Upsala Glacier Shows Effects of Global Warming
When it comes to GLOBAL WARMING, I like to use photographs to exemplify the concept. I think these photos of Upsala Glacier are completely self-explanatory!
UPSALA GLACIER SHOWS EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING
by Kentroversy
The effects of GLOBAL WARMING are hard to ignore, when one is faced with before-and-after photographic evidence. The seventy-six years between the two photographs above show considerable damage to our planet. The melting of glaciers is a very serious thing; as it affects the gulf stream, the temperature of the ocean currents, the strength of those currents, and it even affects the life in the immediate area of the ecosystem.
The two photos above are of Upsala Glacier, El Calafate, Argentina. The top photo was taken in 1928, and shows an intact shelf, with no noticable cracks or melting.
The bottom photo shows what I must refer to as Upsala Lake, and this is because that is what it looks like --- a lake. The peaks have shortened, the shelf is just about gone, and there appears to be very little glacier left.
Even a CHILD could understand what is going on in these two photos, but NOT George Bush Jr.?
While the glacier melting is merely one piece of the puzzle, what it shows is dramatic and it shows that the wholesale damage to the total environment, may be happening ON PURPOSE.
My only question is this:
"Who's got a ticket on the spaceship outta here, WHEN (and not IF) the time comes?!"
This might sound like a peculiar musing, but, it has really made me wonder WHY the POWERS THAT BE, INC. [a global corporation] would deign to do something like this ON PURPOSE?!
© 2006 Kentroversy Papers
All rights reserved. Used with permission.
Sources:
The following sources were used in the creation of this Kentroversy Paper . . .
Center For International Environmental Law - Climate Change Program
Greenpeace Japan - Upsala Glacier; El Calafate, Argentina. (April 26, 2006)
Greepeace Japan website
Greenpeace International Climate Impact Page
Climate Change
Global Warming
Greenpeace
Upsala Glacier
posted by Kentroversy at 7:41 AM
4 Comments:
Dear Kentroversy,
There is no global warming. The scientific facts indicate otherwise. The environmental movement is the latest globalist/communist conspiracy to erode US sovereignty, and that of other countries, to subject us to global governance.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/07-30-2001/vo17no16_myths.htm
The global mean temperature is approximately 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago. Based on surface readings, the temperature rose prior to 1940, perhaps in response to the end of the little ice age, which lasted until the 19th century. From about 1940 until about 1975, the temperature dropped, sparking the above-mentioned global cooling scare. More recently the temperature has been rising again, sparking concerns about global warming.
The accuracy of the surface temperature record must be kept in mind when evaluating trends measured in fractions of a degree. One significant problem is the extent to which the data may be skewed as a result of urbanization. Atmospheric physicist Dr. S. Fred Singer wrote in a letter that appeared in the May issue of Science: "The post-1940 global warming claimed by the IPCC comes mainly from distant surface stations and from tropical sea surface readings, with both data sets poorly controlled (in both quality and location)." On the other hand, "surface data from well-controlled U.S. stations (after removing the urban �heat-island� effects) show the warmest years as being around 1940." In his testimony to the Senate Commerce Committee on July 18th of last year, Singer bluntly stated: "The post-1980 global warming trend from surface thermometers is not credible."
Dr. Singer, who established the U.S. Weather Satellite Service and served as its first director, is just one of many scientists who believe that temperature data collected by weather satellites provides a far better measuring stick than the surface readings. After all, the satellite data is truly global, and it is not skewed by the urban heat effect. The satellite data from January 1979 (when this data first became available) through May 2001 shows a warming trend of 0.038 degrees Celsius per decade � or less than four-tenths of one degree per century. This minuscule rate of increase, which could change, is far less than the dramatic increases in temperature the forecasters of doom have been warning against.
n the interest of scrupulous accuracy, Dr. Lindzen acknowledged in his May 2nd Senate testimony that "man, like the butterfly, has some impact on climate." Obviously this was true when the Vikings were able to cultivate Greenland, Iceland, and Newfoundland. But it is true even today. In the April 3rd issue of the Wall Street Journal, George Melloan noted that, according to "serious scientists," "the greenhouse gases are a fundamental part of the biosphere, necessary to all life, and � industrial activity generates less than 5% of them, if that."
According to the global warming theory, the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which has been established, is causing the global temperature to rise. Most of the increase in the surface temperature during the past century occurred before most of the increase in atmospheric CO2. The temperature in 1940, recall, was not much different than it is now. Yet, as astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas pointed out in a letter published in the August 5, 1999 Wall Street Journal, "more than 80% of the manmade carbon dioxide has entered the air since the �40s."
One reason why the global warming theory may be flawed is that the amount of atmospheric CO2 is not the only variable determining the earth�s temperature. It is not even the main "greenhouse" gas. In a chapter appearing in the compendium Earth Report 2000, Dr. Roy Spencer, senior scientist for climate studies at NASA�s Marshall Space Flight Center, noted: "It is estimated that water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of the earth�s natural greenhouse effect, whereas carbon dioxide contributes most of the remaining 5 percent. Global warming projections assume that water vapor will increase along with any warming resulting from the increases in carbon dioxide concentrations."
The projected "positive feedback" to the initial CO2-induced warming may not occur to the extent that global warming theorists are predicting, however. As Dr. Spencer points out, "there remain substantial uncertainties in our understanding of how the climate system will respond to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases." Moreover, the natural greenhouse effect that heats the earth is moderated by natural cooling processes. "In other words," concluded Dr. Spencer, "the natural greenhouse effect cannot be considered in isolation as a process warming the earth, without at the same time accounting for cooling processes that actually keep the greenhouse effect from scorching us all."
One factor global warming theorists ignore is the effect that the sun�s changing activity may have on the global temperature. A brighter sun may cause the global temperature to rise, and vice versa. Dr. Baliunas, in the Wall Street Journal letter referenced above, explained how the sun�s activity can be measured by the length of the sunspot cycle (the shorter the cycle, the more active the sun). Dr. Baliunas� letter included a chart showing a close correlation between changes in the length of the sunspot cycle and Northern Hemisphere land temperature for 1750-1978.
The known facts do not point to catastrophic global warming. That prediction is not based on the known temperature record but on complicated computer models that have been grossly inaccurate in the past. Those models do a very poor job of properly applying all the myriad factors that shape the world�s climate, in large part because much of the mechanisms of climate remain largely unknown.
Dr. Frederick Seitz warned against relying on computer models of the climate in the Wall Street Journal for April 19th: "According to climate change models, the earth�s surface temperature should have increased substantially in the past few decades because of man-made carbon dioxide already added to the atmosphere. However, actual temperature measurements show that these computer models have exaggerated the amount of warming by at least a factor of two." In light of this failure, Dr. Seitz reasoned: "Since the computer estimates of global warming for the past few decades have been cut back by a factor of two or more, to bring them in line with the measured temperature increases, the same correction should be applied to temperature predictions for the coming century. This would reduce the projected warming in 2100 to well within the range of natural variability of climate � the normal fluctuations that occur in nature without any human influence."
Greetings:
I am aware of the argument AGAINST global warming to which you refer. However, the circumstances in which we currently find ourselves, with melting polar ice caps AND obscene amounts of filth being spewed into the air 24/7/365, simply does not have precedence in any of the documentation that I have seen.
Also, please be aware of WHOM it is that is claiming that this is all a MYTH. These are globalist propaganda concerns, and I have yet to see any TRULY INDEPENDENT analysis of this so-called MYTH.
While the statistics to which you refer are well-known and easily verifiable to those who look deeply into this matter, all previous flucuations in temperature DID NOT contain such wholesale DAMAGE to the ecosystem.
While people are free to BELIEVE whatever they want, I respectfully submit that a MYTH cannot melt the polar ice caps, a MYTH cannot destroy the Arctic aquatic ecosystem, a MYTH cannot weaken the JET STREAM, and a MYTH cannot account for the daily loss of species which ARE going extinct even as I type these words.
Likewise a MYTH cannot account for the current rapid ozone depletion that is going on, and a MYTH cannot account for the increasingly bad quality of the air that you and I (and our families and friends) must breathe.
If GLOBAL WARMING is a MYTH as you state, then WHAT is accounting for the perilous conditions I describe above?
Kentroversy
Buffalo, NY USA
Dear Kentroversy,
'...all previous flucuations in temperature DID NOT contain such wholesale DAMAGE to the ecosystem.'
The environmentalists claim that human generated CO2 is causing global warming. Most of the CO2 has entered the atmosphere since the 1940's, but the earth's temperature has decreased since then, and has only started to increase since 1975 by about 0.038 degrees C/decade. Any temperature increase happened prior to the 40's, prior to the alleged more CO2 put into the atmosphere, which is all on record, and temperatures now are similar to temperatures in 1940. CO2 accounts for only 5% of the greenhouse gases, and water vapor the remaining 95%. Can CO2 have much of an effect? Could it be possible that the ice caps are melting a bit still because they are still retreating from the last ice age? Could it be possible that any species that are going extinct now are similar to species from the past that have gone extinct prior to the Industrial Revolution? Perhaps extinction is part of how things work from time to time. Pollution generated from and since the Industrial Revolution hasn't had the effect the environmentalists claim. Again, most CO2 has been generated since the 40's, temperatures remain the same, and the Industrial Revolution occurred in the 19th century, which apparently produced pollution. However, most of the temperature increase that has been witnessed, happened prior to the 1940's, prior to the alleged now generated amounts of CO2. Still, CO2 makes up about 5% of the greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere, as it is supposed to, and is still at 5%. Global warming is a myth generated by the globalist/communists to create a pretext for nations to give up national sovereignty, unify politically, and place themselves under some international body like the U.N for the purpose of a One World Government. What happened in Europe, i.e., the E.U., was advertised as an economic union for the purposes of trade and economic gain, but was always intended to be a political union. As you know, here in America with the NAFTA, CAFTA, and the stalled FTAA treaties, the ruling elites are attempting to 'unify' the Americas into an 'economic free trade zone' for 'economic gain,' etc., etc. The whole purpose is to create a political union with, as you said in the immigration post, no borders, like the E.U. What is really being planned are more of these 'blocks' of former nations and is what the globalists are trying to do in the Middle East now with their 'War on Terror.' They have a strategy called 'patient gradualism' in which they are slowly eroding national sovereignty. So, little by little, they are attempting to destroy nation-states and arrange them into regional blocks to eventually unify under a One World Government. The environmental 'crisis' is simply propaganda used by the globalists and dupes in an attempt to create international law, treaties, ans so forth, with the purpose of eroding national sovereignty.
Greetings, Michael:
The globalists can claim whatever they want, but the fact remains, the problems that I describe above were all the result of industrial pollution. The individual use of aerosol deodorants, etc. is negligable, as compared to the damage caused by industrial waste, and the pollution spewed forth out of factory smokestacks.
By the way, I do not consider myself to be an environmentalist, and I agree with your assessment; that most of their environmental edicts amount to little more than the gradualism which they hope will bring about their much-desired NEW WORLD ORDER.
However, I still would appreciate an answer to my question:
"If global warming and industrial pollution are NOT the cause of all I state above, then what IS the cause?!"
Kentroversy
Buffalo, NY USA
Post a Comment
<< Home