Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on March 14, 2008, 08:33:07 AM
-
Interesting.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html
Wonder if it's doable?
Might bring such things to a screeching halt?
-
very interesting.
-
Something similar was done in England, because Inconvenient Truth has something like close to 30 scientific flaws in it. Can't pass off something that hideously flawed and show it in science classrooms. To do the same here would cost about $2 million.
-
Something similar was done in England, because Inconvenient Truth has something like close to 30 scientific flaws in it. Can't pass off something that hideously flawed and show it in science classrooms. To do the same here would cost about $2 million.
I never figured out why anyone would even use it in their teaching. It honestly isn't groundbreaking and it has flaws that are readily used to debunk it, much to the distaste of many climatologists.
-
And this just in...............
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html
and....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/home.html
-
And this just in...............
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html
and....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/home.html
Wow...those articles sure are "inconvenient".
-
It would definitely be an interesting case, and would really take a good solid look into if global warming is real or not.
Btw Wraq when I click on that second link nothing happens, it just says loading.
-
It would definitely be an interesting case, and would really take a good solid look into if global warming is real or not.
Btw Wraq when I click on that second link nothing happens, it just says loading.
Sorry......
Will check and see whats goin on.
-
It will eventually become clear to even the most devout GW adherent that they were duped. Those who admit their folly will earn my respect. Those who pretend it never happened will always be the fool to me.
-
Those who admit their folly will earn my respect. Those who pretend it never happened will always be the fool to me.
Funny, I feel the same way about Bush voters :D
-
It will eventually become clear to even the most devout GW adherent that they were duped. Those who admit their folly will earn my respect. Those who pretend it never happened will always be the fool to me.
Did you vote for Kerry?
Do you think a guy who holds our troops in disdain would have been the right choice as Commander In Chief? Just curious.
-
Funny, I feel the same way about Bush voters :D
Bush wasn't a mistake. He was the lesser of two evils. I've said that from the beginning.
-
Did you vote for Kerry?
Do you think a guy who holds our troops in disdain would have been the right choice as Commander In Chief? Just curious.
GW = Global Warming
-
GW = Global Warming
Curious why you have chosen not to answer a simple question.
I voted for Bush, and while I don't regret it given the poor alternative, I would rather have had an acceptable choice instead of him. I sure can't agree with all he has done, but I do agree with some of it.
AG = lieing scam artist selling "carbon credits" that equal selling prop wash at an airport.
-
Curious why you have chosen not to answer a simple question.
I voted for Bush, and while I don't regret it given the poor alternative, I would rather have had an acceptable choice instead of him. I sure can't agree with all he has done, but I do agree with some of it.
AG = lieing scam artist selling "carbon credits" that equal selling prop wash at an airport.
Dago, I voted for Bush in both elections. The GW my post referred to was Global Warming, not George W.
-
It's pretty funny how discussions of global warming always turn into half of the posts saying "yea but bush sucks!" and the other half "yea but this thread is about global warming, not the president".
:huh
-
John Coleman (founder of the weather channel) is one of the most brilliant weathermen EVER. He was on channel 7 in Chicago, and I grew up watching him.
"It will get down to 32 degrees in the Loop, and down to 26 degrees in The Boonies"
That guy was a HOOT!
ROX
-
Dago, I voted for Bush in both elections. The GW my post referred to was Global Warming, not George W.
My apologies for misunderstanding.
-
John Coleman (founder of the weather channel) is one of the most brilliant weathermen EVER. He was on channel 7 in Chicago, and I grew up watching him.
"It will get down to 32 degrees in the Loop, and down to 26 degrees in The Boonies"
That guy was a HOOT!
ROX
Yeah, same here. He was entertaining and wore some gaudy jackets. I met him briefly at the Gary Airport in about 1978. He seemed like a jerk there.
-
At least another sane voice in the debunking of a complete falsehood about man made global warming.
Mother Nature has changed Earths' temperature many times over the years and probably will continue to do so until our Sun supernovas.
Looks like those who are yelling "The Sky is falling the Sky is falling" are earning a few fraudulent dollars selling their fabricated fears.
Geez...in Ohio a new record was set in our area which is in the Great Lakes Snowbelt for inches of snow for the year.
And I have it on good authority that the Polar Icecap is just a frozen and just as large if not larger then it has been
and the mean temperature of the Earth has dropped a full one degree in the past year.
Al Gore should be wearing a Plaid Jacket and selling Volkswagons...he's be Salesman of the year for sure.
-
Funny, I feel the same way about Bush voters :D
Hey Flatbar! Who ARE you going to hate when Bush in no longer prez? Who will you hate about then? Just curious.
:noid
-
Yep... so far.. it has been "far too complex" and "the debate is over" when it comes to our contribution to the climate of the planet.
We are too dumb and it is too important to debate. I would love to see it brought out and both sides presented along with all the data to the public. I would love to see em prove the math or... disprove it in front of the people of the world.
I would like to see both sides get equal press and I would like to see someone on the side of man made global... anything.. predict what will happen next year.. 5 years.... using their computer models of just wishful thinking or even a crystal ball but show us how they predicted...
The hearings will no doubt last a year or more and at that time we can see how close the "the debate is over" crowd came to predicting how much hotter it will be..
If it is colder or the same or not as hot as they said... we can have em make a new prediction that is in line with their doomsday scenario for the next year.. after they are wrong for a few years maybe we can just sue every single one of em for this whole fiasco.
What a concept.. make em pay for the damage they have done and the BS they spread.
To me.. they are like lawyers that lie to you about the law.
lazs
-
Wow. Instead of actually looking up real science facts...this is a thread of titanic vomit spewn from each self toting "sane" global warming denier.
One actually lauds the fact that there was "record snow" this year in his locale, without bothering to check that "record snow" is actually one of the signposts highlighted by climatologists as an effect of global climate change. Record precipitation of any type indicates the evaporation of greater amounts of water which leads to extreme amounts falling somewhere else.....I know it's tough, but try actually reading up on what you are talking about.
Another says, "on good authority" that the polar ice cover is as great or greater than it was before. With a little fact checking one will find that "area covered"(ie surface area) did go up. That's undeniable. But, when you look into the other statistics on the ice caps, you will be forced into reality when you read the truth... that "depth of ice cap" has decreased even more rapidly. This points to the fact that warmer water is eating away at the "deep ice". The net result, even with larger surface area covered, is a net loss in ice cover at the poles.
Despite the recent announcement that the discharge from some Antarctic glaciers is accelerating, we often hear people remarking that parts of Antarctica are getting colder, and indeed the ice pack in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica has actually been getting bigger. Doesn’t this contradict the calculations that greenhouse gases are warming the globe? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict… and have predicted for the past quarter century.
The replacement of older, thicker Arctic ice by younger, thinner ice, combined with the effects of warming, unusual atmospheric circulation patterns and increased melting from solar radiation absorbed by open waters in 2007 all have contributed to the phenomenon, said Drobot. "These conditions are setting the Arctic up for additional, significant melting because of the positive feedback loop that plays back on itself."
"Taken together, these changes suggest that the Arctic Ocean is approaching a point where a return to pre-1990s ice conditions becomes increasingly difficult and where large, abrupt changes in summer ice cover as in 2007 may become the norm," the research team wrote in Geophysical Research Letters
-
Hey Flatbar! Who ARE you going to hate when Bush in no longer prez? Who will you hate about then? Just curious.
:noid
How many vacation days have you had the past 7 years? We've been ostensibly at war, and Bush has had 580 days of vacation. (The most EVER by a sitting two term president, and his second term isn't over yet) Not to mention those 50 or so scandals, and the denegration of the constitution to the paper it is scribed upon.
We deserve much better, and if you don't think so....I'm sorry. Lack of expectations is killing this great country.
-
It would definitely be an interesting case, and would really take a good solid look into if global warming is real or not.
Btw Wraq when I click on that second link nothing happens, it just says loading.
There is no argument as to if "global warming" is real or not.. Much the same thing as there is no argument if "global cooling" is real or not. They both happen.. the only argument is if "man" has any affect on speeding up the process.
If you look past the catchy phrases "global warming" and look more at "global climate change" you will see that, is what most scientist refer to. The term global warming was the catch phrase but it doesn't really cover everything. So anytime there is a colder winter all the naysayers come out of the wood work to say.. see we told you so.
Instead of actually listening to what the scientist say they would rather debate the title "global warming".
Meanwhile the ice caps are melting along with the snow packs that give water to most of the world. New deserts are forming in Africa at an alarming rate while in other parts of the world there are record amounts of rain and floods. This is exactly what scientist have projected to happen because of "global climate change" better known as "global warming".
It is happening there is no argument on that.. the "only" argument is if man is envolved in speeding up the changes.
-
crok-it.. you actually make some sense here. I pretty much agree with what you said and would add...
I believe that it is important that before we come up with some kind of "cure" for the climate of the planet that we make absolutely sure that it doesn't cause more harm than good.. if millions of people are throw into below poverty level and starve on a guess.. that will not do.
If whole economies are destroyed with a theory.. that will not do.. I have even heard now that in order to save ourselves at this point.. we need zero carbon emissions. even cavemen used fire to cook... If they don't understand how climate works... if they can't use the models to predict next year and the year after perfectly.. then why should I believe that they have some special insight about 100 years from now?
lazs
-
Moray you missed the point.......that during the last 12 months the temperature has dropped a full degree.
If it drops it can't be warming. And the Polar ice cap is as large as it has ever been.
Also, Global warming and cooling has occured over billions of years naturally.
So....maybe it is warming...maybe it is cooling. But mother nature does it by herself.
So keep on believeing those who haven't produced anything earth shattering proving man has caused this.
Cooling and heating have happened in the past...and will in the future weather we like it or not.
-
I don't know how much I believe in man made global warming, but you have to atleast admit that all the toxins we've dumped into the atmosphere over the last 100 years of the industrial revolution can't be good for the planet either.
-
If it drops it can't be warming. And the Polar ice cap is as large as it has ever been.
(http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1066631611388_2003/10/24/icecap24.jpg)
(http://www.keepwintercool.org/images/nrdc_earth_small.jpg)
-
crok-it.. you actually make some sense here. I pretty much agree with what you said and would add...
I believe that it is important that before we come up with some kind of "cure" for the climate of the planet that we make absolutely sure that it doesn't cause more harm than good.. if millions of people are throw into below poverty level and starve on a guess.. that will not do.
If whole economies are destroyed with a theory.. that will not do.. I have even heard now that in order to save ourselves at this point.. we need zero carbon emissions. even cavemen used fire to cook... If they don't understand how climate works... if they can't use the models to predict next year and the year after perfectly.. then why should I believe that they have some special insight about 100 years from now?
lazs
holy moly lazs agrees with me.. :O
On the side note, I can agree that we should always be skeptible about things. I'm always one of the first to question something I don't think is quite right.
The problem that I see with the whole global warming.. global climate change is we are at the mercy of scientist. Could they be wrong, possibly could they be right? possibly. Personally I believe global climate change is a natural process and not a whole lot we can do to stop it overall. So if we are actually having an effect on it, the same thing would likely happen in 15 hundred years (or however long it would take) but only naturally.
So I look at global climate change as a natural occurrence but I do think we are playing a roll in it. You can't tell me cutting down most of the world forest aren't going to have a effect on the planet. Yea can't tell me pumping all the crap in the air that we pump int it, isn't going to hurt the air we breathe. Look at any major city and that should be apparent.
So the question I have to ask is this.. reguardless if you think man is having an effect. What's it hurt to clean up our act? If we have the ability to do things in such a way it won't harm our enviorment why not start doing it? We already know oil is limited, it's going to be gone that is a fact. So why not push for something cleaner to replace it? It "has" to eventually be replaced, so why wait until oil is $300 a barrel?
We also have the ability to replace dirty coal power plants with cleaner more efficant plants.. We could be using more wind or solar power as well. In the long run it will be cheaper and cleaner, yet our govt and many people fight it. Why? It really makes no sense to me.
-
Also I wanted to add to this.. one thing is very certain. If the ice keeps melting we will have very serious problems here in the US as well as the rest of the world.
1) Much of the world's lower areas "will" be under water, that is a definite fact.
2) If the ice melts most of the US will have very serious water shortages.
Put it to you this way, where I live, it "will" be under water, yet where do you move? If the ice melts it won't be safe to live in the central US because there will be no water. So we have some drastic things that will effect this country and the world yet people argue about a catch phrase. The fact is as Camouflage posted the Ice "is" melting, it's clear as day in satellite photos.. Yea can't really argue with it.
Can we stop it or even slow it? I dunno but one thing is certain New York, Florida and all the other places being underwater will be pretty bad for the economy. Much less having no water for crops in the mid west. Lets just hope all that doesn't happen in our life times, but it is certain it will happen. So what are we doing to prepare for it? Not much...
-
Here is a question for all you global warming folks.
Do you think that the planet is supposed to stay just like it is forever?? Never warm up, never get colder, never lose landmass to the oceans, never have anything ever change from what the planet is like right now?
I'm always hearing people talk about how bad it will be when New York is under water and all the other hype about how "we" are changing the planet.
Guess what, the planet has been in a constant state of change since day one and it will never stop. Take a look at Hawaii. Those Islands are still growing from volcanic activity. The Rocky Mountains are erroding due to rain and wind. Some day Yellow Stone is going to explode and take out half of North America when it happens. California will fall off into the ocean some day (not soon enough for me but anyway).
The planet is in a constant state of evolution and nothing we do as humans is going to prevent it. Are we making it worse? I don't think so. The planet will do what it's going to do regardless of what we do. If anything we are consipring to our own destruction and not that of the planet and in all honesty I don't think that's a bad thing. The planet is going to reach the point where it can no longer sustain the human population and then we will die off in large numbers. Most likely we will be doing the killing. Once it's all over and the population has been reduced significanly, then it'll start all over again.
All in all it doesn't matter what we do or don't do, humans as a species are living on borrowed time anyway. In a million years or so we'll probably be nothing but a distant memory.
-
crok-it.. we are still not that far off of agreement.
I agree that it is always best to conserve and to not pollute when it is at all possible.. when doing so does not cause more harm than good.. I am actually in that business.
Let's use an example of what I am saying.. Let's say that there is some air pollution caused by gasoline being burned in automobiles. Let's further say that.. everyone like cleaner air. let's further say that the problem is fairly large and that cars are one of the main causes..
Let's now say that we could reduce the pollution by... oh.. some parts per billions which may.. or may not.. be noticeable...
In order to do that we can add an oxegenate to the fuel the cars burn for winter months.. a very dangerous chemical called MTBE is discovered to work well as an oxegenate but.. there is some evidence.. that if the stuff gets into the water supply.. it will poison the water and be almost impossible to remove.
Do we go ahead and do it anyway?
More to the point.. how much damage are willing to do to the social and economic welfare of everyone on the planet "just in case" some of the scientists on the globe are right about man having a "significant" effect on global climate?
answer.. if it means screwing in some CFL bulbs into your light fixtures.. It's a no brainer. If it means a drain of trillions of bucks on a nations economy... well.. let's get both sides of the issue out in the open and let the people affected decide.
lazs
lazs
-
Here is a question for all you global warming folks.
Do you think that the planet is supposed to stay just like it is forever?? Never warm up, never get colder, never lose landmass to the oceans, never have anything ever change from what the planet is like right now?
I'm always hearing people talk about how bad it will be when New York is under water and all the other hype about how "we" are changing the planet.
Guess what, the planet has been in a constant state of change since day one and it will never stop. Take a look at Hawaii. Those Islands are still growing from volcanic activity. The Rocky Mountains are erroding due to rain and wind. Some day Yellow Stone is going to explode and take out half of North America when it happens. California will fall off into the ocean some day (not soon enough for me but anyway).
The planet is in a constant state of evolution and nothing we do as humans is going to prevent it. Are we making it worse? I don't think so. The planet will do what it's going to do regardless of what we do. If anything we are consipring to our own destruction and not that of the planet and in all honesty I don't think that's a bad thing. The planet is going to reach the point where it can no longer sustain the human population and then we will die off in large numbers. Most likely we will be doing the killing. Once it's all over and the population has been reduced significanly, then it'll start all over again.
All in all it doesn't matter what we do or don't do, humans as a species are living on borrowed time anyway. In a million years or so we'll probably be nothing but a distant memory.
Yet with all of your grandious talk you fail to realize...
A. This species has not survived a major climate shift. (The last "minor" blip, minor to our planet that is, almost eradicated us, pushing the worldwide population of Homo sapien to a point so low it can be seen in our current genetic makeup. It is estimated only 10,000 individuals survived, and our genes can trace that.)
and
B. The shift in climate has always taken millenia to move a few degrees, and that is with known shifts in orbital inclination and orbital mechanics that our planet goes through. That much happened in the past 50 years. You obviously don't get it.
-
Also I wanted to add to this.. one thing is very certain. If the ice keeps melting we will have very serious problems here in the US as well as the rest of the world.
1) Much of the world's lower areas "will" be under water, that is a definite fact.
2) If the ice melts most of the US will have very serious water shortages.
Erm, the melting of polar cap on the ocean doesn't raise the water level. It's the land based ice and warming that raises the sea level. When the land based ice melts the resulting water will eventually drain into the ocean. Higher temperature causes water to expand, which will raise the sea level because the water doesn't fit into the space it used to fit.
Water is at it's densest form around 3 to 4 celcius (37.5 to 39 F to you americans). The difference in density doesn't really seem that much, but when you have millions of cubic liters it will be enough to bring the beach closer to you.
-
Pretty much the case.
The sea Ice will not raise SL, but all land based Ice will, and you'd be baffled to see what just the cap of Greenland can do.
Anyway, for the U.S.A., from where I heard ever so often "who cares" and "WTF with polar bears, LOL", finally I see this:
"If the ice melts most of the US will have very serious water shortages."+
Which is...true, as with many more areas of course...
-
Its gonna be cold soon. *click* (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif)
-
Yet with all of your grandious talk you fail to realize...
A. This species has not survived a major climate shift. (The last "minor" blip, minor to our planet that is, almost eradicated us, pushing the worldwide population of Homo sapien to a point so low it can be seen in our current genetic makeup. It is estimated only 10,000 individuals survived, and our genes can trace that.)
and
B. The shift in climate has always taken millenia to move a few degrees, and that is with known shifts in orbital inclination and orbital mechanics that our planet goes through. That much happened in the past 50 years. You obviously don't get it.
I get it perfectly fine and thank you for proving my point that no matter what we do as a species, we have NO control over what the planet is going to do. We can't control the planets orbit, tectonic plates, or the weather. Nature will do what it's going to do. Humans are just along for the ride.
-
I get it perfectly fine and thank you for proving my point that no matter what we do as a species, we have NO control over what the planet is going to do. We can't control the planets orbit, tectonic plates, or the weather. Nature will do what it's going to do. Humans are just along for the ride.
YET you don't get it, because in this case WE are doing it, not nature. Things on this planet don't happen according to the human timeline....they happen at the planet's timeline, which is much more elongated. We are shifting the climate here, and the evidence is growing, not decreasing as Lazs constantly tries to make you believe. The climate is moving at our behest, whether you choose to educate yourself to the reasons or not is up to you.
You simply can't change the surface of the earth, the oceans and the thin veil of an atmosphere around it so much and expect it not to.
Perhaps you may yet get to bury your head in the sands of the now expanding desert regions, and pretend it's not happening.
-
John Coleman (founder of the weather channel) is one of the most brilliant weathermen EVER. He was on channel 7 in Chicago, and I grew up watching him.
"It will get down to 32 degrees in the Loop, and down to 26 degrees in The Boonies"
That guy was a HOOT!
ROX
Brilliant? For pulling paper off a teletype and talking about the weather makes him brilliant? No. Tell when the next ice age is going to hit and then I might think hes smart or just a good guesser.
-
Erm, the melting of polar cap on the ocean doesn't raise the water level. It's the land based ice and warming that raises the sea level. When the land based ice melts the resulting water will eventually drain into the ocean. Higher temperature causes water to expand, which will raise the sea level because the water doesn't fit into the space it used to fit.
Water is at it's densest form around 3 to 4 celcius (37.5 to 39 F to you americans). The difference in density doesn't really seem that much, but when you have millions of cubic liters it will be enough to bring the beach closer to you.
Yes I didn't mean to say the ice that's already in the water would raise the deal level. However they are both interlinked so it's kinda like peas and carrots as Forrest Gump would say..
-
Anyone see the show on the history channel that talks of the last ice age in N america? It happened in the early 1800s (I think). Very interesting. New York harbor froze. Snow in July. Well maybe not that interesting since I don't remember the specifics about it.
Here are some factors affecting the earth in the next 50 years. Population. Currently 6 billion. Went from 2 billion after ww2 to 6 billion today. A million years to get to 2 billion. 60+ years to gain 4 billion. Fossel fuels. Demand rising. Particularly in China, India and other developing nations. Most optimistic prediction on oil production peak; 2030. Domestic production(?) peaked 1990s. We may not have to worry about global warming.
-
YET you don't get it, because in this case WE are doing it, not nature. Things on this planet don't happen according to the human timeline....they happen at the planet's timeline, which is much more elongated. We are shifting the climate here, and the evidence is growing, not decreasing as Lazs constantly tries to make you believe. The climate is moving at our behest, whether you choose to educate yourself to the reasons or not is up to you.
You simply can't change the surface of the earth, the oceans and the thin veil of an atmosphere around it so much and expect it not to.
Perhaps you may yet get to bury your head in the sands of the now expanding desert regions, and pretend it's not happening.
So your saying that if humans stopped polluting and doing all the bad things that the "global warming" folks spew forth on a regular basis, then the world as we know it will stay just like it is and never change?
My point is nothing we do or don't do is going to stop the earth from changing. Are we causing the changes to happen at a faster rate? I don't know and neither does anyone else and anyone who says they do know is full of crap. I've read all the arguments on both sides of the issue and what strikes me as the common denominator on both sides is neither has been able to provide a single FACT thats points to mankind causing global warming. Plenty of theories and guess's but that's it. Any so called fact provided by either side can have holes shot in them by the other side and if that's the case then it's NOT a fact at all.
Case in point, polar ice caps. GW guys, they're shrinking....there is the proof. Non GW guys, they've shrunk before and that was when there was no polution. It's a totaly circular aurgument and neither side is going to win.
Personally I could give a crap. If the planet self destructs or we end up killing ourselves by changing the enviroment, so be it. Too many people on this rock anyway, we need a major disaster to cull the population. If the GW folks don't like my opinion or think I'm clueless, well you have your right to your opinion, just as I do, but you don't have the right to dictate how I live my life to please your ideas of how humans should live. I live my life how I see fit and if it's not "green" enough to suit someone else, screw em.
-
moray pontificated....
"they happen at the planet's timeline, which is much more elongated. We are shifting the climate here, and the evidence is growing, not decreasing as Lazs constantly tries to make you believe. The climate is moving at our behest, whether you choose to educate yourself to the reasons or not is up to you."
moray.. you have no evidence of any of that.. the climate has changed faster in the past than it has in the last decades.. The evidence is not growing.. more and more scientists are falling off the man made global warming bandwagon as the earth goes into another perfectly natural cooling cycle.
You have no idea what the "planets timeline" is.. if you do then you are the only person who does.. you don't know if we are shifting anything because the math doesn't add up on all of the so called co2 science.
The truth is that we understand very little about the complex interactions of all the natural things that affect climate including the most important..
The sun and... water vapor.. both are the biggest influences in our climate and neither has anything to do with man.
lazs
-
this just in.
The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
by Richard Harris
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says.
One possibility is that the sea has, in fact, warmed and expanded — and scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data from the diving buoys.
----------It's a Fraking thermostat how do you misinterpret that....guys when the thermostat points to the number that's the one you read...got it
Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.
-------------So what you're saying is You have no Fraking idea....thanks we'll tune in later.
-
this just in.
The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
by Richard Harris
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says.
One possibility is that the sea has, in fact, warmed and expanded — and scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data from the diving buoys.
----------It's a Fraking thermostat how do you misinterpret that....guys when the thermostat points to the number that's the one you read...got it
Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.
-------------So what you're saying is You have no Fraking idea....thanks we'll tune in later.
That's great. Let's check Challenger Deep as well. That way the farther we get from the atmosphere the more likely it is that climate change isn't happening.
It's called insulation and with depth, water is particularly good at it.
-
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif)
And... Raw data... Monthly average departure from mean,in degrees celsius,( ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.00N.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat) Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperatures. The ocean isn't warming? Keep in mind... a "mean" or average is constantly recalculated to include the proceeding data into it.
1985 9 0.0340
1985 10 0.0012
1985 11 0.0773
1985 12 0.0427
1986 1 -0.0349
1986 2 -0.0052
1986 3 -0.0414
1986 4 0.0169
1986 5 0.0753
1986 6 0.0716
1986 7 0.0358
1986 8 0.0697
1986 9 0.0888
1986 10 0.0689
1986 11 0.0440
1986 12 0.0583
1987 1 0.0222
1987 2 0.0265
1987 3 0.1176
1987 4 0.1133
1987 5 0.1715
1987 6 0.1775
1987 7 0.2142
1987 8 0.2879
1987 9 0.3265
1987 10 0.2927
1987 11 0.3217
1987 12 0.2701
1988 1 0.2843
1988 2 0.2196
1988 3 0.2393
1988 4 0.2396
1988 5 0.1889
1988 6 0.1691
1988 7 0.2300
1988 8 0.1841
1988 9 0.1403
1988 10 0.0867
1988 11 -0.0180
1988 12 -0.0250
1989 1 -0.0212
1989 2 0.0293
1989 3 0.0283
1989 4 0.1296
1989 5 0.1278
1989 6 0.1887
1989 7 0.2413
1989 8 0.2467
1989 9 0.2157
1989 10 0.1417
1989 11 0.1488
1989 12 0.1477
1990 1 0.1419
1990 2 0.1965
1990 3 0.2719
1990 4 0.2566
1990 5 0.2794
1990 6 0.2560
1990 7 0.3165
1990 8 0.3585
1990 9 0.3619
1990 10 0.3837
1990 11 0.3723
1990 12 0.2838
1991 1 0.2951
1991 2 0.2464
1991 3 0.2704
1991 4 0.2928
1991 5 0.2485
1991 6 0.2831
1991 7 0.3352
1991 8 0.2672
1991 9 0.2125
1991 10 0.1668
1991 11 0.1852
1991 12 0.1238
1992 1 0.1097
1992 2 0.1490
1992 3 0.1831
1992 4 0.1665
1992 5 0.1956
1992 6 0.2037
1992 7 0.1363
1992 8 0.0713
1992 9 0.0367
1992 10 0.0269
1992 11 -0.0074
1992 12 0.0420
1993 1 0.1354
1993 2 0.1369
1993 3 0.1193
1993 4 0.1783
1993 5 0.2189
1993 6 0.2132
1993 7 0.1184
1993 8 0.0757
1993 9 0.1014
1993 10 0.0838
1993 11 0.1103
1993 12 0.0796
1994 1 0.1250
1994 2 0.1582
1994 3 0.1810
1994 4 0.2254
1994 5 0.2231
1994 6 0.2196
1994 7 0.3095
1994 8 0.3525
1994 9 0.3007
1994 10 0.3860
1994 11 0.3229
1994 12 0.3448
1995 1 0.2737
1995 2 0.2886
1995 3 0.2874
1995 4 0.2528
1995 5 0.2338
1995 6 0.3360
1995 7 0.3986
1995 8 0.4221
1995 9 0.2854
1995 10 0.3022
1995 11 0.2994
1995 12 0.2842
1996 1 0.2381
1996 2 0.1998
1996 3 0.1960
1996 4 0.2180
1996 5 0.2222
1996 6 0.2912
1996 7 0.2622
1996 8 0.3316
1996 9 0.2961
1996 10 0.1822
1996 11 0.1668
1996 12 0.1739
1997 1 0.1795
1997 2 0.2514
1997 3 0.2702
1997 4 0.2916
1997 5 0.3881
1997 6 0.4634
1997 7 0.5098
1997 8 0.4894
1997 9 0.5319
1997 10 0.5286
1997 11 0.5327
1997 12 0.5214
1998 1 0.5066
1998 2 0.5336
1998 3 0.4709
1998 4 0.4676
1998 5 0.4997
1998 6 0.5326
1998 7 0.5395
1998 8 0.5776
1998 9 0.4287
1998 10 0.3704
1998 11 0.3709
1998 12 0.3059
1999 1 0.2691
1999 2 0.2486
1999 3 0.2760
1999 4 0.2315
1999 5 0.2252
1999 6 0.2260
1999 7 0.2342
1999 8 0.2901
1999 9 0.2723
1999 10 0.2427
1999 11 0.1826
1999 12 0.1851
2000 1 0.1597
2000 2 0.1978
2000 3 0.1945
2000 4 0.2287
2000 5 0.3219
2000 6 0.2865
2000 7 0.3360
2000 8 0.4054
2000 9 0.3881
2000 10 0.3198
2000 11 0.2776
2000 12 0.2832
2001 1 0.2612
2001 2 0.2540
2001 3 0.3313
2001 4 0.3251
2001 5 0.3554
2001 6 0.4425
2001 7 0.4965
2001 8 0.4586
2001 9 0.4417
2001 10 0.4425
2001 11 0.4135
2001 12 0.3890
2002 1 0.3620
2002 2 0.3789
2002 3 0.4232
2002 4 0.4319
2002 5 0.4609
2002 6 0.5186
2002 7 0.3903
2002 8 0.4181
2002 9 0.4483
2002 10 0.4796
2002 11 0.4744
2002 12 0.4725
2003 1 0.4009
2003 2 0.3811
2003 3 0.4126
2003 4 0.4092
2003 5 0.4448
2003 6 0.4980
2003 7 0.5640
2003 8 0.6487
2003 9 0.6657
2003 10 0.6475
2003 11 0.5726
2003 12 0.5037
2004 1 0.4941
2004 2 0.4704
2004 3 0.4912
2004 4 0.5329
2004 5 0.4603
2004 6 0.4750
2004 7 0.5892
2004 8 0.6036
2004 9 0.6015
2004 10 0.6108
2004 11 0.5893
2004 12 0.5214
2005 1 0.4835
2005 2 0.4066
2005 3 0.4421
2005 4 0.5145
2005 5 0.6021
2005 6 0.6186
2005 7 0.6365
2005 8 0.6514
2005 9 0.6163
2005 10 0.5474
2005 11 0.5001
2005 12 0.4071
2006 1 0.3216
2006 2 0.3056
2006 3 0.3242
2006 4 0.3954
2006 5 0.4573
2006 6 0.5019
2006 7 0.5283
2006 8 0.5880
2006 9 0.6168
2006 10 0.6449
2006 11 0.6570
2006 12 0.5500
2007 1 0.4830
2007 2 0.4652
2007 3 0.4485
2007 4 0.4322
2007 5 0.3812
2007 6 0.4631
2007 7 0.4205
2007 8 0.4128
2007 9 0.4500
2007 10 0.3953
2007 11 0.3306
2007 12 0.3037
2008 1 0.2589
2008 2 0.2580
-
moray.. it doesn't do your case much good when you show a chart that you have trimmed off at the year 2000...
Why would you (or whoever) do that?
Because.. from that date on the global temp begins to drop in a dramatic way.. for the last 8 years it has been dropping.. at such a rate that.. A case could be made that if we don't do something NOW... at this rate.. by the year 2100 we will all be meatcycles!!!!
Co2 math doesn't add up.. even if it did.. we are 60-70% of the total that a doubling could possibly do and.. the temp didn't rise more than 0.7 degree.. most are saying now that the most co2 could do at this point is raise another 0.4 degree.. not enough to offset natural global cooling and far less than the plus or minus 2 degrees that is the margin of error.
How many trillions a year should we spend on that again?
lazs
-
moray.. it doesn't do your case much good when you show a chart that you have trimmed off at the year 2000...
Why would you (or whoever) do that?
Because.. from that date on the global temp begins to drop in a dramatic way.. for the last 8 years it has been dropping.. at such a rate that.. A case could be made that if we don't do something NOW... at this rate.. by the year 2100 we will all be meatcycles!!!!
Co2 math doesn't add up.. even if it did.. we are 60-70% of the total that a doubling could possibly do and.. the temp didn't rise more than 0.7 degree.. most are saying now that the most co2 could do at this point is raise another 0.4 degree.. not enough to offset natural global cooling and far less than the plus or minus 2 degrees that is the margin of error.
How many trillions a year should we spend on that again?
lazs
Hey Lazs... Please go back to school and relearn how to read graphs. Said graph ends at 2007... See how the data goes past the year 2000 label? Yet another indication that you don't do well with details. If you'd pay attention, and make clear concise observations of things, you wouldn't miss the details that make them important.
Each LARGE tick mark on the X axis of the graph is a 20 year marker. In between those are 4 small ticks that represent 5 years. AFTER the large label of 2000 there is one small tick mark and the data goes two years AFTER that... giving you, up to and including, YEAR 2007.
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif)
Also, all you crazies are all over this being an average one degree cooler year than the past 6. Yet even at 1 degree celsius cooler... it is still one of the 20 warmest on record. That, to me, sounds inanely stupid to use as a proof that climate change isn't happening.
You already know my position on this. I personally think it is too late to change, and there are too many people that start with an opinion then look for supporting evidence, like yourself. I already feel we've started a ball rolling down a hill, and it's only mitigation of loss, to me, at this point. Scientists can't even get the lazy general public in the U.S. to learn the simple principles behind it.
-
Because.. from that date on the global temp begins to drop in a dramatic way.. for the last 8 years it has been dropping.. at such a rate that.. A case could be made that if we don't do something NOW... at this rate.. by the year 2100 we will all be meatcycles!!!!
Now you say temperature has... GONE DOWN for eight consecutive years?
(http://jasonleggett.greenoptions.com/files/990/Fig_A2_lrg.gif)
(http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/Fig.A.lrg.gif)
PLEASE NOTE: Both graphs DO NOT STOP DATA AFTER 2000. The met station data and the combined surface/ocean data go up until year 2006. I see no consistent drop at the end of these graphs. Please rethink your statement.
-
Moray,your data is scary.
I never saw data about the deep oceans warming like that, and that is outright, an enourmous amount of energy, vastly much more than the atmosphere measurements weight.
Well, when the puzzle comes together as the " :devil", then there is less and less reason to refuse it...
-
the temperature has gone down the last 8 years.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
lazs
-
You've all obviously done a considerable amount of research, but it all comes down to this: Nothing we do will stop our inevitable extinction. Can we all do our part to extend our time on this planet? Sure we can. Will we all ever agree on the best way to save our planet? Never happen. You want to do your part? Log off this board, turn off your computer, conserve energy, and go read a book.
-
the temperature has gone down the last 8 years.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
lazs
Wow.. You quote a graph the met office in the UK stopped using. Why don't you go to the UK met office and learn a few things. Pretty funny on a site you quote as showing an 8 year cooldown... we see this...
Climate change - Fact 3
The current climate change is not just part of a natural cycle
Earth's climate is complex and influenced by many things, particularly changes in its orbit, volcanic eruptions, and changes in the energy emitted from the Sun. It is well known that the world has experienced warm or cold periods in the past without any interference from humans. The ice ages are good examples of global changes to the climate, and warm periods have seen grapes grown across much of Britain.
Over the several hundred thousand years covered by the ice core record, the temperature changes were primarily driven by changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Over this period, changes in temperature did drive changes in carbon dioxide (CO2). Since the Industrial Revolution (over the last 100 years), CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due because to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels.
The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate, such as those due to orbit changes, led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming.
and this...
Climate change - Fact 2
Temperatures are continuing to rise
The rise in global surface temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. Warming has been unprecedented in at least the last 50 years, and the 17 warmest years have all occurred in the last 20 years. This does not mean that next year will necessarily be warmer than last year, but the long-term trend is for rising temperatures.
A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. The warming trend can be seen in the graph of observed global temperatures. The red bars show the global annual surface temperature, which exhibit year-to-year variability. The blue line clearly shows the upward trend, far greater than the uncertainties, which are shown as thin black bars. The recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures.
1998 saw an exceptional El Niño event which contributed strongly to that record-breaking year. Research shows that an exceptional El Niño can warm global temperatures by about 0.2 °C in a single year, affecting both the ocean surface and air temperatures over land. Had any recent years experienced such an El Niño, it is very likely that this record would have been broken. 2005 was also an unusually warm year, the second highest in the global record, but was not associated with El Niño conditions that boosted the warmth of 1998.
Another way of looking at the warming trend is that 1999 was a similar year to 2007 as far the cooling effects of La Niña are concerned. The 1999 global temperature was 0.26 °C above the 1961-90 average, whereas 2007 was 0.37 °C above this average, 0.11 °C warmer than 1999.
-
Well, not all the met offices agree, neither do all the scientists, although the majority of them establish pretty much the same facts as a melting icecube. It's warming....
Now, just a sec, is Lazs debating that again, or is he just against the Man-made part at the moment?
-
angus.. just the man made part. Also.. I think that we are due for a cooling and most real data shows that. There has been a cooling. despite one quote from moray.
I also believe that the margin of error is too great to really know.. what that means to me is that the warming (or cooling) is no real earth ender.. if we can't even notice it above the margin of error....
Moray says it is too late.. I say it matters not since nature will do as it pleases just as it always has and we have no control anyway.
When you think about it.. the conclusion is the same for both of us.. do nothing to stop any man made contribution. Nothing that causes more harm than good at least.
In my case that means that I believe that we are not contributing significantly and that nature is the driving force of climate not man.. in his case.. it means that no matter what is causing the warming.. it is too late to do anything about it.. pretty much nothing can be done soooo.. why make things worse by trying..
now.. that does not mean that either of us is against screwing in some CFL bulbs in our fixtures at home.. so long as they work good and are cheap. I don't think moray, and I know I don't, believe that spending trillions on shell game carbon scams is gonna do any good and will.... cause harm.
There is any number of things that can be done in between those two extremes that won't harm and can't help but be a good thing. They need to proceed at their own pace tho in light of the fact that...
either we aren't significantly changing the climate of the planet or... it is too late anyway..
The climate is changing.. it has always changed.. it changes at different rates from time to time.. no year is like any other ever was.
I for one have enjoyed this natural bounty of a few warm decades.. mild summers and mild winters... I know it will get cold soon enough... hopefully not for very long tho as cold is way worse than warm.
lazs
-
where is the next Katrina when the dumbarsecrats need it???
LOL LOL LOL
-
More in............
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
hmmm....................
-
LOL...
"Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
"Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
or this...
"Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"
Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.
"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."
What!!! the sun? less sun activity? are they saying we have prolonged this wonderful warm period but... now.. the ride is over? we are going to cool.. get cold? seems so... but what of co2? surly it co2 must be the only thing causing warming or cooling????
"Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."
great article... lots of more stuff..
lazs
-
What?? Do you mean to tell me that data from a 2002 satellite is more relevant than an algore movie??
It goes on to say...
"Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."
Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."
Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."
This is toooooo precious.. she will be pilloried....
"With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along."
lazs
-
This chick has obviously not heard about the overwelming scientific concensus. Doesn't she know that Al Gore has already declared all debate to be over!
Perhaps we should make some vague threats about removing her credientials for blaspheming the new Religion?
She is a heritic, possible a witch. She hates the Earth, and more than likely is in legue with Big Oil.
:cool:,
Wab
-
Lazs:
"angus.. just the man made part. Also.. I think that we are due for a cooling and most real data shows that. There has been a cooling. despite one quote from moray."
Okay, so has it been cooling or not, for you answer the question both ways!
For my part, the CO2 warming everything up is a slippery thing. Human impact as a whole has so many other huge things.
As for the cooling, I haven't seen anything proper to vote for it, and the with the polar caps in very fast retreat, you can debate and post stuff as you like, - it still keeps going on.
Kind of Galileo when the church forced him to state that the earth was the center of the solar-system, with the sun spinning around it and not vice-versa, - the earth kept on orbiting the sun that year.
So, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Anyway-your own personal heliocentrism?
No matter ho much you stare at the melting cube in yer whiskey and whisper "Thou areth frezing", - well it isn't.
-
I love it...The Weather Channel is doing the right thing...Al Gore has made millions on a speculation!
Al Gore should give back the millions he has made on his false claims!
-
Which ones were false?
-
Ummmm.... all of them! Of course we should believe him the is a politcian!
-
Did he prove wrong in stating that the globe is warming?
-
Al Gore proved nothing....did he go to Anartica and take readings??Is he a meteoroligist?Is he a scientist?No he is a spokesman...he only talks about things other people tell him.....Al Gore is like Jessie jackson and all the other shmucks out there making millions...fleecing the American public.
-
Pretty much the case.
The sea Ice will not raise SL, but all land based Ice will, and you'd be baffled to see what just the cap of Greenland can do.
Anyway, for the U.S.A., from where I heard ever so often "who cares" and "WTF with polar bears, LOL", finally I see this:
"If the ice melts most of the US will have very serious water shortages."+
Which is...true, as with many more areas of course...
(http://www.defender.com/large/552348_l.jpg)
You know theres massive plants that do the exact same thing as this little guy right? Australia is turning to the plants to solve their water problems. Human ingenuity ftw.
-
In Dubai they use filters. Only seawater there.
The modern filters, as well as the older are already much more energy efficient than distilling pure water from seawater.
Now, the problem persists though, for much of the human population does not live close to the sea...
As well as that, I'd love to see the bunch of you using that thing for every day in your life to have water, for it's not just for drinking you know....
-
angus..I guess I can't answer your question because I don't understand exactly what you are asking.
Does the climate of the earth heat and cool from time to time? I say yes.
has the planet heated for most of the last century somewhat? I say yes
did man have any significant effect on that in the form of man made co2? I say no.
Has the planet been cooling since 1998? I say yes.
Has it been cooling since 2002? I say yes.
Is man making it significantly cooler? I say no.
Is the sun the major player? I say yes.
lazs
-
So we disagree....
Here:
"Has the planet been cooling since 1998? I say yes.
Has it been cooling since 2002? I say yes."
I have not seen anything to back this up any better than the earth being flat. The records of all time heat being 205 and 2007, as well as ocean temps steadily rising.
As for the rest,,,,so-so. I think the CO2 and carbon levelling etc etc is oversimplifying things.
-
sorry angus.. I can't find any charts that show 2005 and 2007 being hotter than 1998 or... 1935 for that matter.
Every chart I see shows a downward trend from 1998.
lazs
-
Did you read Morays stuff? You only have to scroll up this thread....
-
well... I did read his stuff.. I also looked at some charts that look a lot like his...
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
except... different.
The margin of error is greater at +/- 2 degrees than the range of the rise in the charts.
lazs
-
So why is the ocean temp climbing as well as the ice melting?
You see, the air itself is trickier to measure...
-
BTW, glacial retreat broke all records in 2006....
-
Sooooo yer sayin Glaciers are French?
:huh
Mac
-
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg)
The global sea ice area is about 1 million sq KM more than normal for this time of year.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg)
The Northern hemisphere is about 1/2 a million sq km less than the average for this time of year, but has a greater extent than the greatest extent of the last 4 years...
-
Didn't know that the hemispere had been shrinking :D
Anyway, in the sea Ice category the Ice chipping off land is also in there. What's been scary is that the sea Ice has NOT being increasing despite of this.
Anyway, my data does mostly NOT match yours.....lookie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
You have lots of Greenland and Antarctica there, and data up to 2005 as well as results that are warm from 2007.
In our country we have several glaciers, most but not all believed to be in retreat. With an update from 2008 it was manifested that ALL of them are in retreat.
Then on to your sea Ice graph. Try to look at more than just the high spike,- which is not breaking any records, - but at the low one, which is. Now as well, this is area, not thickness, which is known to have declined.
And the French...have Glaciers. Or used to, many have ehmm...surrendered. :D
-
Didn't know that the hemispere had been shrinking :D
Okay, yeah, well, I did take some grammaratalogical liberties there.
The floating sea ice area at least in the N hemisphere is greater than last year at this time, that was the point.
-
all this hand wringing about the end of the world by co2 fueled temp that will fry us all...
When you could have just been enjoying the natural and pleasant warm spell we had.. Hopefully, it will hang on for a few more years and the natural and normal fluctuation to cold spell won't be too bad or last too long.
We are at the mercy of nature.
lazs
-
Okay, yeah, well, I did take some grammaratalogical liberties there.
The floating sea ice area at least in the N hemisphere is greater than last year at this time, that was the point.
It topped later, after doing an all time low. A 4 years spike vs an all time sink. We'll see where it drops next time...
-
Ya know.. it seems that we are all getting a little closer together on this thing. It seems that as more and more scientists come out and admit there is way more to it than some algore fairytale.. that we are getting a little more... "lets wait and see" and.. "nature is the driving factor" and even a little more.....
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
sorry.. couldn't resist. I promise not to rub it in too much in the coming years.
lazs
-
Ya know.. it seems that we are all getting a little closer together on this thing. It seems that as more and more scientists come out and admit there is way more to it than some algore fairytale.. that we are getting a little more... "lets wait and see" and.. "nature is the driving factor" and even a little more.....
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
sorry.. couldn't resist. I promise not to rub it in too much in the coming years.
lazs
I guess the poles melt when it "cools off for 8 years", huh Lazs?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008; Page A02
A chunk of Antarctic ice about seven times the size of Manhattan suddenly collapsed, putting an even larger portion of glacial ice at risk, scientists said yesterday.
Satellite images show a runaway 160-square-mile chunk of ice that broke off the Wilkins Ice Shelf in western Antarctica. The chunk started breaking off on Feb. 28. It had been there for perhaps 1,500 years.
The event is a result of global warming, said British Antarctic Survey scientist David Vaughan.
Although icebergs naturally break away from the mainland, collapses such as this are unusual. They have been happening more frequently, however, in recent decades, Vaughan said. The collapse is similar to what happens to glass when it is smashed with a hammer, he said.
The rest of the Wilkins Ice Shelf, which is about the size of Connecticut, is holding on by a narrow beam of thin ice. Scientists worry that it too may collapse. Larger, more dramatic ice collapses occurred in 2002 and 1995.
Vaughan had predicted in 1993 that the Wilkins shelf would collapse in 30 years.
-
Yet with all of your grandious talk you fail to realize...
A. This species has not survived a major climate shift. (The last "minor" blip, minor to our planet that is, almost eradicated us, pushing the worldwide population of Homo sapien to a point so low it can be seen in our current genetic makeup. It is estimated only 10,000 individuals survived, and our genes can trace that.)
and
B. The shift in climate has always taken millenia to move a few degrees, and that is with known shifts in orbital inclination and orbital mechanics that our planet goes through. That much happened in the past 50 years. You obviously don't get it.
So how do you explain an animal found in the wild, frozen to death, instanly, the grass it was grazeing still in its mouth and stomach, on what was known to be green fertile land around the beginning of the last ice age?
I do not doubt that the climate will change,only the ability of man to cause it, or prevent it!
I know that having 32 different blends of fuel in this country, helping to drive the price of fuel thru the roof, is not ever going to help anything other than to break the people of this country, all for the bank book of Al Gore and his idiot freinds who think using corn for fuel is a brilliant idea without taking the time to figure out that it takes more fossil fuel energy to convert corn to fuel energy than burning it outright! the sky is falling, the sky is falling, i had forgoten about that old tale!
yes someday the sky might fall, and no we cant stop it by breaking the economy of this country!
-
It topped later, after doing an all time low. A 4 years spike vs an all time sink. We'll see where it drops next time...
All time = last 50 years?
Do we have good data for ice sheet extent in say, 1627?
-
For what it's worth, they were bigger then ;)
The benefit of inland glaciers is that they really leave fingerprints, as well as being documented.
-
wow moray.. and you are the one who keeps telling us that local events are not global climate? That it takes time for effects?
Now.. even tho the total ice on the planet is increasing... if there is some retreating in antartica.. that is "global"
Also.. while it has been cooling.. it has been cooler this century.. we are on a downward trend. that does not mean that it is colder now than any time this century.. give it a little time...
You will be whining about how cold it is and how that will kill the oceans and all the sea life soon enough.
In the meantime.. enjoy the nice weather we have been having. and....
Pray they don't waste trillions of dollars and ruin already fragile economies on this hoax.
lazs
-
wow moray.. and you are the one who keeps telling us that local events are not global climate? That it takes time for effects?
Now.. even tho the total ice on the planet is increasing... if there is some retreating in antartica.. that is "global"
Also.. while it has been cooling.. it has been cooler this century.. we are on a downward trend. that does not mean that it is colder now than any time this century.. give it a little time...
You will be whining about how cold it is and how that will kill the oceans and all the sea life soon enough.
In the meantime.. enjoy the nice weather we have been having. and....
Pray they don't waste trillions of dollars and ruin already fragile economies on this hoax.
lazs
Yes, and as usual you only read half of what is said.
It's the accumulation of local events that indicate climate effect. This latest collapse is one of many. Remember the big one, Larsen B? That has been surrounded by repeated collapses of "old ice" and this is the latest example.
BTW... I wish you were right about the cooling. Cold water is extremely good for the ocean. It allows for much higher productivity, due to it's increased O2 capacity.
-
Well I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is NOTHING we can do about global warming. If humans are causing the climate to change it's because there are too many humans on this rock. You want to talk about CO2 levels? They've what...doubled in the last 20-30 years?? Well so has the population on this planet. See a connection??
Nature will take care of itself. Once the climate reaches a critical stage, something will happen and most of the people on this planet will die and that will be a good thing for the climate and all will return to normal.
Until that happens I'm going to do everything I can to speed it up. I hate crowds. :aok
-
yep moray.. I agree.. it is the "accumulation" of weather events.. it is record cold everywhere. The global climate is starting to cool.
lazs
-
yep moray.. I agree.. it is the "accumulation" of weather events.. it is record cold everywhere. The global climate is starting to cool.
lazs
NASA apparently doesn't think so, save for lower latitudes. The NEWEST GISS numbers. (again lazs... the DATA goes AFTER 2000, to include year 2007, FYI)
(http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif)
-
You can repeat yourself at will Lazs, but from experience I have no reason to belive you on this....
As well as from the judgement of my senses :D
-
of course angus... if you "feel" I am wrong and it is warmer in your back yard then it must be so.
I think we may find that the ocean heating, or most of it is geothermal.. if it were greenhouse gas then the troposphere would be hotter.
lazs
-
of course angus... if you "feel" I am wrong and it is warmer in your back yard then it must be so.
I think we may find that the ocean heating, or most of it is geothermal.. if it were greenhouse gas then the troposphere would be hotter.
lazs
The oceans are probably mad at us for killing whales and dolphins.
-
I EAT WHALES :devil
Anyway, my senses, include my eyes as well as my sense for temperature, and I can see more than one glacier through the windows. Been watching for years...
Included in my conclusion are my experiences from farming on an "edge" area for a good deal of years, my recent experience from really arctic ocean areas, my corresponding with farmers and seamen alike, my agricultural base education (agriculture involves more than hauling straw, such as metreology, biology etc etc), and, importantly, experiences from reading....a lot.
In short, trying to tell me that it's been cooling for the last years is like trying to tell me that Josef Göbbels was a 7 ft blond basketball player :D
And reading Moray's data makes rather much sense....
-
Also I wanted to add to this.. one thing is very certain. If the ice keeps melting we will have very serious problems here in the US as well as the rest of the world.
1) Much of the world's lower areas "will" be under water, that is a definite fact.
2) If the ice melts most of the US will have very serious water shortages.
Put it to you this way, where I live, it "will" be under water, yet where do you move? If the ice melts it won't be safe to live in the central US because there will be no water. So we have some drastic things that will effect this country and the world yet people argue about a catch phrase. The fact is as Camouflage posted the Ice "is" melting, it's clear as day in satellite photos.. Yea can't really argue with it.
Can we stop it or even slow it? I dunno but one thing is certain New York, Florida and all the other places being underwater will be pretty bad for the economy. Much less having no water for crops in the mid west. Lets just hope all that doesn't happen in our life times, but it is certain it will happen. So what are we doing to prepare for it? Not much...
Uhhh dude, you know this just happens naturally right? The earth warms and cools all the time. It is not in any way earth caused, Mt St Helens's eruption cloud of ash was had more pollutants than anything humans have ever put up in the atmosphere, we should be more worried about 1 volcano than our own stupid ways. Only way I vouch for the enviroment is the hunting and how people want to take that away from us. Damn hippies....... :lol
-
Firstly, you cannot do anything about volcanoes going off.
Secondly, the pollutant claim there....would you support that with data?
Thirdly, St. Helens is not the record breaker. The record breakers actualy started off with a lot of a cooling effect BTW....
-
Oh, GW is not happening....
Found linkie here about things not happening.
7th minute or so sets it off, but the whole thing is funny :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4GfDx_W-PE&NR=1