Sorry to interrupt...this will only take a moment.
This site is an independent reader-supported project.
Because you have viewed at least a few articles now...
Can you give a small donation to keep us online?
We can give you e-books and audiobooks and stuff.
This site is an independent reader-supported project.
The cost of keeping it running are considerable.
If you can spare a few dollars it would help us enormously.
We can give you e-books and audiobooks and stuff.
×
×
Experimental Feature

Select 'Atmospheric Audio' from the Audio menu to add subtle background audio to certain portions of the article.

The Peculiar Phenomenon of Megacryometeors

Article #162 • Written by Alan Bellows

Hail, in and of itself, is not an unusual weather phenomenon. The frozen precipitation occurs inside storm clouds when water droplets are cooled below freezing, yet remain in a liquid state. When the supercooled water encounters something solid, such as a speck of dust or an ice crystal, it sticks to the particle and freezes. Updrafts in the storm keep the hailstone aloft as it aggregates ice, growing until its weight is too heavy for the updraft, at which time it plunges to the Earth.

Some scientists believe that there is a larger, more sinister type of ice-chunk precipitation which can form outside of storms, making even the largest hailstones look puny in comparison. There is a great deal of disagreement in the scientific community regarding the origin of these falling slabs of ice, but it is certain that something is causing massive frozen chunks to occasionally drop from seemingly empty skies. The objects are called megacryometeors.

The term was coined by researcher Jesús Martínez-Frías, a planetary geologist from Madrid, Spain. In the year 2000, he investigated a series of such mystery ice meteors which began with a four-and-a-half pound object that smashed through the windshield of parked car in the city of Tocina. It fell out of a clear, sunny sky in January. Soon there were reports of similar incidents in the surrounding area, which continued at irregular intervals for about a week before they stopped as mysteriously as they had started.

Over the past decade, over fifty such objects have been recorded worldwide. Some have been as small as about one pound, but one monstrous mass of ice that fell in Brazil weighed about 400 pounds-- almost a quarter of a ton-- and crashed through the roof of a Mercedes-Benz factory. One recently made headlines in Oakland, California, weighing over 200 pounds and creating a dent in the Earth three feet deep. A similar event occurred in Chicago last February, crashing through the roof of a house.

Martínez-Frías led the research on the objects in Spain, examining the ice and impact sites from multiple megacryometeors. The ice was found to be free of urine, feces, and disinfecting solutions, so it was determined that its source was not an airplane's frozen waste water. In fact, at the times of several of the events, the official records of air traffic control showed no airplanes in the skies over the areas in question. The makeup of the ice was vastly different from that of comets, so an extraterrestrial original was ruled out. But the composition of the frozen water did bear a very striking resemblance to that of a well-known weather phenomenon: hail.

The mysterious ice blobs, like hail, have been found to contain air bubbles, onion-like layering, and traces of ammonia and silica. The icy objects also have isotopic distributions of oxygen-18 and deuterium similar to those found in hailstones. Aside from their surprising mass and their tendency to plunge one-at-a-time from clear skies, the ice balls are almost identical to hail. Adding further intrigue to the investigation, it was discovered that there were several peculiar conditions in the high atmosphere over Spain that day: ozone levels were lower than normal, causing the troposphere to be particularly warm and the stratosphere to be particularly cold... also, the lower stratosphere was more humid than usual, and there was strong wind shear in the upper atmosphere.

Martínez-Frías and his team speculate that these meteorological ingredients may have worked together to create a situation where ice balls formed high in the atmosphere, aggregating ice as they descended until they grew to enormous size. They believe that the recent increase in the frequency of these megacryometeors worldwide may be due to the effects of global warming.

A possible megacryometeor which hit a Chicago home in February 2006
A possible megacryometeor which hit a Chicago home in February 2006

Many scientists are skeptical of the notion that these ice chunks are atmospheric conglomerations. Their most likely source, according to some, is passing aircraft. It may be that rainwater collects on the fuselage of aircraft, freezes during flight, and then becomes dislodged and falls to the Earth. Although Martínez-Frías was unable to find evidence of passing aircraft during the times of several events, it is possible that the flight-control records do not include all military and private aircraft.

Another possible explanation is that Martínez-Frías and his team have been duped by an elaborate hoax, but that seems unlikely given the numerous megacryometeor events which have occurred worldwide over a span of many years. Consider also Brazil's 400-pound behemoth... such an ice ball would be exceedingly difficult to create and deliver without spending a great deal of money and drawing some attention. Another factor ruling out a hoax is that such ice-meteor events have been recorded (though with much less frequency) since times before aircraft were invented.

Whether or not you subscribe to the idea that humankind can have such a serious impact on our planet's weather systems, it is certain that the hail-from-hell theory is worth investigating. Regardless of the cause, it is vaguely alarming to consider that on occasion, very large chunks of ice can fall out of a clear blue sky without explanation. Even more troubling, it seems to be happening more and more.

Article written by Alan Bellows, published on 13 April 2006. Alan is the founder/designer/head writer/managing editor of Damn Interesting.

Article design and artwork by Alan Bellows.
SHARE

More Information
Related Articles


93 Comments
blademonki
Posted 14 April 2006 at 12:29 am

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TUiP6dqPynE

An interesting trailer for a probably interesting film about humans affecting extreme weather conditions.

Wonder if they mention these...


Furnace
Posted 14 April 2006 at 03:43 am

If one of those should hit a person... What a way to go.


Crispy
Posted 14 April 2006 at 03:56 am

That would be crazy. "Man struck down by freak ice chunk".

Still, the chances have to be miniscule compared to, say, being struck by lightning.


ForestGrump
Posted 14 April 2006 at 05:06 am

That ice ball on the very top (upper right)
is that 15 cm scale, or 1.5 cm or 0.15 cm? cause if its 15 cm, and my rough estimation. the thing is about 2 feet in diameter!


Sandra Thurston
Posted 14 April 2006 at 08:31 am

I'm sure glad I missed the one in Brazil...phewww, that was close:)


TexasExplorer
Posted 14 April 2006 at 08:39 am

Once, when I was a child, I was walking through a forest on a clear summer day in Texas when I heard the sound of something crashing through the leafless tree limbs in two distinct locations to my 5 o,clock position.

I turned around to see what was causing the commotion and saw a disturbance some 50 feet away where I saw fragments of white around the base of a tall tree. I went to see what had happened and there on the ground, on a 75F, clear day, there were several small chunks of ice and amongst them another larger chunk the size of a football. About 20 feet further on, there was another group of small chunks, but I had the biggest and it was a big hit with my friends until it completely melted a couple of hours later. Good thing there wasn't an alien virus attached to that thing...I would have been responsible for every face-sucking alien attached to kids' heads all over the neighborhood.

Anyway, when I saw this posting, it brought back that memory and I just wanted to share it. :)


captknish
Posted 14 April 2006 at 09:23 am

Try not to get caught up in the global warming hysteria.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220


Anthony Kendall
Posted 14 April 2006 at 11:31 am

Captknish,
Global warming is not hysteria, it's a fact. Even hard-line critics accept that the Earth is, in fact, warming. The only thing that is debated by the politicos in the United States is whether or not humans are the cause of it. Scientists have through thousands upon thousands of rigorous studies come to the firm conclusion that humans are indeed causing global warming. For them the only debate is how much the Earth will warm.

Citing a Wall Stree Journal opinion page editorial about a scientific topic is a bit like citing a People Magazine article about investment strategies: sure, the writer may have some interest in the topic but they have absolutely no credibility.


blainemonster
Posted 14 April 2006 at 11:33 am

Hmmm...sounds like this sort of thing might get worse eventually. "From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible." Revelation 16:21 When I was a kid that used to seem outlandish, but now...


Phill
Posted 14 April 2006 at 01:04 pm

Nice article, very neat, wish I could just call these ice chunks on demand to knock people out :P.

@blainemonster:
Are you sure it said a "hundred pounds"? I haven't read the Revelations but I never new it had the Imperial system in it. [ Just weird if it did :-/ ]


NewEvolution
Posted 14 April 2006 at 02:11 pm

@ Phill - I'm sure the weight was translated as the rest of the bible was. It probably said "cubits" or something, except that's linear measure. I'm still not sure why Noah's ark's scale has resisted translation...

In any event, I now have yet another bit of mostly useless trivia to astound my friends with. Thanks DI!


JMW
Posted 14 April 2006 at 04:17 pm

A book on Historical Geology gives some insight into the earth's climate changes !!


captknish
Posted 14 April 2006 at 06:09 pm

Anthony,

Sorry, sounds like I hit a nerve. Yes, I was just citing one article, but I get tired of people blindly stating facts with nothing to back them up. All I ask of these harbingers of doom is show your work so that we can have a real debate. Take the emotion out of it. Why does it matter if the earth is warming? Is it just part of a normal cycle? Just give me something to go on. I can be persuaded. What the hell do I know anyway?
Regards - Knish


Oax
Posted 14 April 2006 at 07:14 pm

here's a fact. The administration and those friendly to it have been advised to refer to global warming as "Global climate change" because it casts some doubt on warming. Watch for it, you'll see.


Crispy
Posted 14 April 2006 at 07:23 pm

captknish said: "[...] Why does it matter if the earth is warming? [...]"

A warmer Earth -> ice caps melt; also sea becomes less dense and so takes up more volume -> sea levels rise -> densely populated areas get flooded -> people die.

It has been observed the icecaps are already melting faster than before:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4228411.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4290340.stm
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/qthinice.asp
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article345926.ece
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm
... I could go on but you get the point.

The amount by which the sea level will rise is a disputed subject, but even a dozen centimetres by 2100 (which is a conservative estimate according to the International Panel on Climate Change) would be bad, and some people predict a rise of nearly a metre by then.

Certainly there's no point panicking, but it would be a bad idea to sit idle until we're absolutely sure. By that time it might be too late.


Marius
Posted 14 April 2006 at 07:30 pm

I watched that trailer the other day, and while I won't profess to be an environmental expert, nor do I have a strong opinion on the source of global warming, Al Gore's scare tactics are hardly warrented. Yes, if the ice caps melted sea level would raise dramatically, but not all at once, and certainly not quickly enough to kill millions. I would really love it if this issue ceased to be political and was left to scientists to figure out.

As for the megacryometeors, I think it's just God and Satan having a snowball fight. ;-)


Cynthia Wood
Posted 14 April 2006 at 09:01 pm

No urine or waste materials. Now we know for sure that they aren't icy BMs!

Sorry, couldn't resist. Really interesting, and something I hadn't heard about at all.


wileybot
Posted 14 April 2006 at 09:39 pm

In regards to the ice caps melting, the issue isnt just the rise in the water levels but the salinity.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

counterpoint: heres a guy with a frozen beard thast says its not a big deal.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3210/03-ask.html


USNSPARKS
Posted 14 April 2006 at 10:06 pm

Phill, careful what you wish for guy. If you could do that what's to say they couldn't do even worse to you.


Jeremy
Posted 14 April 2006 at 10:42 pm

Even barring Waterworld scenarios, increased warmth of the oceans leads to stronger and more frequent hurricanes. Not something I'm too excited to see, living here in Florida.


Arcangel
Posted 15 April 2006 at 01:44 am

captknish said: "Try not to get caught up in the global warming hysteria.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220"

If you watched the CBS 60 minutes program a few weeks ago you would have saw James Hansen, the WORLD's leading scientist on global warming who just happens to work for the US government. He states that if nothing is done to reverse this melting within 10 years it will be too late to stop it at all. His own government (Bush) is censoring what he writes and says. You still on the fence about this then read the article I have linked to watch the video of that portion of the show which is contained on the site.

[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml[/url]


ShenWolf
Posted 15 April 2006 at 07:32 am

I have to throw in my two cents worth here.
A) It is fairly commonly accepted in the scientific circles that the entire solar system has been energetically increasing, i.e. warming up, most likely due to an active sun. (That thing does put out a good bit of heat, you know) Please do not insult what little intelligence we have by insinuating that our SUV's are warming up Saturn.
B) Yes, a lot of ice is melting at the ocean, however the ice caps are actually thickening. What the actual net effect of the two contradicting actions is I cannot say though.
C) A large amount of the ocean warming is due to underwater volcanic activity, which is also well known. I don't think we did that either.
D) There are scientists that say global warming can cause an ice age. How ironic would that be?

Yes, the Earth and the rest of the Solar System is warming up. I don't think it is all our fault. I am sure that we aren't helping it out any here on Terra Firma, but let's keep it in perspective here; the earth is a really, really big place. The air sucks in our cities. Head out to Montana. Only mankind is so egotistical as to think we can make that much of a difference in the scheme of things. As George Carlin was so apt to point out, we aren't killing the earth, we're killing ourselves. No matter what we do, a billion years from now the earth can repair itself unless we just blow the whole thing up. We just won't be around to see it.


Nastimann
Posted 15 April 2006 at 03:19 pm

Here's a simple experiment you can do: Put several ice cubes in a glass. Fill it to the brim with water. Does the the water overflow when the ice melts? I guess the remaining question is, how much of the planet's ice is not floating, but sitting on solid ground? That's the only ice that would increase the sea level when it melts.

There is some evidence that the planet is warming, but we have not established a cause. All we have are hypotheses and computer models. Nor have we ruled out all measurement errors. I write software for a living, and I know first-hand how unbelieveably complex computer modeling is, even for simple problems. Climate has thousands of times the number of variables (and we don't even know what they all are) -- than far more trivial modeling problems, which turn out to be unreliable even with the best input data and results analysis. Be vewwy vewwy skeptical.


Xiphos
Posted 15 April 2006 at 06:27 pm

Anthony Kendall said: ". . . Citing a Wall Stree Journal opinion page editorial about a scientific topic is a bit like citing a People Magazine article about investment strategies: sure, the writer may have some interest in the topic but they have absolutely no credibility."

I noticed the author referring to himself as one of the scientists allegedly "bullied" by Al Gore, so I looked up his name. Here:

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

Frankly, I'm still making up my mind about the whole thing. It's easy to believe something simply because of the focus or counter-focus everybody else seems to have about it. That, and I'm naturally skeptical.

As for the ice-balls . . . I wish I could pull a prank like that! I'd be interesed to know what distance from the ice-impact Martínez-Frías looked for airplanes. I find it extremely unlikely that a 400-pound ice chunk attached to a plane would go unnoticed or unreported, but I could see how ice could build up on a plane and eventually get jolted loose.


Jono
Posted 15 April 2006 at 07:03 pm

The sky is falling!
Sorry... the whole "hysteria" debate and the article about falling ice made me think of it.

I think that whether or not we are directly causing global warming, it's tough to argue that pollution isn't a bad thing. Just because pollutants aren't melting the polar ice caps, it doesn't mean they arent poisoning all kinds of life (wildlife AND humans). We shouldn't even argue about the cause of global warming, we should just pollute less.


David2006
Posted 16 April 2006 at 06:56 am

You are blind!

The important thing is not if a plaussible scientific hypothesis exists or what the scientists think or indicate.
The important thing is that it is happening.

"But they do fall"


Alan Bellows
Posted 18 April 2006 at 01:10 pm

Dr. Jesus Martinez-Frias wrote me to say:

Thanks a lot for your very good article about megacryometeors. I just wanted to say Hi! and also inform you that, regarding the aircraft, we are also considering that the contrail particles and/or atmospheric instabilities occasioned by the aircraft (for instance perturbations which can modify the metastable situation of an atmospheric water vapor system) can also be linked with the formation of the ice nuclei. [snip]

Good additional info... thanks Professor.


paradox
Posted 21 April 2006 at 07:38 pm

Good discussion going on here, first one in a while that has nothing to do with canadians.

Anyway, why must we ruin our world ? sniff sniff :(


iced
Posted 21 April 2006 at 07:58 pm

One of these blobs came rocketing through the skies today in the N.W. suburbs of Chicago. My son said he heard a loud strange hissing/whirring noise and looked up to see a white object flash horizontally across the sky over the yard. It had a vapor trail behind it. He said it looked like a white plastic bag was following it. When we found it, the impact had left a dent in the freshly mowed yard. It broke into two pieces with some splattering and appeared to have a clean hole through it where the pieces had separated.

We assumed that it was debris from an aircraft landing gear that broke loose when it was deployed, so we didn't keep it or photo it. In retrospect, the angle of impact was shallow, and its speed too fast, as if it had come in skipping across the atmosphere. It would have dropped more vertically if it was from local aircraft.


iced
Posted 21 April 2006 at 09:21 pm

Let's say that global warming is truly caused by an increase in CO2 emissions (for one), and eventually a thick hazy canopy of warm airborn moisture (clouds) forms that keeps heat from escaping the Earth's surface at the rate that it does today, melting ice caps, raising coastlines, etc., until some temperate uniformity eventually exists ... and vegetation drastically increases from CO2 consumption in an ideal growing climate, and rainfall is more frequent, widespread and abundant to even water the deserts ...

Let's also assume for a silly moment that most of the carbon buried in the earth was either organic or atmospheric at one time in the past ... as so much evidence reveals. (Just look at crude oil yourself, or visit a coal mine some time. ... all those soupy fish scales and petrified vegetation fragments) ... and we eventually burn it all for fuel ... making it airborn and available for more organic life.

Then perhaps a world-wide flood that destroyed all non-equatic life, but for a few paranoid ship builders, is plausable, and the earth is naturally going back to its previous state when the direct sun was shielded from sight (ergo: no rainbows), the earth was lush with vegetation that was like a firmament above the water which covered the mineral-rich firmament below it (hydroponia maximus), and this new world-wide garden was rich, uniform and abundant ... and folks didn't need to wear much clothing because their climate was pleasant, never changing ...

Stop! This doesn't match the evolutionist's 'From Goo, to Zoo, to You' - and- 'Live like a Hog, Die like a Dog' philosophy, does it.

No, it appears to be more like the natural road back to Eden.

Instead of random disorder somehow creating order out of itself - then going back to disorder because of the random acts of evil mankind; declared as fact by this same evil mankind, we have a natural restoration of a created order that was documented long ago by a scribe that gained audience to a Superior Intellect, but conveniently called myth.

Now if we could just get ourselves out of the back seat of that stale-smelling old bus driven by bureacratic pseudoscientists fueled by porky government grants ... we could enjoy the pleasant view that they are trying so hard to obscure with such tall, silly and evolving tales of evolution, that never really add up to match the overwhelming evidence we see around us.

imho, there is nothing new under the sun and contemporary science has become the boxing ring of the unobservant.


rp2
Posted 25 April 2006 at 11:36 am

pshh, screw that. lets just blame canada


floridagirl
Posted 28 April 2006 at 03:45 pm

Ok...new here, but I have to say something about this. I have been living in south Florida for 25 years. We have a very fragile eco-system here. The beaches are disappearing due to rising ocean waters. This is a fact. Come on down to Hollywood Beach and you can see that the condos that were built with lots of beach in front of them can now fish from their windows. The Florida Keys have hardly any beaches left at all. Go down there and see for yourself.

Thunderstorms used to happen during rainy season at 3pm. This is become less and less.

I don't have to tell you about the increase in hurricanes and hurricane strength. Wilma, which hit my county last year had the lowest pressure ever recorded. Guess what? One just hit Australia with an even lower pressure.

Those in the know have been screaming about this since the 60's. You can chose to ignore it. You can chose to do nothing about it. If you don't live on the coast, you may, one day soon, find that you do.

As for the ice in the glass...cute. I did those experiments with my kids when they were little. Most of the ice pack is on the land. It also reflects the heat back into the atmosphere. When there is no ice, the water just absorbs the heat making bigger and badder hurricanes, etc.

Wait until it affects you - then you will understand.


rp2
Posted 24 May 2006 at 12:16 pm

yeah sure

solution- move


havoc
Posted 27 May 2006 at 01:29 pm

@Phill:

TEV states it this way:

Huge hailstones, each weighing as much as fifty kilogrammes, fell from the sky on people, who cursed
God on account of the plague of hail, because it was such a terrible plague.

And since a kilogram is 2.2 lbs, 50 x 2.2 = 110lbs; pretty close to the 100 lbs blainemonster mentioned.


honus
Posted 11 July 2006 at 09:06 pm

More Megacryometeor stories and links here:

http://www.megacryometeors.com/


Bloodyvelvetdagger
Posted 21 October 2006 at 07:54 am

I find that the "Hysteria" about "Global climate change" to be slightly insulting. That something as small as few hundred SUV's could change anything let alone the entire Universal "climate". The planet has had warming and cooling trends sense the big bang and any warming that is happening is too minute to even worry about, something like 00.03%. It's most likey that the sun is expanding and that is subsequently heating everthing else, the argument that the Human race is so poweful that it can radically change nature is egotistical. $ But thats just my two cents $


Tink
Posted 13 November 2006 at 03:53 am

mystery ice meteors fell out of a clear, sunny sky in January.over fifty such objects have been recorded worldwide.The ice was found to be free of urine, feces, and disinfecting solutions, .ice blobs contain traces of ammonia and silica. it is certain that the hail-from-hell theory is worth investigating.

Some people who believe in hell, say that it is cold.
Some people believe witches tits are cold.
Some people might think this is satanic witch shit.
Some people might think I am serious about this shit.
Thats both scary and profoundly sad.
LOL


gsd750
Posted 19 January 2007 at 05:51 am

Bloodyvelvetdagger said: "I find that the "Hysteria" about "Global climate change" to be slightly insulting. That something as small as few hundred SUV's could change anything let alone the entire Universal "climate". The planet has had warming and cooling trends sense the big bang and any warming that is happening is too minute to even worry about, something like 00.03%. It's most likey that the sun is expanding and that is subsequently heating everthing else, the argument that the Human race is so poweful that it can radically change nature is egotistical. $ But thats just my two cents $"

The first time I travelled to the US it was to work at the outskirts Houston. Looking out the window, I asked one of the locals if the big nasty brown haze that covered the whole city was smog. To which he replied, yeah it's from all the cars, it ain't so bad at weekends.

Not only was I shocked at the fact the whole place was shrouded in a cloud of pollution, but even more that it was accepted as totally normal. So it seems a few hundred SUV's can, and do, make a difference.


Dr. Evil
Posted 19 January 2007 at 06:14 am

if one of these landed near me i would hope i was wearing brown pants at the time...HOLY CRAP!!!...mind you you would have to be pretty damn unlucky ( or have recently touched an ancient, cursed sarchophagus) to be hit by a massive ice meteor


wargammer2005
Posted 19 January 2007 at 07:57 am

global warming caused by humans is a nice myth

the earth was warmer 800 years ago thant it is now

also the earth was warmmer and colder at different periods of history

and the sarah desert used to be a garden, was that people to?


Admiral_Dread
Posted 19 January 2007 at 08:20 am

-- I just noticed a comment above me, Sarah desert being farm and wood land? True, but a bad example, because the reason it became a desert wasteland is because humans overgrazed and over used the land, destroying the roots and other good stuff needed to keep the ground anchored, mother nature took its course after that, but we were the ones to jump start the event. --

"After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today."

In the Wall Street Journal opinion page, I thought it was rather amusing when I read it.
Really funny when you consider our defense spending, which could be said to have been increased because of some alarmism.
I did have a page that did a better job citing the sources, but this has similar numbers, and if you want you can look it up for yourselves.

http://www.truemajority.com/oreos/


anik
Posted 19 January 2007 at 09:07 am

pearltorto
Posted 19 January 2007 at 09:52 am

Global warming has been inevitable, its just speeding up at an alarming rate all thanks to the americans refusing to sign the kyoto agreement, there was a chance. I mean how could one be as stupid to vote bush a SECOND TIME. He's a mass murderer of men, women and children and a fascist conservative. Remind you of anyone?


Rinson Drei
Posted 19 January 2007 at 10:18 am

Oh, how I long for the good old days, when the evil fascist Ronald Reagan was going to destroy the world and cause nuclear winter. If only he had, then evil fascist George Bush's intentional pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere would be a good thing, no?

In the end, we all know that global warming is caused by farts from the giant turtle the Earth is resting on. sheesh.


AntEconomist
Posted 19 January 2007 at 10:33 am

Maybe the Earth is warming (in a statistical sense). However, if you look at historical data, the warming is neither extreme nor unexpected. The first link below shows global temperatures over the past 100+ years — you'll see a remarkable increase. It also shows global temperatures over the past 400,000 years — you'll see that what we're experience appears to be part of a natural cycle. FWIW, the second link shows a plot of man-made CO2 against global temperatures — the evidence for a link is not overly compelling.

http://www.business.duq.edu/faculty/davies/research/globalwarming2.ppt

http://www.business.duq.edu/faculty/davies/research/globalwarming1.ppt


Homer J. S.
Posted 19 January 2007 at 10:50 am

Doooh! Global warming Hmmmmmm like a hot donut mmmmm donuts. This planet used to be covered with ice. Thank god there weren't a bunch of rocket scientist back then who go ohh shyt we gotta do somethin! As far as your beaches going away some of these beaches used to be directly connected to other continents. These things will all continue to change as the planet evolves. And you see them beautiful ocean waves lapping at your beautiful beaches? They are taking sand not bringing it. Its called errosion we have that problem here in springfield. We usually shore it up with rocks n stuff. Next thing ya know folks will b bytchin bout the seasons changin and they will start messin with the axis.

av a nic day
Homes


FireDude
Posted 19 January 2007 at 11:32 am

Majority scientific opinion has been quite wrong at times (e.g. medival bleedings, luminiferous aether) but at the same time the computer you are sitting in front of would not exist were it not for majority scientific progress. It is possible that "global warming caused by humans is a nice myth," as wargammer2005 was kind enough to state, however it is fairly conclusive that the current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are outside the normal variation (about 30% higher) for the last several hundred thousand years and the variation outside what would be expected based on the historical record has only really occurred since the industrial revolution. The most conservative argument you can make here is that we have no definitive idea what impact this will have, which would suggest the conclusion that we ought to stop mucking things up, based on Pascal's wager.

If you have any scientific arguments against global climate change issues, I'd be happy to debate them. AntEconomist, the individual whom you reference refers to percentage change in man-made emissions of CO2. for his justifications. However, at present only about 3% of emissions are anthropomorphic (up from about 0% 200 years ago), whereas 97% are from normal cycles of nature. The problem of carbon balance arises because we are dealing with the difference of very large numbers, so the final "only 27%" increase represents a very large absolute increase that goes relatively unbalanced, and that is where he observes a significant correlation. If you have the pedal to the metal, you don't move very far in the first second as compared to the last.

If you are a fundamentalist and do not believe the world is older than 10,000 years(?), then CO2 levels have been essentially constant for the entirety of history until we started burning things for power, and so we are mucking up God's creation. Do you want a happy God or a vengeful God?

Based on recent work from Princeton University, we've got about 50 years to implement real change before we are really screwed, so based on the time required for technological development and market penetration, we should really get started on this.

http://www.princeton.edu/~lam/documents/SciencePolicy.ppt


MyStupidMouth
Posted 19 January 2007 at 02:36 pm

Was reading some really good comments here, but got a little tired towards the end, so I hope I am not being repetitive, boring or ignorant (or some beautiful combination of the above). The one much more interesting argument about global warming that I have heard puts it to rest quite nicely in my eyes, though I don't know how accurate and valid it is, just gonna throw it out there for something to chew over and ponder. Apparently, every couple hundred years, the earth goes through its own cycle of warming up and cooling down and so while global warming is a fact, it is contained within the earth's cycle of normal activity, meaning that the consequences may still be unpleasant, but there isn't much we can do about it. Maybe we are hastening the inevitable, maybe not, but if it is true that the earth does this on its own every couple of hundred years, we need to simply learn to adapt. Even if it does melt the icecaps, if its inevitable and out fo our control and ruins cities - that's unfortunate, but I am sure we will be able to adapt just fine after a little while, humans and other plants and animals are pretyt nifty like that, I have heard (sometimes here).
So, not trying to prove or disprove anything, don't message me back saying I am an ignorant moron or any such thing... just think about it, maybe research it on your own (I'll try to do my own at some point, but I am somewhat busy for now) if you are interested. Hope this at least piqued someone's interest and I wasn't completely useless. (My first post, by the way)


adastra
Posted 19 January 2007 at 02:38 pm

The Florida Keys have hardly any beaches left at all. Go down there and see for yourself.

Ehh, one false fact does not unmake an argument, but the Florida Keys have never had sand beaches. A shallow bay on one side and shallow waters out to a shallow reef on the other, does not make for sand beaches. The few beaches there are, mostly in Key West, are mostly... wait for it... manmade:-)


1c3d0g
Posted 19 January 2007 at 05:35 pm

Arcangel: agreed 100%.


dterry
Posted 19 January 2007 at 06:40 pm

Cynthia Wood said: "No urine or waste materials. Now we know for sure that they aren't icy BMs!


Sorry, couldn't resist. Really interesting, and something I hadn't heard about at all."

Now that's funny right there! Icy BM's. Inter Colonic Ballistic Missles?


ti83
Posted 19 January 2007 at 07:05 pm

I just read recently, I'm not sure where, that a recent study shows that actually, cows are responsible for more greenhouse gases than humans. Apparently their flatulence is loaded with the stuff. Crazy, huh?


Joshua
Posted 19 January 2007 at 08:23 pm

If global warming is indeed occurring, and if it does indeed threaten life on Earth as we know it, then I fail to see why its cause is even relevant to the debate over whether to take action against it. Whether it's caused by man or by nature, we'd be in just as much trouble either way, right?

Seems to me that the cause of global warming is only really a factor in how to combat it, not in whether it ought to be combated in the first place.


trillian
Posted 19 January 2007 at 10:57 pm

Wow. Forget 'you could get hit by a bus.' 'You could get smooshed by an ice chunk'. So be sure to wear clean underwear.

My whole thing with the supposed global warming debate is that what's on the line happens to be the damn planet. As in, the only means of support currently available to our species and, as far as we know, all life in the universe. So isn't it better to err on the side of giving a crap? There's no way that we're helping anything by filling the country with SUVs, and if there's even the chance that doing so means making the planet inhospitable to all life, well, what's the sense in continuing on the current path?


trillian
Posted 19 January 2007 at 11:00 pm

To clarify: "the supposed global warming debate" = the supposed debate about global warming, NOT the debate over supposed global warming. Not that the rest of the comment didn't clarify that, I guess, but it would've bugged me. Scientists are not debating this. Politicians are.

Sheesh, and they even give you a chance to preview the comment first..


Secret Ninja
Posted 19 January 2007 at 11:57 pm

Going back to the article (crazy me), I think its possible that they are not occuring with greater frequency, but modern communications allow them to be reported and the info shared. A farmer in ancient Mesopotamia wouldn't really have been able to share an experience with the rest of the world, would he have?

Oh, I thoroughly enjoy driving my 5.0L V8, Ford Explorer. I once read that the rainforest produces more CO2 with its decomposition (due to the high humidity and fast growth/decay rate).
If this is untrue, it shows you can't believe everything you read, and you shouldn't blindly take every scientists word. If it is true, it kinda destroys your whole arguement.

It appears I win.


7HS
Posted 20 January 2007 at 07:52 am

Oh, I thoroughly enjoy driving my 5.0L V8, Ford Explorer. I once read that the rainforest produces more CO2 with its decomposition (due to the high humidity and fast growth/decay rate).

Possibly, but it sure as hell breaks down a lot more too.


FireDude
Posted 20 January 2007 at 08:44 am

Oh, I thoroughly enjoy driving my 5.0L V8, Ford Explorer. I once read that the rainforest produces more CO2 with its decomposition (due to the high humidity and fast growth/decay rate)."

I already referenced the statistic you are interested in - 97% of all carbon emissions are from natural sources. If you remember your biology classes, there are natural cycles, such as the water cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the carbon cycle, etc. which analyze how stuff moves through the environment. All the carbon dioxide given off by decay in the rain forest comes from plants that built themselves from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that got there from other stuff decaying, etc. So, without human interference, the sum total of carbon atoms in the atmosphere and biosphere is roughly constant with time. The problem is that we are digging up carbon that was buried a long time ago and putting it back into the system. This is the best argument for biologically-derived fuels (ethanol, biodiesel, etc.) - if the carbon in our fuel came from the atmosphere, we are no longer modifying carbon levels in the global sense.

Incidentally, if we actually wanted to "solve" global warming today, it would not be a matter of everyone driving hybrids. It would mean no cars whatsoever, maybe an hour a day of electricity, the loss of a lot of the consumer goods we are used to, and no more development in the developing world. This solution would not be acceptable to, for example, the American voter and so our best bet for an implementable plan is to do the best we can in the short term (our lifetimes) to buy more time for fusion researchers. Or screw over our kids. Either way.


PJV
Posted 20 January 2007 at 09:09 am

AntEconomist said: "Maybe the Earth is warming (in a statistical sense). However, if you look at historical data, the warming is neither extreme nor unexpected. The first link below shows global temperatures over the past 100+ years — you'll see a remarkable increase. It also shows global temperatures over the past 400,000 years — you'll see that what we're experience appears to be part of a natural cycle. FWIW, the second link shows a plot of man-made CO2 against global temperatures — the evidence for a link is not overly compelling.


http://www.business.duq.edu/faculty/davies/research/globalwarming2.ppt

http://www.business.duq.edu/faculty/davies/research/globalwarming1.ppt"

I already replyed to you elswhere (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=772#comments). I agree with you, the earth is warming "in a statistical sense", and so is true that we will probably die tomorrow "in a statistical sense". But be very sure we will all be dead in a 100 years, again, "in a statistical sense". And so the earth will be very hot in a hundred years, "in a statistical sense".


PJV
Posted 20 January 2007 at 09:13 am

A correction, when I mean we will all be dead I refer to those people between 10 to 90 years old (or so) living today in earth, and thus being able to contribute-reply to this forum. My point is that "in a statistical sense" all probable things coalesce to a concrete state sometime in the future.


CptPicard
Posted 20 January 2007 at 12:39 pm

The counter-arguments to man-made global warming due to the sun's increased energy output and questioning whether adding CO2 to the atmosphere has effect are rather misguided... how much energy the sun puts out for a planet like Earth is easy to measure and well known, so is the basic physics of CO2 in the atmosphere. Simply put, the sun hasn't increased in activity enough to account for the observed effect, and you would have to contradict rather fundamental physics and chemistry to argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. It's simply denying reality that it would somehow be neutralized on global scale; at least you'd have to specifically describe a really good mechanism to get around it. Add to this the numerous feedback mechanisms that kick in due to increased heat (methane from permafrost, say), and intentionally pushing the system by incraesing CO2 is Russian roulette even though you may not be 100% certain as to how exactly things are going to play out...


vonmeth
Posted 20 January 2007 at 01:31 pm

What do all the scientist that agree (the vast majority in the field that are qualified in making expertise statements on Global warming) to gain from lieing about it? Now switch to the politicians and corporations, and what do they have to gain from denying it? Knowing motives is always helpful.

Yes, the Earth does go through cycles, there is no disagreement about that and there is no disagreement that the Earth is warming up.

The whole debate is whether we are contributing further to this increase, and whether will screw up this whole cycle or amplify is tremendous amounts. There are many factors that go into this. It is just not from cars and power-plants, it also from our cutting down of trees, and the increasing amount of melting of ice and thus the incrase in water area.

It creates a feedback loop.

When ice melts, less solar rays are reflected back and the more water absorbs more heat. Trees take in CO2 as well, as I am sure you are well aware of. Less trees ..... more CO2. More humans ... more CO2 (though we might be offsetting it by all the life we kill). Even slight increases in heat can cause more water evaporation and the increase the ability of the atmosphere to hold more water vapor, which is also a powerful green house gas. "Plankton take in about half of all the world's CO2, using the carbon for growth, while releasing oxygen during the process of photosythesis. During the past 20 years there has been a stark decline, more than 9%, in primary production of plankton, while in the same period plankton of the North Atlantic has decreased by 7%. Less plankton; less carbon uptake."

"The tundra, located near or inside the polar regions, covers 1/5th of the world's land surface.The tundra is warming and as it warms, it is leaking carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. The process is another of the positive feedback scenarios, that will increasingly inhance climate change."

Not only is carbon increasing, but so is methane.


ti83
Posted 20 January 2007 at 01:33 pm

Joshua said: "If global warming is indeed occurring, and if it does indeed threaten life on Earth as we know it, then I fail to see why its cause is even relevant to the debate over whether to take action against it. Whether it's caused by man or by nature, we'd be in just as much trouble either way, right?

Seems to me that the cause of global warming is only really a factor in how to combat it, not in whether it ought to be combated in the first place."

I'm not trying to argue that, I'm simply stating that the cause of it is hilarious. Kinda of.


trillian
Posted 20 January 2007 at 04:06 pm

vonmeth said: "
It creates a feedback loop.

When ice melts, less solar rays are reflected back and the more water absorbs more heat. Trees take in CO2 as well, as I am sure you are well aware of. Less trees ….. more CO2. More humans … more CO2 (though we might be offsetting it by all the life we kill). Even slight increases in heat can cause more water evaporation and the increase the ability of the atmosphere to hold more water vapor, which is also a powerful green house gas. "Plankton take in about half of all the world's CO2, using the carbon for growth, while releasing oxygen during the process of photosythesis. During the past 20 years there has been a stark decline, more than 9%, in primary production of plankton, while in the same period plankton of the North Atlantic has decreased by 7%. Less plankton; less carbon uptake."

"The tundra, located near or inside the polar regions, covers 1/5th of the world's land surface.The tundra is warming and as it warms, it is leaking carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. The process is another of the positive feedback scenarios, that will increasingly inhance climate change."

MotherJones had a good article about this interplay of different factors and how even small interference from humans can upset delicate balances and set of chain reactions.


another viewpoint
Posted 20 January 2007 at 04:37 pm

...Megacryometeors...wouldn't they just frost your balls?

And now for something completely different...


Misfit
Posted 20 January 2007 at 05:36 pm

Okay, I usually try to stay out of these kinds of arguments... There are some people here that believe no climate change is happening at all. You people are disgustingly ignorant. But keep reading, I'm gonna get to everybody here.

For the people who prefer to argue that mankind isn't doing most of the damage, I will refer you to a quote from Joshua:

Joshua said: "Seems to me that the cause of global warming is only really a factor in how to combat it, not in whether it ought to be combated in the first place."

It's you people who need to recognize that, whether we're doing it or not, SOMETHING's happening. I'd rather fight it and be wrong about what's causing it, than not fight it and be right. Let's just look at what we know, and use it somehow to look at where improvements can be made.

As for the those who like to depict mankind as an unstoppable, predominantly evil force that is truly bent on doing nothing but cutting down every tree and clubbing every baby seal from north to south, you need to focus on some of the happier things about mankind. It's people like you who loooooooove to blame everything on mankind and how we totally screw everything up, whine, complain, yada yada yada... I'm sick of it. Try for ONCE spending the majority of your energy recognizing the good, instead of wasting it by complaining. Supporting the good things like hybrid cars, the many big-time organizations that also happen to spend hefty amounts of their big-time money in helping the environment, the many small things that companies like BP (all the way up to those oh-so-dastardly SUV makers) is doing to reduce gasoline emissions and aid fuel-mileage, and finally the fact that there's a guy out there (somewhere, I can't remember where but it was on the news) who has cracked the secret to turning water into the new wonder fuel of the future! There's a video online of him demonstrating it (look up "hho gas water electrolysis fuel video" on google and you'll be sure to find it). Oh but there's one little thing about the waste it gives off... now I know what many of you are thinking... it's got to be some kind of black smoke that will leave the planet in ruins like humans ALWAYS do with every evil creation they make... BUT NO!! the waste product is.... WATER ALL OVER AGAIN! (he claims to be able to power a car a hundred miles, while using up little over four ounces of water, and the wonderful part is... I BELIEVE HIM!) but OOOH NO. Nobody knows about him. Liberals will blame it on the Republicans, and claim that every Conservative would rather drive a car that leaves a blackened sky in it's wake than let this tree-hugger gain success... And the Republicans? Well, they really just want the Liberals to get this idea up and running so they'll have one less thing to whine and complain about, then they'll be that much closer to shutting up!

(by the way, every conservative I know thinks that this invention is just the coolest thing.)

(Whereas every liberal I know, (and I go to the Art Institute of Chicago, believe me when I say this, I know a LOT of them) has an attitude about them that lets them see wonderful advances in technology and say (and I quote) "Wow, technology creating the problem AND the solution." Gee, what a great way of supporting all those hardworking people out there. These people who invested a lot of time and energy into something that was only meant to make the world happy again (boy I miss the days when that worked), and so many people these days snap back with a message that reads: Well, technological people like you shouldn't have screwed things up in the first place!"

I think you'll find it to be much much better to support to good than to oppose the bad. So shut up and support them.


Tink
Posted 20 January 2007 at 09:51 pm

another viewpoint said: "…Megacryometeors…wouldn't they just frost your balls?


And now for something completely different…"

LOL!
Say, has anyone else noticed that there seems to be frozen fingers and a tiny set of toes in the ice shown in the lower picture? No, I'm not kidding, go back and look at it.
What is that??


FireDude
Posted 21 January 2007 at 09:38 am

Misfit said: "...finally the fact that there's a guy out there who has cracked the secret to turning water into the new wonder fuel of the future!"

I am fairly certain their chemical claims are a scam. The product of their process should be a simple mixture of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas. I could mix up a batch of this stuff from gas cylinders and would exhibit exactly the same behaviors they claim and demonstrate. It is sometimes referred to as Brown's gas.

Ignoring their claims regarding a new chemical species, their process would require more energy in than they could extract (first & second laws of thermodynamics), and so we still need to burn coal to generate the electricity to make their fuel. This net releases more carbon dioxide per mile driven than if we just ran a car on gasoline. Additionally, there already exist much more efficient was to both generate hydrogen gas and convert it to mechanical power. Difficulties primarily arise in storage and transport of the hydrogen.

For more relevant info, see the video website( http://hytechapps.com/company/press ) and a critical evaluation ( http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56705 ).


GigsTaggart
Posted 21 January 2007 at 11:16 am

" ice caps melt; also sea becomes less dense and so takes up more volume "

You know that ice takes up more volume than water, right?

Global warming is a scientific whipping boy lately. If we don't know what causes something, it's an easy out. I suspect these ice balls were happening all along, and we just didn't document them as well in the past.

A huge portion of the earth is still uninhabited. It's impossible to draw any conclusions about their past frequency since we'd never notice the vast majority of them.


portsmouth101
Posted 21 January 2007 at 01:59 pm

Anthony Kendall said: "Captknish,

Global warming is not hysteria, it's a fact. Even hard-line critics accept that the Earth is, in fact, warming. The only thing that is debated by the politicos in the United States is whether or not humans are the cause of it. Scientists have through thousands upon thousands of rigorous studies come to the firm conclusion that humans are indeed causing global warming. For them the only debate is how much the Earth will warm.

Citing a Wall Stree Journal opinion page editorial about a scientific topic is a bit like citing a People Magazine article about investment strategies: sure, the writer may have some interest in the topic but they have absolutely no credibility."

Global Warming, it isn't happening, it could just be a cycle. People say "It's been the warmest year in 400 years! Well, that means that 400 years ago it was WARMER"

Thanks =)


energium
Posted 21 January 2007 at 07:53 pm

I checked out Revelation 16:21 (http://bible.cc/revelation/16-21.htm) and the text according to the King James Version of the Bible is:

"And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great".

I checked what a Talent is and wikipedia came to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talent_(weight)

- It corresponded generally to the mass of water in the volume of an amphora, i.e. a one foot cube.

-The Roman talent consisted of 100 libra (pounds)

By the way, Global Warming is caused by sheep farts.


ti83
Posted 21 January 2007 at 10:52 pm

Cow farts! Cow farts! Get it right.


Hoekstes
Posted 22 January 2007 at 06:58 am

It was 48 `C here yesterday (Cape Town). Clear skies. No falling ice. Thank goodness. So I believe the global warming thing, but those megacryometeors are definately a hoax.


FireDude
Posted 22 January 2007 at 07:35 am

Hoekstes said: "It was 48 `C here yesterday (Cape Town). Clear skies. No falling ice. Thank goodness. So I believe the global warming thing, but those megacryometeors are definately a hoax."

After all the uproar over their murder of JFK, the CIA is developing a new method of assassination. Having developed secret propulsion technologies at Area 51, they have spent years in posing as aliens collecting methane gas via anal probe from cows, humans and the occasional sheep. They then release the gas from black helicopters flying in the stratosphere, creating a local greenhouse effect that generates giant blocks of falling ice. They just need to work on their aim.


Gemfyre
Posted 23 January 2007 at 06:14 am

I once read a tale about a guy laying tiles on a roof when an icicle fell from the sky and impaled him. Freaky stuff.


Crowned Joe
Posted 23 January 2007 at 09:56 am

2 Megacrometeors came down on Jan 17, 2007, one in San Diego the other in Pennsylvania, just like I asked God to do for me.

Pretty soon, a whole lot more ice will come crashing down across the entire world.

The answer to their origin is really simple:
There's a layer of ice covering a layer of glass at the top of the sky, which is about 70 miles high. The earth is inverted, so the entire universe fits within the walls of a hollow, inverted earth. See this site to understand......
http://www.geocities.com/stevec15317/_heaven_centered_earth.html


HiEv
Posted 24 January 2007 at 07:09 am

There are basically four false arguments made by global warming deniers/do-nothingists:

1) It isn't happening.
2) It's natural.
3) We can't affect it.
4) It's no big deal.

The facts are, that it is happening. Since 1980 we've had 19 of the 20 hottest years on record:

Union of Concerned Scientists: 2005 Tied 1998 As World's Hottest Year
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recordtemp2005.html

This dramatic change is not part of natural variation either, since this is a rapid temperature spike going higher than it has in over 2000 years:

Wikipedia: Global Warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
(See the graph in the "History of warming" section. And, contrary to portsmouth101's assertion, that doesn't mean that it was warmer 2000 years ago.)

Yes, the sun is sending a bit more warmth, but that change only accounts for about 11% of the warming we've seen in the last 250 years:

Wikipedia: Radiative forcing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
(See the picture showing the changes in radiative forcings over the last 250 years.)

If you look there you can see that the vast majority of recent climate change is due to changes in greenhouse gasses, including CO2, CH4, N2O, and halocarbons, most of which are anthropogenic (man-made.) This fact not only shoots down the "it's natural" claim (#2), but it also shoots down the "we can't affect global climate" claim (#3).

This leaves the "it's no big deal" claim (#4), however that is mainly argument from ignorance. Rapid changes in climate, and that is what we're talking about here, both can and have caused mass extinctions in the past. We also know that increases in temperature will lead to more erratic and powerful weather, for example:

Live Science: Study: Global Warming Making Hurricanes Stronger (7/31/'05)
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/ap_050731_hurricanes_stronger.html

Furthermore, the melting will cause the oceans to rise. The ice on Greenland alone could raise sea levels by 20 feet. Rising sea levels would not just mean losing coastline, it would mean either flooding in many major coastal cities, like New York City, London, Tokyo, etc... or making flood barriers that would be incredibly expensive, and potentially fallible, like in New Orleans. And that's just two of the many known negative consequences. We might not be aware of other worse consequences yet.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) is getting ready to release its next set of reports on global warming, and early releases say that the evidence is even more damning than it was in their last set of reports issued in 2001. For a preview see here:

Guardian: Report Has 'Smoking Gun' on Climate (1/23/'07)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6364246,00.html

Simply put, global warming is a real problem that man has caused, and we need to pull our collective heads out of the sand and start doing what we can to undo the damage we are causing.


Secret Ninja
Posted 24 January 2007 at 10:08 am

Crowned Joe said: "2 Megacrometeors came down on Jan 17, 2007, one in San Diego the other in Pennsylvania, just like I asked God to do for me.


Pretty soon, a whole lot more ice will come crashing down across the entire world.

The answer to their origin is really simple:
There's a layer of ice covering a layer of glass at the top of the sky, which is about 70 miles high. The earth is inverted, so the entire universe fits within the walls of a hollow, inverted earth. See this site to understand……
http://www.geocities.com/stevec15317/_heaven_centered_earth.html"

Wow. Has anyone read this site? It is pure lunacy.


uncle frogy
Posted 26 January 2007 at 12:35 am

My impression of those who do not believe with the science of "Global Warming" just that they do not have any idea of the real numbers involved. Science in this as other subjects is deeply involved with numbers.

the finite size of the atmosphere of the earth

the percentages of gasses that make up of that atmosphere.
the absolute amount of carbon we are adding to that atmosphere world wide in tons
(not just one SUV and not just driving the dam thing)
the numbers of human beings on earth.
science is not about opinion nor belief it is to a large extent about the numbers, evolution included.
there may still be people who do not believe the earth is not flat guess what the earth don't care!


ellie
Posted 29 January 2007 at 06:15 am

Here's an article of one that was reported recently in Florida...reminds me of that post on The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon....I keep hearing about chunks of ice falling out of the sky...weird...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,247938,00.html


Jatt
Posted 29 January 2007 at 08:42 am

Apparently, this just happened in Tampa and no one knows what happened. Maybe they should read DI!

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=2201712&version=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1


Gerry Matlack
Posted 29 January 2007 at 02:35 pm

those last two links are the same event! I keep on hearing about it.


Crowned Joe
Posted 30 January 2007 at 08:28 am

This Tampa event was an answered prayer, too.

People need to start migrating to Chicago.


lostindustrial
Posted 30 January 2007 at 08:50 am

this article actually mentions the possibility of megacryometeors

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070130/ap_on_fe_st/mysterious_ice_chunk_2
as an aside, until I posted this article and actually had to type out "megacryometeors", I had read that previously as "mega-cry-o-meters". (accent on the "o") :)


kwiksand
Posted 31 January 2007 at 12:37 am

lostindustrial said: "this article actually mentions the possibility of megacryometeors

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070130/ap_on_fe_st/mysterious_ice_chunk_2

as an aside, until I posted this article and actually had to type out "megacryometeors", I had read that previously as "mega-cry-o-meters". (accent on the "o") :)"

Here's another article with pictures: http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/florida/news-article.aspx?storyid=74596

And a link to the digg comments: (can't comment on quality of the commentors though!
http://www.digg.com/offbeat_news/PICTURES_Mysterious_Large_Ice_Chunk_Falls_on_Tampa_Man_s_Car


Crowned Joe
Posted 01 February 2007 at 11:17 am

Here's another megacryometeor in Florida again.

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJour...AST03020107.htm

visit this discussion thread to understand my position:
http://conspiracycentral.info/index.php?showtopic=5103&st=120&gopid=44386&#entry44386


Crowned Joe
Posted 24 February 2007 at 04:31 am

Anthropositor
Posted 07 May 2008 at 07:44 am

captknish said: "Try not to get caught up in the global warming hysteria.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220"

RICHARD LINDZEN, the author of the above opinions. is well credentialed. He also says some glowing things about Exxon being a fine and responsible company. At one point, he encourages that we develop greater skills in physics and mathematics, then suggests we use our intuition to test the validity of global warming.

Certainly his neutrality and objectivity are open to question. I haven't found a smoking gun, but the smell of gunpowder is strong.


BenKinsey
Posted 17 September 2008 at 07:47 am

Nastimann said: "Here's a simple experiment you can do: Put several ice cubes in a glass. Fill it to the brim with water. Does the the water overflow when the ice melts? I guess the remaining question is, how much of the planet's ice is not floating, but sitting on solid ground? That's the only ice that would increase the sea level when it melts."quote]

The ice is IN the water not above it when it is in your drinking glass. Ice caps are ABOVE the water as well as in the water and on land as you had mentioned. That's a huge difference when you consider the total amount that is floating above water. No haterade just sayin. Earth goes through these cycles periodically regardless of human interference. I'm sure humans will be able to make it through when the next Ice Age comes.


Mirage_GSM
Posted 09 October 2008 at 05:28 am

The one much more interesting argument about global warming that I have heard puts it to rest quite nicely in my eyes, …Apparently, every couple hundred years, the earth goes through its own cycle of warming up and cooling down and so while global warming is a fact, it is contained within the earth's cycle of normal activity, meaning that the consequences may still be unpleasant, but there isn't much we can do about it. Maybe we are hastening the inevitable, maybe not, but if it is true that the earth does this on its own every couple of hundred years, we need to simply learn to adapt.

Yes the earth’s climate does change in cycles of several centuries. There are also larger cycles with much greater changes that should be measured in hundreds of millenia. In fact the climate we have today is apparently about as cold as the earth ever gets (The poles were ice-free for most of earth’s geological history) and - statistically - in a few millenia, we could have experienced a natural global warming.
The point is, that such climate changes happen gradually over a long period of time (barring large asteroids or volcanic eruptions, which tend to cause a very rapid, though usually temporary, cooling of the climate).
Even if it does melt the icecaps, if its inevitable and out fo our control and ruins cities - that's unfortunate, but I am sure we will be able to adapt just fine after a little while, humans and other plants and animals are pretyt nifty like that, I have heard (sometimes here).

You have a talent for understatement… You’re right. Man as a race will probably survive whatever earth’s climate can throw at him. However thousands will die and millions (mostly those who are already poor) will become even poorer. That should be incentive enough to at least try to limit the effects of global warming.
So, not trying to prove or disprove anything, don't message me back saying I am an ignorant moron or any such thing… just think about it, maybe research it on your own (I'll try to do my own at some point, but I am somewhat busy for now) if you are interested. Hope this at least piqued someone's interest and I wasn't completely useless. (My first post, by the way)

No post that is written with a mind open to other arguments is ever useless.
ti83: I just read recently, I'm not sure where, that a recent study shows that actually, cows are responsible for more greenhouse gases than humans. Apparently their flatulence is loaded with the stuff. Crazy, huh?[/Quote]
It is true that the methane emitted by cows is a large factor, surpassing even the much maligned airline industry, but a) several other antropogenic sources of greenhouse gasses (like power plants, general industrial processes and automobile traffic) each individually surpass the flatulence of cows in significance and b) the flatulence of cows would not be even that significant were we not breeding them for food.
Someone: 97% of all CO2-Emissions come from natural sources

OK, I don’t know where those numbers are from, but let’s just assume they are correct. Without humans the CO2-concentration in the atmosphere was more or less constant over tha last millenia. There’s ice probes from antarctica that can be measured to learn that. So the natural emissions are balanced naturally by means of binding them in organic material and other chemical processes.
Now add 3% to that. Those three % are not automatically balanced, so they stay in the atmosphere. They stay there for a long time. Current estimates tend to put the time CO2 remains in the atmosphere before it is broken down by natural processes at about 100 years! Now lets suppose we can freeze our CO2 output at today’s level, than after 100 years – when today’s emissions are gone – there will be an additional 90% CO2 in the atmosphere.
This is very simplified and assuming your 97% are correct. The numbers I remember say that only 1-2% of all CO2 emissions are antropogenic.
CO2 is not the gas that has the largest radiative effect by a long shot, but compared to methane or ozone it remains in the atmosphere longer and is emitted in larger quantities, thus it is the most significant.


person271
Posted 26 June 2009 at 12:09 pm

I'm not an expert, but I've recently been informed the the average temperature of the earth has only increased about 0.6 degrees Celsius in the last 100 years, scientists who claim to be climate experts don't seem to want to argue against this point. So is global warming actually so horrible? And hasn't the earth been warming since the last ice age?


Mirage_GSM
Posted 30 June 2009 at 04:37 am

According to the IPCC report, the figure is 0,74°C for the years 1906 - 2005 (with a margin of error of 0,18°C, so your figure is acceptable). And two thirds of that warming occurred in the later 50 years of that period, indicating that the rate is increasing.
This may not seem to be much, and if it stopped right now it might not be too bad... We are just now beginning to see the effects of global warming: reduction of the size of glaciers, opening of the northwest passage...
However it will not stop right now. It is impossible to stop emitting greenhouse gasses altogether and even achieving a meaningful reduction will require a large effort and international cooporation.
And while the warming is only 0,74°C, this is a global average. Temperatures over land have increased about twice as fast as temperatures over oceans, meaning the northern hemisphere is affected stronger, because it has more landmasses.
And yes, the earth has - on average - been warming since the ice age. There has also been a period that was almost as warm as today, the "Medieval Warm Period" from about 1000 to 1400, followed by the "Little Ice Age".
Going back further in earth's history there are extended periods that were much warmer than even what we have today. In fact, for most of earth's history, the poles were free of ice: Earth hasn't been as cold as it is today since ther Permian age 300 million years ago.
It is very probable, that - even without human influence - sooner or later earth's climate would have swung back in that direction. "Sooner" in this context would probably be something along the lines of 10-30 million years...
So if it's all been there before why is it so bad?
Sure, earth will survive even if a few species or even some more go extinct. Humanity itself will probably survive as well, but in the worst-case scenario there will be severe repercussions.
First there are the effects on agriculture. Even now farmers across europe are starting to plant crops that they haven't been able to grow here before, but there are areas that will become less fertile if rains fall off. Deserts will expand as they are observed to do even now - though it could be argued this is not due to GW but to deforestation and other human influences.
Last but not least there is the increase in sea level if the glaciers at the south pole and on greenland start to melt. Currently estimates predict a rise of about 50cm on average for the next century - if the current rate does not increase. There are some indicators that it could, but to my knowledge nothing has been confirmed yet.
Even those 50cm would create problems, though, because a large percentage of the population lives in coastal areas and would be displaced by rising sea levels. Some cities like New Orleans or London need storm surge defenses even today and some countries like the Netherlands or Bangladesh are very low or even in part below sea level.
So in short: Yes, while global warming probably won't kill uns, it is a bad thing.


Sarah
Posted 08 December 2013 at 03:31 pm

This strange phenomenon happened to us approx 7 years ago in North West London. On a very clear sunny morning I was suddenly awoken by a massive crash which shook the house & caused considerable damage to our roof. We found fragments of ice in the street along with the debris & on closer inspection in our loft found a block of ice - the impact of which had fortunately been reduced by one of the rafters which had been snapped in half... We contacted the aviation authority who notified us that there weren't any planes flying over at the time and so it has always been a complete mystery to us!


END OF COMMENTS
Add Your Comment

Note: Your email address will not be published, shared, spammed, or otherwise mishandled. Anonymous comments are more likely to be held for moderation. You can optionally register or login.

You may use basic formatting HTML such as <i>, <b>, and <blockquote>.