Outdoor Solar Lights

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity…Ascribing ‘greenhouse’ effect properties to the Earth’s atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated…Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."[13][14][15]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[16]
Reid Bryson, deceased, former emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."[17]
George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation …, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities … . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."[18]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. … We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly… solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[19]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[20]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"[21]
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[22] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[23] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[24]

William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[25]
George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."[26]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[27]
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean M
Science advances through hypotheses based on a set of assumptions. Other scientists challenge and test those assumptions in what philosopher Karl Popper called the practice of ‘falsibility.’ Trying to disprove hypothesis is what real science is all about. Yet the hypothesis that human addition of CO2 would lead to significantly enhanced greenhouse warming was quickly accepted without this normal scientific challenge. As Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences said, the consensus was reached before the research had even begun. Adherents to the hypothesis began defending the increasingly indefensible by launching personal attacks, essentially trying to frighten scientific opponents into silence.
All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year’s time. For all four sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
This was for 2007 and when the 2008 mean temp came out it was down again.
I would like to see the names of all the pro global warming scientist that belive it is caused by humans.
CARBON DIOXIDE MAKES UP 0.037% OF THE EARTHS ATMOSPHERES AND YET YOU DISMISS WATER VAPOR LIKE IT MEANS NOTHING TO THE ATMOSPHERE. LOOK UP THE PERCENTAGES YOUR SELF, IT IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

TOO LONG DIDN’T READ

Global Warming = Al gore’s Bullshit

My essay is due tomorrow. The teacher says my argument and material is great, but because my grammar and sentence structure is so poor, I will not recieve a grade untill it is fixed. Please help. Thank you.

While waiting in line at the local grocery store, I notice the clerk never asks “paper or plastic” anymore. Of course not, its all about plastic these days. Save the trees right? In the front of the check stand I notice cloth bags for sale that read “Eco-Friendly, Support Your World”. Above the candy bars are last minute items like high priced light bulbs. The labels read “Save your energy for a brighter future”. Reducing your Carbon Foot Print, it’s the new trend. Why? Because most of us agree we have a pollution problem. More importantly, a global warming problem. At least once a day I am reminded of this controversial environmental issue. Global warming is a controversial issue because there is debate on what the true cause is. Is the earth solely going through its natural process of heating and cooling? Or are we contributing to the natural climate change process with our daily pollutants and inducing the rising temperatures?
Before examining the facts and deciding what the sole cause of global warming is, it is important to know how the whole process works. The earth goes through stages of heating and cooling every 100,000 years or so. The heating stage is caused by “The Green House Effect”. The idea is that the sun’s light sends down solar radiation which heats the earth’s surface. Some of this energy returns to the atmosphere as infrared radiation “aka heat“, and some of this heat is trapped near the surface by Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and other gases (Lewis et al. 918). For the most part this is a good thing. Greenhouse gases create a warm blanket around the earth and keep us warm and alive. Without this blanket of CO2 and other gasses, earth’s temperatures would be much lower. “Oceans would be frozen to the bottom, and life as we know it would be impossible” (Ehrlich 127). This “Green House Effect” is how earth naturally heats itself.
Ronald Bailey, Author of Global Warming And Other Eco-Myths, goes into detail to describe why global warming is not human induced and most likely due to earth‘s natural heating process. He gives a “list” of Eco-Myths that he believes have been “debunked”. According to his book, there is no looming climate disaster. He agrees that we have caused an increase in Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but states that this will likely cause a very slow rise in global temperatures with which we can easily cope (2). Like Bailey there are a few others that still deny the human induced theory. They say that global warming is not a major environmental problem nor an environmental crisis and even think that the earth’s atmosphere has actually been in a state of “cooling” (Ehrlich 140). Anti-global warming spokesman Fred Singer argues in an interview by Stephen Goode that global warming just is not happening in any significant way and if it were, it would be good for us (Easton 150).

However, the majority of scientists have a different take on the issue. In the last 150 years, due to burning of fossil fuels, Industrial processes, farming and deforestation, we have added to greenhouse gasses by releasing 280 billion tones of carbon into the atmosphere, with nearly half of it occurring in the last 25 years of the 20th century (Nielsen 86). This is more than double the earths natural output. According to Nasa’s website, In the last 650,000 years CO2 levels in the atmosphere have never risen past 300 parts per million. In 1950 we broke that record and the levels have not dropped since. Today CO2 levels are higher than they have ever been. Increasing at an alarming rate, today we are at 387 parts per million (U.S. Nasa). When we add more CO2 than is removed, we are causing a build up and therefore the temperatures rise.
Scientists started tracking global temperatures in 1898. Coincidentally, average global temperatures have increased since the 1900’s, and even more drastically since 1980 (Lewis et al. 919). In the past century scientists claim the earth’s surface, which is different then our daily temperatures, has warmed by only one degree. By 2050 average global temperatures are projected to rise another 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit. This does not sound like a significant difference, until you consider that the earth’s surface during the last ice age was only seven degrees lower than today’s (Ballantine and Roberts 487). Small variations can make a huge difference, and we do not know what all of those consequences might be if the earth’s surface increases by another two or three degrees. We do know that changes in temperature can alter populations, killing some organisms outright, stressing others and cause migrations (Life 917). According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the National Climate Data Center states that in the last 15 years we have had 10 of the

so your first paragraph is a very creative way to open but there are a few sentences that are a bit akward. especially this part:
"At least once a day I am reminded of this controversial environmental issue. Global warming is a controversial issue because there is debate on what the true cause is."

and this part:
"We do know that changes in temperature can alter populations, killing some organisms outright, stressing others and cause migrations "
is that straight out of a book? because if it is you should quote it and if its not then you should change it to sound a bit more balanced. =]

Following is my presentation. But im not sure whether it contains any errors. I need ur help to find and correct errors if there are any

text:

Atmosphere is a part of the earth where a lot of chemical reactions take palace in. Not only natural reactions such as Photosynthesis, formation of ozone, But also reactions and incidents which causes the
activity of modern human such as acid rains, air pollution, smog are also happens in the atmosphere.

Formation of Ozone

Ozone is generated by reactions occurring in the stratosphere

"An oxygen molecule (O2) in the stratosphere is broken into 2 oxygen atoms (O + O) by absorbing ultraviolet light energy from the sun. The oxygen atom (O) is now free to react with an oxygen molecule (O2) to create an ozone molecule (O3).

O2 + UV => O + O
O + O2 => O3"

Acidity of the rain water

Distilled water has a neutral pH. But the rain water has a slightly acidic (about 5.2) pH value because of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reacts with water and foarms carbonic acid.

H2O (l) + CO2 (g) -> H2CO3 (aq)

Acid rain

Sulfur dioxide

sulfur dioxide releasing to the atmosphere from industrial sources such as smokestacks of coal-burning power plants can converted into sulfuric acid in the atmosphere ruslting acid rains when they are carried to the ground by rain.

SO2 + OH· -> HOSO2·

HOSO2 + O2 -> HO2 + SO3

SO3(g) + H2O(l) -> H2SO4(l)

Nitrogen oxides

Nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere can converted into nitric acid which will also result in acid rain. Automobile exhaust also provide large amount of Nitrogen oxides to the atmosphere.

NO2 + OH -> HNO3

UV rays ionizing gases in the ionosphere

The uppermost part of the atmosphere is the ionosphere. The ionosphere is full of electrically charged ions.Solar radiotion causes the ionizing of gases in the ionosphere.

reactions in the ionosphere:

O + h v -> O+ + e
N + h v -> N+ + e

reactions in the thermosphere:

N + O2 -> NO + O
N + NO -> N2 + O
O + O -> O2

——————————————————————————————————

please take your time and help me.
Thanks in advance.

I think it is correct

Is the content OK?
And I don’t know if you are allowed to help me with it, but do you know what I could could cut out?- because it is too long.

Sorry- it is a lot to read but I would really appreciate some help!

I have chosen to do my Solo Talk on Global Warming.
I want to tell you what Global Warming is, how it is affecting our planet and what we can do about it.

Global Warming is the increase in the Earth’s average temperature that causes changes in climate.

The ‘greenhouse effect’ is a natural warming process.
Heat energy radiated by the sun is caught in the Earth’s atmosphere, warming the planet.
Greenhouse gases such as Carbon Dioxide and Methane, form a layer around Earth, absorbing and preventing heat from escaping.
It is called ‘the greenhouse effect’ because it reflects how the air in a greenhouse heats up overtime and holds the heat in.

Since the start of the industrial era, humans have been producing huge amounts of greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide.
This is mainly due to burning fossil fuels.
We have become so reliant on fossil fuels that if we were to stopped using them, our economy would collapse.
There would be barely any electricity, no petrol, and no hot water.
The Kyoto Protocol, requires countries to cut their emissions by 5.2% for 2012 has been agreed to by 73% of countries, including the UK.
Methods to help cut these emissions include looking for alternative power supplies such as tidal, solar, hydroelectric and wind power.
Cars are a major source of greenhouse gases, so scientists are working hard to modify cars and have them running on hydrogen gas, which produces water instead of carbon dioxide.
The governments has also made companies change their products such as hairspray so that it is less toxic to the environment.
As well as putting many species in danger of extinction, cutting down trees, especially rain forests is bad for Global Warming, because plants absorb carbon dioxide.

During the last 100 years, the world’s average temperature has increased by 0.7%.
This may not sound a lot but this still has big effects on our planet.
Ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising, glaciers are retreating, there is more extreme weather and deserts are spreading.
As well as this, animals and plants are suffering; they can not adapt quickly enough to rising temperatures, and this will lead to the extinction of many species.
An example of this, are coral reefs which are extremely sensitive to their environment.
In 1998, some areas saw a 70% loss in the corals, and there is expected to be more of this for the years to come.
Another thing expected is for diseases such as malaria to spread to different areas as new regions of the world heat.

How much you contribute to global warming is known as your carbon footprint.
Every single person in here has a carbon footprint.
Our carbon footprint increases whenever we do something which increases the amount of gases which contribute to Global Warming, such as switching on a TV, having a shower or toasting bread.

It would be impossible to not contribute at all to Global Warming, but we can do lots of things to help.
Switch off a light when you are leaving a room, stop charging your mobile when it is fully charged, try to be more efficient with paper and instead of putting the heating up when you are cold- put a jumper on.
These are only a few of the things that you can do to help the environment, and every one of them does not just help the environment; it also helps whoever pays the bills.

It takes 30 years before the climate change actually happens so the climate that we are experiencing today is actually caused by the actions of 1979.
That means that we will only see the results of our actions today in 2039.
We should take responsibility of our actions today because it will be our responsibility to clean it up, and after that our children, and then, our grandchildren.

We cannot completely stop Global Warming, it is a natural thing that happens about every hundred thousand years.
Many people think that it is silly to worry about Global Warming because it is a natural thing.
I agree that it would have happened anyway no matter what our actions, but I also believe that humans have made it worse and there is lots of evidence supporting this.

Reducing your carbon footprint might not do a lot, but if we all try to be more environmentally friendly then, together we can make a big difference and help to save our planet, Earth.

Thanks for reading this!

Well, since it’s a spoken talk your teacher is the only one who can say what you will get. There’s criteria you have to meet remember, like clarity, tone of voice, eye contact…etc
Check how many notes/cards you’re allowed to use =]
Be damn proud if you achieve a good grade =] Talks weren’t easy for me, they’re not easy for most people..
and, keep it thin[ish] with content as you don’t want to bore your audience lol xP
good luck =]
xx

Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Scientists in this section conclude that natural causes are likely more to blame than human activities for the observed rising temperatures.
•Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity…Ascribing ‘greenhouse’ effect properties to the Earth’s atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated…Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." (Russian News & Information Agency, Jan. 15, 2007 [9]) (See also [10], [11], [12])
•Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air." (Capitalism Magazine, August 22, 2002)[13] Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content." (Marshall Institute, March 25, 2003) [14]
•David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and botanist: "Global warming is a largely natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed."[15]
•Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Meterorology: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air." [16].
•Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown." (Telegraph, April 9, 2006 [17])
•George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation …, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities … . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible." (Environmental Geology, vol. 50 no. 6, August 2006 [18])
•Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. … We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly… solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle." (The Hill Times, March 22, 2004 [19])
•William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[20]) "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." [21]) "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[22])
•Yuri Izrael, vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming."[23]
•Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw: "The atmospheric temperature variations do not follow the changes in the concentrations of CO2 … climate change fluctuations comes … from cosmic radiation." (21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 2003-2004, p. 52-65 [24])
•David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming." (May 15, 2006 [25])
•Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, … solar activity, …; volcanism …; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned." (M. Leroux, Global Warming – Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120 [26])
•Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[27]
•Tim Patterson [28], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?" [29]
•Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate… It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it". [[30]]
•Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities." (Environment News, 2001 [31])
•Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. … [A]bout 2/3′s (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries. [32]
•Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." (Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 2005) [33] "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.", NCPA Study No. 279, Sep. 2005 [34]. “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.” (CBC’s Denial machine @ 19:23 – Google Video Link)
•Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here’s increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed." (Harvard University Gazette, 24 April 2003 [35])
•Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "…the myth is starting to implode. … Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor…" (Global Warming as Myth [36])
•Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team … has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. … most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover." [37]
•Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model …, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. … Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005. [38], [39])
[edit] Believe cause of global warming is unknown
Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.
•Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report, which states that “most” of the present warming (+0.7°C/100 years) is due to the greenhouse effect."[40]
•Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content." (Translation from the original French version in L’Express, May 10, 2006 [41])
•August H. "Augie" Auer Jr., retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist, past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming: "So if you multiply the total contribution 3.6 by the man-made portion of it, 3.2, you find out that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the the global greenhouse effect is 0.117 percent, roughly 0.12 percent, that’s like 12c in $100." "’It’s miniscule … it’s nothing,’". [42]
•Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and a professor of geography at Arizona State University: "[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. … At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models." (George C. Marshall Institute, Policy Outlook, September 2003[43])
•Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. … But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done." (The New Zealand Herald, May 9, 2006 [44])
•David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause–human or natural–is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria." (Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, December 6, 2006 [45])
•Richard Lindzen, Alfred Sloane Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But–and I cannot stress this enough–we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." [46] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed." (San Francisco Examiner, July 12, 2006 [47] and in Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006, Page A14)
•Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind." (George C. Marshall Institute Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy, April 17, 2006 [48])

Still convinced that this new religon is right?

I’ve always thought man-made global warming was crap… but it’s a big business now and a new way for governments to get money with "green Taxes"

When I was a geeky teenager, nearly 40 years ago and before global warming was heard of, I read of the ‘Maunder Minimum’, a period in our history when there were almost no sunspots. During these years our weather was much colder than usual with rivers such as the Thames freezing over in winter. The ice was so thick that people held ‘frost fairs’ on it!

Yet, since we have been able to measure the Suns output directly, it has not varied by more than 0.1%. Surely this means that, at least in the normal solar cycle, sunspots are irrelevant. Doesn’t it?

Many on here say that there is no man made global warming, that changes in the Sun are responsible and cite the current low sunspot activity as evidence of recent cooling.

Clearly, this cannot be true since solar output is virtually constant, (see above)…

…so what did happen during the Maunder Minimum?

Is there another explanation? Was the lack of sunspots a coincidence?… or a symptom of some change in the Sun.

————————–

I believe global warming is happening and that, since the industrial revolution, we are the main cause.

But I do find the question of variations in the Sun an interesting one.

If you can shed any light on this, especially the significance of sunspots, please do…
Evans michael ya, I’m afraid you are wrong on TSI.

Total Solar irradience does not just mean visible light, it means the whole electromagnetic spectrum.

Anyway, from reading your links, this is my understanding of the effect of solar variation on climate.

The theory is that cosmic rays (among other causes) seed clouds, which reflect a percentage of sunlight back into space, thereby having cooling effect on the planet. If the number of cosmic rays changes, cloud formation is affected, also the amount of cooling.

Changes in solar output (TSI), linked to sunspot numbers, cause changes in the strength of the solar wind, which changes the amount of cosmic rays from deep space that are hitting the Earth. The evidence for this is in the varying amounts of cosmic ray induced, Beryllium 10 isotopes produced and trapped in ice cores, which corresponds well with sunspot numbers recorded since 1610.
There is speculation that, during periods such as the Maunder Minimum, the Sun shows greater variation than the 0.1% as recorded by satellite observations, a figure of 0.5% to 0.8% being suggested. Given that the MM did occur, and was pre industrial, this seems to be a reasonable possibility, though at the moment there is no evidence to support this.

Astronomers are making observations of ‘sun like’ stars in an attempt to test this idea. So far, observations of the first ‘near identical’ star found, 18 Scorpii, suggest that the present behaviour of the Sun is completely normal! To date, a total of 5 ‘solar twins’ have been found, some of which may be in ‘Maunder Minimum’ phases. Observations are ongoing and will probably lead to a much better understanding of solar changes in the next few years.

http://www.astrobiology.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21892

Where the theory seems to run into difficulty is in the idea that cosmic rays are linked to cloud formation. I’ve had a quick search and there seems to be more against the idea than in support of it.

But even if it was true, can it explain the warming we have seen in recent decades?

From evans michael ya‘s 1st link, (the Lowell Observatory blog).

‘Our understanding of the role of solar variations in climate change is based largely upon observations of the Sun’s total brightness variability. As those of you who follow these things know, the 0.1% variation in solar brightness over the course of its activity cycle does not impart sufficient radiative forcing to account for climate change since about the mid 20th century; another, presumably anthropogenic, signal must be present.
…and from a link on that blog, (the solar stellar spectrograph).

‘In studying solar influences on climate, therefore, I am not interested in making Texaco happy, and I am not interested in making Al Gore happy. I’ll publish whatever the data tell me, and my recent stellar observations suggest that from an astronomical standpoint at least, Al (Gore) is correct in pointing the finger at human activities as an increasingly important component of climate change.’

Finally, here is the sunspot history since 1870…

http://www.uma.pt/Investigacao/Astro/Grupo/Sextas_astronomicas/Sexta14/144051main_ButterflyDiagramLG.jpg

I’m sure you will agree, solar activity has been steady for at least 70 years. If the Sun was the main, or only, influence on our climate, there would have been no warming over this period, cosmic rays or not!

…and a graph that speaks for itself!

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

After much thought, I am going to give best answer to evans_michael_ya, mainly for the link to the Lowell observatory. I got much from this link, also the links it lead to.

Having said that, I could not find anything to back up the idea that ultraviolet variability is much larger than the total variability. To be honest, this sounds rather contrived and, in the absense of evidence, I just don’t believe it!

I think Dana’81 has summed up the situation correctly as regards present and historical warming. What ever happened during the Maunder Minimum was natural but natural processes are unable to account for what is happening today.

Another good answer; the soup and darkness from Linlyons.

Thank you both and thanks to everyone else for your answers.

If anyone can provide more evidence for the cosmic ray or ultraviolet variability theories, please do this via the comments.

…or is there no evidence apart from the need to oppose the idea of man made global warming?

Actually, that .1% variation is just variation in visible light (TSI). Here’s a link discussing the flaw with using TSI to dismiss the sun’s role in climate change:

http://www.lowell.edu/blog/?p=89

"In an opening keynote talk, Judith Lean of NRL reviewed the status of solar irradiance variability models relative to the latest observations of the total solar irradiance (TSI) as measured by SORCE. Judith made a number of points, but to my mind, here’s the central one. Our understanding of the role of solar variations in climate change is based largely upon observations of the Sun’s total brightness variability. As those of you who follow these things know, the 0.1% variation in solar brightness over the course of its activity cycle does not impart sufficient radiative forcing to account for climate change since about the mid 20th century; another, presumably anthropogenic, signal must be present. Here’s the critical twist: the spectral distribution of the Sun’s cyclic variability is quite different depending on where you look in the spectrum. In particular, the ultraviolet variability is much, much larger than the total variability — a few tens of percent — and the UV radiation significantly affects the stratosphere, in ways that are poorly understood. The next avenue for real progress in Sun-climate relationships lies in breaking down the total irradiance variation into its spectral components, and beginning to understand what effects they have on climate. We are just now starting to assemble the observations, which must be done from space, to address this issue."

Evidence solar UV radiation variability and coronal holes are affecting Earth’s atmosphere found here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215184317.htm

"While extreme ultraviolet radiation from the sun is the dominant mechanism that causes the thermosphere to "breathe," the new CU-Boulder study indicates high-speed wind from the sun triggers independent breathing episodes by creating geomagnetic disturbances, heating the thermosphere and altering its density. The wind streams are generated by relatively cool pockets on the sun’s surface known as solar coronal holes that periodically rotate around the sun’s surface, said Thayer.

"We were surprised to find the density changes were so consistent in our observations," said Thayer, lead study author. "Because of the huge increase in satellite activity in recent years, finding this new thermosphere breathing mechanism should help improve our models and increase the accuracy satellite tracking and collision avoidance.""

We are currently at a solar minimum between solar cycles 23 and 24…one of the quietest seen in several cycles. Just as you were taught about the ‘Maunder Minimum’, we are currently living in ‘The Modern Maximum’: The most active period of solar activity seen in over a thousand years. The current silence from ol’ Sol suggest this period of extreme solar activity may be waning. If so, expect cooler than average temps to prevail over the next few decades.

"Claus finds that right now, near the dead minimum between solar cycle 23 and 24, the Sun is fainter than it was between the 1996 minimum of cycles 22 and 23. This is hugely important, since identifying changes in the solar brightness at minimum, when the Sun is mostly or entirely free of “active” features like sunspots, is perhaps the critical observation for determining whether the Sun is growing steadily brighter or fainter on the long term. Even more interesting, my preliminary analysis of my 2007 spectroscopic observations of the Sun show the same thing…it looks like the current minimum is lower than the last one." -same link as first

Yes it is really accurate. However, who cares??????

This is absurd because Carbon-14 dating is not used to prove ANY of the claims your article says C-14 dating is used for. It is not used to date the Earth’s origin, as it can only be used for the past 60,000 years. It is not used by evolutionists to prove evolution. It is not used for any of this. Your article actually says that C14 dating can be used to date things that are millions of years old- yet no scientific claims have ever been made dating anything with C-14 for more than 60,000 years. This is a bald-faced lie. It simply can’t be done. Your article is complete bull and any true Christian would be ashamed of spreading such untruth.

You are doing nothing more than tilting at windmills. No one with any scientific knowledge will pay you any attention, because your own article states that it has no proof of Creationism, when it says "those that point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions. "

Mostly those that point to a young earth rely on ignorance (which includes ignorance of the Bible).

The religion that is afraid of science dishoners God and commits suicide.
–Ralph Waldo Emerson

Yeah, I drafted up a batteryman deck, and realised it was terrible. So I’m asking for a bit of help to make it half-way decent. Cheers.

Monsters – 22

3x Batteryman AA
3x Batteryman D
3x Batteryman Micro-Cell
1x Batteryman Industrial Strength
3x Batteryman Charger
1x Super-Electromagnetic Voltech Dragon
1x Hamon, Lord of Striking Thunder
1x Guardian of Order
1x Shining Angel
1x Barrier Statue of the Heavens
1x Radiant Spirit
1x Big Eye
1x Man-Eater Bug
1x Sangan

Spells – 20

2x Short Circuit
2x Quick Charger
2x Battery Charger
3x Electro-Whip
1x Luminous Spark
1x Umi
1x Inferno Reckless Summon
1x Burial from a Different Dimension
1x Monster Reborn
1x Level Limit – Area B
1x Banner of Courage
1x Infinite Cards
1X Gravekeeper’s Servant
1X Swords of Concealing Light
1X Soul Absorption

Traps – 8

2x Portable Battery Pack
1x Solar Ray
1x Gift of the Mystical Elf
1x Seven Tools of the Bandit
1x Magic Jammer
1x Radiant Mirror Force
1x Gravity Bind

Your deck isn’t that bad but there is some cards that you dont really need. I have a batteryman deck too and whats missing that could help you is Morphing Jar and The Calculator, also for a summon you can use Level Limit. I made my deck a deadly combo by tributing a Batteryman AA for Batteryman Charger and special summon a Betteryman AA and use like Level Limit or Battery Charger, then use short circuit to clear their field and attack for 6700 directly. I hope that helps.

Will this lead to the end of big-budget, blockbuster movies and the end of action movies. Will they be replaced by smaller, more family-friendly films that don’t require a huge amount of money and resources to produce?

By GARY GENTILE, AP Business Writer

LOS ANGELES – From "green carpets" at awards shows to organic fruit
served to actors on sets, Hollywood is going all out to promote itself
as being environmentally hip.

But is it all just show?

No amount of public service announcements or celebrities driving
hybrid cars can mask the fact that movie and TV production is a gritty
industrial operation, consuming enormous amounts of power to feed
bright lights, run sophisticated cameras, and feed a cast of
thousands.

Studios’ back lots host cavernous soundstages that must be air-
conditioned to counter the heat produced by decades-old lighting
technology. Huge manufacturing facilities consume wood, steel, paint
and plastic to build sets that are often torn down and tossed out
after filming ends.

The energy guzzling continues on the exhibition side, too, with
multiplexes drawing millions of kilowatts to power old-school popcorn
makers and clunky film projectors that cash-strapped theater owners
are reluctant to replace.

A two-year study released last year by the University of California at
Los Angeles concluded that special effects explosions, idling vehicles
and diesel generators make the entertainment industry a major Southern
California polluter, second only to the oil industry.

Still, financial and public pressures have resulted in many studios
expanding their environmental efforts, doing everything from using a
biodiesel fuel mixture to run the generators on the set of the Fox
show "24" to converting Warner Bros.’ enormous set-building facility
to solar energy.

"Public consciousness on this issue has changed dramatically," said
Kyle Tanger, a principal at Clear Carbon Consulting. "The talent
themselves are requesting it from some of the studios. And a lot of
these things make economic sense."

Economic benefit can come to studios directly, by switching to more
efficient lighting or cooling systems or driving hybrid cars on
location, which can save gas. Other projects, such as installing solar
power, can take decades to pay off.

But there are other benefits that are harder to quantify. Besides the
public relations angle, many performers and other employees want to
work with eco-friendly companies, so it also helps in recruiting and
retaining employees, Tanger said.

Form and function merged at this year’s Primetime Emmy Awards show.

To symbolize its commitment to energy conservation, Fox had wanted to
replace the traditional red carpet with a green one.

The tradition-bound Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, which
gives the awards, politely said "no."

But the carpet that ended up cushioning the heels of such stars as
Sally Field and America Ferrera was made from recycled plastic bottles
and later cut into pieces and donated to several local schools.

"No doubt some efforts have been window dressing. But I actually think
Hollywood is doing far more than people are giving it credit for,"
said Terry Tamminen, who served as an adviser to Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger before starting his own environmental consulting
company.

One convenient yet controversial method is the purchase of carbon
credits by studios and producers to offset the greenhouse gases from
their production activity. The credits attempt to counter such
pollution by investing in environmentally friendly projects such as
planting trees or funding wind power.

Studios and a growing number of other industries calculate their
emissions, then write a check to one of several brokers who funnel the
money to projects around the world. The goal is to become carbon
neutral by funding activities that reduce an equal amount of
emissions.

The 2004 Fox film "The Day After Tomorrow" and last year’s Al Gore
documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" offset all or some of their
pollution. This year’s "Evan Almighty," from Universal, donated money
to the Conservation Fund to plant 2,000 trees, enough to "zero out"
the greenhouse gases produced.

But the practice has come under fire by some who say it is an easy way
to avoid the hard work of directly reducing pollution. Others question
whether carbon credit payments are actually going to projects that
make that much of a difference.

"If you’re going to drive around in a big ol’ Hummer and then buy
carbon offsets to mitigate that, that’s like getting drunk on the
weekends and throwing some money through the window of an AA meeting
and thinking you’re doing something," said Ed Begley Jr., who was a
poster child for energy conservation long before Al Gore made it
trendy.

The Federal Trade Commission, meanwhile, has begun examining claims
made by the nascent multimillion-dollar carbon credit industry.

Warner Bros., which bought carbon credits for the 2005 film "Syriana,"
has also become more aggressive at reducing emissions during all
phases of production.

In addition to solar-powered set-building, the studio is recycling
sets, using recycled plastic lumber in the construction of some
buildings, and printing double-sided scripts where feasible.

Pieces built for the 2001 film "Ocean’s 11" now sit in the Santa
Monica offices of the National Resources Defense Council. Sets from
this year’s sequel "Ocean’s 13" were donated to decorate the halls of
local community colleges.

"You have to start by measuring your own footprint, then reducing it,
whether through using alternative fuels, reducing electrical loads or
combining trips," said Shelley Billick, vice president of
environmental initiatives at Warner Bros. Entertainment. "It’s too
easy to write a check, pay thousands of dollars and say, ‘I’m climate
neutral.’"

Last year, Fox parent News Corp. set a goal of being carbon neutral by
2010.

To further that goal, Fox Broadcasting chose its popular "24" series
as a case study and to serve as a model for other television
productions.

Diesel generators that power the show’s lighting were switched to a
mixture that uses 5 percent biodiesel fuel. That percentage will be
increased in coming years. The show also has secured energy from solar
and wind generation from a local utility for its soundstages.

But News Corp. has a more ambitious goal than simply reducing its own
carbon emissions.

"We knew from the beginning that if our goal is to make as many carbon
reductions in the world as possible, probably the best way we can do
that is through our audiences," said Rachel Webber, director of energy
initiatives for News Corp.

The company concluded that worldwide, it produced the equivalent of
641,150 tons of carbon dioxide. But a rough estimate revealed that the
people who read its newspapers, watch its TV shows and browse its Web
sites use about 7 billion tons.

"That’s the greatest potential to reduce carbon, but we have to get
our own house in order first," Webber said.

To reach the wider audience, Webber and a climate expert from Harvard
University met with show writers and executive producers earlier this
year to brainstorm on ways to integrate environmental messages into
show plots.

But Webber said Fox is not forcing "tacked on" messages into its
shows, but rather offering resources should writers choose to address
the issue.

"We can’t use this in a way that doesn’t fit into the show," Webber
said. "It can’t be Jack Bauer driving in a car he otherwise wouldn’t
drive in."

Ultimately, any steps Hollywood takes, big or small, to reduce
emissions are positive, Begley said. "There are different shades of
green."

Hollywood phonies are only doing it for publicity like throwing a concert causing more pollution and damage to the environment and to global warming with the people at the concert there was litter, energy for the lighting amps booths etc, energy for the TVs to watch it, gas to drive there car emissions, etc.

Monsters:
3 Batteryman AA
3 Batteryman C
2 Batteryman Charger
2 Batteryman D
1 Batteryman Industrial Strength
2 Batteryman Micro-Cell
1 Cyber Dragon
2 Rai-Mei
2 Shining Angel
1 Blue Thunder T-45
2 Zaborg the Thunder Monarch
1 Honest
2 Super-Electromagnetic Voltech Dragon
1 Cyber Valley

Spells:
3 Short Circuit
2 Quick Charger
2 Battery Charger
2 Electro-Whip
2 Recycling Batteries
2 Lightning Vortex
2 Light of Redemption

Traps:
1 Ultimate Offering
2 Scrap-Iron Scarecrow
1 Solar Ray
1 Beckoning Light
2 Ray of Hope
2 Dust Tornado
1 Judgment of Thunder
2 Portable Battery Pack

Im thinking of constructing this deck so please suggest some improvements. I’ve used this on YVD and had many successes but i dont have much cash so please suggest some cheap alternatives to cards in this deck.

i have this one turn kill deck.
ditch these cards
cyber dragon
blue thunder
cyber valley
both zaborg
honest
1 voltech dragon
1 rai mai
both ray of hope
beckoning light
solar ray
ultimate offering
1 lightning vortex
both electro whip
all batteryman Cs

put in
1 shining angel
2 industrail strength
1 micro cell
1 charger
3 inferno reckless summon.

with these cards u use the following combo
special summon 1 AA with micro cell, charger, shinning angel. activate inferno reckless summon to get 2 more AAs all end up with 3000atk
short circ their field. atk for game. it works so fast nearly every time.