.6 C, and the temperature reported by the weather balloons and the NASA’s satellites, which is only 0.139 C, pointed up like the global trend in the last decade.

At the moment, what is handled at a global level is purely pseudoscience, which is represented by a bizarre mixture of extra politics, great imaginary and too little real science.

Of course, this does not mean that the Global Warming is not happening at present. Indeed, some people are making use of the idealism to make the things fit with the inventions of some radical environmentalists. The Global Warming is real, but it is neither unique nor unusual in the history of our planet. The Global Warming is a natural cyclical variation that has been occurring throughout eons, from the time when the Earth merged as a suitable planet.

We, like a public informative channel for sciences of life, must show the two coin’s faces; nevertheless, as we dedicate ourselves to the tutoring on Life Sciences, we must be on the side of truth, although this does not agree with an odd "scientific consensus obtained at a given subject.

In addition, the increase of 0.139 C has not occurred in the whole planet, but only in some regions of the Northern Hemisphere. For example, in the Southern Hemisphere the tendency was normal, this means about 0.052 C. For the main part of Europe it was a cold decade, not a warm one. A good example on the last assertion is that the ice that has been melting in the West Antarctic, it has been recovering in the East Antarctic; and the retreat of the Greenland ice core is recovering in its center.

In the face of all, the commission of the IPCC saved the day by averaging and then divulging it in their first report. So, the discrepancy was hidden among the satellite real results and the altered measurements given by observers on ground.

BACK TO TOP ^^



7. COINCIDENCE BETWEEN THE NATURAL FLUCTUATIONS IN THE DENSITY OF ENERGY EMITTED BY THE SUN AND THE TERRESTRIAL CLIMATE CHANGES.

The graphics on solar activity coincide on the dot with the important climate changes on Earth; above all, graphics are consistent with the El Niño and la Niña phenomena and the temperatures registered in the Troposphere. Strangely, both phenomena of El Niño and La Niña have been not affected by the Global Warming and they are not responsible for most of the furious and destructive hurricanes, copious storms, wide-ranging droughts and profuse snowfalls.

These coincidences make us know that the problem of global warming has more to do with the natural cyclical oscillations in the density of radiant energy emitted by the Sun than with the contamination produced by the human industry. However, the artificial emission of Greenhouse Gases by the human activities acquires a great magnitude because it would act as an accelerator of the natural process, which would happen, in any case, punctually. Mars is suffering an Earth-parallel Climate Change. How could we explain, without the account on the solar emission of larger quantities of energy, the analogous Climate Change on Mars? The concentration of CO2 on Mars is more or less 12,510.75 ppmv; while, it is about 376 ppmv on Earth. If it is so, why the greenhouse effect is so negligible on Mars? The reason is that the atmosphere on Mars is thinner down (narrower) than the Earth’s atmosphere. As Mar’s Magnetic Field is so weak and uneven, it cannot avoid that the Solar Wind picks up the ions of its upper atmosphere and propels them in the direction of the Solar System Bow Shock region.

But the technicians are forgetting to apply in their models the appropriate and real correlation between the warming of the troposphere and the quantity of the solar radiation received by Earth. They provided a value of 0.3 W/me-2 for the increment in the Radiative Forcing, actually, the value must be of 13 W/me-2 (corresponding to 0.112 C). The last value contributes to 56% in the increment of heat in the Northern Hemisphere since 1800 up to now.

The density of radiant energy emitted by the sun oscillates each 70 to 90, 200 and 2500 years. It has been demonstrated that the El Niño and La Niña frequency expands when the solar irradiation and the number of solar spots are in their minimums. Therefore, by the next year (2005) we expect the formation of excessively mischievous and influencing El Niño and La Niña. (FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT ESA's PAGE and NASA).

One of the preferred examples on the effect of carbon dioxide on Earth's climate has been taken from another planet, Venus, by the proponents of the anthropogenic global warming. However, the comparison is wrong because Venus is quite different from Earth. Venus has not oceans and this difference suffices for discharging it for any assessment on the climate of Earth. In addition, Venus is closer to the Sun than the Earth.

The oceans are the main deposits of energy. Oceans maintain the nights lukewarm and they avoid that the Earth is freeze. An enormous part of the heat absorbed by the ground is transferred by conduction to the oceanic waters. The oceans store the energy more time than the air and ground because the water thermal capacity is higher than the air and ground thermal capacity.

Put 1.384 x 10^21 kg of water on Venus or Mars and you will have the benign and comfortable climate we have here on Earth.

BACK TO TOP ^^



8. EL NIÑO AND LA NIÑA HAVE NOT BEEN AFFECTED BY THE GLOBAL WARMING.

The careful observations on both El Niño and La Niña natural phenomena in the Pacific Ocean have not been altered by the Global Warming and the effects that these atmospheric fluctuations on the global climate have not changed in connection with their historical manifestations. The frequency of cyclones and thunderstorms is influenced by the variable phenomenon of El Niño and it is impossible for us to recognize a simple sign that links El Niño phenomena with the Climate Change.

However, some members of the IPCC and the coordinators of the Kyoto protocol have referred openly that these phenomena have been provoked by the Global Warming. The relation made by the IPCC panelists and the coordinators of Kyoto is absolutely false and there is not such link in the real world.

Obviously, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the promoters of the Kyoto’s Protocol have ignored all the information that you have read from our report. This fact demonstrates that both, the IPCC and the Kyoto’s Protocol have been influenced by consensus and politics more than by serious and real science.

CONCLUSION: THE CLIMATE CHANGE IS UNPREDICTABLE, BUT THE PROBABILITIES ARE MAINLY ON THE SIDE OF AN ICE AGE, BE A GREAT OR A LITTLE ICE AGE.

BACK TO TOP ^^



9. CARBON DIOXIDE AND ∆T

A new research shows that the increase in the concentration of the tropospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic. See the complete report here:

http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/papers/broecker06eos.pdf

The numbers obtained by calculations from the increase of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere do not coincide with the reality that we are living on planet Earth. A clear discordance exists that all the environmentalist groups and the signers of the Kyoto’s Protocol have hidden from the public.

In order to understand this discordance, we must know the composition of the terrestrial atmosphere from 20 years ago, contrasting it with the present composition:

20 YEARS AGOAT PRESENT

Nitrogen = 78.9488%  78.9488%
Oxygen = 20.947%      20.946%
Carbon Dioxide = 0.0322%  0.0332%
Other gases = 0.0720%0.0720%

The atmospheric CO2 has increased by 33.3%, which implies a concentration of CO2 of 380μL/L, that is, 0.00069 kg/m^3.

The heat transferred by 0.00069 Kg/m^3 of CO2 is equivalent to 0.033 °C. Then, the increase by 381 ppmv of atmospheric CO2 causes an increase of the tropospheric temperature. However, the heat stored by CO2 is not equivalent to 0.033 °C. The reason is that the CO2 is a poor absorber-emitter of heat and so it cannot store heat for long periods of time. Empirically, we obtain a change in the tropospheric temperature for CO2 of only 0.01 °C.

The Global ∆T by the total increase of atmospheric CO2 is 0.01 C. THIS QUANTITY IS MINIMUM IN COMPARISON WITH THE AMOUNT GAUGED BY THE NASA’s SATELLITES AND THE AEROSTATIC METEOROLOGICAL GLOBES, WHICH IS OF 0.123 C.

Even if we suppose that the Global ∆T were 0.4° C (which is a mean obtained from the sum of the discrepancies between the measurements of NASA, of 0.2° C, and the measurements of meteorological ground stations, of 0.6° C), the increase of the atmospheric CO2 by human activities would be responsible of only 0.00517° C.

Now let’s see the case exaggeratedly:

The amount of solar infrarred radiation absorbed by the Earth's surface is 348.7 W/m^2. The absorption of that energy by natural greenhouse gases causes that the temperature on Earth rises by approximately 34.00° C, keeping it on an average of 16.00 °C. Let’s make a simple calculation:

The total solar Infrarred Radiation incoming to the Earth is 163.32 cal (683.64 W/m^2). Considering the increase of the Solar Irradiance, the molecular weight of the air and the air thermal capacity, the Earth’s temperature should vary by 0.518 °C, which is exactly the maximum averaged change in tropospheric temperature achieved during the 1990s (in 1998). Then… where the increase of 0.40° C -on very limited areas- comes from? One from two options, from the political greens’ heads, or from a natural source, like the Sun, the water vapor and the volcanoes. (See a graphic about Solar Activity and Global Temperature).

All the calculations using the laws of Thermodynamics result in an increase smaller than the increase registered in nature. Nevertheless, many people have occurred to the task of making up the numbers to make them to agree with their viewpoints. WE HAVE NOT DEVELOPED A SOLE CLIMATOLOGIC MODEL THAT CAN REPRODUCE ALL THE REAL TROPOSPHERIC CONDITIONS; SO, THERE WILL BE ALWAYS DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN OUR MODELS AND THE REAL NATURE.

Did you know that -at least- 17 volcanoes in the world, among which we find the Kilauea volcano in Hawaii, St. Helens in USA, the Popocatepetl and Nevado of Colima in Mexico and the Erta Ale in Ethiopia, never discontinue their emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere? The case of Popocatepetl in Mexico is unique because it has not stopped on emitting enormous amounts of gas and ashes through the last 11 years. Curiously, the Global Warming has got worse from 1994 to date. Now add the Methane and Nitrous Oxide emanated from the decomposition of dead plants and animals, and the emissions of Methane from the sediments of the oceanic floor. WHY THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN HIDDEN TO THE PUBLIC? BECAUSE NOBODY CAN PUT A CORK TO VOLCANOES! Remember that volcanoes produce many gases that efficiently diminish the greenhouse effect.

CONCLUSION: GIVEN THAT THE CARBON DIOXIDE DOES NOT GENERATE THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT AT THE INTENSITY OBSERVED UNTIL NOW, WE INFERRED THAT THE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CYCLICAL NATURAL PHENOMENON, INFLUENCED VERY LITTLE BY THE CARBON DIOXIDE GENERATED BY THE HUMAN ACTIVITIES. ALTERNATIVELY, THE CLIMATE CHANGE AFFECTS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE ON THOSE AREAS WHERE HUMANS AND OTHER ANIMALS HAVE CAUSED DESERTIFICATION.

Now, if the Climate Change is a cyclical natural phenomenon and we cannot do anything to discontinue it, how can we prepare ourselves before this changes? Stopping sharply the deforestation, controlling a sustainable form the growth of the large cities (it has been demonstrated that the effects of the Climate Change are more severe in populated areas that in the rustic areas), diminishing the outdoors pasturing (summer pasture cattle), lesser use of our cars, enlightening to the new generations, informing to the public on which portions from our reports are guesswork, what are real features, and what from our models hold uncertainties. On the other hand, the industrialists must be forced to capture the discharge of polluting agents to the natural environment.

UP TO TOP ^^



10- OURS IS NOT AN ANOMALOUS GLOBAL WARMING IN THE GEOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE EARTH… NOR THE WARMEST.

Before answering this question, let’s remember that we, humans, cannot create a single molecule of CO2 if we do not have the previous materials from which we could obtain it. This impediment obeys to the law of the conservation of matter, which says that through any chemical reaction, the amount and kind of reagents are exactly the same as the final products of such reaction. For example, if we put a molecule of Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) for reacting with a molecule of Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH), at the end of the reaction the products will conserve the same amount of Chlorine, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Sodium which we used as reagents:

HCl + NaOH ---> H2O + NaCl

At the beginning of this reaction, we had two atoms of Hydrogen (H2), one atom of Sodium (Na), one atom of Chlorine (Cl), and one atom of Oxygen (O). At the final stable state of this reaction, we obtain the same class of elements and the same number of atoms, we only obtain final compounds which are different from the initial compounds (reagents). We did not generate new elements or a surplus of matter. As for the kind of matter, as for the amount of matter, it remains constant.

If the amount and kind of matter remain constant, where all the CO2 which we emitted through the burning of fossil fuels came from? Here comes the next discrepancy (fib) between the data unfold expanded publicly and the real data from nature: All the CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), CH4 (Methane) and NO2 (Nitrous Oxide) that we are releasing to the atmosphere comes from geologic Eras previous to the Carboniferous Period. HOW IS IT? Yes, the fossil fuels that we use at the moment for moving our industries and our cars (like the oil, the soft coal, the peat bog and the gas) was produced from the plants that existed in this world and went dead during the Carboniferous Period. The plants with chlorophyll take CO2 from the atmosphere and from water (if they are aquatic organisms) and transform it into organic compounds that function as nutrients or to form structures. See next the Photosynthesis formula:

6CO2 + 6H2O + Light Energy --> C6H12O6 (Glucose) + 6O2

Compute the reagents in comparison with the final products... They are the same! The matter cannot be created nor destroyed, but only transformed.

Then, is the present Carbon Dioxide that we are releasing to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels that we use for industry and vehicles the same Carbon Dioxide that existed 363 million years ago? Indeed; and not only that, we can say that it is the same Carbon Dioxide that has been existing from 4.8 billion years ago, when the Earth was formed. When we finish of burning all the fossil fuel which we have now, all the Carbon Dioxide that the organisms took from the atmosphere will return to its natural cycle.

With regard to this issue, I want you to have a quick look to the diagram on the temperature that has prevailed through the different geologic periods of our planet; you will see that this of the Global Warming is not something new. In addition, you will notice that our Global Warming is nothing in comparison to the other periods of Global Warming that have existed in other eras of our beautiful planet.

Then, why we are scared by the present Global Warming? Well, the reason is that we, the human beings, are destroying the sole living beings that can revert the process of Global Warming by means of the consumption of Greenhouse Gases of the atmosphere and the water, the terrestrial plants and the phytoplankton.

As you can see, our real emergency does not reside on the Climate Change or the Global Warming, as the experts on the IPCC’ and the Greens say, but on the desertification caused by chaotic deforestation and on the discharges of industrial toxins to the terrestrial and aquatic environments.

UP TO TOP ^^



11- BEST NEWS FOR US: THE PITS FOR WARMOLOGISTS

The measurements of the Altimeter Radar Satellite indicate that the Eastern Antarctic ice shield is increasing its mass in near 48 billion metric tons per year since 1992. The increase in mass is associated with an increase in the snowfalls. The raise is enough as to stop the increase in the sea level by near 0,14 mm. by year.(1)(2) To stick to the facts, the sea level has not been increased,(3) as the “greenchs” has been shrieking from their “apocalyptic 2kyear”. (See a related Graphic).

Also I have best news for you: the central ice shield of Greenland has risen seven centimeters through this year. That indicates a frank recovery of the northern continental ice coat.(3)

Nasif Nahle, Biologist.

UP TO TOP ^^



REFERENCES:


(1) Eric Rignot and Robert H. Thomas. Mass Balance of Polar Ice Sheets. Science, Vol. 297, Issue 5586, 1502-1506, 30 August 2002.


(2) Curt H. Davis, Yonghong Li, Joseph R. McConnell, Markus M. Frey, Edward Hanna. Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise. Science, Vol. 308, Issue 5730, 1898-1901, 24 June 2005.


(3) Ola M. Johannessen, Kirill Khvorostovsky, Martin W. Miles, Leonid P. Bobylev. Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland. Published online: October 20 2005; 10.1126/Science.1115356. Science Express Reports: www.sciencexpress.org / 20 October 2005 / Page 5/ 10.1126/science.1115356


(4) Sea Ice Decline Intensifies. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), a part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder; NASA; and the University of Washington. NSIDC. 28 September, 2005.


(5) H. L. Bryden, H. R. Longworth, S. A. Cunningham. Slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 25° N. Nature; Vol. 438: pp. 655-657; 01 Dec 2005.


(6) Alexander M. Piotrowski, Steven L. Goldstein, Sidney R. Hemming, Richard G. Fairbanks. Temporal Relationships of Carbon Cycling and Ocean Circulation at Glacial Boundaries. Science: Vol. 307. No. 5717, pp. 1933 - 1938. 25 March 2005.

Thomas L. Delworth, Thomas R. Knutson. Simulation of Early 20th Century Global Warming. Science, Vol. 287, Issue 5461, 2246-2250, 24 March 2000.

R. B. Alley et al. Abrupt Climate Change. Science, Vol. 299, Issue 5615, 2005-2010, 28 March 2003.

Richard A. Kerr. CLIMATE CHANGE: A Few Good Climate Shifters. Science, Vol. 306, Issue 5696, 599-601, 22 October 2004.

Thomas R. Karl, Kevin E. Trenberth. Modern Global Climate Change. Science, Vol. 302, Issue 5651, 1719-1723, 5 December 2003.

Lean J., Bear J., Bradley R. Reconstruction of Solar Irradiance since 1610 - Implications for Climate – Change. Geophysical Research Letters 22 (23). Pp. 3195-3198, December 1st., 1995.

Drew T. Shindell et al. Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum. Science, Vol. 294, Issue 5549, 2149-2152, 7 December 2001.

Seong-Joong Kim, Thomas J. Crowley, Achim Stössel. Local Orbital Forcing of Antarctic Climate Change during the Last Interglacial. Science, Vol. 280, Issue 5364, 728-730, May 1st. 1998.

Gerald E. Marsh. A Global Warming Primer. National Policy Analysis, No. 361, September 2001. The National Center for Public Policy Research.

M. L. Khandekar, T. S. Murty, P. Chittibabu. The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science. Pure Applied geophysics, Vol. 162, 1557–1586. 2005.

Hansen, J., Sato, M., Lacis, A., and Ruedy, R. The Missing Climate Forcing. Phil Trans. R. Soc. London. 352, 231–240. 1997.

Reed P. Scherer, Ala Aldahan, Slawek Tulaczyk, Göran Possnert, Hermann Engelhardt, Barclay Kamb. Pleistocene Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Science, Vol. 281, Issue 5373, 82-85, 3 July 1998.

Sharon L. Kanfoush, David A. Hodell, Christopher D. Charles, Thomas P. Guilderson, P. Graham Mortyn, Ulysses S. Ninnemann. Millennial-Scale Instability of the Antarctic Ice Sheet During the Last Glaciation. Science, Vol. 288, Issue 5472, 1815-1819, 9 June 2000.

NASA’S SITE:

Who's Afraid of a Solar Flare? October 7, 2005. NASA’s site.

Solar Minimum Explodes. Solar minimum is looking strangely like Solar Max. September 15, 2005. NASA’s site.

The Biggest Explosions in the Solar System. February 6, 2002. NASA’s site.

Solar Event Reports -last 60 days. NOAA’s site:

http://www.sec.noaa.gov/ftpdir/plots/xray/20050907_xray.gif, http://www.sec.noaa.gov/ftpdir/plots/xray/20050908_xray.gif

Schmidt/Miller, NASA GISS/Universidad de Columbia, NYAS, Nueva York, NY. 2004

Climate Change on Mars:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html

Interesting Site: http://www.iceagenow.com/Global_Warming_Myth.htm

UP TO TOP ^^

HOMEABOUT USE-MAIL USESPAÑOL
APPROVED-BY-CONSENSUS UNSCIENCE
®
Tell a friend about this page
®
HOMEABOUT USCONTACTESPAÑOL
Copyright© 2004 by Biology Cabinet Organization
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
®
designed with Homestead
CONTENTS:

MEANING AND CONCEPTCOLLAPSE OF THE THERMOHALINE CURRENT

THE ARCTIC OSCILLATIONTHE ARCTIC SUBPOLAR GYRE (ASG)

GLOBAL WARMING AND ICE AGE AT  MEDIEVAL PERIODMITIGATING EFFECT OF AEROSOLS

SOLAR FLARES AND TROPOSPHEREGLOBAL WARMING ON MARSEL NIÑO (ENSO) AND LA NIÑA

CARBON DIOXIDE AND THE GLOBAL ∆TIS THIS AN ODD GLOBAL WARMING?

BAD NEWS FOR THE WARMOLOGISTSREFERENCESHURRICANESGRAPHS

GRAPH ON ANOMALOUS COSMIC RAYS (ACR) AND GLOBAL WARMINGGRAPH ON LIABLE ∆T FOR 2006

CLOSURE ON "GLOBAL WARMING"

UPDATED ON JUNE 23, 2009: A PHOTO ON CLIMATE CHANGE ON MARS WAS ADDED.
Sun and Oceans, not man, are the Culprit on GW.
Sequence of photos illustrating the Global Warming on Mars. Observe how Mars' Polar Caps have been melting since 1990, the same phenomenon has been occurring on Earth.

CREDIT: NASA, ESA and the Hubble Heritage Team.

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO SEE IT LARGER