Global warming, is it manmade or just nature?

My opinion: more nature, less manmade

By Cynthia A. Janak

I read an article from the Associated Press on FOXNews.com. It was about the activists demonstrations to be held at the 10-day United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal, Canada. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177364,00.html These people along with China are trying to force President Bush to sign the Kyoto Agreement. President Bush has already called for an 18 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2012 and has committed to $5 billion a year to science and technology to address global warming. Who are these people anyway? Do they have a clue to what the agreement really says?

The Kyoto Agreement calls on the top 35 industrialized nations to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases to 5.2% below their 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. In essence, this is not a bad thing. My question to you is what good is it when there are no restrictions on emissions by emerging economies such as China and India? They are part of this world and they should be held responsible for their emissions. Looking at the document in that context, it is flawed and should be amended to include all countries. Even though, I would not want President Bush to sign the Kyoto Agreement. That will only cause more United Nations rule over the United States.

Another item about the Kyoto Protocol is that a developed country can "invest in other developed countries, in particular central and eastern European transition economies, and thereby earn carbon allowances which they can use to meet their emission reduction commitments."

"In addition, the clean development mechanism, which allows industrialized countries to invest in sustainable development projects in developing countries and thereby earn carbon allowances, is fully established."

These two quotes were taken from a November 30th, 2005 Press Release from UNFCCC. What is meant by "earn carbon allowances" is that a country has leeway in it's responsibilities to emissions control if they invest in the United Nations "sustainable development projects."

Getting away from the Kyoto Agreement. This topic of global warming has always intrigued me. Reason being, that I have an interest in Paleontology and the World climate conditions. I believe that the world is going through a cycle and we have to learn how to deal with this ever-changing world.

On our world, we have 164 volcanoes. Presently we have sixteen of those volcanoes are active per the USGS report November 23–29, 2005. On the November 1–7, 2000 report, we had only eight active volcanoes. That is a 100% increase in activity in 5 years. The report also states that this is not a complete list but a summary list. http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/index.cfm I wonder how many are active.

I want to take you to another site that is hosted by Australian volcanologist John Search. He reports any significant events that occur concerning the volcanoes. It is a very interesting site with many links. He gives you some very good background information about volcanoes. http://www.volcanolive.com/volcanolive.html

October 19–26, 2001, John Search reported that there was an eruption at Otake crater began around 2 p.m. on Oct. 11, following the latest eruptive activity that ended on July 30.

Soufrière Hills Volcano, on 14 October, after a day of torrential rainfall, several million cubic metres of unconsolidated talus was destabilized on the southeast flank of the pre-July 29 dome. This avalanched down the Tar River valley, producing sustained pyroclastic flows that reached the sea. Ash from this event was blown to the northwest and deposited over residential areas between Iles Bay and St. Peter's. Another collapse occurred on the morning of 16 October. This took place on the southern flank of the dome complex and produced numerous pyroclastic flows, which passed down the White River for approximately two thirds of the distance to the sea. A dense plume of ash was blown to the west on the prevailing wind.

Now, this is what he reports for the month of October 17–31, 2005.

Garbuna volcano erupted in Papua New Guinea on Sunday evening 16th October. An eruption column was reported to 25,000 ft.

October 18th, 2005 five volcanoes are currently erupting in Papua New Guinea, Bagana, Tabaul, Garbuna, Gangila, and Manam.

October 22nd, 2005, Barren Island Volcano a low-level plume was observed from a Qantas flight.

October 22nd, 2005, forceful emissions of thick grey-brown ash are occurring as Langila volcano in Papua new Guinea.

October 24th, 2005, Sierra Negra volcano erupted on the Galapagos islands... Ash was observed to 25,000 ft.

October 25th, 2005, eruptions continue at Semeru volcano in Indonesia... a vertical plume was visible rising to 15,000 ft. Semeru is currently the most active volcano in Indonesia, with vulcanian eruptions occurring many time daily.

October 30th, 2005, low level eruptions continue at Manam volcano in Papua New Guinea... a plume to 10,000 ft was visible extending NW of the volcano. Manam volcano produced the world's largest eruption for the year 2004.

October 30th, 2005, a 9000 ft. high plume was visible NNW of Lanila volcano.

October 30th, 2005, Yasur volcano in Vanuatu continues its impressive eruptive activity with many eruptions per hour.

Now let us compare, in October of 2001, there were two eruptions of volcanoes that John Search reported and in October of 2005 there were nine different reports of eruptions. This shows me that there is an increase in the amount of ash and CO2 that is being injected into our atmosphere. From what I have read, CO2 is one of the major factors to global warming.

In 1991, Mount Pinatubo erupted and put about 8 cubic kilometers of ash into our atmosphere. The results from that eruption caused a temperature drop of 1 degree F for three years, 1991 to 1993. It is also noted that a volcanic eruption can produce up to 1000 cubic kilometers of ash or more. Scientists have determined that this happens about twice every 100,000 years. The last one was the Toba volcano in Sumatra 76,000 years ago. It erupted and put about 2800 cubic kilometers of ash in the atmosphere. The theory is that the world's temperate zones were below freezing for several years in a row.

In a report by Kevin Langdon, published in "Gift of Fire (the journal of the Prometheus Society) #140, July 2003, I am going to reference some of his findings about global warming. I found them in this document. http://www.polymath-systems.com/pubpol/globwarm.html

He references this excerpt from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report. It states, "According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades."

He goes on to state, "A number of alternative explanations of the observed climatic data have been put forward. While the terrestrial land/water/atmosphere/heat system is extremely complex with many only-partially-understood positive and negative feedback loops (e.g. the causes and effects of cloud cover), there are only two major alternative explanations: volcanic activity and variations in solar radiation."

If you look at what I stated earlier about the increase in volcanic activity and Langdon's statement you can see that the chances of this being a major contributing factor is apparent.

Another variable to global warming is solar cycles. Some scientists believe that this could be a factor. I read several papers on this and their language was a little bit over my head so I will not go into detail here. I am just going to take their word for it.

One group though, the Max Planck Society did publish a news release about sunspots. In their report, they state that the sun is more active now than in the previous 1000 years. "This means that the Sun has produced more sunspots, but also more flares and eruptions, which eject huge gas clouds into space, than in the past." They also go on to state that around 1100–1250 the earth was going through a warm period and the Vikings were able to establish settlements in Greenland. They attribute this to a period of high activity like the one we have today.
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20041028/

At this point, I want to reference http://www.ncdc.noaa.gove/paleo/abrupt/story.html They get into extreme detail as to abrupt climate change. They believe that this is more cyclical in nature to sum it up. They also say that this is an ongoing project and that the science behind this is growing rapidly.

One interesting fact is that when you have more land that is not covered by snow or ice more solar radiation will be absorbed by the surface and that will raise the temperatures and cause more ice to melt. It also states that when you have more ice covering the oceans you have less atmospheric CO2 as in a glacial period of the world. The "Cooler Heads Coalition" believes that 98% of the total global greenhouse gas emissions are natural and only 2% are from man-made resources. I do not know if that is true. I would like to see the scientific data on that claim.

Now, I am not saying that a reduction in what we are doing as to our emissions would not help delay global warming. What I am saying is that this is just a cycle that the world goes through. It is my opinion that all the countries of the world should do more.

One of the interesting things that I read was the role that trees and vegetation play in global warming. When you have more trees, you will have more moisture evaporating into the atmosphere. That will produce more cloud cover and rain. With more rain, you have more vegetation and vegetation is a natural purifier of the air that we breathe. More trees less solar radiation gets to the surface therefore, less warming.

Look at we are doing to our forests. Because of the rapid expansion of our urban societies around the world, we are cutting down forests for development. It could be for homes, farms, ranches or large shopping malls. We are not thinking about the trees that we are cutting down and the consequences to our ecology. Those people think, what is a tree here or there. It will not make a difference as to a patch of forest getting the axe for some subdivision.

Global warming is not so much about our emissions. It is more about what we are doing to the land in the name of industry and profit. Instead of looking at the science and trying to work with the ecology of the earth, we are looking at how much profit we can make for our stockholders.

There are many factors that contribute to global warming that no one speaks about. Think about it. You have an increase in volcanic activity. You have more clear cutting of forests in developing countries. Scientists tell us that there is more solar activity. The oceans currents are changing and that is a contributing factor to the CO2 content in the atmosphere.

These radical global warming groups are barking up the wrong tree. They should not be demonstrating at the meeting in Montreal of the United Nations Climate Change Conference. They should spend their time and money on funding the scientists that are trying to understand the climate of this world. They need to petition the leaders of governments to stop the clear cutting of trees for development. Look at what is happening to the Amazon rain forest. Don't you think that has an effect on our climate?

What about helping the vulcanologists find a way to minimize a major eruption that could put us into another ice age? What about promoting the use of windmill technology and petition to make it more affordable to the average person? OOPS, cannot do the windmill because the energy stocks would go down. There are many things that these radical global warming groups can do that would be more productive.

You want to know something; one person that will remain nameless had the nerve to state that we need to get serious about population control. He even stated that we need a reduction of the population in order to control global warming. The figures he used were that the earth could only sustain about one billion and we have over six billion. He feels that a study is needed. I can bet by his opinion of population control that he believes in abortion and euthanasia. I wonder what age the genocide would have to start to satisfy this global warming radical.

© Cynthia A. Janak