1952 : Glaciers melting at an astonishing rate – Earth to drown.
Hansen says that temperatures were very cold during the first half of the 20th century.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
Morgan Wright on Climate Destroying Shrimp Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… saveenergy on What’s At Stake? willys36 on “The world began to end… Morgan Wright on Climate Homicide saveenergy on Climate Homicide saveenergy on Homophobic Gas Walter on Protecting Endangered Species
This one is more about current changes, but says the same thing about the first half of the last century:
igsoc.org/journal/59/216/t12j101.pdf
You would think that people in the news media would know how to find this stuff.
No one has an excuse for not knowing. Most of these individuals can be faced directly with the reality of history, and won’t skip a beat in their psychosis. For many, it’s simply their (doomsday) cult religion. They want to remain convinced of impending doom no matter what. The one guy who did not commit suicide with the other members of “Heaven’s Gate” is still emotional about missing the “Mother Ship”.
Dr. France Cordova
http://youtu.be/eh3VO-ekwQw
Here is the plaintext …
The Courier-Mail (Brisbane, Qld. : Monday 18 February 1952)
I’m just curious what you people think these “lying scientists” have to gain from this. Here is the reality
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Pix/pictures/2012/08/11/gu_ice_extension-01.jpg
That’s just a fact… the ice caps are indeed melting….. is it at an alarming rate? Depends on your definition? Will it have a drastic effect on me in my life time? No. How about my kids? Probably not…. however my grandchildren…. they will be effected by it. And history will not be kind to those of us who denied and did nothing. But hey… who cares… you’ll be dead by then.
Global sea ice area is above normal, and has been almost all year. Your claim that “the ice caps are melting” is based on on nonsense.
Don’t be too hard on him, Steve, as his source is the AGW press. The fact that total floating ice has increased (NH + SH combined) is just plain unreported, while last year’s “Record September Open Arctic” was blasted “’round the world” by every media outlet on the planet.
I hope his handle “Glazed” doesn’t refer to his mind being glazed over – his eyes certainly are, but that is at the media’s behest!
You guys are so beyond glib it’s pathetic. You apparently like the fact checking philosophy of fox news “if fox says it, then it must be true”. Now you want to argue that because there is more sea ice and less land ice, it’s nothing to worry about. Guys…. it is a fact… CO2 causes global warming. If you don’t believe that… go check the atmosphere and temperature of Venus. 900 degrees. And why? Because of CO2. It is an absolute fact, the polar ice caps are shrinking. Will it be a huge concern in your lifetime… No. But eventually…. it will be. You guys keep drinking the fox news kool-aid. But unless and until you understand how to read and interpret scientific data, please STFU. I’d be willing to bet you also don’t “believe” in evolution. Or that you do believe that this old man named Noah marched 2 of every species on the planet, to a boat, while the entire earth flooded. Stupidity like yours is beyond comprehension…… but I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson says it best….. “The cool thing about science is….. it’s true, whether or not you believe it”.
Have a nice day clowns
I bet that you are a complete moron reading from a script.
Glazed said: “Guys…. it is a fact… CO2 causes global warming. If you don’t believe that… go check the atmosphere and temperature of Venus. 900 degrees. And why? Because of CO2.”
That’s why it is so hot on Mars too, right? I mean after all it is 95% CO2. That runaway greenhouse should have kicked in long ago trapping all sorts of heat and reradiating all over the surface.
Your simplistic views are years behind the curve. Go to a junior high blog and try your rhetoric.
“I’d be willing to bet you also don’t “believe” in evolution.”
It is always interesting when eco-worriers raise the topic of evolutionary theory. Various eugenics papers, conferences and laws got past because eugenics was supposed to be based on sound science. This crank science was even endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences in the US. It all proved to be nonsense, of course.
Intelligent people can believe that the climate changes. That CO2 can warm the planet. The junk science comes into play when eco-worriers claim that the world will end in 50 years from now. The strategy is to confuse junk science with the good science, and hope to get away with it.
Here you go clown. This one is from NASA.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-seaicemin.html
Oh, let me guess….. They’re liberally bias? That’s the problem with science and facts…. they are all have a liberal bias.
Seriously, what do you think scientists hope to gain if they are “lying”? Can you even explain that?
Steve,
What is the “normal” amount of sea ice (in km2) and how was that figure derived? And what time period was chosen — i.e. is the “normal” calculated month to month against a baseline year or is it the total for the year measured against a baseline year or is there some other method that is used?
I have been unable to find any information as to what is the “normal” amount of global sea ice through Google Scholar. What is you independent reference for this proclamation?
It is remarkable the Guardian didn’t show the Antarctic ice, or Arctic ice in the 1920-1930 period, or during the Medieval Warm Period (850-1350 AD) or Holocene Climatic Optimum (5,000 to 8,000 years ago). Then their readers would know what an “ice free” Arctic is like in reality. Those who are ignorant of history make asses of themselves by reacting with alarm to natural climate change.
I’m seriously worried about you, Glazed. You offer graphics reflecting 1980, 2000 and 2011. In matters that involve millennia, you pick 30 years. What about the fact that the melting started in the mid-20th Century after an ver cold early 20th? What about the fact that the earth has not warmed in over 15 years? And, you really need to choose a better “proof” that CO2 is the cause of warming. Do you actually believe that Mercury is hot because of CO2 and not because of its proximity to the sun? Could it be that warming causes CO2 to increase? After all, the great wise scientist Algore proofed it with the slides in his move that showed the tight correlation between CO2 and warming, although he seemed unaware that the CO2 increases came about 800 years AFTER the warming trends.
If you’re getting your snarky, undeservedly confident attitude from the White House website, which uses government funds to advocate silencing AGW critics, I suggest you try reading this blog more and the WH much less.
Here you go clown. This one is from NASA.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-seaicemin.html
Oh, let me guess….. They’re liberally bias? That’s the problem with science and facts…. they are all have a liberal bias.
Seriously, what do you think scientists hope to gain if they are “iying”? Can you even explain that?
The global warming industry is a huge multi-billion dollar industry. If scientists announced there wasn’t a problem, they would lose funding and probably end up unemployed and homeless.
And what is NASA’s reason for lying? Did you even read the article? I know there are a lot of big words in it, but if you use a dictionary I think you could get through it.
Does NASA have a liberal bias too?
Also, can you answer something for me….. Do you “believe” in evolution?
You are a complete moron.
NASA gets huge amounts of money to study “global warming”
One of the key principles of natural selection is dramatic climate change.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/1859-shock-news-charles-darwin-said-that-dramatic-climate-change-was-essential-to-natural-selection/
Why do climate scientists deny one of the most important principles which Darwin wrote about?
One more thing. You are completely out of your league here intellectually.
[glazed says “I am spam”]
Did you happen to read the caption, “… in satellite era”. If the time since the last Ice Age was the size of Moon, then the time since the beginning of the satellite era would be about the size of your brain.
Mike…. Steven… you 2 are so beyond glib it’s pathetic. 97% of the climatologists on this planet agree the planet is heating up….. The ice caps are melting… ocean levels are rising. If they are all lying…. what are they gaining from it? Even the climate change skeptic from Berkeley, funded by the Koch Brothers to do a research project to dispute global warming, Richard A. Muller, concluded… the planet is undeniably heating up. And where is it that we are concerned it with it heating….. at the poles…. the ice caps….
So what is it that you hope to gain by denying? I mean really? Cars are made more energy efficient? How is that a bad thing? Light Bulbs are made the burn longer? How does any of this stuff harm you? These scientists… the 97% that agree the planet is heating at the poles and melting the ice caps…..have an understanding of science that is so far beyond what either of you could ever comprehend…. what do you hope to gain by denying it?
What other science do you not believe? Genetics? Evolution? Relativity?
The cool thing about science…… it’s true whether you believe it or not.
The big discussion in climate science right now is about why the Earth isn’t heating up.
http://www.npr.org/2013/08/29/216415005/a-cooler-pacific-may-be-behind-recent-pause-in-global-warming
Did you suffer a major a brain injury recently?
Goddard, It’s funny how when people post followups that you can’t dispute, you just block them. You are incapable of intelligent meaningful debate, and frankly you are quite pathetic.
You aren’t following up on anything. You are just cutting and pasting mindless off-topic spam about young earth creationism. I have no patience for morons.
No sir, that isn’t true. The remarks you deleted were about the melting of the ice caps, overall surface temperature effected by weather patterns, and melting ice effecting ocean temperatures.
But you apparently don’t like intelligent discussions. You just want your own non-sense reiterated back to you.
Arctic sea ice has gained 73% over last year. Antarctic sea ice is at record highs. Polar sea ice area is right at the satellite era mean. You are cutting and pasting crap and coming into a fight pathetically unprepared.
Read the science Godard. It’s the Sea Ice that has increased… the Land ice has decreased…. and that is a HUGE concern
Antarctic sea ice forms at lower (warmer) latitudes and lower (warmer) altitudes than land ice. The interior of Antarctica is much colder than the surrounding frozen seas. Now try using your brain and see if you can figure out what the problem is with the mindless cut and paste crap you are claiming.
glazed says:
July 17, 2013 at 2:29 pm
How about my kids? Probably not…. however my grandchildren…. they will be effected by it.
If you believed your disaster scenario you would have taken the precaution of not having children (and obviously therefore no grandchildren) so as to help prevent the inevitable disaster.
That disaster is now more likely to happen because you threw away the chance to do something about it.
Shame on you also that you haven’t taught your children not to procreate for Gaia’s sake.
Billy:
I agree! They should all have themselves sterilized to prevent their offspring from having to suffer from their fantasies. They should all lead the way by living the Green Life, without dirty Carbon products. We can send a camera crew to monitor their life styles and see for our self how successful they are living in harmony with nature, without the aid of modern conveniences.
Ok, let’s sum this up in 1 reply………
@Glacierman… You do understand that Mars is much farther from the sun than Earth and Venus are…. no?
@Michael Combs… What’s interesting is how you flat-earthers hang on to this 1920-1930 which is a warming period centered in particular regions… i.e. not the poles.
@Billy Liar….. Did I say disaster scenario? No, I said will be effected… However the hope is that the majority will eventually become intellegent enough that we can at least start slowing the progression of CO2 into the atmosphere, thus prolonging the life of the planet. Granted, as the population continues to grow at exponential rates, that alone causes additional CO2. Deforestation (without replanting) is another concern. But doing nothing…. is just accelerating the planets ultimate demize.
@StevenGoddard…. If you can handle debating facts, you shouldn’t have an open forum. Blocking someone because your losing an argument is a crybaby way to go about things. As you pointed to in your article about Darwin and Climate Change, you now seem to be saying that you believe in climate change, but it’s not concern because it’s all part of the natural selection process. So which is it? Do you believe in it or don’t you.
As I said before, because my intellegence surpasses that of a chimpanzee, I amd well beyond “your league here intellectually.” Just curious though… Do you also believe that you are more intellegent than people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson? You know, the first sign that someone isn’t a genius is that they think that they are.
And last…. Please answer these simple questions:
1. Do you think that evolution is also made up science that isn’t factual?
2. Do you believe Noah built an arc and repopulated the world after a great flood?
If you answer yes to either of those….. then I rest my case….
Have a Nice Day
You have a disordered mind, are paranoid, full of hatred and stereotypes and are incapable of staying on topic. Don’t post here any more.
I don’t waste time on angry douche bags.
Steve,
How was he not on topic — it was a point by point in reference to earlier comments?Where was the “hatred”? And if you ban people for hatred then why is gater69 still posting?
Ruck, why don’t you dig yourself a hole and maybe dig one for glazed too. And don’t forget to donate so more morons can do the same. But always remember , no CO2 no Green.
http://youtu.be/kORZb1wcDe8
ROFLMAO!
Now I understand why some parts of France and Belgium are so green.
http://youtu.be/e9-e9hxLar8
Ruck
The warming periods I cited were universal, as demonstrated via higher sea levels, more extensive glacier retreat, higher and more northern tree lines, and much more that your limited knowledge and intelligence are not capable of absorbing and understanding.
Ruck
Do you think Noah used an arc to build the Ark?
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/2/climate_skeptic_koch_funded_scientist_richard
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/call-muller-an-unrepentant-liar/
Not a good dispute…. Nice try though…… Once again I ask….
1. Evolution… you believe? (yes or no)
2. Noah and the Ark…. you believe? (yes or no)
I really really really want you to answer these, and answer honestly…. so the poor saps that stumble on your page know what kind of “intellegence” they’re dealing with
Your brain is disordered.
This is a discussion of the fact that glaciers lost half their mass during the coldest years in the GISS instrumental record. Rather than dealing with this inconvenient fact, you choose to try to change the subject to your mindless fantasy about the person who presented this information.
Notice he didn’t answer…. I rest my case
Your case is that you are too stupid to use the search bar and search through the 17,000 blog posts here to get the answers to your questions.
Like many global warming alarmists, you display stupidity, laziness, zero technical competence, no understanding of science, refusal to look at historical fact, prejudice, hatred and you behave like a total douche bag.
1) It’s still a theory that is subject to major changes in the future. Nothing set in stone at this point. Libtards like you protect it as if it is sacred and don’t want any major changes to it if we find something very controversial. No difference than what you are doing with CO2 driven global warming scam.
2) Noah and the Ark – who cares? Nothing to do with global warming scam. If anything, it probably had to do with the end of ice age that saw sea level rise 300-400 ft. Libtards like you are shitty when it comes to ancient history.
Ruck:
There has always been evolution. There has always been climate change. Noah might well have built an Ark. I was not there to observe that and there has been other evidence to prove an Ark was built.
The MWP was global, as shown by tree lines around the globe and the existence of trees under the ice as it recently melted. Those locations are not yet able to sustain the biodiversity they were able to in 1350 as the globe started cooling off from the MWP. There is also evidence of a much warmer RWP that was global and a Minoan Warm period that was even warmer than the RWP. All those were part of the long term cooling that has been going on for over 5,000 years. The globe is sliding into the next glaciation and we should be grateful that we were able to experience this short period of minor warming. It will not last and the most likely scenario is the globe will continue its slow cooling into the next glaciation. With luck the cooling will not be dramatic, but slow so humans can adapt to the changing weather. Unlike the periods that ended the RWP and MWP when massive amounts of humanity died because of famine and plague brought on by poor crop yields, caused by cooler weather.
If CO2 does affect the temperatures it will possibly offset the expected cooling, but that is just wishful thinking and has not been proven in a scientific manner.
Steve,
“This is a discussion of the fact that glaciers lost half their mass during the coldest years in the GISS instrumental record. Rather than dealing with this inconvenient fact, . . .’
A FACT? How in the world did one scientist come to that conclusion? My God, you call out modern organizations with satellite technology for being careless about the amount of today’s glacier melt, but you are willing to take this guy’s word from 60 years ago? Give me a break. By some accounts, there are more than 100,000 Alaskan glaciers alone and you think this guy had a handle on how much had melted in the 50 years BEFORE THAT? What methodologies and data did he use and where is it now?
Do you have anything other than a 61 year old newspaper article written in a country a half a world away to bolster your “facts”?
TOO
One mental disorder I have noticed about alarmists is that they believe that people who lived prior to 1975 were primitive, stupid, dishonest and technically incompetent. This includes the people who landed on the moon, the people who invented the atom bomb and Albert Einstein.
Read this :
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/polar-meltdown/
The sad fact is that current climate scientists are by far the worst scientists to ever occupy this planet.
Steve,
Intelligence has nothing to do with it, its the tools he had at his disposal that were lacking. But, go ahead, take the word of a man who said something that someone else put into a newspaper clipping a half a world away and a lifetime ao and ignore modern satellite readings.
Modern satellite readings have nothing to do with the behavior of ice 60 years ago.
“Not a good dispute…. Nice try though…… Once again I ask….
1. Evolution… you believe? (yes or no)
2. Noah and the Ark…. you believe? (yes or no)
I really really really want you to answer these, and answer honestly…. so the poor saps that stumble on your page know what kind of “intellegence” they’re dealing with”
This is the sort of smarmy post made by a really dumb person who thinks he is smart.
Arctic and Alaskan Glaciation history by the Sierra Club.
Glaciers have been melting for many many centuries, while atmospheric CO2 was flat.
The current retreat is no different to 1800’s, 1700’s, and before. Any geologist can tell since glacial ice is a geological/geographical phenomenon, not a atmospheric phenomenon. Atmospheric climate scientists know next to nothing about glaciation.
http://www.sierraclub.org/john_muir_exhibit/writings/cruise_of_the_corwin/appendix_1.aspx
Steve,
The questions are not hard and you have done an admirable job of trying to insult and distract, but still the questions remained unanswered.
You said that it was a fact that Norway and Alaska glaciers lost half their ice mass over a fifty-year period and the only proof you have offered has been 3 old newspaper clippings and even one of those was for a different time altogether.
You have created an entire blog on this topic and yet you cannot not provide a shred of real evidence to support your argument. Pretty lame Steve, pretty lame.
Steve,
Satellites have everything to do with how you can MEASURE the behavior of thousands upon thousands of glaciers over a 50 year period. Tell me what was the methodology he used and where is his data that so convinces you that he could determine what 100,000 thousand Alaskan glaciers and the untold number of Norwegian glaciers did over a fifty year period? I sure hope it isn’t solely a newspaper clipping from Australia.
And I know I will be going down the rabbit hole with this next question, but where is the EVIDENCE Steve to support your proclamation that current climate scientists are the “worst scientists to occupy the planet”?
I am out of patience for morons
I don’t know if climate scientists are the worst junk scientists. Many of them are quite good and reasonable at what they do. Those people don’t make it on the news shows. I think there are academics in certain quarters of the medical profession that are worse.
Steve,
Ahh, a repeat of the most common phrase on this blog site.
Aren’t these the very words you used a few comments back: “This is a discussion of the fact that glaciers lost half their mass during the coldest years in the GISS instrumental record.”?”
So why can’t we now discuss what constitutes a “fact” in regards to glaciers melting before GISS?
Yes we have had quite a rash of morons visiting this site. Was there a sub-par IQ convention recently?
Steve,
A rash of morons is your reason for explaining why you believe a 60 year old study conducted by a single man on tens of thousands of glaciers is more factual than studies conducted by international organizations using satellite technology?
Is that supposed to make sense?
I’ve given you links to dozens of different writings about ice loss prior to 1950, and you chose to ignore them – like a true moron.
LOL!!! TOO, satellites …. typically the GRACE tandem have been shown to be a bit off in their measurements. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495 For a total ice gain of 49 Gt/yr. Using GRACE they thought Antarctic ice mass loss at 190+/-77 Gt yr
Well, they were closish…… So, yeh, forget satellites.
Steve,
You have given me exactly zero. I asked for the methodology and data that was used to determine glacier loss in Norway and Alaska prior to 1962. I presume you must have reviewed them before determining their conclusions were a “fact” that, indeed, Alaska and Norway did lose half their glacier mass over 50 years. If you can’t provide this evidence then I must assume you have relied on a 60-year old Australian news clipping. to determine your “facts”.
It’s amazing! Team climate moron believes that the people who were smart enough to win WWII and invent the atomic bomb, were just T.O.O. stupid to measure glaciers.
Steve,
WWII and the atomic bomb? I am sorry but I don’t want to hear about the invasion of Normandy or how to process uranium, all I want to see is the evidence that this single man was able to provide from his 60 year-old study of Norway and Alaska glaciers which you found so convincing that you declared it as “fact”.
I had a very thorough look through your extensive newspaper collection which you linked to and beside your previous Australian newspaper clipping, the only other evidence directly related to Norwegian and Alaskan glaciers was yet another newspaper clipping: “The latest report includes 90 glaciers in the Swiss Alps, in Norway, Greenland, the Caucasus, the Pamir, the North West United States, Western Canada. and Africa, and practically all are growing smaller.: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/38087689
What I would find truly “amazing” is that these 2 newspaper clippings, without any supporting documentation, is your standard in determining what facts are or are not.
It seems impossible for human beings to be as dense as climate alarmists
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/07/19/alaskas-most-famous-glacier-retreated-eight-feet-per-day-between-1794-and-1897/
Let me guess. You don’t believe all those newspaper clippings about the Holocaust either?
Steve,
You can produce all the newspaper factoids you like until the cows come home, but it doesn’t answer the only relevant questions on the table. And they are: (1) Where is the evidence from this guy, Carlson, on the behavior of tens of thousands of Norwegian and Alaskan glaciers for the 50 years prior to 1962? And: (2) Why do you conclude that his evidence is a fact?
Anyone with an IQ over 30 can detect if a glacier has advanced or retreated. This precludes many modern climate scientists.
Sorry, I posted in the wrong place — here I go again. . .
Steve,
The questions are not hard and you have done an admirable job of trying to insult and distract, but still the questions remained unanswered.
You said that it was a fact that Norway and Alaska glaciers lost half their ice mass over a fifty-year period and the only proof you have offered has been 3 old newspaper clippings and even one of those was for a different time altogether.
You have created an entire blog on this topic and yet you cannot not provide a shred of real evidence to support your argument. Pretty lame Steve, pretty lame.
Steve,
“Anyone with an IQ over 30 can detect if a glacier has advanced or retreated. This precludes many modern climate scientists”
I agree, one glacier is simple, but detecting the behavior of 100,000+ over 50 years and during two world wars? That is a very different scenario. There would have to have been an amazing methodology to accomplish that feat and the non-digitized data they (he?) created must fill warehouses.
So Steve — where is it?
I would trust people with no agenda to provide accurate information before I would trust today’s highly politicized crowd.
Well Andy,
If you don’t like mixing politics with science, you have definitely chosen the wrong site to frequent.
TOO, you’re pretending that glaciologists today have a grasp of reality, They don’t. Each study beclowns the preceding one. A news clipping has every bit the veracity of a peer-reviewed study today. You don’t need their methodologies any more than you study the methodologies of the papers today. Fact is, you don’t. If you had, you wouldn’t bother with you obsession to ask Steve for information you know he doesn’t have.
Here’s an example of the glaciologists’ recent abject stupidity. Links are available there…. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/yes-yes-they-really-are-that-dumb/
If I were a betting man, and I am, my money is one the scientists of the past who did actual measurements, as opposed to the pseudo-scientists of today, who don’t.
I find it fascinating that you’d uncritically accept bs today, without investigating methodologies, which are readily available, but, demand methodologies from past statements, simply because they don’t agree with your world view. It’s very telling.
The global warming crisis is nothing more than a scam. A close analysis of the climate data over the past century, as well as the record over the last few millennia, demonstrate that this is not about climate at all, but about power–government power The “Greens” are nothing less than socialists (green on the outside, red on the inside) using the environment as their tool of choice. And the more recent hype is about, perhaps, a one-third of a degree Celsius rise in globally-averaged temperatures in the period 1978-1997 that happened to coincide with a rising environmental movement and the political aspirations of Al Gore, who planned to ride the environmental white horse into the White House. But a lot of fools jumped on the horse’s ass. We call them “useful environmental idiots.”
The most absurd thing about the global warming crisis scam is the attempt to cast CO2 in the role of a “pollutant.” This is nonsense. CO2 is a harnless trace gas and plant food. Moreover, CO2 is a lagging indicator of temperature by as much as 400-800 years, not the other way around. Even in the 20th century, one cannot reasonable argue that CO2 was a cause of warming. During the 1913-1945 warming period, CO2 was not even a factor. And from 1945-1978, temperatures declined in face of a modest rise in CO2. It’s only from 1978-1998 that CO2 and temperature rose simultaneously. Since 1997, temperatures have flatlined, while CO2 has risen. The period 1978-198 did coincide with the political ambitions of an environmental extremist by the name of Al Gore, who refuses any requests to debate the subject. The fact is, the earth has its own self-regulating mechanism that adjusts to CO2.
Moreover, climate cannot be understood except in geologic time frames over thousands of years. Current temperatures are currently about 1-2 degrees cooler than during the Medieval Warm Period (900-1350) when the Vikings colonized Greenland. Hint: there were no automobiles or industrial plants spewing CO2 in 13th century Europe. Trying to paint scary scenarios of “mass devastation” when temperatures are below the 3,000 year average is just plain silly. Unfortunately, some simple-minded people, like Steve, are susceptible to the global warming crisis propaganda. Thousands of climate scientists reject the crisis mentality, including over 31,000 who have signed the Oregon Petition. Read “The Deniers” to learn about the increasing number of world-class scientists who reject the global warming crisis agenda. The global warming crisis is the greatest scientific fraud in history, and, potentially, the most costly to life on earth. Even if temperatures increased 1-2 degrees, i.e. to their 3,000 year average, it would be far more beneficial to human society than a slightly cooler world, as the earth’s history has already demonstrated. Sea levels are rising at the same rate as they have over the past 12,500 years, or since the end of the last Ice Age (7” per century). The 2007 IPCC report predicts a range of 8.5” to 18.5” inches by 2100. What did Al Gore predict in his faux documentary? Twenty feet.
All of this global warming hype was based on an ill-considered and hasty reliance on climate models, not on actual earth-based or, more recently, satellite-based temperature measurements. Even the IPCC acknowledges only a 0.74 degree temperature C rise since 1900. And subsequent satellite measurements lower that considerably. We are still in a primitive state of knowledge about climate. The more we learn, the less we have to fear, except from political demagogues.
Climate is determined chiefly by solar output, the earth’s elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, its precession wobble, the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover, and the Atlantic and Pacific Decadal Oscillations. All these factors combined produced a miniscule 0.35 degree increase in globally averaged temperatue between 1978-1997. Since then, the warming has stopped, and some scientists are predicting a era of cooling. To even suggest that you can detect a CO2 footprint in the midst of this vast natural climate system is laughable.
“Climate is determined chiefly by solar output, the earth’s elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, its precession wobble, the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover, and the Atlantic and Pacific Decadal Oscillations. All these factors combined produced a miniscule 0.35 degree increase in globally averaged temperatue between 1978-1997.”
Are you for real? You sound like a child talking about Santa delivers presents. Do you believe god created the earth in 6 days around 6 thousand years ago as well?
It actually takes a long time for a human being to become as arrogant and stupid as you are.
“The huge warming of the Arctic that started in the early 1920s and lasted for almost two decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the twentieth century. During the peak period 1930–40, the annually averaged temperature anomaly for the area 60°–90°N amounted to some 1.7°C.
From –
The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic—A Possible Mechanism
Lennart Bengtsson
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany, and Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom
Vladimir A. Semenov
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany, and Obukhov Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Moscow, Russia
Ola M. Johannessen
Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center/Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany, and Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom
A copy can be seen at –
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017%3C4045%3ATETWIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2