eCosmology

Please I need all you Harvard Astronomy graduates! (Harvard Smithsonian Center 4 Astrophysics people please!)? I really want to go to Harvard University Department Of Astronomy/Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics when I grow up... I'm not even high school yet, but so far I've had straight As, I'm in the math team. I am taking the offical piano tests (although not relavent to this..but an "extra) and soon I'll get my teacher's lisence... When I get to high school I hope to have all AP courses and get As in all of them...optimistically I hope to get a 2400 on the SAT (or at least anything higher than a 2200) and I will be participating in the Math Club, Science Club, Literacy Club, and Art club. I'll also be doing a LOT of community service! but...what else should I do/be doing to get into this school? I don't want some vague answer like, "Harvard likes individuality. Be yourself, express yourself, and write a killer essay and Harvard will ♥ you!" No I WILL write a killer essay..I already know that. (hence Literacy club!!)lol But what I want to know...what should I be doing SPECIFICALLY so that "Harvard University Department Of Astronomy/Harvard Smithsonian Center" will notice me/like me? Anything related to astronomy...or should I just continue to do what I'm doing and hope for the best??? details please details!!

How are Harvard and The Smithsonian associated? I am interested in SETI and I noticed that much research is done at the "Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics" This has made me curious and my question is... How is Harvard and the Smithsonian associated? Are they one and the same? How long has the association existed? Ive been to both Harvard and Smithsonian websites and can't seem to find any answers so hopefully I can find some info here!

What are the best Ivy League universities for astronomy? I really want to be an astronomer (or astro physicist) when I grow up.. So which Ivy school is best for me? The only one I know of is Harvard University Department of Astronomy/Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics... What else? Do Yale, Princeton, Oxford, or any of the other Ivy League schools have any astronomy/astrophysic departments that I should look into? Thanks!!:-)

MIT or Harvard? Which is better if I want to be an astronomer/astrophysicist? I really want to be an astronomer or an astrophysicist (haven't decided which one quite yet) when I grow up... So far, I've been thinking that Harvard University Department of Astronomy/Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics is my school... But what about MIT? I mean..I've heard that you go to Harvard to be a busineswoman and you got o MIT to be a scientist Well, astronomers are basically scientist... So--to all you astronomers and fancy shamcny smart people.....which is better if I want to be an astronomer or astrophysicist? MIT or Harvard? And WHY? details please!

Did china shoot down an American satellite? U.S. officials are unable to communicate with a costly U.S. reconnaissance satellite for the military and intelligence communities launched last year, a defense official said on Thursday jan 19th. Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center For Astrophysics, said the satellite in question could be a classified NRO satellite launched into space on Dec. 14, 2006 from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Is this a coincidence? Did China shoot down a U.S. spy satellite or an aging chinese weather satellite?

Are more scientist making the connection that the Sun, not man causes global warming? "In her lecture series, "Warming Up to the Truth: The Real Story About Climate Change," astrophysicist Dr. Baliunas shared her findings at the University of Texas. Dr. Baliunas' work with fellow Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics astronomer Willie Soon suggests global warming is more directly related to solar variability than to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, an alternative view to what's been widely publicized in the mainstream media." http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080213/NEWS08/802130360 Dr. Baliunas received Ph.D. degrees in Astrophysics from Harvard University. Dr. Willie Soon received his Ph.D. aerospace engineering from the University of Southern California and is a physicist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Do these doctorates have a theory that needs to be studied further because it is plausible, or do you think you know more than Harvard Doctorates? Robert A - Strawman argument. For the most part, no one who doesn't accept the dogma of AGW is for putting more pollutants into the air. We should do what we can to reduce all pollution, including ghg's. AGW is a lie. No political policy should be made to "fix" a problem that doesn't exist. Robert A - CO2 is too insignificant to cause any change in temps. The total amount of CO2 in the air is only 0.003%. Politicians will do for carbon what they have done for the "war on" drugs, terrorism, poverty, etc... create more of what they declare war on at a great expense to the public.

Can light quanta stops its moving? Quantum mechanics describes the bizarre rules of light and matter on atomic scales. In that realm, matter can be in two places at once. Objects can be particles and waves at the same time. And nothing is certain -- only probable or improbable. This improbable feat -- stopping light -- was accomplished by two teams. One was led by Ron Walsworth, a physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and the other by Lene Hau of Harvard University's Department of Physics. Walsworth's group used warm rubidium vapors to pause their laser beam; Hau's group used a super-cold sodium gas to do the same thing. =================== http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/27mar_stoplight.htm

Did Noah see any comets other than the one mentioned here? "HALE-BOPP - LAST SEEN BY NOAH?" Arutz 7 News, Israel A comet discovered in July 1995 has now become bright enough to be easily seen with the naked eye, even from urban sites, and will remain easily visible to northern-hemisphere observers through April 1997. The Hale-Bopp Comet orbits and is still approaching, the sun, with its closest approach (perihelion) occurring tomorrow night, April 1, 1997. Daniel W. E. Green of the Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics stated that the latest orbital calculations indicate that the Hale-Bopp comet last passed through the inner solar system about 4210 years ago. An Arutz-7 correspondent noted that according to the ancient Jewish text Seder Olam Rabah, the comet's previous appearance was approximately the same year that Noah began building the ark. {ARUTZ 7 3/31 C}

Is the evolution debate partly driven by political considerations? DESPITE A STELLAR RESEARCH RECORD, Iowa State University astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez is being forced out of his job for the expression--outside the classroom--of an inconvenient personal belief. In 2004, Gonzalez co-wrote a book called The Privileged Planet. He argued that life on earth and our ability to make scientific discoveries about the cosmos depend on a host of incredibly improbable planetary conditions--the preponderance of which suggested intelligent design rather than cosmic accident as the explanation for the universe. Gonzalez never taught this material to students. But if he and co-author Jay Richards (a former colleague of mine) are right, then the late astronomer Carl Sagan was wrong when he mocked our human "delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe." Privileged Planet was praised on its dust jacket by senior scholars at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and England's Cambridge University. It should be noted that Gonzalez is being forced out by Provost Elizabeth Hoffman. her previous job was at the University of Colorado, where she DEFENDED Ward Churchill's right to call those who died on 9/11 "little Eichmanns." UnPope..apparently folks at 2 major Universities thought his ideas had merit. Apparently they don't know you've reduced them to rubble, also? Why would Cambridge University lend credence to his book, then, and place their reputation at risk? I think one of the most interesting things about the story is that the Provost would defend Ward Churchill and his incredible comments on the grounds of academic freedom, and yet cave at peer pressure when a member of the faculty at ISU dares question Sagan. It is a view firmly rejected by some in the scientific community, but not all in the scientific community. The problem lies with the attempt to silence opposing views, which the evolutionist community strives to do daily. Nothing that I wrote is a lie, it just happens to be counter to views held by you..and as far as I can tell you are not the all-seeing arbiter of truth. http://www.privilegedplanet.com/endorsements.php List of Endorsements for the book. These people don't appear to be afraid to link themselves to his work.

Global Warming - The other side of the argument.? Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes Scientists in this section conclude that natural causes are likely more to blame than human activities for the observed rising temperatures. •Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." (Russian News & Information Agency, Jan. 15, 2007 [9]) (See also [10], [11], [12]) •Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air." (Capitalism Magazine, August 22, 2002)[13] Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content." (Marshall Institute, March 25, 2003) [14] •David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and botanist: "Global warming is a largely natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed."[15] •Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Meterorology: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air." [16]. •Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown." (Telegraph, April 9, 2006 [17]) •George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible." (Environmental Geology, vol. 50 no. 6, August 2006 [18]) •Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle." (The Hill Times, March 22, 2004 [19]) •William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[20]) "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." [21]) "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[22]) •Yuri Izrael, vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming."[23] •Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw: "The atmospheric temperature variations do not follow the changes in the concentrations of CO2 ... climate change fluctuations comes ... from cosmic radiation." (21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 2003-2004, p. 52-65 [24]) •David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming." (May 15, 2006 [25]) •Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned." (M. Leroux, Global Warming - Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120 [26]) •Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[27] •Tim Patterson [28], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" [29] •Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it". [[30]] •Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities." (Environment News, 2001 [31]) •Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries. [32] •Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." (Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 2005) [33] "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.", NCPA Study No. 279, Sep. 2005 [34]. “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.” (CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23 - Google Video Link) •Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed." (Harvard University Gazette, 24 April 2003 [35]) •Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..." (Global Warming as Myth [36]) •Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover." [37] •Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005. [38], [39]) [edit] Believe cause of global warming is unknown Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural. •Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report, which states that “most” of the present warming (+0.7°C/100 years) is due to the greenhouse effect."[40] •Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content." (Translation from the original French version in L'Express, May 10, 2006 [41]) •August H. "Augie" Auer Jr., retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist, past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming: "So if you multiply the total contribution 3.6 by the man-made portion of it, 3.2, you find out that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the the global greenhouse effect is 0.117 percent, roughly 0.12 percent, that's like 12c in $100." "'It's miniscule ... it's nothing,'". [42] •Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and a professor of geography at Arizona State University: "[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models." (George C. Marshall Institute, Policy Outlook, September 2003[43]) •Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done." (The New Zealand Herald, May 9, 2006 [44]) •David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria." (Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, December 6, 2006 [45]) •Richard Lindzen, Alfred Sloane Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." [46] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed." (San Francisco Examiner, July 12, 2006 [47] and in Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006, Page A14) •Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind." (George C. Marshall Institute Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy, April 17, 2006 [48]) Still convinced that this new religon is right?

Was this projection from a leading climate scientist accurate? In his 1990 book, "The Race Against Global Warming" Michael Oppenheimer explains the crucial role that climate models play in the Greenhouse theory, and the process of "model validation". He explains that although factors such as solar variation may affect the global temperature a little bit over the next ten or twenty years, the evidence of man-made global warming will still be apparent, as the difference in temperature caused by these natural factors [quote] ""have probably not exceeded more than about two degrees in either direction for thousands of years. The measured warming should creep above that range of uncertainty over the next decade or so, if the models are correct" - this projection was made in 1991. It's now 2010. What do you think? In case you don't know who he is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Oppenheimer ""Michael Oppenheimer is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University. Prior to joining Princeton he was Chief Scientist with Environmental Defense Fund, where he managed the Climate and Air Program. Prior to his position at the Environmental Defense Fund, Dr. Oppenheimer served as Atomic and Molecular Astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Lecturer on Astronomy at Harvard University. He received an S.B. in chemistry from M.I.T., a Ph.D. in chemical physics from the University of Chicago, and pursued post-doctoral research at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics."" Sorry, should of said - celcius Page 55. The broader context of the chapter is the global temperature since 1880 when accurate records began (in the author's opinion).

Check my grammar on this essay please? Global Warming is a very important issue today. Though it is mostly accepted by the media and public, there is more information behind global warming that you may not know about. Since global warming is theorized today as being caused by humans, there is information that proves that we are actually a very small cause of it. Researchers have found that in our earth’s history, similar effects of warming have been present millions of years ago, and continue to happen today. The leader on the issue of global warming, Al Gore, has produced a well-known film on this issue. However, most of the facts throughout his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, have been proven as “substantially inaccurate” (Monckton 3). Global Warming is a natural phenomenon. Global Warming is an increase in temperature in the earth’s atmosphere. This increase may be due to the trapping of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, which hold the heat we receive from the sun. Greenhouse gases do not just include carbon. In fact, CO2 is less than 3 percent of all greenhouse gases. Water vapor takes up the other 97 percent. The rest are methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone and trace gases. Many people pollute by burning fossil fuels, which puts carbon into our atmosphere. But plants feed on carbon and release oxygen. A study by Dr. Kevin Telmer, Assistant Professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, and Dr. Jan Veizer, Professor of Geology at the University of Ottawa, shows that the larger amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere at higher temperatures permit more carbon to be absorbed by plants. This means that when the world heats and more water is evaporated into the air, plants will absorb more carbon. Therefore the system regulates itself to deal with climatic changes (EnviroTruth). Before humans inhabited the earth, the world has actually been through far more extreme changes than what we see today. The natural cycles of our earth’s history have shown that carbon levels have risen and fallen even when humans didn’t inhabit the earth. Current Ice core records show that at the end of each of the last three major ice ages, temperatures rose several hundred years before carbon levels increased. Researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics have found that our century isn’t the most warm or extreme of weather over the past 1,000 years. The last time the earth has seen a hint of warming was during the Medieval Warm Period, which ranged from 800 to 1300 A.D. Following the Medieval Warm period was the Little Ice Age, which was from 1300 A.D. to 1900 A.D. This shows that the earth changes temperature even without humans’ carbon emissions. Dr. Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, concludes that “It is highly probable that the global average temperature will go up and down during future years regardless of what we do” (EnviroTruth). Some facts distributed to the public by Al Gore and the reasons most believe global warming is caused by humans are inaccurate. The first nine errors and exaggerations in Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, were presented by the Judge of High Court, London, in 2007. There were also twenty-six more errors throughout his movie that were not looked upon by the court because the court did not have time to look upon any more than those nine errors (Monckton 3). In Al Gore’s movie, he explained that a sea-level rise of 6 meters will be caused by the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who had won the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, has said that a sea-level increase 7 meters above today’s levels has happened naturally in past climates. The IPCC calculated that in the next 100 years, the two ice sheets will add 6 cm to sea level. Al Gore exaggerated this fact by 10,000% (Monckton 4). He also claims that carbon dioxide drives the temperature up, but this is actually the other way around (Monckton 6). According to Center for Science and Public Policy, and Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, sometimes carbon dioxide and temperature are out of sync with each other; when one rises the other may fall. Other times, one can be on the verge to a higher or lower level, while another is in stasis. Even when both are in harmony, temperature almost always moves first, and by hundreds to thousands of years (8). Among the many other errors, Al Gore also said that Hurricane Katrina was manmade; which leaves us responsible for the deaths and destruction. But the real truth is that Gore’s Party, which is in the administration of New Orleans, ignored 30 years of warnings from the Corps of Engineers that the dams and levees could not stand a direct hit from a hurricane (Monckton 8). Ultimately, global warming is happening but not by means of human emissions; it is truly a natural occurrence. Before human life appeared on this planet, the earth has seen far more changes than what one may see in a lifetime. Some of the facts our media gives us on global warming are not always true, but who would question the facts they release to the public? The calculations and information may seem believable, but do we really know they are correct? Or do we just believe what we hear and accept it as the truth? If we could only focus on the positive side to global warming, we would understand the benefits that it will bring to us. Whats wrong with someone copying it? Copying others' work will catch up to them someday. lol @ chocho

If man was here 100,000 years ago how did they survive the sun's rays 100,000 years ago? ref: 6 - Solar Collapse http://www.evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-4a.htm Research studies indicate that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased to exist. Recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller—in order for life to be sustained on our planet. "By analyzing data from Greenwich Observatory in the period 1836-1953, John A. Eddy [Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder] and Aram A. Boornazian [mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston] have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century during that time, corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour. And digging deep into historical records, Eddy has found 400-year-old eclipse observations that are consistent with such a shrinkage."— *"Sun is Shrinking," Physics Today, September 1979. Extrapolating back, 100,000 years ago, the sun would have been about twice its present size, making life untenable.

If man evolved 200,000 years ago how did they survive the sun's rays 100,000 years ago? ref: 6 - Solar Collapse http://www.evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-4a.htm Research studies indicate that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased to exist. Recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller—in order for life to be sustained on our planet. "By analyzing data from Greenwich Observatory in the period 1836-1953, John A. Eddy [Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder] and Aram A. Boornazian [mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston] have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century during that time, corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour. And digging deep into historical records, Eddy has found 400-year-old eclipse observations that are consistent with such a shrinkage."— *"Sun is Shrinking," Physics Today, September 1979. Extrapolating back, 100,000 years ago, the sun would have been about twice its present size, making life untenable.

What do you know that these people don't ? Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."[13][14][15] Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[16] Reid Bryson, deceased, former emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."[17] George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."[18] Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[19] David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[20] Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"[21] William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[22] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[23] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[24] William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[25] George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."[26] David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[27] Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean M Science advances through hypotheses based on a set of assumptions. Other scientists challenge and test those assumptions in what philosopher Karl Popper called the practice of 'falsibility.' Trying to disprove hypothesis is what real science is all about. Yet the hypothesis that human addition of CO2 would lead to significantly enhanced greenhouse warming was quickly accepted without this normal scientific challenge. As Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences said, the consensus was reached before the research had even begun. Adherents to the hypothesis began defending the increasingly indefensible by launching personal attacks, essentially trying to frighten scientific opponents into silence. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down. This was for 2007 and when the 2008 mean temp came out it was down again. I would like to see the names of all the pro global warming scientist that belive it is caused by humans. CARBON DIOXIDE MAKES UP 0.037% OF THE EARTHS ATMOSPHERES AND YET YOU DISMISS WATER VAPOR LIKE IT MEANS NOTHING TO THE ATMOSPHERE. LOOK UP THE PERCENTAGES YOUR SELF, IT IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Is Wikipedia worthless: how a "scientist" corrupted all climate articles with lies? Lawrence Solomon writes in the Financial Post: How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles One person in the nine-member Realclimate.org team — U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley — would take on particularly crucial duties. Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period. All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement. The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx#ixzz0aApCEqRz

How come deniers are accused of not being real scientists and alarmists say the science is settled? Some of the world’s foremost atmospheric scientists, physicists, astronomers, and geologists disagree with the current consensus on anthropogenic global warming. These include Richard Lindzen (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Roger Pielke Sr. (University of Colorado), Roy Spencer and John Christy (University of Alabama), Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), Robert Carter (James Cook University, Australia), Fred Singer (University of Virginia), Will Happer (Princeton University), and Nils-Axel Mörner (Stockholm University). In addition to these, there are hundreds of credentialed scientists at universities around the world who reject the hypothesis that CO2 induced warming dominates changes in earth’s climate system. Though science is not based on authority, the inclusion of such high profile scientists should raise at least some red flags when advocates claim that the “science is settled.” Pegiminer at least half heartedly tried to answer the question as usually he tries to shoot the messenger in his typical pathetic alarmist strategy!

Since the earth will be purified by FIRE-Do you think that is what the Mayans and what today's Scientist? Are seeing with the *SUN*? The winter solstice is on Dec. 21, and in the year 2012, a solar maximum also is expected to occur. At maximum, the Sun can have many sunspots and many more large flares and solar storms, said Karen Masters, a postdoctoral researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Some people are also anticipating a reversal of the magnetic poles soon. However, signs of a reversal have been observed for several years, including the magnetic field weakening, NASA has reported. If the trend continues, the magnetic field could collapse then reverse. The magnetic field protects the planet from some cosmic radiation, which has the potential to knock out power grids and scramble communications systems These events release charged particles from the surface of the Sun, which travel out into space. Those that hit the Earth in the forms of CME's could actually burn most of earth up. What will happen in the next few years is anyone's guess... Thoughts?

Do you think this Article is easy to understand?...? “Hundreds Of Rogue Black Holes May Roam The Milky Way, Swallowing Anything That Gets Too Close” ScienceDaily (Apr. 29, 2009) — It sounds like the plot of a sci-fi movie: rogue black holes roaming our galaxy, threatening to swallow anything that gets too close. In fact, new calculations by Ryan O'Leary and Avi Loeb (Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics) suggest that hundreds of massive black holes, left over from the galaxy-building days of the early universe, may wander the Milky Way. Good news, however: Earth is safe. The closest rogue black hole should reside thousands of light-years away. Astronomers are eager to locate them, though, for the clues they will provide to the formation of the Milky Way. "These black holes are relics of the Milky Way's past," said Loeb. "You could say that we are archaeologists studying those relics to learn about our galaxy's history and the formation history of black holes in the early universe." According to theory, rogue black holes originally lurked at the centers of tiny, low-mass galaxies. Over billions of years, those dwarf galaxies smashed together to form full-sized galaxies like the Milky Way. Each time two proto-galaxies with central black holes collided, their black holes merged to form a single, "relic" black hole. During the merger, directional emission of gravitational radiation would cause the black hole to recoil. A typical kick would send the black hole speeding outward fast enough to escape its host dwarf galaxy, but not fast enough to leave the galactic neighbourhood completely. As a result, such black holes would still be around today in the outer reaches of the Milky Way halo. Hundreds of rogue black holes should be travelling the Milky Way's outskirts, each containing the mass of 1,000 to 100,000 suns. They would be difficult to spot on their own because a black hole is visible only when it is swallowing, or accreting, matter. One telltale sign could mark a rogue black hole: a surrounding cluster of stars yanked from the dwarf galaxy when the black hole escaped. Only the stars closest to the black hole would be tugged along, so the cluster would be very compact. Due to the cluster's small size on the sky, appearing to be a single star, astronomers would have to look for more subtle clues to its existence and origin. For example, its spectrum would show that multiple stars were present, together producing broad spectral lines. The stars in the cluster would be moving rapidly, their paths influenced by the gravity of the black hole. "The surrounding star cluster acts much like a lighthouse that pinpoints a dangerous reef," explained O'Leary. "Without the shining stars to guide our way, the black holes would be all but impossible to find." The number of rogue black holes in our galaxy depends on how many of the proto-galactic building blocks contained black holes at their cores, and how those proto-galaxies merged to form the Milky Way. Finding and studying them will provide new clues about the history of our galaxy. Locating the star cluster signposts may turn out to be relatively straightforward. "Until now, astronomers were not searching for such a population of highly compact star clusters in the Milky Way's halo," said Loeb. "Now that we know what to expect, we can examine existing sky surveys for this new class of objects." Loeb and O'Leary's journal paper will be published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Headquartered in Cambridge, Mass., the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics (CfA) is a joint collaboration between the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Harvard College Observatory. CfA scientists, organized into six research divisions, study the origin, evolution and ultimate fate of the universe.

Can light quanta stops its moving? Quantum mechanics describes the bizarre rules of light and matter on atomic scales. In that realm, matter can be in two places at once. Objects can be particles and waves at the same time. And nothing is certain -- only probable or improbable. This improbable feat -- stopping light -- was accomplished by two teams. One was led by Ron Walsworth, a physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and the other by Lene Hau of Harvard University's Department of Physics. Walsworth's group used warm rubidium vapors to pause their laser beam; Hau's group used a super-cold sodium gas to do the same thing. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/27mar_stoplight.htm

If man evolved 200,000 years ago how did they survive the sun's rays 100,000 years ago? ref: 6 - Solar Collapse http://www.evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-4a.htm Research studies indicate that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased to exist. Recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller—in order for life to be sustained on our planet. "By analyzing data from Greenwich Observatory in the period 1836-1953, John A. Eddy [Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder] and Aram A. Boornazian [mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston] have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century during that time, corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour. And digging deep into historical records, Eddy has found 400-year-old eclipse observations that are consistent with such a shrinkage."— *"Sun is Shrinking," Physics Today, September 1979. Extrapolating back, 100,000 years ago, the sun would have been about twice its present size, making life untenable.