nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

There are many, many more if you'd car to google it a bit.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I also believe we are to be good stewards of the earth. I just don't believe throwing trillions of dollars at failed policies, should say failed politicians will do any good.

Tyster

A startling statistic.. the sky must be falling! Oh my gosh... temperatures (globally) were slightly higher than the 20th Century average.

One MAJOR problem. During the 70's the global warming crowd was running around like scared chickens telling us we were approaching a new ice age... based on recurrent low temperatures. Soooooo... maybe this year's "warmth" is bringing us back to the long term average (only measuring from 1880 is relatively short term)!

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

The hottest summer since 1880 is a bit different than hotter than the 20th century average. Hottest ever. That is, hottest ever. Ever since we've been recording it. And the 70's. Quite a bit better science than 40yrs ago, don't ya think?

Tyster

Hottest ever? So weather only started in 1880? Are you really that intellectually dishonest?

So, from your comment I deduce that the claims from 40 years ago were based on inexact temperature calculations, but now they are totally accurate. If the temperature determinations from 40 years ago were flawed, what could we say about the reliability of figures from 134 yrs. ago?

My point was that since recorded temperature variations have only been recorded for 134 years, we really don't know what a true average temperature is... only the average of the 134 years. The 20th Century could have been a "cold" period... and the current warming is only bringing the long term numbers back to the true average. Maybe they are higher - but we don't know that from the limited accumulation of data that we have available.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Dude, I won't lecture you on the other methods used to determine temps from before we were measuring them. Its a bit more complex than that. As to being intellectually dishonest, did you not read what I said "ever since we were recording temps"? Read it again, one word at a time and try to remember that consecutive sentences often are linked thru meaning and context.

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

I apologize for not providing links to my information. I can't get to my computer due to a surgery and instead use a smartphone that doesn't cut and paste, or if it does...I don't know how to do that.

I've been reading various articles on climate change on the internet. Two of them on FireWire. Glenn Beck's online news service.

According to one article, the artic ice cap shrinking is offset by the increase in antarctic polar cap mass. It appears that this is a normal and continual earth adjustment.

The other article was extremely informative. It stated that the earth's measured and documented warming has in fact slowed down over the past 25 years. It looked at ocean levels and found them static. It also noted that man's total world influence regarding carbon dioxide runs 1-'2% and that 95% of the carbon dioxide atmospheric content comes from ocean water vapor.

It said that proponents of climate change are looking at too small a time frame because records have only been kept since 1880. A much more lengthy time frame is needed to have any chance of accuracy because planetary balance is ongoing and there just are not enough years of evidence to predict the future. Minor deviations in weather patterns look significant when viewed on a short term but when viewed using a geological time scale are quite normal. This article also stated that any change in golbal temperature is primarily and directly related to solar activity.

A third article and satellite photo actually documented the shrinking of the hole in the oxone layer.

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

The problem here is that you cannot say the climate has never changed at this fast a rate. I don't think you get that.

You can say that the climate has not changed at this fast a rate during the past 134 years. That would be a fair statement because we have only been keeping track for that long. Fair, but wrong.

In reality, the global temperature rise has actually slowed during the past 25 years. It's a matter of record.

134 years of record keeping just isn't close to enough time of record keeping and analysis to predict weather on a global scale. Several thousands of years perhaps. 134, no. We just do not have enough raw data and in fact there are now data coming in that indicates we may be approaching a mini ice age which totally destroys the global warming theory.

The fact is that the weather is powerfully controlled by how much energy the earth's surface is being exposed to.

If you need to fret about a real potential catyclism look into the results of a super volcanoes eruption involving the Yellowstone cauldera.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Here's a link to NASA. These are the guys who put a man on the moon and stimulated the development of virtually every technology we have developed in the past forty years. Try to read the whole thing, especially the part about compelling evidence for the "rapid" warming of the earth. Yes, you might find a fringe of scientists who would dispute this or cite other articles of lesser scientific strength, but that would be a fringe and also political conservatives who think its a political issue. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

NASA is also run by appointees who must tow the present party line for funding. Remember the number one goal for NASA under this administration is Muslim outreach.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

And thus your true self shines thru. LOLOLOLOL!!!!! Been reading the Onion again?

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Are you saying Obama never said this?

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Yes. Obama never said that. Rush dimburger (Limbaugh) implied it. Fox news prob later twisted it. But Obama did not say it.

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

Good information, thanks.

It is interesting that you consider NASA to be your credible source.

Would this be the same NASA that Obama has crippled? I wonder how far they would go to please him considering. ....

Now about "fringe scientists". There were more than 1,000 geoscientists canvassed by Gore regarding global warming-climate change, whichever is your preferred buzz word. Slightly more than 70 said anything that could even remotely agree with him and even then they used the word "could". 70+ out of 1,000+. So much for "fringe".

As for CO2 emission......as stated, 95% comes from ocean water vapor.

Allow me a question. According to NASA CO2 has risen 25%. They show dry ground. Arid cracked parched ground. Nothing growing. Maybe you aren't aware but plants eat CO2 and give off O2. It woukd seem to me that more CO2 would mean more planrs, less dry arid ground, and more O2.

What do you think?

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Judicial watch Feb 17, 2010. , April 7, 2013 , Daniel Greenfield, Michael Griffin former NASA administrator. What's your problem this is well documented. I have seen clips of Obama saying this. Let me guess another Koop-aid drinking Obama worshipper.