Think Progress

Earth’s temperature highest in 400 years.

By Nico Pitney on Jun 22nd, 2006 at 11:04 am

Earth’s temperature highest in 400 years.

A major new 155-page report by the National Academy of Sciences has found that Earth’s rising temperature “is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia,” and that “human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.” Read the full report.

Comments
79

Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date

79 Responses to “Earth’s temperature highest in 400 years.”

JJ Says:

Thereâ€™s a good interview with NASA scientist James Hansen (the one that was muzzled by the Bush administration) and author Elizabeth Kolbert that aired yesterday. Theyâ€™ve got a podcast you can listen to with Realplayer or Windows Media:

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2006/06/20060621_b_main.asp
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:12 am
DenverDem Says:

A major portion of the warming just in the last 6 years with all the hot air and flatulence coming out of the right!
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:19 am
Zookeeper Says:

Have a wonderful first full day of summer. *cringe*
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:28 am
Joe Sixpack Says:

Here we go again with that "Global Warming" nonsense again.

Sorry, folks, but I was listening to rightwing talk show host, Michael Savage, and he quickly debunked that phony theory.

I mean, who you gonna believe? The Administration and the far right or your lying eyes?
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:41 am
unbelievable Says:

How anyone can not see a correlation between the pollution of we pump intothe atmosphere and a change in our environment must be utterly clueless. It's pure common sense. Action - reaction.
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:46 am
Juan C Says:

Oh, no. That cant be true. It is the solar sunspots every 11 years, or the gamma rays interacting with particulate matter or...everything but the oil and car companies, chemical industries, and deployment of fossil energy sources.
Cause I dont want to stop driving around Taco Bell my V8. It makes me feel so secure about myself and my average sized penis.
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:50 am
Tom Says:

*** You guys sound like a bunch of chicken littlies telling the farmer the sky is fallingâ€¦
Nature class 101, you should have been taught this in the first grade, but I will educate you non the less; You breathe out CO2â€¦ Trees breathe it in and produce oxygenâ€¦ The circle of life, nature always provides a balanceâ€¦ Car combustion, be it Corn alcohol or oil based gasoline, both produce CO2â€¦ Switching to GREEN fuel will not stop this, actually it is 10 percent less efficient so it would POLLUTE(as you do every time you take a breath) moreâ€¦ So I say all you tree hugging nature nazis hold your breathâ€¦ Sorry couldnâ€™t resistâ€¦ It would however lessen our dependants on foreign oil so I am for itâ€¦

The earths temp has always been changing and will always do soâ€¦ i.eâ€¦. Past oceans are now deserts. Lets suppose you are sitting on your coach and your house began getting to warm. Would you sit there and swear that there was to much CO2 warming the house? No, you would get up and walk to the thermostat and turn down the heat! Why would you do that? Because it is your furnace heating your homeâ€¦ Guess what, we get our heat from the sun, the solar cycles match our past hot and cool stagesâ€¦ Hmmmmâ€¦ Sounds logical to meâ€¦ Hotter sun = Warmer Earthâ€¦

That makes as much sense as a â€œscientistâ€ telling half the truth or declaring worst case scenarios to recieve his grantsâ€¦ Many are just trying to collect thier paycheck and look for â€œscienceâ€ to justify thier existence while ignoring conflicting facts to thier belief systemâ€¦

That being said you may have a valid point about CO2 holding in the heat. The solution then would be to plant more trees, or let nature take its course and let the plants catch up with our CO2 outputâ€¦ Unless all that shade led to global coolingâ€¦

PS; CO2(Carbon Dioxide, the global warming gas) is also used for carbonation in soda so fear the poison, and please consider holding your breathâ€¦
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:55 am
Zookeeper Says:

Tom loves the new CEI commercials.

Soory Tom, you outed yourself when you put the word "scientist" in quotation marks. Run along.
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:57 am
bushllit Says:

Have you seen industrial waste, have you seen real pollution....how could it do any good?

If you've seen pollution you can not argue in favor of it!

Leave a bunch of rags in a bucket of bleach for a day, a week, after that they are gone...that same process is happening to our natural resources and we have o debate over stopping it....its not a partisan issue!!!!
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:00 pm
DieNowForPeace Says:

Nature class 101? Sorry Tom, there's NO SUCH THING.

At my college they didn't offer THAT class. Instead, we studied Ecology and Conservation and learned that humankind DOES impact the environment.

Go back to school, and this time LISTEN...
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:02 pm
madashell Says:

Hey Tom - where do you live? Just wondering. It can't be anywhere near a great body of water - cause guess what?

And for your tiny brain to wrap around:

"THE world's largest frozen peat bog is melting. An area stretching for a million square kilometres across the permafrost of western Siberia is turning into a mass of shallow lakes as the ground melts, according to Russian researchers just back from the region.

The sudden melting of a bog the size of France and Germany combined could unleash billions of tonnes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere."
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Krazny Says:

One of the over looked facts on the CO2 argument, is releasing CO2 from fossil fuels is releasing CO2 that has been contained, thus adding to the current CO2 levels. Releasing CO2 from breathing, or from combustion using ethanol, is CO2 that has been taken from the atmosphere in the growth of the plant, and is neither adding nor subtracting from the overall CO2 levels.

I for one would love to see more trees planted. That would of course mean protection for the rain forests in the amazon, and in africa. Both of which are disappearing at a rapid rate.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Roger_Roger Says:

Global warming is bad and fortunetly we have the free market system in america to take care of it. In the next 20-40 years Oil should be reaching the point it becomes a Luxery item. At that time the private sector will invest heavily in research to find the next fuel for our economy. Someone or some group will win that race for the new fuel and become the next Bill Gates. The best way to get americans off our Oil addiction is to use up the Oil so it becomes to expensive for our everyday uses. That moment is the true moment we will find a new fuel.

What scares me more then anything right now is seeing Republicans and Democrats touting E-85 and Biodiesel. While both fuels do work, there emissions aren't any better then Oil so both create global warming just the same. Sadly, a real solution won't come out of the Government (I know, who could believe it) because both sides are busy helping out there base by providing them 1 more market for there corn.

Government needs to not only back away from that crap fuel, they need to help us get off our Oil addiction. First, drilling in Anwar and off the Florida coast would help alot. We need to deplete our Oil reserves to get the price of oil higher. Then and only then, the free market will develope a truly new and innovative fuel that not only meets or succeeds our needs for usability and power, but will be economically feasible and won't require subsidies.

I watched Al Gore's film and it was very interesting. I truly believed after that film that globl warming is a problem. Sadly, our politicans on both sides of the aisle can't realize that they need to stop touting E-85 and Biodiesel. Al Gore was right mostly, but still is just another politican. He had 8 years to make a new "government fuel" and didn't do it for obvious political reason. The feds need to back off all subsidies for both research and they need to stop giving cash to Big Oil which also doesn't need it.

Let the free markets run there course and we will all get a better product. Big Oil will kill itself in the long run but we need to hurry that up by consuming our Oil supplies faster not slower.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:11 pm
madashell Says:

12. Also, Krazny - I truly believe that there is one plant - while it may not STOP warming, it would certainly slow it down. Its a plant that our government at one point in history paid farmers to grow. Its fibers created our FIRST FLAG, and our CONSTITUTION is written on it (the paper itself is as it was 200+ years ago, but the INK is fading). Its a plant that for some reason they think can be used to smoke to get high. They have no clue how versatile the fibers of this plant is. The strongest ropes are made with it. When broken down, its biproducts become fertilizer. It doesn't take chlorine or anything toxic to break it down - like WOOD PULP does, which in turn poisons the air and water (I know, I leave in a town that has a paper mill). It is a plant that in some regions could actually have TWO or THREE harvests a year.

Anyone wondering what that plant is?
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:12 pm
DieNowForPeace Says:

They call it WEED cause it grows like one, anywhere, without fertilizers...
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Juan C Says:

#7 Tom.

CO2 holding in the heat

Heat cant be hold. Review your thermodynamic texts. Caloric theory died since Count Rumford.

Switching to GREEN fuel will not stop this

What is that GREEN fuel? Could you describe it or simply like to say stupid things? Are you talking about biomass, wave energy, tidal energy, OTEC, solar passive, solar active, solar thermal, solar PV, wind energy?...please, describe that GREEN fuel.

Hotter sun = Warmer Earth

You studied in MIT, I presume.
In fact, what makes Earth warmer or not is the amount of solar radiation emitted from the sun that the Earth can absorb, which means that if we release to the atmosphere all those particles that the Earth intended to put UNDERGROUND just to have this atmosphere that made possible life, then we are going against the mechanism of life. Of course, there is CO2 and no matter how much organisms release it to the atmosphere, there was a balance until the Industrial revolution came. Now, all the carbon contained in fossil fuels (which were UNDERGROUND) are being thrown in a oxygenized atmosphere, that is when the CO2 is produced. See? It is like we get to your home with a lbag full of dust and throw it around your house...hey, we took them from your garden, so it is Ok that you breathe that dust. Now, imagine that dust produces an increase in the temperature of your living room. It is the same thing. You are supporting companies that plunder the earth and will kill your habitat. You cant be that stupid.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:16 pm
JJ Says:

You breathe out CO2â€¦ Trees breathe it in and produce oxygenâ€¦ The circle of life, nature always provides a balanceâ€¦

You do not breathe CO2 in the quantities that a car or coal plant produces them. Nature does not always provide a balance. That's why CO2 emissions are up 30% since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

See this page:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/natural-emissions-dwarf-humans.html

The earths temp has always been changing and will always do soâ€¦

Absolutely. But the earth's CO2 level has never risen 30% in the span of several decades. So we'll also get the corresponding change in temperature in the span of several decades. This will make the earth as we know it very different. Take a look at this graph of CO2 levels compared with temperature over the last 400,000 years:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm

Many are just trying to collect thier paycheck and look for â€œscienceâ€ to justify thier existence while ignoring conflicting facts to thier belief systemâ€¦

Care to give an example?

The solution then would be to plant more trees, or let nature take its course and let the plants catch up with our CO2 outputâ€¦

Trees would help. But unfortunately it's not that simple. Trees' capacity to absorb CO2 is only so much, and trees actually lose their ability to absorb CO2 after a certain point of saturation (I'll look for the study and post it here in a bit).
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Roger_Roger Says:

Juan C,

I presume you don't own a car or heat your house in the winter or your also supporting "companies that plunder the earth and will kill your habitat." You can't be that stupid.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Juan C Says:

You presume just exactly. Moron.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:22 pm
DieNowForPeace Says:

Nobody's that stupid Rog,

Give me an alternative to fueling my car and cooling my home and I'll do it. But we are all left without alternatives since the "powers that be" (energy companies) lobby to the ends of the earth to protect their financial interests, foregoing mankinds interest in long-term survival.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Roger_Roger Says:

Juan,

If you own a car, heat your home, fly in a plain, or use plastic you to are supporting the evil Big Oil. I don't have a problem with it but you seem to like to belittle others for there oil consumption. I was just wondering if your a hypocrit?
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Joe Sixpack Says:

*** You guys sound like a bunch of chicken littlies telling the farmer the sky is fallingâ€¦

Comment by Tom

Careful, Tom. Last one to use that "chicken little" story was Donald Rumsfelt a few years ago when he was being questioned about the war. And guess what? The sky really was falling....for Rummy's credibility, anyway.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:27 pm
JJ Says:

Here's the study: "Study Casts Doubt on Trees as CO2 Sink"

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=4351&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=Study%20Casts%20Doubt%20on%20Trees%20as%20CO2%20Sink&Cache=False
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Roger_Roger Says:

#20,

That isn't fair. American's are free to start a business as they see fit. You are free to start your own energy company. YOu can even freely research new fuels, market said fuels, and become a billionaire! People that simply talk about the problem in a free market society are either lying about the problem or they are lazy.

If you can truly see a real problem that people want fixed, that is a market opportunity (A big one in fact). Then again, the private sector has yet to come up with an alternitive that is equally as useable and powerful as gas at a price that is equal to or cheaper then gas. Simply put, if this is truly a problem then someone will find a product that is equal or better then gas at an equal or cheaper price. If such a product doesnt come to the market, I would question if the "problem" was really as big as you made it out to be.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Juan C Says:

Roger, first, I apologize for the insult.
I told you. I dont use a car, I dont heat my place in the winter, I dont live in US for that matter. I am not supporting Big Oil companies (sorry, I dont believe in evil or good) cause I try to inform myself what I am buying or consuming. I live in Mexico which is pretty much a third world country. I know that in I world countries they must have the best public transportation system. I know it is that way in Europe, where most of the people is transported by rails, which happens to be a very environment friendly mode of transport due to the fuel consumption per person ratio and that the rails offer less resistance than asphalt. But US citizens are in loved with cars. I dont know why, maybe because you are told that is the first place where you can have sex? or something like that? But that is the american way of life...pure dumb spending.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:32 pm
JJ Says:

Because it is your furnace heating your homeâ€¦ Guess what, we get our heat from the sun, the solar cycles match our past hot and cool stagesâ€¦ Hmmmmâ€¦ Sounds logical to meâ€¦ Hotter sun = Warmer Earthâ€¦

According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/its-sun-stupid.html
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Krazny Says:

the problem I have with your basic supposition Roger, is that big oil has often bought up the very patents that would change our society from fossil fuels to other forms of energy. They also have zero reason to change. Big oil is making more money then they thought possible at the expense of every american, for a product we need to survive.

You are right that anyone can start a business, however that requires capital. I personally don't have the thousands it would take to do what your advocating. Energy indipendance is a national security issue. without oil we cannot continue the american way of life. If the government stopped subsidising oil, it would become a luxury right quick. I think a plan by the government to help fund research is what we need to do.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Jay Randal Says:

I am not surprised > wait till you see the hurricanes in the Caribbean this year? I bet a couple category 5 canes level parts of the US with 160+mph winds and 20 feet storm surges!
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Juan C Says:

the private sector has yet to come up with an alternitive

Comment by Roger
Yeah. The private sector is the giver of solutions for everything. So, the outcome of the world is in the hands of the private sector? Come on. Private sector is all about profits...they dont give a damn about what people need.
Wouldnt it be nice if the private sector release a product call WORLD PEACE?
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:36 pm
madashell Says:

Roger-roger - Did you even know that GM built an electric car, and then suddenly they decided to quash it. WTF? At least Toyota is doing something about it. Ever heard of the Prius?
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:36 pm
DieNowForPeace Says:

Rog - "Start your own energy company" now THAT'S a good one. Why didn't I think of that? I'll do it today!!!!!

Please, stop! Your killing my brain cells...
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Neal Says:

I live in the Bay Area, we are supposed to have record breaking heat today. It is damn hot!
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Roger_Roger Says:

#27 I agree that energy independence for America is VERY important. Why are the Democrat congressmen and women blocking our ability to drill in Anwar (alaska)? That would supply 1-2 million barrels a day of oil. It would require us to use roughly 1,000 acres of land in a place that is millions of acres large. I have been to Anwar 2 times and honestly, it could take you a week with a plane to find a 100 acre oil site. On one hand you say we need energy indepence, on the other democrats won't let us drill our very own Oil.

Same goes for Florida. Cuba just sold huge contracts to China for the OIl off its coast. The Democrats refuse to let Americans drill in Florida waters. So now we sit watching the Chinese deplete our Oil reserve. WHY? So we need to rely on middle east oil more? Seems at odds with the idea that democrats want Energy independence for the USA.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Krazny Says:

Neal,

I live in Los Angeles, it was already mid 70's on my drive to work at 7:30 in the morning. We have had a number of triple digit days. Best bet is to head to the beach if you can.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:44 pm
DieNowForPeace Says:

#30
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_killed_the_electric_car

Very telling.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:44 pm
madashell Says:

33. AT WHAT COST? Destroy ANWR for the miniscule amount THEY KNOW exists there. Do you even know where the oil that comes from Alaska goes now? NOT THE U.S.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:45 pm
JJ Says:

Speaking of beaches:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/science/earth/20sea.html?ei=5087%0A&en=b9c8ca9658749351&ex=1151035200&pagewanted=print
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:46 pm
madashell Says:

To Roger-Roger - please go to #35. link. Educate yourself.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Krazny Says:

Maybe the reason we should block drilling in ANWR, is because oil is soon going to be an outdated energy source, and that it would take 10 years to start pulling that much oil from the ground. It is more then shortsighted on your part to insist on staying on an oil standard. I and many democrats are advocate using alternative fuels. We need to fund research for domestically produced energy.

One point I don't agree with some on is the use of nuclear energy. It is powerful, and safe. The biggest issue is dispossing of the waste, however I still think we should build more reactors.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:48 pm
WaltTheMan Says:

#33 - Roger_Roger,
Gee whiz, I never realized that Jeb Bush is a Democrat. Thanks for the input, I will immediately inform good old Jeb to correct his political literature - but he's retiring anyway, so its a moot point anyway.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:53 pm
madashell Says:

39. I wouldn't necessarily call nuclear energy safe. Remember Chernobyl? Three mile Island? And the waste issues have NEVER really been dealt with. I know for a FACT they dumped barrels upon barrels of waste near the Farralone Islands off the coast of San Francisco, which have been leaking for years now, because the waste ate through them. I live now in Washington state, and the last election cycle the people of this state voted on the Hanford plant. It is full of waste. We voted that the federal government CANNOT dump more until they clean up what is there first. GUESS WHAT. The Feds decided that WE DON'T HAVE A SAY!

I'm more for wind energy, solar energy, hydro energy...just plain clean energy, with no toxic waste.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Krazny Says:

Madashell,

I didn't say it was perfect. I just moved from WA to CA, I was one of the people who voted for a cleanup at hanford actually. Sadly nuclear may be the best alternative for the time being. I know the waste is nasty. and there is no clear idea what to do with it. However Europe has been using nuclear energy for years, along with solar and wind farms.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Alexandra Says:

Well, this just proves it, the world is literally going to hell under the current US administration.
June 22nd, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Roger_Roger Says:

#36 Have you been to Anwar? Honestly I want to know. I have been inside Anwar twice and have been to the northern and southern side of it 4 times. It is a beutiful place to be sure. I think this debate is lost on those that don't realize how vast this place is. Using roughly 1,000 acres to drill for oil is smaller then a pin prick. I live in Minnesota and grew up on a small family farm, which was 1,600 acres. You can jog 1,000 acres in about 20-30 minutes. It is NOTHING. I want proof that the cost is bigger then the reward. For us to get 1-2 million barrels of Oil out of 1,000 acres in ANWAR will only help us. Are you concerned that the Caribou will be effected? I am here to tell you that Alaska has a problem with to many caribou. Residents in that state can actually hunt Caribou year round and buy as many permits as they want and Alaska game officials still kill many to simply thin the herd. 1,000 acres will not hurt the wildlife in any way shape or form. It just pisses me off when I here people that have never been there and never will go talk like they know the place. Most city folks here 1,000 acres and think that is huge when in reality you can job it in 20-30 minutes.

Lastly, it will take around 10 years to start getting that much Oil out. So what? Do you think Oil will not be around in 10 years? I would bet everything I am worth to say it will still be the fuel of choice in the world. I really want a valid reason why not to drill up there inside the discussion of energy independence from the middle east.
June 22nd, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Roger_Roger Says:

EARTH'S TEMP HIGHEST IT'S BEEN IN 400 YEARS!!!!

So 400 years ago, roughly the year 1600 the earth was as hot as it is today. What were the Co2 emissions from Humans 400 years ago to cause such a high temp?
June 22nd, 2006 at 1:32 pm
madashell Says:

42. Actually, sadly they do have a use for nuclear waste. Depleted uranium weaponry, just like they are using in Iraq. Please people, another thing to consider is the health effects of Iraqis and our soldiers alike are being exposed to a DNA altering holocaust.
June 22nd, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Krazny Says:

I just gave you several Roger,

I don't know why you would want to destroy our economy and way of life, just to maintain oil use. You say that we should use up all the oil until it becomes a luxury. Don't you think if we did that, and had no viable alternatives to oil use when it happens that our economy wouldn't come to a near collapse? Lets preemptively move to something else. Why wait until its a crises?
June 22nd, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Roger_Roger Says:

Krazny,

We will have alternatives before we run out of Oil. Simple economics of a free market will tell you that. Companies will start to research this stuff (they are starting even today). Most of the plans for fuels that become valid will simply be shelved until Oil becomes much more costly at which time the alternative fuel becomes economically viable. Rest assured, the moment they can produce a fuel that is just as usable, powerful, and is economically better then oil, WE WILL HAVE IT. Today just isn't that date. We can discuss and argue all we want, but our free markets will dictate what we use regardless of what you or I think. Today, Oil is the best choice economically (even though it is bad for the environment). Oil will stay the best choice until it gets vastly more expensive, period. So, we can "slowly" creep up to that majic price and we can simply live our lives as normal humans and consume gas as we see fit. Both will work, but one will simply introduce an alternative that is viable faster.
June 22nd, 2006 at 1:48 pm
galileo galilei Says:

#45 jesus h christ that's a stupid statement. maybe they are saying its hotter than the last 400 years because I invented the thermometer in 1592! good god man, I had to pay for my education - yours was free. look what you are doing with yours. f***wit.
June 22nd, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Krazny Says:

I disagree Roger, the oil companies have a history of squashing anything that would compete with oil We have less of a free market then you envision. It takes huge investments to get this type of project started, and those with the money have little interest in investing in future fuels.
June 22nd, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Tom Says:

You guys make me laugh... No one argues for pollution... We are simply saying CO2 is not pollution... It maybe pollution and deadly to you in over abundance, however it is extremely healthy for the trees. The same way athletes and hospitals use oxygen for performance and healing... The lib trees right now are arguing about the oxygen level in the atmosphere because it is getting out of control and is going to suffocate them all...

#16 CO2 holding in the heat

Heat cant be hold. Review your thermodynamic texts. Caloric theory died since Count Rumford.

That is the entire theory behind global warming... CO2 allows sunlight in. It hits the surface of the earth and warms the planet. The ground emits infrared heat from the surface which is not transparent to the CO2, so it holds in the warmth like a blanket... Learn your own global warming argument so I don't have to explain it to you...

Switching to GREEN fuel will not stop this

What is that GREEN fuel? Could you describe it or simply like to say stupid things? Are you talking about biomass, wave energy, tidal energy, OTEC, solar passive, solar active, solar thermal, solar PV, wind energy?â€¦please, describe that GREEN fuel.

I was referring to E85... By the way, thank you for replying... I have actually posted this before and it was removed. Open discussion I see... I had to repaste it on several pages to keep it alive...

Anyway, Yes E85, that is why I referred to it as a green FUEL and not green ENERGY... See the difference... Who was saying something stupid again Juanie C...
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:02 pm
JJ Says:

We are simply saying CO2 is not pollutionâ€¦ It maybe pollution and deadly to you in over abundance, however it is extremely healthy for the trees.

So what's your point? There are so many contradictions to what you're saying it's like you're just taking up space. Like spam.

I already answered the points you made that were coherent in my comments above.
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Zookeeper Says:

I bet a couple category 5 canes level parts of the US with 160+mph winds and 20 feet storm surges!
Comment by Jay Randal

Don't even think it, Jay!
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Zookeeper Says:

#49 - And none of us has thanked you properly, sir.
Thank you Galileo Galilei, from the bottom of our hearts, for inventing the thermometer. :)
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:21 pm
galileo galilei Says:

#55 you are welcome. in my day we had a name for these fools: they were called - inquisitors. just don't get me going on heliocentricity and - what is it you have now - intelligent (now that's a riot) design...
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:27 pm
WaltTheMan Says:

Emeril's Kick It Up! Green Pepper Sauce, straight from the bottle can start a thermal reaction and when discharged, will give you a very warm feeling where you sit. Original Tabasco is more potent but is red and does not qualify as green. Downing 5 ounces of that will take you out of this world and no cremation would be required.
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Tom Says:

#17
You do not breathe CO2 in the quantities that a car or coal plant produces them. Nature does not always provide a balance. Thatâ€™s why CO2 emissions are up 30% since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

You are right! I do not breathe it in the quantities we produce but the trees do. Stop chopping them down and plant some more and no more problem... Besides I prefer breathing oxygen... I believe that nature will catch up, besides when do plants do best? In a GREENHOUSE...

Absolutely. But the earthâ€™s CO2 level has never risen 30% in the span of several decades. So weâ€™ll also get the corresponding change in temperature in the span of several decades. This will make the earth as we know it very different. Take a look at this graph of CO2 levels compared with temperature over the last 400,000 years:

I do not dispute the 30% increase in CO2... Bring back the Rain Forest = Solution... And what 400,000 year old thermostat did we find buried in a melting glacier to tell us that... Lets be intellectually honest, that is a guess. I have read many studies and most agree the Earths temp has only risen one degree since 1800. I don't see anything to panic about... In the '70's it was global cooling. They wanted to spread black charcoal on the frozen iceland so it would hold heat and melt, thus stopping the oncoming Ice age... I couldn't make that up... Then in the '80's it was the hole in the ozone layer... Must be "Manmade"... Couldn't be the fact that there is no trees(producing oxygen) in the frozen wasteland for all the gases to interact with one another making ozone like above every other continent with trees ... Noooo... Now Global warming...

And, it is not scientifically proven CO2 increases the global temp... It is a theory... It is dishonest to talk like it is a fact because you can not test it in a controlled environment called an experiment... Its a guess.... Unproven... To say CO2 equals global warming is like saying that washing my car is cause for the coming rain storm... There maybe a correlation but that does not mean it is causation...

Many are just trying to collect their paycheck and look for â€œscienceâ€ to justify their existence while ignoring conflicting facts to their belief systemâ€¦

Care to give an example?

You asked...
â€œ[W]e have to [sic] offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to [sic] decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.â€
- Stephen Schneider (quoted in Our Fragile Earth, Jonathan Schell)

Trees would help. But unfortunately itâ€™s not that simple. Treesâ€™ capacity to absorb CO2 is only so much, and trees actually lose their ability to absorb CO2 after a certain point of saturation (Iâ€™ll look for the study and post it here in a bit).

Hey we agree, then once those trees become saturated, plant some more...
June 22nd, 2006 at 3:43 pm
SEIXON Says:

Tweaking Science for Consensus...

The National Academy of Sciences has just released a report concluding that the "hockey stick" graph that has been relied upon by the global warming alarmists cannot be relied upon. The media and the liberal blogs suppress this news and spin it for o...
June 22nd, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Kermit the Freedom Frog Says:

Same goes for Florida. Cuba just sold huge contracts to China for the OIl off its coast. The Democrats refuse to let Americans drill in Florida waters. So now we sit watching the Chinese deplete our Oil reserve. WHY?

Go to any beach in Texas for the answer. But don't bring your good towels.
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Juan C Says:

I was referring to E85

Comment by Tom
You left me speechless, buddy. Youre so good at this.
First energy has no colors. I know it is a way to call things attractively but you and I can be serious about this, right? I am not familiar with any GREEN, BLACK or MAGENTA energy. There are sources of energy, that is right, some of them pollute, others do not.
I will ask you, what is a fuel?
How does Earth receives energy? Which fuel is burned to do that? See, fuel is something that can be thought as the input for a process. In that sense there are a lot of FUELS out there, which are sources of energy, not just the ones that burn.
E85, E75, whatever, there are a lot of other FUELS that can be used to power something. So far they are not as cheap as others, but common, how much does a car cost? How efficient is a car? mmmm...do you know the efficiency of a car, not just the engine, but the whole car? You have bought the "I have to get a car so I can feel secure about myself" slogan.

It is dishonest to talk like it is a fact because you can not test it in a controlled environment called an experiment

Why US did not sign the Kyoto protocol? Because then other countries are so bad informed that they think global warming can be merely a chance and not a fact. And US is really a great visionary about environmental problems, yeah, right. American corporations have A LOT to loose if they are limited with ecological restraints. Wake up, buddy. You seem smart. Use that for a good cause.
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Kermit the Freedom Frog Says:

I dunno maybe there has been massive volcanic activity in the past few decades and nobody noticed?

Or maybe a giant asteroid hit the earth and nobody saw it?

Or maybe CO2 traps heat and combustion releases CO2. But if that's the case we better hope natural forces don't also come into play.
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Zookeeper Says:

Go to any beach in Texas for the answer. But donâ€™t bring your good towels.
Comment by Kermit the Freedom Frog

I wouldn't put my baby toe in the Gulf, or eat anything from it.
Gross...
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Tom Says:

Thank you for the smart compliment Juan... You are exactly right about Corporations having a lot to loose, that is why I am against the Kyoto Treaty... It has the potential to turn us into a third world country... I want to stop CO2 from running ramped... I want a batter planet for my children and grandchildren than we have now... But that treaty would stop grinding the wheels of our industrialization which is the only reason we(the US) are still the only Super Power left... Without our consumption we are doomed... Consumption makes our world go round and provides everyone in the US with a high standard of living giving us an opportunity to reach out and help the rest of the world... That is the Inconvenient Truth... The technology will come for us to be energy independent, heck I tried to put a wind generator up at my house but local zoning codes restricted it... But the time is coming... Lets not wreck our economy in the mean time... Does anyone truly want the UN telling our companies what to do... The UN would be in charge...

Does anyone remember the movie TOTAL RECALL... Remember how a few had control of the oxygen... Even though the planet itself was a self supporting machine... That info was hidden so oxygen became a commodity... So few people with so much power, the power to take away your very breath... Kyoto sounds like the same scenario, just in reverse... Don't be misled, Kyoto is not about a cleaner planet, it is about what everything else is about, money and control...
June 22nd, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Goat Says:

So not only do you guys come here and claim that China is so great for reducing there emissions. You also claim it is alright for them to drill off the coast of Florida while american firms cannot? Wouldn't you think that Americans firms would be better regulated then Chinese firms resulting in better safety for the envirnment? Also, would it not be better for the USA to reduce its demand for foreign Oil by drilling our own?

Honestly, its just like I said. In th long run we will use our Oil supplies whether you like it or not. Now in this case, we just dragged our heels to long so we now have to watch a devoloping country like China drill for Oil unregulated off the coast of Florida. YEA!!!
June 22nd, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Tom Says:

AMEN Goat... (Ooops, I hope I don't get banned for referring to the G word...)
The Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank on that one...
June 22nd, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Juan C Says:

Donâ€™t be misled, Kyoto is not about a cleaner planet, it is about what everything else is about, money and controlâ€¦

Comment by Tom
I agree. Governments are only sheriffs of big companies and they do as they are told. But, your argument is justifying the really bad decision of US in not signing because of the interests of almost every other major pollutants in the world. So, we do bad because they do bad.

Consumption makes our world go round and provides everyone in the US with a high standard of living giving us an opportunity to reach out and help the rest of the world

You must live in Beverly Hills, I guess. You must be aware that almost every major city in the US has really deploring conditions for its population. I dont see that as a high standard, no matter how many Mercedes and Ferraris cruise the streets. Also, consumption does not make the world go round. Where did you study economics? The wealth of the world comes from labor, exploited labor hands I might add; in my opinion, nobody gets rich for being a really hard worker, which is debatable, but just look at Forbes. It seems to me that either you have a very good job in a big company or you are the owner of one, otherwise I dont understand all that blind commitment you have with them. I am guessing you bought the american dream kit for a very high price and now are so unwilling to accept that, if US is a wealthy country, as any other, it is because it has exploited people, within borders and specially overseas. So, in that case, you can be truthful about it and say: "Yeah, I dont care if a taiwanese kid loose his fingers while sewing my next T-shirt, cause US is the only Super Power left (which if that were true, please, do attack China cause they have a lot of WMDs)" In that case, all your silky rethoric would not be useful for anybody at all.
P.S. By the way, you support an economical system that intrinsically excludes you. At the peak of capitalism, there are going to be very few folks really really rich. And my guess is that you wont be one of them. And if you are, you could not be able to walk in the streets without 40 bodyguards. That is a really nice life to live, I guess.
June 22nd, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Joefriday Says:

Tweaking Science for Consensusâ€¦

The National Academy of Sciences has just released a report concluding that the â€œhockey stickâ€ graph that has been relied upon by the global warming alarmists cannot be relied upon. The media and the liberal blogs suppress this news and spin it for oâ€¦

Trackback by SEIXON â€” June 22, 2006 @ 3:59 pm

Pure Bull $hit- You lie again as always...The MSM is conservative and you sir are a joke. Norway Bob a pathetic recluse angry at the world loner ( very close to Rush Limberg). All, repeat all serious climatologist concur that 1) the earth is warming and 2) man is partial responseable 3) because of co2. 4) unabated we will become like Venus ( may take a millon years or so).. Why do you hate the Earth?? Going to get sucked up into the sky leaving all your clothes and wallet behind??
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:41 pm
John Cooper Says:

Gore Slams Global Warming Critics

Later, on Charlie Rose's show, Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says 'wait a minute - this hasn't been proven,' is there still a debate?" Gore replied, "The debate's over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona."

This flies in the face of such challengers as professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia who said: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

Famed climatologist and internationally renowned hurricane expert Dr. William Gray of the atmospheric-science department at Colorado State University went even further, calling the scientific "consensus" on global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."

For speaking the truth he has seen most of his government research funding dry up, according to the Washington Post.
Neither Gray nor Dr. Carter believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.
Nor does famed Oxford professor David Bellamy who sniffs that Gore's theory is "Poppycock!"

Writing in Britain's Daily Mail last July 9, Dr. Bellamy charged that "the world's politicians and policy makers ... have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credo of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.
"They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.

"As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and rubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic."

Wrote Dr. Bellamy "It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be [$1.3 trillion]. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.
"If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist - money that could be used in umpteen better ways: Fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.

"The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact."

In agreement with Dr. Bellamy were a host of other respected climatologists including the 19,000 who have signed a declaration that rejects Gore's accusation that the rise of greenhouse gasses is caused by mankind's use of fossil fuels. As has been pointed out, previous ice ages have been preceded by a rise on CO2 levels long before there were humans or fossil fuels or backyard barbecues.

Commenting on the scientists who support Gore's thesis, Dr. Carter one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change, says, "'Climate experts' is the operative term here. Why? Because of what Gore's 'majority of scientists' think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to U.S. science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of who know, but feel unable to state publicly, that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April, 60 of the world's leading experts in the field asked Canada's Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request, wrote Tom Harris in the Canada Free Press.

According to Harris, a mechanical engineer, former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball notes that even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

Adds Ball, among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not predictions but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

Canada's new conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his predecessor.
In an open letter that includes five British scientists among the 60 leading international climate change experts who signed the letter, the experts praise Harper's commitment to review the controversial Kyoto Protocol on reducing emissions harmful to the environment. "Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science," they wrote in the Canadian Financial Post last week.

They emphasized that the study of global climate change is, in Harper's own words, an "emerging science" and added: "If, back in the mid 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, they wrote.

"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.
"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"

The letter is the latest effort by climate change skeptics to counter Gore's demonstrably false claims that there is a consensus that human activity is causing alleged global warming.
Listening to Al Gore makes one wonder if he is the one who believes that "the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/20/134405.shtml?s=ic
June 24th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
John Cooper Says:

Read both sides
June 24th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Think Progress » An Inconvenient Truth And An Intolerable Summer Says:

[...] Greenhouse gas emissions have not only heated the earth to its hottest temperature in millennia; they have also made heat waves more intense. The journal Nature said in 2004 that â€œsevere heat waves are now four times as likely to occur because of increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.â€ [...]
July 20th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
William Schubert Says:

Question: When it is 20 below zero, exposed body parts will freeze, and if someone went outside dressed as they would be indoors, they would freeze to death in a matter of minutes. What is the other extreme? How HOT does it have to be before a human, dressed normally, will die in a matter of minutes, when directly exposed to the conditions?
August 12th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Bad Breath & Gum Disease Cure Says:

bad breath cause...

Bad breath can seriously affect our confidence. Find out how you...
December 30th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Think Progress » Drudge Re-Tells Lame Global Warming Joke Says:

[...] of Sciences reported last year that Earth’s rising temperature “is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia,” and that “human activities are responsible for much of the recent [...]
February 14th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Jokes about global warming and cold weather « Later On Says:

[...] Academy of Sciences reported last year that Earthâ€™s rising temperature â€œis unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia,â€ and that â€œhuman activities are responsible for much of the recent [...]
February 14th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
paul Says:

It is possible that large corporations like Exxon are trying to confuse the debate on global warming in order to continue profiting from the inaction that results.

If that is possible, can we admit it is also possible that politicians (Gore), environmentalists and socialists are also trying to mislead the public (of the certainty of man's role in global warming) in an attempt to manipulate, and control, economic policies?
February 14th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
florida car transport Says:

florida car transport

Many diesel powered cars can also run with little or no modifications on 100% biodiesel. Although various pistonless rotary engine designs
April 1st, 2008 at 2:39 am
farmer's market Says:

farmer's market

I Googled for something completely different, but found your page...and have to say thanks. nice read.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Caribbean Jobs Says:

Caribbean Jobs

I can't wait to get back to Grand Cayman for my next vacation but I don't think the current dollar exchange rate will hold up for long.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:15 am
Barbecues Says:

Barbecues

I enjoyed reading your blog. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.
April 13th, 2008 at 1:48 am

Earth’s temperature highest in 400 years.

Earth’s temperature highest in 400 years.

79 Responses to “Earth’s temperature highest in 400 years.”

Blogroll