... In any case, it is good to see the balance returning.
Yes, so far June 2013 does indeed look "better" than June 2012, but March and April were actually "worse." Do you really think that 2013 (so far) being two standard deviations below the 1979-2000 mean is "the balance returning"? Incidentally, a 22 year time span is a very small baseline data sample ... certainly insufficient for climatological purposes.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 06-27-2013).]
I get confused. One day I hear that the ice caps are growing and the next I see satellite proof that they are shrinking. Is it just media bias on one side or the other?
It's a money making scheme. They are going to scare you into whatever they can to drain what little money you have left. Regarding climate changes. There are a lot more variables than man made pollution that are not talked about because it doesn’t fit their idea.
IP: Logged
12:18 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Hmmm, maybe there on to something with this climate change, I know the global warming crusade was a crock but maybe they have something with this climate change.
IP: Logged
01:52 PM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
It's a money making scheme. They are going to scare you into whatever they can to drain what little money you have left. Regarding climate changes. There are a lot more variables than man made pollution that are not talked about because it doesn’t fit their idea.
There wouldn't be any controversy if there were only natural variables. That's what the deniers latch on to. The only ones we can have any influence on are the man made ones though.
IP: Logged
02:51 PM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
Originally posted by Arns85GT: So is this an el Nino or a La Nina at work? In any case, it is good to see the balance returning.
Arn
Sorry buddy, one months worth of data is meaningless to climate. Also the trend is still DOWNWARD. A downward trend is NOT an improvement by any means.
That nonsense has actually been circulating for quite a while, not "today."
CO2 fills a different role in the upper atmosphere. It does cool the thermosphere but it warms the troposphere.
So the thermosphere absorbed enough energy to power New York City for 2 years. Big whoop.
On the Earth's surface where CO2 has a major warming effect, the daily average radiation from the planet is enough to power New York City for 200,000 years. Source.
Your article is based on total ignorance to spread misinformation. CO2's warming effect certainty hasn't been debunked. Only recently are politically motivated and anti-science movements attempting to rewrite history to suit their favor.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 06-27-2013).]
IP: Logged
04:05 PM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
Natural News announced this under the totally BOGUS heading of "Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere". But the actual NASA report that they are referring to says NOTHING of the sort. The NASA report is talking about the atmosphere's transient reaction to unusually intense bursts of radiation from solar storms, which are occasional and short-lived events--not the steady, day in and day out global warming that is attributable to atmospheric carbon dioxide.
You've got to put Natural News on your list--your DON'T READ ANYMORE list.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-27-2013).]
IP: Logged
04:53 PM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
So is this an el Nino or a La Nina at work? In any case, it is good to see the balance returning.
Arn
Using the same graph you must have concluded the same thing in April last year. :banghead
Instead of guessing why not use the scientific information on the site http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ they even have an "ASK US" tab where I'm sure you can get some more educated answers.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 06-27-2013).]
They post up to date data every day. The fact is that after several years of decline, an anomaly like this is worth noting. This is a relatively big variance over a short period.
Take into account the late spring melt off and late spring rains in Alberta.
All I am saying is that this bears watching.
But of course, and just for the record, while it was forecast by the Global Warming alarmists, islands have not been inundated, polar bears are not starving and drowning, there is not an increase in the frequency of hurricanes, and, there is no drought so far (and let's cross our fingers)
Arn
PS. FlyinFieros........ I am quoting a Government agency report, not a newspaper.
And yes, there are no drowning and starving polar bears. There are no inundated islands. There is no increase in hurricanes, and, we have no major drought.
They post up to date data every day. The fact is that after several years of decline, an anomaly like this is worth noting. This is a relatively big variance over a short period.
Take into account the late spring melt off and late spring rains in Alberta.
All I am saying is that this bears watching.
But of course, and just for the record, while it was forecast by the Global Warming alarmists, islands have not been inundated, polar bears are not starving and drowning, there is not an increase in the frequency of hurricanes, and, there is no drought so far (and let's cross our fingers)
Arn
PS. FlyinFieros........ I am quoting a Government agency report, not a newspaper.
And your thought that this is some kind of anomaly amazes me.
The signs of Climate Change are unmistakable read more on the site you linked, maybe present your theory of how things are not happening, I'm sure they would love to read your expert opinion.
IP: Logged
09:47 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36745 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
A quiet sun has a delayed reaction in the atmosphere. Having the ice field recover is entirely consistent with a quiet sun situation.
The two seem to be linked.
And CO2 is our friend, not our problem, as per NASA
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
Originally posted by Arns85GT: A quiet sun has a delayed reaction in the atmosphere. Having the ice field recover is entirely consistent with a quiet sun situation.
The two seem to be linked.
And CO2 is our friend, not our problem, as per NASA
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
CO2 is our friend..? Unless you quantify it (in ppm), that is a meaningless assertion. I could say that iodine is my friend, because it is necessary for healthy thyroid functioning. Should I drink an eight ounce bottle of concentrated iodine solution?
There is nothing in this one brief NASA post to justify it being brandished as some kind of antidote or counter argument to the more commonly accepted ideas about carbon dioxide and global warming. Nothing at all.
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
Originally posted by Arns85GT: And this statement posted by NASA is irrelevent? I don't get your logic.
It's not irrelevant. I did not mean to say that, and if I did say that, I was wrong. It's important.
The report, which is brief, leaves me with further questions about this phenomenon where carbon dioxide (and nitric oxide) in the upper atmosphere are observed to function like an atmospheric "thermostat" during solar storms. Starting with just how significant is this phenomenon? How much does it condition the earth's climate, vs. what are believed to be the otherwise general warming effects of higher carbon dioxide levels? What would happen, in terms of both weather (short-term response) and climate (long-term response), if this solar storm thermostat effect were to be dialed up or down by changes in the concentrations of carbon dioxide (and nitric oxide) in the upper atmosphere? Since this thermostat effect is already observable, who is to say (yet) that anyone would benefit from it being increased any further by higher levels of these gases?
A quiet sun has a delayed reaction in the atmosphere. Having the ice field recover is entirely consistent with a quiet sun situation.
The two seem to be linked.
And CO2 is our friend, not our problem, as per NASA
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
I'm still waiting for someone so solve the issue of man made Sea Level Change. Millions of people go to the beaches of the world every year and pee in the ocean. The physics is pretty simple. If you add liquid to a container, no matter how large, the level will rise. We must do something to combat this before all the world is submerged.
I'm still waiting for someone so solve the issue of man made Sea Level Change. Millions of people go to the beaches of the world every year and pee in the ocean. The physics is pretty simple. If you add liquid to a container, no matter how large, the level will rise. We must do something to combat this before all the world is submerged.
You don't believe in the sea level changing due to climate change?. Let me know if you find the elusive source of the pee.
Originally posted by newf: You don't believe in the sea level changing due to climate change?.
So what if it does, ? Your NASA guys (who work for Nobama) say that the sea level is going up two milimeters a year. Big whoop, . They say it was going up before 1950, when man made "who haw" was not as much as a factor. Since 1950, more people, more energy usage, more manufacturing, more more more. The sea level change is not spiking. What caused it to go up in 1870 ? How many feet is 204 mm ?
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 06-30-2013).]
So what if it does, ? Your NASA guys (who work for Nobama) say that the sea level is going up two milimeters a year. Big whoop, . They say it was going up before 1950, when man made "who haw" was not as much as a factor. Since 1950, more people, more energy usage, more manufacturing, more more more. The sea level change is not spiking. What caused it to go up in 1870 ? How many feet is 204 mm ?
Why ask me, read the link or any other credible scientific info you can find.
IP: Logged
10:49 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
We know the source of anthropogenic pee. There's more of it going into the ocean now than at any time in history. Aren't you concerned? The irony is you find that example silly, but you take man made climate change deadly serious. You apparently believe the impact man has on the air is substantial, but the impact man has on the ocean is negligible. The science is just as valid for both. The only question is the magnitude of the impact.
We know the source of anthropogenic pee. There's more of it going into the ocean now than at any time in history. Aren't you concerned? The irony is you find that example silly, but you take man made climate change deadly serious. You apparently believe the impact man has on the air is substantial, but the impact man has on the ocean is negligible. The science is just as valid for both. The only question is the magnitude of the impact.
Excuse the pun but your argument holds no water.
Maybe read up on the causes of sea level rise due to Climate Change and get back to us.
IP: Logged
11:05 PM
Jul 1st, 2013
cliffw Member
Posts: 36745 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by newf: Why ask me, read the link or any other credible scientific info you can find.
quote
Originally posted by newf: Maybe read up on the causes of sea level rise due to Climate Change and get back to us.
Why would I do that ? I am not the one trying to convince you. 204 mm is just barely over eight inches. The world ain't gonna end. I really don't get the fear that people have, if indeed man made global warming was happening.
Why would I do that ? I am not the one trying to convince you. 204 mm is just barely over eight inches. The world ain't gonna end. I really don't get the fear that people have, if indeed man made global warming was happening.
Nice, you admit you don't understand and also admit you don't want to know. I'd suggest you pull the covers back over your head.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-01-2013).]
?
. They say it was going up before 1950, when man made "who haw" was not as much as a factor. Since 1950, more people, more energy usage, more manufacturing, more more more. The sea level change is not spiking. What caused it to go up in 1870 ?
