The shock of this article is that it goes against "settled" science. CO2 in the air causes global warming. Here, we have a volcano spewing more CO2 into the air, and it's going to cause cooling? How did this get by the editors? Protest and avoid this website for its blatant heresy.

Don't worry, the al-Gore'ian's in Brussels are smuggling in a gigantic concrete dome to contain the volcanic ash and gases before global cooling destroys their insidious plan to impose a Global Carbon Caliphate under the Eco-Ayatollahs on every human on earth.

Halliburton-Dubai has apparently signed up for the air lift portion of the dome project, they haven't been able to squeeze any more lucre out of our $180 BILLION a year for the GWTO.

News at 10!

Um, duh, um I don’t understand how the ash in the atmosphere can block out sun rays as oppose to something that can’t be seen the naked eye... meaning CO2. Um, duh, um, I am a um, duh, um a republican um, duh, um, tea party um, duh, um, evangelical Christian who um, duh, um believes in such mythical things like Santa Claus instead of understanding science. Evolution is too hard to understand too. Um, duh, um after all um, duh, um God put Adam and Eve; um, duh, um and despite all the data that comes from fossils that proves evolution. Um, duh, um science is too hard for me Um, duh, um my good book and the lord is easier, especially if I don’t have to practice what I preach......

Um, duh, um, I am a um, duh, um a republican um, duh, um, tea party um, duh, um, evangelical Christian.

I've been disappointed by my fellow Americans over the issue of climate change, and the general war on science in this country. While scientists are definitely dorks, and not too capable, as a group, communicating via mass media, they certainly should have more cred than industry marketeers and political pundits.

In nearly all areas of scientific study we have so-called conservatives waging war on scientists and scientific methods. It is science, and the technological products created, that has made the US economy the eny of the world. Too bad conservatives want to make sure we lose leadership in scientific fields to other coountires that better support scientific study. After all the Hadron collider, for one, is located in Europe, not the US...

Damit Al what are you doing to prevent this? We can't have Earth emitting CO2! Get off you private jet, roll up your sleeves, and plug the vent with your gigantic A$$.

But what a warm winter we've had in the Pacific Northwest. But yes, after St. Helens, we got one of the coldest years that I could ever remember.

uh, folks per the article "Longer term, sulfur from volcanoes has the potential to cool the Earth. Sulfur reacts with water in the air to form sulfuric acid droplets that reflect sunlight hitting Earth, thus blocking some rays."

CO2 is not mentioned regarding this particular issue.

The shock of this article is that it goes against "settled" science. CO2 in the air causes global warming. Here, we have a volcano spewing more CO2 into the air, and it's going to cause cooling?

Wow, are the right-wingnuts so dumb that they can't hold two competing effects (CO2 warming vs SO2 cooling) in their mind at once? You betcha!

Way to go, DrSmith! Take advantage of a topic - any topic, it doesn't matter - to direct some really clever, mature insults at those you don't agree with. Troll!

I see you have no response to your side being shown to be so ignorant, other than your own trolling.

DrSmith-877649 is correct. You people (and I use that term lightly) don’t even understand the difference between CO2 and SO2. Try looking it up and cause and effect of the two and in the result of a volcanic eruption has on the environment at least as opposed to posting/spewing right-wing stupidity...really!

Oh; that’s right...it’s too hard to read. And not putting down people that can’t read but read programs is out there for people that can’t read. I know, I know, I am sure you right-wingers don’t care for even looking up anything unless it’s in support of your own little make-believe world.

There is a possible, extreme danger, if there is a large eruption. Last year I read an article in Sotts website that talked about asteroid and comet dangers. The author listed many bits of recorded history that had a probability of being caused by near earth objects. One of the cases he cites, is of an incident that occurs in the British Isles in the 5th century. This comes from a written statement by a priest who has traveled to the south of Britain. He documents witnessing vast yellow sheets of rain sweeping the land and killing all before it. Some died where they stood and others died within days after. He claims that much of the population was decimated by this phenomenon. On top of that, there are the writings of St. Patrick as he traveled in the west of Europe, where he describes a land laid waste and completely devoid of life, for many days travel. Now I see where this article notes an incident in 1783 that killed thousands in Europe and was caused by the Laki volcano. I can't help but think that the author of the Sott's article is wrong in his assessment of a comet doing this, but the idea of an Icelandic volcano causing that yellow rain is more than likely the real culprit. If an event on the scale of whatever happened in the 5th century were to occur today, the loss of life could be significant. I hope that there are some officials over there who monitor the possiblity for this type of event.

For those who seemed to have missed my point: The global warming extremists have been pushing CO2 as the greatest danger to man-kind since the earth was formed. It's BAD, BAD, BAD. They have been pushing the issue as if nothing else matters. My point is that this article points out that CO2 isn't the be all and end all of things. There are a number of ways to take this article. One is that if you are one of the sky is falling type, then it ought to be comforting to know that the sky isn't falling and that mother earth does seem to know how to take care of herself. They point out several major catastrophes over the years. Notice that none of the deaths are caused by global warming, global cooling or anything other than the natural consequence of a natural disaster. And the world survived it just fine.

There's no doubt that the global warming crowd has a long ways to go towards proving their case. The first step would be to be open and transparent. All data should be released. "Scientific" journals need to quit refusing to publish contradictory studies. Probably the most important thing that needs to be done is for the "scientists" to start relying on real data and do real research. Most of this global warming garbage comes from computer models. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is not science. If they can get to the point of actually predicting something correctly, then maybe it will be time to look at it and give it some credence. But, for the past 30 years we've been hearing Chicken Little scream about this, that and the other thing and none of it has come to pass. And, quit frankly, it is quit presumptuous of these scientists (actually there are becoming fewer of them) to be proclaiming that for 8 billion years man knew nothing of the way the earth worked, and now they think they know it all based on the limited time they have been studying the earth. Common sense should kick in and ask one heck of a lot of questions. Too many seem to think that if you have a vocal mob of self proclaimed experts, that, well, they must be right. And the gullible would indeed jump on the bandwagon.

Witchrunner, you have no idea what you're talking about. The data show the earth's temperature is rising, as are sea levels, especially during the last 30 years. This is not an "opinion" or a "political view", it's scientific fact. Scientific Journals do publish conflicting studies about all kinds of issues. The catch is, those studies have to be peer reviewed by other scientists. The few anti-global warming studies that have been produced (usually by the petroleum industry) haven't passed muster because they are bad science.

There is a problem with computer models of global warming, they usually don't take into account the chaotic nature of weather systems. When chaotic systems are perturbed, then react slowly at first, then, when they're pushed to a certain point, they react violently. Imagine the gulf stream suddenly "jumping" from England to Nova Scotia and staying there. It's going to be a lot worse then we think.

Well put MB. Unfortunately, no amount of reliable scientific data will sway those such as witchburner. Their worldview won't allow them to accept that mankind is capable of having any effect on what "their" god created. They are as incapable of believing in AGW as they are of believing in evolution. If the bible didn't say it, it can't happen. No matter how much proof to the contrary. It's really a shame what religion can do to some people.

The only other possibility is that these rabid deniers are paid shills of the coal and oil industry. Either way, neither you nor I nor NOAA, NASA, USGS, National Geographic nor anybody else is going to change their minds.

Science does not understand weather patterns as well as they think. Their theories are just that, with no proof of an outcome.

MB and CJ: You have hit the nail on the head! Scientific fact!? Who says so? Where are the facts? What facts are you referring to? In case you haven't noticed, the "facts" are that there has been no warming in the past 15 years and in fact there has been a cooling. Likewise, there has been no "rising" of water levels. The water levels around the Maldives were studied for 30 years and there was no evidence of any rising sea level.

The problem is that you have accepted the often repeated mantra of the global warming crowd as if screaming it often enough makes it true. That has never been and never will be the case. As for using common sense, there appears to be a total lack of it by the global warming crowd. Why is it that those politicians who are on the left and seek to have bigger government and more control over our lives are the ones that fully support the global warming stuff? The fact is that global warming is a means towards an end by the socialist leaning politicians. That alone makes it suspect. You may not be old enough, but these are the same people who warned about the dangers of global cooling in the 70s. Then, why all the secrecy about the data that supposedly supports the theory? If it is so settled, then one would think that all the data would be out there for everyone to see. But, it isn't. We are supposed to just trust the "scientists" that their conclusions are correct? These same scientists that are paid by governments to come up with these conclusions. We've had 30 years of global warming hysteria from the left and numerous catastrophic predictions based on the global warming theory. Which one has come to pass? No one of them! For the last 3 years these scientists have predicted a major increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic because of global warming. None of the predictions have come to pass. So, bottom line is I'll start to believe the hype when the evidence actually supports it.

Fact: Marine Snow.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091008-giant-sea-mucus-blobs.html

Fact: Coral Bleaching.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070713-corals-melt.html

http://google.nationalgeographic.com/search?site=default_collection&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=UTF-8&q=coral+bleaching&btnG.x=31&btnG.y=7

Fact: Jellyfish blooms; frequency, rate and size.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702151056.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jellyfish

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080811-jellyfish-swarms.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0722_020722_jellyfish_2.html

Fact: Increased storm; hurricanes, tornados, ECT, frequency and intensity (el Niños).

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0804_050804_hurricanewarming.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone

Fact: Increased precipitation, rainfall, snowfall, flooding ECT.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/13/49-states-covered-with-snow-1180-new-snowfall-records-set-in-the-usa-this-past-week-is-february-headed-for-record-snowfall/

http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/11/science-meehl-ncar-record-high-temperatures-record-lows/

http://www.economics.noaa.gov/?goal=weather&file=events/precip

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain

Fact: Global temperature records

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Fact: Global warming.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-060

Fact: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/enter

Fact: Massive Antarctic iceberg threatens ocean circulation

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18595-massive-antarctic-iceberg-threatens-ocean-circulation.html

Fact: Solar cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

Fact: A quiet sun won't save us from global warming

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527494.700-a-quiet-sun-wont-save-us-from-global-warming.html

Fact: Deep Solar minimum

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/

And that is just a few facts I can hit you with. Care to have a debate about your claim? Any of you 'um, duh, um, repukes' care to debate some facts about this issue?

We have been at a very low end of a solar minimum and yet we have been having record temperatures each year. How do you account for this and any of the true above facts I have posted are occurring if the earth is indeed cooling, in fact we are heading out of the solar minimum and entering into a solar maximum once again of the solar cycle. There is a ton more I can come up with in support of my claim. How about you witchrunner? What creditable evidence can you come up with to support global cooling is occurring other then in your little made up la, la land of which you chose to live?

But don't let facts get in the way of your rightwing, tea party, and evangelical beliefs of fairytales. I don't expect you to understand anything much less science. Your kind is pathetic!

Witchburner could have easily done his own research on the subject by going to the NASA, NOAA, USGS, National Geographic, etc.... sites. Just as with all deniers, though, they would rather watch Faux news and believe professor Glen Beck rather than trouble themselves with reading boring science stuff. They don't understand the first thing about science and obviously resent those who do.

Witchburner and his ilk are just ignorant trolls who should not be annoying their betters who are trying to have adult conversations regarding serious scientific topics.

Thomas71 Thanks for all the links. I can see you research your own info. I appreciate that very much. It will take me some time to get through the links, but I will look at them. I will admit I am a skeptic. I am really good at critical thinking, but I admit I do not have all the background info. My question is how much does axis wobble contribute?

One link http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/08/14/earth-wobble-climate.html

This is very complex science, even to those that make it their life's work.

My main argument is not really how much we contribute to global warming, as we need to be headed toward less pollution anyway. The concern is the speed at which we are moving, and with the expense we are facing with health care reform, etc., and can we afford it.

If we are bankrupt, we will not be able to continue with the necessary R& D to reach the goals we need to reach for energy independence and green policy, not to mention the other obvious problems.

If this article is true, then it refutes the ice core data and the benthic foram data, both of which come to the same conclusion when laid out on a graph. The reason given for temperature drop at the bottom of the Milankovitch cycle is that winter sets in at the furthest facing [northern hemi] from the sun. The other end of the cycle is when winter occurs at our closest facing to the sun. This means that the cold can't set in as deep. Then there is a 40,000 year cycle. This has to do with changes in the track of the Earth as it orbits the sun. Some combination between these is what brings us fully out of an ice age, as we are today. Then the next Milankovitch brings us back towards the next ice age and an approximate 120k years before full warmth again.

Gramps... the axis wobble is called the Chandler cycle. It is a short period of around 7 years. Imbalances in the distribution of the mass of the Earth is what it is ascribed to.

Some key facts to this research I find interesting are the numbers. The duration of events resulting in climate changes of the Earth as result of nature.

The result is that the new date for the end of the second last ice age is thousands of years too early to be related to any increase in the intensity of the northern hemisphere summer as predicted by the Milankovitch Theory.

Instead, the researchers found that, in the past million years global warming events have occurred every second or third cycle of the Earth's changing obliquity, which occurs every 41,000 years.

Wobbling Earth Triggers Climate Change

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/08/14/earth-wobble-climate.html

There is another link contained within the one above I also find interesting.

What's more, in a study of 144 wetland areas across North America, a team of researchers led by Sarah Finkelstein of the University of Toronto found that they expanded en masse across North America around the time of the Little Ice Age.

"We can't quantify exactly how much carbon was sequestered in wetlands at that time," Finkelstein said. "But we know it was a continent-wide effect. If you look in Europe and Asia, I'm sure you'll see the same thing going on."

She thinks that some large trigger event -- either solar activity or volcanic eruptions -- may have started the cooling and led to more rainy weather. As wetlands expanded they gobbled up carbon, which chilled the northern hemisphere further.

But William Ruddiman of the University of Virginia argued it's unlikely.

Computer simulations of climate at the time show that natural changes can only bring down CO2 levels by three to four parts per million. Instead, Ruddiman attributes much of the change to reforestation in Central and South America following the annihilation of indigenous people there.

"Perhaps it's partly natural, but I think it's anthropogenic (related to human activities)," Ruddiman said. "Ten parts per million is way larger than climate models suggest."

Swampy Expansion Spurred Mini Ice Age

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/08/14/earth-wobble-climate.html

Can you see what I am getting at? Or do you want to see only what you care too?

Milankovitch’s Theory is incomplete!

Milankovitch cycles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Problems

Because the observed periodicities of climate fit so well with the orbital periods, the orbital theory has overwhelming support. Nonetheless, there are several difficulties in reconciling theory with observations.

The nature of sediments can vary in a cyclic fashion, and these cycles can be displayed in the sedimentary record. Here, cycles can be observed in the colouration and resistance of different strata

100,000-year problem

Main article: 100,000-year problem

The 100,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a significantly smaller impact on solar forcing than precession or obliquity and hence might be expected to produce the weakest effects. However, observations show that during the last 1 million years, the strongest climate signal is the 100,000-year cycle. In addition, despite the relatively large 100,000-year cycle, some have argued that the length of the climate record is insufficient to establish a statistically significant relationship between climate and eccentricity variations. Some models can however reproduce the 100,000 year cycles as a result of non-linear interactions between small changes in the Earth's orbit and internal oscillations of the climate system.

400,000-year problem

The 400,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a strong 400,000-year cycle. That cycle is only clearly present in climate records older than the last million years. If the 100 ka variations are having such a strong effect, the 400 ka variations might also be expected to be apparent. This is also known as the stage 11 problem, after the interglacial in marine isotopic stage 11 which would be unexpected if the 400,000-year cycle has an impact on climate. The relative absence of this periodicity in the marine isotopic record may be due, at least in part, to the response times of the climate system components involved — in particular, the carbon cycle.

Stage 5 problem

The stage 5 problem refers to the timing of the penultimate interglacial (in marine isotopic stage 5) which appears to have begun 10 thousand years in advance of the solar forcing hypothesized to have been causing it. This is also referred to as the causality problem.

Effect exceeds cause

420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica research station.

The effects of these variations are primarily believed to be due to variations in the intensity of solar radiation upon various parts of the globe. Observations show climate behaviour is much more intense than the calculated variations. Various internal characteristics of climate systems are believed to be sensitive to the insolation changes, causing amplification (positive feedback) and damping responses (negative feedback).

The unsplit peak problem

The unsplit peak problem refers to the fact that eccentricity has cleanly resolved variations at both the 95 and 125 ka periods. A sufficiently long, well-dated record of climate change should be able to resolve both frequencies, but some researchers interpret climate records of the last million years as showing only a single spectral peak at 100 ka periodicity. It is debatable whether the quality of existing data ought to be sufficient to resolve both frequencies over the last million years.

The transition problem

Variations of Cyle Times, curves determined from ocean sediments

The transition problem refers to the change in the frequency of climate variations 1 million years ago. From 1-3 million years, climate had a dominant mode matching the 41 ka cycle in obliquity. After 1 million years ago, this changed to a 100 ka variation matching eccentricity. No reason for this change has been established.

Identifying dominant factor

Milankovic himself believed that reductions in summer insolation in northern high latitudes was the dominant factor leading to glaciation, which lead to him (incorrectly) deducing an approximately 41 kyr period for ice ages. Subsequent research has shown that the 100 kyr eccentricity cycle is more important, resulting in 100,000-year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last few million years.

Theory incomplete

The Milankovitch theory of climate change is not perfectly worked out; in particular, the largest observed response is at the 100,000-year timescale, but the forcing is apparently small at this scale, in regard to the ice ages. Various explanations for this discrepancy have been proposed, including frequency modulation or various feedbacks (from carbon dioxide, cosmic rays or from ice sheet dynamics).

Milankovitch 100,000-year problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100,000-year_problem

CO2 Seeping Into Water Supply

Michael Reilly, Discovery News

Nov. 18, 2008 -- Groundwater seems to be taking on carbon dioxide 100 times faster than the atmosphere, according to a new study.

As humans pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, the planet is rapidly growing saturated. Water readily dissolves the gas to form an acid, and over the last century Earth's oceans have already been lowered from a pH of 8.1 to 8.0.

Gwen MacPherson of the University of Kansas and a team of researchers have now made an analogous discovery in the groundwater flowing beneath the pristine Konza Prairie in Kansas. From 1991 through 2005, dissolved CO2 levels went up about 20 percent.

"In the atmosphere, CO2 went up 23 parts per million during that time," MacPherson said. "It went up 2,100 ppm in the water, so that's actually quite a lot."

CO2 Seeping Into Water Supply

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/18/water-carbon-dioxide.html

Have you figured it out yet as to what I am getting at?

That co2 absorption and release is the 3rd trigger of the 100k cycle.

This is why I don’t bother with you people! I point out in detail of the problems in this the Milankovitch Theory, a Theory of mathematics from Milutin Milanković that was born (mind you) in 1879 and yet goldminor grasp onto it because its fits to his way of living in denial.

What I am getting at is even if the theory is accurate and I am not saying it is or isn’t. Over a course of natural events of 41,000 years or 100,000 years cycles and so on (according to this theory) is a gradual process that wouldn’t even be noticeable. Could this theory be accurate...yes! Could it be warming the planet...yes! Again; if the theory is accurate but over the course of 41,000 years or so!

What cannot be denied is of the rate of which warming is occurring and the massive data and evidence supporting it. And there is no dispute of the high amounts of CO2 that is in the environment.

So what are the causes children if is not by humanity?

We know cars, trains, plans, electrical power plants, buildings, homes whatever burn fossil fuels and we know the emissions are in the form of CO2.

We know trees absorbed CO2 yet we continue to cut down trees.

We know we have not had increased volcanic activity that would cause this.

We know there is no increase solar output in the sun.

The amount of natural process of nature causing global warming is minuscule in comparison to humanity (as of the moment).

Here is some more reading material for those who care to know a little of reality.

Fact: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/enter

Fact: Massive Antarctic iceberg threatens ocean circulation

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18595-massive-antarctic-iceberg-threatens-ocean-circulation.html

Fact: Solar cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

Fact: A quiet sun won't save us from global warming

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527494.700-a-quiet-sun-wont-save-us-from-global-warming.html

Fact: Deep Solar minimum

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/

Astronomical Theory of Climate Change

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

Greenhouse gas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Greenhouse Gases Explained

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_about_ghg

About the AIRS Global Carbon Dioxide Data of Earth's Mid-Troposphere

http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/

Carbon dioxide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193013.htm

Water vapor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor

IPCC list of greenhouse gases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases

Earth's Biogeochemical Cycles, Once In Concert, Falling Out Of Sync

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090804071400.htm

World's Last Great Forest Under Threat: New Study

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090825090755.htm

Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across

USScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2009)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091112121611.htm

Temperature Trackers Watch Our Watery World Wax and Wane

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-060

'Missing' Heat May Affect Future Climate Change

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100415141121.htm

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/earth/

Carbon Emissions Linked To Global Warming In Simple Linear Relationship

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610154453.htm

New NASA Web Page Sheds Light on Science of Warming World

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-062

Massive Arctic Ice Cap Is Shrinking, Study Shows; Rate Accelerating Since 1985

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100412121014.htm

Atmospheric Chemistry Observational Databases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_Chemistry_Observational_Databases

Vostok Ice Core CO2 Data

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_co2.html

Ice core

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

Thomas... this might seem like after the fact. I do realize that the long term movement of the cycles makes the answer to the ice age question, as something that will only be discerned over a much longer time scale. Yes, I am a novice in my understanding. I have read most of the links you presented, plus many more over the period of the last 4 months, and I have done some reading at other sites, such as gov sites and several universities with open courseware. I do this to increase my understanding of the argument. I see then that you are of the opinion that the current and increasing level of co2 will trump the natural cycle. I understand the problem of deforestation and it is good to see that a plan to address this specific issue is in process. I would like to see specific efforts made at key points that will have direct and transparent results. I noticed an article talking about converting coal fired plants to natural gas, and converting the trucking industry to the same. That would lead to a substantial reduction in pollution. Ideas of this nature are what should be implemented, as they directly lower emissions. Lots of solar is being built, particularly concentrated solar and they are putting nuclear back on the table. Cap and trade sounds like a scam and Europe has had significant problems develop, in administering their version of it. Sending hundreds of billions of dollars to developing nations every year, also didn't make sense to me. If we are the problem, then spend that money here to fix the problem, with the exception of addressing deforestation. We could also put more money into reforesting the lands we clearcut. The people living in the northwest and other affected regions could use the work. Europe is working on their end of it. The big question here is China and to a lesser extent India. They have surpassed us in emissions and are going to increase their level of emissions. They will become the top emitter of all time. How is this going to work out in the long run? How many years of wiggle room is there? Maybe Iceland will give us some extra years. Also, you might have made a wrong assumption on how I view the overall issue.

Just go back to sleep. Obama will take care of you.

Only for the Democrats this fall.

You left out the mass disappearance/Rapture of the enviro-wacko's,the Anti war wacko's, and the mega fireball that lit up the Sky's last night. Obama should could out and warn his hippie followers not to go out side and stick there tongues out when the acid rain starts falling. Wrong kind of acid!

Yes for you

bobyoung WTF are you even talking about?

Al will say that global warming is responsible for the volcanic activity.

The sky is falling! The doom and gloom crowd are finally right...maybe.

And this profuse sweating is responsible for me running around the block to cool myself. Yeah, that's 'logical correlation'. And the leaves falling off the trees in autumn causes winter snows! But how can I prove that causation? Because in the tropics where leaves don't fall off the trees, IT NEVER SNOWS!!

http://i34.tinypic.com/2yki52g.jpg

Better hurry with the Hummer, only 2200 left.

Darn! Just when they are needed to save the environment!

John, now that is funny!

well.... don't forget about the warming effect it has on winter temperatures in northern states like the pacific northwest. ---- in fact, the warming effect is usually a larger differential than that of the summer cooling effect.

You mean the unproven global warming scam, or the unproven global cooling scam from previous decades? Which, by the way, was at the same time we were running out of oil (at least until the independant companies were run out of business by not having product to sell).

gramps

I mean the science.

Yeah, I agree. Ash vs gas. Ash is heavier, will eventually drop out of the atmosphere. I really was trying to add some humor though. Sure will wreak havoc while it is up there though.

science also shows that the oceans have been rising for thousands of years. ---- 10,000 years ago, the catalina islands of the coast near LA were part of the mainland. ---- what i think is amusing is when people believe that we, as puny humans, can do anything do reverse that trend. ---- and yet, we still have people who are dumb enough to build in low-lying coastal areas.

Don't forget those that also cut into mountainsides (especially in earthquake zones) ronpal. They are the first to complain when they get mudslides that destroy their homes......or the people that build on the edge of a known dry-timber forest area, then complain about the fires that devastate their homes....usually caused by careless smokers or campers.

Between volcanic ash and African dust (we get both all the time here in the US Caribbean territories with the Monserrat volcano), life can be a challenge. Then add in all of the industrial air pollution and other human generated pollution and it becomes a real health hazard for all. Soon we will be forced to wear oxygen masks all of the time just to survive.

or our bodies will have to adapt ---- but you're probably right about the gas masks. ---- sadly, there is no realistic way to reverse the trend.

jock59801
Once the ash falls out of the atmosphere, the CO2 will still be there, and we will be back to the temperatures we would have been without the volcano

Yes, however a single volcano eruption contributes about 1% of the total produced by man (not super volcanoes). That's like adding another 700 million auto drivers suddenly per volcano per year (this is using the figures from global warming advocates btw, only without the twist of "it's only 1%"). If one argues that Co2 levels don't naturally take care of themselves, why hasn't millions of years of volcano eruptions destroyed the planet long before we were able to build gas cars and power plants?

cutting down millions of trees might have harmed our cause, but do you ever hear anyone talking about planting some trees ?? --- no, they would rather take the expensive solution --- which isn't going to make any difference anyway. ---- and do AGW advocates ever mention the harm done if the population of the planet doubles again ??? --- if AGW is real, then doubling the population cannot help the cause.

Like when you 'gas' in the sleeping bag, it gets temporarily warmer, but your ash gets colder!

Yes, however a single volcano eruption contributes about 1% of the total produced by man (not super volcanoes). (this is using the figures from global warming advocates btw, only without the twist of "it's only 1%").

That's a lie, based on twisting one my own postings. In fact all the volcanoes on earth contribute less than 1% of the CO2 emissions by man.

Total CO2 emission of volcanoes: 130-230 Megatonnes/year

Total CO2 emission of man: 27 Gigatonnes/year

Ratio: 0.48 to 0.85%

Comparison of CO₂ emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO₂ into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO₂ by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO₂, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO₂ emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

Can conservative activists make the case against AGW without lying? Doesn't look like it!

Doc; Don't waste your breath. No matter what the data from NOAA, NASA, USGS, National Geographic etc... The right-wing deniers won't believe it. They think all scientists are liars and that we're only making it up to get grant money from President Obama. They will no sooner believe in AGW than they will in evolution. It has to do with their world view. they won't believe anything if they didn't read it in the bible. It seems that they have been convinced that man is so weak and puny that we couldn't possibly effect the planet in any way. To believe anything else means to these black or white people that they would be going against their god. That is just something a true religious fanatic won't and can't do. It's really sad what religion will do to some people.

The other theory is that the deniers are just paid shills for the oil, coal and heavy industry crowd. Take your pick. Either way these foolish deniers won't be giving up their religion or their money anytime soon.

This is really funny because people who would call all these scientists liars remind me an awful lot of what Nazi Germany was like. Hitler was very suspicious of people who were well educated.

Folks - really now, what is so, so evil about cutting back on fossil fuel usage? What is so evil about reducing our impact on the environment? It's been proven that it can be done on a mass scale. It IS worth it. If you want your kids and grandkids and all generations following to have the ability to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and enjoy life - we have to ensure that it is possible.

I guess you just do not care enough to do all that.

I actually support conservation. I just think it needs to be done in such a way it does not bankrupt the country.

I think the problem is multifactorial, and there are some things that can be done that are relatively inexpensive.

I think the ridicule I see in this forum only serves to drive the wedge in further between environmentalists and skeptics.

Some of the scientists have not helped the cause for the environmentalist by getting caught purposely altering or hiding data that do not support their theories.

Actually there was an independent study done on the climategate non-scandal and the only fault that could be found against the British researchers was that they lacked a little skill as statisticians. That and the fact that they were a little paranoid about the non-scientist deniers who were continually twisting any data they published (go figure). There was no purposely altered data.

As far as the IPCC report goes there apparently was a dyslexic typist that reversed a few figures. Once again, no purposely altered data.

The paid shill deniers of the oil, coal, power, big industry companies, however, believe (and rightly so), that if they repeat a lie often enough and loudly enough, that they can get the weak of mind to believe. This has been proved time and time again throughout history. Bush proved it when he kept repeating that Saddam and Iraq was behind 9-11.

I personally used to try to discuss calmly and rationally with the deniers. After years of this, however, I no longer believe that the deniers deserve any sort of civility. The British researchers obviously became sick and tired of them as well. Non-scientists have no right to have their prejudiced viewpoints included in peer reviewed scientific journals. These journals are for actual highly educated researchers, not ignorant shills.

It’s nice to know how you refer to one report from (and I believe the correct spelling is climatologists) of 1975 in support to your pathetic reasoning. Slow reader...I can agree with that. Again; there are read programs for that but I am afraid they have not come out with a program to help with delusional thinking. You might want to consider medications for that.

It's all the unseen, underseas vulcanism responsible for any global warming effect of the ocean currents, and it's sunspots ionizing the upper atmosphere responsible for any global warming of the atmosphere, but it's deforestation that will annihilate our tilth, and with it, mass starvation.

Global Tilth! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vfuCPFb8wk

What dougjmiller calls "pseudo-scientifric non-sense," i.e. that the SO2 emitted by large eruptions like Pinatubo can simply mask the global warming signal for a short period of time, is actually the truth.

But, hey, thanks for admitting in your screed that your "opinion" on climate change results from your political ideology, not from any knowledge of science.

Snicker!

It's all the unseen, underseas vulcanism responsible for any global warming effect of the ocean currents, and it's sunspots ionizing the upper atmosphere responsible for any global warming of the atmosphere

It's all the unseen, underseas vulcanism responsible for any global warming effect of the ocean currents, and it's sunspots ionizing the upper atmosphere responsible for any global warming of the atmosphere.

The deniers are getting really desperate now. Why, lets just postulate without any evidence at all that underwater volcanoes are responsible for ocean warming. And, at the bottom of the deepest solar minimum in over 100 years, while global average temperatures continue to rise, claim that solar activity is responsible for global warming.

Now that's (pseudo)science!

I take that back.

the extent of this volcano's effects will likely depend upon your location. ---- things like this seem to have a larger impact on the pacific northwest than in many other regions.

I don't see how this is alarmist crap from the media. There really is dust in the air, and airports really are closed in Europe. That's a real story. The volcano's output has increased dramatically, and these things don't typically slow down after just a few days. It's way to early to write this off as media hype. My bet is this thing keeps going for months. Or maybe a million years like the Siberian Traps mantle plume event that killed virtually all life on the planet 250 million years ago. Fortunately there was no one around to blame the madia back then. Have a nice day.

All of that ash settling on snow and ice will definitely absorb more solar energy and in turn speed the melting process. As if that wasn't happening fast enough due to AGW.

Volcanoes have cooled the earth for short periods in recorded history. This resulted in "cold years" where crops failed and thousands starved. This eruption isn't on that level, so this article is alarmist. But it does happen and it wouldn't have to be a "supervolcano" like Yellowstone would be.

and anyone with any intelligence should be able to recognize that the climate is changing with or without human assistance, and also realize the futility of trying to reverse that larger trend.

Michael, very insightful. Though to be honest, as long as no one gets hurt, I wouldn't mind seeing a few more volcanoes erupt so we end up with a few years without a summer. While it won't in-and-of itself stop global climate change, it may buy us some time to figure out strategies to fix what we've done. Yes acid rain is bad, and yes the extra co2 will be an added problem, but that can be fixed with some of the new technologies being tried, such as algae farms to soak up the co2, the bombardment of deforested areas with a new seed delivery system from planes, and the possibility of high-altitude balloons with co2 scrubbers (still in development).

CO2 scrubbers? They are called trees. Hey, I can see one now!

anyone with any intelligence should be able to recognize that the climate is changing with or without human assistance, and also realize the futility of trying to reverse that larger trend.

Anyone of intelligence should see that as a canard. It's a fallacy that either ignores or assumes a particular relationship between magntiudes that is not in evidence.

NoParty... there is a strong possibilty that the fall of the Roman Empire was due in part to a large volcano. The Dark Ages were truly dark and that is recorded. The inabilty of the noethern inhabitants of Europe to grow crops and feed themselves, probably drove them south out of desperation. It is recorded that even at midday, in the middle of summer that the sun barely warmed the earth and cast but a dim light.

the key word in your comment is "global" --- as someone else who has studied the effects of volcanos, i can say with certainty that some regions will be significantly impacted not only this summer, but possibly also see a warmer winter.

Sorry, but your talking from emotion rather than knowledge. Volcanos DO NOT produce long term REGIONAL effects. Short term regional effects - Yes. Long term regional effects - No. The only long-term effects from volcanos are global and it has to do with the incoming solar power being diminished by the gases the volcano put into the stratosphere.

i said nothing about long-term ---- the gist of this article referred to short-term effects, and my comments are reflecting on their statements. ---- i would guess that since most people live in a region, they might have an interest in what can be expected in their region rather than on a global stage. ---- no emotions intended --- my data originates from NCDC.

With volcanos, short-term effects are measure in days to perhaps a couple weeks. Long-term effects are a year or two at the most. Pinatubo, the biggest volcano in the past 30 or more years, cooled the planet for about 18 months.

the planet, yes, but not the pacific northwest --- only the summer was cooler --- the winter was warmer. ---- up here in oregon and washington, we are impacted by just about every medium to major volcano eruption which occurs in the northern hemisphere. --- we even get some effect from hawaii's activity. --- even mt redoubt impacted us a little.

and as far as pinatubo goes, the impact on this region was not as great as say, for st helens, in 1980. ---- the mean differential that summer was about 3 degrees below normal, but the following winter saw an increase above the mean of nearly 5 degrees. ---- on my graphs, that equaled close to the 3rd standard deviation from the mean --- a significant spike.

oh.... and those effects lasted all summer and all winter, not just a few weeks ---- that's how i discovered the relationship in the first place ---- i had a spike on my graphs throughout the summer and the winter. ---- so then i investigated other years which had extended time periods of spikes, and in each case, could directly correllate that spike with volcanic activity.

Also effects ... after the Indonesian tsunami changed the Pacific ocean circulation, a huge slug of tropical water must have pushed into the Humboldt Current, that summer I went swimming for three hours in the Pacific, the ocean heated up more than 3ºs almost instantly, which could not possibly have been related to short-term atmospheric influence or climate.

Since we can't track the Pacific currents, we ignore them, global warming monkeys flaming out the ass of every public resource welfare tax dole scientist looking for a Fed eco-grant.

The only (major) flaw with the al-Gore'ian's was 1) the industrial wealth sidesteamed to the 3W would have gone to corrupt dictators and narco-mafia's to force indigents off the land and build biofuel deserts instead of sustainable forests, everyone knows this because that's how capital works; and 2) the 'plan' crafted in Brussels was for the 3W nations to 'share' their natural resources with the industrial nations as part of the carbon trade, which again, displaces indigents off the land and builds resource moonscapes instead of sustainable forests, that's why all al-Gore'ia has to say in it's Eco-Torah is cooked climate data and hysterical reverse-causation and hyperinflated future prognostication.

Everyone knows this because that's how capital works: find some drones to bahksheesh, turn their cooked books into hysteria propaganda, then Global Carbon Caliphate lockdown, and deliberate starvation of 10's of milllions subsisting on less than $1 a day in price wars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vfuCPFb8wk Reforestation without Caliphation!!

It is important to remember that correlation is not necessarily causation. What that mean is yes, you may be able to find relationships that seem to fit together, but it doesn't mean that one caused the other to happen. This fact is incredibly true in climate since there are so many factors.

My point in all this is that just because you think you found a relationship of volcano activity to long term regional impacts, doesn't mean that the relationship is physically real. In other words it can be simply coincidence. Knowing what I do about climate science, I have a hard time believing your claims. If you can point me to some peer reviewed papers on this, maybe I can be convinced, but otherwise I don't buy it.

People, please listen to this very smart way of approaching data. SpiritualScientist will not be tricked easily.

More then likely it was an El Nino that caused the NW warming, just like we are seeing currently. This is the warmest winter that I have ever lived through in California. It has been cooler for the last 3 weeks than it was for much of the last winter.

SS; Don't forget the increased melting effect if much of that ash should happen to land on Greenland and other northern hemisphere glaciers. This might be one long term result.

Actually, two years for long term effects is a little short. Kratoa caused red skies all over the world for five years.

Yea kflann we will just drop you in the volcano as a sacrifice to your liberal God Obama and your hot air and BS will seal it right up

kflann,

Believe it or not, that was actually tried several times in Hawaii in experiments designed to alter the flow of lava.

You know Obamas and idiot - your screen name makes me laugh. Really says a lot about your intelligence...(of which you have very little of evidentially)

That what activist denier tards do--conflate the science of climate change with the messenger Al Gore. They apparently don't know the difference.

Huh huh, duh!

Actually, Al Gore was instrumental in the development of the internet.

While my intent is to have meaningful scientific dialogue on many subjects, the non-scientific trolls on newsvine sometimes make that difficult. If I annoy those who really shouldn't be posting here in the first place, then so be it. Many who have a scientific bent and a modicum of intelligence (with a t) seem to find my posts to have a certain amount of worth, merit and value. Please feel free to ignore my posts in the future. I assure you that I won't be losing any sleep over it.

i agree --- i'm gonna take a vacation for 2 to 6 years, hopefully only two.

Dude, what are you even talking about?

MichaelBo, The "Obamas And Idiot" guy is just obsessed with our President. Just obsessed. Every issue, no matter how unrelated to anything Obama would have anything to do with is all his fault. No matter what.

Really - the guy needs help. Serious help. I pity him.

There is the possibility that he is beyond hope.

Ah yes, the old denier cannard that human respiration contributes to climate change. Mostly spouted by folks like gramps who are to busy flapping their lips to think.

Souce of all food is plant life. Plant life absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere. Respiration of mamamls just returns it. No net change in atmsopheric CO2.

Fossil fuels contain carbon sequestered for millions of years. Burning them creates a positive net change in atmospheric CO2.

Dr smith you are not taking into account the explosive population increase, not to mention the increased animal load to feed them. How about you actually read the scientific study that I supplied the link for pefore you start your badmouthing?

I actually looked into the subject before "flapping my lips".

Oh, yeah. And we don't eat trees.

Doc; Gramps does have a point here about respiration and the explosive growth of fauna, but the figures don't seem quite right.

Gramps; Doc is right about the food chain. We eat things that eat trees and all other vegetation.

Cj I concede that information, though that implies even more fauna if we are eating things that eat trees. I just think things are much too complex for a simple answer, and that human respiration does have some impact.

http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/3/1781/2006/bgd-3-1781-2006.pdf

Maybe a little more than previouly thought, as evidenced by the above study, and should not be discounted.

I repeat, regardless of the estimates of CO2 emissions from humans or animals, this has ZERO effect on the atmospheric CO2 concentration on times scales greater than about a year. Less than a year, a minor if not miniscule effect, as foodstuffs plant growth rates, harvest, and even consumption are not uniform.

Studies are worthless without the intellect to interpret them in the context of the larger picture. In this case, the larger picture is that the carbon fluxes related to consumption and respiration occur in a largely closed system (CO2 is just recycled from plants to fauna or to us, fauna to us, CO2 from fauna and us back to the atmosphere). This is in direct opposition to the CO2 fluxes from fossil fuel burning, where carbon sequestered for millions of years is dumped into the atmosphere.

Hank; How is it that I get the feeling that your collective "we" couldn't track a muddy dog across a white carpet? You obviously can't track anything that has to do with volcanoes, science, climate, economics or politics.

Please go away so the adults can talk.

OK Dr Smith..... I'm listening. Could you point me toward some studies so I can understand more?

I'm trying not to be too dense, but if we plant lots of trees, won't that mean more plant life to sequester carbon?

Or Thomas? Could you tell me your take on that?

It's going to take me a month to get through all this material you are discussing. As far as my contribution to global warming, I still have a SUV. However, I now live about 3 miles from work, so probably not much impact there. Do have a flat roof, which is black. Saving up to re-roof with a white roof. Replacing windows as I can afford with double pane glass. Have recycled for years. Upgraded heating system by adding energy saving devices. Plan to replace central air system with heat pumps as they break down. Will plant more trees if that will help, hence my question above. This will benefit the environment as well as save me money. These are essentially market driven changes.

To me, I think we all have a responsibility to the environment, so in some ways it doesn't matter what is contributing to global warming.

It would be much more efficient if we took this responsibility on ourselves, instead of letting the government screw this up.

A positive campaign could result in better participation, as most people don't like to be forced to do something.

Thomas, without giving away your identity, what is your general field of work? you seem to know too much about climate to be self taught, but maybe you are. Just curious.

What is your basis for believing this? Do you personally know a number of Climatologists and have found them all to be nutty?

I happen to have a degree in Atmospheric Science and have studied climate science extensively. And I be happy to give my take on Global Warming:

Is Global Warming real? Yes, there is no doubt that it is happening

Is Global Warming man made? There is a lot of evidence to suggest it is. There is also alot of evidence to suggest it isn't just CO2, but also other things that mankind is doing.

Could Global Warming simply be part of a natural cycle? There are definitely natural cycles, and they could in fact add to or reduce global warming. But in all of the research done (going back 1000's of years using proxy data, trees rings, ice cores, etc) we have never seen such a rapid rise in temperature due to a natural cycle. So while it is true that natural cycles can cause variations in temperature, a cycle variation can't be use to explain all of Global Warming.

Why should we worry about Global Warming? The consequences of global warming may be catastrophic. Sea level rise and weather pattern changes could disrupt the world severely. Is this a certainty? No, but it is a real possibility. That being the case, we shouldn't be wasting time pointing fingers and arguing. We should be try to figure out how serious the threat is, and in the meantime try to stop global warming and come up with plans to deal with it is it continues.

Is Global Warming being use for political and financial gains? Probably, but so haven't alot of other crisis such as the 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Ecomony, and more.

OK, so step away from the battle for a minute and consider this. If in the future an astronomer discovered that a massive asteroid was going to hit Earth in 10 years time and that it would wipeout the planet, what do you thing would happen? Well, if the threat was verified to be real, the countries of the world would band together to try to deflect or otherwise remove the asteroid.

But in truth, I don't think this is how it would play out. Why? Because there would be a group of people (like the global warming deniers) that would insist that the calculations are wrong or whatever. They would argue that it is a ruse to steer resources and money away from more important efforts. They would argue that it is a conspiracy to control people, etc. They would deny the existence of the threat even when the fireball in the sky was brighter than the sun.

I don't know what it is about some people. I guess they simply like to argue regardless of whatever evidence is put forth. And for that reason I think humanity has probably peaked. We'll never be any more advance than we are now simply because we like to fight with one another. And with advancing and dangerous technology, that 'trait' of ours will likely be our doom.

I do think part of the problem is trust. Take "cattlegate", for instance. A theory that "suggested" something, and it was placed on a bandwagon as "proof". Not only was it disproven, but some scientists now think the cows are actually helping slow global warming.

The crappy group of scientists that were trying to manipulate information, and were caught.

Lying politicians.

Most people want someone to tell them what is going on. They do not want to research a topic to see if it is valid. Joe the mechanic, or Sally the secretary are better at what they do. This tends to make people listen to the version that supports what they want supported. They put all of their trust in something they want to believe in.
Most people do not understand a theory is supported by evidence, not proven.

Most people cannot look at data from a study, and determine whether it was a good study or not.

Many people do not understand "cause" and "effect" relationships, and how to determine if the cause actually results in the effect they are seeing, or if it is coincidence.

The scientist is charged with that responsibility. Shame on those that use their theory to coerce others, or to allow politicians to do the same.

SpiritualScientist,

That was by far the best thing I read in a long time on here. I am wondering if you live and/or received your education somewhere else other then in the US.

Personally I feel that I am surrounded by never ending mob of ignorance in this country. Perhaps we are seeing branches of humanities evolutionally tree has peaked, not unlike the several Homo sapiens and subspecies that are extinct.

Spiritual... I second Thomas's opinion, also. Nice exposition.

Gramps, as nutty as it sounds, cows belching are contributing way more to GW than CO2 from cars. Methane gas is five times worse than CO2 for it's greenhouse effects. We don't even have to stop eating beef to correct it. Just put a little garlic in their feed.

SS - I too am very impressed. I never thought about what would happen if an asteroid was on its way, but the scenario you painted - very vivid. I'm betting that would be what would happen too.

Frightening thought too.

Michael, actually cows were absolved of global warming. Some think they are actually helping. Otherwise another poor scientific study that was touted as "proof" by environmentalists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7564682/Cows-absolved-of-causing-global-warming-with-nitrous-oxide.html

Another violation of trust.

Give me a brake gramps442! Your kind is unbelievably dense.

What kind of car do you have Thomas, I have some spare brake parts handy.

LMAO wrong brake...break.

Thomas, nice comment. And to think I gave you such a good comment about your earlier post.

Yeah; gramps I do want to apologize to you and others. In the heat of the moment sometimes people can go too far and I do believe I have reached that point.

I get that way once in awhile. In this case I'll give you a brake. [for free]

Aggravation and lack of sleep, again I do apologize. You see; I have been having dreams frequently oh how and why I lost my home as a result of this economic disaster. And while I may have lefty views as to believing everyone should be entitled to

A good education

Unions to safe guard abusive practices to employees

A livable wage to provide

A home to reside in

Affordable clean energy for that home

Nutritional needs for a well balanced diet

The means of affordable and clean forms of transportation

Healthcare and other insurance safeguards

And the means to save for retirement

While being able to provide for the less fortunate in times of need, like the disabled workers and veterans.

This is the America we once had. This is the America that was lost under the scam of a republican and democrat deregulated market. Refer to my posting #1.54

We can have a debate on Healthcare another time if you are up for it.

Back to the orbital axis tilt of the earth

Sorry to hear that Thomas. That is so unfortunate. Yes, much has changed in our lifetime. I went through some bad times with sleep problems [had the prostate problem] for a period of years. When I finally had that fixed, it was like being reborn again to be able to sleep eight hours.

More "skeptics" are needed. Question everything and verify it yourself. Less victims that way.

I was wondering when someone was going to get around to blaming Bush for the volcano. But the earthquakes too? Why not?

That puts him in god status, right?

I would say it puts Bush in the Devil status but since I don’t believe in fairytales I would say Bush is just another typical dumb @!$%# rightwing piece of @!$%#.

well bush and along with cheney (the master mind behind bush) along with many followers within the republican party , were all on the secret agenda to put us where we are today. They are still at work. Bush was stupid for ignoring global warming, bad mistake along with many others. But , it was apart the "agenda" america. That same agenda is still at work

Hank,

can you truly say Cheney and Bush had nothing to do with the economic blunder? can you say that individuals from the republican party were stealing our money too and giving it away , and abusing power during the 8years? Please be honest. Many of these individuals are still at large today, trying to save their tails. If you can't see that reality, that is a clear fact , (republican or not), then you are not being realistic and open minded about the big picture here. There is no initial blame one party as a WHOLE, but there is initial blame on INDIVIDUALS within both parties. Let's stop being afraid to see the reality , and stop sticking up for those individuals who put us where are now, and stop letting our intelligence be insulted by dems and reps in government playing politics.

Are you looking at your self in the mirror there guy when you came up with this:

HANK said and referring to his own party as a POS lol.

THOMAS------Rightwing Pos , wow!!!! And this from a supporter of the Democratic Parasitical Party.

The Party whose entire program is predicated on stealing money from the wages of people who earned it and funding the WIC and public housing programs.

How does it feel to know that the world sees you as thief and a parasite?

HANK------And this from a supporter of the Republican parasitical Party.

The party whose entire program is predicated on stealing money from the wages of the working middle class and throwing them out with the trash, no further of use when jobs are gone do to the corruption, and stealing the publics housing to further line their greedy pockets, and the party who (again) single handily brought the nation and the world into a near depression in doing so. How does it feel to put millions out of work for the top elite’s greed?

How does it feel to be known to the world’s thief and a parasite?

Hank; your hatred has been received and know this...I despise you and your ilk equally.

Jane... the roots of the economic meltdown started in the years prior to Bush. It was interesting to watch two videos of him addressing Congress on the need to take care of the problem with Fannie, Freddie, and a developing housing bubble. One of these was from 2001 and the other was 4 years later. Franks and Dodd stood against his suggestions, as they were the ones who championed the right of disenfranchised people to have home ownership made easier. They proposed the framework for this during Clinton's term and had the legislation passed. This was the true start of the problem. This isn't to say that Bush did no wrong, but there is much more to the story to properly understand it.

Actually the meltdown started much further back then that.

Yes Goldminor, your speaking truly realistically and open minded, and acknowledging key facts. I thank you for pointing that out. Also most likely, the problem started even further back, and yes, there is definitely much more to story , and it's sad some folks only see what they want to see, and whats being fed to them, when it comes to the whole story of how this mess became about. I can't say that I know everything to the whole story, and I won't pretend I do, but the facts are there, we have to see them for what they are, and forget sticking up for the many individuals from both sides, who are apart of the problem, and stop letting them be the voice for us.

That's a good response, Jane. Thank you. I truly believe in the importance of having civil, and reasoned discourse. The more I read of late, the more I find the level of rhetoric being tossed about, both alarming and discouraging. A strong discord is creeping up on us, and becoming pervasive at many levels of our society. Throughout history, one can see the results of what happens when a time of madness overtakes a people. This has been repeated many times. We don't even have to go back to many years in time to witness the results, either.

Great Depression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

Glass–Steagall Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

U.S. Senators Propose Reinstating Glass-Steagall Act

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aQfRyxBZs5uc

Financial crisis of 2007–2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession

Actually the lax regulations started as far back under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford presidency.

Deregulation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation

Increase government spending and WW2 is what brought us out of the first great depression compounded by regulation; the very same kind of regulations that the republicans are against today and has been decade’s back, not to mention the erosion of unions. That being said democrats are not without blame but we now have a chance to correct the problem.

Over the decades with the erosion of unions and lax regulations while people were naive to think it could not happen again as the go about their daily lives I have to ask a question. How many people were never taught about the history of the Great Depression, and other economic downturns and cause in school?

Here is a thought; as the dumbing down of Americans continued over the decades. Maybe Bush and others were perpetuating the wars, through lax security, such as 911 to go to war in Afghanistan, the deception in the Iraq war and nearly going to war with Iran (before the republicans lost the presidency to the democrats) was done to counteract an intentional economic turmoil to line the pockets of the elite.

There are bigger things at work here and if people would take a look at the whole picture over history instead of bits and pieces, with what caused the Great Depression and other recessions, when it started and how it continued to this point in time, I think you might find we all have been taken for a ride...or should I say lie.

I am sorry but unless you are the big shots that gained from all of this; the rest of us have been screwed big time whatever your party affiliation may be.

Goldminor

Definitely, if there were more people who think like this and be open minded, we can have a bigger voice to be recognized and protest this reality. They think we don't know the truth and the big picture, and think we are stupid and afraid, and that we protest only on what they are feeding us, and what they want us to think. It's about time we put the fear on them and expose them of the reality that got us here, and the reality of what's happening now , and not continue to let them treat us like robots. Maybe I'm just dreaming too big, but hey, many of us believe in equal, fair opportunity, and positive ideas, and decent and non-obstructionist agendas, that won't erase the good name America stands for.

Other countries are looking at us like were crazy and uncivilized, and that we lost all credibility. Look how Bush was busy doing jigsaw dances before a speech in the background, while being filmed on national tv! for goodness sake if someone throws a darn shoe at u twice! what does that say?? that shouldn't have to happen to any president. I just had to point that out. I'm tired of dems and reps playing politics every chance they get, making us as country, look bad.

It is good to know there are people out there who think realistically and open minded.

All they would have to do is take jet airplanes, engineers can determine how many, placed them on the windward side and have them park horizontally at the correct altitudes and let the exhaust spread the ash quicker. They can use military, commercial and corporate jets.

Would that be good for the engines?

Close enough wacco. the SO2 would temporarily counterbalance the CO2. The SO2 would soon fallout as acid rain but the CO2 would stay on for decades. This is the reason CO2 is considered so serious; it's longevity.

An old chemistry professor once told me that the only stupid question is the one not asked.

If it's Yellowstone, we're all screwed.

You got that right gramps. The last time it blew it left a 35x45 mile caldera. We're actually overdue for another one if it stays as accurate as Old Faithful. Due to tectonic plate shift to a thicker area, however, some postulate it won't happen again.