I'm not really surprised at these results. After the 1883 Krakatoa eruption, effects were noted globally and lasted up to five years. It is indeed known that volcanic activity has effects on the atmosphere and hence on the climate.
But the 'homework' should be along the lines of which volcanic eruptions had an impact entirely correlative with the observed increase in global temperatures. There would have to have occured an increasing string of Krakatoa-scale eruptions continually increasing in power in the last two decades. No such thing occured. Ergo, the self-organizational system that the atmosphere is, is capable of, and does indeed absorb these events without going out of equilibrium.

You're putting the issue a bit too simplistic. An increase in surface might well occur because the supercooled ice of the Antarctic range becomes more liquified and evolves into (wider-spread) shelf ice faster. Just a theory.

In this study : http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/publicat...anges_2005.pdf you'll find that the total mass of the Antarctic ice is decreasing in Western Antarctica while indeed increasing in East Antarctica. Overall though, the study shows and increase in higher altitudes and a decrease on the fringes. This happens to be exactly what would be expected with an increase in average temperature.

The case here is not exactly about brighter sunlight but about less impediments for it to reach the surface. In fastly developing countries like India or China there is still an increase in this aerosol-caused dimming. The net result of this observation would of course be that global warming is not yet felt at its true potential. Not a good thing.

That I don't know. But do you agree that the rate of increase in global temperatures related to time is unprecedented ?

Are you kidding me ? Until very recently he simply denied there is an increase in global average temperatures.

Probably, yes. But so is Bangladesh or New Orleans. Not much happening there.

You are an automaton, are you not ? I heavily criticized Gore in case you missed it.

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder

Of course they were opinions. That's what everyone has is opinions. It's just that theirs are made after studying the facts.I must have missed it. Maybe it's because I don't visit a link without a snipet included. Oh well.I am very familiar with plate tectonics but haven't studied them since college. Anyway, it's not like I should go and do your research for you.We have no way of knowing if that is the same exact spot on the planet because everything has drifted. However, it's warming up again and the polar bears are dying of the heat.

__________________
United We Stand.

I realize that it's not a scientific estimation but, I have predicted for years that three of four large erruptions simultaneously would send the north in the USA into a deep freeze that could last for years. When Mt. St. Helen blew, it barely reached 70º all summer from the Dakotas to Michigan and elsewhere.The atmosphere on the earth is amazingly resilient and self-adjusting/cleansing.There are volcanos under the ice on Antarctica that supposedly can errupt without anyone knowing. Also, the ocean has the most active volcanos than anywhere on the planet.The ice is thicker but less area. That's what is happening in Greenland as well.The case here is not exactly about brighter sunlight but about less impediments for it to reach the surface. In fastly developing countries like India or China there is still an increase in this aerosol-caused dimming. The net result of this observation would of course be that global warming is not yet felt at its true potential. Not a good thing.[/QUOTE]But human cause dimming is said to be a possible solution.Whether or not something could be done, I am unsure and unconvinced. Global warming is good for the northern midwest states for sure.But he just signed polar bear protection. That's odd. Well not everyone is convinced. That could be because it was far warmer on the planet when the Nordics reached Greenland.I enjoy the humor side of Political Climate and Gore fits that bill nicely. I know he isn't trying to but he just cracks me up.

__________________
United We Stand.

I just thought I’d point out that we already have cleaner fuels and more efficient internal combustion engines.
The stats claimed by environmental activists in the 70’s were based on 60’s and 70’s muscle cars driven on a scale of 24 hours a day @ half a billion in the U.S. alone (Population explosion and all.). With exaggeration and worse case scenario they could manipulate the data into showing it possible “if you look at it a certain way” that temperatures could rise a degree or two every hundred years. Dudes, if were using eternal combustion for the next hundreds and hundreds of years, we deserve a 4 or 5 degree increase in temperature.
Hey! Wait a minute… I thought environmental alarmist were going back to global cooling again???

__________________
Only a liberal would know how hard it is to get a nicotine patch to stick to a monkey.

I’d like to see the turbine cars of the 1960’s return:






I miss America

__________________
Only a liberal would know how hard it is to get a nicotine patch to stick to a monkey.

Now you are making Jokes again. You ask for information, but because what I offer is not in a form to your liking, You imply that You would be doing my work for me by checking the source "I" provided??? Hilarious. Yuk! Yuk! Yuk!

When you make comments and claims, it's customary to back it up with a source. For example, there are still cold record temperatures being broken worldwide.

__________________
United We Stand.

[QUOTE=kinetic;883570]When you make comments and claims, it's customary to back it up with a source.
QUOTE] Unfortunately that is YOUR custom, even if it is useless. for instance this particular example that you have posted here. I have no Idea where it is located, and I don't even care. it is simply one place on the planet. It is customary for most of us to Not to post Usless Garbage, AND---- Links do not always have quips attached. Mine gave you directions and where to find the information you requested.

and another view-


Polar Bear Politics
January 3, 2007; Page A12
Unless you've been hibernating for the winter, you have no doubt heard the many alarms about global warming. Now even the Bush Administration is getting into the act, at least judging from last week's decision by Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to recommend that the majestic polar bear be listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. The closer you inspect this decision, however, the more it looks like the triumph of politics over science.

"We are concerned," said Mr. Kempthorne, that "the polar bears' habitat may literally be melting" due to warmer Arctic temperatures. However, when we called Interior spokesman Hugh Vickery for some elaboration, he was a lot less categorical, even a tad defensive. The "endangered" designation is based less on the actual number of bears in Alaska than on "projections into the future," Mr. Vickery said, adding that these "projection models" are "tricky business."

Apparently so, because there are in fact more polar bears in the world now than there were 40 years ago, as the nearby chart shows. The main threat to polar bears in recent decades has been from hunting, with estimates as low as 5,000 to 10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. But thanks to conservation efforts, and some cross-border cooperation among the U.S., Canada and Russia, the best estimate today is that the polar bear population is 20,000 to 25,000.

It also turns out that most of the alarm over the polar bear's future stems from a single, peer-reviewed study, which found that the bear population had declined by some 250, or 25%, in Western Hudson Bay in the last decade. But the polar bear's range is far more extensive than Hudson Bay. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain concluded that the ice bear populations "may now be near historic highs." One of the leading experts on the polar bear, Mitchell Taylor, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory in Canada, has found that the Canadian polar bear population has actually increased by 25% -- to 15,000 from 12,000 over the past decade.


Polar bear Pop estimates
1950s- 5000
195 – 1970- 8,000-10,000
1984- 25,000
2005- 20,000-25,000
Sources- New York Tmes,Covebear.com, International Bear assoc., International Wildlife, IUCN and the Polar Bear Study grp.


Mr. Taylor tells us that in many parts of Canada, "polar bears are very abundant and productive. In some areas, they are overly abundant. I understand that people not living in the North generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears, but those who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like." Those cuddly white bears are the Earth's largest land carnivores.

There is no doubt that higher temperatures threaten polar bear habitat by melting sea ice. Mr. Kempthorne also says he had little choice because the threshold for triggering a study under the Endangered Species Act is low. The Bush Administration was sued by the usual environmental suspects to make this decision, which means that Interior will now conduct a year-long review before any formal listing decision is made.

Nonetheless, the bears seem to have survived despite many other severe warming and cooling periods over the last few thousands of years. Polar bears are also protected from poaching and environmental damage by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, so there is little extra advantage to the bears themselves from an "endangered" classification.

All of which suggests that the real story here is a human one, namely about the politics of global warming. Once a plant or animal is listed under the Endangered Species Act, the government must also come up with an elaborate plan to protect its habitat. If the polar bear is endangered by warmer temperatures, then the environmentalist demand will be that the government do something to address that climate change. Faster than you can say Al Gore, this would lead to lawsuits and cries in Congress demanding federal mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Think we're exaggerating? No sooner had Mr. Kempthorne announced his study than Kassie Siegel of something called the Center for Biological Diversity told the New York Times that "even this Administration" would not be able to "write this proposal without acknowledging that the primary threat to polar bears is global warming and without acknowledging the science of global warming." Her outfit was one of those who had sued the feds in the first place over the polar bears, notwithstanding its location in the frozen tundra of Arizona. But no matter. For want of a few hundred polar bears, the entire U.S. economy could be vulnerable to judicial dictation.
* * *
With that much at stake, Mr. Kempthorne could have shown a stiffer backbone in resisting this political pressure. At the very least he now has an obligation to ensure that Interior's year-long study be based on real science and the actual polar bear population, rather than rely on computer projections. Any government decision to limit greenhouse gases deserves to be debated in the open, where the public can understand the consequences, not legislated by the back door via the Endangered Species Act.

WSJ.com - Login

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

That's amazing. How can the Bears be endangered? They're more of them than ever and ready to be hunted.

__________________
United We Stand.

In general, are more species extinct now than in 1945?

In general, is there more pollution now than in 1945?

In general, is there less open/unfenced land than in 1945?

Don't get caught up in the details. Look at the big picture. Humanity has to change.

__________________

Do you have a source? I learned that many new species were discovered since 1945.Los Angeles in 1979 had air quality that was sinful. The air today has improved greatly. We are improving to get better regarding pollution.What do fences have to do with Global Warming?Change what? Our underwear? Demanding change without spelling it out is unhelpful. What is it that you are seeking to change specifically?

__________________
United We Stand.

Maybe there are more polar bears due to preservation work, but 5,000 or 25,000 polar bears can drown for the same reasons, the ice caps are melting and they can't swim far enough to get to the next one, as is their nature.

Maybe we could train them to skip accross the water.

__________________
United We Stand.

I guess,

if you can laugh about beautiful polar bears drowning....