The PETM was not an extinction event. At most their was a 60 to 70 percent decrease in a few species of foraminifera. The PETM was caused by multiple events involving tectonics and uplift as well as volcanism. The records this guy is refering to do exist but they are not all that accurate and they are not precisely contained and they do not tell what came first or second. they are tuned to an astronomical scale and thus you lose any chance to see which came first. There is very little in this srtory is accurate and much that is alarmist. The massive volcanism was 65 million years ago during the Permian-Triassic boundary. The methane release that is discussed here has largely been debunked as a major contributor as the global reserves were too small. for references try reading Beyond Methane by Higgins. He goes thru and systematically discusses many hypothesis

The caption under the article's picture says "Burning fossil fuels such as coal has helped push up atmospheric CO2 to levels not seen for nearly 30 million years." And the article itself says "Scientists have already pieced together a comprehensive record of Earth's changing climate from studies of rocks and ice that stretches back about 2 million years."

We've apparently pumped out so much CO2 that we've got levels roughly 30% above any point in the last 2 million years. Do we have a comprehensive enough record dating back beyond 2 million years to say there hasn't been a similar spike?

I agree that mankind needs to change it's ways. We are stewards of this planet and we need to treat it with care. But as the article points out volcanic eruptions 55 million years ago apparently led to a chain reaction that led to (or contributed to) an extinction event. If mankind is the root cause of what would likely be called the "Anthropocene-whatever-comes-next-ocene Thermal Maximum" then we need to evaluate possible ways to reverse what we have caused. Having said that I should make it very clear that I, personally, am NOT in favor of global attempts to alter the atmosphere. I think we will inevitably do it wrong and screw things up. The only viable solution that I can get behind is to create new manufacturing processes and transportation systems so as to basically make the human CO2 output just what comes out of our lungs. We can have it coming from huge manufacturing plants, we can't have it coming from cars, etc.. We just need to find a better way to accomplish the same tasks.

What I am suggesting will not be easy.. I am also not a fan of government imposing it's will on businesses, but something drastic has to happen if we are to curb humanity's growing CO2 output.

Actually finding a filter or a way to use technology to sequester Co2 or scrub it from the air is something that also should be developed

The flaw in your logic is the assumption that more CO2 causes more warming. Arrhenius who developed that thought in his 1896 paper came to an incorrect conclusion. The real logic is that more energy photons combinung with the CO2 or GHGs produces more warming. This is proven every motning when the sun warms us.

A clear review of Arrhenius paper shows that it is just plain wrong that more GHGs means more warming. Mother Nature proves it wrong every night, when the incoming energy reduces, and the temperature reduces IN SPITE OF the amount of CO2 going up.

Do we know now or can the experts fore see a technology to take CO2 out of the atmosphere? Using fossil fuel will be archiac within 100-200yrs.

There are many people working on that problem Kevin. There is one intriguing idea that I have seen in different forms.. the Mechanical Tree ...check it out. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16827763

Man contributes 3.4% to the earths atmospheric CO2. The remander is contributed to Plants and the Oceans... The Oceans have absorbed almost 50% of the EXTRA CO2 man has produced during the 'Industrial age'.

The present CO2 levels are around 385ppm. There have been severial periods when the CO2 levels were above 400ppm during the last 200+years, the latest was 1942. see Beck CO2 levels & http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/

The latest temperature spike after the last 'Ice Age' is increasing at a SLOWER rate and is still 2+degrees Centigrade BELOW the average HIGHS of the last 5 temperature spikes. see ice cores (EPICA Community Members 2004, Petit et al. 1999).

If mankinds ADDITIONAL CO2 were effecting the World temperature averages. This temperature spike would have increased FASTER and be HIGHER.

The last question to ask. Where is the 'High Altitude' heat spot???

Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. Direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have not shown this expected trend. see Sherwood et al 2008.

For the vast majority of time there has been life on land the CO2 levels have been considerably higher than they have been in the last 35 million years. Melt the ice. Good ridance. Control the climate. Keep the planet warm.

These spotless days led some researchers to suggest that we might be seeing a repeat of the Maunder Minimum, a 50-year cold spell of sunspots that some researchers have linked to the Little Ice Age of the 17th century.

http://www.space.com/11005-missing-sunspots-sun-mystery.html

Now, reading this and some other things said by scientists it leaves one to wonder exactly how accurate anything said about climate change is. Science refutes it's own climate claims. Once again, no one knows for certain exactly what is happening. No one. All anyone can do is post conjectures, act on those conjectures and hope to hell they're right and didn't just totally screw the entire human race.

I think governments should work on curbing pollution of all types and stop concentrating on 'greenhouse gases'. That should provide ample reductions in the types of gases some claim are causing a climate change. And if they are wrong at least something good can come of it.

Until we have an economic system that uses a model based on time spans expressed in decades instead of quarters we will continue to foul our nest. People have always made their money without considering the impact on future generations.

We already have natural filters that scrub the air of co2, plants. Yep, those nasty weeds in the sidewalk cracks, lawn, trees, bushes, some algae. Get a life people and think a little bit, one volcano puts out more co2 in a day. It still hasn't been proved that climate change is man made and the discusion is not over.

Well folks, I think in all your discussion you have forgotten the key element that will undo all your theories and all your proposed solutions.

The human element.

Not only do we have prehensile thumbs and the ability of abstract reasoning, we are the ONLY living creature on this planet that is chauvinistically self-delusional. We are greedy and petty and we are incapable of thinking beyond our own noses (or bellies). We're NOT going to do anything about the CO2 output because in the short run it would be too disruptive to our lives and our incomes.

I like to look at the planet as a living organism that has developed a cancer, US. That cancer is killing this beautiful planet and will continue to do so until it is eradicated. The planet, in it's own way, is removing the cancer and in another millenia the insects will have inherited this earth and we won't even be a curiosity to them.

The planet will continue, healthy and strong, and ready for colonization by a more caring and responsible species sometime in the far distant future. They will look at the fossil record and marvel at the foolishness of our self-destruction and be glad because they will inherit a beautiful blue world.

The late, great, human race. Our reign was far shorter than that of the Dinosaurs, and rightfully so.

Yeah, let's get in total control of the chemical content of the atmosphere and the oceans. Then the life-forms that thrive in that particular environment will be all that's left, and people will become so dependent upon that "perfect" atmosphere that the most trivial change would be another "extinction event". Like an erupting volcano. It would be like eradicating all harmful bacteria and viruses and living in a sterile environment until no one has any immunity left. Then a comet drops some virus into the "perfect" atmosphere. Who knows, maybe 35 million years ago there were "people" living on Earth who decided to control the environment. The "global warming" didn't stop this winter from being one of the coldest and nastiest on record.

Hey...I just realized something...flip back a couple of pages to the story about zombie ants.

Is it possible that ol' Mother Earth has been experimenting on the ants, so she can use this fungi on some of the higher life forms on this planet...LIKE US?

Stick with me for a minute, this could get a little wierd. Let's say Mother Earth has developed this zombie ant fungi as an experiment to see if it would work. It does, so now she's infecting HUMANS with this fungus. It makes them join the Tea Party or the GOP and OPPOSE the whole concept of Global Warming and any attempt to regulate future CO2 emissions. I think we're seeing the evidence of this RIGHT NOW!

So these TP Zombies prevent us from removing the CO2 from the atmosphere and actually deregulate industry which causes even MORE CO2 to be belched into the atmosphere and before you know it, WHAMO, we've got a world wide extinction event! NO MORE US!

We're gone, millenia go by (Mother Earth is on a different time table than the rest of us) and the air is scrubbed clean and the world is beautiful and blue again and the loyal little insects that helped her create this cancer cure get to inherit the Earth.

I'm thinking conspiracy here! I'm onto you Mom. But don't worry, nobody is going to believe me, they'll probably lock me up in an institution or something and go right ahead polluting the heck out of this beautiful living planet. So light 'em up Mom. They deserve it!

Does anyone else smell bacon burning?

Does any one know if there were scientific studies to rule out ground leaching on the 25% to 30% numbers of co2 ? For most circumstances leaching happens into the ground, but could gravity be playing a role here,. much like a jar filled with water and dirt when shaken there are several layers. could gravity be forcing co2 out of the rocks and ice

That is, rock and ice do have a filtration fracture, what if some of the co2 is being forced through the rock and ice. Not that I do not believe in global warming, just wondering if these possibilities have been ruled out ? do core samples taken from the same area show the same levels of co2 after a decade?

Okay, heres my take on this: Fat cat Al Gore and fudging scientific reports, no matter how well intentioned, have seriously hurt any sense of objectivity when it comes to climate change. If "make-a-buck" Al was seriously concerned, any profits from a carbon exchange would go immediately into subsidizing green energy sources, and green energy research. If you're screaming aqbout how the oceans will rise, then go buy a beach front palace, you are a hypocrite, and your cause will inevitably be scorned. If you are a scientist, and you fudge numbers because you're convinced the world is moving too slow, you will be discredited. I believe that current climate changes are a combination of human pollutants and natural, cyclical weather events. And even if climate change is natural or all hoooey, a cleaner planet certainly does no one any harm. I just don't want to see arrogant p- holes scamming a buck off of this. If there is something we should do, then commit ALL profits to research and development, and stop trying to sell a self-serving, rather than Earth-serving ,agenda

OK, after reading some of the posts above can anyone doubt that we are truly doomed?

SuperDave, and the others. They are the reason the Human Race will be wiped out over the next hundred years BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO STUPID TO LIVE!

Thanks guys, I really appreciate the help.

Hey, I wonder if there is a Nobel science prize in my future? That comes with a big fat check doesn't it?

What? Me self-involved and greedy? Well, I'm a human being, I can't help myself.

So who caused the first 5 extinctions? What, no human influence. So what if it happens again? Humanity is a blip in the life of the universe. Maybe we should let natural processes have their way. Natural process wiped out life before. As evolutionist why does this bother us? We have no ultimate value. We live and die. Get use to it.

Why Global Climate will Always Revert to Ice

DAVID HALSEY[1] P.E., BES

III/MMXI

"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future[2]." --Nils Bohr, Nobel laureate in Physics

INTRODUCTION

Most scientists agree that most of Earth’s water came from early encounters with comets, particularly those thought to originate from the Jupiter region. These comets have water that has the same molecule as the water found on Earth today. In November 2010 carbon dioxide (CO₂) was detected by a space craft as the jets expelling water ice from a comet. Analysis of this data, presented herein, will show that the CO₂ in the upper atmosphere came from above, not from any activity on Earth. It appears that comets not only brought water to Earth but also brought life[3] and the elements to sustain life.

In an effort to present a definitive global climate system that is “cause and effect” driven, utilizing the harsh realities of data to calibrate today’s climatic model will help to quantify mans effect upon the environment.

The reasons as to why global ice advancement is more likely to occur than any significant long term global warm up are also presented. Included is the rationale as to why Antarctica has been and will continue to be Earth’s thermostat.

An honest assessment of these arguments should change the “global warming” debate as well as further guide the research into the origination of atmospheric gases and their effect upon Earth’s climates.

CO₂

Anyone can observe the vapors from dry ice (CO₂) as they fill up a container and fall over the edge like a water fall. Since CO₂ (390 ppm[4]) resides in the upper atmosphere, many researchers have searched for the mechanism which could lift CO₂, a gas heavier than the atmospheric gases, to the upper reaches of the atmosphere. One solution comes from the observation of data collected from the “Deep Impact” spacecraft[5] as it flew within 435 miles of Comet Hartley 2 on November 4, 2010. Observations from this close encounter showed chunks of water ice being expelled from the comet in jets of CO₂. This is the first time CO₂ jets have been observed coming from a comet.

Research shows that the breakup of another “snowball[6]” comet, Comet LINEAR[7], was likely made up of water with the same isotopic composition as water found here on Earth. The finding supports a controversial idea that comet impacts billions of years ago could have provided most of the water in Earth's oceans. “The smaller comets from Jupiter's region impacted Earth relatively gently, shattering high in the atmosphere and delivering most of their organic molecules intact”[8].

There are two questions that need to be defined before we assess how the CO₂ got to the upper atmosphere: (1) What part of the infamous “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, graph depicting the measurement at Mauna Loa, HI, is caused from entropy resulting from activities on Earth and/or comets? And (2) could not the heavier than air CO₂ been deposited by a comet and settled through the atmosphere to the lower reaches?

While flying for the military, I have, on occasion, observed a clear path with unlimited visibility created from the precipitation from a thunder storm as it passed through a hazy air layer in the lower atmosphere that had a visibility of less than one mile. Precipitation appears to be the cleansing agent for the lower air column. Thus, any gas produced on Earth that has a density higher than the atmosphere will not go beyond the influence of the hydrologic cycle[9] which produces all of Earth’s precipitation.

EARTH’S CLIMATE

Earth’s climate is an aggregate of regional climates working as a global system driven by orographics[10], plate tectonics, thermodynamics, astrophysics and kinetics. This is to say mountains, moving continents, deserts, plains, hot or cold liquid (air and water) interfaces, Sun, and moon, all provide a force that results in the coordinated movement en masse.

The oceans are the “heat sinks” that keep the global temperatures moderate. Ocean currents, called conveyors or streams, carry the equatorial heat to the Polar Regions. The conveyors are guided by the continents and the Earth’s rotation. If a conveyor is stopped, the applicable tropics will heat up and the cold latitudes will become colder. If a conveyor speeds up, the heat distribution will lessen, thus temperatures, over time, will also fall in the Polar Regions.

Air flow has minimal effect upon Earth’s temperatures as compared to an equal volume of water. For example, you can spend more than 20 minutes inside a dry sauna at temperatures of 87°C, but you can’t hold your hand under a faucet of hot water at 46°C for more than a few seconds.

The globe is covered with distinct weather systems that overlap, interact and thus cover the entire globe. The Gulf Stream is one example of a weather system that effects a regional climate.

The regional climates consist of a series of distinct local climates. An example of a local climate is the Los Angeles Basin. This “bowl” created by the mountains under certain weather conditions can cause smog to form because of exhaust from a high concentration of automobiles. Eventually, another weather system will move through, scrubbing the “local” air column clean.

Before several continuous scenarios of assumed rising temperatures can be played out, the most important components such as ice, water, solar, celestial, internal radiation, state-of-the-art modeling, ocean conveyors, continent locations, etc., should be collectively described as they relate to Earth’s climates. At best with today’s technology we can vaguely comprehend the sophistication of how an infinite number of micro climates could result, via the “butterfly effect”, into multiple environments over time.

Before we can comprehend what ingredients constitute a global “climate”, we must have an awareness of the magnitude, diversity and difficulty that this understanding may pose. We know that knowledge of a local climate cannot readily be extrapolated to a global one without the analysis of a millennium of data. If this data were available, and applied to present day modeling techniques, the similitude sophistication would be grossly inadequate. Thus the results would simply be unreliable! One example is the aggregate composition of models; most are clones, used to create a ‘statistical fan’ to describe the future track of a hurricane’s path. Thousands of ‘real time’ data observations don’t change the forecast from being parts scientific and experience.

Short sightedness that ignores the magnitude of a global translation that requires extrapolation of local visual evidence (i.e.-retreating glaciers) as a global condition is like picking a single cell from your body to evaluate your body’s health! We bias the results by “knowing” the answer before we collect and analyze the data to arrive at a conclusion.

EARTH THE PLANET

Earth and the moon rotate around each other, as if tied together with a string, as they travel around the Sun in an orbit that has never been fixed. Earth is a gyroscopic sphere orbiting the Sun at an average of more than 69,000 miles per hour. It tilts, wobbles, precesses and is effected by every body in the Solar System and beyond. Since Earth was formed some 4.66 billion years ago, it has never experienced any moment like any other! For example, after the winter solstice “the position of the perihelion (nearest the Sun) shifts steadily and makes a complete circuit of orbit in 21,310 years. The actual amount of the tilt changes very slightly, growing a tiny bit more, then a tiny bit less, and in slow oscillation. All of these changes have a small effect upon Earth’s average temperature, not great, but enough at certain times to pull the trigger for either the advance of glaciers or their retreat.[11]”

900 million years ago Earth’s day was 18 hours[12] long and a year[13]was 481 days duration. The effect of the moon has caused the changes that are today’s conditions. Future days will become longer and the years will become shorter. Future building of wind generators will exacerbate the slowing of Earth’s rotation since this is the energy used by the generators to produce electricity.

Earth’s surface is a water domain. Water covers about 71% of the surface yet it constitutes only about 1/4200th of Earth’s total mass. Oceans hold about 97.2% of Earth’s water and are the source for fresh water to the tune of 80,000 cubic miles evaporated each year that fall in the form of rain or snow. Stored underground are some 200,000 cubic miles of water, mostly fresh, with an additional 30,000 cubic miles stored in lakes and rivers.

Water, in a solid state, covers about 10% of the Earth’s surface which is roughly the size of the North American continent. The Antarctic ice sheet contains about 91% of the total ice on Earth. Greenland has about 8% of Earth’s ice while the mountain glaciers and Arctic cap account for less than 1% of the total.

The following scenarios are based upon an assumption of continued rise in Earth’s temperatures to the point where cooling will obviously begin in most regions.

ARCTIC/MOUNTAIN GLACIERS & THE GULF STREAM

The Arctic’s ice cap floats. Its position at any given moment is at the whim of the ocean conveyors, continental boundaries and prevailing winds. The melting of the Arctic ice will be from calories given up by the ocean and not the atmosphere. Since this ice total is less than one per cent of Earth’s ice the effects, if melted, are local only. The ebb and flow of these ice packs are a result of a regional climate, not global.

If ALL the ice from the Arctic and glaciers melted at the end of the summer, the effect upon sea level would be negligible, nearly impossible to ascertain since the oceans of the world are subservient to wind fetches and tidal gyrations from a few feet to many tens of feet. However, there is evidence that this fresh water melt, augmented by the Greenland melt, did overlay the cold Arctic salt waters to the point that it shut down the Gulf Stream (GS) for 10 days in 2004. This indicates that this regional climate is very fragile from a thermal observation.

No scientist knows what caused the GS to stop flowing in 2004. According to the Scientists at Woods Hole, the stoppage event was described as “the most abrupt change in the whole (climate) record”.

What would happen if “a significant amount of Greenland’s ice cap melted”?

The latest climate models predict that the GS will slow down as global warming increases. However, measurements by NASA[14] of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation show no significant slowing over the last 15 years; in fact, the data suggest the circulation may have sped up by as much as 20% in the recent past.

The GS is the conveyor that keeps England and northern Europe from having a regional climate similar to the climate in Canada above the 45th latitude. Warm surface water flows from the tropics northward into the North Atlantic as one of the currents that make up the Atlantic overturning circulation system. In the seas surrounding Greenland, the GS cools and sinks to great depths as it changes directions. What was once warm surface water heading north becomes cold deep water heading south.

The GS starts from the Equatorial Current from the African coast, moving east to west under the influence of the trade winds in the tropical North Atlantic. The South American continent deflects the current northward causing it to meander among the Caribbean Islands. The Equatorial Current circles the Gulf of Mexico in a clockwise fashion, exiting through the straits between Florida and Cuba. Then the Stream joins the Antilles Current, officially forming the GS.

The GS is about 90 kilometers wide and flows at two meters per second at about 60 degrees latitude. The GS flows at about 80 million cubic meters per second, which exceeds the volume of ALL rivers in the world. The volume of the GS is 3500 times larger than the Mississippi River’s discharge into the Gulf of Mexico.

The large volume of warm water moved by the GS toward the colder North East Atlantic reaches near Latitude 40-42 degrees north before its deflected southward. As the GS loses energy by melting the ice floes, as well as calories to heat up the cold fresh water that overlay the GS cooling the GS to a density[15] of the surrounding salt water. This result is the GS loses its identity and becomes part of the North Atlantic Ocean.

If melt from the Greenland ice pack increases there will be an increase of fresh cold water with a density of 1.000 overlaying the ocean of cold salt water with a density of 1.030. The boundary[16] integrity of any two liquids of different densities is very rigid.

GREENLAND

Greenland’s ice cap volume is about 2.85 million cubic kilometers. If all the ice melted, the mean elevation of the world’s oceans would be about 23.6 meters. But, more realistically, for each 100 meters of ice melt equivalent to the Island’s size, the oceans would rise about 19.5 inches.

Since Greenland on average is warmer than Antarctica, an increase in local temperatures could produce melting there first. If the temperatures on Greenland continue to rise, the snowfall will increase on the ice cap. This will increase the ice cap volume and provide more ice for glacier calving into the North Atlantic. This is why it’s uncertain if the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are growing or shrinking. Antarctica is so cold that surface melting will not occur but Greenland is a different story by 50+ degrees.

Once the GS is cut off, the regional climates of northern Europe will no longer be the recipient of the tropical heat energy. With time, their climate will emulate that of Canada above the 45 latitude. The Polar ice cap will grow to include the North Sea and will attach itself to the continent. Ocean currents, which are the conveyors of surface energy around the globe, will be modified, energy wise, to the point that the Arctic ice cap will, over time, expand. As the ice cap grows, heat from the Sun will be deflected, and the ice pack will continue to enlarge. Greenland’s seasonal temperatures will start to decrease, the ice pack will begin to grow, and the warm-cold cycle will continue as it has historically.

Northern Europe and the North Sea oil platforms will become uninhabitable over time. The increase in ice coverage will reflect the Sun’s energies during the summer, and this regional part of Earth will begin a cool cycle. The increase in ice coverage will take water from the oceans thus they will recede.

THE THERMOSTAT

Increasing regional temperatures over time will cause the global temperature to cycle to a cool down. There are several “safeguard” mechanisms in place to prevent a warm up, but none to prevent an ice age. During Earth’s history, Antarctica has proven to be its thermostat. Earth has never been overheated since the initial cool down and as long as the thermostat is in place, it will not be.

Before the study of plate tectonics became a science, some people as early as 1596[17] believed that the present day arrangement of continents appeared to be puzzle pieces that could have fit together to form a super continent in years past. Currently the “theory of continental drift” suggests that some 225 to 260 million years ago all seven continents were together forming a super continent called “Pangaea”[18]. For more than 225 million years, the Antarctic continent has remained near Earth’s “bottom” while the other continents, North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania (Australia), have drifted[19] to their present positions. Evidence from oceanic ridges surrounding Antarctica indicates that the super continent began to break up about 150 million years ago. Fossils, soil, rock, modeling and other evidence support these conclusions.

The Antarctic, on average, is the coldest, driest, and windiest continent, and has the highest average elevation of all the continents. Antarctica[20] is the fifth largest continent by land mass, and the third largest if the area of the ice cap is measured, assuming that Greenland is part of the North American continent which is the second largest. The summer temperature rises to about minus 30°C to Earth’s lowest yearly air temperature of about minus 80+°C. The relative humidity is 0.04 per cent (Mars’ is 0.03%) making the continent the driest place on the globe. Annual precipitation averages just above an inch, mostly from ice fog over the interior regions.

Earth’s rotation creates a gyroscopic effect that has appeared to lock Antarctica in its current position at the “bottom” of the globe. Forces from a gyroscopic effect react along a three dimensional axis, separated by 90 degrees; e.g. spin, output and input. Earth’s spin axis is the global center. The Sun provides the input, and the output axis is 90° from the input. Thus, it affects the South and North Poles. The continent lies 90° from the centroid of a gyroscope, Earth, and its gravity “string” from the Sun. The effect of the continental drift forces appears to be inhibited by this gyroscopic effect. Or is it something simple like the Antarctic continent continues to float on the apex of a globe that is spinning!

During the Triassic and Jurassic periods, 200 to 150 million years ago respectively, when most of the ingredients for fossil fuels were laid down, the dinosaurs grew to be very robust because of an abundance of CO₂ in the atmosphere. The Earth warmed up a bit, as its thermostat worked perfectly. Had Homo sapiens been around at that time, they too would have been more robust because of the abundance of oxygen.

Therefore Antarctica has been in place for more than 225 million years and will remain as Earth’s thermostat for many more millions of years, preventing future significant global warm-ups.

EPILOGUE

We as a scientific society have learned to construct devices that can perform measurements with extreme relative precision. Yet with today’s technological knowledge and computational tools, we can only define weather in terms of probability or chaos theories. We have yet to collect “all” the pertinent data that’s required for a precise result. Our scientific advancements have been exceptional during the last 400 years, but we still have only begun to understand. A few millennia of learning must pass before we can begin to create a model that can, with precision, emulate the “butterfly effect”, therefore allowing a precise forecast for a specific point in time. Once this milestone is reached, then we will have begun to advance.

To date Homo Sapien’s effect upon the globe can only be measured locally and NOT regionally or globally. Scientists do not have the knowledge to define the “effect”, thus the “cause” can only be defined by a lot of “art” and a little science. Our arguments should be directed toward the sophistication of the science and the data needed to define the climate of our environment

Earth is a water planet, yet every rain drop and snow flake needs a dust particle to form upon!

Without dust there would not be hurricanes, tornados or blizzards. The residual effect from natural “disasters” such as volcano eruptions is eventually scrubbed from the atmosphere by precipitat

[1] Colonel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (retired)

[2] This quote serves as a warning of the importance of testing a forecasting model out-of-sample. It's often easy to find a model that fits the past data well--perhaps too well!--but quite another matter to find a model that correctly identifies those features of the past data which will be replicated in the future.

[3] Halsey, David, “Life in the Universe-(A Given?)”, unpublished, 2010 (Copy available @dhhalsey@aol.com)

[4] parts per million

[5] The Epoxi mission (www.nasa.gov/mission pages/epoxi/)

[6] Comets from deep space formed in an extremely cold region thus are called “ice bergs” while comets formed in the Jupiter region, a more moderate cold, are referred to as “snowballs”.

[7] August 2000

[8] The Science and Technology Directorate at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, May 18, 2001

[9] Water exists on earth as a solid (ice), liquid or gas (water vapor). Oceans, rivers, clouds, and rain, all of which contain water, are in a frequent state of change (surface water evaporates, cloud water precipitates, rainfall infiltrates the ground, etc.). However, the total amount of the earth's water does not change. The circulation and conservation of earth's water is called the "hydrologic cycle".

[10] Highlands and mountain ranges

[11] Asimov, Isaac, “New Guide to Science”, Basic Books, 1984

[12] The time it took for one complete rotation.

[13] The time it took for one orbit around the Sun.

[14] Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA Press release dated March 25, 2010

[15] Density of the cold salt water = 1.030+; Ice melt density = 1.000

[16] The boundary is called a thermocline.

[17] In Dutch map maker Abraham Ortelius’ work “Thesaurus Geographicus” he suggested that the Americas were “torn away from Europe and Africa by earthquakes and floods”. It was not until 1912 when the idea of moving continents was seriously considered as a scientific theory called “Continental Drift”, introduced by a German meteorologist Alfred Lothar Wegener.

[18] USGS (U.

[19] Today these continents continue to drift at the about the same speed that our finger nails grow. (US Geological Survey USGS) The “theory of plate tectonics” states that Earth’s outer most layer consist of a dozen or more plates that are moving relative to one another as they float on hotter, more fluid material.

[20] Winkel-tripel-projection.jpg

2 million years is less than a second in the history of this planet.

I think we might be missing a point here, I am a firm believer that scare attics just aren't right. At the same time a scientist has to be able to ask questions, or how else could we learn. When I read this article I hear the voice of a scientist that is concerned and is looking for and answer. My answer to that scientist would be, the earths gravitational field has shifted. If my understanding is correct it can only shift about .00202% in total that is done over millions of years. It is not an end of world scenario, simply a new beginning of a whole new way we look at how the earth gravity was formed. There are most likely fluctuations that go on daily in the trillionth of a %. Understanding gravity is a hobbie to me it is fun, it is a scary topic though mostly because of the forces we are trying to understand.