No change in Earths tempature from 1998-2005

*****************
Why are you arguing about what somebody says was the hottest year? Just look at the the record here:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsGISTEMP.htm

The red curve is the earth's surface temperature Goddard Institute of Space studies (GISS). The blue curve is satellite measurements, University Alabama Huntsville (UAH). As you see both records say 1998 was the hottest. The reason of course is that 1998 was an especially strong el Nino year..

One further thing. The author Joseph Florence is from the Earth Policy Institute, founded by Lester Brown, an advocacy group, which opposes coomom-sense genetic food modification.

 

Junk Science is extremely biased website which in effect makes it lose it's credibility.

 

I think there really isn't enough scientific data to prove that global warming is happening or isn't happening. However, for all those who argue that "even if we're wrong, at least we'll have cleaner cars", think about this: Millions of dollars have been spent to pass laws aimed to cut Co2 emissions. If in the end global warming turns out to be B.S., think of all that money that could have gone to help 3rd world countries, like clean water and electricity, or even helping the environment in other ways, like planting forests...

 

Think of all the money we spend on stuff that could go to 3rd world countries. Is the tons of money we spend to fund NASA really a neccesity? 100's of billion on a war. In fact almost everything we spend could go a ton further if it was given to 3rd world countries. So i don't believe its fair to say that, Without speaking out against almost everything the government and ourselves spend our money on. (like your computer) But if it isn't B.S.?

 

AH HA HA HA HA HA!!!! A RACKET!! I love it. The racket may be scientists getting research money for global warming studies, but why are there so many studies saying it is happening. Are there no scientists out there wanting to get into the racket by getting research money to do studies to show it isn't. Or maybe there are! They just don't have anything to report.

Let's get down to the real truth here OK? Admit it. You're just pissed cause you can't sell your Lincoln Navigator right? j/k? Meanwhile the car companies are trying to convince us that 30mpg is good. And the morons in the white house (sorry white house is not worthy of capital letters at this time) are trying to tell us we need to end our dependence on foreign oil, when the reality is we need to be ending our dependence on oil. Period!

They say like minds tend to gravitate towards each other. Maybe you could make some friends over at this site.

As for you NASA funding naysayers, here is a small sample of spinoff technology from NASA funding. You can thank them when early diagnosis of breast cancer due to imaging tecchnolgy developed from NASA programs, saves someone you love. Or maybe you think breast imaging is a racket too? Here is more on spinoffs from NASA Technology from the NASA publication titled Spinoff. You can read all the issues for the last 10 years.

A racket! You can crack me up, but you can't make me fall! I got a grip! The only GW I can think of that's a racket is the presidency of GW Bush.

 

j/k = just kidding. not just lying. In the end we'll just have to wait and see. Myself personally, I could care less if So. Florida is under water someday, as frozen tundra defrosts and dumps massive amounts of methane, previously trapped in the permafrost, into the air, further accelerating what's happening.

Because they are!

 

Did I ruffle your feathers? My apologies. From all the evidence I've seen or read about, I can't help but think anyone who doesn't see it for what it is, is either naive beyond belief or has a financial interest in disproving it. Which one are you?

 

Just curious, where does the above information come from? Do you have a source?

Thanks.

 

have you ever considered promoting the use of "tomacco"?

 

I think that until I conduct my own 50 year experiment, I am not going to trust anyone who says global warming does or does not exist

just because 2005 was the hottest year, does not mean that it is increasing
or maybe it is, but it just fluctuates, I would have to see the data for each year, before making any decisions based on that data..

and even if it is increasing, how do we know it is because of us?
there is no way to accurately prove it, unless we get a different earth, with no people on it, study that and compare
science nowadays seems to becoming more of a form of politics - 90% bullshit

 

"You're telling me that fifty million screaming fans are never wrong
I'm telling you that fifty million screaming fans are fucking morons" - Mindless Self Indulgence, You'll Rebel To Anything (As Long As It's Not Challenging)

just because a whole bunch of people believe it doesn't make it true

compare Christianity, Hinduism, and Judiasm
they can't all be true

 

An e-mail I got from NASA today.

DC Agle 818-393-9011

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena , Calif .



Erica Hupp/Dwayne Brown 202-358-1237/1726

NASA Headquarters, Washington



NEWS RELEASE: 2006-107 September 13, 2006



NASA Sees Rapid Changes in Arctic Sea Ice



NASA data show that Arctic perennial sea ice, which normally survives the summer melt season and remains year-round, shrunk abruptly by 14 percent between 2004 and 2005. According to researchers, the loss of perennial ice in the East Arctic Ocean was even higher, nearing 50 percent during that time as some of the ice moved from the East Arctic to the West.



The overall decrease in winter Arctic perennial sea ice totals 720,000 square kilometers (280,000 square miles) -- an area the size of Texas . Perennial ice can be 3 or more meters (10 or more feet) thick. It was replaced by new, seasonal ice only about 0.3 to 2 meters (one to seven feet) thick that is more vulnerable to summer melt.



The decrease in the perennial ice raises the possibility that Arctic sea ice will retreat to another record low extent this year. This follows a series of very low ice-cover years observed over the past four summers from active and passive microwave satellite data.



A team led by Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena , Calif. , used NASA's QuikScat satellite to measure the extent and distribution of perennial and seasonal sea ice in the Arctic . While the total area of all the Arctic sea ice was stable in winter, the distribution of seasonal and perennial sea ice changed significantly.



"Recent changes in Arctic sea ice are rapid and dramatic," said Nghiem. "If the seasonal ice in the East Arctic Ocean were to be removed by summer melt, a vast ice-free area would open up. Such an ice-free area would have profound impacts on the environment, as well as on marine transportation and commerce."



The researchers are examining what caused the rapid decrease in the perennial sea ice. Data from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction, Boulder , Colo. , suggest that winds pushed perennial ice from the East to the West Arctic Ocean (primarily located above North America) and significantly moved ice out of the Fram Strait , an area located between Greenland and Spitsbergen , Norway . This movement of ice out of the Arctic is a different mechanism for ice shrinkage than the melting of Arctic sea ice, but it produces the same results - a reduction in the amount of perennial Arctic sea ice.



Researchers indicate that if the sea ice cover continues to decline, the surrounding ocean will get warmer, further accelerating summer ice melts and impeding fall freeze-ups. This longer melt season will, in turn, further diminish the Arctic ice cover.



Nghiem cautioned the recent Arctic changes are not well understood and many questions remain. "It's vital that we continue to closely monitor this region, using both satellite and surface-based data," he said.



This is one of three sea ice study results being released today by NASA. These findings are the result of a new study by NASA; the U.S. Army Cold Region Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover , N.H. ; and the National Ice Center, Washington, D.C. Study results are published in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters.



For more information about QuikScat, visit:



http://winds.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/quikscat/index.cfm



For more information about NASA and agency programs, visit:



http://www.nasa.gov


Believe what you want. But I think you are the one who is deluded.

 

Well the bottom line is if they're right and we do nothing, we're in deep doodoo. If they are wrong then we all have cleaner air to breathe and more renewable sources of energy. You don't have to be a pinhead to figure out which is the better course of action. I'll be long dead and gone by the time the shit comes down, if it does. I'm more into it for my kids sake.

 

i do not believe that.

 

That has nothing to do with Pascal's Wager. What does believing in or not believing in a god have to do with climactic change? Whether you believe in global warming or not, are you gonna tell me that mans activity has no effect on the planet?

 

mans activity is not that important. yes we killed shit. but time has made more animals extinct then we could ever hope to kill. Climactic change , it happens, we have been blessed to live in the space between ice ages, and now its tim for the earth to do its thing. Thank that wich you give credit to that you were born in the mildest 50000 years in the last 26000000. but keep whining. it will amuse god.

 

Sequestration is a great way to reduce CO2 emissions anyways. 2 birds one stone.

 

damn good point

 

actually if you go and see "an inconvenient truth" you will see that global warming today is a massive anomaly that stands out over a 300,000 - 400, 000 year period, it is unprecedented in ice records.
don't stick to one truth in your mind , if someone comes along and asks you to consider what you know then consider it.
go and see the film

 

If you look at the global temperatures graph in this link, you'll see that there's been a stair-stepping effect for the last 20 or so years & that, although '98 through '00 was fairly flat on the graph, the upturn has already begun again.

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm

For all of you people who still think global warming is a left-wing conspiracy theory, or a part of Earth's natural cycles, I'd like to know what it would take to convince you that global warming is real, manmade, and poses a real threat to the planet? Are you REALLY being sensibly skeptical, or are you just scared to face up to the fact that you might have to start taking responsibility for the way you live your lives?