Here is a chart the save the earth crowd uses to make their point. Looks like global temperatures have shot straight up since 1960, right? Let's scale out on the chart, back to 1880. The temperature peaked in 1940, predating the huge expansion in C02 emissions. That's odd. I had the link saved to the article with these charts. I can't find it right now, but I'll post it later if I run across it on the web.
Very interesting article. I recommend reading it, it debates both sides of the global warming debate in regards to ice melting on Mars.
try this link but it contradicts your implication: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/glob_jan-dec_pg.gif
Found the article posted in a blog. Apparently opposing views aren't picked up by the mainstream media. Who knew? http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/the-truth-about-arctic-and-greenland-ice/ The Truth About Arctic and Greenland Ice ...The argument for the part of the Greenland icecap that is fully on land and at reasonable altitude has an even stronger argument as to why it will not melt. There is no water to melt the ice from below, and the cooling always exceeds the warming for solid ice at reasonable altitude. Since Greenland is at lower latitude than the pole, the Solar insolation can be significantly higher. If a strong enough warmer wind blows in from the sea, the sea ice and lower altitude edge of the Greenland ice sheet may melt, and has melted many times before (why do you think it is called Greenland). Ice melting at the very edge has led to scare scenes of massive melting, but it cannot happen at the higher altitudes (where almost all of the ice volume is located) at temperature variations that are happening, or that are even projected to occur by the scare models. The following is a temperature record over the last 11,000 years made from a typical ice core from the peak of the Greenland ice cap. The temperature variations are shown relative to the temperature during 2000. The temperature has been as much as 2C higher than at present, and the last several years have a dropping temperature. The zero line actually corresponds to â30C, so even a temperature rise of 10C or even 20C would not even start to melt the ice. The result is a clear demonstration that the present models and scare claims are not valid, and that using a short selected time history can give a very misleading indication of longer trends.
Yes, maybe not the same mechanism, but the same outcome. Please go to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian Look at the map: no ice, sea level higher 90 m above present day, mean atmospheric CO2 level 16xpre-industrial level Now go to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician Look at the map: lots of ice, sea level higher 220 m above present day, mean atmospheric CO2 level 15xpre-industrial level Now, after looking at the maps, do you really think that CO2 has anything to do with the sea level and with ice? Do you think that ice has anything to do with the sea level? Cambrian had no ice but the sea level was 100+m lower than Ordovician where there was plenty of ice. Regards P.S. Fucking wikipedia already acquired Gore's gibberish ''pre-industrial'' term.
Thank you for the link. It looks like the same data with a different interpretation (possibly due to the latitude/longitude qualifier?). Here's a chart from the same source. It shows a clear downturn in mean temperature over the last decade. The say numbers don't lie; people do.
It is a shame this issue has become so politicized, because it is very interesting. I would posit the following: 1. Mankind-caused global warming is an interesting theory that has not been confirmed. 2. The economic costs of trying to "stop" global warming are enormous, and it is by no means certain such efforts would have the slightest effect. 3. Any rise in sea levels would be very gradual, giving us plenty of time to react. Countermeasures would be far cheaper than the costs likely to be imposed by carbon limiting schemes under consideration. 4. For a number of reasons, ever increasing use of carbon-based energy sources is probably not a good idea. At some point they will run out, their extraction and use create pollution and they tend to be found in politically unstable areas. 5. Our reasonable objectives to reduce use of carbon-based energy can be achieved by a gradual program of conversion and incentives. Initially, we should concentrate on low-hanging fruit, such as converting long haul trucking, taxi fleets and municipal vehicles to natural gas. Gradually increasing taxes on motor fuels could be used to preserve consumer freedom but provide incentives for more efficient vehicles. We need to recognize that widespread use of plug-in electric vehicles will require an upgrade in utility generation and transmission facilities. We need a crash program to certify and build standardized design nuclear generating plants. We should also enact zoning requirements and tax incentives to encourage all new homes to incorporate solar power where feasible.