Slashdot Mirror
Thermosphere Contraction Puzzles Scientists
The thermosphere layer of earth's atmosphere begins 80 to 90 kilometers above the surface and extends several hundred kilometers into the sky; it is the home to numerous satellites and the International Space Station. It is known that the thermosphere occasionally cools and contracts, but a recent study of satellite orbital decay (due to light atmospheric drag) found that the contraction during 2008 and 2009 was significantly more severe than expected, leaving researchers at a loss for how to explain it. From Space.com:
"This type of collapse is not rare, but its magnitude shocked scientists. 'This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years,' said John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab, lead author of a paper announcing the finding in the June 19 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters. 'It's a Space Age record.' The collapse occurred during a period of relative solar inactivity — called a solar minimum from 2008 to 2009. These minimums are known to cool and contract the thermosphere, however, the recent collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain."
The first 4 comments show as much.
The sky is falling in... literally!
"Don't worry, it's cool."
"Don't worry, I suffer from a bit of shrinkage, too."
Yeah, you caught that too... Greenhouse Gas or Coolant- which is it guys?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
On the one hand, it's reported this is not rare. On the other hand, we've got plenty of sensationalistic language: "significantly more severe", "researchers at a loss", "collapse", "its magnitude shocked scientists".
So, is it the usual news cycle hype reporting on a puzzling phenomenon, or is there a reason to be alarmed?
I was hoping for some comment that might shed some (presumably ionising) light on this issue, since TFA offers no suggestions. Instead, we have a series of boring troll posts.
Oh well, I'll just move on, nothing to see here...
CO2 is denser than air so naturally the atmosphere compacts under gravity as the density increases.
No sig today...
The sky IS falling. Oh, Chicken Little, how we all should've listened!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Think of insulation. Insulation can keep heat in, and it can also keep heat out. Insulation will keep your house warm in the winter, and also cool in the summer. It's not that hard to understand, is it?
Although CO2 may be causing cooling high in the troposphere, it's keeping the surface of the Earth warm. So far, 2010 is the warmest year on record, with Arctic and Antarctic ice continuing to melt, despite low solar activity.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Actually it's likely related to global warming, since CO2 emits light at a different wavelength than it absorbs it, it sometimes causes the thermosphere (and other layers) to cool and contract by the time the light gets to the outer layers. There are climate models that predict this. The heat is absorbed at low altitudes and not emitted at high altitudes.
Actually I just made that up, but it sounded good, didn't it? Right? I'm sure we can blame it on pollution somehow.
Qxe4
Global warming sucks
The ice always melts during the summer. But it is melting faster than "normal". Thankfully, in July, the ice loss is now behind 2007 instead of being miles ahead of it like it was in June.
When they saw the potential for global warming to be used to justify tax increases, bans of certain products and making otherwise harmless but enjoyable activities into a crime they changed it to 'climate change' in order to to instill it as a permanent stick to beat the population into compliance long after the much exaggerated threat of global warming induced disasters has passed. The only thing constant is change and that includes climate change - the climate has always been changing and will continue to do so.
Environmentalists won't stop until everybody is forced to move into huge city centre apartment blocks and not allowed to consume any energy other than for their government-supplied 'nettop' used for delivering propaganda and possibly one CFL bulb.
The good life is being regulated out of existence at an alarming rate in the name of security, safety and now 'protecting' the environment. Driving a car is almost considered a sin at this stage because not only is a 'mere human' driver being passed of as a danger to others and their children but they are also accused of ruining the environment. It won't stop until we are all forced to live in a purely receptive society where no individual is allowed to think for himself, just sit there in that cell with one CFL waiting for instructions from the government.
doors, do they let people in, or do they let people out? Which is it?
windows, do they let light in, or do they let light out? We can't win!
Yes, of course ice melts in the summer. It also freezes in the winter. Thank you, Captain Obvious!
What I was referring to by the Arctic and Antarctic ice melting was that they are melting away over the period of years and decades because the Earth is warming over the period of years and decades. If you would have read the links I posted, you would see that's what I was referring to.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
It's due to the lack of USB support in linux, the flaws in GPL, global warming, Barack Obama's personal war, and the terrible new changes to slashdot.
Emmert suggests carbon dioxide (CO2) in the thermosphere might play a role in explaining the atmospheric collapse.
This gas acts as a coolant, shedding heat via infrared radiation. It is widely-known that CO2 levels have been increasing in Earth's atmosphere. Extra CO2 in the thermosphere could have magnified the cooling action of solar minimum."
I'm not saying "Oh, what do those darned scientists know?", it's just interesting.
So, uh, what happens when the thermosphere contracts too much? The ISS goes *crunch*?
To save the earth, all we have to do is use heat to somehow power giant laser beams to fire lasers into space. The earth will cool off because we are sending excess energy out.
It's called conservation of energy. If one thing gets hotter, another thing must get cooler.
Surface of earth gets warmer, upper layer of atmosphere, cooler.
Welcome to high school.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Are we talking about the same Artic ice here. It's quite understandable that ice melts at summer. There's anything special about this year.
Meanwhile in Antarctic. At the end of June, Southern Hemisphere mid-winter, the sea ice surrounding Antarctica was more than two standard deviations greater than normal.
You don't know what you don't know.
Oooh, hyperbole, that's the way to convert people to your side.
But, thermodynamics also says that heat transfers at a rate that depends on the difference in temperature. If the thermosphere cools more, that means less heat can be transferred to our part of the atmosphere. Meaning to save the Earth, we must make the Thermosphere, Even Colder!
Just... go fuck a goat, you pessimistic bastard. What we don't need is people who are going to sit around and bitch about how we're all inevitably doomed. Those people (and you specifically) aren't a part of any solution, so yes - go fuck a goat.
(pulls up a chair, dons a colander for a hat, straps on the old high school football shoulder pads and starts fretting)
How on earth am I supposed to fuck a goat when I'm so worried about the inevitable demise of this giant merry-go-round that I'm wearing a coffee pot for a cup?
and maybe that's a good thing, because maybe if it didn't work out like you "think" it does maybe we would of had winters that would kill off everything?
Don't even pretend you have a clue about climate even the very top scientist say they don't hardly understand the system...
wouldn't "Surface of earth gets hotter, earth spins slower" also work?
or "Suface of earth gets hotter, sun gets cooler", or "Surface of earth gets hotter, universe gets cooler"
Ah the fun of thermo and where you define your system...
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
It's called conservation of energy. If one thing gets hotter, another thing must get cooler.
Yeah? Tell that to this lump of uranium.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Humanity will survive, all Global warming is going to do is take crappy places to live and make them even crappier. Big whoop.
"...that I'm wearing a coffee pot for a cup?"
Okay, either that's one seriously underutilized coffee pot, or you're the greatest man on earth.
I wonder that the Amateur Radio low power operators have to say about the "skip" signals? That is when a radio wave gets caught in a "corridor" up there and "bounces" in there a long way before coming back to earth. The compression should have some sort of effect on them.
It's the sound a slam dunk makes.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Regarding the Arctic ice, I'm not pointing out anything special happening this particular year. I'm pointing out that over the past several decades, the Arctic ice is melting, because the Earth is warming.
Regarding the Antarctic ice, the sea ice extent refers to the surface area of ice, not the mass or volume. The volume and mass of ice in the Antarctic is decreasing because it is melting. This is because the ice is thinning.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
It is an interesting to me that the HAARP project was brought online a year before these severe contractions of the thermosphere. Although I'm sure the conspiracy theories are over the top, it would probably be dumb to disregard the fact that there are no other explanations right now as to what is happening to the atmosphere, but during this time period the military just happened to conduct an experiment against it.
The Antarctic ice sheet isn't really melting, but the glaciers are moving at an increased speed, carrying more ice towards the edges (where it is melting).
Ill stop using it when you stop putting Hitler mustaches on pictures of Obama.
Yeah, and sarcasm works so much better.
Funny that. Last time I looked there was a difference between pollution and climate science. But it seems to be the rage now that breathing causes global warming. In other news, the latest "OMG!!!!eleventy11 hottest temperature on record month" is actually 0.42 vs the 1.48 when you're not cherry picking your data.
Om, nomnomnom...
But I voted for Obama...why would I put a Hitler mustache on him?
Cause I am trying to win converts?
The Earth isn't a closed system.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but there's a rather big flaming ball of hydrogen in the sky.
That should have been explained in high school as well.
What is it with you people? Scientists have said that they have observed a change in the Thermosphere that they can't explain . What is it about the phrase "they can't explain" that leads you to believe it's caused by Carbon Dioxide?
I have a thermos. Sometimes it keeps hot stuff hot, sometimes it keeps cold stuff cold. How do it know?
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
I blame it on Canada.
FTFY
I find putting "Mao eyes" is more appropriate.
We had 8 months of winter in Europe, with record snow down to Spain and temperatures lower than they were in the last 30 years. Were constantly reminded that it was a seasonal event, weather, that had nothing to do with climate.
After a mere 3 weeks of summer, with record hot temperatures, the media is already reviving the global warming mantra.
I was modded into oblivion when I half-jokingly asserted that record lows are weather and record highs are climate change, but now we see exactly that.
8 mo. of the harshest winter for 30 years = press says "weather".
4 we. of the hottest summer for 30 years = press says "global warming, doom, hellfire".
I have no problem with either explanation, but it sure should be consistent.
Always the bad one of course.
That's why we need that draconian tax, don't you understand?
And I see you were just exhaling that stuff.
Remain calm and stay put. Carbon police is already underway.
Yawn.. It's the church of global warming at play. You see, if it can't be explained, then it's an act of god. If it's an act of god, then it's their god, the mighty Co2.
Once the God of Gasses comes into play, then it's just a matter of the tired old, your god isn't real or my god is mightier then your god crap that has played out with every other religion since the inception of supernatural power.
In reality, it's just some people with a vested or emotional interest wanting to either claim it as part of their doom and gloom to advance their agendas or the opposite where people with a vested or emotional interest are attempting to retard their agenda. At this stage in the game, it's a grasp for anything which has traditionally lead to the same discourse that has always existed.
You can now cue the down mods. I have posted this as Secret Santa in order to both amaze you and provide disappointment in wasting a mod point on an AC.
If you ever manage to find a material or process that can repeatably induce a temperature gradient in whatever when there was none before without needing external energy input, make sure to patent it hard and fast.
Repeal the law of thermodynamics!
I like how CO2 always does the bad things.
Now that we know it makes the summers hotter and the winters cooler, we should double carbon taxes. It's only fair.
Im surprised they havent tried to burn any scientists at the stake yet. WITCH CRAFT!!! DUNK THEM IN THE RIVER!!! BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!! CRUSH THEM WITH ROCKS!!! THEIR LOGICAL THINKING POKES HOLES IN OUR FANTASY!!!
but wood also burns... and you can build bridges out of stone. Get me a duck and some scales, THEN we'll see whether or not they're witches.
Europe may have had a cold winter, but globally the period Dec 2009-Feb 2010 was warmer than average. Similarly, the spring/early summer period was also warmer than average.
As far as the temperature on any given point on the globe, it's a combination of weather and climate. Global warming has pushed the averages up a little, but daily weather will always be the major factor in the temperature swings.
But we've never survived such a period of severely healthy satellite environment before. How can you be so flippantly optimistic?
Good point. This is partly why we can't have an emotional reaction to a single data point. Showing the arctic ice as melting quickly has to be balanced with the fact the antarctic is melting very slowly. Perhaps TFA is describing a more complex issue than a simple CO2 change, similar to melting ice caps being more complex than most believe.
That light isn't "a rather big flaming ball of hydrogen", it's His love you insensitive clod!
Well, I'm not panicking even though polar bears are dying here in Finland ;)
You don't know what you don't know.
The reasoning goes like this: if there is something about the temperature of the atmosphere that's in some sense unexplained this means scientists know nothing about the climate which means anthropocentric global warming does not exist which means my BP stock will keep its value and I will not have to sell my SUV.
Interestingly, global warming does cause colder winters. The cause of those colder winters is the melting of the ice caps.
More heat in the atmosphere means more energy, which causes stronger winds and quicker circulation. Cold air from the north pole travel faster to Europe and therefore has less time to warm in the way.
Those colder winters are more than balanced by hotter summers, we are spending away our ice reserves. It's like when you spend more than you earn. Your having more money to spend does not mean you're getting richer.
No, we had not. When you say something like that I wonder if you're living in Europe at all - or maybe you're counting on your readers to not be in Europe?
Winter in Europe, December to February, were below the average for the period 1951-1980 (the standard reference period). But already in spring, March to May, it was back above it.
Another issue: the amount of snowfall depends primarily on water vapor in the atmosphere. As long as there's freezing temperatures, more moisture means more snow. More cold below zero degrees celsius does not cause more snow. A very basic prediction of climate modeling is that water vapor in the atmosphere will increase as temperature increases. So record cold might be unexpected from a climate science perspective; record snowfall would not.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Who says shrinking of the thermosphere is a bad thing ? Quit the hyperbole.
Don't you remember the Race Select Screen? Humans come with +5 Adaptability.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/observations/significant/2010/environment/
Need Mercedes parts ?
There's all sorts of materials that do that. Thorium, radium, polonium, plutonium, uranium. All of these materials induce a temperature gradient without an external energy input. That's why they're used as power sources in RTGs and nuclear reactors. See, there's this equation; perhap's you've heard of it: e=mc^2. What it means is that mass can be traded for energy. That's what radioactive isotopes do. They trade the odd subatomic particle off as energy. The law of conservation of energy was superseded by the law of conservation of mass and energy. It is not true that "If one thing gets hotter, another thing must get cooler."
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
when the contractions are 5 minutes apart
You denialists are just too fucking stupid.
The SCIENCE shows that CO2 causes warming. It's an observed fact.
YOU are the one who rejects the facts because of your OWN vested or emotional interest.
Seriously RTFA. It it says CO2 sometimes acts as a coolant. It radiates heat back out from itself which is why it warms in some cases and cools in others, like the coolant in a fridge absorbs heat from inside, and radiates it out from the piping you see on the back. It is in no way whatsoever like insulation keeping your house warm in winter and cool in summer.
Its more like +500
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
By reducing conduction and convection. Radiative transfer is so inefficient that your food doesn't respond to the outside temperature very much.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
You know what the definition of ironic is? A comedy troupe known for their cutting edge innovative absurdist wit being quoted ad nauseum 35 years later by people who just can't seem to come up with their own jokes. Seriously... pop culture references are not the same thing as humor.
You're just another fucking idiot, aren't you?
YOU shut up, denialist fucktard. It's WARMING. But global warming doesn't mean that it gets warmer and warmer regardless of the time of year. Weather will continue to vary between different seasons.
How about educating yourself, you fucking idiot?
I wonder by which definition you say the Arctic ice cap is in "decline", but not melting?
The Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking, not growing. It's losing volume, which is the only significant definition of size when one considers climate issues. It's losing volume the only way a polar ice cap can lose volume, by melting. But, of course, you'll never know this if you have only one news source.
Warmer oceans cause increased water evaporation, which then precipitates as snow or rain. Considering that a large part of Antarctica is still well below freezing point, it's only natural that *some* regions of Antarctica have had more snowfall caused by global warming. Yes, global warming does cause both more snowfall and colder winters. Which is more than offset by hotter summers and increased ice melting.
"To calculate the collapse, Emmert analyzed the decay rates of more than 5,000 satellites orbiting above Earth between 1967 and 2010. This provided a space-time sampling of thermospheric density, temperature, and pressure covering almost the entire Space Age."
Personally when I see something I cant explain I suspect my data, algorithms or process. It would seem far more likely that there is a flaw with some element from which the thermospheres depth (height?) has been inferred than a sudden inexplicable contraction, I would have thought.
Ice caps being more complex as in... three dimensional? As has been said several times in this thread already the surface area of the antarctic ice caps is indeed growing, but the thickness is shrinking. Basically, the glaciers covering the antarctic land mass are warming up, which allows them to flow out to sea faster. Once in the sea, the ice shelves melt where they contact the ocean. The reason the ice shelves are gaining surface area is they are being pushed out to sea faster. Long story short, the total VOLUME of the antarctic ice sheets is going down at an amazing rate.
Using the surface area of the Antarctic ice sheet to disprove global warming is like saying we have 600 years of coal left at current production rates, so if we step up our coal production to replace the energy we currently get from imported oil, then we won't have to import oil for 600 years!
"What exactly do you consider "the good life"?"
I think it was called "Good Neighbors" in the USA (Richard Briars, Felicity Kendal and Penelope Keith)
I was just wondering exactly his notion of "the good life" is, and what regulations he's referring to.
And just in case you hadn't noticed, various types of pollution have an effect on climate, both local and ultimately global.
which is totally what she said
And you are just another Anonymous Coward aren't you?
Yes they are, if they're funny.
Religious fundamentalism, it's not just for crackers and rednecks anymore.
Give it a break; it was just in the pool.
Wow, not even a blip in time and this is suppose to be significant? Haha
First we need to understand that entropy is energy,
energy that can't be used to state it more specifically.
In a closed system entropy always goes up,
that's the second law, now you know what's up.
You can't win, you can't break even, you can't leave the game,
'cause entropy will take it all 'though it seems a shame.
The second law, as we now know, is quite clear to state,
that entropy must increase and not dissipate.
Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system, it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
That, in a nutshell, is what entropy's about,
you're now down with a discount.
So you're saying we've been phrasing the question wrong.
Why doesn't the food know? Because we've tricked it!
Same reason wooden boats float. Until you load them up enough that the water can see over the edge and notice all the non-floating things you have in there, it pushes back. Once it's seen that though, it will vengefully rush in and sink the boat.
If the same post was talking about evolution in the same uneducated manner it would be modded to oblivion, but because it's from a climate-creationists it's "insightfull".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Also, hang on a minute. Please actually pretend that you read *all* of the link you submitted. At least be slightly even-handed, as the article seemed to be, because about 1/2 of your very article (past the title) directly contradicted you.
The 2010 is the warmest year on record link you sent *also* said this:
Global warming is irrelevant to a winter. For one, it's the globe and a local weather pattern, even of "climate change" nature, is unrelated to the amount of heat stored globally. For another, an ice age is predicted by global warming. That is, the Atlantic currents serve to heat Europe disproportionately. It has been stated that global warming may end up causing an ice age because the currents will not flow in the current manner. Additionally, global warming has been predicted to increase the extremes. Worse winters and worse summers fits in line with what I've seen predicted. So nothing I've seen predicted as the most expected plan contradicts anything you've said. It doesn't seem contradictory to me.
So, is the issue that my perception of the accepted hypotheses is flawed, or is yours? Or is the issue that the ignorant reporters don't actually present things in a consistent manner, so attributing scientific perceptions to newspaper articles is going to result in an inconsistent message? Personally, I'd assert that the reporting is crap. They think they know what they are supposed to be reporting, so they say that, regardless of the truth. Remember, news isn't done to spread knowledge, but to sell advertising. So more eyes equals more income, so the news tends to the sensationalistic, not the sensible.
Learn to love Alaska
CO2 makes up approximately 0.039% of the atmosphere and is about 1.5 times heavier than air. How can it possibly be creating a "greenhouse effect"? I might add that a greenhouse is not analogous to the earth.
All the republican hot air for nearly a decade suddenly halted when Obama took office. This created an entropy vaccuum and hence the thermosphere cooled in order to fill the vaccuum.
i have been saying this for quite some time but hasn't anyone paid attention to the fact that hydrocarbons produce more water than carbon dioxide? methane is the most extreme example with a 2:1 ratio no hydrocarbon burns with less than a 1:1 ratio (fully hydrocarbons made of all double bonded carbons would be 1:1, obviously triple bonded, like acetylene, is the only exception).
it seems logical to me that increased atmospheric water is going to mean a rise in atmospheric density (possibly also increasing total internal reflection and reflection) and obviously also a lowering of overall temperature in the atmosphere (more water in the atmosphere means a higher latent heat capacity). increased density means more effect of gravity, as well as the overall drop in ambient temperature from increased heat latency.
i'm not sure what other effects there would be from increased atmospheric water, as well as increased CO2 and reduced O2. i was thinking it may influence cloud formation patterns, alter the amount of overall radiation striking the poles and equator (via total internal reflection caused by increased atmospheric refractive index).
in any case, i'm not that familiar with climate modelling and i'm not sure how much they count the increase in H2O in the atmosphere in their predictions, but it seems to me if we are gonna go out hunting for human influences on climate changes, then the influence of water should be, in my view, rated more highly than any other factor because of the refractive index and latent heat capacity of water, two factors that are naturally going to give it the strongest influence of any chemical in the air.
The temperature of the thermosphere has nothing to do with the temperature of the climate. We're talking about the part of the atmosphere where the international space station orbits. The rules there are very different from the lower atmosphere (as are the temperatures (up to a few thousand C depending upon where you are). The temperatures are controlled by the absorption and emission of radiation (and, of course, conservation of energy).
The radiation absorbed by these tenuous gasses is in the extreme ultraviolet and soft x-ray. We've been monitoring the solar EUV and SXR output for quite a while. When they are high the thermosphere heats up and expands. Satellites in low orbit experience a lot of drag and end up in lower orbits. Because of the extended solar minimum EUV and SXR are way down, but they haven't changed enough to explain the entire temperature difference. So the remainder of the difference has to be in the emission of radiation in the thermosphere. There's a series of linked partial differential equations involved, so I won't do the actual math. But the easiest way to cool the thermosphere is to add higher amounts of species that have a lot of cooling transitions.
One of the people quoted in TFA thinks it might be due to increased CO2. I have a hard time buying that. Because it's heavy, it's hard to get CO2 into the thermosphere. It would be tough to get an in situ measurement of CO2 and it's ionization products with any existing instrument
As far as what this effect could do to the world. Well, it could screw up your AM reception. And it could screw up a prediction of a LEO satellite's orbit. (i.e. your sun synchronous polar orbit might not be as sun synchronous as you hoped.) But it's not going to kill dolphins or sea turtles, or cause earthquakes or polar shifts.
I could do the required measurement with an FUV to NUV spectrometer for diffuse radiation on 2-axis coarse pointing gimbal. I'd need a satellite for a platform. But by the time I got it built and launched we'd be heading up toward solar max.
Disclaimer, I do this for a living.
Support SETI@home
8 mo. of the harshest winter for 30 years = press says "weather". 4 we. of the hottest summer for 30 years = press says "global warming, doom, hellfire".
I have no problem with either explanation, but it sure should be consistent.
Your consistentcy problems are caused by looking to the press for an explaination rather than climate scientists. Climate is the long term statistics of weather and due to the signal to noise ratio it takes a couple of decades worth of data to observe a trend with high confidence. If you really do want a detailed and robust scientific explaination of what is causing the observed trend, then read the IPCC's WG1 report. Be warned the WG1 is heavy going but with the amount of layman-freindly explainations and commentry available directly from scientists and scientific institutions there really is no reason to allow the press to keep you ignorant and confused about the basics. If you don't know where to look then start with WP, it will give you a good run down of the science and the anti-science. If it's too much of a bother to read beyond the MSM then IMHO you should extend that apathy toward posting on the subject.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
We had 8 months of winter in Europe, with record snow down to Spain and temperatures lower than they were in the last 30 years. Were constantly reminded that it was a seasonal event, weather, that had nothing to do with climate.
After a mere 3 weeks of summer, with record hot temperatures, the media is already reviving the global warming mantra.
Here in the US, the conservative pundits declared global warming a hoax this past winter when we had record snowfalls. Now we're having record heat this summer and the conservative pundits haven't said a word. Media stupidity about global climate change goes both ways.
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
Sadly the -600 capitalism penalty ensures that nobody will do anything until it's too late.
Enjoy watching all the farmers go broke when their land can't grow corn anymore and they can't afford to rip out the cities from the land in regions that still can.
Your anti-environment rant is every bit as absurd as Greenpeace's campaign against chlorination - that's quite an acomplishment.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
He says NASA satellite data shows the average temperature in June was 0.43 degrees higher than normal. NOAA says it was 1.22 degrees higher.
That's because they measure completely different things. Satellites measure the lower troposphere, while NOAA uses ground based meteorological stations.
Especially in short time frames, the difference can be quite big. Over longer times, the average trend is similar, although some discrepancies have been observed too. See this page for a discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
He says too many of the weather stations NOAA uses are in warmer urban areas.
Funny how the NOAA anomaly map for 2010 shows hardly any warming in urban areas, and plenty of warming in thinly populated areas (Africa, Canada, and major oceans)
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/images/map-blended-mntp-201001-201006.gif
"Just... go fuck a goat, you pessimistic bastard."
On a more optomistic note, if people keep ignoring environmental problems there will be plenty of goats
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Its probably due to MS's lacking the ability to combat the IPAD and IPHONE from Apple. MS is sucking up all the available oxygen to try and come up with a real product for anything.
That really turns the title on its head doesn't it
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
No one denies the planet is warming. No one denies CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's the idea of catastrophic runaway global warming unstoppable without global carbon taxes that is denied.
The Global Financial Crisis - no one could afford a Thermosphere.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
You are a conservative.
You're having a good life now; naturally, you don't want this to change (who would?).
But, we live in a century with a different outlook than last century. Our lifestyle and resource use will adapt to changing circumstances, one way or the other (by voluntarily changing our lifestyle or not). You don't want this to happen, because you have a conservative outlook, and you think these changes will negatively impact your quality of life.
You're making a major mistake in your thinking though, in that you attribute those lifestyle changes to force from outside from your fellow human beings, in the form of government oppression, taxes, propaganda, and the Evil Environmentalists.
These lifestyle changes are *NOT* mandated by your government and Evil Environmentalists. They are mandated by changes in the milieu which we inhabit. These changes are real, and no amount of blaming other people or demanding conservative policies from your government will influence these changes. The mechanism of global warming is already in motion and will continue for the next 500 years or so. All we can do now, is slow down the effects that will be felt several generations down the line, when the effects of our current behaviour will be manifested.
It is my belief, that by far most of the people who care about living responsibly (like ADULTS!) on our planet, do this because we live a good life, and we would like our descendents to be given the same opportunity as well.
I'm not out to destroy your good life. I'm not out to tax you and ask you to change your lifestyle just out of spite because we "hate your good life". I just think that it is achievable to live comfortably in the twenty-first century and you, sir, don't.
Anonymous, because frankly, I think you're a paranoid nutcase.
Given the attacks on the biosciences it isn't that big of a hyperbole to say there might be attacks on climate scientists.
Your console is probably bugging out. After character creation the game is supposed to wipe your memories so you don't know anything about the real world while playing. Makes it more immersive apparently.
That is a weak analogy, the bioscientists are attacked because a perceived belief that they are playing God by messing with life. Climate Scientists don't really do anything except collect data.
Did anyone else think of the giant vacuum in Spaceballs when they read this article?
Does Hitler look like a sock-monkey?
Not really, most of the lower troposphere is heated by conduction and radiation from the surface. The shortwave, (visible) light penetrates the atmosphere, is absorbed by the ground and the ocean surface and re-radiated upward as infrared. Also air conduction and water vapor evaporation lift a great deal of heat energy from the surface into the troposphere; some theorize that the water vapor's hydrological cycle places an upper limit on how warm the Earth will get.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I would burn your straw man, but i don't want to contribute to climate change.
Proof!
Also Hitler.
the earth and human civilization are the way they currently are and have pretty much been mostly stable for about 10,000 years
that is why we were able to build civilization and leave behind our hunter gatherer past behind (most of us)
any significant change is bad. in either direction. no matter the cause
increase or decrease in temperature is bad
increase or decrease in rain is bad
increase or decrease in CO2 is bad
increase or decrease in sea levels is bad
should i go on?
exactly
i'm not sure how a few people on this website,, that is intended for people with slightly better than average IQ's,, don't get that
have any of you ever seen a physical 3d mock up of the solar system? do you realize how huge the sun is compared to the earth? it is a gigantic ball of nuclear powered fire. even one tiny puff from the sun could burn our entire planet to ashes.
it only matters how much we absorb, reflect and let out.
we actually only survive because our strong magnetosphere protects our atmosphere from the sun. otherwise the sun would strip off our atmosphere and none of us would have ever been here.
even an infinitesimal change in our planet's properties could lead to an increase or decrease in absorption of the sun's rays and we all would be gone
how about a ginormous solar power array in orbit, enough to power all our electronics on earth and to serve as a giant shade for the planet
So I'm confused... you are saying that something with more mass / more potential energy is "colder" than something that has less mass / potential energy?
Wouldn't the temperature per molecule go down?
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
NVM.
The ratio would stay the same, I get that.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
Best go recheck your temperature stations. When you get out of heat islands and aren't fudging based on broken ones(aka one station records at +8C, because someone screwed up), the temperature was around 0.11C above average.
Om, nomnomnom...