Europe’s winter warmest in 700 years.
By on Jun 21st, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Europe’s winter warmest in 700 years.
“Last autumn-winter season was Europe’s warmest for more than 700 years, researchers say. The last time Europeans saw similar temperatures to the autumn and winter of 2006-07, they were eating strawberries at Christmas in 1289, according to Jürg Luterbacher at the University of Bern, Switzerland, and colleagues.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
It was the dryest spring in state of Georgia in recorded history, so the weather is going bonkers.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:23 pmThis is what happens for buying Oil from Carpet sellers.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:24 pmWe should use alternative energy so we stop polluting and make the Muslims go broke and starve in the Deserts!
The Question is whether the Sunni -Republicans and the Shia-Democrts will Force the companies to use Alternative Energy.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:27 pmThey won’t.
The Islamic regime in America doesn’t want to us to use Alternative energy!
It’s part of their plan to destroy our enviornment and destroy us economically!
Joker, let me guess, a Muslim gave your gf a good boning. And you hate them.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:31 pmJoker, let me guess, a Muslim gave your gf a good boning. And you hate them.
Comment by JPark
Joker had a girlfriend, I don’t think so. A Muslim must have dated Joker’s mother.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:34 pmBwah! That was funny, JPark. This joker is a nut, albeit a persistent one!
June 21st, 2007 at 11:35 pmSorry guys. I guess joker having a gf (much less a friend) was kinda dumb.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:41 pmFourdogs, not persistant, I have never seen this little girl.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:46 pmPeople were driving SUV’s 700 years ago? Well SOMETHING had to be driving up the earths temp.
BTW, what exactly is the correct temperature of the globe?
June 21st, 2007 at 11:48 pmGoose, read a book.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:50 pmGoose, read a book.
Is that it, no “youre a moron” statement to add emphasis to the rejoinder?
Care to address the questions which are..ahem..directly related to the thread topic?
-What is the proper temp of the earth?
-What happened to the glaciers that used to sit atop my home state of Minnesota?
-Why did the temp start to rise 700 years ago, long before the advent of the internal combustion engine?
Hey look at that, a termite.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:04 amGoose, ok, you are a moron. You don’t actually listen to scientists, you listen to preachers.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:09 amGoose, The average temperature of earth is 15°C (59°F)
The earth is slowly warming due to carbon dioxide.
The temperature did not start to rise 700 years ago. In fact, it had gotten cooler. Thats why this was their warmest in 700 years. That was a warm year for then. It was not the average up to that point.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere raises temperatures. We know this. And we know that man is spewing several million tons of CO2 in the air per day! Now this is a small amount compared to the aproximatly one trillion tons of water that evaporates but it is still a significant amount when it is added EVERY DAY!
We are warming the planet whether you want to deny it or not.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:16 amWould those be the consensus scientists or the fact scientists?
Here is a clue: consensus isnt science. You cant take a vote to decide a scientific fact.
Now lets try again, shall we?
-What is the proper temp of the earth?
-What happened to the glaciers from the last ice age?
-Why was the island of Britain once known for its wines?
Feel free to reference any scientist or preacher for the answers.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:17 amLOL, Goose, the consensus among scientists doesn’t mean anything? Are you stoned, you f^cking retarded little girl?
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:18 amConsensus doen’t mean anything everybody!!!!!
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:19 amPeople were driving SUV’s 700 years ago? Well SOMETHING had to be driving up the earths temp.
BTW, what exactly is the correct temperature of the globe?
Comment by Goose
You offer up this drivel, and then act all hurt when JPark tells you to read a book?
C’mon, you act like you’re the only Repub-type person to come here. If you want to discuss, you have to contribute. Keep trying…
Geez….
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:19 amWait, the concensus among everybody who has ever met Goose is he is kind of a schmuck.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:20 amThe glaciers in your state of Minnesota melted due to the end of the Ice age. This took almost 1000 years to happen, not the two decades for the Artic glaciers melting today. If you really live in Minnesota then you would have known this.
Many conservative hikers, hunters and fishermen have reported that they notice the fast change in climate and they know what is happening. You are doing them a disservice by spewing forth denials.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:20 amPaid Oil, unbelievably there are a ton of sportsmen who are now GETTING it.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:22 amWe are warming the planet whether you want to deny it or not.
I dont deny we are adding CO2, what I object against is the idea that our minute influence on the earth is something to swoon over. There is no scientific fact that we are having a detrimental effect, there is only hysterical screaming that London will be under water in twenty years.
Where was that average temp gotten? From todays temps or from 1000 years ago or what?
In the 70’s we were told that everyone would be dead in a decade from global cooling, some ‘experts’ even advocated producing MORE CO2 to combat the dastardly crisis. This is a trick-pony foisted upon us by people who claim to know more than they actually do.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:24 amSo, Goose, you do not deny we are adding CO2 but you somehow deny we are causing global warming…why?
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:28 amI got fired from my job last week for leaving some comments on a site. I worked for a company that was a shill for the oil companies. I sounded just like Goose and I do believe he is also working for them. The pay is low but it is easy work. They give you a list of about 30 sites and you just surf them until you see a climate change article. Then you start to comment using the talking points they give you. I got tired of it and started going against their points so they fired me. It didnt pay much anyways.
Goose, if Randy or Beth is your supervisor, they will be reading all of your posts, so you better stay on the talking points or else.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:28 amWould those be the consensus scientists or the fact scientists?
Here is a clue: consensus isnt science. You cant take a vote to decide a scientific fact.
Comment by Goose — June 22, 2007 @ 12:17 am
You clearly don’t understand the scientific method. Or maybe you could explain fact science and consensus science.
Would you say that there is consensus among chemists about the atomic theory? Could I go ahead and argue that atoms can’t be seen and the opposing view needs to be considered?
And let me guess, you also don’t care that the scientific consensus is on the side of evolution over creation.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:29 amOh, Hi Randy. I know you’re reading this thread. Tell the group I said hi, and then go do what you do best, bitch at the trolls. Go eat it you jerk!
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:29 amLOL, Goose, the consensus among scientists doesn’t mean anything? Are you stoned, you f^cking retarded little girl?
Uh, no, I said consensus isnt fact and that you cant vote-in a scientific fact. Anyone? Anyone?
It has to be PROVABLE FACT, do you understand that? If 99 out of 100 people in a room form a consensus that the earth is square yet they cant possibly prove it, would it then be a fact anyway?
So many people are rushing forward on a theory, ready to destroy economies and steal freedoms, without taking the time to gather more information and really understand why the data differs so much.
Like I said, in the 70’s it was global cooling, now its global warming.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:31 am#23 – I’m no conspiracy theorist. But it is true that once a global warming thread comes up these guys come out of the woodwork.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:31 amIn the 70’s we were told that everyone would be dead in a decade from global cooling, some ‘experts’ even advocated producing MORE CO2 to combat the dastardly crisis. This is a trick-pony foisted upon us by people who claim to know more than they actually do.
Comment by Goose — June 22, 2007 @ 12:24 am
Goose, we were not told this. I was in science classes from 1971- 1975. They never said any such thing. It is the Dobson Christian ominionist who are saying this. YoOu know, tell a lie enough times and people will believe it.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:32 amDon’t you guys realize that Global Warmiong leads to an Ice Age.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:33 amwe’re on the verge of an Ice Age fools!
It has to be PROVABLE FACT, do you understand that?
Comment by Goose — June 22, 2007 @ 12:31 am
That’s right. You can’t even see atoms! How the hell do you know they exist? Modern chemisty is a joke. We should get back to Alchemy right away and reject all of this bull theory about matter being composed of atoms. /sarcasm
So, I take it you must be an Atheist because there’s sure as hell no way you can prove that God exists.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:33 am“Uh, no, I said consensus isnt fact and that you cant vote-in a scientific fact. Anyone? Anyone”
Again, Sally, consensus works.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:35 am“Don’t you guys realize that Global Warmiong leads to an Ice Age.
we’re on the verge of an Ice Age fools!”
Joker, I know you are stupid, but THIS stupid? Really?
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:36 amDon’t you guys realize that Global Warmiong leads to an Ice Age.
we’re on the verge of an Ice Age fools!
Comment by The Joker — June 22, 2007 @ 12:33 am
This is correct. It will cool the Gulf Stream conveyor belt and the water near Iceland will not be as saline. This will stop the quick sinking of the water there and slow the conveyor belt. And this will cause a mini Ice age in the north. That is why scientists call it climate change and not global warming.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:37 amMars is experiencing its own global warming trend. Those little Mars Rovers must be putting out some serious CO2.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:38 am-What is the proper temp of the earth?
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:40 am-OK, what is the difference between a duck?
Like I said, in the 70’s it was global cooling, now its global warming.
Comment by Goose — June 22, 2007 @ 12:31 am
This is straight from the global warming skeptic playbook. First, there were some scientists that postulated global cooling. It was not backed up by the data. Today, there is ample evidence to indicate the earth is in fact warming. We’re seeing more and more record tempuratures being reached.
Secondly, the idea of global cooling was not accepted as the consensus theory as global warming is today. This is a vague attempt to say “Some scientists once got it wrong, so simply dismiss anything scientists say.” Again, your understanding of science is so poor it isn’t funny.
It’s so funny you guys mention the economy being destroyed. Isn’t our over-consumption of oil the reason we’re at war in the Middle East which has cost us a half a TRILLION DOLLARS? If we learned to use less oil that would actually SAVE money!!
And to continue your analogy, let’s say a doctor has an educated theory that I have an appendicitis. What do I do? I whine and moan that he can’t prove it. I tell him that I need more information and more information. In the mean time, I die.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:40 amThe difference between a matter of fact and a matte of opinion is that a matter of fact can be measured. “It’s cold outside” is only opinion even if it is -30 degrees. But “It’s -30 degrees outside” would be a matter of fact (if it were -30 degrees)
This is why climate change is a matter of fact. We are measuring it and it is happening.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:40 amUmm, Goose, the Mars Rovers are putting out CO2? Are they oxygen breathers? WTF does that mean?
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:41 am“Uh, no, I said consensus isnt fact and that you cant vote-in a scientific fact. Anyone? Anyoneâ€
Again, Sally, consensus works.
Comment by JPark — June 22, 2007 @ 12:35 am
Indeed, understanding that we live in an imperfect world of information (not one where the Bible has all of the answers), there is in fact no better method that we have.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:41 amMars is experiencing its own global warming trend. Those little Mars Rovers must be putting out some serious CO2.
Comment by Goose — June 22, 2007 @ 12:38 am
This is not true, goose. Come on, this point isn’t even on the list they give you. Randy’s gonna fire your ass if you don’t stay focused!
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:42 amSo, I take it you must be an Atheist because there’s sure as hell no way you can prove that God exists.
Nope, Im a God-fearin’ man. The difference is that my faith wont demand that you ride a unicycle to work and wipe your rear with a single sheet of tp after every visit to the can.
Now I know you guys have signed-on to this thing, so Ill ask what you think of the Lead Prophet, Al Gore. If we are all on the verge of oblivion, dont you think the man should reduce his usage and output as he demands of you?
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:42 amWhy do you fear your god? I love my god!
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:44 amThat makes no sense goose. “demand that you ride a unicycle to work and wipe your rear with a single sheet of tp after ever visit to the can?” That sounds awfully Christian. You see, atheism doesn’t force a bunch of retards to believe what they do. You don’t get that, do you?
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:46 amIf Gore’s usage is carbon free, then he is not adding to warming. In fact, the scientists aren’t saying to stop energy usage, but rather to make cleaner energy. And we have the technology to do it. We can make this a very technological world that is clean. The oil companies and God fearing people may not like it but the rest of us would.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:46 amCongrats, Goose, you are a god-fearing man!!!! Jesus…not so much. Kind of a pussy, really.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:47 amthere is in fact no better method that we have.
Careful what you wish for, the day might come when consensus visits upon you a circumstance which isnt so easily accepted. You support the issue-global warming-so you readily sign on to the consensus.
Considering that this issue has gone from almost total obscurity to desperate need within months, a little caution would be warranted. The radical solutions being tendered sound pretty, but their application would be far more severe.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:48 amWhy do you fear your god? I love my god!
Power beyond comprehension should give any true believer pause. I too love my God but I also fear him.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:49 amGoose, you are attacking a vastly superior position. Sun Tsu would kick your ass.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:50 amIf we are all on the verge of oblivion, dont you think the man should reduce his usage and output as he demands of you?
Comment by Goose — June 22, 2007 @ 12:42 am
You’re not making sense. You demand proof on scientific issues but just have faith in God. Sorry, I don’t understand the rest of that paragraph.
Al Gore is not our ‘prophet’. He’s just someone popularizing an issue that needs popularizing. He is bring scientific knowledge to the people and not creating scientific knowledge. I knew about global warming long before he was even the VP under Clinton.
We ALL should work to try and reduce our output. My understanding that Gore is doing some things to reduce his output. Maybe he could be doing more. (I know I could be doing more myself.) However, NONE of this has any effect on the science itself. It’s simply your way of avoiding the argument by resorting to personal attacks.
And that is your characterization that he says we “are all on the verge of oblivion”. That is very dishonest of you to say that.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:52 amWe can make this a very technological world that is clean. The oil companies and God fearing people may not like it but the rest of us would.
Alright then, convince your dem pols to start building nuclear reactors. Ill be with you.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:52 amWhen there is virtually no comprehension, everything looks powerful.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:52 amMars is experiencing its own global warming trend. Those little Mars Rovers must be putting out some serious CO2.
Goose,
I’ve met *real* geese that were smarter than you are.
Warming on Mars is related to dust-storm activity there (i.e. changes in albedo); it is completely unrelated with what is happening on Earth.
Solar output has remained almost unchanged since the 70’s. We know this because satellites and spacecraft have monitored the Sun’s output very precisely over the past few decades. I’d tell you to google up Solar irradiance data to verify this for yourself, but I don’t think that you are smart enough to do so.
And you might ask yourself why Venus hasn’t been warming up, but that would overtax the few functioning neurons that you have….
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:53 amConsidering that this issue has gone from almost total obscurity to desperate need within months, …
Comment by Goose — June 22, 2007 @ 12:48 am
I first learned about global warming from Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series which was in the early 80’s. If you would actually watch An Inconvenient Truth (I understand you probably can’t), you would learn a bit about the history of the study of carbon emissions which goes back even further.
Again, more lies from your side. Strange how you can’t stick to the facts.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:55 amConsidering that this issue has gone from almost total obscurity to desperate need within months, a little caution would be warranted. The radical solutions being tendered sound pretty, but their application would be far more severe.
Comment by Goose
Don’t be ridiculous, Goose. There has been concern in the scientific community for decades. Just because YOU haven’t heard of it, doesn’t mean it’s new.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:56 amGoose. What do you propose we do with the waste these new plants will generate? Do you prefer a national storage site (Nevada)? I think that this continues to be one of the multiple problems holding back the nuke option.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:56 amNot at all Vinnie, youre being sold an empty bag. Gore hits the road, raging about GW and that we have to do something NOW, yet he does absolutely nothing on his own to prove his seriousness.
The “science” isnt science, its consensus conjecture. We have no idea if the CO2 we add to the atmosphere is having a detrimental effect or not, the ‘experts’ have simply concluded that we are. How do we know that cosmic radiation, solar flares , volcanoes and termite farts arent the real cause of the minute rise in temps we are seeing?
How do we know that in the billions of years that the earth has been in existence that this period of minute warming is natural, and that our CO2 emissions are irrelevant?
We dont know, plain and simple.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:03 amDon’t be ridiculous, Goose. There has been concern in the scientific community for decades. Just because YOU haven’t heard of it, doesn’t mean it’s new.
Indeed.
I attended a global-warming lecture given by Roger Revelle some 25 years ago. The scientific community has been concerned about CO2 emissions and global-warming for *decades*.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:03 amHe’s been around at least a few days with this schtick. Kind of like Goose, or that concern troll yesterday (what was his name – Friedman?)
Anyway, The Joker has been this strange “Muslims control the media” troll on a few threads.
Nice work.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:03 amAn empty bag, Goose? Are you joking? I am sorry but the only empty bag is yours.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:04 amGoose only mentions nuclear power because he thinks it will rile us up and get the thread ugly. There are actually some environmentalists that think nuclear can be done safely and cleanly. But that’s not what this thread is about.
Let’s stick to the facts – There is a scientific consensus that global warming is real, is a result of human activities, and could have huge impacts on our civilization as we know it. Goose egg prefers that we stick our head in the sand and do nothing about it.
Goose, maybe you could explain the real reason why you are taking your position. You say you’re against extreme measures. What about smaller measures like increasing fuel efficiency on the vehicles that we drive and pursuing some more investment in alternative forms of energy such as wind and solar? I can’t imagine these killing our economy. Quite the opposite. Energy is one of the key costs in most of the activities/investments that we partake in.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:04 amGoose, it is good you are showing that you are a fraud. You are nothing but a Rove suck ass. Wait, no, you are NOTHING.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:05 amAlright then, convince your dem pols to start building nuclear reactors. Ill be with you.
Comment by Goose — June 22, 2007 @ 12:52 am
This is a subject that I disagree with the Dems on. I feel that we can do the nuclear power options and we can do them safely. I am a Navy vet and believe that they have done good with their nuclear subs and ships.
The clean fuels are wind, solar, hydro but they are still not as efficient as we would like (solar has made some great inroads the last couple of years). I do feel that we should revisit the nuclear power plants.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:05 amwarmest winter in 700 years? – how the f**k did jurg luterbacher work that one out? – i’d like to know how the temperature was measured, recorded and archived in 1289 – just curious
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:06 amfourdogs, I have never seen him. I will always screw with him because he is something of a schmuck.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:06 amdarth vader, disprove it, bitch.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:06 amSo, darth, do you think you are smarter than jurg luterbacher? I know you aren’t.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:07 amDon’t be ridiculous, Goose. There has been concern in the scientific community for decades. Just because YOU haven’t heard of it, doesn’t mean it’s new.
Right. Be honest, if you asked about GW ten or fifteen years ago your subject would give you a blank stare. “Global what?” Please.
In reference to dbadass, storage of the waste is a problem but if you want to get away from coal, gas and oil anytime soon you will have to turn to the nuke plants.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:07 amOn Ed Shultz, he had an enginner on who was pushing a product that increases gas mileage and burns cleaner. I ordered a bottle and will try it, on my new Mustang no less.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:08 amThe web site is http://www.ca40g.com
Paland, youre Navy? So am I. Five years, mostly on the Flint (AE-32) out of Concord, though we also ported in Oakland, NAS Alameda and sometimes Treasure Island (when the frigates werent in).
I was a lowly Bos’n Mate, though I did make E5 quickly. What about you?
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:10 am“yet he [Gore] does absolutely nothing on his own to prove his seriousness.”
Again, more lies and irrelevance. Gore has clearly taken measures to reduce his carbon footprint. This has NOTHING to do with the issue here. I would still take the same stance whether Al Gore said anything about it or not.
“The “science†isnt science, its consensus conjecture.”
Hmmm. The following scientific organizations have taken the consensus position. Does that mean nothing to you? If so, what would it take to convince you? God himself tapping you on the shoulder?
-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
-Joint science academies’ statement 2005
-American Meteorological Society
-American Geophysical Union
-American Institute of Physics
-The American Astronomical Society
-American Association for the Advancement of Science
-Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
-Geological Society of America
-American Association of State Climatologists
-Australian Medical Association
-American Chemical Society
-American Quaternary Association
-Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Even if there was significant doubt, which I don’t believe, given that the future of our planet is what we’re talking about, don’t you think it would be wise to err on the side of caution and cut back on our gluttonous use of energy? Why are you so against this simple idea? Do you have a vested interest in any oil companies?
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:11 amGoose, I am 52 years old and have been discussing climate change with my buds for the last 20 years. It is not new. You seem like a smart chap, so why are you resorting to lies and straw man arguements?
Me and my friends have also been discussing Peak Oil and, deny it or not, we ARE at Peak Oil RIGHT NOW!
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:12 amIm not 52 so you have me by a few years but MY anecdotal evidence would contradict yours. Then again, its just anecdotal and everyone seems to have a story like that.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:14 amGoose, what does your enecdotal evidence tell you?
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:15 amPaland, youre Navy? So am I. Five years, mostly on the Flint (AE-32) out of Concord, though we also ported in Oakland, NAS Alameda and sometimes Treasure Island (when the frigates werent in).
I was a lowly Bos’n Mate, though I did make E5 quickly. What about you?
Comment by Goose — June 22, 2007 @ 1:10 am
I was a Sonar Tech who was assigned to the DEG O’Callahan in 1974-1976. It was in dry dock my entire carreer. Instead of taking the option of going to another ship, I decided to stay in San Diego (ASW base and then 32nd St, Naval station) and party. The problem was that I got busted with some pot (twice) and lost my security clearance. Then they wanted to make me a Bos’n Mate and elected for a discharge instead. They took their time on that so I ended up moping floors and cleaning toilets for the last 9 months. But I did have fun partying in that 9 months.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:17 amMy father died when I was 8. Fricking anecdotal. Reagan killed survivors benefits. I am very intelligent. Reagan cut all college benefits. Congrats, scumbags.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:17 amdon’t you think it would be wise to err on the side of caution and cut back on our gluttonous use of energy?
I guess it depends on the definition of “cut back”. I have a feeling that you and I might disagree on what that is in reference to the lifestyles we enjoy.
Ask a man who rides a bike one block to work to cut back on his gasoline use and he will gladly accept. Ask me to cut back on my business needs and I could go under.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:18 amDo you think cutting back on intelligent, college-headed people is a good thing?
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:20 amThats too bad, paland. The Navy sent me around the world and I got the chance to see places I didnt know existed.
Highlight-definately Japan and Australia. Blacks Beach and the hottest women on the planet…topless.
Lowlight-Karachi, Pakistan. Oh my GOD what a sewer.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:21 amLet me guess, Goose, you are a trickle down, poor hating mother fuc&er.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:21 amGoose hates the poor.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:22 amAsk a man who rides a bike one block to work to cut back on his gasoline use and he will gladly accept. Ask me to cut back on my business needs and I could go under.
You have a legit point. I, too have a high carbon signature and don’t see me lowering it without screwing my family. That’s why I am all for studing newer and cleaner energy. Our society has made it difficult for many of us to become carbon cleaner without adversely affecting other loved ones.
We need to have the electric car (EV-1) come back. I would be for it and would actually by one since I do a bit of driving. Instead I have a Mustang that actually does get 25 mpg on the freeway.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:24 amRight. Be honest, if you asked about GW ten or fifteen years ago your subject would give you a blank stare. “Global what?†Please.
Comment by Goose
Probably true, since I was busy raising my sons, but I certainly was aware of problems with pollution and trying to do my part.
That doesn’t mean GW or climate change didn’t exist.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:25 amBlack beach. La Jolla if I remember. I remember that. Lots of naked people. Some love making by the cliffs. Been a long time since I was there.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:26 amWell, gotta go dudes, its been fun. Its midnight in MN and time for sleep.
For those of you who were willing to debate and trade a few light hits, I enjoyed it. We really can talk without resorting to slurs, and for those of you that felt slighted by something I said, know that I didnt intend to insult you.
You really should try to restrain the likes of jpark, people like him will turn this reasonable place into Little Green Footballs or the Democrat Underground. All that hate is going to burn you up, boy.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:31 amGoose, whatever, you are a toad. I am an openminded guy. Anybody that “debated” you was a fool.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:35 amhey jpark – that’s why i asked the question you assclown – maybe a genius such as yourself can enlighten me as to how they came to this conclusion – i’m not disputing whether or not it’s factual,just how they researched this
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:44 amdarth, can you call me an assclown again? I think I JUST MIGHT ANSWER you next time.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:54 amok assclown,how did they work it out?
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:00 amOh, darth, you are the man!!!!
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:03 amOr the woman, not sure which.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:04 amdarth, there are several methods that are used. We can take the measurments of the snow melt from the ice sheets and tell many things. The amount of oxygen, the temperature, and the humidity at that time. We can also get confirming information from tree rings, dirt layers, ocean sediment, and bones from animals that were instantly buried from volcanoes or landslides. There are even other methods that we can use to get tidbits of more information. Science has advanced a bit since King James had a bunch of gays rewrite his bible.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:07 ampaland, I respect you for actually bringing that on. The guy is a toad.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:10 amthank you paland – very informative intelligent reply
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:39 amyou’re welcome
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:42 ampaland, darth is a jag. Thanks :)
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:46 amSolar output has remained almost unchanged since the 70’s.
by caerbannog
False.
See Dr Judith Lean, IPCC author. TSI varies on 11-year cycles, spiked in the late 70’s but has been at it’s highest in the past 400 years. We are currently entering the peak of another cycle.
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:15 amLast autumn-winter season was Europe’s warmest for more than 700 years, researchers say. —- You mean, researchers guess?
—– WOW! We’ve been keeping weather temp. records for 700 years? Who knew?
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:21 amIf it was this warm in Europe 700 years ago…doesn’t that kinda argue for the theory that warming trends are cyclic?
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:24 amI mean, if it was this warm 700 years ago, and we’re still here…..what’s the worry?
I’m kinda figuring, based on this, that this will be an issue again in about, oh say…700 years. Give or take.
THey must have been buring ALOT of Co2 in 1298!
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:50 am#95 – Maybe instead of just throwing out the right-wing talking points you here you should read the conclusion of the Judith Lean article (below). BTW, this article was written more than 11 years ago. Warming has become even more pronounced since tehn.
“The rapid warming since 1970 is several times larger than that expected from any known or suspected effects of the Sun, and may already indicate the growing influence of atmospheric greenhouse gases on the Earth’s climate”
#97 – Yes, climate change can be cyclic over the long haul. But these changes happen over hundreds of years. What’s unprecedented is the rapid increase that we have seen in tempuratures over the last couple of decades. It’s getting worse and your solution is just to do nothing.
I really can’t understand why someone would so vehemently argue that we do nothing about a potentially huge problem like this.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:01 amThe hockey stick graph is a matter of fact. It was NOT inaccurate and the fixed satellite data just made it more accurate. The fact is the world is warming. Whether or not man is the cause, man will be the victim. We need to do what we can to keep it from making our world uninhabitable. Which it may well become in the lifetime of my grandchildren’s children.
Beyond that, even if there was no GW, it would be a good idea for the USA to become independent of foreign oil. It’s bad enough that we can’t guarantee that a tank in use by our Army was made in America or that computers that our government uses were made in America. Even much of the software is no longer made in America and almost none of it is maintained in this country. Most of our technology is outsourced even by the government. That puts us at the beck and call of China, India, East Asia and (in the future) Africa. If everyone who supplies us with the finished products that we need to survive were to stop because GW put them in fear for their own safety, we would be fucked. Thanks to government policies over the years, we can’t survive on our own anymore.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:30 am#99 – What’s unprecedented is the rapid increase that we have seen in tempuratures over the last couple of decades. — And I’m to suppose that you’re able to prove, inconclusively, that that’s not how it happened 700 yrs. ago?
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:41 amIt’s getting worse and your solution is just to do nothing. — That tactic seems to have worked well in 1298. Of course, I am assuming they didn’t have hybrid vehicles and carbon offsets. Let me do some more research on that one.
I really can’t understand why someone would so vehemently argue that we do nothing about a potentially huge problem like this. — Wow, settle down. Who’s being vehement here? I’m not arguing, I just don’t see the threat. Deep breaths, Vinnie, Deep breaths.
THey must have been buring ALOT of Co2 in 1298!
Comment by Roger_Roger — June 22, 2007 @ 9:50 am
How much you paying for gasoline Roger Rabbit? $1.15 a gallon yet?
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:07 amLet me do some more research on that one. Why bother? You’re clearly advocating a faith-based approach to understanding the issue….. kill a chicken, check the entrails, mumble some stuff with your eyes shut… give us some more guesses and tell us Jesus said so. Or you could read some science and become more educated.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:10 am#102 – You’re clearly advocating a faith-based approach to understanding the issue — How do you figure? My approach smacks of common sense, not faith. I never said anything along the lines of ‘Jesus said so’,
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:33 amOr you could read some science and become more educated.—
I just don’t see how science can clearly define this warming trend as just that..a trend, and now the Left wants everyone to panic and yell, “The sky is melting, the sky is melting.”
# 95 – We are currently entering the peak of another cycle — See, now the left can’t even agree. If we’re entering a ‘peak’, then settle down, wait a little while, and temps will start to drop off again. Again, where’s the reasoning behind the panic?
And more importantly, how in the heck do you suppose that anything humans do is gonna make a bit of difference? It’s akin to throwing daisies at a tank. Again, they did nothing to reverse the trend 700 years ago, and what do you know? Humans still aren’t extinct. You wanna hit the panic button, go ahead…I resent you’re insistence on dragging everyone along with you.
#100 – Does it bother you that your talking points are the same as those echoed by the big oil companies? – Just relax. There’s no problem. There’s no reason we can’t continue to overconsume oil like we have been. Don’t let those pesky environmentalists tell you how to live your life. You have the right to pollute all you want! BTW, we’re happy to report that we’ve just set a new record for quarterly profits thanks to the American people continuing their world-leading oil consumption habits. All those crazies have on their side is a bunch of scientists. We all know how inaccurate science can be.
—
Here’s from the American Meterological Society. I think these people know a little more about weather than roger_roger’s pea-brained comments. Doesn’t this sound like we should do something about it? I’m sorry a little activist soul bothers you so much. I get disgusted when I read SCIENTIFIC reports like the one below but my government does next to nothing to act on it.
“Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond. Focusing on the next 30 years, convergence among emission scenarios and model results suggest strongly that increasing air temperatures will reduce snowpack, shift snowmelt timing, reduce crop production and rangeland fertility, and cause continued melting of the ice caps and sea level rise. Important goals for future work include the need to understand the relation of climate at the state and regional level to the patterns of global climate and to reverse the decline in observational networks that are so critical to accurate climate monitoring and prediction.”
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:39 amProgressive response to Global Warming sounds alot like the Progressive response to World Over-Population a few years back… TOO MUCH OF YOU, just enough of me.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:43 am# 95 – We are currently entering the peak of another cycle — See, now the left can’t even agree. If we’re entering a ‘peak’, then settle down, wait a little while, and temps will start to drop off again. Again, where’s the reasoning behind the panic?
Comment by SGT Higgins — June 22, 2007 @ 11:33 am
Uh, that comment was posted by someone clearly on your side of the fence. It’s dishonest to label them as ‘the left’. Unfortunately, there is nothing ‘peak’ about the warming trend that we are now clearly in. It is going up and up. We are setting new tempurature records every year.
We are in danger of causing irreparable damage to our planet you tell everyone to just take a chill pill.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:45 amAnd more importantly, how in the heck do you suppose that anything humans do is gonna make a bit of difference? It’s akin to throwing daisies at a tank.
Comment by SGT Higgins — June 22, 2007 @ 11:33 am
Here’s one of the global warming sceptics key talking point – There’s nothing we can do anyway so why bother trying. Sorry, I just don’t share your sense of apathy and defeatism.
I take it you don’t have children. Or, if you do, sit down and tell them that you don’t think there’s a problem and, if the problems continue to get much worse over the new few decades, they’ll be left to deal with the mess we left behind. Have you no care for what we leave the next generation? Have you no sense or responsibility or stewardship?
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:49 am#69, # 95 — Settle, Edith. Not being dishonest, just ever so slightly mistaken. lol Although the comment does reference an expert(?) from an organization that you name in your earlier post (#69). So was Dr. Lean misquoted or are they not really as in consensus as you make them out to be.
there is nothing ‘peak’ about the warming trend that we are now clearly in. It is going up and up.–Yeah, that tends to happen, I would imagine, when ‘entering’ a peak.
And what do you make of this? Just curious. It seems like this institution has only surveyed 50 or so of these weather tracking sites so far with a little over 1000 to go. Can you acknowledge that this could influence weather data?
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:00 pmHow do you figure?
That’s easy.
That tactic seems to have worked well in 1298…My approach smacks of common sense, not faith.
Sorry that’s a false assumption based on flimsy collection of the facts. And common sense dictates that you ground those assumptions in some real science.
now the Left wants everyone to panic and yell, “The sky is melting, the sky is melting.â€
Why do you assume that this is a ‘Left’ issue? Define ‘Left’. Give you a clue – only in the US is this a ‘Left’ issue. The two right wing governments of Germany and France are on board with this issue – is Nicolas Sarkozy a raving pinko? Put away your political glasses for a second and look at the real world. Short of a few military juntas, this country is the most right-wing on the planet – the ‘center’ of American politics is distorted relative to therest of the world – and this is a world impacting issue, if it is a fact.
And more importantly, how in the heck do you suppose that anything humans do is gonna make a bit of difference? It’s akin to throwing daisies at a tank.
If you think that humans can’t make a bit of difference in affecting the solution to the warming trend, then you must also be in the camp of people who think humans couldn’t possibly be the cause. Please explain for us all then, the near doubling of atmospheric CO2, the prime mover in global temperature, since 1750 without using humans.
I just don’t see how science can clearly define this warming trend as just that..a trend, Sure there have been trends before… but none that we know of that can be explained by previous natural cycles by sun forcing, volcanic activity etc. THAT is the point.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:02 pmSorry, I just don’t share your sense of apathy and defeatism. — So, because I refuse to give in to alarmism that means I’m apathetic? I don’t deny the existence of global warming, I just don’t see the threat that you do.
I take it you don’t have children. —-4th (and last) due in Oct. (She wants to have more….I told her she’s more than welcome to, but I’m done!)
Or, if you do, sit down and tell them that you don’t think there’s a problem and, if the problems continue to get much worse over the new few decades, they’ll be left to deal with the mess we left behind. —- Look, I’m all about conserving energy, water, resources. Just don’t tell me that if I don’t send my kids into a blind panic that I’m setting them up for failure.
Have you no sense or responsibility or stewardship?
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:10 pm– Of course I do. I think that there are things that all of us can do to reduce waste and conserve energy…and even that we should. I just don’t think that any of it will make a friggin’ difference to the planet’s overall temp’s. But hey, If my family’s recycling bin and less frequent driving and lightbulbs that cost $14 each somehow make a difference, great. If not, well we sure did give it a go, huh?
But hey, If my family’s recycling bin and less frequent driving and lightbulbs that cost $14 each somehow make a difference, great. If not, well we sure did give it a go, huh?
Thought you said we couldn’t do anything about Global Warming? Or is this just a sop to the discussion?
Just don’t tell me that if I don’t send my kids into a blind panic that I’m setting them up for failure.
But you already have with this: And more importantly, how in the heck do you suppose that anything humans do is gonna make a bit of difference? It’s akin to throwing daisies at a tank.
So if I summarise your position:
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:24 pm(1) It happened in 1298 (even though you make no attempt to add some science to this assumption its just identical to you according to your gut? – it’s as good as saying that Jesus told you) and nothing bad happened – some Vikings made a poor relocation choice and that’s about it
(2) How can anyone say it’s a trend?
(3) There’s nothing we can do about it (with the obvious corollary that if we can’t do anything about it, we clearly couldn’t be the cause).
(4) Climate change is no big deal – the last Ice Age covered 1/3 of the land mass with miles of ice, but then no big deal, made for a nice couple of cartoon movies.
(5) And the ‘Left’ are defeatist and doomsayers and we shouldn’t burden our kids with it – besides we can’t do anything so why bother
(6) Conservation and waste management is a good thing because I really have no courage of my convictions above to begin with.
#109 – Sorry that’s a false assumption based on flimsy collection of the facts. And common sense dictates that you ground those assumptions in some real science. — Well it may be ‘off-the-cuff’, but my view here isn’t faith-based.
Why do you assume that this is a ‘Left’ issue? –Ask AL Gore. It’s not an ‘assumption’.
Short of a few military juntas, this country is the most right-wing on the planet – — I appreciate your opinion, but I’d have to seriously disagree with you on that one.
the ‘center’ of American politics is distorted relative to therest of the world — On this one, I couldn’t agree more.
then you must also be in the camp of people who think humans couldn’t possibly be the cause — Yep, ‘fraid so. Contributors? Likely. Sole source of the planet’s ruin? Not buyin’ it.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:26 pm“I don’t deny the existence of global warming, …”
Well, it sounds to me like you did. Anyway, I’m glad you’ve now come to agree that global warming is real.
“Look, I’m all about conserving energy, water, resources.”
Good. That’s the main thing the environmentalists today are advocating. I’m sure you’ll be behind increased CAFE standards and funding for alternative energy methods if that’s your real attitude.
“I think that there are things that all of us can do to reduce waste and conserve energy…and even that we should.”
Good. Then you should be behind many of the things that the environmentalists are advocating today.
If you really think there is no danger from global warming here’s a few articles to look over. I tried to pick sources like Time magazine since you can’t claim some ‘left’ bias.
Seriously, read these! You’ll find some quotes like “The percentage of Earth’s land area stricken by serious drought more than doubled from the 1970s to the early 2000s.” No, nothing to be alarmed about at all.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041004-702149,00.html
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10422273
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/drought_research.shtml
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-30-drought-usat_x.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6863557/
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/GlobalWarming/story?id=2115144
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1117/p04s01-usgn.html
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:34 pmthen you must also be in the camp of people who think humans couldn’t possibly be the cause — Yep, ‘fraid so. Contributors? Likely. Sole source of the planet’s ruin? Not buyin’ it.
Comment by SGT Higgins — June 22, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
Having your cake and eating it now? No we, can’t change it, yes, we’re contributors? Black is white, white is black!
— Well it may be ‘off-the-cuff’, but my view here isn’t faith-based.
Well then, let’s see your kung-fu, Mr Lee. 1298 warming period. Put your ‘cuff’ on the bench and tell us all why the science confirms that 1298 is the same as 2007. Still waiting to hear about your answer to the 1750-current run up in CO2 BTW you’ll need to address that in your response. If you’d also like to address why only a few people, like the Greenland Vikings will lose out this time, I’d be happy to see those projections too. I’m never happy with using my cuff.
— I appreciate your opinion, but I’d have to seriously disagree with you on that one.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:38 pmSubject for another time. You can bone up on my argument here, though: http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
Thought you said we couldn’t do anything about Global Warming? Or is this just a sop to the discussion? — Energy conservation and reducing waste are just right things to do. If it has a provable effect on global warming, I’d be surprised.
So if I summarise your position: — (Revised)
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:40 pm(1) It happened in 1298 and nothing bad happened. — That’s right.
(2) How can anyone say it’s a trend? — This is MY position? It is a trend…that’s the point.
(3) There’s nothing we can do about it — Oh we can do, but no, I don’t believe it’ll make a bit of difference.
(with the obvious corollary that if we can’t do anything about it, we clearly couldn’t be the cause). — That’s not an ‘obvious corollary’, that’s a huge jump in deductive reasoning. Assuming it can be defined as either ‘deductive’ or ‘reasoning’…Oh lighten up, I’m just ribbin’ ya.
(4) Climate change is no big deal – the last Ice Age covered 1/3 of the land mass with miles of ice, but then no big deal, —- Maybe global warming is the Earth’s evolutionary tactic to ward off the next ice age……See, it’s adapting to the threat of another impending ice age. It’s learned from the last one and will pass the ‘beat the ice age’ tactic onto it’s offspring.
made for a nice couple of cartoon movies. — Yeah, it did, didn’t it? (Ever see Iceman? That movie sucked so bad! LOL)
(5) And the ‘Left’ are defeatist and doomsayers — Not defeatist, but doomsayers? Yeah, to a degree.
and we shouldn’t burden our kids with it – besides we can’t do anything so why bother. —- Well, thanks for being honest. Oh, and if it’s all the same to you, keep your burdens off my kids before I call the cops.
(6) Conservation and waste management is a good thing — Agreed
because I really have no courage of my convictions above to begin with. — Disagreed.
#115 – And now you shift into an attitude of joking about the whole thing (point #4, #7).
The bottom line is that your arguing someone else’s (the oil companies) arguments and you’re just not making sense anymore. Like other trolls before you, your position moves all over as facts keep presenting problems to your line of reasoning.
Looking at how you’re presenting yourself (as someone who’s not against conservation measures but deems them ineffective) it’s very surprising that you would devote so much of your personal time to come here and argue against those that are advocating for solid action to combat the problem of global warming. I have a feeling there are other motives for your heavy participation on this thread.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:55 pm#115 – And now you shift into an attitude of joking about the whole thing— Well yeah. Follow some of the Right wing sites and you’ll see a lot of ’scientific evidence’ disputing glabal warming altogether. There’s even one guy out there who’s offered Al Gore $10,000 to debate him on the issue. (That ought to cover his electric bill for about 2 months)
your arguing someone else’s (the oil companies) arguments. — that’s right, Vinnie. I’m getting kickbacks. These are MY arguments, you wouldn’t have a problem if they were in line with YOURS.
you’re just not making sense anymore — My wife would probably tell you that this was inevitable.
your position moves all over as facts keep presenting problems to your line of reasoning– I disagree
argue against those that are advocating for solid action to combat the problem of global warming — Well advocate away! Maybe all your typing at your desk will reverse this negative trend the earth is experiencing.
I have a feeling there are other motives for your heavy participation on this thread — Oh this I gotta hear. You mean other than eating lunch?
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:09 pmThat’s right. Well if you were a Viking who thought it was warm enough to settle Greenland, they would beg to disagree – but they are all dead – starved I think.
This is MY position? It is a trend…that’s the point. A trend or a peak – should have made myself clear – a trend continues in the same direction – I assume (oops) that you think 1298 is just a temporary ‘trend’ with a peak and a subsequent trend back down again. So a cyclic peak, nothing more.
I don’t believe i Turn of phrase? Or faith-based argument? Oh and yes this is a cheap shot.
That’s not an ‘obvious corollary’, that’s a huge jump in deductive reasoning. Nope. Nothing huge about it. If there’s nothing I can do to change something, then I have had no power to create in the first place. Isaac Newton, laws of motion – if I can’t start a ball moving, then there’s no way I can stop it.
Your position is that climate change is caused by some ‘deus ex machina’ – you’ve shown no curiosity in the causes of climate change. So again, please address the question about atmospheric CO2 since 1750.
Let’s take a prior example – ozone concentrations in the upper atmosphere, PCPs and concerted world action to address the ‘hole’.
Earth’s evolutionary tactic to ward off the next ice age…… Nice to see we aren’t going to have to discuss evolution here. If you wish to anthropomorphize the Earth, some might argue that climate change is about dealing with the ‘human infection’. But the Wiccamists can play with those ideas. I’m not going there. But maybe losing a significant proportion of coastal landmass due to Greenland and Antarctic ice melt could be classed as a ‘bad thing’? For London, Shanghai, Holland, Bangladesh…. etc etc.
Well I have an errand to run. My mind feels sharper due to this discussion – but were your posts the cause?
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:11 pmOh this I gotta hear. You mean other than eating lunch? LOL I lost it there…
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:12 pm#109 – Please explain for us all then, the near doubling of atmospheric CO2, the prime mover in global temperature, since 1750 without using humans. — Well, I’m no scientist (and I’d venture a guess that neither are you) but if i had to guess? Population growth and the industrial revolution. Oh, and more cows (contributors to greenhouse gases). So maybe we can reverse this global warming by killing off, let’s say, 1/5 of the world’s population and living off the land and never using anything produced in a factory ever again. Sound good to you?
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:15 pm#117 – If there’s nothing I can do to change something, then I have had no power to create in the first place. — really? Jump off a cliff. Did you create the problem? Ok, now try changing it.
My mind feels sharper due to this discussion – but were your posts the cause? —- Well that’s the option I’m gonna go with! Btw, sharpening your mental acuity is my gift to you. Enjoy!
I gotta run too, It was fun. Take care.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:24 pmFalse.
See Dr Judith Lean, IPCC author. TSI varies on 11-year cycles, spiked in the late 70’s but has been at it’s highest in the past 400 years. We are currently entering the peak of another cycle.
Comment by hoo-koo-e-koo — June 22, 2007 @ 3:15 am
You don’t understand time-scales very well. Solar fluctuations have influenced climate on multi-century time-scales, but the recent warming on Earth has occurred over just a few decades. Average solar output has remained nearly unchanged over the past few decades, yet the Earth has warmed dramatically over that short time-period.
If you are going to try to argue that the 11-year sunspot cycle is somehow responsible for this , then you are going to have to provide evidence that the Earth’s temperature also has gone up and down during the most recent 11 year solar-cycles. But it hasn’t.
The bottom line is, the Sun’s output during the most recent 11-year peak is no greater than it was during the late ’70s peak. Yet the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically since the ’70s.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:52 pmThe Earth has experienced cycles of temperature variation over the last 400,000 years which include warmer periods and ice ages, but civilized human beings have not endured these changes. There appears some inevitability to the change in the world’s average temperatures based upon cyclical fluctuations seen in the historical data derived from samples of polar ice.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:23 pmThe reason our impact upon this change is significant is because the rate of change we are experiencing now is unprecedented in the last 15,000 years. This change is linked to the human activities which produce greenhouse gases. The primary statistical aberration with past cycles is the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.
terry the turtle – i agree with you – and by the way krapj assclown,jurg also released a global warming paper in 2004 saying that the hottest summer in europe was in 2003….so therefore the hottest summer to date in europe is not 2007 but i fact it is 2003…not 1209….jpark should get his facts together……ASS CLOWN JPARK – you really are a gay FUCK!!!
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:15 pmAnd global warming is not an issue. Man these people are shameless.
June 23rd, 2007 at 2:24 pm