Antarctic Ice Melt is Changing Earth’s Gravity

By Carl Engelking | October 1, 2014 12:25 pm

amundsen sea

A new study may help mankind understand the gravity of climate change.

West Antarctica has lost so much ice between 2009 and 2012 that the gravity field over the region dipped, according to an announcement Friday from the European Space Agency (ESA). The conclusion is based on high-resolution measurements from satellites that map Earth’s gravity.

The gravitational fluctuation over the Antarctic Peninsula is small, but it’s further evidence that melting ice is fundamentally changing parts of the planet.

Measuring Earth’s Gravity

Scientists combined measurements from the ESA’s GOCE satellite and the lower-resolution Grace satellite, which is operated by the United States and Germany. Both satellites take detailed measurements of Earth’s gravity field and how the planet’s mass is distributed. Data from these instruments help scientists better understand the structure of Earth’s interior and its atmosphere.

Earth’s gravity field fluctuates from place to place depending on the planet’s rotation and the presence of mountains or ocean trenches.

Based on measurements from these two satellites, West Antarctica’s gravitational pull measurably decreased over three years because of its lost mass. Although you won’t feel a difference in the planet under your feet, the findings are further proof that, yes, ice is melting in Antarctica.

Corroborating Evidence

The findings from GOCE and Grace gel with data from a separate mission, ESA’s CryoSat satellite, which carries a radar altimeter (a device that uses radio waves to map the terrain’s altitude). It found that the rate at which ice is lost on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has increased by a factor of three since 2009. The frozen continent has been shrinking by 77 square miles every year, according to CryoSat data.

The news doesn’t get much better for Antarctica. Earlier this year, two studies were released that indicated the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is headed for an irreversible collapse in roughly 200 years. Should the ice sheet completely collapse, scientists believe it could raise sea level by more than 10 feet. 

 

Photo credit: /Shutterstock

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Environment, top posts
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Buddy199

    Dr. Steven Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama’s first term:

    “Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.”

    • القضيب سوداء كبيرة

      Did you need a ladder to pick that cherry taken out of context? I have an idea…why don’t you post the peer reviewed science that rebuts the worldwide scientific consensus that human activity is responsible for climate change as discussed in the article here.

      • Notso F. Stupid

        Nice one.

        • Docpresley

          Many scientists have built there livelyhoods getting grants for global warming study, the fact that they need global warming theory to pan out to stay funded doesn’t anymore discredit what they say than does working for an oil company. But this disclosure is helpful in evaluating what they believe and present as fact and theory.

      • Andrew Romanyshyn

        So very true!

      • Buddy199

        Here’s an idea. Why don’t you rebut the specific points that Dr. Koonin, a member of the Obama admin. scientific staff, makes in his recent WSJ article?

      • Buddy199

        I have an idea. Why don’t you rebut the specific points that Dr. Koonin, a member of the Obama admin. scientific staff, makes in his recent WSJ article?

        Oh wait, that would require thinking.

        BTW, Koonin does say that human activity is responsible for a projected effect on the greenhouse gas phenomenon – 1% to 2% by mid century. If you bothered to read the quote before launching into full rant.

        And perhaps the blog moderators at Discovery might want to block your sexually obscene avatar in Arabic. Real class, Big Black *****.

        • ThisNameInUse

          And why don’t you cite the good Dr. Koonin’s bio, so that we know that he works for an oil company? Yes, British Petroleum.

          • Van Snyder

            And before that he was a professor, and Provost, at Caltech. What’s your point? Is it that anybody who works for an oil company must necessarily be a liar?

        • R W

          Butty: thanks for confirming that your silly post does not rebut, undermine or in any way contradict the global scientific consensus. Perhaps you should stick to translation, because your critical reasoning and scientific skills are are on par with the large black organ referenced above.

          • Docpresley

            Always humors to watch warmers use personal attacks when challenged with facts.

      • Emkay

        There’s plenty of hype about ‘warming..The following are FACTS you so desperately need:

        As “Climategate” unfolds, the debate about global warming is now beginning to take a more prominent place in public awareness. While the e-mails that were hacked from East Anglia University’s computer have shown us how the so-called climate scientists had been virtually tripping over themselves to falsify the data, it would be appropriate to take a step backwards and look at the question of global warming from a broader perspective.

        Below I present five cogent facts that cast doubt upon the existence of global warming, adduced by looking at what real science has discovered about the Earth’s climate, by seeing how there is no real consensus among scientists in support of the theory, and by examining two instances where hoaxers have been caught red-handed trying to pass off lies to bolster the global-warming conjecture. We will also see how plain common sense can sometimes help one see through these things.

        Fact #1: We are actually entering an ice age, not an age of global warming.

        The possibility that we could soon be entering, not a period of global warming, but instead, an ice age, was being discussed back in the seventies before a lot of this scientific kookiness began (See next paragraph). The impetus for this idea came from the early 1900’s, when Serbian scientist, Milutin Milankovitch realized that the amount of solar insulation reaching the Earth and how it is distributed over the Earth’s surface determines the Earth’s climate (not CO2, as global warming advocates today maintain). He also discovered that ice ages are governed by three orbital cycles of the Earth, namely: 1) the 26,000-year period of the precession of the equinox where the Earth literally wobbles on its axis, which is combined with the advance of the perihelion (the point at which the Earth is closest to the sun) to produce a 21,000-year cycle; 2) the 40,000-year cycle of the variation of the tilt of the Earth’s axis from between 22 to 24.5 degrees; and 3) the 90,000 to 100,000-year cycle of change of the eccentricity of the Earth’s elliptical orbit from nearly circular, to an eccentricity of 0.06, and back again.

        This, coupled with the fact that at the present time in geological history, the northern hemisphere has the predominance of its landmass situated in or near the polar regions which allows for the buildup of huge glacial formations on land, has caused a 90,000-year period of glacial advance in the northern hemisphere, followed by a 10,000-year interglacial warm period, all of which has been going on for the last two million years. We are presently at the end of the 10,000-year interglacial. Exactly when the next period of glacial advance will start is not known. It could already be under way now. (1)

        Milankovitch’s theory was reconfirmed during the 1970s when a study by Imbrie, Hayes, and Shackleton based on sea-sediment cores came out, and still remains classical theory to this day. It is well worth the time of the reader to look into Milankovitch’s theory. I myself find it fascinating how the changing tilt of the Earth, its wobble, and the changing eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit over time, as well as the added effect of continental drift, determine ice ages, with the implications being, I think, much scarier than the global warming bugaboo stories. It also suggests, ironically, that if global warming were indeed true, it should be something to be welcomed rather than something to be alarmed about, because the temperature rise that such warming would supposedly cause might tend to offset the glacial advance.

        Fact #2: Cosmic radiation has a much larger role in determining climate than CO2.

        In 1997, Danish scientists H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen discovered that cosmic rays ionize air molecules, transforming them into condensation nuclei for water vapor, causing cloud formation, which in turn, causes cooling. When the solar wind emanating from the sun is strong, it tends to shield the Earth from the cosmic radiation, causing fewer clouds and warming of the Earth. When the solar wind is weak, more clouds form and the Earth tends to cool. The average length of solar activity cycles is 11 years. The current sunspot cycle is weaker than the preceding cycles, and the next two cycles (22 years) are expected to be even weaker, meaning more clouds and colder, not warmer, weather.

        Fact # 3: There is no consensus among scientists that global warming exists.

        Over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing evidence showing that greenhouse gases are causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth.

        Fact # 4: The “Hockey Stick” Hoax.

        American scientist Dr. Michael Mann was discovered to have faked the data to try to show that the 1990s was the warmest decade in history and totally eliminate from the climate record the well-documented medieval warming from 700 to 1300 AD, when temperatures were actually much warmer (eight degrees average) than now. The temperature curve from 1000 to 1900 AD in Mann’s reconstruction is relatively flat and then spikes upward like the bend in a hockey stick. The intent of the fakery was to demonstrate that human industrial activity caused the purported increase. The fakery was exposed by two Canadian scientists, McIntyre and McKitrick. McKitrick actually showed that Mann’s computer program generated hockey-stick curves even when random data were inserted.

        Fact # 5: Al Gore has been proven a fraud in a British court.

        In October 2007 the High Court in London, England identified nine errors in Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth which were so much at variance with accepted scientific truth that the UK Government ended up having to send a notice to every secondary school in England making clear the errors in the film. One of the lies is that low-lying Pacific coral atolls are already being flooded due to sea level rise caused by global warming, when there is no scientific evidence of any such sea level rise at all. Another lie is that polar bears, in order to find ice that has melted away, are being killed by swimming long distances, when in actual fact, the amount of ice in the Beaufort Sea where this is supposed to be taking place has actually grown in the last 30 years. There were in fact at least 35 lies that were found to be in Gore’s movie, although only nine of them were actually presented in court.

        What common sense can tell us about global warming.

        If what I’ve presented above hasn’t shaken any belief you might have had in global warming, then I would suggest that you just use your common sense. Contrary to what seems to be implied by global warming advocates, if all the ice in the oceans of the world melted, it would not change the sea level one bit. Liquid water and floating ice displace exactly the same volume of water. Do the following experiment: allow some ice cubes to float in a pail or glass of water and measure the water level, and then see what the water level is after they’ve melted. You’ll find that the water level is exactly the same. Of course, if it ever got hot enough for the land-based glaciers to melt, that would be a different story . . .

        One might also ask, if the CO2 level were actually increasing, wouldn’t that tend to cool the Earth instead? Since increased levels of CO2 tend to spur plant growth, wouldn’t this increased growth tend to have a cooling effect on the climate, due to the fact that more incident radiation is being transformed into biomass, as happens when plants absorb sunlight? An increase of CO2 would therefore also tend to increase food supply, and consequently, help alleviate hunger in the world.

        In conclusion, the sooner this notion of global warming is gotten rid of, the better. There are many urgent things in the world that need to be dealt with, such as the world food shortage, the massive lack of development particularly in the Third World countries, and the whole accelerating world economic collapse. If we were to take a clear-headed, scientific look at these problems, instead of having our vision distorted by some ideological viewpoint or arbitrary theory, we would be much better at dealing with these very real problems.

        List of Sources

        (1) Laurence Hecht, “The Coming (or Present) Ice Age,” 21st Century Science & Technology Special Report: The Coming Ice Age. 21st Century Associates, November 1997.

        Gregory F. Fegel, “Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age,” Pravda RU

        Zbigniew Jaworowski, “Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate.” 21st Century Science & Technology.

        “Global Warming Petition Project.”

        John L. Daly, “The ‘Hockey Stick’: A New Low in Climate Science.”

        Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, “35 Inconvenient Truths.”

        • StanChaz

          Short on science, long on pseudo-science.

          • Emkay

            If you are short on grey matter, you can’t understand the long pseudo-science..but most people can…

        • biju

          It is not important how we label it: climate warming or climate freezing. Obviously, we experience climate change.
          There are many urgent things in the world that need to be dealt with, such as stabilizing the global population and eliminating the further destruction of the natural environment. Humans are responsible for driving to extinction thousands of plant and animal species.

          • Maritza Diaz

            Truth

        • crygdyllyn

          Wow. Not one of your “facts” is an actual fact.
          You are delusional.
          Go take your meds.

        • Rolf Jander

          Even with the milankovitch cycles indicating that the earth should now be cooling, it is actually warming. There is now far too much co2 in the air for another glacial period to start. I suppose a case could be made that some increase in co2 is a good thing, we are going far beyond just preventing a glacial period. 300 to 350 ppm would do. We are beyond 400 ppm and rising fast. Not good.

          Your 31000 scientist petition is a crock. The signers are mostly non scientists and just fake names. Long debunked.

          You say co2 should cool the earth? WTF. Just try to do some research to support that. Far from promoting worldwide plant growth. The increased heat is causing extreme droughts which does little to help plants grow.

          What you call an arbtrary theory rests on 190 years of theory, experimentation, and observation.

      • Maritza Diaz

        Just like you I’m tired of Climate change deniers, our experts, and top scientists are warning the deniers,

    • JWrenn

      That doesn’t actually say that we are not confident that we are having an effect. Is says we are definetly having an effect…that effect is small in comparison to the whole system and saying exactly what the consequences are is hard. Not impossible..just hard.

      Let me rephrase. Killing someone who is important will definitely have consequences…but we cannot say what those consequences will be. Could start a world war, could make someone cry, could make someone happy, but it definitely will do something. To predict it, we have to dig really deep..and we will still probably be wrong. So we really shouldn’t kill someone important unless we absolutely have to.

      In short, we don’t know what effect it will have, but we do know it will shift things. So let’s not do it because we think it could be bad.

      • Emkay

        wow…you probably think you can turn the ocean yellow by peeing in it..

        • JWrenn

          Yes you absolutely can put enough yellow liquid into the ocean to turn it yellow. The amount can be calculated I am sure.

          • Emkay

            since you Totally Missed the point of ‘peeing in the ocean’… and absolutely feel that one could put enough yellow liquid in the ocean to turn it yellow, please share your calculations of how much it would take? and where in the world would you get it?…

          • Emkay

            that ‘peeing in the ocean’ thing went ssswwwooossshhh..right over your head!
            But since you say that you ‘absolutely can put enough yellow liquid in the ocean to turn it yellow’… please share your calculations on how much yellow liquid it would take? and exactly where would you get it??

          • JWrenn

            No it really didn’t it was just so silly and childish it didn’t deserve a real response.

        • Maritza Diaz

          You in denier!

    • cybercitizen

      Steven Koonin was BP’s chief scientist, and BP has zero credibility in everybody’s books right now.

      • Van Snyder

        And before being the President’s Science Advisor, he was a professor and Provost at Caltech. He has an enormous list of scientific publications that are accepted as truthful. Can you perhaps cite the exact instant when Prof. Koonin became a liar? Can you cite measurements (not conjectures) that contradict the present article? Or is your hobby character assasination?

    • Maritza Diaz

      Human influence of climate change is the worst, and the most credible!!

  • Christina Cormier

    what can happen if all that ice melts

    • Buddy199

      Since all of the catastrophic predictions about global warming have turned out to be inaccurate you probably don’t have to become a prepper any time soon.
      —————————-
      Arctic Summers Ice-Free ‘by 2013’

      By Jonathan Amos
      Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco
      Wednesday, 12 December 2007

      Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

      Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

      Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

      Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

      Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

      Professor Peter Wadhams: “Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

      “So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”

      • JWrenn

        Let me summarize your response here Buddy. Scientist screwed up prediction about thing that is very hard to predict, all scientists must be wrong!

        The truth is both the naysayers and the climate crazies are off. They both push their ideas so hard they don’t see the truth. The truth is we don’t know exactly what will happen to morrow…nobody does…ever. We don’t have the power to predict any of the weather or the heat exactly or really anywhere close. That being said…temps have gone up…ice has gone down…energy security has gotten worse…oil more expensive…air quality in many regions worse…ocean levels higher…it goes on and on. So while they did go overboard and they did get the numbers wrong to a point…they were still right in the direction.

        It is a problem with every argument. The extremists on each side drown out the truth that the rational middle always sees. Globabl warming is here it is hurting us and will get worse, but this is real life not the movies. It will take many many years to fully screw up the planet, but that is not the point. We are making it worse. That should always b e the line drawn in the sand. Are you helping or not helping a situation. Right now we are not helping the situation. The rest is just bickering and gambling on numbers.

        • R W

          As usual, the denier can’t cite any peer reviewed science that rebuts or is even remotely relevant to the global consensus.

          • nik

            I dont see much in the way of ‘peer reviewed’ science to support the human effects on global warming, just lots of propaganda.
            If you are so convinced that there is some, show it to everyone, now.

          • nik

            Consensus = sheeple!
            So far you have contributed a very large ZERO!
            Troll[op]

          • Emkay

            troll 2 (trl)
            n.
            A supernatural creature of Scandinavian folklore, variously portrayed as a friendly or mischievous dwarf or as a giant, that lives in caves, in the hills, or under bridges.
            [Old Norse.]
            The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

          • nik

            Never known for doing good deeds, in fact just the opposite. Thats why they lived under bridges, so they could waylay hapless travellers who were forced to pass over the bridge.
            A trollop is a little different.

          • Facebook User

            Bit like a trollop I knew once, and yes she would often waylay hapless male travelers at truck stops several time each night 😉
            Getting off topic guys.

        • Kevin Johnson

          Do you think Vice President Al Gore is an extremists?

          • JWrenn

            Not really, but I do think that some of the science he believes in and pushes as fact is not yet fact…it is just a possible future that is supported to some degree by certain info. So he says oh no we will have no ice tomorrow because some of the ice says that, then it turns out not to be true and it screws up the arguement. The truth is we know ice is melting and it is bad and it is getting worse but the predictions and the time frames and the well…full blown hippies and full blown deniers screw it all up. Science on things like this are concensus based and while they pretty much all say it is bad and getting worse they very rarely agree on how bad and how quickly they are getting worse.

            So when someone says global warming is real and a concern I totally agree with them. When they say global warming is real and in 10 years we will have no ice..it is stupid. We don’t know because it is such a big system with too many variables. We can only tell the general of the future..it’s gonna get hotter…gonna melt more ice.

            I guess extremist is a bad word for this…exaggerators? People who are sure of the future? All of that muddies it because it makes it a I am right you are wrong thing rather than a…hey look science agrees on something!

          • Emkay

            Al Gore made approximately $54 million bucks on his ‘Inconvenient Hoax’… and a fuc*ing Nobel Prize…. incomprehensible….

          • Emkay

            Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Hoax’ has earned him upwards of $54 million… but the recent court rulings (9 lies defined) out of 35 lies in the entire hoax, have done nothing to defray his extremism or his wealth… he don’t care…..

        • OWilson

          Nonsense the 97% of scientists were alleged to have endorsed these failed models.
          Nobody today accepts Mann’s “hockey stick”. or the U.N. IPCC 1990 FAR predictions.
          (Not even the U.N. itself)

          • JWrenn

            Actually what I usually read was that they all believed it was happening but there was quite a bit more disagreement than 3% on the time frames. That all comes down to press and how you read an article though. To say someone agreed on climate change and then believe they agreed on the time frame is a pretty easy mistake. However if you have links of any kind that shows there was a large scale agreement that something like a 10 year no ice estimate is out there I would love to see it.

          • Emkay

            Here are some pertinent points for your consideration.. however, I feel they may not have an effect on your thinking since you believe you can turn the ocean yellow by peeing in it, enjoy:

            As “Climategate” unfolds, the debate about global warming is now beginning to take a more prominent place in public awareness. While the e-mails that were hacked from East Anglia University’s computer have shown us how the so-called climate scientists had been virtually tripping over themselves to falsify the data, it would be appropriate to take a step backwards and look at the question of global warming from a broader perspective.

            Below I present five cogent facts that cast doubt upon the existence of global warming, adduced by looking at what real science has discovered about the Earth’s climate, by seeing how there is no real consensus among scientists in support of the theory, and by examining two instances where hoaxers have been caught red-handed trying to pass off lies to bolster the global-warming conjecture. We will also see how plain common sense can sometimes help one see through these things.

            Fact #1: We are actually entering an ice age, not an age of global warming.

            The possibility that we could soon be entering, not a period of global warming, but instead, an ice age, was being discussed back in the seventies before a lot of this scientific kookiness began (See next paragraph). The impetus for this idea came from the early 1900’s, when Serbian scientist, Milutin Milankovitch realized that the amount of solar insulation reaching the Earth and how it is distributed over the Earth’s surface determines the Earth’s climate (not CO2, as global warming advocates today maintain). He also discovered that ice ages are governed by three orbital cycles of the Earth, namely: 1) the 26,000-year period of the precession of the equinox where the Earth literally wobbles on its axis, which is combined with the advance of the perihelion (the point at which the Earth is closest to the sun) to produce a 21,000-year cycle; 2) the 40,000-year cycle of the variation of the tilt of the Earth’s axis from between 22 to 24.5 degrees; and 3) the 90,000 to 100,000-year cycle of change of the eccentricity of the Earth’s elliptical orbit from nearly circular, to an eccentricity of 0.06, and back again.

            This, coupled with the fact that at the present time in geological history, the northern hemisphere has the predominance of its landmass situated in or near the polar regions which allows for the buildup of huge glacial formations on land, has caused a 90,000-year period of glacial advance in the northern hemisphere, followed by a 10,000-year interglacial warm period, all of which has been going on for the last two million years. We are presently at the end of the 10,000-year interglacial. Exactly when the next period of glacial advance will start is not known. It could already be under way now. (1)

            Milankovitch’s theory was reconfirmed during the 1970s when a study by Imbrie, Hayes, and Shackleton based on sea-sediment cores came out, and still remains classical theory to this day. It is well worth the time of the reader to look into Milankovitch’s theory. I myself find it fascinating how the changing tilt of the Earth, its wobble, and the changing eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit over time, as well as the added effect of continental drift, determine ice ages, with the implications being, I think, much scarier than the global warming bugaboo stories. It also suggests, ironically, that if global warming were indeed true, it should be something to be welcomed rather than something to be alarmed about, because the temperature rise that such warming would supposedly cause might tend to offset the glacial advance.

            Fact #2: Cosmic radiation has a much larger role in determining climate than CO2.

            In 1997, Danish scientists H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen discovered that cosmic rays ionize air molecules, transforming them into condensation nuclei for water vapor, causing cloud formation, which in turn, causes cooling. When the solar wind emanating from the sun is strong, it tends to shield the Earth from the cosmic radiation, causing fewer clouds and warming of the Earth. When the solar wind is weak, more clouds form and the Earth tends to cool. The average length of solar activity cycles is 11 years. The current sunspot cycle is weaker than the preceding cycles, and the next two cycles (22 years) are expected to be even weaker, meaning more clouds and colder, not warmer, weather.

            Fact # 3: There is no consensus among scientists that global warming exists.

            Over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing evidence showing that greenhouse gases are causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth.

            Fact # 4: The “Hockey Stick” Hoax.

            American scientist Dr. Michael Mann was discovered to have faked the data to try to show that the 1990s was the warmest decade in history and totally eliminate from the climate record the well-documented medieval warming from 700 to 1300 AD, when temperatures were actually much warmer (eight degrees average) than now. The temperature curve from 1000 to 1900 AD in Mann’s reconstruction is relatively flat and then spikes upward like the bend in a hockey stick. The intent of the fakery was to demonstrate that human industrial activity caused the purported increase. The fakery was exposed by two Canadian scientists, McIntyre and McKitrick. McKitrick actually showed that Mann’s computer program generated hockey-stick curves even when random data were inserted.

            Fact # 5: Al Gore has been proven a fraud in a British court.

            In October 2007 the High Court in London, England identified nine errors in Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth which were so much at variance with accepted scientific truth that the UK Government ended up having to send a notice to every secondary school in England making clear the errors in the film. One of the lies is that low-lying Pacific coral atolls are already being flooded due to sea level rise caused by global warming, when there is no scientific evidence of any such sea level rise at all. Another lie is that polar bears, in order to find ice that has melted away, are being killed by swimming long distances, when in actual fact, the amount of ice in the Beaufort Sea where this is supposed to be taking place has actually grown in the last 30 years. There were in fact at least 35 lies that were found to be in Gore’s movie, although only nine of them were actually presented in court.

            What common sense can tell us about global warming.

            If what I’ve presented above hasn’t shaken any belief you might have had in global warming, then I would suggest that you just use your common sense. Contrary to what seems to be implied by global warming advocates, if all the ice in the oceans of the world melted, it would not change the sea level one bit. Liquid water and floating ice displace exactly the same volume of water. Do the following experiment: allow some ice cubes to float in a pail or glass of water and measure the water level, and then see what the water level is after they’ve melted. You’ll find that the water level is exactly the same. Of course, if it ever got hot enough for the land-based glaciers to melt, that would be a different story . . .

            One might also ask, if the CO2 level were actually increasing, wouldn’t that tend to cool the Earth instead? Since increased levels of CO2 tend to spur plant growth, wouldn’t this increased growth tend to have a cooling effect on the climate, due to the fact that more incident radiation is being transformed into biomass, as happens when plants absorb sunlight? An increase of CO2 would therefore also tend to increase food supply, and consequently, help alleviate hunger in the world.

            In conclusion, the sooner this notion of global warming is gotten rid of, the better. There are many urgent things in the world that need to be dealt with, such as the world food shortage, the massive lack of development particularly in the Third World countries, and the whole accelerating world economic collapse. If we were to take a clear-headed, scientific look at these problems, instead of having our vision distorted by some ideological viewpoint or arbitrary theory, we would be much better at dealing with these very real problems.

            List of Sources

            (1) Laurence Hecht, “The Coming (or Present) Ice Age,” 21st Century Science & Technology Special Report: The Coming Ice Age. 21st Century Associates, November 1997.

            Gregory F. Fegel, “Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age,” Pravda RU

            Zbigniew Jaworowski, “Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate.” 21st Century Science & Technology.

            “Global Warming Petition Project.”

            John L. Daly, “The ‘Hockey Stick’: A New Low in Climate Science.”

            Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, “35 Inconvenient Truths.”

        • Weejus

          While there are those who deny that global warming exists (and, despite the “climate crazies”, as you call them, the jury is STILL out on that argument), the predominent fact remains that, regardless of the reality of global warming, mankind is already proven to NOT be the source, or even have a significant effect on climate change. Therefore, the idea that we must all abandon our energy sources and go back to living like plains indians in order to “save the planet” is a ludicrous and, dare I say, dangerous idea whose only true proponents are either useless idiots who cannot follow scientific review and reports, or lying manipulators who are using this “crisis” to achieve power, money, and control.

    • OWilson

      Best guess would be the same thing that happened over the last 3,000,000 years of ice ages that regularly come and go.

      Mankind thrives and flourishes in the inter-glacial periods. Interrupted only by the odd asteroid.

      We should welcome them.

      We are in on now and it has resulted in the most positive thriving environment for humans in the history of humankind.

    • Emkay

      try this!…take a large drinking glass, fill it up with ice cubes, then pour in water until the water level is about 1/4 inch from the top of the glass.This is your sea level mark.. Now allow the ice to melt, a few hours, or overnight, then check your sea level mark? you find it is in exactly the same place as when you filled it!… Displacement at work!

      If ALL the ice sheets, pieces, icebergs in the oceans right now were to melt all at once, the level of the ocean would not rise at all.. just like your glass.. but if land locked glaciers and ice and snow were to melt and run INTO the oceans, then the sea level would increase…got it…

      • JWrenn

        Sort of, all of the ice sheets we see above water are not displacing water…only the part under the water is displacing.

        • Emkay

          yes they are… think of ice cubes or icebergs floating in water… their weight is displacing an equal volume of water, whether it is totally submerged or not.. only ice/snow on LAND will contribute to sea level rise if it melts.

          did you flunk 8th grade science??

          • JWrenn

            Wow..just wow..this explains it all. Weight has nothing do with displacement. Volume displaces water. Only the volume under water displaces anything. Try it…really..put a rubber ducky in a glass of water and push it under and see if the water rises. This is hilarious.

          • Facebook User

            As ice melts its volume reduces by about 9% , or the portion we see above the water surface.

          • JWrenn

            This is true, but there is a lot more than 9% of the total sea born ice out there sticking out of the ocean…thus we get a net gain if it melts.

          • JWrenn

            Maybe you are confusing the weight of displacement in the calculation of buoyancy? Either way…really…try the rubber ducky thing…or just think about the way space works a bit and that a rubber ball will displace just as much as a lead one…if underwater.

        • Facebook User

          Remember that frozen water (ice) has more space between the molecules than liquid water, is less dense.

  • nik

    Global warming is a fact, and has been for 20,000 years or more.
    The alleged human cause, is a fraud.
    Of far more concern, or should be is the impending magnetic field reversal of the earth. Without the magnetic field, which will be a phenomena during the transition, everything on earth could get fried.
    Deep caves, or mines might offer some protection to humans, but not crops. So, what to feed on? How long will the transition last? Mass extinction? Revert to living deep under the surface of the the sea? Any used submarines for sale?

    • R W

      Cite the peer reviewed science that supports your opinion. Oops, there isn’t any.

      • Kevin Johnson

        Can you site any peer reviewed science that has correctly predicted the rate of climate change do to human impact? Or better yet, can you give the deniers a list of the equations used in climate models that can correctly predict the rate of sea level change from January 2015 to December 2020? If your not a bot, you need to realize that our level of understanding of the climate is in its infancy and we don’t have the science or mathematics to understand the effects carbon dioxide levels have on the atmosphere. Our peers just don’t know.

        • nik

          Five years is too small a period to predict anything of consequence.
          However the earth has a 100,000 year cycle with the sun, and its the sun that causes global warming, without it there would be none, obviously.
          The earth is approaching the 100,000 year peak at present, the curve of the graph is asymptotic, so the rate of change will increase.
          Human activity has only been noticeable for the past 100-200 years, the earth has been warming for 20,000 to 30,000, due to its relation with the sun, so human activity is insignificant on that scale.
          As I said, the claim that it is human activity causing the warming is a fraud, backed up by large quantities of misinformation and propaganda, to justify the ‘carbon tax.’
          The graph, and info, for the 100,000 year cycle is available in various forms on the net, just google it.
          There’s also a youtube, with James Burke, ‘After the warming,’ where it is shown briefly.
          Have a look.

          • Beth

            I started to read these comments and got to the 3rd or 4th – ’til I realized they were more interested in taking the other down. The testosterone level was rising with each & every response. Well – sorry boys, this female simply isn’t interested in playing.

          • nik

            Aaaw!
            Surely you have something to contribute?
            Come on, give it a try.
            Try also to ignore the trolls.

          • Beth

            Nik, perhaps I will one day. Let me know when the adolescents have either measured up or, hopefully, left the building. Beth

        • R W

          Your burden, not mine.

          • Kevin Johnson

            Sorry, they are your failing theories. Your type of science is nothing more then carefully camouflaged augury.

        • Emkay

          You sound sincere in your quest for ‘peer reviewed science…so, read below about the atmosphere and then about ‘climategate’..

          good stuff:

          YOU NEED TO READ THIS:

          Internet fun and facts: the Earth was a full 8 degrees warmer during the medieval period than it is now…Solar cycles (the sun) dictate climate change and ice ages, in addition to Earth’s constant cooling. We will have another ice age in about 8-12 thousand years. Climate change began when the Earth formed, began changing, is STILL CHANGING, and will ALWAYS change…

          Now, the eye-opener (for most people) is the percentage of Earth’s atmospheric gases… here is the actual makeup of the Earth’s atmosphere:

          Nitrogen = 78.08%

          Oxygen = 20.95%

          Argon = 0.93%

          Sub-Total = 99.96% …..what! that only leaves less than one half of one percent (0.04%) for ALL other gases combined…. that’s right 0.04% for ALL the remaining 8 gases:

          Please pay attention! THOSE EIGHT GASES MAKING UP THE REMAINING 0.04% OF THE ATMOSPHERE ARE:

          Carbon Dioxide = 0.035%

          Neon = 0.0018%

          Helium = 0.00052%

          Methane = 0.00014%

          Krypton = 0.00010%

          Nitrous Oxide = 0.00005%

          Hydrogen = 0.00005%

          Ozone = 0.000007%

          Sub-Total = 0.04% + 99.96% from above = 100% Grand Total..

          These 8 gases are considered ‘trace’ gases including Carbon Dioxide….

          Google Atmospheric Gases for yourself!.. BE KNOWLEDGEABLE…

          AND FOR GOD’S SAKE! THE ALL ENCOMPASSING, OMNIPOTENT, GLOBE ENCIRCLING, NEVER ENDING, GREATEST GREENHOUSE GAS OF ALL? IS WATER VAPOR!!

          YES! THAT HUMIDITY THAT MAKES YOU FEEL REALLY HOT!

          As “Climategate” unfolds, the debate about global warming is now beginning to take a more prominent place in public awareness. While the e-mails that were hacked from East Anglia University’s computer have shown us how the so-called climate scientists had been virtually tripping over themselves to falsify the data, it would be appropriate to take a step backwards and look at the question of global warming from a broader perspective.

          Below I present five cogent facts that cast doubt upon the existence of global warming, adduced by looking at what real science has discovered about the Earth’s climate, by seeing how there is no real consensus among scientists in support of the theory, and by examining two instances where hoaxers have been caught red-handed trying to pass off lies to bolster the global-warming conjecture. We will also see how plain common sense can sometimes help one see through these things.

          Fact #1: We are actually entering an ice age, not an age of global warming.

          The possibility that we could soon be entering, not a period of global warming, but instead, an ice age, was being discussed back in the seventies before a lot of this scientific kookiness began (See next paragraph). The impetus for this idea came from the early 1900’s, when Serbian scientist, Milutin Milankovitch realized that the amount of solar insulation reaching the Earth and how it is distributed over the Earth’s surface determines the Earth’s climate (not CO2, as global warming advocates today maintain). He also discovered that ice ages are governed by three orbital cycles of the Earth, namely: 1) the 26,000-year period of the precession of the equinox where the Earth literally wobbles on its axis, which is combined with the advance of the perihelion (the point at which the Earth is closest to the sun) to produce a 21,000-year cycle; 2) the 40,000-year cycle of the variation of the tilt of the Earth’s axis from between 22 to 24.5 degrees; and 3) the 90,000 to 100,000-year cycle of change of the eccentricity of the Earth’s elliptical orbit from nearly circular, to an eccentricity of 0.06, and back again.

          This, coupled with the fact that at the present time in geological history, the northern hemisphere has the predominance of its landmass situated in or near the polar regions which allows for the buildup of huge glacial formations on land, has caused a 90,000-year period of glacial advance in the northern hemisphere, followed by a 10,000-year interglacial warm period, all of which has been going on for the last two million years. We are presently at the end of the 10,000-year interglacial. Exactly when the next period of glacial advance will start is not known. It could already be under way now. (1)

          Milankovitch’s theory was reconfirmed during the 1970s when a study by Imbrie, Hayes, and Shackleton based on sea-sediment cores came out, and still remains classical theory to this day. It is well worth the time of the reader to look into Milankovitch’s theory. I myself find it fascinating how the changing tilt of the Earth, its wobble, and the changing eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit over time, as well as the added effect of continental drift, determine ice ages, with the implications being, I think, much scarier than the global warming bugaboo stories. It also suggests, ironically, that if global warming were indeed true, it should be something to be welcomed rather than something to be alarmed about, because the temperature rise that such warming would supposedly cause might tend to offset the glacial advance.

          Fact #2: Cosmic radiation has a much larger role in determining climate than CO2.

          In 1997, Danish scientists H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen discovered that cosmic rays ionize air molecules, transforming them into condensation nuclei for water vapor, causing cloud formation, which in turn, causes cooling. When the solar wind emanating from the sun is strong, it tends to shield the Earth from the cosmic radiation, causing fewer clouds and warming of the Earth. When the solar wind is weak, more clouds form and the Earth tends to cool. The average length of solar activity cycles is 11 years. The current sunspot cycle is weaker than the preceding cycles, and the next two cycles (22 years) are expected to be even weaker, meaning more clouds and colder, not warmer, weather.

          Fact # 3: There is no consensus among scientists that global warming exists.

          Over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing evidence showing that greenhouse gases are causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth.

          Fact # 4: The “Hockey Stick” Hoax.

          American scientist Dr. Michael Mann was discovered to have faked the data to try to show that the 1990s was the warmest decade in history and totally eliminate from the climate record the well-documented medieval warming from 700 to 1300 AD, when temperatures were actually much warmer (eight degrees average) than now. The temperature curve from 1000 to 1900 AD in Mann’s reconstruction is relatively flat and then spikes upward like the bend in a hockey stick. The intent of the fakery was to demonstrate that human industrial activity caused the purported increase. The fakery was exposed by two Canadian scientists, McIntyre and McKitrick. McKitrick actually showed that Mann’s computer program generated hockey-stick curves even when random data were inserted.

          Fact # 5: Al Gore has been proven a fraud in a British court.

          In October 2007 the High Court in London, England identified nine errors in Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth which were so much at variance with accepted scientific truth that the UK Government ended up having to send a notice to every secondary school in England making clear the errors in the film. One of the lies is that low-lying Pacific coral atolls are already being flooded due to sea level rise caused by global warming, when there is no scientific evidence of any such sea level rise at all. Another lie is that polar bears, in order to find ice that has melted away, are being killed by swimming long distances, when in actual fact, the amount of ice in the Beaufort Sea where this is supposed to be taking place has actually grown in the last 30 years. There were in fact at least 35 lies that were found to be in Gore’s movie, although only nine of them were actually presented in court.

          What common sense can tell us about global warming.

          If what I’ve presented above hasn’t shaken any belief you might have had in global warming, then I would suggest that you just use your common sense. Contrary to what seems to be implied by global warming advocates, if all the ice in the oceans of the world melted, it would not change the sea level one bit. Liquid water and floating ice displace exactly the same volume of water. Do the following experiment: allow some ice cubes to float in a pail or glass of water and measure the water level, and then see what the water level is after they’ve melted. You’ll find that the water level is exactly the same. Of course, if it ever got hot enough for the land-based glaciers to melt, that would be a different story . . .

          One might also ask, if the CO2 level were actually increasing, wouldn’t that tend to cool the Earth instead? Since increased levels of CO2 tend to spur plant growth, wouldn’t this increased growth tend to have a cooling effect on the climate, due to the fact that more incident radiation is being transformed into biomass, as happens when plants absorb sunlight? An increase of CO2 would therefore also tend to increase food supply, and consequently, help alleviate hunger in the world.

          In conclusion, the sooner this notion of global warming is gotten rid of, the better. There are many urgent things in the world that need to be dealt with, such as the world food shortage, the massive lack of development particularly in the Third World countries, and the whole accelerating world economic collapse. If we were to take a clear-headed, scientific look at these problems, instead of having our vision distorted by some ideological viewpoint or arbitrary theory, we would be much better at dealing with these very real problems.

          List of Sources:

          (1) Laurence Hecht, “The Coming (or Present) Ice Age,” 21st Century Science & Technology Special Report: The Coming Ice Age. 21st Century Associates, November 1997.

          Gregory F. Fegel, “Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age,” Pravda RU

          Zbigniew Jaworowski, “Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate.” 21st Century Science & Technology.

          “Global Warming Petition Project.”

          John L. Daly, “The ‘Hockey Stick’: A New Low in Climate Science.”

          Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, “35 Inconvenient Truths.”

      • nik

        Wrong!
        There is ample, ‘peer reviewed science’ if you take the trouble to look.

        • R W

          No such peer reviewed science. If there were, it would be headline news and we wouldn’t be first hearing about it from some tool on disqus. Fail.

          • nik

            Its actually ancient history, which the ‘carbon tax’ pushers are keen to ignore, but then you wouldn’t be interested, as it doesn’t come into your remit as a troll(op).

          • dickG

            It’s a FACT!
            .
            When we have a year, or two, or 20 of cooling, it’s an anomaly.
            .
            When we have a month, year, or two of warming, YOU have caused the earth to enter an irreversible trend of global warming which will fry us all.
            .
            Stop breathing, PLEASE!
            .

          • Emkay

            the earth was (on average) eight degrees warmer during the medieval period than it is today… use the internet for fact finding instead of just repeating what you saw on TV or half read on a forum somewhere..

            but when it comes to climate change, the argument is so bloated it’s ridiculous.. it’s like assholes and opinions, everybody has one….

      • JWrenn

        Still waiting to see this stuff, sounds like an interesting read.

    • Turtleman

      I bet you’re real popular on Natural News and Prison Planet.

      • nik

        Well, if it makes them happy, fine.
        I’ve not visited their sites, but may have read/watched content from their sites repeated on other sites.

    • Emkay

      So, what is a carbon credit? where can I get some? and how much do they cost?? I have a small business..

      • Facebook User

        Well as it happens I own a bank that does offer Carbon
        accounts.

        If your business manufactures a product(s) by a technique that can be shown to
        reduce the amount of carbon previously produced in the manufacturing process,
        or, through the use of the product it produced a net reduction in carbon output
        throughout it’s lifetime it will achieve a saving which you can claim as a
        carbon credit.

        Alternatively if you have reduced your overall carbon footprint through the
        production of goods or provision of services then you can also claim this as a
        carbon credit.

        You may present your carbon certificates to a participating
        bank and deposit them in the same way as if they were checks.

        Carbon accounts are just like any other bank account in that
        they can earn you compounding interest, you can deposit credits, make
        withdrawals or do online transfers just as if the credits were currency.

        Dan

        • Emkay

          thanks for the info…..

          • Facebook User

            Your Welcome.
            Dan

  • Weejus

    More and more scientists are abandoning the anthropogenic causes of climate change. It’s down to less than 50% in every nation except the U.S. and Britain, both of whom are deeply entrenched in the economics of the global warming scare. I don’t find it odd that American scientists have “consensus” regarding climate change since anyone who’s publishes data that contradicts the politically correct “results” gets their career destroyed. The facts are becoming more and more evident that man has little if anything to do with the current weather cycles. Oh and the statistic in this very article regarding the amount of ice in the Antarctic is misleading at best. There is more ice now than at any time in the previous decade and it continues to grow, not shrink. Just as recently as last month there were several articles published about how “astounded” scientists are that the Antarctic ice sheet refuses to shrink as their models have predicted. Climate change proponents are looking desperately for any reason why this should be so, from ocean currents protecting the ice sheet, to wind patterns to penguin farts. And, lastly, the Arctic ice level is no longer shrinking and has actually starting to grow as well compared to previous years. Every predictor that global warming alarmists have pointed to in the past is failing them. So, what will they come up with next to scare us so they can manipulate our economies and lives?

    • Van Snyder

      There’s a difference between ice sheet mass and ice sheet area. Arctic sea-ice coverage area increased last winter, but the thickness is much less than it used to be. But… the measured fact (not conjecture) that ice MASS is decreasing in both Greenland and Antarctica doesn’t prove that human activity, and especially evil oil companies, are responsible. Clouds have an enormously larger effect on weather and climate than CO2 does, and nobody knows what cloud feedbacks will be in the long term. In broad outline, clouds make for colder days and warmer nights. What’s the average effect over ten years? Nobody knows.

      If climate-change zealots were serious about CO2, they would embrace nuclear power, especially the inherently-safe system that destroys nuclear waste described in December 2005 Scientific American. Since they haven’t, one must conclude there’s something else underlying their agenda.

      • Emkay

        The agenda is always money, and lining the pockets of the moneyed people who run everything.. including the governments… the ‘global warming’ farce is exponentially calculated as tens or thousands of people now have a JOB defending ‘global warming’ whether it is true or not… but I digress. Your post mentioned nuclear power and the idiocy that still surrounds the concept.. we will discover easy, cheap, and reliable ways to make solar cells that can change the entire world’s energy demands.. read below:

        During full direct sunlight, you can safely assume about 100 watts of solar energy per square foot. If you assume 12 hours of sun per day, this equates to 438,000 watt-hours per square foot per year. Based on 27,878,400 square feet per square mile, sunlight bestows a whopping 12.2 trillion watt-hours per square mile per year. Put another way, the solar energy hitting the earth (in one year) exceeds the total energy consumed by all of humanity by a factor of over 20,000 times.

        Energy use in terawatt-hours[2]

        Fossil Nuclear Renewable Total

        1990 83,374 6,113 13,082 102,569

        2000 94,493 7,857 15,337 117,687

        2008 117,076 8,283 18,492 143,851

        Change 2000-2008 +23.9% +5.4% +20.6% +22.2%

        1 terawatt-hour (TWh) = 1 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) = 1012 watt-hours

        • Van Snyder

          You can’t safely assume 100 watts per square foot, or 12 hours of sunlight per day. The most efficient (i.e., most expensive) solar panels produce 175 W/m^2. That’s about 16 watts per square foot — peak. Utilities observe a capacity factor of 15%. That comes out to 2.4 watt days per day per square foot, not 1200. You were only off by a factor of 500. 2.4 watt days per day per square foot times 27,878,400 square feet per mile divided by 365.25 days per year comes out to 183 kilowatt years per year per square mile, not 1.4 gigawatt years per year per square mile. Then there’s the problem that photovoltaic electricity costs up to ten times more than nuclear-produced electricity, integrated over the entire life of the facility, and solar PV doesn’t destroy any nuclear waste, which the system described in December 2005 Scientific American does. But, hey, Yucca Mountain is a fantastic profit center — for somebody. We’ve sunk $8 billion into it, and estimates are it will only cost another $42 billion or so to finish it, with enough capacity for about 10% of our accumulated “waste” (actually valuable 5%-used fuel).

          • Emkay

            sswwooosshhh……

      • Weejus

        Actually, all the studies done so far indicate, to put it in non-scientific terms, that there is not a wider, thinner ice sheet covering the Antactic continent. The studies show there is MORE ICE than there was previously.

        And the ice pack is growing in the Arctic as well.

    • Emkay

      Some more ‘fuel for your fire:

      As “Climategate” unfolds, the debate about global warming is now beginning to take a more prominent place in public awareness. While the e-mails that were hacked from East Anglia University’s computer have shown us how the so-called climate scientists had been virtually tripping over themselves to falsify the data, it would be appropriate to take a step backwards and look at the question of global warming from a broader perspective.

      Below I present five cogent facts that cast doubt upon the existence of global warming, adduced by looking at what real science has discovered about the Earth’s climate, by seeing how there is no real consensus among scientists in support of the theory, and by examining two instances where hoaxers have been caught red-handed trying to pass off lies to bolster the global-warming conjecture. We will also see how plain common sense can sometimes help one see through these things.

      Fact #1: We are actually entering an ice age, not an age of global warming.

      The possibility that we could soon be entering, not a period of global warming, but instead, an ice age, was being discussed back in the seventies before a lot of this scientific kookiness began (See next paragraph). The impetus for this idea came from the early 1900’s, when Serbian scientist, Milutin Milankovitch realized that the amount of solar insulation reaching the Earth and how it is distributed over the Earth’s surface determines the Earth’s climate (not CO2, as global warming advocates today maintain). He also discovered that ice ages are governed by three orbital cycles of the Earth, namely: 1) the 26,000-year period of the precession of the equinox where the Earth literally wobbles on its axis, which is combined with the advance of the perihelion (the point at which the Earth is closest to the sun) to produce a 21,000-year cycle; 2) the 40,000-year cycle of the variation of the tilt of the Earth’s axis from between 22 to 24.5 degrees; and 3) the 90,000 to 100,000-year cycle of change of the eccentricity of the Earth’s elliptical orbit from nearly circular, to an eccentricity of 0.06, and back again.

      This, coupled with the fact that at the present time in geological history, the northern hemisphere has the predominance of its landmass situated in or near the polar regions which allows for the buildup of huge glacial formations on land, has caused a 90,000-year period of glacial advance in the northern hemisphere, followed by a 10,000-year interglacial warm period, all of which has been going on for the last two million years. We are presently at the end of the 10,000-year interglacial. Exactly when the next period of glacial advance will start is not known. It could already be under way now. (1)

      Milankovitch’s theory was reconfirmed during the 1970s when a study by Imbrie, Hayes, and Shackleton based on sea-sediment cores came out, and still remains classical theory to this day. It is well worth the time of the reader to look into Milankovitch’s theory. I myself find it fascinating how the changing tilt of the Earth, its wobble, and the changing eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit over time, as well as the added effect of continental drift, determine ice ages, with the implications being, I think, much scarier than the global warming bugaboo stories. It also suggests, ironically, that if global warming were indeed true, it should be something to be welcomed rather than something to be alarmed about, because the temperature rise that such warming would supposedly cause might tend to offset the glacial advance.

      Fact #2: Cosmic radiation has a much larger role in determining climate than CO2.

      In 1997, Danish scientists H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen discovered that cosmic rays ionize air molecules, transforming them into condensation nuclei for water vapor, causing cloud formation, which in turn, causes cooling. When the solar wind emanating from the sun is strong, it tends to shield the Earth from the cosmic radiation, causing fewer clouds and warming of the Earth. When the solar wind is weak, more clouds form and the Earth tends to cool. The average length of solar activity cycles is 11 years. The current sunspot cycle is weaker than the preceding cycles, and the next two cycles (22 years) are expected to be even weaker, meaning more clouds and colder, not warmer, weather.

      Fact # 3: There is no consensus among scientists that global warming exists.

      Over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing evidence showing that greenhouse gases are causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth.

      Fact # 4: The “Hockey Stick” Hoax.

      American scientist Dr. Michael Mann was discovered to have faked the data to try to show that the 1990s was the warmest decade in history and totally eliminate from the climate record the well-documented medieval warming from 700 to 1300 AD, when temperatures were actually much warmer (eight degrees average) than now. The temperature curve from 1000 to 1900 AD in Mann’s reconstruction is relatively flat and then spikes upward like the bend in a hockey stick. The intent of the fakery was to demonstrate that human industrial activity caused the purported increase. The fakery was exposed by two Canadian scientists, McIntyre and McKitrick. McKitrick actually showed that Mann’s computer program generated hockey-stick curves even when random data were inserted.

      Fact # 5: Al Gore has been proven a fraud in a British court.

      In October 2007 the High Court in London, England identified nine errors in Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth which were so much at variance with accepted scientific truth that the UK Government ended up having to send a notice to every secondary school in England making clear the errors in the film. One of the lies is that low-lying Pacific coral atolls are already being flooded due to sea level rise caused by global warming, when there is no scientific evidence of any such sea level rise at all. Another lie is that polar bears, in order to find ice that has melted away, are being killed by swimming long distances, when in actual fact, the amount of ice in the Beaufort Sea where this is supposed to be taking place has actually grown in the last 30 years. There were in fact at least 35 lies that were found to be in Gore’s movie, although only nine of them were actually presented in court.

      What common sense can tell us about global warming.

      If what I’ve presented above hasn’t shaken any belief you might have had in global warming, then I would suggest that you just use your common sense. Contrary to what seems to be implied by global warming advocates, if all the ice in the oceans of the world melted, it would not change the sea level one bit. Liquid water and floating ice displace exactly the same volume of water. Do the following experiment: allow some ice cubes to float in a pail or glass of water and measure the water level, and then see what the water level is after they’ve melted. You’ll find that the water level is exactly the same. Of course, if it ever got hot enough for the land-based glaciers to melt, that would be a different story . . .

      One might also ask, if the CO2 level were actually increasing, wouldn’t that tend to cool the Earth instead? Since increased levels of CO2 tend to spur plant growth, wouldn’t this increased growth tend to have a cooling effect on the climate, due to the fact that more incident radiation is being transformed into biomass, as happens when plants absorb sunlight? An increase of CO2 would therefore also tend to increase food supply, and consequently, help alleviate hunger in the world.

      In conclusion, the sooner this notion of global warming is gotten rid of, the better. There are many urgent things in the world that need to be dealt with, such as the world food shortage, the massive lack of development particularly in the Third World countries, and the whole accelerating world economic collapse. If we were to take a clear-headed, scientific look at these problems, instead of having our vision distorted by some ideological viewpoint or arbitrary theory, we would be much better at dealing with these very real problems.

      List of Sources

      (1) Laurence Hecht, “The Coming (or Present) Ice Age,” 21st Century Science & Technology Special Report: The Coming Ice Age. 21st Century Associates, November 1997.

      Gregory F. Fegel, “Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age,” Pravda RU

      Zbigniew Jaworowski, “Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate.” 21st Century Science & Technology.

      “Global Warming Petition Project.”

      John L. Daly, “The ‘Hockey Stick’: A New Low in Climate Science.”

      Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, “35 Inconvenient Truths.”

  • Jennifer Coombes

    It is a fact but so many people will not except it!! They think the earth will just keep going! My Husband is one who just can except Globle
    warming we have done everything to overuse and abuse the planet,lets just find ways to help while we can!:)

  • Diana Johannes

    How in God’s name did they draw this correlation! This is amazingly flawed,

    • Diana Johannes

      10,000 years of ice core is proof for me. Humans have had ZERO impact… the industrial revolution did not even register! We are so arrogant, believing WE have to do with warming. These cycles have gone on forever! Guess what? Our last little ice age? Guess when that was. 10,000 years ago? NO!!! In the 1600s!!! The earth is still rewarming itself from then/1

  • jhernandez1981

    As a proponent of the prevailing theories of human involvement in climate change, I got to say I hate the term scientific concensus. It doesn’t mean anything other than its the best working idea so far. Its not going to give you step up on climate deniers. Science isn’t concensus.

  • Ben Cameron

    Is that why kids are growing so much taller nowadays, less gravity?

    • StanChaz

      No the lesser gravity just makes people ask dumb questions :-)

  • Reverend Joe Ruyle

    And the earths crust is still rebounding in eastern north America from the absence of the ice sheet that covered it during the last ice age. Your point? I’m constantly amazed that supposedly logical rational people cannot cope with the fact that the earth has been in a constant state of change since it’s creation. Are they trying to make themselves feel relevant by assuming they can affect something bigger than themselves? Rather than wasting all this time, effort and money attempting to change something that exists in a constant state of change…… how about directing those resources towards adaptation? After all…. how can we “evolve” if we fail to adapt?

    • Jim Cannon

      I think the political discussion is completely without value. At the core of this is the case that the Earth is warming. What doesn’t matter is who caused it. What matters is similar to news that an asteroid is going to hit us…what do we have to do to prevent it so we don;t become extinct. The issue here is that Global Warming is a reality, regardless of cause the fact remains. What do we have to do about it to prevent mankind’s demise? Can’t we simply come together to solve the problem instead of arguing over who caused it?

      • Emkay

        As “Climategate” unfolds, the debate about global warming is now beginning to take a more prominent place in public awareness. While the e-mails that were hacked from East Anglia University’s computer have shown us how the so-called climate scientists had been virtually tripping over themselves to falsify the data, it would be appropriate to take a step backwards and look at the question of global warming from a broader perspective.

        Below I present five cogent facts that cast doubt upon the existence of global warming, adduced by looking at what real science has discovered about the Earth’s climate, by seeing how there is no real consensus among scientists in support of the theory, and by examining two instances where hoaxers have been caught red-handed trying to pass off lies to bolster the global-warming conjecture. We will also see how plain common sense can sometimes help one see through these things.

        Fact #1: We are actually entering an ice age, not an age of global warming.

        The possibility that we could soon be entering, not a period of global warming, but instead, an ice age, was being discussed back in the seventies before a lot of this scientific kookiness began (See next paragraph). The impetus for this idea came from the early 1900’s, when Serbian scientist, Milutin Milankovitch realized that the amount of solar insulation reaching the Earth and how it is distributed over the Earth’s surface determines the Earth’s climate (not CO2, as global warming advocates today maintain). He also discovered that ice ages are governed by three orbital cycles of the Earth, namely: 1) the 26,000-year period of the precession of the equinox where the Earth literally wobbles on its axis, which is combined with the advance of the perihelion (the point at which the Earth is closest to the sun) to produce a 21,000-year cycle; 2) the 40,000-year cycle of the variation of the tilt of the Earth’s axis from between 22 to 24.5 degrees; and 3) the 90,000 to 100,000-year cycle of change of the eccentricity of the Earth’s elliptical orbit from nearly circular, to an eccentricity of 0.06, and back again.

        This, coupled with the fact that at the present time in geological history, the northern hemisphere has the predominance of its landmass situated in or near the polar regions which allows for the buildup of huge glacial formations on land, has caused a 90,000-year period of glacial advance in the northern hemisphere, followed by a 10,000-year interglacial warm period, all of which has been going on for the last two million years. We are presently at the end of the 10,000-year interglacial. Exactly when the next period of glacial advance will start is not known. It could already be under way now. (1)

        Milankovitch’s theory was reconfirmed during the 1970s when a study by Imbrie, Hayes, and Shackleton based on sea-sediment cores came out, and still remains classical theory to this day. It is well worth the time of the reader to look into Milankovitch’s theory. I myself find it fascinating how the changing tilt of the Earth, its wobble, and the changing eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit over time, as well as the added effect of continental drift, determine ice ages, with the implications being, I think, much scarier than the global warming bugaboo stories. It also suggests, ironically, that if global warming were indeed true, it should be something to be welcomed rather than something to be alarmed about, because the temperature rise that such warming would supposedly cause might tend to offset the glacial advance.

        Fact #2: Cosmic radiation has a much larger role in determining climate than CO2.

        In 1997, Danish scientists H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen discovered that cosmic rays ionize air molecules, transforming them into condensation nuclei for water vapor, causing cloud formation, which in turn, causes cooling. When the solar wind emanating from the sun is strong, it tends to shield the Earth from the cosmic radiation, causing fewer clouds and warming of the Earth. When the solar wind is weak, more clouds form and the Earth tends to cool. The average length of solar activity cycles is 11 years. The current sunspot cycle is weaker than the preceding cycles, and the next two cycles (22 years) are expected to be even weaker, meaning more clouds and colder, not warmer, weather.

        Fact # 3: There is no consensus among scientists that global warming exists.

        Over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing evidence showing that greenhouse gases are causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth.

        Fact # 4: The “Hockey Stick” Hoax.

        American scientist Dr. Michael Mann was discovered to have faked the data to try to show that the 1990s was the warmest decade in history and totally eliminate from the climate record the well-documented medieval warming from 700 to 1300 AD, when temperatures were actually much warmer (eight degrees average) than now. The temperature curve from 1000 to 1900 AD in Mann’s reconstruction is relatively flat and then spikes upward like the bend in a hockey stick. The intent of the fakery was to demonstrate that human industrial activity caused the purported increase. The fakery was exposed by two Canadian scientists, McIntyre and McKitrick. McKitrick actually showed that Mann’s computer program generated hockey-stick curves even when random data were inserted.

        Fact # 5: Al Gore has been proven a fraud in a British court.

        In October 2007 the High Court in London, England identified nine errors in Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth which were so much at variance with accepted scientific truth that the UK Government ended up having to send a notice to every secondary school in England making clear the errors in the film. One of the lies is that low-lying Pacific coral atolls are already being flooded due to sea level rise caused by global warming, when there is no scientific evidence of any such sea level rise at all. Another lie is that polar bears, in order to find ice that has melted away, are being killed by swimming long distances, when in actual fact, the amount of ice in the Beaufort Sea where this is supposed to be taking place has actually grown in the last 30 years. There were in fact at least 35 lies that were found to be in Gore’s movie, although only nine of them were actually presented in court.

        What common sense can tell us about global warming.

        If what I’ve presented above hasn’t shaken any belief you might have had in global warming, then I would suggest that you just use your common sense. Contrary to what seems to be implied by global warming advocates, if all the ice in the oceans of the world melted, it would not change the sea level one bit. Liquid water and floating ice displace exactly the same volume of water. Do the following experiment: allow some ice cubes to float in a pail or glass of water and measure the water level, and then see what the water level is after they’ve melted. You’ll find that the water level is exactly the same. Of course, if it ever got hot enough for the land-based glaciers to melt, that would be a different story . . .

        One might also ask, if the CO2 level were actually increasing, wouldn’t that tend to cool the Earth instead? Since increased levels of CO2 tend to spur plant growth, wouldn’t this increased growth tend to have a cooling effect on the climate, due to the fact that more incident radiation is being transformed into biomass, as happens when plants absorb sunlight? An increase of CO2 would therefore also tend to increase food supply, and consequently, help alleviate hunger in the world.

        In conclusion, the sooner this notion of global warming is gotten rid of, the better. There are many urgent things in the world that need to be dealt with, such as the world food shortage, the massive lack of development particularly in the Third World countries, and the whole accelerating world economic collapse. If we were to take a clear-headed, scientific look at these problems, instead of having our vision distorted by some ideological viewpoint or arbitrary theory, we would be much better at dealing with these very real problems.

        List of Sources

        (1) Laurence Hecht, “The Coming (or Present) Ice Age,” 21st Century Science & Technology Special Report: The Coming Ice Age. 21st Century Associates, November 1997.

        Gregory F. Fegel, “Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age,” Pravda RU

        Zbigniew Jaworowski, “Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate.” 21st Century Science & Technology.

        “Global Warming Petition Project.”

        John L. Daly, “The ‘Hockey Stick’: A New Low in Climate Science.”

        Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, “35 Inconvenient Truths.”

    • Emkay

      Some fuel for your fire:

      As “Climategate” unfolds, the debate about global warming is now beginning to take a more prominent place in public awareness. While the e-mails that were hacked from East Anglia University’s computer have shown us how the so-called climate scientists had been virtually tripping over themselves to falsify the data, it would be appropriate to take a step backwards and look at the question of global warming from a broader perspective.

      Below I present five cogent facts that cast doubt upon the existence of global warming, adduced by looking at what real science has discovered about the Earth’s climate, by seeing how there is no real consensus among scientists in support of the theory, and by examining two instances where hoaxers have been caught red-handed trying to pass off lies to bolster the global-warming conjecture. We will also see how plain common sense can sometimes help one see through these things.

      Fact #1: We are actually entering an ice age, not an age of global warming.

      The possibility that we could soon be entering, not a period of global warming, but instead, an ice age, was being discussed back in the seventies before a lot of this scientific kookiness began (See next paragraph). The impetus for this idea came from the early 1900’s, when Serbian scientist, Milutin Milankovitch realized that the amount of solar insulation reaching the Earth and how it is distributed over the Earth’s surface determines the Earth’s climate (not CO2, as global warming advocates today maintain). He also discovered that ice ages are governed by three orbital cycles of the Earth, namely: 1) the 26,000-year period of the precession of the equinox where the Earth literally wobbles on its axis, which is combined with the advance of the perihelion (the point at which the Earth is closest to the sun) to produce a 21,000-year cycle; 2) the 40,000-year cycle of the variation of the tilt of the Earth’s axis from between 22 to 24.5 degrees; and 3) the 90,000 to 100,000-year cycle of change of the eccentricity of the Earth’s elliptical orbit from nearly circular, to an eccentricity of 0.06, and back again.

      This, coupled with the fact that at the present time in geological history, the northern hemisphere has the predominance of its landmass situated in or near the polar regions which allows for the buildup of huge glacial formations on land, has caused a 90,000-year period of glacial advance in the northern hemisphere, followed by a 10,000-year interglacial warm period, all of which has been going on for the last two million years. We are presently at the end of the 10,000-year interglacial. Exactly when the next period of glacial advance will start is not known. It could already be under way now. (1)

      Milankovitch’s theory was reconfirmed during the 1970s when a study by Imbrie, Hayes, and Shackleton based on sea-sediment cores came out, and still remains classical theory to this day. It is well worth the time of the reader to look into Milankovitch’s theory. I myself find it fascinating how the changing tilt of the Earth, its wobble, and the changing eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit over time, as well as the added effect of continental drift, determine ice ages, with the implications being, I think, much scarier than the global warming bugaboo stories. It also suggests, ironically, that if global warming were indeed true, it should be something to be welcomed rather than something to be alarmed about, because the temperature rise that such warming would supposedly cause might tend to offset the glacial advance.

      Fact #2: Cosmic radiation has a much larger role in determining climate than CO2.

      In 1997, Danish scientists H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen discovered that cosmic rays ionize air molecules, transforming them into condensation nuclei for water vapor, causing cloud formation, which in turn, causes cooling. When the solar wind emanating from the sun is strong, it tends to shield the Earth from the cosmic radiation, causing fewer clouds and warming of the Earth. When the solar wind is weak, more clouds form and the Earth tends to cool. The average length of solar activity cycles is 11 years. The current sunspot cycle is weaker than the preceding cycles, and the next two cycles (22 years) are expected to be even weaker, meaning more clouds and colder, not warmer, weather.

      Fact # 3: There is no consensus among scientists that global warming exists.

      Over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing evidence showing that greenhouse gases are causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth.

      Fact # 4: The “Hockey Stick” Hoax.

      American scientist Dr. Michael Mann was discovered to have faked the data to try to show that the 1990s was the warmest decade in history and totally eliminate from the climate record the well-documented medieval warming from 700 to 1300 AD, when temperatures were actually much warmer (eight degrees average) than now. The temperature curve from 1000 to 1900 AD in Mann’s reconstruction is relatively flat and then spikes upward like the bend in a hockey stick. The intent of the fakery was to demonstrate that human industrial activity caused the purported increase. The fakery was exposed by two Canadian scientists, McIntyre and McKitrick. McKitrick actually showed that Mann’s computer program generated hockey-stick curves even when random data were inserted.

      Fact # 5: Al Gore has been proven a fraud in a British court.

      In October 2007 the High Court in London, England identified nine errors in Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth which were so much at variance with accepted scientific truth that the UK Government ended up having to send a notice to every secondary school in England making clear the errors in the film. One of the lies is that low-lying Pacific coral atolls are already being flooded due to sea level rise caused by global warming, when there is no scientific evidence of any such sea level rise at all. Another lie is that polar bears, in order to find ice that has melted away, are being killed by swimming long distances, when in actual fact, the amount of ice in the Beaufort Sea where this is supposed to be taking place has actually grown in the last 30 years. There were in fact at least 35 lies that were found to be in Gore’s movie, although only nine of them were actually presented in court.

      What common sense can tell us about global warming.

      If what I’ve presented above hasn’t shaken any belief you might have had in global warming, then I would suggest that you just use your common sense. Contrary to what seems to be implied by global warming advocates, if all the ice in the oceans of the world melted, it would not change the sea level one bit. Liquid water and floating ice displace exactly the same volume of water. Do the following experiment: allow some ice cubes to float in a pail or glass of water and measure the water level, and then see what the water level is after they’ve melted. You’ll find that the water level is exactly the same. Of course, if it ever got hot enough for the land-based glaciers to melt, that would be a different story . . .

      One might also ask, if the CO2 level were actually increasing, wouldn’t that tend to cool the Earth instead? Since increased levels of CO2 tend to spur plant growth, wouldn’t this increased growth tend to have a cooling effect on the climate, due to the fact that more incident radiation is being transformed into biomass, as happens when plants absorb sunlight? An increase of CO2 would therefore also tend to increase food supply, and consequently, help alleviate hunger in the world.

      In conclusion, the sooner this notion of global warming is gotten rid of, the better. There are many urgent things in the world that need to be dealt with, such as the world food shortage, the massive lack of development particularly in the Third World countries, and the whole accelerating world economic collapse. If we were to take a clear-headed, scientific look at these problems, instead of having our vision distorted by some ideological viewpoint or arbitrary theory, we would be much better at dealing with these very real problems.

      List of Sources

      (1) Laurence Hecht, “The Coming (or Present) Ice Age,” 21st Century Science & Technology Special Report: The Coming Ice Age. 21st Century Associates, November 1997.

      Gregory F. Fegel, “Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age,” Pravda RU

      Zbigniew Jaworowski, “Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate.” 21st Century Science & Technology.

      “Global Warming Petition Project.”

      John L. Daly, “The ‘Hockey Stick’: A New Low in Climate Science.”

      Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, “35 Inconvenient Truths.”

      • nik

        I agree with most of your post, but, what the hell is ‘solar insulation?’ Did you mean radiation? [Fact 1 para]
        In fact it is global warming that causes CO2 release, not CO2 that cases global warming.
        Example, if you keep a beer in the fridge, it will keep its bubbles [CO2] a lot longer. If you warm it the CO2 escapes faster. Most of the CO2 comes from the sea.
        Actually the earth is on the rising peak of the 100,000 year cycle at present, hence the retreat of the last ice age. The warm period is very brief relative to the 100,000 year cycle, so global cooling is the real menace that humanity will have to cope with.

        • Facebook User

          Warning!!!
          There are vast and huge amounts of methane frozen just under the ocean floor, if these warm only fractionally and vaporize we will all have a wealth of trouble on our hands.
          Refer to Siberian tundra for examples of this that is happening now!

          • nik

            Yup!

            Methane and CO2 bubbles are suspected as being a possible source of the disappearances of ships, in the ‘Bermuda Triangle’ and worldwide.

            A huge bubble of gas opens up under a ship, which falls into it, and then is enveloped totally, with no chance to send a distress signal.

            Methane is somewhat more of a greenhouse gas than CO2, but the biggest is water vapour, but that tends to be self regulating. More heat = more evaporation = more clouds = more sun reflected = cooling.

          • Facebook User

            Yep, I remember when I was living in Miami in the 1970’s a notable case was a coastal freighter disappearing without trace or Mayday call.
            It doesn’t have to be one big bubble to take a ship down, an area of many small bubbles reducing the waters density is more than enough for a ship to sink.
            The oil companies are investigating these methane reserves at the present time as a possible future energy source, so while we wait for fusion to become a reality…

          • nik

            I read about a lake, in africa I think, that has a methane lake below it, and some chap has a pipe into it and has been using it for years.

          • Facebook User

            I don’t see why not, it’s a good idea.
            I was thinking that an umbrella like structure could catch the bubbles as they rise then you would have all the energy that you could ever use, a bit like the old 19th century gasometers lol.

          • nik

            That would be like trying to catch a fart in the bath!

          • Facebook User

            Haha hehe, u probably right, lol
            :-)
            P.S. When you burn methane do you get carbon dioxide and/or carbon monoxide as a byproduct? Both I think?

          • nik

            …and water, as with all hydrocarbons. Monoxide, only if combustion is incomplete

          • Facebook User

            There’s a landfill in the area I live that is harvesting the bio-gas to run generators which sells the electricity it produces back into the grid.

          • nik

            Some dairy farmers have been doing that for years with cowshit collected in a tank. Must be a bit like the song…’My old man said follow the van,,,trlala!’ following each cow with a bucket.

  • Valjean1

    Gravity is likely sourced at the smallest, indivisible bit of mass. When ice melts it spreads the gravity of each of those previously contained bits around, even moving from the pole to the equator eventually. Thus, gravity strength moves as its source moves. The gravity of the Earth is not one big lump of gravity. It’s the accumulation of those bits, in countless amounts.

    • Facebook User

      Absolutely right, it’s gratifying to find someone stating the true nature of gravity correctly. Or to put it another way, the heaver, denser or bigger a single object is the more “bits” it is made of, thus its gravity will be greater than something of the same size with less mass.

      • Emkay

        uh, you need to think ‘big molten ball of iron right in the middle of the planet’….sometimes it leaks a little (lava), there’s your gravity…

        • Facebook User

          Yes that’s true and I had wondered if the odd lava flow or the shifting magma had much of an overall effect on perceived gravity. I do however understand that the earths molten iron core is essential to maintaining the magnetic fields that surround our frail planet.
          Anyways, regardless of anyone’s view or stance on climate change we would have to agree polluting the only planet we have has to be a very bad idea. So if the global discussion surrounding climate change does nothing more than raise people’s awareness of environmental matters it has to be a good thing.
          Dan

          • Emkay

            “Every planetary body (including the Earth) is surrounded by its own gravitational field, which exerts an attractive force on all objects. Assuming a spherically symmetrical planet, the strength of this field at any given point is proportional to the planetary body’s total mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the center of the body.” Wikipedia..

            Earth’s gravitational field extends for 10’s of thousands of miles surrounding earth, in big loops, converging at the poles.. Surface anomalies, like moving/erupting lava has no effect on overall gravity.. Think of earth’s crust as a thick eggshell, scratches or dents, or volcanoes on this crust would not effect the gravity produced by the density of all the water covering the planet and the liquid iron core…

          • Facebook User

            Not quite right.
            It is the earths magnetic fields (not the gravitational field) that as you wrote: “surrounding earth, in big loops, converging at the poles.” Keep in mind that magnetic fields have nothing to do with gravitational fields as they are quite different and have no bearing or influence on the other.
            And gravity does in fact vary slightly at various positions on the earths surface, also on the moon and so on.

          • Valjean1

            I wonder…if gravity is sourced at indivisible tiny bits of mass…Is attraction, aka: weight, less at the bottom of a deep canyon than at the top of the canyon. At the bottom there is a tiny bit less mass below and a little mass above. The difference may be insignificant but a difference is a difference in such things. Sorry, Emkay if there’s a typo in there.

          • Facebook User

            Interesting and I can see what you are saying, I think that you are partially right, the problem is that there can be no weight without gravity.
            You know of course that no one knows what gravity is yet. But I have a theory that I believe explains what gravity really is! I will post it when I write it up but it really needs to be accompanied by diagrams.

          • Valjean1

            Consider this possibility. The beginning event crystallized what there was into points of compressed space (energy) surrounded by stretched space (energy), the latter pulling between any two of the former, attraction, aka: gravity. Add motion as part of the split and the dance begins and, maybe, never ends whether we can still see it or not. Other things would follow. Or Not!

          • Facebook User

            Ah ha, you have almost got it but its about pressure and the movement of time and space past all things (bits).
            What has confused people is that they think in terms of attraction as being gravity where no such attraction exists.
            Also there is no equal and opposite force with gravity, but then it does not need one.

          • Valjean1

            If, in your view, gravity isn’t attraction between two objects then what do you say gravity is and what does it do?

          • Facebook User

            Valjean1, I would prefer not to say any more on this public forum but am happy to explain my theory via a private channel.
            My email is: optdan at gmail dot com.

          • Facebook User

            I would prefer to explain my theory off-site, how can I contact you?

        • Valjean1

          The molten ball is made up of basic individual particles each a source of gravity. That’s why a bigger ball has more gravity. More particles more gravity just as a beech is made up of individual grains of sand.

          • Emkay

            hmmm, a ‘beech’ is made up of cellulose, not grains of sand…..

          • Valjean1

            typos and bad spelling don’t alter the idea being presented. What is your view of the idea I present?

          • Facebook User

            Hey, we all make typos, it is the intent of the words that is the important thing.

          • Valjean1

            Emkay. Do you always mumble a noise before you say what you have to say?

          • Emkay

            sometimes… do you always proof read what you write to avoid making stupid misteaks….

          • Valjean1

            Obviously not often enough. Your view of my comment absent the spelling stupidity?

          • Emkay

            aha! I wrote ‘misteaks’ and you missed it…
            Have a great day…..

          • Facebook User

            Well for the record a “beech” tree is indeed organic but in the context of Valjean1’s post it is clear that the reference to “grains of sand” indicate a mineral material, and hey, we all make typos, it is the intent of the words that is the important thing.

          • Facebook User

            Yes. Objects that appear to be heavy are simply composed of more particles that comprise matter.

    • Emkay

      uh, you need to think ‘big molten ball of iron right in the middle of the planet’…. there’s your gravity…

    • Van Snyder

      If the Earth were a perfectly homogeneous sphere, with absolutely uniform density everywhere, the math describing the acceleration of gravity outside the sphere would work out the same as if the mass were concentrated at the center

      But it’s not.

      Acceleration of gravity varies from place to place, depending upon local density. The GRACE satellites measure this variation, and from it we can compute local variations in mass density, with horizontal resolution of about 100km (somewhat better for the newer ESA GOCE instrument). Do that for ten years, and you get a time series. The time series for Greenland and Antarctica show seasonal variations in the mass of their ice sheets, with a decreasing trend. The time series for the Amazon Basin and the Ohio Valley show seasonal variations, with not much of a long-term trend.

      Yes, we can measure it. It’s not hand waving, or environmentalist exaggeration or hysteria.

      • Valjean1

        That demonstrates that attraction, aka: gravity, is sourced at individual basic particles. Increased particles, increased gravity, increased acceleration. The particles are the details of the over all picture. And they aren’t devils.

    • Emkay

      “When ice melts it spreads the gravity of each of those previously contained bits around, even moving from the pole to the equator eventually”.
      So, if the melting ice causes gravity to move from the pole to the equator, the objects near the pole float away into space.. right..
      I believe this is one of those ‘I dee ten tee’ theories….

      • Valjean1

        There are still a few gravity sourced bits at the poles. I mention the equator only to say bits of water flow from here to there while locked in ice they don’t, except in a moving glacier, etc.

        • Emkay

          I think you’re missing a few bits..

      • Facebook User

        Wotis an ‘I dee ten tee’ theory? New one on me :-)

        • Emkay

          Read the context above, then you will agree that the theory is offered by an ‘IDIOT’.. the subtle way to say/spell that word is,
          “I dee ten tee”

      • Rolf Jander

        He is saying that the earths gravity field is complex. It is not even all over the globe. Right now 23 million billion tons of ice in the antarctic ice cap are gravitationally pulling on the worlds oceans if that mass spread out, the sea would rise more in the equatorial zone than in the south polar region. Nobody said anything as stupid as objects near the pole floating into space but you.

  • Sani Fornus

    The East Antarctic icesheet is growing and is at record size. This Al Gore “climate change” blather is not science…it’s leftist, progressive political propaganda.

    • StanChaz

      I just luv your rightest, regressive, political propaganda.
      As the waters rise around you, I do hope that you’ll take your head out of the warming sand…

  • Ralph Edwards

    First of all Koonin is not a climate scientist, so his opinion carries as much weight as, well, say mine. Second he is a theoretician, so basically a mathematician, rather than a scientist. Of all the strange things I have heard people with science degrees say, most come from theoreticians. Third saying science is not settled is redundant. I understand his concern with the uncertainties; that was my reaction too when I read the summary in Scientific American several years ago. But this cuts two ways, a lot of the uncertainty is on the bad side. Summary: his opinion should not carry much weight compared to experimental scientists who work in the climate field.

  • Ralph Warth

    Antarctic Sea Ice Growing Despite Global Warming
    Warnings

    Sunday,
    29 Jun 2014 10:37 AM

    By Sandy Fitzgera

    The sea ice coverage around Antarctica over the weekend marked a
    record high, with the ice surrounding the continent measuring at 2.07 million
    square kilometers, according to an environmentalist and author who says the ice
    there has actually been increasing since 1979 despite continued warnings of
    global warming.

    The new record was posted for the first time by the University of Illinois at
    Urbana-Champaign’s online record, The Cryosphere Today,
    early Sunday morning.

    It’s not apparent if the record actually occurred on Friday or Saturday, says
    Harold Ambler on his blog, Talking
    About the Weather.

    Ambler is a journalist and author of the book “Don’t
    Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About Climate Change.”

    “The previous record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice area was
    1.840 million square kilometers and occurred on December 20, 2007,” said
    Ambler. Meanwhile, he pointed out, global sea ice area on Sunday was standing
    at 0.991 million square kilometers above average, a figure he arrived at by
    adding anomalies for the North and South hemispheres.

  • Shalryn

    Here’s an idea: why doesn’t everyone engage in some completely useless finger-pointing and shifting of blame to this or that cause? That way, nobody has to do anything while the climate goes to heck in a handbasket, and in the end, everybody can chorus, “I told you so!” with self-righteous vindication. After all, who cares what we leave for the next generations? We won’t be around to experience the consequences.

  • StanChaz

    And the muck shall inherit the earth

  • gendotte

    Climate change is a liberal plot to keep the rich from losing money.

  • Docpresley

    No mention that Anartic ice is at record levels.

    I know its Global warming if ice melts and its Global warming if ice hits record levels, how convenient ( :

    Only problem, nothing in the theory predicted record Anartic ice or no warming over the last 18 years.

  • baldy

    I’d believe in AGW if the likes of Al Gore had not said the earth under our feet was millions of degrees hot. Only the sun and other stars are that hot in the centres. Also I can’t understand why obvious non scientists like him and other overpaid celebrities are believed by adoring fans yet if non scientists on here or in the media are frowned upon as knowing nothing. Is it that we only believe something if it comes from such people? I suppose we should therefore belive all politicians including Obama. Politicians never lie do they?

  • nik

    The whole CO2 / global warming thing is a case of ‘The Kings New Clothes,’ gone mad!
    It was started by Maggie Thatcher to justify nuclear power generation, instead of coal and oil, the supply of which could be disrupted by various parties, and it has snowballed ever since.

    • Facebook User

      Ah I wondered when someone would mention the fact that the UK’s prime minister at the time, Maggie Thatcher was the first to coin the term global warming in the late 1980’s to justify nuclear power generation. Prior to this nobody had ever heard of global warming or climate change but scientists were to jump on the bandwagon and accept generous research grants to prove that it was so.

      • nik

        I’m just wondering how long it will be before someone has the courage to say, ‘but the king is naked!’ but too many are at the feeding trough to notice.

        • Facebook User

          Yeah right! There’s huge amounts of money attached to so called global warming.
          This warming is just another natural planetary cycle, I’m sure that we as humans are not helping matters by outputting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere but in the scheme of things our input is minute.
          And how about the dumping of waste and the plastic pollution of the oceans of the world, I think that this is more worrisome…
          Dan

  • duelles

    So. . . Where the ice is thickening and increasing the gravity is getting stronger? Or there is not enough evidence yet to “prove” anything. Ongoing study must happen?

  • George Plunkett III

    Such a funny article, published as the Antarctic is having Record level Ice…LOL!

  • Dying_in_this_Crap_World

    Nice having a moron libertarian in the office trying to tell me Antarctica is growing. Almost had to boot the moron in the face.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

D-brief

Briefing you on the must-know news and trending topics in science and technology today.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar
+