<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d10023525\x26blogName\x3dEarth+Changes\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://burningmarble.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://burningmarble.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d8190743303317432321', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

11.26.2005

But global warming is made up, right?

Sea level rise doubles in 150 years

· Increase blamed on fossil fuel use since 19th century
· Cut in greenhouse gases futile, researchers say

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday November 25, 2005
The Guardian


Global warming is doubling the rate of sea level rise around the world, but attempts to stop it by cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions are likely to be futile, leading researchers will warn today.

The oceans will rise nearly half a metre by the end of the century, forcing coastlines back by hundreds of metres, the researchers claim. Scientists believe the acceleration is caused mainly by the surge in greenhouse gas emissions produced by the development of industry and introduction of fossil fuel burning.

Today's warning comes from US researchers at Rutgers University in New Jersey who analysed cores drilled from different sites along the eastern seaboard. By drilling down 500 metres through layers of different sediments and using chemical dating techniques, the scientists were able to work out where beaches and dry land were over the past 100m years.

The analysis showed that during the past 5,000 years, sea levels rose at a rate of around 1mm each year, caused largely by the residual melting of icesheets from the previous ice age. But in the past 150 years, data from tide gauges and satellites show sea levels are rising at 2mm a year.

"The main thing that has happened since the 19th century and the beginning of the modern observation has been the widespread increase in fossil fuel use and more greenhouse gases," said Professor Kenneth Miller, who led the study. "We can say the increase we're seeing is much higher than we've seen in the immediate past and it is due to humans."

The rising tide is expected to make oceans 40cm higher by 2100. "This is going to cause more beach erosion. Beaches are going to move back and houses will be destroyed," he said. Rising sea levels will also add to the destructive power of storm surges triggered by hurricanes such as Katrina which battered New Orleans and surrounding areas this year.

The research, published in the US journal Science, comes a week before the countries that embraced the Kyoto protocol meet for the first time in Montreal to discuss future agreements for cutting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions further. While Britain has adopted the protocol, the government has suggested that voluntary targets rather than the mandatory cuts demanded by Kyoto could be a more practical way to trim greenhouse gas emissions.

According to Prof Miller, there is little chance of slowing the rising tide caused by global warming. "There's not much one can do about sea level rise. It's clear that even if we strictly obeyed the Kyoto accord, it's still going to continue to warm. Personally, I don't think we're going to affect CO2 emissions enough to make a difference, no matter what we do. The Bush administration should stop asking whether temperatures are globally rising and admit the scientific fact that they are, but then turn the question around politically and say: 'We can't really do anything about this on any kind of cost basis at all'," he said.

In two further studies, also published in Science, a team of German researchers put figures on the extent to which the climate is warming compared with any time during the past 650,000 years. They report that levels of the most ubiquitous greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, are rising 200 times faster than could be caused by any natural process. Carbon dioxide levels are now 380 parts per million, some 27% higher and methane levels 130% higher than at any time over the period they analysed.

The researchers measured levels of greenhouse gases locked into a core of ice drilled from Antarctica. At more than 3km long, the ice core holds pockets of air that were in the earth's atmosphere from nearly 1m years ago until the present day.

The cores are the best record left on the planet of the earth's environmental history. By analysing the gases locked up in 10cm chunks of ice, the researchers can reconstruct the gases that made up the atmosphere at any time from present day until before the four previous ice ages.

"If you really want to make a case for global warming, you just have to look at the past 1,000 years, because the current increase in carbon dioxide stands out dramatically," said lead author Dr Thomas Stocker at the Physics Institute of the University of Bern, Switzerland.

Ed Brook, a climate scientist at Oregon State University said the rise in greenhouse gases ... was a stark indication of the influence industry was having on the environment. "The levels of primary greenhouse gases such as methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide are up dramatically since the industrial revolution, at a speed and magnitude that the earth has not seen in hundreds of thousands of years. There is now no question this is due to human influence."

11.24.2005

Space War propaganda

The push to scare the American citizenry seems to be shifting a bit, from Islamic terrorism (which has been proven to be manufactured by intelligence agencies) to the countries that support these terrorists (which is any country that doesn't rub bald heads with Dubya). If the American infrastructure is vulnerable, you can bet that is has been planned to be that way. Remember the good quote, Nothing in politics happens by accident...

US Seen Vulnerable to Space Pulse Attack
By Bill Gertz,
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
21 Nov 2005

The United States is highly vulnerable to attack from electronic pulses caused by a nuclear blast in space, according to a new book on threats to U.S. security.

A single nuclear weapon carried by a ballistic missile and detonated a few hundred miles over the United States would cause "catastrophe for the nation" by damaging electricity-based networks and infrastructure, including computers and telecommunications, according to "War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World."

"This is the single most serious national-security challenge and certainly the least known," said Frank J. Gaffney Jr. of the Center for Security Policy, a former Pentagon official and lead author of the book, which includes contributions by 34 security and intelligence specialists.

An electromagnetic-pulse (EMP) attack uses X-rays and gamma rays produced in a nuclear blast in three separate waves of pulses, each with more damaging effects, and would take months or years to repair, the book states. The damage to unshielded electronics would be irreversible.

The EMP danger was highlighted recently by a special congressional commission that has received little public attention and is considered a unique way for rogue states such as North Korea and Iran, or other enemies such as al Qaeda, to use nuclear weapons in the future.

Al Qaeda is known to be seeking nuclear weapons, according to documents uncovered at the terrorist group's facilities in Afghanistan.

[end of article]

The editors over at the alternative news site Signs of the Times had an interesting take on this slimy piece of propaganda:
----
Gee, the Neocons seem to be very excited about the effects of an overhead nuke detonation.

It sounds like the "free world" is shrinking more and more. The above report seems to include Russia, North Korea and China, and any country that is in any way connected with "Islamic terrorists" (according to the US) which includes all of the Middle East, Pakistan, India, and Indonesia as the enemies of the "free world". Of course, we would also have to include those countries who opposed the Iraq invasion.

By this reckoning then, the final group of "free worlders" would be: the U.S., Britain, Poland, Australia and Italy. But if we include the opinion on the Iraq invasion of the populations of those countries, (we know, the idea that "Democratic" governments should actually give any credence to public opinion is so passé), then we are left with the US standing alone as the entire "free world".

But if we refine it down a little further, and recognise the fact that most American citizens have no idea who runs their country or what their real plans actually are, we realise that the "free world" is nothing more than a group of American war-mongers known as the Washington Neocons, among whom the abovementioned Frank Gaffney, author of this latest discourse on how to destroy the world in 3 easy steps, is a leading light (or should that be 'point of utter blackness'?)

Yet, this article is interesting for an altogether different reason. The description of this newest threat to the "free world" bears a striking similarity to the likely effects of an overhead meteorite explosion. With all of the space rock activity over the past few years, one has to wonder if the publication of "War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World" is not in fact a plan to capitalise on upcoming meteorite impacts to further the wholly ficticious "war on terror."

Time will tell we suppose. But a good question to ask yourself is: would you be able to recognise the difference between the EM effects of an overhead meteorite explosion and the EM effects of an overhead nuke explosion, and if you wouldn't who would you look to for answers?

----
My guess is the majority would be plugged in, waiting for the talking heads to feed us the BS. I would also be, if only to document the whole thing. The best attribute in a time of chaos is serenity. That would be vital in times when clear discernment is required, such as the above scenario.

11.05.2005

Al Gore says to prepare for catastrophes

Actually, the time to act was a long time ago, but you know these politicians, they only speak when told to. It was clear to many observers that globabl warming was a reality 10, 15 years ago. Why now? The timing of acceptance is something to observe, as the elites will only choose to do this when it benefits them. This is the mind of a psycopath. Gore is merely the puppet of those who pull the strings behind him. Gore's use of the phrase Book of Revelation is to be noted, when politicians start talking about it, you better pay notice. They didn't build all those underground bunkers for nuttin!

The time to act is now

The climate crisis and the need for leadership.

By Al Gore


Nov. 4, 2005 | It is now clear that we face a deepening global climate crisis that requires us to act boldly, quickly and wisely. "Global warming" is the name it was given a long time ago. But it should be understood for what it is: a planetary emergency that now threatens human civilization on multiple fronts. Stronger hurricanes and typhoons represent only one of many new dangers as we begin what someone has called "a nature hike through the Book of Revelation."

As I write, my heart is heavy due to the suffering the people of the Gulf Coast have endured. In Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, and particularly in New Orleans, thousands have experienced losses beyond measure as our nation and the world witnessed scenes many of us thought we would never see in this great country. But unless we act quickly, this suffering will be but a beginning.

The science is extremely clear: Global warming may not affect the frequency of hurricanes, but it makes the average hurricane stronger, magnifying its destructive power. In the years ahead, there will be more storms like Katrina, unless we change course. Indeed, we have had two more Category 5 storms since Katrina -- including Wilma, which before landfall was the strongest hurricane ever measured in the Atlantic.

We know that hurricanes are heat engines that thrive on warm water. We know that heat-trapping gases from our industrial society are warming the oceans. We know that, in the past 30 years, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes globally has almost doubled. It's time to connect the dots:

* Last year, the science textbooks had to be rewritten. They used to say, "It's impossible to have a hurricane in the South Atlantic." We had the first one last year, in Brazil. Japan also set an all-time record for typhoons last year: 10. The previous record was seven.

* This summer, more than 200 cities in the United States broke all-time heat records. Reno, Nev., set a new record with 10 consecutive days above 100 degrees. Tucson, Ariz., tied its all-time record of 39 consecutive days above 100 degrees. New Orleans -- and the surrounding waters of the Gulf -- also hit an all-time high.

* This summer, parts of India received record rainfall -- 37 inches fell in Mumbai in 24 hours, killing more than 1,000 people.

* The new extremes of wind and rain are part of a larger pattern that also includes rapidly melting glaciers worldwide, increasing desertification, a global extinction crisis, the ravaging of ocean fisheries, and a growing range for disease "vectors" like mosquitoes, ticks and many other carriers of viruses and bacteria harmful to people.

All of these are symptoms of a deeper crisis: the "Category 5" collision between our civilization -- as we currently pursue it -- and the Earth's environment.

Sixty years ago, Winston Churchill wrote about another kind of gathering storm. When Neville Chamberlain tried to wish that threat away with appeasement, Churchill said, "This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste, of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year -- unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we rise again and take our stand for freedom."

For more than 15 years, the international community has conducted a massive program to assemble the most accurate scientific assessment on global warming. Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, have produced the most elaborate, well-organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind and have reached a consensus as strong as it ever gets in science. As Bill McKibben points out, there is no longer any credible basis to doubt that the Earth's atmosphere is warming because of human activities. There is no longer any credible basis to doubt that we face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.