PDA

View Full Version : Sun Causes Climate Shock!!!!



Sev
08-28-2011, 08:48 AM
Who would have ever thought the sun would play a part in global warming???
Amazing what lengths the global warming worshipers will go to to quash evidence that doesn't fit their view.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t278/Sevelli/Political%20Cartoons/henrik_scr.jpg


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/

<span style="color: #000000">If Michael Crichton had lived to write a follow-up to State of Fear, the plotline might well have gone like this: at a top secret, state of the art laboratory in Switzerland, scientists finally discover the true cause of “global warming”. It’s the sun, stupid. More specifically – as the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark has long postulated – it’s the result of cosmic rays which act as a seed for cloud formation. The scientists working on the project are naturally euphoric: this is a major breakthrough which will not only overturn decades of misguided conjecture on so-called Man Made Global Warming but will spare the global economy trillions of dollars which might otherwise have been squandered on utterly pointless efforts to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions. However, these scientists have failed to realise just how many people – alarmist scientists, huckster politicians, rent-seeking landowners like (the late Michael Crichton’s brilliant and, of course, entirely fictional creation) the absurd, pompous Sir Reginald Leeds Bt, green activists, eco-fund managers, EU technocrats, MSM environmental correspondents – stand to gain from the Man Made “Climate Change” industry. Their discovery must be suppressed at all costs. So, one by one, the scientists on the cosmic ray project find themselves being bumped off, until only one man remains and must race against time to prove, etc, etc…

Except of course in the real world the second part wouldn’t happen. No one would need to go to the trouble of bumping off those pesky scientists with their awkward, annoying facts and their proper actual research. That’s because the MSM and the scientific “community” would find it perfectly easy to suppress the story anyway, without recourse to severed brake cables or ricin-impregnated hand-washes or staged “suicides”.

This is exactly what has happened with the latest revelations from CERN http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/25/some-reactions-to-the-cloud-experiment/#more-45850 over its landmark CLOUD http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/18/cern_cosmic_ray_gag/ experiment, whose significance Lawrence Solomon explains here :http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/08/26/lawrence-solomon-science-now-settled/

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.

In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.
</span>
<span style="color: #CC0000">So if it’s so great, why aren’t we hearing more about it? Well, possibly because the Director General of CERN Rolf-Dieter Heuer would prefer it that way. Here’s how he poured cold water on the results in an interview with Die Welt Online:

I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.
</span>
Nigel Calder, who has been following the CLOUD experiment for some time, was the first to smell a rat. He notes:

CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It’s OK to enter “the highly political arena of the climate change debate” provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation.
and

The once illustrious CERN laboratory ceases to be a truly scientific institute when its Director General forbids its physicists and visiting experimenters to draw the obvious scientific conclusions from their results

Lubos Motl, too, detects some double standards here:

One could perhaps understand if all scientists were similarly gagged and prevented from interpreting the results of their research in ways that could be relevant for policymaking. However, the main problem is that many people who are trying to work on very different phenomena in the climate are not prevented from interpreting – and indeed, overinterpreting and misinterpreting – their results that are often less serious, less reliable, and less rigorous, perhaps by orders of magnitude, than the observations by the European Organization for Nuclear Research.

Moreover, this sentence by Heuer

One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.is really a proof of his prejudice. Whether the cosmic radiation is just one player or the only relevant player or an important player or an unimportant player is something that this very research has been supposed to determine or help to determine. An official doesn’t have the moral right to predetermine in advance what “one has to make clear” about these a priori unknown scientific results.
But then, as Lawrence Solomon reminds us, http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/08/26/lawrence-solomon-science-now-settled/ this was never an experiment the scientific establishment wanted to happen in the first place.

<span style="color: #990000">The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.

The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”</span>

But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had — not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.

“The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.

The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.

Still, as you’d expect, the BBC remains dutifully on-message. Read this report by its science correspondent Pallab Ghosh http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14637647 and you’ll be left in little doubt that a) the latest results are dull beyond measure and b) that if they do mean anything at all, it’s that global warming is still very much man-made. Here’s their tame expert, Reading University’s Dr Mike Lockwood, on hand to provide them the perfect pull-quote:

Does this mean that cosmic rays can produce cloud? – No”</span>

Sev
08-28-2011, 09:07 AM
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t278/Sevelli/Science/sven_northernhemi.jpg

cushioncrawler
08-28-2011, 06:17 PM
".......If Michael Crichton had lived to write a follow-up to State of Fear, the plotline might well have gone like this: at a top secret, state of the art laboratory in Switzerland, scientists finally discover the true cause of “global warming”. It’s the sun, stupid. More specifically – as the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark has long postulated – it’s the result of cosmic rays which act as a seed for cloud formation. The scientists working on the project are naturally euphoric: this is a major breakthrough which will not only overturn decades of misguided conjecture on so-called Man Made Global Warming but will spare the global economy trillions of dollars which might otherwise have been squandered on utterly pointless efforts to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions......"

1..... I daresay that none of theze suppozed remarks by scientists were ever uttered.
2..... But i am confuzed. I thort that more cloudcover = colder.
mac.

cushioncrawler
08-28-2011, 06:28 PM
A few quotes from Kirkby follow......

Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,”</span> he says.

Scientists on both sides of the debate welcome the findings, although they draw differing conclusions. “Of course there are many things to explore, but I think the cosmic-ray/cloud-seeding hypothesis is converging with reality,” says Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Technical University of Denmark in Copenhagen, who claims a link between climate change and cosmic rays.

Despite findings that are supportive of Henrik’s thesis, it will come as no surprise to find that ‘warmist’ scientists and publications are already seeking to minimise the findings. For example, the New Scientist leads with the extraordinary headline of ‘Cloud-Making: Another human effect on the climate’, which is just odd. The article suggests that:

Some physicists think galactic cosmic rays – high-energy particles originating from faraway stars – might affect cloud formation. To test their effect on aerosol nucleation, Kirkby’s team fired beams similar to cosmic rays through the chamber and found it increased nucleation between 2 and 10 times. But he points out that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>an increase in 1 nanometre particles does not necessarily translate into the 50 nanometre CCNs needed for cloud formation.</span>

Other evidence shows that even if cosmic rays do affect the climate, the effect must be small. Changes in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere due to changes in solar activity cannot explain global warming, as average cosmic ray intensities have been increasing since 1985 even as the world has warmed – <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the opposite of what should happen if cosmic rays produce climate-cooling clouds.</span>

cushioncrawler
08-28-2011, 07:04 PM
It looks like CLOUD didnt make anything over 2nm in size. This haz been known for 30yrs.
But my reading of all of this stuff iz that cosmic radiation might hav masked GW due to manmade CO2 -- ie things might be worse than we all thort.

Above they write bullshit like "can grow and seed clouds" when the scientists say might grow.

And then we see yet again the bullshit that they dont write, ie the lie of omission, the ever prezent big lie, never stated -- ignorance of the big worry that manmade GW might be true. We need to take aktion koz it might be true.
mac.

Soflasnapper
08-28-2011, 07:47 PM
This is overheated writing-- overwrought, indeed.

What is the theory of the effects of cosmic rays, and what is this result in that context?

The claim is that a larger number of cosmic rays, purportedly tied to sun cycles, creates greater tropospheric cloud cover, increasing the earth's albedo, and providing for less solar radiation getting in from the sun to warm the earth. (So, if this theory has traction, it would be because of LESS cosmic rays, creating LESS tropospheric cloud cover, reducing the earth's albedo, and therefore allowing solar radiation to warm the earth more.)

Problem: there is no trend downward for cosmic rays, but rather an oscillation related to the sunspot cycles. And no downward part of the cycle that relates to the warming seen in the past decade. That trend has been UP the last decade until the very unusually low solar activity minima of 2008-2010 (see graphic representation of reported data here (scroll down). (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/#more-8614) (All the rest of the quotes of this post are from this site, this article, and the comments section, page 1 and 2.)

Does this reported experimental result overcome this basic problem with the theory? Not at all. So we might just as well stop right there, in terms of this meaning something big as to disconfirming the AGW theory. But let's go further.

Did this experiment show cloud formation from ionization comparable to cosmic ray ionization? Nope. Do we see cigar-shaped clouds resulting from the nucleation said to occur (a lot) from these extremely energetic cosmic rays? Er, no.

What are the other issues with this experiment? To start off with, here's the backing off comment of the lead author of the paper explaining the experiment in Nature:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> RealClimate has a good rundown of what Kirkby et al.’s results do and do not mean. The short version is that Kirkby et al. do find increased aerosol nucleation under increased ionization (i.e. “more cosmic rays”), particularly in the mid-troposphere, but the effect is smaller at warmer, lower levels where the cosmic ray-climate myth proponents claim it has its greatest climatic effect. Lead author Jasper Kirkby has tried to set the record straight, stating (all following emphases mine):

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>[The paper] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step.</span></div></div> </div></div>

Why would Kirkby say THAT? Hasn't he read the overheated, overwrought write ups from the denialist community and their corporate backers and political hacks? How DARE HE?!?!?!

Well, the problem is that to get this effect, the researchers had to reduce the temperature to a very cold level, consistent perhaps with the upper atmosphere, not the troposphere, where the cloud cover would create the albedo effect. If these cosmic rays created nucleation to create clouds way up in the upper atmosphere, THOSE CLOUDS HAVE A GREENHOUSE EFFECT, warming the earth, not the albedo effect, to cool it. (I.e., the reverse of the claim of the denialist community.)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The CERN press release is rather clear. There are 2 different results:

1 High clouds do form in greater numbers thanks to cosmic rays.
2 Low clouds are formed far more more by vapours ammonia than gcr [global cosmic rays].

Jasper Kirkby. “We’ve found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, we’ve found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays.”
(..)
The CLOUD results show that a few kilometres up in the atmosphere sulphuric acid and water vapour can rapidly form clusters, and that cosmic rays enhance the formation rate by up to ten-fold or more. However, in the lowest layer of the atmosphere, within about a kilometre of Earth’s surface, the CLOUD results show that additional vapours such as ammonia are required.
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR15.11E.html

Conclusion 1. cr does influence high clouds ‘enhance the formation rate by up to ten-fold or more’ and 2. don’t make much diff. for low clouds and where trace vapours do far more than thought.

[Response: Not quite. The connection to high clouds is tenuous since they didn't do experiments that were appropriate to that altitude (press[ure], concentrations etc.). Rather they took the experiments for the boundary layer and just made it colder in order to increase nucleation. Of course, if they had really concluded that GCR were a bigger issue for higher clouds, that would mean that they were likely to be a global warming effect. - gavin] </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> We were clear in the 2006 post that establishing a significant GCR/cloud/climate link would require the following steps (given that we have known that ionisation plays a role in nucleation for decades). One would need to demonstrate:

… that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
… and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
… and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
… and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.

Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been (see the figure)[the chart referenced before].</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The CERN press briefing is quite good on what they say it all means. Particularly clear is their final conclusion: “However,
 it 
is 
premature 
to 
conclude 
that 
cosmic
 rays 
have 
a 
significant 
influence
 on 
climate 
until
 the
 additional
 nucleating
 vapours
 have
 been
 identified,
 their
 ion
 enhancement
 measured,
 and
 the
 ultimate
 effects
 on
 clouds
 have
 been
 confirmed.” </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> By the way, this CERN/CLOUD paper is already being touted by deniers in blog comments everywhere as the latest “bombshell” that “blows a hole” in the AGW “hoax”.

Oddly, not one of those comments that I have seen bothers to explain exactly what the supposed “bombshell” is.

Perhaps content-free “bombshells” are the latest weapon in the denier arsenal.</div></div>

LWW
08-29-2011, 06:13 AM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING</span> ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Our-Sun.jpg
.
.
.
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>DOESN'T CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING </span> ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://leonelc28.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/cadillac-escalade-lat.jpg

Soflasnapper
08-29-2011, 08:08 AM
Try harder to get up to speed on this.

The cosmic ray theory of global warming proponents do not say it is the SUN'S variability as to its infrared and other radiative output, as in, the sun is getting hotter. Because we can directly measure the sun's output, we know how it waxes and wanes in output in a cyclical way, and NOBODY is saying that the sun has been getting hotter in terms of the visible and infrared spectrum output increasing so as to fully account for the warming seen.

They claim it is rather its ionizing cosmic ray output DECLINING that is doing that work. (It's a bank shot theory, in a sense.)

This stunning bombshell research is merely baby step one in showing it's even possibly true, and it still doesn't remotely get them there (yet).

Your ridicule is misplaced and inapt.

LWW
08-29-2011, 08:10 AM
Then why did we start to come out of the current ice age thousands of years ago?

Sev
08-29-2011, 08:34 AM
Glacial events are a sign of global warming.
You have to boil the planet before it can freeze.

Soflasnapper
08-29-2011, 11:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then why did we start to come out of the current ice age thousands of years ago? </div></div>

What is... the precession of the axis of the earth's rotation, Alex?

Sev
08-29-2011, 12:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then why did we start to come out of the current ice age thousands of years ago? </div></div>

What is... the precession of the axis of the earth's rotation, Alex?

</div></div>
Alex:
I am sorry that is not correct.

Soflasnapper
08-29-2011, 03:52 PM
Cosmic rays, you say, then? Doubt there is a shred of evidence for that.

cushioncrawler
08-29-2011, 04:24 PM
wikileaks
There have been five known <span style='font-size: 14pt'>ice ages </span>in the Earth's history, with the Earth experiencing the Quaternary Ice Age during the present time. Within ice ages, there exist periods of more severe glacial conditions and more temperate referred to as <span style='font-size: 14pt'>glacial periods and interglacial periods</span>, respectively. The Earth is currently in an interglacial period of the Quaternary Ice Age, with the last glacial period of the Quaternary having ended approximately 10,000 years ago with the start of the Holocene epoch.

Ice cores are used to obtain a high resolution record of recent glaciation. It confirms the chronology of the marine isotopic stages. Ice core data shows that the last 400,000 years have consisted of short interglacials (10,000 to 30,000 years) about as warm as the present alternated with much longer (70,000 to 90,000 years) glacials substantially colder than present. The new EPICA Antarctic ice core has revealed that between 400,000 and 780,000 years ago, interglacials occupied a considerably larger proportion of each glacial/interglacial cycle, but were not as warm as subsequent interglacials.

cushioncrawler
08-29-2011, 04:31 PM
No completely satisfactory theory has been proposed to account for Earth's history of glaciation. The cause of glaciation may be related to several simultaneously occurring factors, such as astronomical cycles, atmospheric composition, plate tectonics, and ocean currents.[4]

[edit] Astronomical cyclesMain articles: Milankovitch cycles and orbital forcing
See also: 100,000-year problem

Relationship of Earth's orbit to periods of glaciation.The role of Earth's orbital changes in controlling climate was first advanced by James Croll in the late 19th century.[5] Later, Milutin Milanković, a Serbian geophysicist, elaborated on the theory and calculated these irregularities in Earth's orbit could cause the climatic cycles known as Milankovitch cycles.[6] They are the result of the additive behavior of several types of cyclical changes in Earth's orbital properties.

Changes in the orbital eccentricity of Earth occur on a cycle of about 100,000 years.[7] The inclination, or tilt, of Earth's axis varies periodically between 22° and 24.5°.[7] (The tilt of Earth's axis is responsible for the seasons; the greater the tilt, the greater the contrast between summer and winter temperatures.) Changes in the tilt occur in a cycle 41,000 years long.[7] Precession of the equinoxes, or wobbles on Earth's spin axis, complete every 21,700 years. According to the Milankovitch theory, these factors cause a periodic cooling of Earth, with the coldest part in the cycle occurring about every 40,000 years. The main effect of the Milankovitch cycles is to change the contrast between the seasons, not the amount of solar heat Earth receives. These cycles within cycles predict that during maximum glacial advances, winter and summer temperatures are lower. The result is less ice melting than accumulating, and glaciers build up.

Milankovitch worked out the ideas of climatic cycles in the 1920s and 1930s, but it was not until the 1970s that sufficiently long and detailed chronology of the Quaternary temperature changes was worked out to test the theory adequately.[8] Studies of deep-sea cores, and the fossils contained in them indicate that the fluctuation of climate during the last few hundred thousand years is remarkably close to that predicted by Milankovitch.

A problem with the theory is that the astronomical cycles have been in existence for billions of years, but glaciation is a rare occurrence. Other factors must also be involved that caused Earth's temperature to drop below a critical threshold. Once that occurs, Milankovitch cycles will act to force the planet in and out of glacial periods.[citation needed]

[edit] Atmospheric composition
Glacial and interglacial cycles of the late Pleistocene epoch, as represented by atmospheric CO2, measured from ice core samples going back 650,000 yearsOne theory holds that decreases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), an important greenhouse gas, started the long-term cooling trend that eventually led to glaciation. Recent studies of the CO2 content of gas bubbles preserved in the Greenland ice cores lend support to this idea. The geochemical cycle of carbon indicates more than a 10-fold decrease in atmospheric CO2 since the middle of the Mesozoic Era.[9] However, it is unclear what caused the decline in CO2 levels, and whether this decline is the cause of global cooling or if it is the result.[citation needed]

CO2 levels also play an important role in the transitions between interglacials and glacials. High CO2 contents correspond to warm interglacial periods, and low CO2 to glacial periods. However, studies indicate that CO2 may not be the primary cause of the interglacial-glacial transitions, but instead acts as a feedback.[10] The explanation for this observed CO2 variation "remains a difficult attribution problem."[10]

[edit] Plate tectonics and ocean currentsFurther information: Plate tectonics and ocean current
An important component in the long-term temperature drop may be related to the positions of the continents, relative to the poles (but it cannot explain the rapid retreat and advances of glaciers).[11] This relation can control the circulation of the oceans and the atmosphere, affecting how ocean currents carry heat to high latitude. Throughout most of the geologic time, the North Pole appears to have been in a broad, open ocean that allowed major ocean currents to move unabated. Equatorial waters flowed into the polar regions, warming them with water from the more temperate latitudes. This unrestricted circulation produced mild, uniform climates that persisted throughout most of geologic time.

Throughout the Cenozoic Era, the large North American and South American continental plates moved westward from the Eurasian plate. This drift culminated in the development of the Atlantic Ocean, trending north-south, with the North Pole in the small, nearly landlocked basin of the Arctic Ocean. The Isthmus of Panama developed at a convergent plate margin about 3 million years ago, and further separated oceanic circulation and created the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.[12]

cushioncrawler
08-29-2011, 04:43 PM
2Sa 23:20 And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man, of Kabzeel, who had done many acts, he slew two lionlike men of Moab: he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit in time of snow:

Job 6:16 Which are blackish by reason of the ice, [and] wherein the snow is hid:

Job 24:19 Drought and heat consume the snow waters: [so doth] the grave [those which] have sinned.

Job 37:6 For he saith to the snow, Be thou [on] the earth; likewise to the small rain, and to the great rain of his strength.

Job 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

Psa 147:16 He giveth snow like wool: he scattereth the hoarfrost like ashes.

Psa 148:8 Fire, and hail; snow, and vapour; stormy wind fulfilling his word:

Pro 25:13 As the cold of snow in the time of harvest, [so is] a faithful messenger to them that send him: for he refresheth the soul of his masters.

Pro 26:1 As snow in summer, and as rain in harvest, so honour is not seemly for a fool.

Pro 31:21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household [are] clothed with scarlet.

Isa 55:10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

Jer 18:14 Will [a man] leave the snow of Lebanon [which cometh] from the rock of the field? [or] shall the cold flowing waters that come from another place be forsaken?

cushioncrawler
08-29-2011, 04:44 PM
Job 38:29 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?

Psa 147:17 He casteth forth his ice like morsels: who can stand before his cold?