So is this an el Nino or a La Nina at work? In any case, it is good to see the balance returning.

Arn

This recovery has been brought to you by Global Warming, the Big Lie-Fairytale!

------------------
Jonathan

'68-69 GTO Nose - The Project has Begun!
My '85 L67 Build Thread

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: ... 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).]

Interesting that this should come up as a topic today-

...carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere...

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.

recovery? funny use of the word.

it only rained 20 pounds of bricks today, instead of the usual 50. RECOVERY!

its still raining bricks.

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.

quote Originally posted by JetroGT: 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.

Playing the cynic here.

1 year of growth doth not a pattern make.

quote Originally posted by Khw: 1 year of growth doth not a pattern make.

The "evidence" presented in the graph is even weaker than that. Consider:

-- If you look closely it's only 1 month of statistically significant variation, not 1 year.

-- It's not growth; June 2013 is just less bad than June 2012.

-- On this time scale it's weather, not climate.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 06-27-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: If you look closely it's only 1 month of statistically significant variation, not 1 year. It's not growth, June 2013 is just less bad than June 2012. On this time scale it's weather, not climate.

Yup, that sounds like liberal tax math.

quote 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.

We are still warming, A LOT:

We haven't hit the global warming pause button
Source.
Peer reviewed and published.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Interesting that this should come up as a topic today- ...carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere...

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).]

quote Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Source.

Curious, do you have a graph showing the CO2 levels over the same time period?

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Interesting that this should come up as a topic today- ...carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere...

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).]

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Yup, that sounds like liberal tax math.

Do you have anything to say about the data? Do you dispute anything specific in my three statements? Or are you just grumbling?

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 06-27-2013).]

quote 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

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).]

Newf, you amaze me.

That graph was posted from this website arctic sea ice news

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.

yes as I have said numerous times none of the model projections
HAS THE SUN CHANGING TO A LOWER OUTPUT

BAD DATA IN = BAD DATA OUT

SURPRISES !!!!!!!!!!!
no not really

BUT
no growth of ice extent year over year NOW
AND
the downward trend slowed
it did not reverse

AGAIN LESS HEAT IN
BUT NO COOLER TEMPERATURES just less pace in the rise and ice is still shrinking NOW

SO HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT !

Ray, the ice shrinks every summer, but, it is not net reducing NOW. Read the chart.

If you take the time to read what has been posted you will see that the prognostications of the Global Warming advocates have

NOT COME TRUE

Arn

[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 06-28-2013).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: SO HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT !

THAT'S EASY ! THE ICE AGE OF THE 70's NEVER HAPPENED EITHER.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Newf, you amaze me. That graph was posted from this website arctic sea ice news 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.

quote Originally posted by newf: I'm sure they would love to read your expert opinion.

Put down the glass of Kool Aid.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Put down the glass of Kool Aid.

More like "reverse the cranial-rectal inversion."

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Ray, the ice shrinks every summer, but, it is not net reducing NOW. Read the chart. If you take the time to read what has been posted you will see that the prognostications of the Global Warming advocates have NOT COME TRUE Arn

PLEASE I SAID
''BUT
no growth of ice extent year over year NOW''
NOTE YEAR OVER YEAR
NO SUMMER WINTER BS

GRANTED BOTH THE CASE WAS OVER STATED
AND DID NOT ACCOUNT FOR A SOLAR SUN SPOT REDUCTION

nether make the idea of dumping extra MEGA -tons of CO2 in to our air a good idea

the solar sun-spot cycle dip gave us a extension OF TIME NOT AN EXEMPTION FROM THE FACTS

AND IF ANYTHING DID PROVE THE CO2 GLOBAL WARMING TRUE
as when the sun's output dropped the temperatures did NOT

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 06-28-2013).]

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.”

NASA's latest finding

quote 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.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: “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.” NASA's latest finding

And this statement posted by NASA is irrelevent? I don't get your logic.

Arn

quote 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?

quote 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.” NASA's latest finding

Yes that 3 day event in the upper atmosphere should solve the issue of man made Climate Change.

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.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: 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.

Here's some reading from those dummies and liars at NASA... http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 06-30-2013).]

quote 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).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: 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.

quote Originally posted by newf: 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. Here's some reading from those dummies and liars at NASA... http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

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.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: 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.

quote 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.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: 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).]