Because if there is when global warming just slows down a bit instead of reversing the contrarian side will have to give up on their "It's the Sun" arguments. All you guys who get so worried about the coming glaciation (ice age) need to calm down. The science shows pretty conclusively that it ain't happening at 400 ppm of CO2.
According to scientists we've already prevented the next glacial cycle from occurring. Back in the mid 20th century when they were trying to figure out how glacial periods happened they couldn't make the math work until they discovered from the ice cores that CO2 was substantially lower during them than during the interglacial periods. A CO2 level of 400 ppm is enough to prevent the next ice age from occurring.
Up until about World War I the major source of revenue for the US Government was import tariffs. Perhaps we should go back to that model. It would certainly bring manufacturing and jobs back to the country.
What would happen if there was a new period like the Maunder Minimum has been looked at by scientists. What they found is that it would reduce warming by 0.1 to 0.3 degrees Celsius. That would slow global warming by a decade or two but it wouldn't stop it and when the new minimum ended temperatures would rise back to where they would have been without it anyway.
I like how you call the people who don't agree with you 'deniers', like the people who 'deny' the Holocaust happened. What pap.
Climate science deniers have tried to hijack the meaning of the word denier to make it sound like we're comparing them to Holocaust deniers. But the word has a long venerable history. After all it was Mark Twain who quipped "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt." long before the Holocaust.
I don't know why you think satellites are so accurate. They don't measure temperature directly. The "temperatures" they measure are calculated from changes in the microwave emissions of (mostly) oxygen molecules and cover broad vertical layers of the atmosphere but not the surface. Besides, the satellite temperature record matches the surface temperature record within the error ranges of both so you can't say they contradict each other. And just for the record, accurate thermometers have been available for well over 200 years. It just took getting enough of the spread out well enough over the surface of the Earth to make it reasonable to calculate a global temperature.
you may think al gore is right and the humans are the responsible of global warming, but also 1/3 of americans still think creacionism is true... just saying
LOL. Nice Sandusky* there conflating creationism with global warming realists.
* By Sandusky I'm referring to the attempt to conflate Michael Mann with Jerry Sandusky because they were both employees of Penn State.
... but another article mentioned just a few weeks ago declared that the Sun was not a significant driver of the climate on Earth
I think it would be more accurate to say "The observed and inferred by proxy changes in the Sun are not significant enough to account for the majority of observed climate change. No scientist worth his salt would say a significant change in the Sun wouldn't cause a significant change to Earth's climate.
Too many people on both sides pay way too much attention to weather events such as you outline. No individual weather event can ever be absolutely attributed to climate change. Climate is the carrier wave that the signal/noise of weather rides on. When climate changes it changes the odds on particular weather events happening. But only by looking at the events over long periods of time can you observe the change in odds. Each individual weather event is only another datum for the climate scientists.
There's a big difference between saying CO2 is the only cause of climate change and saying CO2 is the primary cause of the climate change that is occurring now which is what scientists are saying. The subtle difference between the two statements might be to much for some deniers to cope with.
That is why Doing Science Right (tm) involves disclosing your source data, frequently blurting out to the world everything that may possibly be wrong with your approach, and placing trust in an experiment or model's results only as far as commensurate with the demonstrated reliability of those results.
You are obviously just repeating something you heard because if you actually investigated and read the literature you would see that source data is available, possible issues with the results are discussed and modelers are very aware of the limitations of their models. In disseminating the information to the general public a lot of the details get left out but you can dig them out if you take the time to do some research.
Good point. To drive it home the top 3 meters (~10 feet) contains as much energy as the whole atmosphere so the top 700 meters contains over 233 atmospheres worth of energy. I don't know if this is a valid calculation but 233 * 0.302 = enough energy for 70 degrees F of atmospheric temperature rise. Even if it's not valid it's obvious the oceans are absorbing a lot more energy than the atmosphere.
The problem with this is that it is exactly what many of those so-called AGW "deniers" have been saying all along.
They say that the cause of climate change could be natural but they never provide any evidence for what those causes are. They just think climate scientists are too stupid to find them or they're bought off by their political masters in a plot to take over the world. They're looking for some magic bullet that science hasn't found yet. At this point I think it's unlikely but if such a profound discovery is yet to be found someone will make their name in scientific circles when they do find it.
You mentioned the Sun in another response but it has been continuously monitored since at least the 1950's and even more continuously and accurately monitored since satellites went up in 1979. The Sun's output does affect climate but it hasn't changed enough to account for more than about 5% of climate change in the past 60+ years.
No, he was right about the magnitude. He said "It takes ~3 days of humans' output to equal one year of volcanic greenhouse gas emissions." 3 days is 0.82% of the year which is less than 1%. But I think it is clearer the way you presented it.
Now, tell me how much of that money went into climate scientists pockets rather than paying for expensive instrumentation (launching satellites anyone?), super computer time, data collection and correlation?
Even NASA has been a big climate change proponent in recent years, vs. focusing on the space travel projects we traditionally associate with it.
NASA has always been involved in the analysis of the data their space exploration produces including many satellites that face the Earth. The Goddard Institute for Space Studies where most of NASA's climate research is centered was established in 1961. James Hansen became head of the GISS in 1981. So I don't think "recent years" is a particularly accurate characterization.
The thing is ships get stuck in the Antarctic sea ice for short periods all the time. It's a fairly regular occurrence. This one just made the headlines because a lot of climate change contrarians thought they could make some hay with it.
Well, in the Monterey Bay Aquarium there probably aren't any species that no-one knows about. But there certainly would also be DNA from the various microorganisms in the water as well. That brings to mind that the water in the tank comes from the ocean anyway and I doubt the filtering is good enough to remove all traces of "wild" DNA before it goes in the tank. So maybe they would find DNA from and unknown species.
Well, if you think about it practically every bit of water on the planet has been pissed by an animal at one time or another or at least is commingled with water that has.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to be a pedant but I think you meant ice age. I know that but outside of scientific circles the term ice age is commonly used for a glaciation.
Because if there is when global warming just slows down a bit instead of reversing the contrarian side will have to give up on their "It's the Sun" arguments. All you guys who get so worried about the coming glaciation (ice age) need to calm down. The science shows pretty conclusively that it ain't happening at 400 ppm of CO2.
According to scientists we've already prevented the next glacial cycle from occurring. Back in the mid 20th century when they were trying to figure out how glacial periods happened they couldn't make the math work until they discovered from the ice cores that CO2 was substantially lower during them than during the interglacial periods. A CO2 level of 400 ppm is enough to prevent the next ice age from occurring.
Up until about World War I the major source of revenue for the US Government was import tariffs. Perhaps we should go back to that model. It would certainly bring manufacturing and jobs back to the country.
What would happen if there was a new period like the Maunder Minimum has been looked at by scientists. What they found is that it would reduce warming by 0.1 to 0.3 degrees Celsius. That would slow global warming by a decade or two but it wouldn't stop it and when the new minimum ended temperatures would rise back to where they would have been without it anyway.
I like how you call the people who don't agree with you 'deniers', like the people who 'deny' the Holocaust happened. What pap.
Climate science deniers have tried to hijack the meaning of the word denier to make it sound like we're comparing them to Holocaust deniers. But the word has a long venerable history. After all it was Mark Twain who quipped "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt." long before the Holocaust.
I don't know why you think satellites are so accurate. They don't measure temperature directly. The "temperatures" they measure are calculated from changes in the microwave emissions of (mostly) oxygen molecules and cover broad vertical layers of the atmosphere but not the surface. Besides, the satellite temperature record matches the surface temperature record within the error ranges of both so you can't say they contradict each other. And just for the record, accurate thermometers have been available for well over 200 years. It just took getting enough of the spread out well enough over the surface of the Earth to make it reasonable to calculate a global temperature.
Of course AGW can be proven wrong. But nothing has happened so far that comes close to disproving it.
you may think al gore is right and the humans are the responsible of global warming, but also 1/3 of americans still think creacionism is true... just saying
LOL. Nice Sandusky* there conflating creationism with global warming realists.
* By Sandusky I'm referring to the attempt to conflate Michael Mann with Jerry Sandusky because they were both employees of Penn State.
I think it would be more accurate to say "The observed and inferred by proxy changes in the Sun are not significant enough to account for the majority of observed climate change. No scientist worth his salt would say a significant change in the Sun wouldn't cause a significant change to Earth's climate.
Too many people on both sides pay way too much attention to weather events such as you outline. No individual weather event can ever be absolutely attributed to climate change. Climate is the carrier wave that the signal/noise of weather rides on. When climate changes it changes the odds on particular weather events happening. But only by looking at the events over long periods of time can you observe the change in odds. Each individual weather event is only another datum for the climate scientists.
There's a big difference between saying CO2 is the only cause of climate change and saying CO2 is the primary cause of the climate change that is occurring now which is what scientists are saying. The subtle difference between the two statements might be to much for some deniers to cope with.
That is why Doing Science Right (tm) involves disclosing your source data, frequently blurting out to the world everything that may possibly be wrong with your approach, and placing trust in an experiment or model's results only as far as commensurate with the demonstrated reliability of those results.
You are obviously just repeating something you heard because if you actually investigated and read the literature you would see that source data is available, possible issues with the results are discussed and modelers are very aware of the limitations of their models. In disseminating the information to the general public a lot of the details get left out but you can dig them out if you take the time to do some research.
Good point. To drive it home the top 3 meters (~10 feet) contains as much energy as the whole atmosphere so the top 700 meters contains over 233 atmospheres worth of energy. I don't know if this is a valid calculation but 233 * 0.302 = enough energy for 70 degrees F of atmospheric temperature rise. Even if it's not valid it's obvious the oceans are absorbing a lot more energy than the atmosphere.
The problem with this is that it is exactly what many of those so-called AGW "deniers" have been saying all along.
They say that the cause of climate change could be natural but they never provide any evidence for what those causes are. They just think climate scientists are too stupid to find them or they're bought off by their political masters in a plot to take over the world. They're looking for some magic bullet that science hasn't found yet. At this point I think it's unlikely but if such a profound discovery is yet to be found someone will make their name in scientific circles when they do find it.
You mentioned the Sun in another response but it has been continuously monitored since at least the 1950's and even more continuously and accurately monitored since satellites went up in 1979. The Sun's output does affect climate but it hasn't changed enough to account for more than about 5% of climate change in the past 60+ years.
No, he was right about the magnitude. He said "It takes ~3 days of humans' output to equal one year of volcanic greenhouse gas emissions." 3 days is 0.82% of the year which is less than 1%. But I think it is clearer the way you presented it.
Now, tell me how much of that money went into climate scientists pockets rather than paying for expensive instrumentation (launching satellites anyone?), super computer time, data collection and correlation?
Even NASA has been a big climate change proponent in recent years, vs. focusing on the space travel projects we traditionally associate with it.
NASA has always been involved in the analysis of the data their space exploration produces including many satellites that face the Earth. The Goddard Institute for Space Studies where most of NASA's climate research is centered was established in 1961. James Hansen became head of the GISS in 1981. So I don't think "recent years" is a particularly accurate characterization.
The thing is ships get stuck in the Antarctic sea ice for short periods all the time. It's a fairly regular occurrence. This one just made the headlines because a lot of climate change contrarians thought they could make some hay with it.
The USA has broken 1000 record low temps in the last couple of months ...
Those are all daily record low temperatures, IOW the record for a specific day. No monthly or all time record low temperatures were broken in the cold snap in early January.
Just cover her with honey and you'd have a fight between the bees and the men who want to lick it off her body.
Don't worry about it, the alcohol in your rum is the piss/shit of yeast cells.
Well, in the Monterey Bay Aquarium there probably aren't any species that no-one knows about. But there certainly would also be DNA from the various microorganisms in the water as well. That brings to mind that the water in the tank comes from the ocean anyway and I doubt the filtering is good enough to remove all traces of "wild" DNA before it goes in the tank. So maybe they would find DNA from and unknown species.
,quote>Fish do piss in the water.
Well, if you think about it practically every bit of water on the planet has been pissed by an animal at one time or another or at least is commingled with water that has.
If they're headed for you then you better get under cover. They may be on a bombing run.