Slashdot Mirror

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.

2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).

3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?

4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])

5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)

How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.

6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)

Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

All satellites and such undergo environmental testing, among other testing to simulate launch vibrations and such. Its something that has to be done.

Here is an article on the testing done to MRO 2 years ago.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /mr_o_tech_050119.html

It should be an issue now. Congress took too long to pass the 2007 spending bills, so now they're planning to shove it through with everything that didn't get allocated yet funded at the 2006 levels with the same 2006 mandates. This means NASA comes in $500 million below the level outlined in the budget the president originally submitted. It also means they don't have the discretion necessary to shift funds around between projects to properly adjust for the lower-than-promised budget. That means money forcefully allocated to aerospace can't be diverted to space science or exploration projects.

The Mars Science Laboratory should be far enough along to avoid being affected. The JWST has been delayed enough that NASA will probably make sure it gets what it needs, both to get it into action and avoid cost growth that has already plagued this program due to funding delays.

The biggest threat is probably to programs currently in the development stages, especially the Ares 1 second stage. NASA had planned to select the prime contractor for this in 2007, but may have to back off until they're sure they have the money to follow it through. A larger than planned budget increase in 2008 may help, but won't entirely make up for lost time, and there's no reason to expect congress to be any more competent next year than they were this year.

This is just months after the GAO warned NASA to keep the CEV on track to avoid delays in fielding the vehicle and the costs incurred by delays (paying 3rd party launch providers, maintaining infrastructure and trained workforce, etc).

I appreciate your cool headedness and desire to stick with facts and data. I am no expert on the subject, however even experts need non-expert intuition every now and then to show them the forest through the trees. If we listened to "scientists" during the 1970s, we would have been painting tar on the artic ice to melt it. The scare at that time was global cooling. In fact, the same type of "science" issues were going on back when Eugenics was the big thing. They now label sceptics "global warming deniers" to give it the same sound as "holocaust deniers". How scary is that? Why do you think there is so much "conscensous" about global warming? Universities are not areas of freedom of discussion and debate like you think. They are some of the worst when it comes to political correctness. If Sierra Club, Greenpeace, or some other leftist front group funds a study, then it is perfectly fine, but if Exxon funds a study, it is called into question. Scientists are basically welfare babies, they need to keep the government money coming their way. This is why there seems to be life on mars every time NASA wants to fund a mars mission.

Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies has stated that "the Sun's possible influence has been largely ignored because it is so difficult to quantify over long periods." If this is the case, how can you be so sure that it has had little effect?

( From: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_0 30320.html )

One volcano can put more CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere than we would be able to do in 10-50 years. I very well doubt that we can compete with that. Of course, even if we went back to the stone age immediately, we would have little effect on the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

• http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ moon_caves_000321.html
  
• http://www.asi.org/adb/06/09/03/02/100/12-question s.html
  
• http://www.cityastronomy.com/apecave.htm
  

You will have to get buy-in from the navajo nation. Maybe let them build a casino...

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/business/m oon_burial_000510_wg.html

The Holocene climatic optimum was a period of warming in which the global climate became 0.5-2C warmer than today. However, the warming was probably not uniform across the world. It began roughly 9,000 years ago and ended about 5,000 years ago, when the earliest human civilizations in Asia and Africa were flourishing. This period of warmth ended with a cooler period with minor glaciation, which continued until about 2,000 years ago. At that time, the climate was not unlike today's, but there was a slightly warmer period from the 10th-14th centuries known as the Medieval Warm Period. This was followed by the Little Ice Age, from the 13th or 14th century to the mid 19th century, which was a period of significant cooling, though not as severe as previous periods during the Holocene.

Wikipedia

It got even warmer than that in places:

Combination of these newly calculated water ages and previously reported noble gas temperatures reveals new aspects of late Pleistocene and Holocene climate in southwestern Texas, in particular, an abrupt late Holocene temperature increase previously unidentified through 14C dating. Temperature increased by up to 3.4 C in the first half of the last millennium and by 1.5 C between 5.6 and 3.7 kyrs BP.

Abstract from "Noble Gas Thermometry and Hydrologic Ages: Evidence for Late Holocene Warming in Southwest Texas"

And other recent research is finding that sunspots were largely responsible for the Holocene warming:

Glacier fluctuations of the last 10,000 years have been reconstructed in Garibaldi Provincial Park in the southern Coast Mountains, British Columbia, from historical documents, dendrochronologic and lichenometric dating of moraines, and radiocarbon dating of fossil wood in glacier forefields. Six major periods of glacier advance are recognized: 7700-7300, 6400-5100, 4300, 4100-2900, 1600-1100 14C years BP, and the last millennium. Evidence for each of these six periods was found in the forefield of Sphinx Glacier, the only glacier in western North America with so complete a record. Evidence for each period, except the 4300 14C years BP event, was found at two or more sites, showing the regional significance of the advances. The data demonstrate that the LittleIce Age in Garibaldi Park began as early as AD 1000. The earliest maximum was achieved in the 12th century, followed by recession until sometime in the 14th century. Several glaciers advanced into forests in the 14th century, culminating with the construction of moraines in the late 17th, early 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Helm Glacier provides a near complete record of fluctuations since the 14th century. Glaciers receded between the 1930s and 1960s at average annual rates of about 30 m. Between the 1960s and 1980s,glaciers advanced up to 300 m, but since then they have receded at annual rates of 5-10 m. Ice cover has decreased by about 240 km since the Little Ice Age maximum, with most of this loss occurring after the 1920s. Some small glaciers in the park have already vanished, and more are likely to disappear if the current trend continues. The record from Garibaldi Park is broadly synchronous with records of glaciers throughout the world, suggesting a global forcing mechanism. Hemispheric temperature change can explain glacier behaviour during the last millennium. The Garibaldi record shows a relation to reconstructed Holocene sunspot activity, suggesting that changes in solar activity probably play an important role in global climate change.

Here copy and pasted to counter the -1 moderation. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature. 2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's). 3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet [space.com] ic_031212.html [space.com]). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? 4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j [space.com] [space.com] r.html [space.com]) 5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ [space.com] [space.com] mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new [dailymail.co.uk] s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770 [dailymail.co.uk]) How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there. 6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i [fao.org] ndex.html [fao.org]) Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 [breitbart.com] [breitbart.com] 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa [cnn.com] rming.ap/index.html [cnn.com]) One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Here copy and pasted to counter the -1 moderation. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature. 2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's). 3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet [space.com] ic_031212.html [space.com]). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? 4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j [space.com] [space.com] r.html [space.com]) 5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ [space.com] [space.com] mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new [dailymail.co.uk] s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770 [dailymail.co.uk]) How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there. 6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i [fao.org] ndex.html [fao.org]) Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 [breitbart.com] [breitbart.com] 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa [cnn.com] rming.ap/index.html [cnn.com]) One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Here copy and pasted to counter the -1 moderation. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature. 2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's). 3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet [space.com] ic_031212.html [space.com]). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? 4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j [space.com] [space.com] r.html [space.com]) 5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ [space.com] [space.com] mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new [dailymail.co.uk] s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770 [dailymail.co.uk]) How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there. 6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i [fao.org] ndex.html [fao.org]) Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 [breitbart.com] [breitbart.com] 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa [cnn.com] rming.ap/index.html [cnn.com]) One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Here copy and pasted to counter the -1 moderation. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature. 2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's). 3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html [space.com]). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere [wikipedia.org] ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? 4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j [space.com] r.html [space.com]) 5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ [space.com] mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770 [dailymail.co.uk]) How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there. 6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html [fao.org]) Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 [breitbart.com] 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html [cnn.com]) One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Here copy and pasted to counter the -1 moderation. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature. 2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's). 3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html [space.com]). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere [wikipedia.org] ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? 4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j [space.com] r.html [space.com]) 5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ [space.com] mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770 [dailymail.co.uk]) How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there. 6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html [fao.org]) Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 [breitbart.com] 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html [cnn.com]) One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Here copy and pasted to counter the -1 moderation. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature. 2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's). 3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html [space.com]). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere [wikipedia.org] ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? 4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j [space.com] r.html [space.com]) 5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ [space.com] mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770 [dailymail.co.uk]) How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there. 6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html [fao.org]) Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 [breitbart.com] 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html [cnn.com]) One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there. 6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there. 6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there. 6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Total HST cost: $6 billion

Yearly HST operations budget: $337 million

Single servicing mission in 2008: $900 million

I like Hubble a lot, but other missions which don't require (or allow) Shuttle service and cost on the order of $0.3-0.8 billion seem to me far more cost effective. The mirror is a tiny fraction of the cumulative operations costs.

Total HST cost: $6 billion

Yearly HST operations budget: $337 million

Single servicing mission in 2008: $900 million

I like Hubble a lot, but other missions which don't require (or allow) Shuttle service and cost on the order of $0.3-0.8 billion seem to me far more cost effective. The mirror is a tiny fraction of the cumulative operations costs.

But the press should give unbiased representation to both sides, so that people can draw their own conclusions - it's their job.

"Unbiased representation" means calling things like they are.

Religious crackpots who believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, or people who believe that the "Face on Mars" is an artifical construct, or conspiracy theorists who claim the moon landings were fake, or modern geocentrists, or industry shills paid to create confusion about climate change: calling these people "experts" or "skeptics", representing their ideas as anything but fringe beliefs well outside the mainstream of scientific thought, is biased representation.

I certainly won't claim that China wouldn't have pressed ahead with its anti-sattelite weapon if the US hadn't stated space hegemony as its policy objective, but in terms of being provocative it really seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The US space policy is confrontational if nothing else.

I'm fairly confident that the recently unveiled US space policy caused a massive "Oh yeah? We'll see about that!" response among China, Russia, India, and perhaps others too.

I certainly won't claim that China wouldn't have pressed ahead with its anti-sattelite weapon if the US hadn't stated space hegemony as its policy objective, but in terms of being provocative it really seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The US space policy is confrontational if nothing else.

I'm fairly confident that the recently unveiled US space policy caused a massive "Oh yeah? We'll see about that!" response among China, Russia, India, and perhaps others too.

Great. Now explain why the same thing is happening on Mars, Triton, and Pluto.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Christ, you lazy bastard... do a fucking google search.

This turned up on the first page.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warmin g_021009.html

Nevermind them... What about poor little Pluto. First kicked out of the planet club and now this. Poor Little Pluto: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warmin g_021009.html/

I hope you're kidding. You're assuming that the rate of loss is constant, which it is certainly not. Aside from warming factors in general, this warmth melted ice on the surface, forming pools. This water then trickled down through the ice, widening crevasses as it went, thus fracturing the shelf or alowing it to move, and shatter. Take a look at Larsen Shelf in the Antarctica. This is a shelf larger than Rhode Island. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1022-06.ht m http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImage s/images.php3?img_id=4562 http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/ ice_melt_010117.html

If you're a scientist in the US and are having unit trouble with scientists in other countries, you must be using kitchen measuring cups. Even if you are using kitchen measuring cups, you must not have a very good calculator.

I know, someone is going to mention Mars Climate Orbiter now. Actually it's probably already mentioned 50 times below but I'm too lazy to count.

Hey, guess what. Pluto is warming too! Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists We aren't causing this warming as humans. It might be very clear that our planet is warming, and yes we should deal with these effects, but there is too much unclear data as to what exactly is warming our planet. I'm sure that we contribute to the warming, but so does the sun, so does a depleting ozone layer, so do many things. There are far too many variables in the equation to simply put the blame on humans inhabiting the planet. Let's teach that the Earth is warming, but lets also teach critical thinking and present many views of it so that our students grow up to be tremendous problem solvers that think outside of the box!

I'll pick the box marked, "American Rocket Scientists".

NASA has ostensibly used the metric system since about 1990, the statement said, but English units are still employed on some missions, and a few projects use both. NASA uses both English and metric aboard the International Space Station. The dual strategy led to the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter robotic probe in 1999; a contractor provided thruster firing data in English units while NASA was calculating in metric.

SPACE.com -- NASA Finally Goes Metric (8 Jan 2007)

Maybe the conversion "isn't rocket science", and therein lies the problem?

It's right there under "Related Stories", NASA will go Metric On the Moon
http://www.space.com/news/070108_moon_metric.html

Personally, the only compelling reason I've seen to use Imperial units is that they tend to use other number bases (12 inches to the foot, 16 oz. to the lb.). These other bases have many more common factors than the metric base 10

12 is cleanly divisible by 1,2,3,4, and 6
16 is cleanly divisible by 1,2,4, and 8
10 is only cleanly divisible by 1,2, and 5

This makes working with common fractions much cleaner in imperial units, which is desirable if you don't use a computer to calculate everything for you.

3/8 = 0.375 in metric
1/3 = 0.333... in metric

If we were to come up with some kind of hexadecimal-based metric system (which would make transition to computer binary cleaner), this might go away, and then we'd just be left with the gut feelings of "horsepower" sounds "stronger" than "kilowatt"

MPL isn't flying through space - it did crash, and they did try to image it. http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050601_mpl_cl ues.html

well, NASA just has at least... http://www.space.com/news/070108_moon_metric.html

[...] SETI@home hasn't found any signal yet, even after years of listening.

An article about Three SETI Myths should put this statement into perspective. From the article: 'In the first twenty years of "listening," twenty-three targeted radio SETI projects conducted a total of ninety days of searching.'

A better article that gives some easy to access maps and a bit more technical information.

BTW: Does anyone know if there are future prospects for this comet? Everything seems to point at January 15th being the end of it's visibility.

Sometimes people confuse the R6000, a MIPS processor, with RS6000, a series of workstations made by IBM. So, if you're reading this in hope of finding out more about Linux on IBM machines, then you're reading the wrong document.

It is not the first time that the Mars rovers' software has been modified from afar.

Some of these were pretty good, but I would have liked to see some better shots ... I personally found Top 10 Best Space Stories of 2006 more interesting, and some of the pics in Most Amazing Galactic Images ever were pretty good too.

Here's a couple other pics that I thought were top 10 material:
Man in space
Earth from Satellite

Some of these were pretty good, but I would have liked to see some better shots ... I personally found Top 10 Best Space Stories of 2006 more interesting, and some of the pics in Most Amazing Galactic Images ever were pretty good too.

Here's a couple other pics that I thought were top 10 material:
Man in space
Earth from Satellite

Is man causing changes now? You bet.

      Then please explain why the other planets

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/ 2006/19/image/a

      are also warming up? Are we causing THAT too?

The Big Rip?

Speaking of things acting like on Earth and gravity and such. I think one of the big hurdles is going to be dealing with the dust, note the small images on the right. See also here and here.

Like an aging actor, NASA needs makeovers. Like any corporate giant NASA likes to tell success stories. NASA has an apparent target demographic of kids, students and educators. However, their real target demographic is the parents and grandparents of school aged children and adult science geeks. NASA must convince them, the voting public, that they're doing useful science. This market is similar to that faced by most educational toys.

As a corporate entity, NASA must look to the future. NASA cannot focus on boundad, workable, and term-limited projects such as the IIS, there will rapidly become no NASA. Such projects aren't as fundamentally entertaining, even if they may be more scientifically useful. NASA must continue to make plans to enhance future revenue by continuing to entertain their apparent target demographic, and appear to educate them in the eyes of their true demographic. NASA may be able to complete the IIS, but the IIS story has played out. They need something new and exiting, and they know it.

This is not written to slight NASA in any way. Every entity has its own economics. It's just that when I read stupid statements like the one made in the essay, I feel as if the author doesn't understand the fundamental economic position of NASA. NASA's primary job isn't human spaceflight, or spaceflight. It's to entertain while it educates. That's what brings in the money.

NASA != profit

http://www.space.com/news/nasa_books_020228.html

If you are as confused as I was when you read the linked article, notice that this article is linked from the first one. The first talks about the solar system "weather forecast." The second talks about the crew of the shuttle and ISS taking cover.

If you are as confused as I was when you read the linked article, notice that this article is linked from the first one. The first talks about the solar system "weather forecast." The second talks about the crew of the shuttle and ISS taking cover.

I think all of his argument goes out the window if one remembers that the Japanese are building a laser that will solve all of our free Hydrogen problems.

2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).

This is why we use proxies to determine the temperature back then. There multiple datasets ranging from ice cores (we match the variations in atmospheric concentrations in more recent periods, and use the cores as a proxy to earlier dates), and tree ring data and so on. We generally don't use temperature records from early 1900s for precisely the above reason.

If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?

But its different kinds of radiation. Magnetic fields affect charged particles only - aka solar wind and the aurora, and these have negligible energy input, especially relative to normal EM radiation which GW is about. Now, additionally, we have good data recently on the trends in both solar radiance and temperature forcing, and numerous papers have concluded that the sun itself can explain at most 30% of the observed trend. (Google scholar for the relevant papers)

4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])

Check out the time frames! The dates given are 1998 - about 10 years.

Now, what do you think the orbital period of Jupiter around the sun is? Wikipedia has an answer 4333 days = 12 years. So, how interesting it is that we are seeing changes on the same time frame as Jupiter's passage around the sun, a passage that of course is not perfectly circular, in fact getting closer and further from the sun as time goes on...

What's more, there's another major factor - Jupiter's colour. Huge tracts of Jupiter's surface are in different colours, and as these vortices move about, obviously that is going to change its irradiance. Fortunately, Earth is not one big hurricane.

5. This is similar to Jupiter. Mars has an orbital period of 2 years, and has much greater eccentricity than Earth in its orbit. The temperature trend we have is over 3 years, a 1.5 cycles, something like between winter this year and summer next year. How mysterious that there would be a warming trend.

Additionally, there are dust storm factors as well: See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

6. That source doesn't say that. Go read it again. Methane is more powerful per volume, and agriculture as a whole takes up more than transport. But transport isn't everything and the total volume of methane is small. Campaigners focus on transport, because transport is easier to cut than agriculture without killing bazillions of people.

Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine?

They aren't. They happened over thousands of years and can be explained by a variety of other factors, whilst the current change is happening over decades and there is no other observed factor that can explain it.

I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.

The word you're looking for here is "thermometers".

3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?

No, obviously not. The temperature was falling throughout those 150 years and has only started rising recently. The only correlated factor is CO2.

4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])

5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)

Complete crap. We have absolutely no idea what the temperature history of the other planets is and so we have no way of drawing any conclusions from any changes we see.

6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)

The article you linked to says that CH4 only amounts to 18% of CO2-equivalent emissions. Since the lifetime of CH4 is only 12 years, the cumulative effect is smaller still.

How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.

See above. However, since temperatures on Earth have only started rising recently, and we've been monitoring the Sun's output longer than that, we can be sure the reason isn't a change in the Sun.

Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.h

I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.

The word you're looking for here is "thermometers".

3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?

No, obviously not. The temperature was falling throughout those 150 years and has only started rising recently. The only correlated factor is CO2.

4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])

5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)

Complete crap. We have absolutely no idea what the temperature history of the other planets is and so we have no way of drawing any conclusions from any changes we see.

6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)

The article you linked to says that CH4 only amounts to 18% of CO2-equivalent emissions. Since the lifetime of CH4 is only 12 years, the cumulative effect is smaller still.

How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.

See above. However, since temperatures on Earth have only started rising recently, and we've been monitoring the Sun's output longer than that, we can be sure the reason isn't a change in the Sun.

Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.h

I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.

The word you're looking for here is "thermometers".

3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?

No, obviously not. The temperature was falling throughout those 150 years and has only started rising recently. The only correlated factor is CO2.

4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])

5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)

Complete crap. We have absolutely no idea what the temperature history of the other planets is and so we have no way of drawing any conclusions from any changes we see.

6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)

The article you linked to says that CH4 only amounts to 18% of CO2-equivalent emissions. Since the lifetime of CH4 is only 12 years, the cumulative effect is smaller still.

How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.

See above. However, since temperatures on Earth have only started rising recently, and we've been monitoring the Sun's output longer than that, we can be sure the reason isn't a change in the Sun.

Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.h