[Deuce]

In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the next century, slightly under 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.[2] The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, although Paul R. Ehrlich mentions climate change from the greenhouse gases in 1968.By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s, the temperature trend had stopped going down, and there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's effects. It was known that both natural and man-made effects caused variations in global climate.


Oh no, say it ain't so.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Originally Posted by Deuce

Are we living any different now than we were 200 years ago?

-Ice sheets in Greenland have not receded since 1940.

-Global temperatures dropped by 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit between 1940 and 1972. (NASA, Gobbard Institute for Space Studies)

-Punta Arenas, the city closest to Antarctica, has experienced a decrease of 1.0 degree Fahrenheit since 1888. (NASA, Gobbard Institute for Space Studies)

-The temperature in the interior of Antarctica has slightly decreased with an increase of sea ice. (It is also interesting to note that Antarctica has actually been melting for the past 6,000 years.) (Science)


-Sea levels are rising, but at the same rate that they have been rising for the past 6,000 years. (Center for Space Research: The University of Texas at Austin)


-The number of hurricanes in the United States peaked at 23 from 1940-1949, whereas the number of hurricanes per decade from 1970-1999 rested at about 14. (National Hurricane Center)

Need I go on? I take it Al Gore is your hero.

1. Directly from NASA's website: Her much-anticipated results showed a net mass loss for the ice sheet of 248 gigatons per year—enough to raise sea level about half a millimeter each year. (A gigaton is one billion metric tons, the mass of a cube of water that is 1 kilometer wide, tall, and deep.) Although other NASA researchers published similar findings shortly after Velicogna, these GRACE results showed a significantly larger loss—four to five times more ice loss—than most estimates that scientists had published before hers, based on different data from the 1990s through 2003.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Stu...reenland4.html

2.





I voted for Bush in his first term, genius. Yeah I'm a die hard liberal. Get a clue.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Originally Posted by Deuce

In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the next century, slightly under 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.[2] The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, although Paul R. Ehrlich mentions climate change from the greenhouse gases in 1968.By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s, the temperature trend had stopped going down, and there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's effects. It was known that both natural and man-made effects caused variations in global climate.


Oh no, say it ain't so.

Wikipedia huh? Credible source. No misinformation on that site. So what's your point? That we've recently found the link between carbon dioxide content and global temperatures? So what? What are you so scared of? It's just mind blowing that some people would be against ensuring our impact on nature is minimized and that our future generations are not threatened by our ignorance and carelessness. Or are you just thick-headed and don't want to cave to "liberal policies"? Makes absolutely no sense why you wouldn't support green technologies...

[head_strong]

Sell.....temporary solution for a longterm problem.

[bigboydan]

Originally Posted by head_strong

Sell.....temporary solution for a longterm problem.

Then why not take the temporary fix while they work on the long term solution. Seems like the logical choice to me.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Because it does minimal good. The risk vs. the reward is far too much. It is a solution that will not affect gasoline prices more than 5 cents. Why not put that money toward the solution and expedite it instead?

[head_strong]

Originally Posted by MonkeyF0cker

Because it does minimal good. The risk vs. the reward is far too much. It is a solution that will not affect gasoline prices more than 5 cents. Why not put that money toward the solution and expedite it instead?

[element1286]

Originally Posted by MonkeyF0cker

1. Directly from NASA's website: Her much-anticipated results showed a net mass loss for the ice sheet of 248 gigatons per year—enough to raise sea level about half a millimeter each year. (A gigaton is one billion metric tons, the mass of a cube of water that is 1 kilometer wide, tall, and deep.) Although other NASA researchers published similar findings shortly after Velicogna, these GRACE results showed a significantly larger loss—four to five times more ice loss—than most estimates that scientists had published before hers, based on different data from the 1990s through 2003.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Stu...reenland4.html

2.





I voted for Bush in his first term, genius. Yeah I'm a die hard liberal. Get a clue.

What about the billions of years the earth existed before 1860? Or what about the fact that the graphs is just as far below the mean in the in the 1800's and early 1900's as it is above the mean in the late 1900's?

[MonkeyF0cker]

The point is there is a causal relationship to the temperature of the Earth. Ice cores can tell us the historical relationship between CO2 content and atmospheric temperature and it has proven to be a symbiotic relationship. There have been no significant natural phenomena to cause this shift in temperature that coincide with the current upward trend. All volcanic activity is monitored. So what exactly is causing this? It must be human influence.

[englishmike]

sell

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...al-Motors.html

[reno cool]

Everything in the US is designed to increase coorporate profit without any regards to national interest or people's needs. __________________


Pavy, your right on alot of . Howd you get so smart?

of course there are certain people they're concerned with. Themselves, their families and friends. It's kind of a mafia. Right Pauly ?

[Cappy]

The oil prices right now are an economic construct. It's not that we're paying the price that it costs because oil is getting expensive, we are paying the price that our wallets will allow us to, because that's what the price becomes. Before now we didn't realize how dependent on oil we were. We need to collectively reduce our dependence on oil and move on. The price will meet the demand and that's that. On the Alaska thing, it actually is feasible, but still an unnecessary measure and will have very little effect on our oil prices