Already read those and plenty more … the fact is, the temperature change since the mid 70’s is no more, in fact less, than the cooling changes in recent history … now take your own advice and do some objective research instead of pushing a political agenda …
Bullshit. You haven’t read them very carefully, then.
What political agenda does the US Environmental Protection Agency have? How about George W. Bush? He has admitted the reality of Global Climate Change.
Ahaha! Explain all of this away genius …
Plus a whole bunch more … http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no25/vo13no25_alarmism.htm
You did notice on reading that virtually the only sources cited in that article were Newsweek, Time, and Fortune? There were only two scientists mentioned. It is to be sure a very good example of alarmism in the popular press. It does not reflect anything like the scientific consensus of the time. There was some speculation about the possibility of a long-term cooling trend in the 1970s, but it was not endorsed by a large number of climate scientists. This is different from the situation today when a large body of diverse evidence has documented the reality of Global Climate Change.
If you are really going to get your information from the popular press, you need to hone your critical reading skills.
Oh, and perhaps you could explain all this away:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agengy’s Global Warming Site
No, you said you read and know all of that right? Please explain the 2.7F temperature drop from the 40s to the 70s? What has the rise been since then? Could you put it in bold so I can read it here? popcorn
You claim that it occurred. It’s up to you to provide a cite of serious scientific evidence that it did.
Here’s a graph of temperature trends over the last 140 years. The minor cooling episode from the 1940s-1970s was a rather minor and temporary blip in the overall warming trend over this period.
Nicely done, Colibri!
Ummm … first that doesn’t show a 2.7F drop from the 40s to 70s which has been reported on extensively by a lot better sources than the UN? Calling bullshit! …
This one shows a similar graph. The global average temperature drop was NOT 2.7 F, and I don’t believe any credible source says it was. In global terms, that’s HUGE change.
Link to a reputable source claiming the global average temperature dropped 2.7 degrees F in that time period?
I’m calling “Inability to Read a Simple Graph.”
A drop relative to what? The baseline (center line) for that graph is the average temperature between 1961 and 1990. The maximum downward deviation from that average during the time period you mention is less than 0.3 C, or 0.6 F. Of course, since the baseline period and the cooling trend partially overlap, one would not explect there to be much deviation anyway. What is apparent is a temporary leveling off (not drop) from the strong warming trend of 1910-1945, before the upward trend resumed in the late 1970s.
Please provide a cite from a “much better source than the UN” :rolleyes: for a statitically significant drop in global average temperature of 2.7 F during the period you mention.
[Thanks, Qadgop, and thanks for backup, Q.E.D.]
Well, I can’t argue with someone who thinks an UN report, based on scientists from Africa, Korea, etc. are better than our own scientists … they commit fraud on SCR and can’t even feed their own people … believe what you want, but it is very apparent you are hardly learned on this subject … let me start you on a scientific path … NOAA …
Let’s see, for the genius here …
**“Greenhouse gases … water vapor is present in the atmosphere in concentrations of 3-4% whereas carbon dioxide is at 387 ppm or 0.0386%.” **
Hmmm … so water vapor is a 100 times more prevalent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere … oh my!
We better do something about water evaporating into the atmosphere fast eh? :smack:
There is an upper limit for how much water vapor can exist in the atmosphere, and it tends to be largely self-regulating. Additionally, although water accounts for the largest portion of the greenhouse effect, it also comprises a significantly larger portion of the atmosphere than CO[sub]2[/sub] does. Water vapor is present at 1000 times the concentration of CO[sub]2[/sub], yet water vapor alone accounts for roughly 60-70% of the greenhouse effect, compared to about 25% for CO[sub]2[/sub]. Clearly, CO[sub]2[/sub] has a FAR greater effect, and it is more or less directly under our control. There is also no upper limit to CO[sub]2[/sub] concentration, nor is there a strong self-regulating mechanism in place, which means that CO[sub]2[/sub]-caused greenhouse effects can run away, as is theorized happened on Venus, our sister world.
BTW, you missed a decimal place: 387 ppm is .00387%.
You really are one of the Fighting Ignorant, aren’t you? Although that graph is posted on a UNEP site, the basic data is the same as that on the graph that Q.E.D. linked to. And Q.E.D.s graph is based on these references:
Jones, P.D., M. New, D.E. Parker, S. Martin, and I.G. Rigor. 1999. Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37:173-199.
Parker, D. E., C. K. Folland, and M. Jackson. 1995. Marine surface temperature: observed variations and data requirements. Climatic Change 31:559-600.
Jones is a scientist at the University of East Anglia, UK, and Parker is at the UK Meteorological Office.
I wasn’t aware that Jones and Parker were Korean or African names . . .
US scientists are of course in the forefront of Global Climate Change research, and their overwhelming consensus is that global warming is occurring.
One of the key recent reports on Global Climate Change is that by the United States National Research Council, t Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (warning: pdf), the authors of which were all from the US. The opening of this report says flatly:
Actually, I served on the US National Committee on Global Change Research in 1991-1992.
Thank you for helping to support my position. You did notice that (1) that graph covers only the period before the Industrial Revolution, and (2) the caption says:
Bolding mine.
The NOAA site also has this to say
I suppose it’s all those Koreans and Africans on the NOAA staff that came up with that.
It’s not too surprising that you seem to regard the word “genius” as some kind of insult. 
I find it difficult to believe that anyone has eyes sharp enough to spot “a 2.7F drop from the 40s to 70s” on a small graph which is calibrated in “Thousands of years before present.” Could you provide some actual visible evidence for your claim?
BTW, you should be aware that NOAA is currently laboring under the same cloud of politically spawned censorship that NASA has been dealing with: Censorship Is Alleged at NOAA