http://www.theweathernetwork.com/...ther/caon0696?ref=homemap

DISCUSS!!

:P

globular warming is a cover for the zombie apocolypse

That's nothing, only 98 farenheit. It's 112 here today!!!

/me resurrects cally and pyrrus

on second thought, rather nought

lets argue about whether 0.999999999999999999999 = 1 instead

0.999999999999999999999 =/= 1

0.999... = 1

large difference

We are getting so hot here Mars is warming, so yeah it is all us, I say its a galactic cycle

global warming is just a big scam .
it's just natural cycles.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism



NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/...pencer-and-braswell-2011/

http://news.yahoo.com/...g-alarmism-192334971.html

If you say alarmist enough times, maybe I will take you seriously. No wait, I won't.

Show me some research papers with neutral language and I might take you seriously.

there's a global warming debate?

DETAH TO THE BERGS!

do I have to read it, it in English :p

Are we headed for another Maunder Minimum and a Little Ice Age?

the diagrams are big so I just post the addresses!

The Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period from 1645 to 1715 when virtually no sunspots appeared, coincided with the Little Ice Age.

The Sunspot Cycle

(Updated 2011/07/01)

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml


Sunspot Numbers

In 1610, shortly after viewing the sun with his new telescope, Galileo Galilei (or was it Thomas Harriot?) made the first European observations of Sunspots. Continuous daily observations were started at the Zurich Observatory in 1849 and earlier observations have been used to extend the records back to 1610. The sunspot number is calculated by first counting the number of sunspot groups and then the number of individual sunspots.
The "sunspot number" is then given by the sum of the number of individual sunspots and ten times the number of groups. Since most sunspot groups have, on average, about ten spots, this formula for counting sunspots gives reliable numbers even when the observing conditions are less than ideal and small spots are hard to see. Monthly averages (updated monthly) of the sunspot numbers (181 kb JPEG image), (307 kb pdf-file), (62 kb text file) show that the number of sunspots visible on the sun waxes and wanes with an approximate 11-year cycle.

(Note: there are actually at least two "official" sunspot numbers reported. The International Sunspot Number is compiled by the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center in Belgium. The NOAA sunspot number is compiled by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The numbers tabulated in spot_num.txt are the monthly averages (SSN) and standard deviation (DEV) derived from the International Sunspot Numbers)

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/...es/Zurich_Color_Small.jpg

The Maunder Minimum

Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.


The Butterfly Diagram

Detailed observations of sunspots have been obtained by the Royal Greenwich Observatory since 1874. These observations include information on the sizes and positions of sunspots as well as their numbers. These data show that sunspots do not appear at random over the surface of the sun but are concentrated in two latitude bands on either side of the equator. A butterfly diagram (142 kb GIF image) (184 kb pdf-file) (updated monthly) showing the positions of the spots for each rotation of the sun since May 1874 shows that these bands first form at mid-latitudes, widen, and then move toward the equator as each cycle progresses.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif

The Greenwich Sunspot Data

The Royal Greenwich Observatory data has been appended with data obtained by the US Air Force Solar Optical Observing Network since 1977. This newer data has been reformatted to conform to the older Greenwich data and both are available in a local directory of ASCII files. Each file contains records for a given year with individual records providing information on the daily observations of active regions.

Sunspot Cycle Predictions

MSFC Solar Physics Branch members Wilson, Hathaway, and Reichmann have studied the sunspot record for characteristic behavior that might help in predicting future sunspot activity. Our current predictions of solar activity for the next few years can be found at this link. Although sunspots themselves produce only minor effects on solar emissions, the magnetic activity that accompanies the sunspots can produce dramatic changes in the ultraviolet and soft x-ray emission levels. These changes over the solar cycle have important consequences for the Earth's upper atmosphere.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_year

anybody know what 20 - 19.999 equals?

bah, it's getting a bit boring looking at this part of the galaxy... i want to see something new.

Global Warming is a way for corporations who want to sell "Green" to make more money. It's easy to trick the tee huggers ino thinking the end is near, so they will all run out like good littl lemmings and buy up anything labeled "Green".

It's a MARKETING PLOY! It's a MARKETING PLOY!

Gris:
And the fact that varying solar output can affect climate means that atmospheric conditions cannot?

Dibs:
20 - 19.999... => 0, as we all know ;)

You should look up cryogenics if you want to see things a GY away... It might work

i don't think the atmospheric(apnospheric) conditions have enough variation to be the cause. did they ever get around to proving Savante Arrenhenius's equations about the doubling of CO2?

1 GY away would put me right back here. maybe 1/2 a GY would be cool. i'll have to try that some time. :-P

Anyone who says there is not global warming is cherry picking bits of data here and there to construct a deceitful argument. There is no debate amongst anyone who has read the scientific literature as to whether or not humans have caused global warming.



To help explain things in very basic terms, there are natural climate cycles governed by Earth's orbit. These variations in Earth's orbit are called Milankovitch cycles.

Gas isotope ratios in Earth's atmosphere are very sensitive to Earth's temperature and these gas ratios are preserved in ice cores. The EPICA ice core provides information back 800,000 years. This means that we have, in effect, a record of Earth's global temperatures dating back 800,000 years.

We can model what the temperature on Earth should be globally based on Milankovitch cycles, since this creates minor, but known, variations in Earth's distance and incidence to the sun. When we do this, the predicted temperature pattern and historic temperature records match very nicely until 8,000 years ago.

8,000 years ago the temperature is predicted to continue decreasing however it started slowly increasing. This is due to the beginning of mass deforestation with the onset of agriculture. We see another sharp change in Earth's global temperature with the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago, when we started burning fossil fuels en masse.



I could provide large quantities of scientific literature, which no one would bother to read, but ultimately what I wrote is the gist of the situation. There are huge amounts of data supporting what I said and anyone who tells you that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is not real is either completely ignorant or is lying to you.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.

Data can be skewed to reflect whatever you want it to say. The bottom line is, it's all about the money, it's always been all about the money, and it will always be all about the money.

It's a MARKETING PLOY! It's a MARKETING PLOY!

you're just telling me they would be able to calculate what the temperatures were back then if their math isn't borked. and it is borked.

they had to get Al Gore and the IPCC to propagandize the stuff just to get people to pay attention to it.

We are literally heating the solar system!!!

http://seoblackhat.com/...pluto-triton-and-jupiter/

Is CO2 even a greenhouse gas?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/...ls/co2_report_july_09.pdf

The fact of this all is that it is a big scare. It was warmer in medieval times than today...solar output hasn't decreased as CO2 levels ramped up...our solar system is warming with earth(which you would think would quell some alarmist attitudes at the very least). They've even had to change the name to climate change for anyone give it credence anymore. I really start wondering how much will have to be stacked against global warming before people finally give up trying to make money off the people by running around waving their arms.

Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

http://maps.grida.no/...he-past-400-000-years.jpg


This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials. To understand current climate change, scientists have looked at many factors, such as volcanic activity and solar variability, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely factor driving current climate change. This conclusion is not based on the analysis of past climate change, though this provides key insights into the way climate responds to different forcings and adds weight to the several lines of evidence that strongly support the role of greenhouse gases in recent warming.

Cerberus, it is a marketing ploy, by Exxon, Chevron, etc. Everyone wishes global warming wasn't true because we do all want to throw a bunch of fluff into the atmosphere... sadly there are consequences for doing that.

Dibs, the math is fine. Poor troll. 1/10

CK, as usual, posted a bunch of nonsense. I am pretty sure he is republican politician because he posts a bunch of retarded republican party-line bull fluff all the time. He completely ignores pertinent facts and tries to use a singular data point to come to the conclusion that he wants. Europe was extra warm then, the Pacific was extra cold. The global temperatures were cooler than they are today. The "MWP" does not decrease the validity of global warming, at all.

Also, the whole "climate change" vs global warming thing was actually started by republicans in a memo sent around since they wanted to make it sound less scary so they could continue serving their oil overlords.

if the math is fine, why did they throw all of data into the dumpster instead of saving it to new and improved digital media so that people could verify it?

I have no idea what you're referring to.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/...onment/article6936328.ece

not sure if it's the original article. i might've posted it before on here, or jolt forums.

Hehe Detmer, so I give one study where MIT took 20 years of study and concluded that CO2 wasn't even a greenhouse gas.

I give another where it shows that planets and moons around the solar system are heating along with earth.

I'm sure I could find another study easily showing how CO2 levels follow temperature levels, not lead. That would reverse the cause and effect in case you don't understand.

I see nowhere how that is nonsense and if you care to try and refute their findings, you are free to do so. Maybe they can ask Hansen over at the IPCC to falsify some more data though to fit your agenda of global warming. If you want to fuel his pocketbook, I guess you are free to do that.

All in all it is pretty simple to see how crazy the global warming/climate change agenda is.

I am just checking in to agree with Detmer. He's a geology person; I'm a biology person. Science FTW. I find it saddening and frustrating how much misunderstanding and misinformation surrounds the topic of global climate change.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

as an engineering person. i have no idea wtf you guys are talking about ;P

Ok CK, I don't know why but I looked at your stupid links. The first conspiracy theory website you listed lists several links that when you actually read the links refute what it is saying.
1) First link as a short front page saying something that might suggest global warming is not man-made, but then a long second page pointing out all the flaws with it, including that it is not actually supported by data.
2) The article says the warming on Pluto is not likely to be related to Earth
3) The article says that Jupiter could experience changes of 10F due to atmospheric changes... why that would suggest the atmosphere couldn't have large changes on Earth I am unsure.

I am not going to go through your stupid conspiracy theory website to debunk everyone of its claims... 3 of the first 3 is sufficient for me.

The second one is written by an institute whose lead is an avowed climate change denier. I don't have interest in reading 28 pages there to debunk that right now, however CO2 is absolutely a green house gas. It absorbs visible light and emits ER, so it is by definition. I am afraid to wonder what spurious claims your link might make.


All in all its pretty crazy that you take the word of these loons at face value rather than experts on the subject.

As one studying to obtain a degree in Atmospheric Science.....You all have gone too deep and the only I think I have read was Detmer's post.
The End

it might be a really bad thing that they don't require scientists to take college english. think i've stayed above sea level all day. don't know how you figure that i've gone too deep.

Haha, ok Detmer.


We have planets all over the solar system, moons included warming. That doesn't strike you as odd? For the first link (national geographic mind you...not a conspiracy website) it shows the data, Mars warming without *gasp* humans, then some saying he is dismissing greenhouse gases and thus his theory isn't correct. So we have the data showing natural warming and some scientists opinions thinking otherwise. To quote the second page you astutely mentioned:

""His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University."

Mainstream...is that what "science" is coming to?

Then, I'll say that Pluto and Jupiter are weak, but Triton is again being warmed by none other than the sun, which turns its nitrogen into a gas, which then increases the total atmosphere.

The MIT study is the big one. I've seen the planets and mainly post that as a support to what is going on here. MIT did that study and found that the outgoing solar radiation levels were undisturbed by the CO2 levels. You can call CO2 what you like, but it seems to have very little if any affect on temperatures per all actual studies done. In fact their findings on CO2 very nearly resemble Grisgoth's post from another source. There are many other claims, including:

"718 scientists from 420 institutions in 41 countries on the co2science.org Medieval Warm Period database say the Middle Ages were warmer than today."

Now...I'm not sure what spurious claims you and your ilk might make, but I've seen the data on the medieval warming period and came to this conclusion well before I ever found this study.

I do like how you dismiss MIT because the institute is led by someone who is a climate change denier lol. Wouldn't that go directly against the claims by anyone the global warming side of the debate? "They are only global warming advocates" Or even better what about all those global warming advocates who are caught falsifying data(Hansen) or as Dibs posted deleting data they used or, per the emails that got out, trying to manipulate peer reviewed journals.

The way I see it, the global warming crowd can never be straight with the public. There is always something they are doing as mentioned above that destroys all credibility. Why would they delete their data? Why would they need to manipulate journals? Why are they falsifying data? Then you have the gall to say I should shut down my own mind and defer to someone who gets paid better if they find evidence of global warming? Give me a break...

Ok so we inhale oxygen and exhale CO2, which means humans are the biggest green house gas producers, However the plants Absorb CO2 and expel oxygen, this planet was a tropical rainforest per say back during dino days.
Warming .... back in the day they used to hoist up buckets of ocean water to take the temp, then someone got the bright idea to pump the water into the engine room into a bucket to test temp which is where the warming first began. So

To solve the warming issue stop taking the temp for one, and all the folks who think we can control the universe need to stop breathing and producing CO2 that should significantly stifle all arguments from the that time on

"We have planets all over the solar system, moons included warming. That doesn't strike you as odd?"

This kind of statement annoys the crap out of me. You cannot apply folksy common sense principles like this to astrophysics.

There dibs...fixed my phone typing failures.

hmm, i should probably keep it in mind that other people might not be using a computer.

But it is something that would be the beginning of research would it not? For example, date shows Mars is warming at a similar rate to Earth. Why would this not come into consideration for research when Earth's global warming comes into discussion? Are they not then related according to your logic? Does the science of astrophysics not apply relativity to its research?

All in all, I have yet to see data that can come to a logical conclusion that CO2 is causing global warming. There are some pointers, but there are just as many and more pointing in another direction, the sun. The logic that CO2 is causing it is full of flaws and the environmentalists are bent on destroying civilization as we know it over some half baked ideas. If I come across something that can show CO2 is the main culprit then we can decide whether we will spending trillions and destroy our societies to continue living. As it stands I have yet to see a study really show that.

You will find in astrophysics/cosmology that things are often not as they appear to be on the surface. Some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn for instance are not even heated by the sun at all, but by gravitational flexing. Pluto's heating up is not related to our own planet either. Mars heating up at the same rate as Earth also makes no sense if the heating was related because Mars has no magnetic deflector shield as Earth does. You can go on and on but things on macro scales do not typically adhere to many "common sense" principles.

sooo since all planets and moons are heating up it is a universe thing, does not matter the cause it is happening universe wide which logic would say ... makes it a cycle .. a natural cycle

No it's not. It's that they are heating up for different reasons. Just because many things in the solar system are heating up it does not mean there is a common cause.

did I say common cause?? No I believe I said does not matter the cause, yet the fact remains it is happening at the same time, which stands to reason it is a cycle, everything happens in a cycle

WTF kind of leap of logic is that? Just because things are coincidentally heating up at the same time due to different causes it does not automatically imply this is due to some sort of cycle.

This comes down to a fundamental human condition that where we think if something can be measured, it can be controlled. It's hard to discern facts from fiction in the case of global warming especially now that corporate agendas can be figured in to the statistics. At this point the data is so convoluted that it's hard to say who/what is right. Fact has really been eliminated from the global warming debate and has been replaced by it's old adversary "opinion" and as we all know, opinion can be greatly dictated by where the checks are coming from. Stands to reason why certain people would be eliminating or altering data in this debate. We wouldn't want the facts to effect the paychecks, now would we?

The earth has been going through cooling/heating cycles for millions of years. To say that this particular one is being caused by human activity is, well, arrogant. I'm not going to go through some in depth analysis or get in a debate on the issue, because as galleri pointed out, "you all have gone too deep..." and rather than get into useless numbers and statistical debates it'd rather just stick to the fundamentals.

Schilling

the earth is cooling, the rate at which the cooling takes place has varied in the past, but it's still cooling. in order for it to heat up, it would have to take in more energy than it lets out.

the entire dang solar system should be cooling. if it isn't cooling then the 2nd law of thermodynamics needs to be checked. or maybe it doesn't apply to things that are in space.

*sigh* no no no. Yes the entire solar system should be increasing in entropy over time if it were a closed system (which it's not)

a.) The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not preclude localized increases in order (at the expense of greater entropy elsewhere/later). If it did then life would not be capable of coming into being or surviving anywhere.

b.) The solar system as a whole IS increasing in entropy over time regardless of temperature. As the sun dies the solar system is actually going to get a whole lot hotter for a short period.

a. life isn't permanent. it doesn't preclude people using a source of energy to replicate nor to eat dead things to get energy. it's just that they don't create the dang energy themselves.

b. don't start screwing with the terminoligy in an attempt to sound smart, or try to baffle me with bullfluff. tiz hotter than the stuff around it, so it's going to share that heat to make everything the same temperature. cuz, it's just a loving and sharing kinda world.

There is data both ways. I'm a fence sitter on global warming, however I recall looking over something awhile ago indicating that the ice core evidence is flawed. We are also still technically in an ice age. The earth has been far warmer than it is now before, and will be again. I don't think that anything we do will change this by any significant degree.

Also on a tangential subject... why should I buy. A hybrid, a vehicle supposedly more green than current vehicles, when the entire life cycle of a v8 landrover, from construction, to miles driven to deconstruction has a SMALLER carbon footprint (great buzzword there...) than the manufacturing process of aforementioned hybrid alone?

*facepalm*