And how about Bonnie Prince Charlie saying that the world has 100 months or less before we all come to a tragic end from being burned up by the goracles global warming. hahahahahaha
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 6:30 AM, Ohio mark <[email protected]>wrote: > > This seems destined to be ignored by today's climate change obsessed > media: Scientists from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies - > the very organization now presaging gloom and doom at the hands of > global warming - predicted a new ice age back in 1971. > > Think this will be a focus of tonight's evening news broadcasts? > > Regardless of the answer, the Washington Times wonderfully reported > Wednesday (emphasis added throughout, h/t Marc Morano): > > NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the > Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and > labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting "court > jesters," appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an > impending ice age within 50 years. > > The Post archives do indeed identify the existence of such a piece, > with the following preview: > > The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a > disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. Dr. > S. I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and > Columbia University says that... > > The Times piece continued: > > The scientist was S.I. Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen's at the > National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to > say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in > part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied > clouds above Venus. > > The 1971 article, discovered this week by Washington resident John > Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of > Congress, says that "in the next 50 years" - or by 2021 - fossil-fuel > dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much > sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," > resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover > huge areas." > > It turns out the Post was referring specifically to an article > published at the journal Science that day, which was written by Rasool > and S. H. Schneider. > > Science archives identified the following abstract of the piece > entitled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large > Increases on Global Climate," and indicated the authors were from > "Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National > Aeronautics and Space Administration" (emphasis added): > > Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon > dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been > computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in > the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of > temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the > atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in > density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the > exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature > decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by > only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be > sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If > sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease > over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice > age. > > How marvelous. Yet, 36 years later, this same organization is > predicting a planetary cataclysm at the hands of global warming. > > Which one of this agency's warnings should we heed? > > > http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971 > > > -- *~@):~{> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
