Heh you have yet to prove like any of that, hence stop trying to blame the hurricane on companies, and for some reason companies that supported Bush through the election.

I blame the hurricanes on the weather machine you said Bush made.

uhmm one thing you are forgetting, the oceans aren't getting warmer because of melting icecaps. if all the ice melts then the atlantic sea belt that pushes the warm water current from the carribean to spain and backwards will stop and there will be an iceage, so no hurrican ethere just alot of snow.

but i am getting alot of deja vu's here. but ewm you are very go in putting politics in alot of your topics, so i guess you like to talk about it abit tooo much or you you are feeling lonely and use this topic to get attention or something. i mean alot of people don't even bother replying to the politics topics and huricane thing because it is all about your vision and no-one else it because you push them away.  but it all leads to one thing getting very annoying and one sided

well what kind of pollution warms water then? an oilspill on fire? and the main thing pollution does is destroying the ozon

yes but what kind of pollution  do you need to warm it up? green house gasses  don't warm up water not even the air if they just reach it. they need to do it with teh sun and to warm only the gulf of mexico up you need to  put a dam around it, then put as heat sorce and then you heat it up. otherwise the heat will be transported somewhere else aswell  and the water will cool down.

now let mee see agout those ozon destroying chemicals. let's say freon ( but i can  also use nitrate or other NO compounds

CFCL3 + shortwave radiation in the atmosphere  ---> CFCl2 radical + Cl Radical

CL radical + O3 (ozon) ----> ClO radical + O2

CLO radical + O -----> Cl radical + O2

it is a never ending proces and produces O2 out of the Ozon. the same reaction with the NO

Also it shows that above the 30 KM amounts of Ozon  decreases but under the 30 km  the Ozon is  being formed by methane, CO2 and N2O

And about the heat balance. CO2 and H2O are big absorbers  of radiation and heat . this increases glabal temperature and thuse increases the rate of the melting of the gletsjers and the poles. But there is a big uncertainty about it.

On the other side there is a temperature decrease  due to atmospheric dust concentration whereby radiation reflection increases. This is measured by vulcano eruptions. The fine dust in the air forms a reaction  with  the gasios greenhous gasses  ans stays in the atmosphere for dacades. also exhaust fumes without filters emit dust particles. All in all the particles keeps the earth cool. So you should say thanks for airplianes.

This is what i know from my Bachelors degree.  i can send you a copy of my book if you can read dutch. but there is alot more about the subject in that book.

Roach puts off his geeky glasses  and grins nerdishly
 

then you haven't read my translation propperly, maybe due to my quick translation. there are alot of spelling mistakes in it

Yes tornados...formed when hot air near the earth finds a break in the cold air above it and basically drains upwards causing a funnel cloud and wreaks havoc on anything near it. I actually haven't heard of many of those happening lately.
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4290340.stm

ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT -
SEPTEMBER TREND, 1978-2005


Arctic ice 'disappearing fast'  
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website  
 
The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk for a fourth consecutive year, according to new data released by US scientists.

They say that this month sees the lowest extent of ice cover for more than a century.

The Arctic climate varies naturally, but the researchers conclude that human-induced global warming is at least partially responsible.

They warn the shrinkage could lead to even faster melting in coming years.

"September 2005 will set a new record minimum in the amount of Arctic sea ice cover," said Mark Serreze, of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Boulder, Colorado.

"It's the least sea ice we've seen in the satellite record, and continues a pattern of extreme low extents of sea ice which we've now seen for the last four years," he told BBC News.

September lows

September is the month when the Arctic ice usually reaches a minimum.

The new data shows that on 19 September, the area covered by ice fell to 5.35 million sq km (2.01 million sq miles), the lowest recorded since 1978, when satellite records became available; it is now 20% less than the 1978-2000 average.

The current rate of shrinkage they calculate at 8% per decade; at this rate there may be no ice at all during the summer of 2060.

An NSIDC analysis of historical records also suggests that ice cover is less this year than during the low periods of the 1930s and 40s.

Mark Serreze believes that the findings are evidence of climate change induced by human activities.

"It's still a controversial issue, and there's always going to be some uncertainty because the climate system does have a lot of natural variability, especially in the Arctic," he said.

"But I think the evidence is growing very, very strong that part of what we're seeing now is the increased greenhouse effect. If you asked me, I'd bet the mortgage that that's just what's happening."

Confusing movement

One of the limitations of these records is that they measure only the area of ice, rather than the volume.

"One other factor could be movements of sea ice," said Liz Morris, of the British Antarctic Survey, currently working at the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge, UK.

"If it all piles up in one place, you might have the same total amount of ice," she told the BBC News website, "and there is some evidence that ice is piling up along the north Canadian coast, driven by changes in the pattern of winds and perhaps ocean currents."

Most data on sea ice thickness comes from records of military submarines, which regularly explored passages under the Arctic ice cap during the Cold War years.

Submarines can cross the Arctic Ocean along tracks taken decades before, and note differences in the ice thickness above; but that may mean little if the ice itself has moved.

Professor Morris is involved in a new European satellite, Cryosat, which should be able to give definitive measurements of ice thickness as well as extent; its launch is scheduled for 8 October.

But she also believes that the NSIDC data suggests an impact from the human-enhanced greenhouse effect.

"All data goes through cycles, and so you have to be careful," she said, "but it's also true to say that we wouldn't expect to have four years in a row of shrinkage.

"That, combined with rising temperatures in the Arctic, suggests a human impact; and I would also bet my mortgage on it, because if you change the radiation absorption process of the atmosphere (through increased production of greenhouse gases) so there is more heating of the lower atmosphere, sooner or later you are going to melt ice."

Arctic warming fast

Though there are significant variations across the region, on average the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, according to a major report released last year.

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a four-year study involving hundreds of scientists, projected an additional temperature rise of 4-7C by 2100.

If the current trend can be ascribed in part to human-induced climate change, Mark Serreze sees major reasons for concern.

"What we're seeing is a process in which we start to lose ice cover during the summer," he said, "so areas which formerly had ice are now open water, which is dark.

"These dark areas absorb a lot of the Sun's energy, much more than the ice; and what happens then is that the oceans start to warm up, and it becomes very difficult for ice to form during the following autumn and winter.

"It looks like this is exactly what we're seeing - a positive feedback effect, a 'tipping-point'."

The idea behind tipping-points is that at some stage the rate of global warming would accelerate, as rising temperatures break down natural restraints or trigger environmental changes which release further amounts of greenhouse gases.

Possible tipping-points include

the disappearance of sea ice leading to greater absorption of solar radiation
a switch from forests being net absorbers of carbon dioxide to net producers
melting permafrost, releasing trapped methane
This study is the latest to indicate that such positive feedback mechanisms may be in operation, though definitive proof of their influence on the Earth's climatic future remains elusive.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i hered this on the bbc tv news. on the show thay sed in 80 years if we dont make shift to new tecnolagys to reduse pultion we mite be looking at a posabule woerst case sunaro agin.

think of it like this ether we make the chage or dont bother rebiling new orleens.