NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Is the earth experiencing a global warming trend?

Yes it is - definitely and without question.

This doesn't mean their won't be cold snaps in future.

Factual reports AND views from other "credible scientists" that has been studying the earth's climate, don't agree with the concept of a steadily increasing man made global warming.

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

A new NASA study shows that from 1978 to 2010 the total extent of sea ice surrounding Antarctica in the Southern Ocean grew by roughly 6,600 square miles every year, an area larger than the state of Connecticut. And previous research by the same authors indicates that this rate of increase has recently accelerated, up from an average rate of almost 4,300 square miles per year from 1978 to 2006.

Yet we find this report about the earth's o-zone layer

John Vidal
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 4 November 2008


The ozone hole over Antarctica grew to the size of North America this year – the fifth largest on record – according to the latest satellite observations.

This supports the scientific evidence: that the rise and fall of the earth's temperatures more closely supports scientific research surrounding changes with the surface of the sun (sunspots), which plays the bigger role factor with regard to climate changes and the effects it has upon the earth.

 

[Mustang]

nice pics, but all of those areas are now clean and clear. Oil is a natural substance, it is oozing out of the seabed all the time. The gulf oil spill of 2010 is completely gone. the gulf is fine, fish, crabs, oysters, clams, shrimp etc are alive and good to eat.
None of those things caused the climate of the planet to change, to think otherwise is the height of arrogant stupidity.

Tar balls are still washing up on the beach from cracks in that sandstone layer. They test the tar balls to determine whether they are natural or from the oil spill.

You think a beach that isn't covered in oil from an oil spill is clean. That really makes sense.

tar balls have been washing up on the beaches for thousands of years. What I said is that the gulf has recovered from the BP oil spill. I live here, I saw it all in person, I know what is there today and what was there just after the spill. Yes, some birds, otters, fish, oysters were killed, but they have been replaced by other birds, otters, oysters, and fish.

Our planet heals itself, and it does a better job of it if we stay out of it.

You only see the surface. Hell, you only see the surface AT the shoreline. What's going on underneath the ocean on the sea bed and within the food chain is beyond your ability as a layperson to perceive.

Tell me, would you buy a house without a building inspection? And if a building inspector told you that a house was infested with termites, and because of that, the bldg was structurally unsound, would you dismiss his claims by stating that it was foolishness to believe that little itty bitty insects could structurally harm a man made structure? Or would you dismiss the notion that rust could destroy the structural integrity of a bridge made of reinforced concrete and steel?

 

[Saigon]

Shakles -

It can be confusing, I know. But I think this chart helps a lot:

btw. Note that the ozone hole is now getting smaller, thanks to the ban on CFC's.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Shakles -

It can be confusing, I know. But I think this chart helps a lot:

btw. Note that the ozone hole is now getting smaller, thanks to the ban on CFC's.

Yes, that's why Antarctic was never shrinking but growing despite ANY changes in the size of the earth's o-zone hole. Nice try, but obviously not all scientists share your view of this global warming "theory". As I said earlier, and have shown, there is a CYCLE to the earth's changes in temperatures, which reflects changes in the sun's surface.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Bluegrass Pundit: NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...


You mean liberals lied???? WHO FUCKIN KNEW?

Why would we believe some anti-global warming website spin what one person may or may not have said?

 

[Dubya]

Is the earth experiencing a global warming trend?

Yes it is - definitely and without question.

This doesn't mean their won't be cold snaps in future.

Factual reports AND views from other "credible scientists" that has been studying the earth's climate, don't agree with the concept of a steadily increasing man made global warming.

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

A new NASA study shows that from 1978 to 2010 the total extent of sea ice surrounding Antarctica in the Southern Ocean grew by roughly 6,600 square miles every year, an area larger than the state of Connecticut. And previous research by the same authors indicates that this rate of increase has recently accelerated, up from an average rate of almost 4,300 square miles per year from 1978 to 2006.

Yet we find this report about the earth's o-zone layer

John Vidal
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 4 November 2008


The ozone hole over Antarctica grew to the size of North America this year – the fifth largest on record – according to the latest satellite observations.

This supports the scientific evidence: that the rise and fall of the earth's temperatures more closely supports scientific research surrounding changes with the surface of the sun (sunspots), which plays the bigger role factor with regard to climate changes and the effects it has upon the earth.

The Earth is put together in ways that warming and cooling are amplified by feedback. The amount of radiative forcing for a cooling trend that leads to ice ages is very small, but it acts over a very long period of time. As the Earth approaches an ice age, greenhouse gases are reduced and the albedo effect reflects more sunlight. Cooling makes for less water vapor, the major greenhouse gas, but water vapor also makes clouds that relfect sunlight. As glaciers cover the surface, there is less evaporation and glaciers lock away the carbon from organic matter. In a nutshell, the Earth's energy budget is changed and the changes in solar radiation are amplified to make things cooler than just the slightly less solar radiation or warmer with slightly more solar radiation.

The Earth reached it's temperature maximum and started to cool. It lost the forests that once went all the way to the Arctic Ocean and that area became tundra which reflects a lot of sunlight when it's covered with snow. According to the evidence from ocean floor core samples, the area above Greenland towards the North Pole remained covered in sea ice during the Holocene Thermal Maximum. That's understandable because there were still the remains of the once massive glaciers to work on. I've seen documentaries of the changes in Greenland where they are growing food they couldn't grow before and how the loss of glacier ice has allowed the reindeer herds to go to places they couldn't get to before. The people who live in Greenland have seen the rapid changes. There are proposals to mine areas that were once covered in ice.

The fact is, it's absolutely ridiculous to claim the Earth hasn't been warming. That's not just denying science, it's denying reality. Denialistas go that route because once they admit the Earth is warming, then they are faced with the why is it warming. That was examined when the warming first started and of course scientists examined everything. The only explanation for the warming is an increase in greenhouse gases. Since aerosols cool the Earth, the more we use cleaner fuels, the more warming we will get from the increase in greenhouse gases.

 

[Redfish]

nice charts dub. but once again, what % of the atmosphere is CO2?

 

[Redfish]

You're probably referring to the "97% consensus" claim. It's a myth. Close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren’t buying it.
.

Really?

So it isn't true that of the 50 largest scientific organisations on earth - all 50 back climate change science?

I think we both know that it is true.

try to focus for just a minute-------everyone agrees that the climate is changing and has always been changing------------there is no consensus that man has ever had anything to do with it.

 

[Dubya]

nice charts dub. but once again, what % of the atmosphere is CO2?

What makes you think a small % can't do things? Would you like to test some nerve gas and prove your point? Even the smallest percentage of a greenhouse gas traps more heat than the large percentages of nitrogen and oxygen that aren't greenhouse gases. Only water traps more heat than CO2.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The Earth is put together in ways that warming and cooling are amplified by feedback. The amount of radiative forcing for a cooling trend that leads to ice ages is very small, but it acts over a very long period of time. As the Earth approaches an ice age, greenhouse gases are reduced and the albedo effect reflects more sunlight. Cooling makes for less water vapor, the major greenhouse gas, but water vapor also makes clouds that relfect sunlight. As glaciers cover the surface, there is less evaporation and glaciers lock away the carbon from organic matter. In a nutshell, the Earth's energy budget is changed and the changes in solar radiation are amplified to make things cooler than just the slightly less solar radiation or warmer with slightly more solar radiation.

The Earth reached it's temperature maximum and started to cool. It lost the forests that once went all the way to the Arctic Ocean and that area became tundra which reflects a lot of sunlight when it's covered with snow. According to the evidence from ocean floor core samples, the area above Greenland towards the North Pole remained covered in sea ice during the Holocene Thermal Maximum. That's understandable because there were still the remains of the once massive glaciers to work on. I've seen documentaries of the changes in Greenland where they are growing food they couldn't grow before and how the loss of glacier ice has allowed the reindeer herds to go to places they couldn't get to before. The people who live in Greenland have seen the rapid changes. There are proposals to mine areas that were once covered in ice.

The fact is, it's absolutely ridiculous to claim the Earth hasn't been warming. That's not just denying science, it's denying reality. Denialistas go that route because once they admit the Earth is warming, then they are faced with the why is it warming. That was examined when the warming first started and of course scientists examined everything. The only explanation for the warming is an increase in greenhouse gases. Since aerosols cool the Earth, the more we use cleaner fuels, the more warming we will get from the increase in greenhouse gases.

I know you would love to have us all believe that pollution created from the use of fissile fuels is the leading cause to the drastic impact upon the earth's temperature. However:

1) I have already shown how ice surrounding Antarctica GREW steadily and never shrank in the data provided between 1978 - 2010. This despite a GROWING hole in the o-zone as reported in an article dated in 2008. That debunks the o-zone belief that a depleting o-zone layer would cause the ice surrounding Antarctic to melt and the continent to shrink.

2) I provided data showing the temperatures in the United States PRIOR to the previous temperature data starting at only 1970. Putting it in perspective with a much large timeline, we find that temperatures were at it's highest around 1934.

With the use of steam battleships during World War II, the devastation of Pearl Harbor and the bombing of German's refineries bellowing all kinds of burning fossils fuels into the atmosphere, the temperatures in the United States plummeted. Add to that the development and the use of commercial jets and jet fighters, the Apollo missions, industrial factories and oil refineries, the temperatures were still LOWER than what was recorded back around 1934. Yet that period of history surrounding 1934 didn't have HALF the industry and fossils fuel usage as we do today, yet the temperature during that time were still recorded as being HIGHER than even the 80s and 90s. That doesn't support your fossil fuel man made global warming argument.

Again, it's the changes we see with respect to our sun which brings the biggest impact to our climate and the changes in our earth's temperature. It's really simple earth science that's been around a lot longer than this "man made" global warming trend.

 

[Dubya]

The Earth is put together in ways that warming and cooling are amplified by feedback. The amount of radiative forcing for a cooling trend that leads to ice ages is very small, but it acts over a very long period of time. As the Earth approaches an ice age, greenhouse gases are reduced and the albedo effect reflects more sunlight. Cooling makes for less water vapor, the major greenhouse gas, but water vapor also makes clouds that relfect sunlight. As glaciers cover the surface, there is less evaporation and glaciers lock away the carbon from organic matter. In a nutshell, the Earth's energy budget is changed and the changes in solar radiation are amplified to make things cooler than just the slightly less solar radiation or warmer with slightly more solar radiation.

The Earth reached it's temperature maximum and started to cool. It lost the forests that once went all the way to the Arctic Ocean and that area became tundra which reflects a lot of sunlight when it's covered with snow. According to the evidence from ocean floor core samples, the area above Greenland towards the North Pole remained covered in sea ice during the Holocene Thermal Maximum. That's understandable because there were still the remains of the once massive glaciers to work on. I've seen documentaries of the changes in Greenland where they are growing food they couldn't grow before and how the loss of glacier ice has allowed the reindeer herds to go to places they couldn't get to before. The people who live in Greenland have seen the rapid changes. There are proposals to mine areas that were once covered in ice.

The fact is, it's absolutely ridiculous to claim the Earth hasn't been warming. That's not just denying science, it's denying reality. Denialistas go that route because once they admit the Earth is warming, then they are faced with the why is it warming. That was examined when the warming first started and of course scientists examined everything. The only explanation for the warming is an increase in greenhouse gases. Since aerosols cool the Earth, the more we use cleaner fuels, the more warming we will get from the increase in greenhouse gases.

I know you would love to have us all believe that pollution created from the use of fissile fuels is the leading cause to the drastic impact upon the earth's temperature. However:

1) I have already shown how ice surrounding Antarctica GREW steadily and never shrank in the data provided between 1978 - 2010. This despite a GROWING hole in the o-zone as reported in an article dated in 2008. That debunks the o-zone belief that a depleting o-zone layer would cause the ice surrounding Antarctic to melt and the continent to shrink.

2) I provided data showing the temperatures in the United States PRIOR to the previous temperature data starting at only 1970. Putting it in perspective with a much large timeline, we find that temperatures were at it's highest around 1934.

With the use of steam battleships during World War II, the devastation of Pearl Harbor and the bombing of German's refineries bellowing all kinds of burning fossils fuels into the atmosphere, the temperatures in the United States plummeted. Add to that the development and the use of commercial jets and jet fighters, the Apollo missions, industrial factories and oil refineries, the temperatures were still LOWER than what was recorded back around 1934. Yet that period of history surrounding 1934 didn't have HALF the industry and fossils fuel usage as we do today, yet the temperature during that time were still recorded as being HIGHER than even the 80s and 90s. That doesn't support your fossil fuel man made global warming argument.

Again, it's the changes we see with respect to our sun which brings the biggest impact to our climate and the changes in our earth's temperature. It's really simple earth science that's been around a lot longer than this "man made" global warming fad.

You call cherry picking dates for an area that is 2% of the Earth's surface some kind of proof about global warming? If you don't have data for the whole Earth, then your data is meaningless. Data means all data and not cherry picking times to support what conclusion you want it to be.

You idiots are a victim of think tank propaganda that doesn't look at the facts or the science. There is no doubt that the Earth has been warming and the arctic sea ice will soon melt away during the melt season. Nearly all the multi-year sea ice is gone. We are no where near the end of our present warming trend. Some bullshit think tank isn't going to change that reality by printing a bunch of lies. You aren't going to avoid the consequences of that global warming, so get used to paying for it!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The Earth is put together in ways that warming and cooling are amplified by feedback. The amount of radiative forcing for a cooling trend that leads to ice ages is very small, but it acts over a very long period of time. As the Earth approaches an ice age, greenhouse gases are reduced and the albedo effect reflects more sunlight. Cooling makes for less water vapor, the major greenhouse gas, but water vapor also makes clouds that relfect sunlight. As glaciers cover the surface, there is less evaporation and glaciers lock away the carbon from organic matter. In a nutshell, the Earth's energy budget is changed and the changes in solar radiation are amplified to make things cooler than just the slightly less solar radiation or warmer with slightly more solar radiation.

The Earth reached it's temperature maximum and started to cool. It lost the forests that once went all the way to the Arctic Ocean and that area became tundra which reflects a lot of sunlight when it's covered with snow. According to the evidence from ocean floor core samples, the area above Greenland towards the North Pole remained covered in sea ice during the Holocene Thermal Maximum. That's understandable because there were still the remains of the once massive glaciers to work on. I've seen documentaries of the changes in Greenland where they are growing food they couldn't grow before and how the loss of glacier ice has allowed the reindeer herds to go to places they couldn't get to before. The people who live in Greenland have seen the rapid changes. There are proposals to mine areas that were once covered in ice.

The fact is, it's absolutely ridiculous to claim the Earth hasn't been warming. That's not just denying science, it's denying reality. Denialistas go that route because once they admit the Earth is warming, then they are faced with the why is it warming. That was examined when the warming first started and of course scientists examined everything. The only explanation for the warming is an increase in greenhouse gases. Since aerosols cool the Earth, the more we use cleaner fuels, the more warming we will get from the increase in greenhouse gases.

I know you would love to have us all believe that pollution created from the use of fissile fuels is the leading cause to the drastic impact upon the earth's temperature. However:

1) I have already shown how ice surrounding Antarctica GREW steadily and never shrank in the data provided between 1978 - 2010. This despite a GROWING hole in the o-zone as reported in an article dated in 2008. That debunks the o-zone belief that a depleting o-zone layer would cause the ice surrounding Antarctic to melt and the continent to shrink.

2) I provided data showing the temperatures in the United States PRIOR to the previous temperature data starting at only 1970. Putting it in perspective with a much large timeline, we find that temperatures were at it's highest around 1934.

With the use of steam battleships during World War II, the devastation of Pearl Harbor and the bombing of German's refineries bellowing all kinds of burning fossils fuels into the atmosphere, the temperatures in the United States plummeted. Add to that the development and the use of commercial jets and jet fighters, the Apollo missions, industrial factories and oil refineries, the temperatures were still LOWER than what was recorded back around 1934. Yet that period of history surrounding 1934 didn't have HALF the industry and fossils fuel usage as we do today, yet the temperature during that time were still recorded as being HIGHER than even the 80s and 90s. That doesn't support your fossil fuel man made global warming argument.

Again, it's the changes we see with respect to our sun which brings the biggest impact to our climate and the changes in our earth's temperature. It's really simple earth science that's been around a lot longer than this "man made" global warming fad.

You call cherry picking dates for an area that is 2% of the Earth's surface some kind of proof about global warming? If you don't have data for the whole Earth, then your data is meaningless. Data means all data and not cherry picking times to support what conclusion you want it to be.

You idiots are a victim of think tank propaganda that doesn't look at the facts or the science. There is no doubt that the Earth has been warming and the arctic sea ice will soon melt away during the melt season. Nearly all the multi-year sea ice is gone. We are no where near the end of our present warming trend. Some bullshit think tank isn't going to change that reality by printing a bunch of lies. You aren't going to avoid the consequences of that global warming, so get used to paying for it!

Do you think the United States was Saudi Arabia, and everywhere else just happened to reflect much cooler temperatures? Then you are the idiot with much more to prove. However if you feel better "cherry picking" off YOUR selective data using a much smaller timeline segment to obscure the research towards your cause, by all means. However, if you can't provide any data from a much broader timeline (prior to 1970) to prove your point, scientific temperature data which conflicts with mine, your information and bickering is meaningless.

Sorry you can't provide any information to counter the o-zone / Antarctica findings, but then again I don't believe in all this hype, that man plays a much bigger fault role in all our temperature problems than the simply looking to the cycles of the sun.


BTW, the data I provided parallels the increases in temperature after yours FOLLOWING 1970, thank you very much.

 

[bripat9643]

You're probably referring to the "97% consensus" claim. It's a myth. Close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren’t buying it.
.

Really?

So it isn't true that of the 50 largest scientific organisations on earth - all 50 back climate change science?

I think we both know that it is true.

Trying to change the subject? We were discussing the cultist claim that 97% of scientist agree that man is causing the bulk of the temperature increase since that beginning of the industrial revolution. That claim is sheer bullshit.

The warmist cult members always lie or misrepresent the data. This is just one more example.

 

[Mustang]

You're probably referring to the "97% consensus" claim. It's a myth. Close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren’t buying it.
.

Really?

So it isn't true that of the 50 largest scientific organisations on earth - all 50 back climate change science?

I think we both know that it is true.

try to focus for just a minute-------everyone agrees that the climate is changing and has always been changing------------there is no consensus that man has ever had anything to do with it.

What's your idea of consensus? Let me guess. It's conservatives agreeing, right?

 

[ima]

Really?

So it isn't true that of the 50 largest scientific organisations on earth - all 50 back climate change science?

I think we both know that it is true.

try to focus for just a minute-------everyone agrees that the climate is changing and has always been changing------------there is no consensus that man has ever had anything to do with it.

What's your idea of consensus? Let me guess. It's conservatives agreeing, right?

A consensus is like "being warm is better than being cold", something we can all agree on. So why doesn't everyone agree that global warming is good?

 

[Dubya]

I know you would love to have us all believe that pollution created from the use of fissile fuels is the leading cause to the drastic impact upon the earth's temperature. However:

1) I have already shown how ice surrounding Antarctica GREW steadily and never shrank in the data provided between 1978 - 2010. This despite a GROWING hole in the o-zone as reported in an article dated in 2008. That debunks the o-zone belief that a depleting o-zone layer would cause the ice surrounding Antarctic to melt and the continent to shrink.

2) I provided data showing the temperatures in the United States PRIOR to the previous temperature data starting at only 1970. Putting it in perspective with a much large timeline, we find that temperatures were at it's highest around 1934.

With the use of steam battleships during World War II, the devastation of Pearl Harbor and the bombing of German's refineries bellowing all kinds of burning fossils fuels into the atmosphere, the temperatures in the United States plummeted. Add to that the development and the use of commercial jets and jet fighters, the Apollo missions, industrial factories and oil refineries, the temperatures were still LOWER than what was recorded back around 1934. Yet that period of history surrounding 1934 didn't have HALF the industry and fossils fuel usage as we do today, yet the temperature during that time were still recorded as being HIGHER than even the 80s and 90s. That doesn't support your fossil fuel man made global warming argument.

Again, it's the changes we see with respect to our sun which brings the biggest impact to our climate and the changes in our earth's temperature. It's really simple earth science that's been around a lot longer than this "man made" global warming fad.

You call cherry picking dates for an area that is 2% of the Earth's surface some kind of proof about global warming? If you don't have data for the whole Earth, then your data is meaningless. Data means all data and not cherry picking times to support what conclusion you want it to be.

You idiots are a victim of think tank propaganda that doesn't look at the facts or the science. There is no doubt that the Earth has been warming and the arctic sea ice will soon melt away during the melt season. Nearly all the multi-year sea ice is gone. We are no where near the end of our present warming trend. Some bullshit think tank isn't going to change that reality by printing a bunch of lies. You aren't going to avoid the consequences of that global warming, so get used to paying for it!

Do you think the United States was Saudi Arabia, and everywhere else just happened to reflect much cooler temperatures? Then you are the idiot with much more to prove. However if you feel better "cherry picking" off YOUR selective data using a much smaller timeline segment to obscure the research towards your cause, by all means. However, if you can't provide any data from a much broader timeline (prior to 1970) to prove your point, scientific temperature data which conflicts with mine, your information and bickering is meaningless.

Sorry you can't provide any information to counter the o-zone / Antarctica findings, but then again I don't believe in all this hype, that man plays a much bigger fault role in all our temperature problems than the simply looking to the cycles of the sun.


BTW, the data I provided parallels the increases in temperature after yours FOLLOWING 1970, thank you very much.

NOAA uses NCDC data which is the most reliable in the world. The continental US is 2% of the world's surface and isn't representative of the whole world. Notice the data on the charts is similar but different.

You are an idiot if you think we haven't been measuring solar cycles and there is no solar cycle to explain our present warming trend. The only thing needed is to produce a radiative force stronger than the weak radiative forcing us to the next ice age. The amount of solar radiation change in a hundred years isn't that much, so the force is weak over short periods of time.

 

[Mustang]

The Earth is put together in ways that warming and cooling are amplified by feedback. The amount of radiative forcing for a cooling trend that leads to ice ages is very small, but it acts over a very long period of time. As the Earth approaches an ice age, greenhouse gases are reduced and the albedo effect reflects more sunlight. Cooling makes for less water vapor, the major greenhouse gas, but water vapor also makes clouds that relfect sunlight. As glaciers cover the surface, there is less evaporation and glaciers lock away the carbon from organic matter. In a nutshell, the Earth's energy budget is changed and the changes in solar radiation are amplified to make things cooler than just the slightly less solar radiation or warmer with slightly more solar radiation.

The Earth reached it's temperature maximum and started to cool. It lost the forests that once went all the way to the Arctic Ocean and that area became tundra which reflects a lot of sunlight when it's covered with snow. According to the evidence from ocean floor core samples, the area above Greenland towards the North Pole remained covered in sea ice during the Holocene Thermal Maximum. That's understandable because there were still the remains of the once massive glaciers to work on. I've seen documentaries of the changes in Greenland where they are growing food they couldn't grow before and how the loss of glacier ice has allowed the reindeer herds to go to places they couldn't get to before. The people who live in Greenland have seen the rapid changes. There are proposals to mine areas that were once covered in ice.

The fact is, it's absolutely ridiculous to claim the Earth hasn't been warming. That's not just denying science, it's denying reality. Denialistas go that route because once they admit the Earth is warming, then they are faced with the why is it warming. That was examined when the warming first started and of course scientists examined everything. The only explanation for the warming is an increase in greenhouse gases. Since aerosols cool the Earth, the more we use cleaner fuels, the more warming we will get from the increase in greenhouse gases.

I know you would love to have us all believe that pollution created from the use of fissile fuels is the leading cause to the drastic impact upon the earth's temperature. However:

1) I have already shown how ice surrounding Antarctica GREW steadily and never shrank in the data provided between 1978 - 2010. This despite a GROWING hole in the o-zone as reported in an article dated in 2008. That debunks the o-zone belief that a depleting o-zone layer would cause the ice surrounding Antarctic to melt and the continent to shrink.

2) I provided data showing the temperatures in the United States PRIOR to the previous temperature data starting at only 1970. Putting it in perspective with a much large timeline, we find that temperatures were at it's highest around 1934.

With the use of steam battleships during World War II, the devastation of Pearl Harbor and the bombing of German's refineries bellowing all kinds of burning fossils fuels into the atmosphere, the temperatures in the United States plummeted. Add to that the development and the use of commercial jets and jet fighters, the Apollo missions, industrial factories and oil refineries, the temperatures were still LOWER than what was recorded back around 1934. Yet that period of history surrounding 1934 didn't have HALF the industry and fossils fuel usage as we do today, yet the temperature during that time were still recorded as being HIGHER than even the 80s and 90s. That doesn't support your fossil fuel man made global warming argument.

Again, it's the changes we see with respect to our sun which brings the biggest impact to our climate and the changes in our earth's temperature. It's really simple earth science that's been around a lot longer than this "man made" global warming trend.

Aerosols in the form of particulates (like black carbon suspended in the air for relatively short periods of time from fires, for example) actually reflect solar radiation back into space. Or didn't you know that?

 

[Redfish]

CO2 = .039% of the earth's atmosphere. It was .039 % in 2012 and .039% in 50,000 BC.

Man is not changing the earth's climate by exhaling and burning fossil fuels.

Al Gore LIED to you. The AGW idiots are LYING to you. Try to engage your brains on this topic.

 

[Decus]

Look at the graph to see the evidence of global warming - Telegraph

Too funny!

 

[Redfish]

Really?

So it isn't true that of the 50 largest scientific organisations on earth - all 50 back climate change science?

I think we both know that it is true.

try to focus for just a minute-------everyone agrees that the climate is changing and has always been changing------------there is no consensus that man has ever had anything to do with it.

What's your idea of consensus? Let me guess. It's conservatives agreeing, right?

not at all, consensus is a majority opinion.