Found this article on Global Warming.

Interesting Read (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aiUC2JB2UcGA)

I find paint drying more interesting that that article. Its the same old same old. Companys should voluntarily join the quest to lowering gas house emissions. Making these get tough law's are rediculous when you have countrys like India and China doing what ever the hell they want to do.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/sci_nat_how_the_world_is_changing/img/1.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/sci_nat_how_the_world_is_changing/img/2.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/sci_nat_how_the_world_is_changing/img/3.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/sci_nat_how_the_world_is_changing/img/5.jpg

Yea, you're right. Nothing is happening. Lets go back and stick our heads in the sand before the beach completly erodes.

Those top two pics are teh ones I was looking for the other day. To me, that is a drastic change. That's a glacier some where.

Springfield Glacier!

http://ayonae.ro/showthread.php?t=7643

My biggest issue with this whole thing is with every scientific fact pointing one way, you can easily find another scientific fact pointing another. I won't argue that the world isn't changing, I won't even argue that the world isn't changing because of humans ... but the scope of the change and what we can do to alter the change isn't backed by any science at all. Until someone can predict exactly what is gonna happen with the weather 1, 5, 10 years from now its all just hearsay.

The weatherman doesn't even know what the fuck is going on.

Global Warming is probably real. That said, I'm with Kelraz. While it makes for absolutely fascinating conversation amongst intellectuals, most people have more tangible and pressing demands of the government, hippies aside.

The sun is gonna go nova someday. The Eagles might win a championship. Kelraz might turn straight.

BUT NOT TODAY! So instead why don't we bitch some more about the gas prices.

heh, my grocery getter 30mpg car is edging closer and closer to costing me the same it used to cost to fill up both tanks on my old chevy.

FUKING A I Hate high gas prices.

Ethanol, biodeisel, hamsters, shit I dont care just give me something else

Well with conservation the price of gas and everything else will go up. I am ok with that though because if I wasn't I would be bringing the world down! At any rate take a look at the companies you work for and see what they do for cutting back on green house gases. I know mine spends 100's of millions every 6-7 years upgrading old technoolgy with the state of the art technology (printing presses). In Wisconsin we have to document our emissions and keep extensive documentation on voc's. Its not like companys are already doing this.

But for the most part I do agree with Kelraz.

Ethanol, biodeisel, hamsters, shit I dont care just give me something else

I have a friend with a Diesel Volkswagon Jetta. One of his local Chinese restaurants gives them their old grease and he processes it in his garage. He mixes it half and half with diesel after he processes it and it burns great in his car. He's getting about 50 miles a gallon and is only paying for half the diesel, which seems pretty amazing to me. In the summer he's gonna try and push more of the vegatable grease through his car and less diesel, while in the winter he needs more diesel, but he's been very happy with that change and the savings he's seen.

Well with conservation the price of gas and everything else will go up. I am ok with that though because if I wasn't I would be bringing the world down! At any rate take a look at the companies you work for and see what they do for cutting back on green house gases. I know mine spends 100's of millions every 6-7 years upgrading old technoolgy with the state of the art technology (printing presses). In Wisconsin we have to document our emissions and keep extensive documentation on voc's. Its not like companys are already doing this.

But for the most part I do agree with Kelraz.

And wow this shows how clueless I am.... I would have never thought printing presses pollute. I mean, I know paper mills/factories do but not presses.

Penn and Teller Had a great show about this Global Warming thing.
You should watch it.
http://www.tv.com/penn-and-teller-bullshit/show/17579/episode_guide.html

I am fully in support of a ban on dihydrogen oxide!

I have a friend with a Diesel Volkswagon Jetta. One of his local Chinese restaurants gives them their old grease and he processes it in his garage. He mixes it half and half with diesel after he processes it and it burns great in his car. He's getting about 50 miles a gallon and is only paying for half the diesel, which seems pretty amazing to me. In the summer he's gonna try and push more of the vegatable grease through his car and less diesel, while in the winter he needs more diesel, but he's been very happy with that change and the savings he's seen.

Remember reading about some guy who ran his work vehicles almost exclusively on french fry grease, he'd just run the diesel through to clear out the lines so he wouldnt clog them up when it cooled off.

Is there an article or any supporting information to go with those photos? Without that, it's hard to derive much of a conclusion from them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/sci_nat_how_the_world_is_changing/img/1.jpg
Is that not a seasonal lake? The original could be during dry season and the newer right after the rains. Bodies of water with huge fluctuations like that aren't very uncommon. You actually see that cracked appearance on the surface more commonly if they were recently moist and dried relatively quickly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/sci_nat_how_the_world_is_changing/img/3.jpg
The beach is typical of erosion after a hurricane or strong storm. Are you trying to insinuate the beachline changed that much due to the tiny fraction of a degree that the temperature may have changed in five years?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/sci_nat_how_the_world_is_changing/img/5.jpg
Winter and summer.

Don't know about the first two, but the mountains outside anchorage do the same thing every year, for a couple months no snow, then for the rest of the year, there is plenty.

People cry about the sky falling, then we get a light dusting of snow at the end of april.

*shrug*

I think the point of the first pair of picutres that the top one is a glacier, not a dried lake bed.

More people are doing the french fry grease thing here in Wisconsin, in fact its not free anymore people are selling it. Good use though for it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/sci_nat_how_the_world_is_changing/html/1.stm

more info
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/04/climate_change/html/climate.stm

I think the point of the first pair of picutres that the top one is a glacier, not a dried lake bed.
Glaciers retreat during non-ice ages and then reform when the temperature drops again. The amount flowing beyond the equilibrium line is greater than the amount formed at the source, when we're in a temperate climate phase.

Trying to find a way to drastically affect that cycle in the foreseeable future is futile.

edit: And the 1859 photo was right at the end of the "Little Ice Age" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age). It stands to reason the glacier would be at a peak then.

In the mid-17th century, glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced, gradually engulfing farms and crushing entire villages. The river Thames and the canals and rivers of the Netherlands often froze over during the winter, and people skated and even held frost fairs on the ice. The winter of 1794/95 was particularly harsh when the French invasion army under Pichegru could march on the frozen rivers of the Netherlands, whilst the Dutch fleet was fixed in the ice in Den Helder harbour. In the winter of 1780, New York Harbor froze, allowing people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Sea ice surrounding Iceland extended for miles in every direction, closing that island's harbors to shipping. "The Arctic pack ice extended so far south that there are six records of Inuit landing their kayaks in Scotland, and there are even reports of a Polar Bear harassing crofters in the Orkney Islands."
The glacier in the first photo is in Switzerland, according to the BBC article.

Back then, I'm sure global cooling was all the hype.

no, not Switzerland.

Argentina's Upsala Glacier was once the biggest in South America, but it is now disappearing at a rate of 200 metres per year.

Switzerland was in this photo.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/sci_nat_how_the_world_is_changing/img/2.jpg

And that Patagonian glacier has been there since the Tertiary Epoch, about 1.6 million years ago. But today it retreats a little over 2 football fields in size on all sides per year.
Nowhere in that mini ice age article you cited have I see evidence of massive glaciers replacing ones that had previously evaporated. What is happening in that first article is not part of any cycle or eternal circle. It is permanent and it is final.

"Nowhere in that mini ice age article you cited have I see evidence of massive glaciers replacing ones that had previously evaporated. What is happening in that first article is not part of any cycle or eternal circle. It is permanent and it is final."

Well of course it is permanent and final. After all, the earth has never been warmer in it's past...

"Today we enjoy global temperatures which have warmed back to levels of the so called "Medieval Warm Period," which existed from approximately A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1350."

Heck, let's go back a little farther to see some real global warming -- the Holocene Maximum 7500 years ago (before the evils of human industrialization) or even farther to the time of dinosaurs...

"Our present-day Arctic Ocean is about 10-15°C cooler than it was at the time of the dinosaurs for almost all of the time from about 2 to at least 200 million years ago (Ma) the surface temperature exceeded that of today."

Damn that was even before humans. How could that be? We are the only ones responsible for current global warming! Look at the pictures for the evidence.

And as you state, massive glaciers have never replaced ones that evaporated...

"Like a spread of collosal bulldozers, glaciers have scraped and pulverized vast stretches of Earth's surface and completely destroyed entire regional ecosystems not once, but several times."

"So far we have had around 15 to 20 individual major advances and subsequent retreats of the ice field in our current glacial epoch. The last major advance of glacial ice peaked about 18,000 years ago and since that time the ice has generally been retreating (albeit with some short term interruptions)."

And that was just in our current glacial epoch.

Point being, fight pollution for the current problems we know it causes. It stinks, it sucks to breath it in, and it ruins what little scenic beauty there may be left. I've been to India and China where they pollute to hell and it's no place to live. Don't tell me, however, human beings that have been here a mere fraction of earth's existence are creating a permanent and final doomsday. You only sound alarmist.

The quotes are from these web sites:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
http://www.lakepowell.net/sciencecenter/paleoclimate.htm
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/

no, not Switzerland.

Switzerland was in this photo.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/sci_nat_how_the_world_is_changing/img/2.jpg
Yes... I said the 1859 photo, which is the Switzerland photo, which is an area that was literally bulldozed over by glaciers intruding into previously habitable areas. This happened between about the 13th and 19th centuries.

They certainly can and will advance as a result of the natural warming and cooling cycle of the planet.

Nowhere in that mini ice age article you cited have I see evidence of massive glaciers replacing ones that had previously evaporated. What is happening in that first article is not part of any cycle or eternal circle. It is permanent and it is final.
I can only assume you know this, but glaciers don't just evaporate like a puddle of water or a snow drift. Even when they're advancing, they're still constantly collapsing/evaporating on one end and being formed on the other. Even when the Earth was at it's coolest points, glaciers would have had to eventually reach an equilibrium line at some point toward the equator.

Your glacier didn't evaporate. It's still there. Its equilibrium line is just farther North, out of that photo. When the earth hits its next cooling period, your pentagon glacier will likely flow farther South again before finding equilibrium.

In fact, its melting and adding fresh water to the oceans is probably part of the process of triggering a cooling trend to help it slowly regain that same ground. And, it pulling that large amount of fresh water back into ice form will help restart a warming trend at some point too.

"Our present-day Arctic Ocean is about 10-15°C cooler than it was at the time of the dinosaurs for almost all of the time from about 2 to at least 200 million years ago (Ma) the surface temperature exceeded that of today."

Holy shit! You mean 200 Million years when the Pangaea was being blasted apart by massive volcanos, the sea was 15 degrees warmer? WOW! I am shocked, SHOCKED that billions of tons of molten lava would do that to water.

Damn that was even before humans. How could that be? We are the only ones responsible for current global warming!
Of course, you are right. Its all a big coincidence. What possible impact could 6 billion people have on a planet. Its not like we are creating conditions unique and unnatural to nature. Hell, Im sure the Dinosaurs were just as careless with their fossil fuel emissions and petrochemicals. And have you seen the size of some of those fuckers? I bet their SUVs were HUGE!
Its not like the earth is some giant interdependant ecosystem or something crazy like that.
Mankind over the last 100 years has had more impact on the planet than any other force for last... 200 Million years? We have completely subdued the environment, being the first life form to rise above nature. Since the Industrial Revolution we have laid waste to massive areas of land with incredible amounts of pollution and unnatural chemicals.
But lets ignore all that and keep beliveing that none of our actions are effecting the world we live in any way. Because seriously, changing the way we manage the environment to a more responsible way would just be a bummer man.


"Like a spread of collosal bulldozers, glaciers have scraped and pulverized vast stretches of Earth's surface and completely destroyed entire regional ecosystems not once, but several times."
Over several million years. Not decades or centuries.

"So far we have had around 15 to 20 individual major advances and subsequent retreats of the ice field in our current glacial epoch. The last major advance of glacial ice peaked about 18,000 years ago and since that time the ice has generally been retreating (albeit with some short term interruptions)."
Nobody is saying the earth is a constant. But change in the planet comes, well, Glacially. The question people are asking is not if this has happened before, but are the actions of humans acting as a unnatural catalyst to speed up processes that naturally would occur over 10s of thousands of years to 100 years or less.
Geologists dont say that glaciers havent expanded or retracted, what they are saying is that rate at which they are doing so is unnatural.


Point being, fight pollution for the current problems we know it causes.
Oh please. We have no fucking clue what half the shit we are doing does. We were putting Hexavalent Chromium in the earth 30 years ago. Who knew that it would bleed into water supply and poison people? How many types of cancer have we created for ourselves?
How many fish can you eat a year from your local sound or estuary? MMMM.. Ill have extra mercury with my seabass please!
We know exactly what we are doing! This is natural... right?
http://healthandenergy.com/images/mercury_minamata.jpg



It stinks, it sucks to breath it in, and it ruins what little scenic beauty there may be left.
It kills, destroys, ruins, contaminates.

Don't tell me, however, human beings that have been here a mere fraction of earth's existence are creating a permanent and final doomsday. You only sound alarmist.
Name one species that has had a greater effect on the planet than us. In the last 100 years we are unique in the billion year history of Earth. Last year, the United States alone release 2 billion metric tons of HTGs (heat trapping gases) into the atmosphere. Any idea where it went? There are many people who would really like know.
How about some acid rain. Maybe we can ask a dinosaur how they dealt with it.



I can only assume you know this, but glaciers don't just evaporate like a puddle of water or a snow drift. Even when they're advancing, they're still constantly collapsing/evaporating on one end and being formed on the other. Even when the Earth was at it's coolest points, glaciers would have had to eventually reach an equilibrium line at some point toward the equator.

Your glacier didn't evaporate. It's still there. Its equilibrium line is just farther North, out of that photo. When the earth hits its next cooling period, your pentagon glacier will likely flow farther South again before finding equilibrium.

In fact, its melting and adding fresh water to the oceans is probably part of the process of triggering a cooling trend to help it slowly regain that same ground. And, it pulling that large amount of fresh water back into ice form will help restart a warming trend at some point too.

You are underinformed.
In the mini ice age you spoke about the natural cycle was shifting back and the period of warming started to turn cold again as was the natural cycle until around 1980 when the RETREAT (not advance... not movement) became ubiquitous and increasingly rapid. Glaciers do disappear... see the Grinnell Glacier for further education. Glaciers are not gaining enough water back that they lose in summer month because the winter months are too warm so there is a net yearly retreat of the glaciers.
If we skip a cooling trend and head into a warming trend and lose even more of our glacial reserves the results will be fairly catastrophic on the worlds supply of drinking water.

Ok, say I buy it, L2. Say I completely, whole-heartedly buy in. Now what?

He will tell you that we should wholeheartedly follow what environmentalists tell us, because dihydrogen oxide is bad. We have far too much of it in the world.
In fact if covers 2/3 of the planet's surface!!!! We should do everything we can to get rid of as much of it as possible!!!! The Sky is Falling, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!

Nothing is as dire as the time in which we live. The End of the World <tm> has been predicted since the 1st caveman learned how to draw. 4.5 billion years later, and the Earth is still here.
We Humans are so full of ourselves. Guess what would happen if all 6 billion of us were to disappear?
The Planet would still go on. It would still have heat fluctuations. It would have cooling periods. And, some other lifeform would move in and take our spot in the evolutionary niche we leave behind.
We are not above Nature. We are still subject to its whims. To think anything else is folly. We may be able to think, and reason, and plan, but we are still just primates with opposable thumbs and rather large frontal lobes.
Nature is a balance, but to think we have an effect, or are "speeding up the process" is also folly. If things get too far out of whack, I'm sure Nature will fix the issue. Either by compensating in another way, or by eradicating us from the face of the planet.
Incidentally, did you know that 99% of all things that have ever lived are now extinct? How did we have our hand in that, I wonder?

I understand we can only control what we control.
First we have stop resisting change because China or India or whoever isnt doing it to. We, the United States, have assumed a mantle of responsible leadership and should accordingly, act like a leader.

Second, we need to come together as a nation and focus our collective wills on the common problems we face. In the 50s and 60s America threw itself into the Space Race, we united to achieve a common goal and government citizens and industry demonstrated to the world what an awesome force the US can be when so focused.
What we need to do is to begin a effort in the same vein to find alternative sources of energy. Conservation doesnt, as Dick Cheney suggests, mean turning off the lights when you leave the room. Conservation means a national effort to consume less natural resources in a holistic sense. How do we make cars that run more efficently and cleaner? How do provide the means to businesses to be both profitable and clean and energy efficent? How do we protect against beach erosion and maintain the purity of our water supply? How do we maintain the quality of our air? How do we not use up everything we have in one gluttonous feast?

This cannot be left to free market forces. This has to be an all encompassing national effort to meet the challenges of the coming decade. Generate, educate and subsidize some of our best and brightest (Our greatest natural resource) to dedicate their talents, skills and lives to tackling these problems.

The number of people on this planet is growing expotentially. There are more people alive on the planet today than had been alive in the entirety of humans history. It is not the present that Im worried about. It is the future if our patterns of interaction with the planet continue in the nature that they do today. As our populations grow, so does mans aggregate impact on the environment.
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Watershed/4345/pictures/chart-world-pop-growth.gif
Mankind had for thousands of years lived under the dominion of nature. We then advanced and improved our lives dramatically by learning how to subdue it, to conquer it and to bend it to our will. I believe the next stage in human development will require mankind to live in harmony with nature by acting in a responsible way that preserves and protects the life sustaining aspects of our home.

When I see a post like Sixee's I think of this little creature...

http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/courses/builders/lessons/less/biomes/tundra/tundragifs/lemming2.gif

"Holy shit! You mean 200 Million years when the Pangaea was being blasted apart by massive volcanos, the sea was 15 degrees warmer?"

No, I mean from 2 to 200 million years ago. Learn to read.

"Name one species that has had a greater effect on the planet than us."

The microscopic cyanobacteria has had a much greater effect on the planet than humans.

"The cyanobacteria have also been tremendously important in shaping the course of evolution and ecological change throughout earth's history. The oxygen atmosphere that we depend on was generated by numerous cyanobacteria during the Archaean (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/precambrian/archaean.html) and Proterozoic (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/precambrian/proterozoic.html) Eras. Before that time, the atmosphere had a very different chemistry, unsuitable for life as we know it today."

We're fortunate there weren't any cyanobacteria alarmists to prevent their changing earth's atmosphere. Perhaps 300 million years from now some other species of idiots will be thanking us for changing earth's atmosphere.

300 Million years from now they'll be drilling in our graveyards inorder to use us for lubricants!!


Fandros

Comparing a 3 billion years passive activity and 100 years active one is accurate to say the least.

The End of the World <tm> has been predicted since the 1st caveman learned how to draw. 4.5 billion years later, and the Earth is still here.
Irony O sweet irony. I'm sure you know the "if Earth existence was a year's long, mankind would have appeared at 11.59.50pm on december the 31st" analogy. ;)

Wether or not we are accelerating cooling/warming processes, it's our duty to keep the house clean. And fuck chinese or indians, because they can do what they want it's a good excuse to not be responsible?

Wait a minute...I thought the Earth was only 6,000 years old?!!!

Obviously the problem is lack of pirates. If you want to stop global warming you should become one.

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

I think that FSM should be like the hitler comments of any global warming thread. The inevitable referance to pirates and global warming sure ends the discussion on global warming like someone calling someone else hitler.

Oh and there I said hitler, the thread is officially dead!!

The microscopic cyanobacteria has had a much greater effect on the planet than humans.
Bacteria a species do not make as they do not interbreed. Try again.
A single cell bacteria is a laughable example anyway. How about "fire"?

You are underinformed.
In the mini ice age you spoke about the natural cycle was shifting back and the period of warming started to turn cold again as was the natural cycle until around 1980 when the RETREAT (not advance... not movement) became ubiquitous and increasingly rapid. Glaciers do disappear... see the Grinnell Glacier for further education. Glaciers are not gaining enough water back that they lose in summer month because the winter months are too warm so there is a net yearly retreat of the glaciers.
I don't think I understand what you're trying to say.

No one's arguing that the glaciers aren't receding right now. And, they don't form in the winter. They form constantly, year round, and flow South. Receding or retreat are misnomers for what actually happens.

Either way, it's part of a normal cycle that's been happening for tens of thousands of years. It's perfectly normal.

Such alarmism makes a mockery of the real reasons we should be worrying about pollution control.

"Bacteria a species do not make as they do not interbreed."

Wrong. Try again. Bacteria are and can be referred to as species. They are different from animal/plant species but they are referred to as species nonetheless.

It can be difficult to classify bacteria species, but cyanobacteria is a common type. http://www.bacteriamuseum.org/species/index.shtml.

So going back to your ridiculous original statement. Which has had more of an impact on earth? The bacterial species cyanobacteria or the human species?

They form constantly, year round, and flow South. Receding or retreat are misnomers for what actually happens.

Either way, it's part of a normal cycle that's been happening for tens of thousands of years. It's perfectly normal

Completely false.
Glaciers do melt. They lose mass. They are losing mass. It isnt hysteria, or hype. It is fact.
http://sciencebulletins.amnh.org/earth/f/glaciers.20050331/assets/150/index.php

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129#comments

You should try getting your information some place other than the Heartland Institute, the puppet of the notorious Cato institute.

It's perfectly normal.
The process has occured before. But never this rapidly. All of the glacial mass + alot more, gained between the Medieval Warm period and the present day in the so called "Mini Ice Age" (which did not occur on global scale) has been lost and we are still on the upswing of temperatures with no sign of slowing down.

The bacterial species cyanobacteria or the human species?
Algae is not a species in the classical sense. They have the term assigned to them for means of classification, they do not accord the significance of non plant forms of life. They just dont. No interbreeding means not eligible for consideration.

Now do you have any non microscopic forms of life to try?

I've always thought Trees have had a major impact on the environment, but then again, what do I know?

'Obviously the problem is lack of pirates. If you want to stop global warming you should become one.'

- Yeargh.

Completely false.
Glaciers do melt. They lose mass. They are losing mass. It isnt hysteria, or hype. It is fact.
http://sciencebulletins.amnh.org/earth/f/glaciers.20050331/assets/150/index.php

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129#comments

You should try getting your information some place other than the Heartland Institute, the puppet of the notorious Cato institute.
I don't think I've cited anything from the Heartland Institute, have I? I think the only reference I've needed has been Wikipedia and some basic common sense.

Here's a quote directly from one of your sources (you should read those things after you google them!):

Further, the largest retreat of world glaciers was in the 1900-1940 period, when GHGs played a minor role. A typical example: the Illulisat (Jacobshavn, Greenland) glacier, where the breakup point had it's largest retreat in the 1929-1954 period. See: NASA. Similar conclusions can be made for more glaciers world-wide, where the 1940-1945 period shows the largest retreat. See: http://users.aber.ac.uk/daa04/response_of_glaciers.htm
Some glaciers (especially in Norway) even are advancing again since 1980-1990 (own observations, but see the graphs in the right upper corner of this page).
The process has occurred before. But never this rapidly. All of the glacial mass + alot more, gained between the Medieval Warm period and the present day in the so called "Mini Ice Age" (which did not occur on global scale) has been lost and we are still on the upswing of temperatures with no sign of slowing down.
Hang on. Are you now claiming to have authoritative information about the glacier fill areas and deltas that occured over the last several thousand years? The last real Ice Age was around 18,000 years ago, and the period you're talking about would've been hundreds and thousands of years even before that.

Sure, the Mini Ice Age didn't affect all areas the same way. Neither does global warming. Ice ages have their greatest impact in the Northern Hemisphere, since there's more habitated land mass affected by the glaciation. The empirical data we have for the Mini Ice Age is more complete for Eurasian areas than Australia or South America, so those are the areas that you find specific examples about. That shouldn't come as much of a surprise, given the time frame.

Maybe more pretty pictures will help...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

You know, I'm sure there's a graph showing the correlation between songs with more cowbell and global warming.
Just watch this and think the global temprature is going up because of Will Ferrell:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/Cowbell2.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cowbell2.gif)

OMG GLOBAL WARMING is everywhere but South Central PA!



Issued at: 4:00 PM EDT 4/26/06, expires at: 12:00 AM EDT 4/27/06

frost advisory in effect from 3 am to 9 am edt Thursday The NWS in state college has issued a frost advisory, which is in effect from 3 am to 9 am edt Thursday.

The official growing season began the past few days across much of the lower susquehanna river valley and east central mountains, and 10 days ago across the counties of adams, york and lancaster Temperatures will drop into the upper 30s after midnight tonight under clear skies and light wind. Low temperatures, which are measured around 6 feet above ground, will be between 33 and 36 across many locations throughout the middle and lower susquehanna valley early Thursday. Temperatures at the surface will dip to 32, or a few degrees lower causing the frost formation.

A frost advisory means that a widespread frost is expected in the advisory area. Sensitive plants may be killed if left unprotected outside. Take some time this afternoon to cover your plants, or if possible bring them indoors.

Warmest day on record in Roy Utah for this date was 104 deg...reached in 1960....


Fandros

Statistical abberations and freak events are completly irrelevant.That is to say, don't mistake weather for climate.

Yes, Jesus freaks love global warming. Embrass it even.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1157612,00.html

The group released a poll showing that 70 percent of evangelicals believe global warming will pose a serious threat to future generations, and that "63 percent of evangelicals believe that while global warming may be a long-term issue, the problem is being caused today, so we must start addressing it immediately."

Man...I missed it. :(

Not really :)

In other news:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060521_ozone_heal.html

Global warming is the new Communism.. or is it Terrorism, I forget. So much fear mongering involved.

With Ken Lay doing his perp walk, destined for life in prison... this bit should put the kebash to anyone still swooning over Kyoto...

Enron became one of the biggest corporate boosters of the Kyoto global warming treaty, which would require huge reductions in energy use by consumers and industry. According to an internal Enron memo, quoted by The Washington Post, the Kyoto treaty would “do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.”
In addition to all its political lobbying and contributions, Enron became a founding member of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change’s Business Environmental Leadership Council, a leading industry front group pushing the Kyoto agenda. Enron chairman Ken Lay also served on the board of the Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, along with Fred Krupp of Environmental Defense, and former Alcoa CEO and current Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill.

Damn Bush to the seventh level of hell for not signing Kyoto. :rolleyes: But more importantly, may Sixee get an ozone depletion-induced sunburn for bumping this thread.

Well, I am fair skinned....
And a long weekend is coming up...
Time for SPF 900....

:eek:

With Ken Lay doing his perp walk, destined for life in prison... this bit should put the kebash to anyone still swooning over Kyoto...If Kyoto went through, maybe Enron's execs wouldn't have had to cook the books to make a profit. Now we're all going to bake!

It doesn't matter why the earth is warming up; it could be the result of human action on the planet, or it could be a perfectly natural macroclimate effect. However, when you get right down to brass tacks, if there is a trend towards global warming there are going to be some serious effects on the earth's flora and fauna.

The problem is that it takes a whole bunch of money to figure out if it is happening at all. It takes a buttload of money to figure out what we should do about it if it is happening- or even if we can do anything about it at all. And we love to pass the buck; the prevalent way of thinking seems to be "Let someone else pay for it" or "The next administration can worry about it." Humans, as a whole, suck at recognizing long term threats.



Hell, we know the earth’s magnetic poles flip around a few times every million years or so. That will cause some problems, as well. What are we doing to prepare for that?

Hell, we know the earth’s magnetic poles flip around a few times every million years or so. That will cause some problems, as well. What are we doing to prepare for that?
I'm going to spend this summer learning to read a compass backwards. That magno-flipping Velikovsky shit won't catch me flat-footed.

Irony is well and truly dead now, you bastard.

Destroyed by human emissions. :(

I blame the Republicans...