And if we toss my bottle of water into the sun, it will vaporize.
So what?
- Status
So what?
Great. Another popularity contest to determine fact.
Guys. I vote that there is only a single planet, and the universe revolves around it…and that I have a lifetime supply of free cheeseburgers. Who is with me? How many votes do we need to make it a reality?
Come on guys. Just got to convince the ‘majority’ to make it real. Right?
Why should anyone else do your homework?
If you have a case to present, present it.
Links are good. Quotes of the pertinent information is much better.
E
Ender
Guest
It is not that arriving at consensus actually means arriving at the truth but one cannot ignore the influence that the argument has. Most people are unfamiliar with the science involved and are unaware of the nature of the disagreements. When they are repeatedly told that there is no significant scientific disagreement on the point that man is a major contributor to global warming they tend to accept it as true and it’s hard to fault them.
The counter argument that there is no consensus and that there are significant numbers of scientists with opposing opinions is a tactical statement and while it may have nothing whatever to do with the truth of the issue has a great deal to do with helping to derail or at least slow the lemming-like march into the abyss. (By the way, did you know that lemmings don’t actually commit mass suicide? Just another example of what “everyone” knows that isn’t true.)
Ender
V
Valke2
Guest
No one mentions Al Gore more than someone who disagrees with him. I’ve posted probably about 500 posts on global warming and I probably mentioned Mr. Gore twice. Including this time.
Do you have a link for me? My understanding is that the temperture cooled a bit in 2008, as was expected. Something to do with a non-Nino year. But that 2008 was still one of the warmest years on record. I don’t think anyone believes that in order for Global Warming to be taken seriously, the earth’s temperture must steadily increase year after year.
If you know the plan, why are you asking me?
V
Valke2
Guest
I had to refill my coffee just from reading that post.Hi valke,
yes, it’s cold in Minnesota in the winter. Today it was a balmy 20 above, which is rather nice for the end of Feb.
Jan. is usually the coldest month. Some towns near the Canadian border can be 50 Below at times, that’s cold.
I live at the head of Lake Superior, so we get the wind chill off the Lake which lowers the temps more. But if you dress for the weather and learn to drive on ice and snow, you’ll be fine.
Come up and visit, in July. It’s nice and warm then.
God bless,
jean8
J
jean8
Guest
valke,
enjoy your coffee.
I forgot to mention, we’ve had a few snowflakes in Apr. and May. in the past.
Now that’s Global Warming? The King of Kings is in charge of the weather. Not Al Gore.
God bless,
jean8
V
Valke2
Guest
God may make it rain but that don’t mean we can invent umbrellas.valke,
enjoy your coffee.
I forgot to mention, we’ve had a few snowflakes in Apr. and May. in the past.
Now that’s Global Warming? The King of Kings is in charge of the weather. Not Al Gore.
God bless,
jean8
Something I can agree with.
And an analogy I really like.
No if we can actually make an evaluation of wether or not we actually need them…
For now it seems that chicken little has mistaken an acorn falling on his head for a torrential downpour.
S
sodak
Guest
When you consider that the Earth, orbiting 93 million miles away from the Sun, receives heating from it while rotating around it’s axis, and is sitting in a relative vacuum at -450 deg F (or thereabouts), all the while having a hot internal core due to both radiation and thermal compression, and also having an atmosphere that has further unequal heating and cooling due to many effects, it’s a miracle that the temperature of the earth doesn’t bounce up and down like a pogo stick.
It used to.
It has not been until the last 10,000 or so years that the temperature has ‘stabilized’
Previous to that it went from one extreme to the next and back.
I would be interested if anyone can explain why the climate ‘stabilized’.
V
Valke2
Guest
You have no proof that tempertures stabilized 10,000 years ago. Until there are hard numbers proving this, it is all just whacky science conjecture.
M
mapleoak
Guest
No doubt, we cannot predict things accurately in real time, let alone be able to say what the weather or climate was like 10,000 years ago.
Ice core analysis tells us this.
And there need not be hard numbers here. I didn’t define them.
About 10,000 is exactly that ‘about 10,000.’
Could be 10,000, could be 15,000, could be 5,000.
Likewise the temperature range is not specified.
I do not know exactly how hot or cold it was, just that the wild fluctuations were there.
I’ll not make the mistake of trying to nail down a specific that I do not know.
But it is good that you now require proof.
It is good to finally get past the Global Warming argument.
C
Calliso
Guest
While it is possible that a lot more has been in great error it is very very unlikely. Here is a link directly from the national snow and ice data center, one from today… nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html And from febuary 18th that deal with the data error. nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html
And copying and pasting from the faq about whether or not they quality control… their data **Do your data undergo quality control?
The daily and monthly images that we show in Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis are near-real-time data. Near-real-time data do not receive the rigorous quality control that final sea ice products enjoy, but it allows us to monitor ice conditions as they develop.
Several possible sources of error can affect near-real-time images. Areas near land may show some ice coverage where there isn’t any because a land filter has not yet been applied and the sensor has a coarse resolution. Sometimes, the data we receive have geolocation errors, which could affect where ice appears. Near-real-time data may also have areas of missing data, displayed on the daily map as gray wedges, speckles, or spider web patterns. In addition, satellite sensors occasionally have problems and outages, which can affect the near-real-time data. We correct these problems in the final sea ice products, which replace the near-real-time data in about six months to a year.
Despite its areas of inaccuracy, near-real-time data are still useful for assessing changes in sea ice coverage, particularly when averaged over an entire month. The monthly average image is more accurate than the daily images because weather anomalies and other errors are less likely to affect it. Because of the limitations of near-real-time data, they should be used with caution when seeking to extend a sea ice time series, and should not be used for operational purposes such as navigation.**
Now of course that doesn;t mean that you might not get blogs and news sources that use the recently monthly and daily data and donlt remember to tell people that there are possibly errors. But this is directly from the feb 26th news **The temporary error in the near-real-time data does not change the conclusion that Arctic sea ice extent has been declining for the past three decades. This conclusion is based on peer reviewed analysis of quality-controlled data products, not near-real-time data. **
Here is another article that would be good to read too. nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
And thought I would copy and paste the part about decline causes right here…
**
Greenhouse gases emitted through human activities and the resulting increase in global mean temperatures are the most likely underlying cause of the sea ice decline, but the direct cause is a complicated combination of factors resulting from the warming, and from climate variability. The Arctic Oscillation (AO) is a see-saw pattern of alternating atmospheric pressure at polar and mid-latitudes. The positive phase produces a strong polar vortex, with the mid-latitude jet stream shifted northward. The negative phase produces the opposite conditions. From the 1950s to the 1980s, the AO flipped between positive and negative phases, but it entered a strong positive pattern between 1989 and 1995. So the acceleration in the sea ice decline since the mid 1990s may have been partly triggered by the strongly positive AO mode during the preceding years (Rigor et al. 2002 and Rigor and Wallace 2004) that flushed older, thicker ice out of the Arctic, but other factors also played a role.
Since the mid-1990s, the AO has largely been a neutral or negative phase, and the late 1990s and early 2000s brought a weakening of the Beaufort Gyre. However, the longevity of ice in the gyre began to change as a result of warming along the Alaskan and Siberian coasts. In the past, sea ice in this gyre could remain in the Arctic for many years, thickening over time. Beginning in the late 1990s, sea ice began melting in the southern arm of the gyre, thanks to warmer air temperatures and more extensive summer melt north of Alaska and Siberia. Moreover, ice movement out of the Arctic through Fram Strait continued at a high rate despite the change in the AO. Thus warming conditions and wind patterns have been the main drivers of the steeper decline since the late 1990s. Sea ice may not be able to recover under the current persistently warm conditions, and a tipping point may have been passed where the Arctic will eventually be ice-free during at least part of the summer (Lindsay and Zhang 2005).
Examination of the long-term satellite record dating back to 1979 and earlier records dating back to the 1950s indicate that spring melt seasons have started earlier and continued for a longer period throughout the year (Serreze et al. 2007). Even more disquieting, comparison of actual Arctic sea ice decline to IPCC AR4 projections show that observed ice loss is faster than any of the IPCC AR4 models have predicted (Stroeve et al. 2007).**
V
Valke2
Guest
Exactly. That’s why I always roll my eyes at all this dinosaur nonsense.
V
Valke2
Guest
Ice core samples??? come on.
V
Valke2
Guest
Geologists, biologists and other scientists convened Thursday in Paris to discuss how to stop the spread of fungus stains — aggravated by global warming — that threaten France’s prehistoric Lascaux cave drawings.
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090226/ap_on_sc/eu_france_cave_drawings;_ylt=AsaiRpsWn5bKTsJYgKjqyjQHcggF
The Arctic and Antarctic regions are warming faster than previously thought, raising world sea levels and making drastic global climate change more likely than ever, international scientists said on Wednesday.
New evidence of the trend was uncovered by wide-ranging research in the two areas over the past two years in a United Nations-backed program dubbed the International Polar Year (IPY), they said.
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090225/sc_nm/us_climate_polars;_ylt=Ai0a82mXjiJlhi1vTrEH9ukHcggF
Pish
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090226/ap_on_sc/eu_france_cave_drawings;_ylt=AsaiRpsWn5bKTsJYgKjqyjQHcggF
The Arctic and Antarctic regions are warming faster than previously thought, raising world sea levels and making drastic global climate change more likely than ever, international scientists said on Wednesday.
New evidence of the trend was uncovered by wide-ranging research in the two areas over the past two years in a United Nations-backed program dubbed the International Polar Year (IPY), they said.
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090225/sc_nm/us_climate_polars;_ylt=Ai0a82mXjiJlhi1vTrEH9ukHcggF
Pish
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
I can’t believe it- I never even considered that fungus would be aggravated by global warming!!!
I guess I’ll add “angry cave fungus” to the list of things the french are afraid of.
- Status