:^))
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Air Force studying the future of coordinated air, space, cyber ops
https://www.c4isrnet.com/c2-comms/2017/11/17/air-force-wrapping-up-study-on-how-to-use-air-space-and-cyber-in-the-2030s/
The Air Force is on the cusp of completing a 16-month study that could serve as a blueprint for how the service will operate in the 2030s and seamlessly coordinate between air, cyber and space.
All of the military services are re-organizing to better prepare multi-domain battle, which involves seamless coordination of effects and operations across the five domains of warfare.
Multi-domain command and control, known as MDC2, has been a top priority for Air Force chief of staff Gen. David Goldfein since his confirmation hearing in June 2016. The Air Force for the last 16 months has been working a highly anticipated study on the subject.
[VIDEO] Air Force aims for laser weapons on a fighter jet by 2021
https://www.stripes.com/news/air-force-aims-for-laser-weapons-on-a-fighter-jet-by-2021-1.498652
The Air Force Research Laboratory is forging ahead with a high-energy laser designed to shoot down drones, incoming rockets and mortar rounds and hopes to have a demonstration model ready by 2021, officials say.
The Self-protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator program, or ShiELD, which launched this year, seeks to equip supersonic warplanes, such as the B-1 Lancer, F-35 Lightning and F-22 Raptor, with defensive lasers mounted in external pods.
The Air Force wants a high-energy laser system compact enough to complement the internal cannon and missiles equipped on its fighter jets.
The new system uses a type of optical fiber as the light-emitting material, instead of the neodymium-doped crystals used in conventional solid-state lasers. Since fiber can be coiled, more power can be packed into a compact system.
The US Air Force Has Taken Another Step Toward Re-Engining its B-52s
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16264/the-us-air-force-has-taken-another-step-toward-re-engining-its-b-52s
Air Force, Navy send more equipment to search for missing Argentine submarine
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2017/11/21/air-force-navy-send-more-equipment-to-search-for-missing-argentine-submarine/
The United States has deployed aircraft to Argentina to help search for ARA San Juan, an Argentine navy submarine that went missing in the South Atlantic Ocean almost a week ago.
Six C-17 Globemasters and three C-5M Super Galaxies flew 26 sorties, transporting 81 passengers — including sailors assigned to Undersea Rescue Command out of San Diego — and 830,000 pounds of equipment, according to Air Mobility Command.
The first of the aircraft, three C-17s and one C-5, arrived in Comodoro Rivadavia, Argentina, on Sunday. One of the C-17s carried a tow bar, a Tunner 60K Aircraft Cargo Loader and three members of the 437th Aerial Port Squadron from Joint Base Charleston, South Carolina. The team conducted runway assessments before other equipment arrived in Argentina.
US Military No Longer Cool With Narcotics Labs in Afghanistan, Bombs Them
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/42670-us-military-no-longer-cool-with-narcotics-labs-in-afghanistan-bombs-them
Trump: China Agrees NKorea Nuclear Weapon Freeze Not Enough
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/11/16/trump_china_agrees_nkorea_nuclear_weapon_freeze_not_enough_135563.html
China and Russia have proposed that as a way to restart long-stalled negotiations: that the North could freeze its nuclear and missile programs in exchange for the U.S. and its close ally South Korea stopping regular military drills that Pyongyang considers as preparation for invasion.
China has not made a public disavowal of the proposal. China said Wednesday that it would send a high-level special envoy to North Korea amid an extended chill in relations between the neighbors.
Trump was speaking a day after he returned from a 12-day trip through Asia that included a state visit to China, where he was hosted by President Xi.
President Xi recognizes that a nuclear North Korea is a grave threat to China, and we agreed that we would not accept a so-called freeze for freeze agreement, like those that have consistently failed in the past,” Trump said.
He said that Xi pledged to implement U.N. sanctions that aim to deprive North Korea of revenues for its weapons programs “and to use his great economic influence over the regime to achieve our common goal of a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.”
OK, The General is correct, only legal and lawful orders would be accepted, like in time of war or the threat of nuclear annihilation is in play like missiles in flight and an equal response is justified.
In the case of a Nuclear strike on North Korea, a Nuclear strike package has already been drawn up. I'm sure that there are several, and that they are all legal as long as they are in the borders of North Korea. "Legally speaking" what was agreed upon was a cessation of hostilities. North Korea has already violated that agreement with it's aggression toward it's neighbors in missile flights [Like over Japan air space right over the island] and it's repeated acts like the sinking of a South Korean vessel by one of North Koreas submarines. And it's repeated statements by it's leader that their ultimate goal is the destruction of the United States by the use of Nuclear Weapons.
Clear Intent.
But, what is being discussed is North Korea and the Presidents provocation in the use of tweets ect.. inciting war.
No.1 Respectfully to Congress, that's all political bullshit, because we are / and have been, for over half a century in a perpetual state of war with North Korea.
How can you start something that is already started?
And as far as provocation, what has this young North Korean leader consistently shown to the world since he has held this position what his true intent is?
He has publically stated it, shown it militarily multiple times and demonstrated his increased proficiency at achieving his stated goal of annihilation of the United States.
Excuse me idiot congress, but you don't have a leg to stand on and your repeated attempts at dismantling the powers of the president in time of war are grounds for removing 'YOU' from office, not the president.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Says Illegal Nuclear Launch Order Can Be Refused
By Rob Gillies
November 19, 2017
HALIFAX, Nova Scotia (AP) — The top officer at U.S. Strategic Command said Saturday an order from President Donald Trump or any of his successors to launch nuclear weapons can be refused if that order is determined to be illegal.
Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of Strategic Command, told a panel at the Halifax International Security Forum on Saturday that he and Trump have had conversations about such a scenario and that he would tell Trump he couldn’t carry out an illegal strike.
“If it’s illegal, guess what’s going to happen. I’m going to say, ‘Mr President, that’s illegal.’ And guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’” Hyten said.
“And we’ll come up with options with a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works.”
Historically Military personnel do not engage themselves in the political function of government, unless they are appointed a political position in it, like General Mattas.
Then their political position supersedes their military one.
If you are in the chain of command and display or make public statements countermanding the authority of a superior officer, in this case the commander in chief, you are immediately in violation of the UCMJ and can be court marshaled and discharged from military service.
Disregarding all that noise, the commander in chief can just discharge you from military service for cause, and give you any manner / type of discharge that he decides.
Good luck fighting that one.
That would be a tough pull, you would have to prove that they intended to cause harm to our country, by conspiring with another country against the USA. The simplest and fastest one would be to immediately dismiss them [and throw them in the brig and let JAG fry their ass] for failure to follow a direct order from the commander in chief.
And then place the order to their successor.
Under current law there is no failsafe to a lawful order from the commander in chief for the use of Nuclear Weapons. It was designed that way to countermand a 15 minute launch window from Russia preemptively firing their Nuclear Weapons against the USA.
There is legislation in Congress drafting one or more bills to address this issue of checks and balances to the launch of Nuclear Weapons, but it is so engrained in our culture that the President of the United States has the ultimate authority for the use of Nuclear Weapons that I really don't see that / those bills going anywhere. They would have to have overwhelming evidence to change such a fundamental and awesome responsibility, it would take years of hearings and investigative proof, and in the end IMO, be proven detrimental to the security of the United States.
Treason
The crime of betraying one's country, defined in Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Treason requires overt acts and includes the giving of government security secrets to other countries, even if friendly, when the information could harm American security. Treason can include revealing to an antagonistic country secrets such as the design of a bomber being built by a private company for the Defense Department. Treason may include "espionage" (spying for a foreign power or doing damage to the operation of the government and its agencies, particularly those involved in security) but is separate and worse than "sedition," which involves a conspiracy to upset the operation of the government.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2153
Yeah it was an ongoing saga of his attempt to dig or enlarge a lake on his farm and all the equipment that got stuck in the process. I had to look it up, it was on the Q&A board way back in 2006.
Bob was pretty cool because he was just an average guy doing stuff, willing to share it all with the I-Hub community.
He was very descriptive in his exploits, I think just about everyone can relate to being stuck in something at one time or another.
Been there, done that, bought the tee shirt...lol
UK and Canada lead global alliance against coal
The UK and Canada have launched a global alliance of 20 countries committed to phasing out coal for energy production.
Members including France, Finland and Mexico, say they will end the use of coal before 2030.
Ministers hope to have 50 countries signed up by the time of the next major UN conference in Poland next year.
However some important coal consuming nations, including China, the US and Germany have not joined the group.
Reducing global coal use is a formidable challenge, as the fuel produces around 40% of the world's electricity at present.
As a highly carbon intensive source, coal contributes significantly to the rising levels of CO2 emissions that scientists reported earlier this week.
Researchers say that if the world is to curb dramatic temperature rises this century then coal use must be limited.
Called the Powering Past Coal Alliance, this new initiative sees countries, regions and provinces, signing up to setting coal phase-out targets and committing to no new investments in coal-fired electricity in their national jurisdictions or abroad.
No Sacrifice
The UK has said it will end the generation of electricity from unabated coal by 2025. Unabated means that the coal is burnt without capturing the resulting carbon emissions.
Already, the move away from coal in the UK has been rapid. Around 40% of electricity was still being generated from coal in 2012 but in April this year the UK had its first full day without coal power in 135 years."We have not sacrificed growth," said Claire Perry, the UK's minister for climate change and industry.
"Since 1990 Britain has cut its emissions buy 42% and our economy has grown by 67%, that's the best performance in the G7 so this is not something that's a win-lose, it's a win-win situation."
However many of those who have signed up to the alliance have little or no coal production or consumption, among them Fiji, Niue, and Costa Rica. Many of the richer countries involved have already announced their move away from coal and taken together the grouping only represents about 2.5% of global coal consumption.
There are also some significant coal consuming countries including Germany and China, absent from the list at present.
The anti-coal alliance are confident that by the time of the next major UN climate conference in Poland in 2018, there will be closer to 50 countries on board.
The development has been broadly welcomed by environmental groups.
"This is another positive signal of the global momentum away from coal, benefitting the health of the climate, the public and the economy," said Jens Mattias Clausen from Greenpeace.
"But it also puts on notice the governments who lag behind on ending coal or those who promote it that the world's dirtiest fossil fuel has no future."
Closest of allies
Those involved in the coal industry say the alliance needs to put more efforts into developing technology that will allow coal use to continue.
"With the world set to use fossil fuels, including coal, for the foreseeable future, Canada and the UK should direct efforts to advancing carbon capture and storage technology because that's much more likely to achieve global climate objectives than unrealistic calls to eliminate coal in major emerging economies," said Benjamin Sporton, chief executive of the World Coal Association.
With Canada and the UK leading the group, it means that two of the closest allies of the US are moving away from coal at a time when President Trump is talking about a revival for the fuel.
The White House has had a presence at this meeting with the President's special adviser on climate change, George David Banks telling reporters that coal and other fossil fuels were an important part of the solution to climate change.
Mr Banks believes that a so-called "clean coal alliance" involving the US, Japan and others would be something the Trump team would favor.
"I would say that the administration is interested in the idea," he told reporters.
"I'm guessing that would mean a clean coal alliance that would focus on highly efficient low emission coal plants and carbon capture utilisation and storage. I think there would be interest in exploring that."
Many environmental campaigners though, believe that attempts to produce clean coal are essentially efforts to prolong the dominance of the fossil fuel industry.
"People were worried that this summit would see Trump assaulting the Paris Agreement with his coal lobbyists," said Mohamed Adow from Christian Aid.
"But his actions have actually galvanized other nations into action, with a new alliance making it clear that coal's climate change threat must be taken seriously.
"The bottom line is coal is a dirty, unnecessary, polluting fuel that deserves to remain in a more ignorant and backward era. These countries are showing they understand that."
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-
Yeah Bob was a lot of fun, and he was always getting into a bunch of stuff on his farm.
I just remember the stuck bulldozer pics because he was so pissed off about it, and I laughed so much at the time coffee shot out of my nose...lol
UK and Canada lead global alliance against coal
The UK and Canada have launched a global alliance of 20 countries committed to phasing out coal for energy production.
Members including France, Finland and Mexico, say they will end the use of coal before 2030.
Ministers hope to have 50 countries signed up by the time of the next major UN conference in Poland next year.
However some important coal consuming nations, including China, the US and Germany have not joined the group.
Reducing global coal use is a formidable challenge, as the fuel produces around 40% of the world's electricity at present.
As a highly carbon intensive source, coal contributes significantly to the rising levels of CO2 emissions that scientists reported earlier this week.
Researchers say that if the world is to curb dramatic temperature rises this century then coal use must be limited.
Called the Powering Past Coal Alliance, this new initiative sees countries, regions and provinces, signing up to setting coal phase-out targets and committing to no new investments in coal-fired electricity in their national jurisdictions or abroad.
No Sacrifice
The UK has said it will end the generation of electricity from unabated coal by 2025. Unabated means that the coal is burnt without capturing the resulting carbon emissions.
Already, the move away from coal in the UK has been rapid. Around 40% of electricity was still being generated from coal in 2012 but in April this year the UK had its first full day without coal power in 135 years."We have not sacrificed growth," said Claire Perry, the UK's minister for climate change and industry.
"Since 1990 Britain has cut its emissions buy 42% and our economy has grown by 67%, that's the best performance in the G7 so this is not something that's a win-lose, it's a win-win situation."
However many of those who have signed up to the alliance have little or no coal production or consumption, among them Fiji, Niue, and Costa Rica. Many of the richer countries involved have already announced their move away from coal and taken together the grouping only represents about 2.5% of global coal consumption.
There are also some significant coal consuming countries including Germany and China, absent from the list at present.
The anti-coal alliance are confident that by the time of the next major UN climate conference in Poland in 2018, there will be closer to 50 countries on board.
The development has been broadly welcomed by environmental groups.
"This is another positive signal of the global momentum away from coal, benefitting the health of the climate, the public and the economy," said Jens Mattias Clausen from Greenpeace.
"But it also puts on notice the governments who lag behind on ending coal or those who promote it that the world's dirtiest fossil fuel has no future."
Closest of allies
Those involved in the coal industry say the alliance needs to put more efforts into developing technology that will allow coal use to continue.
"With the world set to use fossil fuels, including coal, for the foreseeable future, Canada and the UK should direct efforts to advancing carbon capture and storage technology because that's much more likely to achieve global climate objectives than unrealistic calls to eliminate coal in major emerging economies," said Benjamin Sporton, chief executive of the World Coal Association.
With Canada and the UK leading the group, it means that two of the closest allies of the US are moving away from coal at a time when President Trump is talking about a revival for the fuel.
The White House has had a presence at this meeting with the President's special adviser on climate change, George David Banks telling reporters that coal and other fossil fuels were an important part of the solution to climate change.
Mr Banks believes that a so-called "clean coal alliance" involving the US, Japan and others would be something the Trump team would favor.
"I would say that the administration is interested in the idea," he told reporters.
"I'm guessing that would mean a clean coal alliance that would focus on highly efficient low emission coal plants and carbon capture utilisation and storage. I think there would be interest in exploring that."
Many environmental campaigners though, believe that attempts to produce clean coal are essentially efforts to prolong the dominance of the fossil fuel industry.
"People were worried that this summit would see Trump assaulting the Paris Agreement with his coal lobbyists," said Mohamed Adow from Christian Aid.
"But his actions have actually galvanized other nations into action, with a new alliance making it clear that coal's climate change threat must be taken seriously.
"The bottom line is coal is a dirty, unnecessary, polluting fuel that deserves to remain in a more ignorant and backward era. These countries are showing they understand that."
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42014244
I was trying to find some of my favorite pics that he posted of his bulldozer being stuck in the mud and how pissed he was about it, so he shared it I think on his gearhead board.
Bob was good dude, he was Matts right hand man. He will be missed.
Peace out Bob-
Mariner*
Warning signs for stabilizing global CO2 emissions
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9662/meta
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9662/pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/
First CO2 rise in four years puts pressure on Paris targets
UK and Canada lead global alliance against coal
Global emissions of CO2 in 2017 are projected to rise for the first time in four years, dashing hopes that a peak might soon be reached.
The main cause of the expected growth has been greater use of coal in China as its economy expanded.
Researchers are uncertain if the rise in emissions is a one-off or the start of a new period of CO2 build-up.
Scientists say that a global peak in CO2 before 2020 is needed to limit dangerous global warming this century.
~Trump emissions threat to US car industry
~Record surge in atmospheric CO2 in 2016
~A brief history of the Earth's CO2
~Guide: What is climate change?
The Global Carbon Project has been analyzing and reporting on the scale of emissions of CO2 since 2006.
Carbon output has grown by about 3% per year in that period, but growth essentially declined or remained flat between 2014 and 2016.Concern at first CO2 rise in four years.
The latest figures indicate that in 2017, emissions of CO2 from all human activities grew by about 2% globally.
There is some uncertainty about the data but the researchers involved have concluded that emissions are on the rise again.
"Global CO2 emissions appear to be going up strongly once again after a three-year stable period. This is very disappointing," said the lead author of the study, Prof Corinne Le Quéré from the University of East Anglia.
"With global CO2 emissions from human activities estimated at 41 billion tonnes for 2017, time is running out on our ability to keep warming well below 2 degrees C, let alone 1.5C."
The most important element in causing this rise has been China, which is responsible for around 28% of the global total. Emissions there went up 3.5% in 2017, mainly because of increased coal use, driven in the main by a growing economy.
Another important factor in China has been lower water levels in rivers which have seen a drop in the amount of electricity made from hydro-power, with utilities turning to coal and gas to make up the shortfall.
US emissions have continued to decline but the fall has been less than expected. Higher prices saw a drop in the use of natural gas for electricity - with renewables and hydro-power picking up the slack.
Coal use has also grown slightly in the US this year, with consumption up about a half of one percent.
India's emissions are projected to grow by about 2%, which is a considerable decrease from around 6% per year over the last decade.
However, experts believe that this may be a temporary drop-off caused by a number of factors that have hampered the consumption of oil and cement.
Action required
Europe also saw a smaller decline than expected, falling by 0.2% compared with 2.2% over the last 10 years.
One common theme around the world is continued use of gas and oil, says Prof Le Quéré.
"There have been lots of ups and downs in the use of coal but in the background there has been no weakening in the use of oil and gas. And that is quite worrisome."
The report has been launched in Bonn where UN negotiators are trying to move forward with the rules for the Paris climate agreement.
Researchers involved with the study say they are not moving fast enough.
"Lots of diplomats are working out the rules but that is all a little bit meaningless unless they go back home to their countries and ratchet up climate action and that is where the gap is," said Dr Glen Peters, from the Centre for International Climate Research in Norway."These countries have to be pushing on with the policies, but everything keeps getting pushed back."
"These countries have to be pushing on with the policies, but everything keeps getting pushed back."
The report is sure to increase tensions in Bonn between developed and developing nations.
There is increasing resentment about the fact that all the focus is on future commitments made under the Paris climate agreement but very little on the years before it becomes active.
Poorer countries want the richer ones to increase their carbon-cutting actions over the next three years.
"The climate will not let us wait until 2020 when the Paris agreement comes into force," said Nicaragua's chief negotiator, Paul Oquist.
"Climate change is happening now and it's vital that immediate actions to cut emissions become a feature of this summit."
The new research on carbon emissions has been published simultaneously in the journals Nature Climate Change, Earth System Science Data Discussions and Environmental Research Letters.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41941265
First CO2 rise in four years puts pressure on Paris targets
UK and Canada lead global alliance against coal
Global emissions of CO2 in 2017 are projected to rise for the first time in four years, dashing hopes that a peak might soon be reached.
The main cause of the expected growth has been greater use of coal in China as its economy expanded.
Researchers are uncertain if the rise in emissions is a one-off or the start of a new period of CO2 build-up.
Scientists say that a global peak in CO2 before 2020 is needed to limit dangerous global warming this century.
~Trump emissions threat to US car industry
~Record surge in atmospheric CO2 in 2016
~A brief history of the Earth's CO2
~Guide: What is climate change?
The Global Carbon Project has been analyzing and reporting on the scale of emissions of CO2 since 2006.
Carbon output has grown by about 3% per year in that period, but growth essentially declined or remained flat between 2014 and 2016.Concern at first CO2 rise in four years.
The latest figures indicate that in 2017, emissions of CO2 from all human activities grew by about 2% globally.
There is some uncertainty about the data but the researchers involved have concluded that emissions are on the rise again.
"Global CO2 emissions appear to be going up strongly once again after a three-year stable period. This is very disappointing," said the lead author of the study, Prof Corinne Le Quéré from the University of East Anglia.
"With global CO2 emissions from human activities estimated at 41 billion tonnes for 2017, time is running out on our ability to keep warming well below 2 degrees C, let alone 1.5C."
The most important element in causing this rise has been China, which is responsible for around 28% of the global total. Emissions there went up 3.5% in 2017, mainly because of increased coal use, driven in the main by a growing economy.
Another important factor in China has been lower water levels in rivers which have seen a drop in the amount of electricity made from hydro-power, with utilities turning to coal and gas to make up the shortfall.
US emissions have continued to decline but the fall has been less than expected. Higher prices saw a drop in the use of natural gas for electricity - with renewables and hydro-power picking up the slack.
Coal use has also grown slightly in the US this year, with consumption up about a half of one percent.
India's emissions are projected to grow by about 2%, which is a considerable decrease from around 6% per year over the last decade.
However, experts believe that this may be a temporary drop-off caused by a number of factors that have hampered the consumption of oil and cement.
Action required
Europe also saw a smaller decline than expected, falling by 0.2% compared with 2.2% over the last 10 years.
One common theme around the world is continued use of gas and oil, says Prof Le Quéré.
"There have been lots of ups and downs in the use of coal but in the background there has been no weakening in the use of oil and gas. And that is quite worrisome."
The report has been launched in Bonn where UN negotiators are trying to move forward with the rules for the Paris climate agreement.
Researchers involved with the study say they are not moving fast enough.
"Lots of diplomats are working out the rules but that is all a little bit meaningless unless they go back home to their countries and ratchet up climate action and that is where the gap is," said Dr Glen Peters, from the Centre for International Climate Research in Norway."These countries have to be pushing on with the policies, but everything keeps getting pushed back."
"These countries have to be pushing on with the policies, but everything keeps getting pushed back."
The report is sure to increase tensions in Bonn between developed and developing nations.
There is increasing resentment about the fact that all the focus is on future commitments made under the Paris climate agreement but very little on the years before it becomes active.
Poorer countries want the richer ones to increase their carbon-cutting actions over the next three years.
"The climate will not let us wait until 2020 when the Paris agreement comes into force," said Nicaragua's chief negotiator, Paul Oquist.
"Climate change is happening now and it's vital that immediate actions to cut emissions become a feature of this summit."
The new research on carbon emissions has been published simultaneously in the journals Nature Climate Change, Earth System Science Data Discussions and Environmental Research Letters.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41941265
[VIDEO] What is climate change?
BBC News looks at what we know and don't know about the Earth's changing climate.
What is climate change?
The planet's climate has constantly been changing over geological time. The global average temperature today is about 15C, though geological evidence suggests it has been much higher and lower in the past.
However, the current period of warming is occurring more rapidly than many past events. Scientists are concerned that the natural fluctuation, or variability, is being overtaken by a rapid human-induced warming that has serious implications for the stability of the planet's climate.
What is the "greenhouse effect"?
The greenhouse effect refers to the way the Earth's atmosphere traps some of the energy from the Sun. Solar energy radiating back out to space from the Earth's surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases and re-emitted in all directions.
The energy that radiates back down to the planet heats both the lower atmosphere and the surface. Without this effect, the Earth would be about 30C colder, making our planet hostile to life.
Scientists believe we are adding to the natural greenhouse effect with gases released from industry and agriculture (known as emissions), trapping more energy and increasing the temperature. This is commonly referred to as global warming or climate change.
The most important of these greenhouse gases in terms of its contribution to warming is water vapour, but concentrations show little change and it persists in the atmosphere for only a few days.
On the other hand, carbon dioxide (CO2) persists for much longer (it would take hundreds of years for it to return to pre-industrial levels). In addition, there is only so much CO2 that can be soaked up by natural reservoirs such as the oceans.
Most man-made emissions of CO2 are through the burning of fossil fuels, as well as through cutting down carbon-absorbing forests. Other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide are also released through human activities, but their overall abundance is small compared with carbon dioxide.
Since the industrial revolution began in 1750, CO2 levels have risen by more than 30% and methane levels have risen more than 140%. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is now higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years.
What is the evidence for warming?
Temperature records going back to the late 19th Century show that the average temperature of the Earth's surface has increased by about 0.8C (1.4F) in the last 100 years. About 0.6C (1.0F) of this warming occurred in the last three decades.
How years compare with the 20th Century average
Satellite data shows an average increase in global sea levels of some 3mm per year in recent decades. A large proportion of the change in sea level is accounted for by the thermal expansion of seawater. As seawater warms up, the molecules become less densely packed, causing an increase in the volume of the ocean.
But the melting of mountain glaciers and the retreat of polar ice sheets are also important contributors. Most glaciers in temperate regions of the world and along the Antarctic Peninsula are in retreat. Since 1979, satellite records show a dramatic decline in Arctic sea-ice extent, at an annual rate of 4% per decade. In 2012, the ice extent reached a record minimum that was 50% lower than the 1979-2000 average.
The Greenland Ice Sheet has experienced record melting in recent years; if the entire 2.8 million cu km sheet were to melt, it would raise sea levels by 6m.
Satellite data shows the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also losing mass, and a recent study indicated that East Antarctica, which had displayed no clear warming or cooling trend, may also have started to lose mass in the last few years. But scientists are not expecting dramatic changes. In some places, mass may actually increase as warming temperatures drive the production of more snows.
The effects of a changing climate can also be seen in vegetation and land animals. These include earlier flowering and fruiting times for plants and changes in the territories (or ranges) occupied by animals.
What about the pause?
Some commentators have argued that since 1998, there had been no significant global warming despite ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide being emitted. This is the so-called "pause" in warming. Scientists have tried to explain this in a number of ways.
These include:
~ Variations in the Sun's energy output
~ A decline in atmospheric water vapor
~ Greater storage of heat by the oceans.
But there has been no general consensus on the precise mechanism behind the pause.
And it would now seem that the hiatus has come to an abrupt halt: the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 were the three hottest years on record. In fact, a study published in Science journal in June 2015 doubted there had been a warming hiatus in the first place.
How much will temperatures rise in future?
In its 2013 assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast a range of possible scenarios based on computer modelling. But most simulations indicate that global surface temperature change by the end of the 21st Century is likely to exceed 1.5C, relative to 1850.
A threshold of 2C is generally regarded as the gateway to dangerous warming.
Even if we cut greenhouse gas emissions dramatically now, scientists say the effects will continue because parts of the climate system, particularly large bodies of water and ice, can take hundreds of years to respond to changes in temperature. It also takes greenhouse gases decades to be removed from the atmosphere.
How will climate change affect us?
The scale of potential impacts is uncertain. The changes could drive freshwater shortages, bring sweeping changes in food production conditions, and increase the number of deaths from floods, storms, heat waves and droughts. This is because climate change is expected to increase the frequency of extreme weather events - though linking any single event to global warming is complicated.
Scientists forecast more rainfall overall, but say the risk of drought in inland areas during hot summers will increase. More flooding is expected from storms and rising sea levels. There are, however, likely to be very strong regional variations in these patterns.
Poorer countries, which are least equipped to deal with rapid change, could suffer the most.
Plant and animal extinctions are predicted as habitats change faster than species can adapt, and the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that the health of millions could be threatened by increases in malaria, water-borne disease and malnutrition.
As an increased amount of CO2 is released into the atmosphere, there is increased uptake of CO2 by the oceans, and this leads to them becoming more acidic. This ongoing process of acidification could pose major problems for the world's coral reefs, as the changes in chemistry prevent corals from forming a calcified skeleton, which is essential for their survival.
Computer models are used to study the dynamics of the Earth's climate and make projections about future temperature change. But these climate models differ on "climate sensitivity" - the amount of warming or cooling that occurs as a particular factor, such as CO2. goes up or down.
Models also differ in the way that they express "climate feedbacks".
Global warming will cause some changes that look likely to create further heating, such as the release of large quantities of the greenhouse gas methane as permafrost (permanently frozen soil found mainly in the Arctic) melts. This is known as a positive climate feedback.
But negative feedbacks exist that could offset warming. Various "reservoirs" on Earth absorb CO2 as part of the carbon cycle - the process through which carbon is exchanged between, for example, the oceans and the land.
The question is: how will these balance out?
[VIDEO]
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24021772
[VIDEO] What is climate change?
BBC News looks at what we know and don't know about the Earth's changing climate.
What is climate change?
The planet's climate has constantly been changing over geological time. The global average temperature today is about 15C, though geological evidence suggests it has been much higher and lower in the past.
However, the current period of warming is occurring more rapidly than many past events. Scientists are concerned that the natural fluctuation, or variability, is being overtaken by a rapid human-induced warming that has serious implications for the stability of the planet's climate.
What is the "greenhouse effect"?
The greenhouse effect refers to the way the Earth's atmosphere traps some of the energy from the Sun. Solar energy radiating back out to space from the Earth's surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases and re-emitted in all directions.
The energy that radiates back down to the planet heats both the lower atmosphere and the surface. Without this effect, the Earth would be about 30C colder, making our planet hostile to life.
Scientists believe we are adding to the natural greenhouse effect with gases released from industry and agriculture (known as emissions), trapping more energy and increasing the temperature. This is commonly referred to as global warming or climate change.
The most important of these greenhouse gases in terms of its contribution to warming is water vapour, but concentrations show little change and it persists in the atmosphere for only a few days.
On the other hand, carbon dioxide (CO2) persists for much longer (it would take hundreds of years for it to return to pre-industrial levels). In addition, there is only so much CO2 that can be soaked up by natural reservoirs such as the oceans.
Most man-made emissions of CO2 are through the burning of fossil fuels, as well as through cutting down carbon-absorbing forests. Other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide are also released through human activities, but their overall abundance is small compared with carbon dioxide.
Since the industrial revolution began in 1750, CO2 levels have risen by more than 30% and methane levels have risen more than 140%. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is now higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years.
What is the evidence for warming?
Temperature records going back to the late 19th Century show that the average temperature of the Earth's surface has increased by about 0.8C (1.4F) in the last 100 years. About 0.6C (1.0F) of this warming occurred in the last three decades.
How years compare with the 20th Century average
Satellite data shows an average increase in global sea levels of some 3mm per year in recent decades. A large proportion of the change in sea level is accounted for by the thermal expansion of seawater. As seawater warms up, the molecules become less densely packed, causing an increase in the volume of the ocean.
But the melting of mountain glaciers and the retreat of polar ice sheets are also important contributors. Most glaciers in temperate regions of the world and along the Antarctic Peninsula are in retreat. Since 1979, satellite records show a dramatic decline in Arctic sea-ice extent, at an annual rate of 4% per decade. In 2012, the ice extent reached a record minimum that was 50% lower than the 1979-2000 average.
The Greenland Ice Sheet has experienced record melting in recent years; if the entire 2.8 million cu km sheet were to melt, it would raise sea levels by 6m.
Satellite data shows the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also losing mass, and a recent study indicated that East Antarctica, which had displayed no clear warming or cooling trend, may also have started to lose mass in the last few years. But scientists are not expecting dramatic changes. In some places, mass may actually increase as warming temperatures drive the production of more snows.
The effects of a changing climate can also be seen in vegetation and land animals. These include earlier flowering and fruiting times for plants and changes in the territories (or ranges) occupied by animals.
What about the pause?
Some commentators have argued that since 1998, there had been no significant global warming despite ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide being emitted. This is the so-called "pause" in warming. Scientists have tried to explain this in a number of ways.
These include:
~ Variations in the Sun's energy output
~ A decline in atmospheric water vapor
~ Greater storage of heat by the oceans.
But there has been no general consensus on the precise mechanism behind the pause.
And it would now seem that the hiatus has come to an abrupt halt: the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 were the three hottest years on record. In fact, a study published in Science journal in June 2015 doubted there had been a warming hiatus in the first place.
How much will temperatures rise in future?
In its 2013 assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast a range of possible scenarios based on computer modelling. But most simulations indicate that global surface temperature change by the end of the 21st Century is likely to exceed 1.5C, relative to 1850.
A threshold of 2C is generally regarded as the gateway to dangerous warming.
Even if we cut greenhouse gas emissions dramatically now, scientists say the effects will continue because parts of the climate system, particularly large bodies of water and ice, can take hundreds of years to respond to changes in temperature. It also takes greenhouse gases decades to be removed from the atmosphere.
How will climate change affect us?
The scale of potential impacts is uncertain. The changes could drive freshwater shortages, bring sweeping changes in food production conditions, and increase the number of deaths from floods, storms, heat waves and droughts. This is because climate change is expected to increase the frequency of extreme weather events - though linking any single event to global warming is complicated.
Scientists forecast more rainfall overall, but say the risk of drought in inland areas during hot summers will increase. More flooding is expected from storms and rising sea levels. There are, however, likely to be very strong regional variations in these patterns.
Poorer countries, which are least equipped to deal with rapid change, could suffer the most.
Plant and animal extinctions are predicted as habitats change faster than species can adapt, and the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that the health of millions could be threatened by increases in malaria, water-borne disease and malnutrition.
As an increased amount of CO2 is released into the atmosphere, there is increased uptake of CO2 by the oceans, and this leads to them becoming more acidic. This ongoing process of acidification could pose major problems for the world's coral reefs, as the changes in chemistry prevent corals from forming a calcified skeleton, which is essential for their survival.
Computer models are used to study the dynamics of the Earth's climate and make projections about future temperature change. But these climate models differ on "climate sensitivity" - the amount of warming or cooling that occurs as a particular factor, such as CO2. goes up or down.
Models also differ in the way that they express "climate feedbacks".
Global warming will cause some changes that look likely to create further heating, such as the release of large quantities of the greenhouse gas methane as permafrost (permanently frozen soil found mainly in the Arctic) melts. This is known as a positive climate feedback.
But negative feedbacks exist that could offset warming. Various "reservoirs" on Earth absorb CO2 as part of the carbon cycle - the process through which carbon is exchanged between, for example, the oceans and the land.
The question is: how will these balance out?
[VIDEO]
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24021772
A brief History of the Earth's CO2
By Prof Joanna Haigh Co-Director, Grantham Institute
Climate change has been described as one of the biggest problems faced by humankind. Carbon dioxide is the primary driver of global warming. Prof Joanna Haigh from Imperial College London explains why this gas has played a crucial role in shaping the Earth's climate.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) has been present in the atmosphere since the Earth condensed from a ball of hot gases following its formation from the explosion of a huge star about five billion years ago.
At that time the atmosphere was mainly composed of nitrogen, CO2 and water vapor, which seeped through cracks in the solid surface. A very similar composition emerges from volcanic eruptions today.
As the planet cooled further some of the water vapor condensed out to form oceans and they dissolved a portion of the CO2 but it was still present in the atmosphere in large amounts.
What is climate change?
The first life forms to evolve on Earth were microbes which could survive in this primordial atmosphere but about 2.5 billion years ago, plants developed the ability to photosynthesis, creating glucose and oxygen from CO2 and water in the presence of light from the Sun.
This had a transformative impact on the atmosphere: as life developed, CO2 was consumed so that by around 20 million years ago its concentration was down to below 300 molecules in every one million molecules of air (or 300 parts per million - ppm).
Life on Earth has evolved under these conditions - note that humans did not appear until about 200,000 years ago - and atmospheric CO2 has not exceed that concentration until the industrial revolution brought with it massive emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels: coal and oil.
CO2 plays an important role in climate because it is one of the atmospheric "greenhouse" gases (GHGs) which keep the Earth's surface about 33 degrees warmer than the -18C temperature it would be at were they not present.
They do this by being fairly transparent to the Sun's rays, allowing them through to warm the surface, but then absorbing the radiant heat that the surface emits, so trapping it and enhancing the warming. In the present climate the most effective GHGs are water vapor, which is responsible for about two-thirds of the total warming, and CO2 which accounts for about one quarter.
Other gases, including methane, make up the remainder. The atmospheric concentration of water vapor is less than 1% and, with CO2 making up only a few molecules in every ten thousand of air, it may be surprising that they can have such a significant impact on the surface temperature.
They are able to do this, however, because the structure of their molecules makes them especially effective at absorbing heat radiation while the major atmospheric gases, nitrogen and oxygen, are essentially transparent to it.
The greenhouse effect means that as the atmospheric loading of GHGs increases the surface temperature of the Earth warms. The overall increase in global temperature of about 1C over the past 150 years is almost entirely due to the human activities that have increasing amounts of atmospheric GHGs.
Most significantly, the concentration of CO2 has been rising exponentially (at a rate of about 0.17% per year) since the industrial revolution, due mainly to the combustion of fossil fuels but also to large-scale tropical deforestation which depletes the climate system's capacity for photosynthesis.
In 2015, it passed 400ppm, more than 40% higher than its pre-industrial value of 280ppm and a level that has not existed on Earth for several million years.
While the basic science of how GHGs warm the Earth is very well understood, there are complications. The climate system responds in various ways which both enhance and ameliorate the effects of these gases.
For example, a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor (before it condenses out in clouds or rain) and because water vapor is a GHG, this increases the temperature rise. Another example: as the oceans warm they are less able to hold CO2 so release it, again with the result the initial warming is enhanced.
The global temperature record over the past century does not show the same smooth increase presented by CO2 measurements because the climate is influenced by other factors than GHGs, arising from both natural and human sources. Some particles released into the atmosphere by industrial activities reflect sunshine back to space, tending to cool the planet.
Similarly, large volcanic eruptions can eject small particles into the higher atmosphere, where they remain for up to about two years reducing the sunlight reaching the surface, and temporary dips in global temperature have indeed been measured following major volcanic events.
Changes in the energy emitted by the Sun also affect surface temperature, though measurements of the solar output show this effect to be small on human timescales.
Another important consideration in interpreting global temperatures is that the climate is inherently complex. Energy moves between the atmosphere and oceans in natural fluctuations - an example being El Niño events. This means that we cannot expect an immediate direct relationship between any influencing factor and surface temperature.
All these factors complicate the picture. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that the global temperature rise over the past century is a result of human-produced GHGs, mainly CO2.
While, until the industrial revolution, the CO2 concentration has not exceeded the 280ppm value that last occurred several million years ago, it has gone through periods when it was considerably lower.
Notably, during the ice ages which have occurred roughly every 100,000 years over at least the past half million, drops in global temperature of perhaps 5C have been accompanied by reductions in CO2 concentration to less than 200ppm.
The ice ages, and associated warmer interglacial periods, are brought about by changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun which take place on these long timescales. The cooling in response to a decline in solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface results in a greater uptake of CO2 by the oceans and so further cooling due to a weakened greenhouse effect.
This is an entirely natural phenomenon and it is worth noting that such amplification of temperature fluctuations will occur in response to any initiating factor regardless of its source and including human-produced greenhouse gases.
The effects of increasing CO2 are not limited to an increase in air temperature. As the oceans warm they are expanding so producing a rise in sea level, this being exacerbated by the melting of some of the ice present on land near the poles and in glaciers. The warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor resulting in increased occurrences of heavy rainfall and flooding while changes in weather patterns are intensifying droughts in other regions.
If human emissions of GHGs into the atmosphere continue unabated then the global temperature will continue to rise and the associated weather impacts become ever more severe. The UN climate conference in Paris in December 2015, at which 195 nations unanimously agreed on an aim to restrict the temperature rise to less than 2C, or preferably 1.5C, above the pre-industrial "baseline" was an extraordinary political achievement.
To achieve this, however, will require a complete cessation of global CO2 emissions by the second half of this century and, while the world considers how this might be achieved, the crossing of the 400ppm mark in CO2 concentration has been matched by a global warming of 1C.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41671770
A brief History of the Earth's CO2
By Prof Joanna Haigh Co-Director, Grantham Institute
Climate change has been described as one of the biggest problems faced by humankind. Carbon dioxide is the primary driver of global warming. Prof Joanna Haigh from Imperial College London explains why this gas has played a crucial role in shaping the Earth's climate.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) has been present in the atmosphere since the Earth condensed from a ball of hot gases following its formation from the explosion of a huge star about five billion years ago.
At that time the atmosphere was mainly composed of nitrogen, CO2 and water vapor, which seeped through cracks in the solid surface. A very similar composition emerges from volcanic eruptions today.
As the planet cooled further some of the water vapor condensed out to form oceans and they dissolved a portion of the CO2 but it was still present in the atmosphere in large amounts.
What is climate change?
The first life forms to evolve on Earth were microbes which could survive in this primordial atmosphere but about 2.5 billion years ago, plants developed the ability to photosynthesis, creating glucose and oxygen from CO2 and water in the presence of light from the Sun.
This had a transformative impact on the atmosphere: as life developed, CO2 was consumed so that by around 20 million years ago its concentration was down to below 300 molecules in every one million molecules of air (or 300 parts per million - ppm).
Life on Earth has evolved under these conditions - note that humans did not appear until about 200,000 years ago - and atmospheric CO2 has not exceed that concentration until the industrial revolution brought with it massive emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels: coal and oil.
CO2 plays an important role in climate because it is one of the atmospheric "greenhouse" gases (GHGs) which keep the Earth's surface about 33 degrees warmer than the -18C temperature it would be at were they not present.
They do this by being fairly transparent to the Sun's rays, allowing them through to warm the surface, but then absorbing the radiant heat that the surface emits, so trapping it and enhancing the warming. In the present climate the most effective GHGs are water vapor, which is responsible for about two-thirds of the total warming, and CO2 which accounts for about one quarter.
Other gases, including methane, make up the remainder. The atmospheric concentration of water vapor is less than 1% and, with CO2 making up only a few molecules in every ten thousand of air, it may be surprising that they can have such a significant impact on the surface temperature.
They are able to do this, however, because the structure of their molecules makes them especially effective at absorbing heat radiation while the major atmospheric gases, nitrogen and oxygen, are essentially transparent to it.
The greenhouse effect means that as the atmospheric loading of GHGs increases the surface temperature of the Earth warms. The overall increase in global temperature of about 1C over the past 150 years is almost entirely due to the human activities that have increasing amounts of atmospheric GHGs.
Most significantly, the concentration of CO2 has been rising exponentially (at a rate of about 0.17% per year) since the industrial revolution, due mainly to the combustion of fossil fuels but also to large-scale tropical deforestation which depletes the climate system's capacity for photosynthesis.
In 2015, it passed 400ppm, more than 40% higher than its pre-industrial value of 280ppm and a level that has not existed on Earth for several million years.
While the basic science of how GHGs warm the Earth is very well understood, there are complications. The climate system responds in various ways which both enhance and ameliorate the effects of these gases.
For example, a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor (before it condenses out in clouds or rain) and because water vapor is a GHG, this increases the temperature rise. Another example: as the oceans warm they are less able to hold CO2 so release it, again with the result the initial warming is enhanced.
The global temperature record over the past century does not show the same smooth increase presented by CO2 measurements because the climate is influenced by other factors than GHGs, arising from both natural and human sources. Some particles released into the atmosphere by industrial activities reflect sunshine back to space, tending to cool the planet.
Similarly, large volcanic eruptions can eject small particles into the higher atmosphere, where they remain for up to about two years reducing the sunlight reaching the surface, and temporary dips in global temperature have indeed been measured following major volcanic events.
Changes in the energy emitted by the Sun also affect surface temperature, though measurements of the solar output show this effect to be small on human timescales.
Another important consideration in interpreting global temperatures is that the climate is inherently complex. Energy moves between the atmosphere and oceans in natural fluctuations - an example being El Niño events. This means that we cannot expect an immediate direct relationship between any influencing factor and surface temperature.
All these factors complicate the picture. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that the global temperature rise over the past century is a result of human-produced GHGs, mainly CO2.
While, until the industrial revolution, the CO2 concentration has not exceeded the 280ppm value that last occurred several million years ago, it has gone through periods when it was considerably lower.
Notably, during the ice ages which have occurred roughly every 100,000 years over at least the past half million, drops in global temperature of perhaps 5C have been accompanied by reductions in CO2 concentration to less than 200ppm.
The ice ages, and associated warmer interglacial periods, are brought about by changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun which take place on these long timescales. The cooling in response to a decline in solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface results in a greater uptake of CO2 by the oceans and so further cooling due to a weakened greenhouse effect.
This is an entirely natural phenomenon and it is worth noting that such amplification of temperature fluctuations will occur in response to any initiating factor regardless of its source and including human-produced greenhouse gases.
The effects of increasing CO2 are not limited to an increase in air temperature. As the oceans warm they are expanding so producing a rise in sea level, this being exacerbated by the melting of some of the ice present on land near the poles and in glaciers. The warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor resulting in increased occurrences of heavy rainfall and flooding while changes in weather patterns are intensifying droughts in other regions.
If human emissions of GHGs into the atmosphere continue unabated then the global temperature will continue to rise and the associated weather impacts become ever more severe. The UN climate conference in Paris in December 2015, at which 195 nations unanimously agreed on an aim to restrict the temperature rise to less than 2C, or preferably 1.5C, above the pre-industrial "baseline" was an extraordinary political achievement.
To achieve this, however, will require a complete cessation of global CO2 emissions by the second half of this century and, while the world considers how this might be achieved, the crossing of the 400ppm mark in CO2 concentration has been matched by a global warming of 1C.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41671770
[VIDEO] Ice, Oceans and Climate - Understanding our Earth through Polar and Marine Research
https://www.awi.de/en.html
I concur Seminole Red, this link shows a study on "geothermal heat flux".
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41972297
"The heat coming from the Earth’s interior is important to understand the overall conditions that control the dynamics at the base of the ice sheet and hence the ice flow.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you have to look at geologic time, and let the earth speak for itself, with the evidence of what has happened to it, going back thousands of years.
How exactly do we do that you ask?
Ice cores and the gas bubbles [and other sediments] trapped within them showing a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature rise. Waaaaay before man was even around to effect climate change, but it shows the dramatic increase in CO2 levels compared to many different ice ages to the levels in CO2 we see today. The relatively extremely short period of time in the recent increases in CO2, compared to the past increases in CO2, that happened over thousands of years.
The evidence is irrefutable and undeniable, that this current increase in CO2 levels has never happened this quickly in the recorded history of the planet. There are tons of embedded links, and after article links, and I encourage you to look at all of them, as I have exhaustively. This represents a contributory factor to your factual link, that I have already concurred with. The "geothermal heat flux" is happening, but it is not the be all, and end all of the equation.
November 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm#sa-link_location=more-story-5&intlink_from_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fscience-environment-17611404&intlink_ts=1510783437502&story_slot=1-sa
CO2 'drove end to last ice age'
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-17611404
Scientists probe Earth's last warm phase
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27110880
"If you are going to compare the climate from one place to another, you need a common chronology for all the different records. And this was the great challenge in this study - to try to transfer all the palaeoclimatic records on to just one chronology, because we are working beyond the time where we can use radiocarbon dating."
Antarctica warmth 'unusual, but not unique'
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19348427
The analysis revealed that 15,000-12,000 years ago, the Antarctic Peninsula experienced significant warming, becoming about 1C warmer than today.
The region then cooled markedly around 2,500 years ago, and temperatures remained relatively stable. This co-incided with the late-Holocene development of ice shelves near JRI.
Around 600 years ago, the peninsula started to warm once more - slowly at first, but then, from around 1920, much more rapidly.
Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to
Holocene climate and ice-shelf history
http://www.nature.com/articles/nature11391.epdf?referrer_access_token=G0E06yyceiBOoIeNkwlZC9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M_3OfNDxkhzVAWwSIHrHq0jYVEXnuxTScOqDkMr8tcZ1XxtLTIZT0gWGlm1WguC68yMl99CBfJe4pv5iZUyvi59nxTTMfmCJ5I8swkUXDS6jSr-0M8QH3_I-WMw-eS94pDuB9ud5AKbahDtBgpaiYMFoYu8Q2opxaGbomKrpT3tg%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.bbc.com
Carbon sinks created by glacier retreat
https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/antarctica-glacier-retreat-creates-new-carbon-dioxide-store/
*The 3.5 million tonnes of carbon taken from the ocean and atmosphere is equivalent to 12.8 million tonnes of CO2.
Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change reached 8.7 billion tonnes of carbon in 2007.
Sea ice loss and retreat of coastal glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula were studied using historical accounts, aerial photographs and satellite images. This shows that seven of the major ice shelves and 87% of the 244 marine glaciers have retreated over the past 50 years.
The 24,000 km2 of new open water is approximately the size of Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Belize or Israel.
Antarctic Digital Database
https://www.bas.ac.uk/project/add/
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/antarctica-and-climate-change/
Factfile
-The mean annual temperature in the Antarctic Peninsula has risen by up to 3.2°C in the past 60 years contributing to the collapse of some of the smaller ice shelves.
-Around 30 countries operate Antarctic research stations where scientists study global environmental issues like climate change, ozone depletion and sustainable management of marine life.
-There is clear evidence for climate change from many sources including: globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, reductions in most glaciers, acidification of the oceans and sea-level rise caused by thermal expansion and ice melt.
-Unequivocal evidence has shown that since the start of the Industrial Revolution the amount of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere has increased beyond that caused by natural events.
-The present concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide exceeds any value measured in ice cores covering the last 800,000 years.
'Nothing can stop retreat' of West Antarctic glaciers
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27381010
A strong case for limiting climate change
BIOACID concludes after eight years of extensive research on ocean acidification
https://www.awi.de/nc/en/about-us/service/press/press-release/ein-starkes-argument-fuer-die-begrenzung-des-klimawandels.html
"As a gigantic carbon sink, the ocean has taken up about a third of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere by human activities. But when absorbed by seawater, the greenhouse gas triggers chemical reactions, causing the ocean to acidify. Ocean acidification affects ecosystems and important services the ocean provides to humankind. This includes the regulation of the Earth’s climate, food provision, recreation as well as biodiversity as a condition for intact and functioning ecosystems".
Ice Cores and the Gas Bubbles [and other sediments] trapped within them showing a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature rise.
The relatively extremely short period of time in the recent increases in CO2, compared to the past increases in CO2, that happened over thousands of years.
The evidence is irrefutable and undeniable, that this current increase in CO2 levels has never happened this quickly in the recorded history of the planet.
November 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm#sa-link_location=more-story-5&intlink_from_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fscience-environment-17611404&intlink_ts=1510783437502&story_slot=1-sa
CO2 'drove end to last ice age'
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-17611404
Scientists probe Earth's last warm phase
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27110880
"If you are going to compare the climate from one place to another, you need a common chronology for all the different records. And this was the great challenge in this study - to try to transfer all the palaeoclimatic records on to just one chronology, because we are working beyond the time where we can use radiocarbon dating."
Antarctica warmth 'unusual, but not unique'
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19348427
The analysis revealed that 15,000-12,000 years ago, the Antarctic Peninsula experienced significant warming, becoming about 1C warmer than today.
The region then cooled markedly around 2,500 years ago, and temperatures remained relatively stable. This co-incided with the late-Holocene development of ice shelves near JRI.
Around 600 years ago, the peninsula started to warm once more - slowly at first, but then, from around 1920, much more rapidly.
Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to
Holocene climate and ice-shelf history
http://www.nature.com/articles/nature11391.epdf?referrer_access_token=G0E06yyceiBOoIeNkwlZC9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M_3OfNDxkhzVAWwSIHrHq0jYVEXnuxTScOqDkMr8tcZ1XxtLTIZT0gWGlm1WguC68yMl99CBfJe4pv5iZUyvi59nxTTMfmCJ5I8swkUXDS6jSr-0M8QH3_I-WMw-eS94pDuB9ud5AKbahDtBgpaiYMFoYu8Q2opxaGbomKrpT3tg%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.bbc.com
Carbon sinks created by glacier retreat
https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/antarctica-glacier-retreat-creates-new-carbon-dioxide-store/
*The 3.5 million tonnes of carbon taken from the ocean and atmosphere is equivalent to 12.8 million tonnes of CO2.
Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change reached 8.7 billion tonnes of carbon in 2007.
Sea ice loss and retreat of coastal glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula were studied using historical accounts, aerial photographs and satellite images. This shows that seven of the major ice shelves and 87% of the 244 marine glaciers have retreated over the past 50 years.
The 24,000 km2 of new open water is approximately the size of Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Belize or Israel.
Antarctic Digital Database
https://www.bas.ac.uk/project/add/
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/antarctica-and-climate-change/
Factfile
-The mean annual temperature in the Antarctic Peninsula has risen by up to 3.2°C in the past 60 years contributing to the collapse of some of the smaller ice shelves.
-Around 30 countries operate Antarctic research stations where scientists study global environmental issues like climate change, ozone depletion and sustainable management of marine life.
-There is clear evidence for climate change from many sources including: globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, reductions in most glaciers, acidification of the oceans and sea-level rise caused by thermal expansion and ice melt.
-Unequivocal evidence has shown that since the start of the Industrial Revolution the amount of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere has increased beyond that caused by natural events.
-The present concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide exceeds any value measured in ice cores covering the last 800,000 years.
'Nothing can stop retreat' of West Antarctic glaciers
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27381010
A strong case for limiting climate change
BIOACID concludes after eight years of extensive research on ocean acidification
https://www.awi.de/nc/en/about-us/service/press/press-release/ein-starkes-argument-fuer-die-begrenzung-des-klimawandels.html
"As a gigantic carbon sink, the ocean has taken up about a third of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere by human activities. But when absorbed by seawater, the greenhouse gas triggers chemical reactions, causing the ocean to acidify. Ocean acidification affects ecosystems and important services the ocean provides to humankind. This includes the regulation of the Earth’s climate, food provision, recreation as well as biodiversity as a condition for intact and functioning ecosystems".
[VIDEO] Ice, Oceans and Climate - Understanding our Earth through Polar and Marine Research
https://www.awi.de/en.html
[VIDEO] A massive hole was spotted in the Antarctic sea ice.
A massive polynya the size of Maine, opened up in the Antarctic sea ice.
It's roughly 30,000 square miles at it's largest, making it the biggest polynya observed since the 1970's.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/wonder/a-massive-hole-was-spotted-in-the-antarctic-sea-ice/vi-BBEXSG2?ocid=spartandhp
[VIDEO] Antarctica's warm underbelly revealed
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41972297
This "geothermal heat flux" is key data required by scientists in order to model how the White Continent is going to react to climate change.
If the rock bed's temperature is raised, it makes it easier for the ice above to move.
And if global warming is already forcing change on the ice sheet, a higher flux could accelerate matters.
"The heat coming from the Earth’s interior is important to understand the overall conditions that control the dynamics at the base of the ice sheet and hence the ice flow,”
Former prosecutor says it was ‘common knowledge’ that Roy Moore ‘dated high school girls’ http://thkpr.gs/b73e489bea05
VIDEO: 3 Carriers Now Operating Off the Korean Peninsula with Japanese Ships
November 12, 2017 7:18 AM
The following are photos and video of USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76), USS Nimitz (CVN-68) and USS Theodore Roosevelt(CVN-71), along with their escorts and air wings operating off the Korean peninsula
https://news.usni.org/2017/11/12/video-3-carriers-now-operating-off-korean-peninsula-japanese-ships
If I saw all this happening right off the coast where I was, I would high tail it right out of there as quick as I could.
I think the entire country is being held hostage, sad thing is "Rocket Man" is going to get a lot of innocent civilians, along with a major portion of his military personnel killed, if he keeps on the path he has chosen. The country is so isolated from the rest of the world that it is being run like a secluded cult.
[VIDEO] Oil and Gas Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) Witnesses testified at a hearing on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), specifically the coastal plain section of the refuge. The first panel comprised Alaska elected officials Senator Dan Sullivan (R), Representative Don Young (R), and Governor Bill Walker (I). All agreed that opening up the Arctic refuge to oil drilling would benefit the economy and enhance energy security. The second panel included Interior Department officials and Alaskan native tribe members. Samuel Alexander, a member of the Gwich’in Nation, said oil development would threaten the ANWR’s coastal plain and destroy his people’s way of life. Panel three included testimony from environmental experts, biologists, and representatives from the Alaska Native Regional Corporations. They assessed the potential economic benefits and environmental effects of oil development in the Arctic refuge.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?436699-1/alaska-officials-testify-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-anwr-exploration
Northwest communities seek to build a ‘green wall of resistance’ against fossil fuels
Using a new legal strategy, Pacific Northwest towns are fighting back against fossil fuels -- and winning.
https://thinkprogress.org/northwest-communities-fossil-fuel-infrastructure-bans-0a4a9b1dbf85/
“The goal is the same, which is the move away from the kind of fossil fuel export fights that have been the norm in the Pacific Northwest for the last five or six years, where we are in response mode,” Alex Ramel, extreme oil field director at Stand International, said of the similarities between Whatcom and Portland’s efforts to ban fossil fuel infrastructure. “That basic strategy is the same, and I hope to see it continued up and down the coast.”
In Tacoma, Washington, organizers are also looking to amend local land use laws to make it more difficult for the port to become a target for fossil fuel projects. Like in Portland, the idea was first sparked by a proposed methanol refinery, which would have used shipped the fossil fuel to China for use in the manufacturing of plastics. Eventually, in response to local opposition, the financial backers pulled out of the project, but organizers knew similar proposals were sure to follow; according to the Sightline Institute’s June 2017 report, “Northwest Targets,” Tacoma is the second-most at-risk place in the Pacific Northwest when it comes to potential major fossil fuel infrastructure proposals.
Agreed. We'll see what happens... Thxs NOBO-
Fossil fuel burning set to hit record high in 2017, scientists warn
The rise would end three years of flat carbon emissions – a ‘huge leap backward’ say some scientists, while others say the longer term trend is more hopeful.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/13/fossil-fuel-burning-set-to-hit-record-high-in-2017-scientists-warn
These Climate Skeptics Have The Trump Administration’s Ear. Here’s Their Wishlist.
Several federal officials attended an energy conference hosted by the conservative Heartland Institute. The group of climate skeptics is celebrating Trump’s environmental rollbacks and aiming for even bigger policy changes.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/zahrahirji/these-climate-skeptics-have-the-trump-administrations-ear?utm_term=.rbNE1kQNXK#.rbNE1kQNXK
But Pruitt’s team, according to Lakely, has reached out to the Heartland Institute for a list of scientists and policy experts who are skeptical of catastrophic man-made global warming. Some of those names ended up on the list of the agency’s new science advisers released earlier this month.
“Stanley Young was one of the people — we told the agency he was good on the ideas,” Lakely said, and now the North Carolina statistician is on the board advising Pruitt on science policy.
Ok, but what I was trying to point out is that Mr.Bill wasn't owning up to anything that hasn't already occurred, it's all hearsay and conjecture except the signing of a "Negotiations Agreement" verbally stated, and he stated in court docs that he was "Seeking" [not obtained] funds for purposes of updating the company for a merger. So if the court says show me either the funding or the updated filings, and the signed merger agreement, then what?
As of right now what would Mr.Bill be in perjury for?
He was so evasive and to me misleading the court, but didn't definitively admit to anything concrete which leads one to believe that he's just trying to shine on the court to an actual merger agreement that doesn't exist.
I'm still batting for IVS to take control of the shell, and I think that they have a real shot at it still.
Too much obfuscation going on, I think the judge is going to get pissed off at Mr.Bill's obvious deflection, unless he comes up with some documents backing up his statements that he is working toward, or has completed a R/M agreement. IMO
M-
Thxs for the link NOBO, but this is all just a rehashing of everything we already know that Mr.Bill is broke and scrounging for money to move things along to pursue this mysterious merger he says is underway.
Meanwhile no merger agreements have been presented just a statement that what was signed is a "Negotiation" Statement. WTF is that? He signed a statement that they are talking? OK that means nothing to me.
Mr.Bill stated he was heading down south to raise some cash?
This makes absolutely no sense to me at all, if he has an ongoing / or by now signed merger agreement why would he need to drum up some cash?
Wouldn't that be all covered in the merger agreement with the influx of cash?
OK so maybe the "agreement" or negotiations state that everything needs to be updated with respect to the filings, which would have to be done before any merger was inked.
I just don't get it? Why the need for the court to drop all oversight for Mr.Bill to update GRDO?
I think the court is going to rule that Mr.Bill show good faith and do all the company updates and filings "Before" the court drops oversight of this disagreement with IVS.
Until I see otherwise, Respectfully, I think Mr.Bill is full of hot air and the judge is going to see right through all of his BS. IMO-
M-
https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/929e392a-12fd-42f7-9129-9c842e2ade8f
Yeah that would be the place to keep track of to see if any updates are being made.
Why wouldn't Mr. Bill start updating everything now?
I think he's fighting for the right to just do nothing with it, unless he's doing something gangbuster behind the scenes that we don't know about which I guess could be happening.
I want it to go to IVS so they can get a R/M underway and update filings ect...
But, I have seen stocks stuck in limbo in the courts over controversies hit the bricks bigtime, after a long slosh fighting it out.
Peeps like to buy stocks and see them take off right away, but it doesn't always work out that way.
M-
WTG NOBO Good job converting the link into a pdf file, stuck it up into the I-Box.
All about hurry up and wait for now, we'll see if it gets a continuance come Nov 30.
Kind of like to see the can stopped being kicked down the road, keeps the stock in limbo.
M-