The same cycle of heating and cooling the planet has gone through for years.
Your comparing two 30 year periods. It's the same moronic crap as local weather people calling 105 degree the hottest day ever in Georgia, yet when I was a kid I remember it hitting at least that much. Anyone that has lived her long enough remembers it.
Yet all the same they play on the hope that you have a short term memory.
NASA Says Hotter Summers Since 1980 Caused by Global Warming: Is Global Warming Man-Made?
mrosen814
2012/08/07 21:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
333 votes
|
|
45% | |||
|
404 votes
|
|
55% | |||
The study leader from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, as well as researchers Makiko Sato and Reto Ruedy, have concluded that U.S. summer heat waves (mainly in the Midwest) "have become the norm over the last 30 years compared to a base period 30 years before 1980 -- and it's because of global warming." Do you agree with NASA? You can read more about the study by clicking the 'DAILYTECH.COM' link below.
DAILYTECH.COM reports:
DAILYTECH.COM reports:
Hotter summers have become the norm from 1980 to present compared to 1951 to 1980 (the base period)
Read More: http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Hotter+Summers+Since...
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensu...
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus position.
11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:
African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
And of course every country on the planet (except two) has endorsed the IPCC's conclusions that warming is unequivocal and that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations". Even so-called 'skeptics' like Lindzen and Christy agree with this.
I'm wondering though - how many retired astronauts and meteorologists have worked in those establishments? Because they're just "pen-pushers" right, so we'd have to throw their opinions out right away - if we're going to be consistent.
The others appear to be government organizations, which no doubt have non-environmental incentives for supporting this. After all, when is the last time any government truly had the welfare of their serfs in mind?
Yet, the fact is the climate has always been changing. To try to claim that we can affect the climate enough in either direction is vanity in the extreme.
Should we be cognizant about what we do? Of course. But should we stop burning fossil fuels, turn off all the lights, shut down the computers, and return to the dark ages? Absolutely not!
No, it's just straightforward physics. We've increased the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by 40% in just the last 250 years - the laws of physics dictate that this is having a large impact on global climate, and we have decades of observations to prove exactly that.
You should actually know a little science before you try to educate on it... CO2 only accounts for 9-26% of the greenhouse effect. And we actually don't know how much of the increase of CO2 levels are the result of human activity, and how much is completely natural. In fact, it seems that CO2 generally rises AFTER the temperature rises, indicating that as temperature increases, more CO2 gets released naturally by the oceans and other natural sources.
Man-made global warming is not proven. The whole "science" is based on conjecture, correlation (not causation) and unproven assumptions. I put science in quotes, because a true scientist would not start with the theory and then try to make the data fit his model (as the GW alarmists do), but would instead look at the data first, and then try to make the theory fit the data.
CO₂ is the main driver of global climate:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/rese...
CO₂ provides 80% of the forcing that sustains the greenhouse effect:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ea...
Natural processes cannot account for the global warming trend:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/doc...
"Both natural and anthropogenic influences caused twentieth century climate change but their relative roles and regional impacts are still under debate... "
"...empirical analyses suggest that solar variability accounts for as much as 69% of twentieth century warming,"
And, NASA says the climate has warmed only 1.5 degree over the past 100 years.
As I said, this is not proven science. The GW scientists do not follow the scientific method. When they start making their models, formulas, datasets, measurements and results all open to public and private scrutiny, instead of holding as much as possible close to the vest and only releasing their published papers; and when they are able to have their different models all agree on the outcomes (repeat-ability of an experiment) then I'll consider them to be scientists.
overall warming trend in global surface temperatures. In the
100 years from 1905 to 2005, the temperature trends
produce by all three natural influences are at least an order
of magnitude smaller than the observed surface temperature
trend reported by IPCC [2007]. According to this analysis,
solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in
the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100
years, not 69% as claimed by Scafetta and West [2008]
(who assumed larger solar irradiance changes and enhanced
climate response on longer time scales)."
And finally, much of the "observed" data has been in dispute for years. The way that the majority of the temperature readings are collected lead to higher readings than you'd get if you moved the sensors outside of developed areas. Many of those sensors are sitting at airports, where the local temp is going to be a couple degrees hotter due to the pavement and lack of vegetation.
Just ask the people up North, the winters will soon be a thing of the past. They sure are here in Fl. There was a time we had at least a small time for cooling weather, and now that is a thing of the past.
But yet they will pass laws on ciggerette smoking. LMAO and look the other way when it comes to Corporations.
make sure your "carbon footprint" is clean before you tell others that they are "killing and aborting" this earth. what hypocrites you people are.
"UC Berkeley physics professor Richard A. Muller says that, after years of paying for studies by global warming skeptics, the Koch brothers honestly want to get the science clarified. They helped fund Muller who, only three years ago, doubted that the Earth was heating up to dangerous levels due to human activity. Now, with his Koch-funded research complete, he has reversed himself.
In a column published in the New York Times, Muller wrote, “Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”
The EPA wants to be able to KILL development projects before they even enter the permitting process. This will make the EPA the most powerful agency in the nation and cripple the American economy.
Think it can't happen? Well, it already has.
Want to TAKE ACTION? Click here to send a letter to the EPA.
The EPA’s target – this time – is the Pebble deposit in remote rural Alaska.
Pebble is a potential mine that sits on state lands designated for mining.
Pebble just so happens to be the largest mineral deposit ever discovered in the U.S. It has the potential to pump billions of dollars into our national economy and provide domestic supplies of resources needed for manufacturing and national defense applications - in addition to creating thousands of American jobs.
After eight years and $500 million in exploration and planning, Pebble is still in the process of developing mine plans to extract the resources in an environmentally sensitive manner. Only after they go through a rigorous permitting process will the project be able to move forward.
Yet the EPA, as part of its secret plan, is exploiting any opposition to the project through well-funded...
The EPA wants to be able to KILL development projects before they even enter the permitting process. This will make the EPA the most powerful agency in the nation and cripple the American economy.
Think it can't happen? Well, it already has.
Want to TAKE ACTION? Click here to send a letter to the EPA.
The EPA’s target – this time – is the Pebble deposit in remote rural Alaska.
Pebble is a potential mine that sits on state lands designated for mining.
Pebble just so happens to be the largest mineral deposit ever discovered in the U.S. It has the potential to pump billions of dollars into our national economy and provide domestic supplies of resources needed for manufacturing and national defense applications - in addition to creating thousands of American jobs.
After eight years and $500 million in exploration and planning, Pebble is still in the process of developing mine plans to extract the resources in an environmentally sensitive manner. Only after they go through a rigorous permitting process will the project be able to move forward.
Yet the EPA, as part of its secret plan, is exploiting any opposition to the project through well-funded groups that want to stop American mining.
The EPA recently released a 1,000 page sham draft watershed assessment of the Bristol Bay area based on hypothetical impacts from a hypothetical mine. This study is being used as the excuse for EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to issue a blanket permit veto for all projects in the area – before they have even proposed a plan or applied for permits.
We need to stop the sham study and the preemptive vetoes to follow in its tracks before it's too late!
Think the EPA will just stop here? Well, on the same day the Bristol Bay draft study was released, environmentalists called for the same action to be used against development in the Great Lakes region.
What will they go after next? Your state? Your job?!
What YOU can do today is help us slow down the EPA by demanding a 120-day public comment extension on the Bristol Bay watershed assessment.
If the EPA is not stopped, similar studies will be initiated throughout the country, throwing economic investment into chaos and destroying the American economy.