Do you agree with this statement

[wonka2000]

I suppose you are referring to solar cycles, which repeat every 11 years - a climax of which should be happening next year, so the sun is MORE active right now. The Earth is not in a cool down (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/26/tech/main5423035.shtml">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/26/tech/main5423035.shtml</a>).

I suppose I misspoke, this 'extra energy' doesn't come from changes in the sun (11 year solar cycles do very little for long term climate change); it is trapped more effectively by our atmosphere (greenhouse gases - specifically carbon dioxide).


Actually, there has been a lack of solar activity the past few years. Check out the sun spot data: [IMG]http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml">http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml</a>

Sorry, I don't read anything from CBS that pushes certain political views. I stick with NASA based material and knowledge :)

It is simple, the sun has been very unactive lately and this has triggered an atmosphere cool down. The sun is what determines our climate/weather, short/long term. In reality, the upper atmosphere cools down in response to increase carbon dioxide release.

 

[wonka2000]

spacepony;594470 wrote:

We aren't talking local phenomenon, we are talking long term global </em>patterns. "Global sea surface temperature is approximately 1 degree C higher now than 140 years ago, and is one of the primary physical impacts of climate change." (http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/coast_sea/sea-surface-temperature">http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/coast_sea/sea-surface-temperature</a>)
One degree doesn't sound like much, but it is an incredible change for an ocean (see video "2 degrees warmer")

[/QUOTE]

Do you know where the point or points of reading for these temps are? You do understand when climate phemons such as El Nino and La Nina affect certain parts of the earth, but the compensation is felt elsewhere.

Sure I can stick a thermometer in a baked chickens butt on the counter, doesn't mean the room is that temperature.

 

[snowmansnow]

Still.. we are talking in 140 years. IMO that isn't even CLOSE to being able to tell if an actual climate change is happening over the life cycle of a PLANET!

I think we get really arrogant sometimes and think that the planet rises and falls on us. Honestly... one day ... we will be the dinosaur bones that some civilization is digging up and trying to put together millions of years from now.

Should we be good stewards? Certainly.

B

 

[wonka2000]

That's it. As long as I am stuck in the ground face down so the world can kiss my ***, I am happy.

 

[spacepony]

wonka2000;594500 wrote:

Actually, there has been a lack of solar activity the past few years. Check out the sun spot data: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml">http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml</a>
[/QUOTE]

You will note that is a very traditional solar cycle plot - and note how the [I][B]activity is now increasing[/B]</em>, and should reach it's predicted max in about 2013, as stated therein (I seem to be off from the APOD picture of SOHO data that shows 2012 to be a max).
Again, these solar cycles are actually very small compared to the overall influences of global warming. Yes, it is possible, and many would argue probable that a mini cool down [I]might </em>be happening now if it weren't for the effects of global warming.


[QUOTE=][B]wonka2000;594500 wrote:[/B] Sorry, I don't read anything from CBS that pushes certain political views. I stick with NASA based material and knowledge :)[/QUOTE]

So you didn't read it because you didn't like the source? It's an Associated Press Study (if that makes you feel better) that uses NOAA and NASA data...the overall trend is of temperatures rising globally.

[QUOTE=][B]wonka2000;594500 wrote:[/B] It is simple, the sun has been very unactive lately and this has triggered an atmosphere cool down. The sun is what determines our climate/weather, short/long term. In reality, the upper [B]atmosphere cools down in response to increase carbon dioxide release[/B].[/QUOTE]

[I]Where in the world did you get that idea??? </em> Carbon dioxide is an excellent heat absorber and reflector of longer wave reflected radiation from the Earth, thus trapping it in.....like greenhouses do with it's semi-transparent plastic!


[QUOTE=][B]wonka2000;594501 wrote:[/B] Do you know where the point or points of reading for these temps are? You do understand when climate phemons such as El Nino and La Nina affect certain parts of the earth, but the compensation is felt elsewhere.

Sure I can stick a thermometer in a baked chickens butt on the counter, doesn't mean the room is that temperature.[/QUOTE]

If you read, it's a [B][I]global </em>[/B]map, and refers to data points in all oceans world-wide - not just to the Pacific Ocean and its El nino/La nina effects. And then it talks about how European oceans seem to be [I]really </em>heating up, and starting to severely affect marine life!

[QUOTE=][B]SnowManSnow;594516 wrote:[/B] Still.. we are talking in 140 years. IMO that isn't even CLOSE to being able to tell if an actual climate change is happening over the life cycle of a PLANET! [/QUOTE]

Yes, you are absolutely right! So, let's take a look at the ice core data for CO2 and temperature correlation for the last thousand years:
[IMG]http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical03.jsp">http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical03.jsp</a>

And CO2 patterns for the last several hundred thousand years: (please note, it's [I][B]NASA [/B]</em>data):
[IMG]http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/">http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/</a>

And, as you suggest, while we may not be able to confirm a climate change until it's happening, I certainly think the data is strikingly coincidental that the CO2 increases start right about the time of the industrial revolution...

[QUOTE=][B]SnowManSnow;594516 wrote:[/B] I think we get really arrogant sometimes and think that the planet rises and falls on us. Honestly... one day ... we will be the dinosaur bones that some civilization is digging up and trying to put together millions of years from now.

Should we be good stewards? Certainly.

B[/QUOTE]
First, I find it a bit shocking that, it seems we DO affect he Earth so dramatically (and in not a pleasant way - have you taken a look at the Great Trash patch twice the size of Texas in the Pacific?)
Second, you're right, Earth will prevail in a few million years, but as I somewhat stated in a previous post, just because we have the ability to royally screw up the Earth doesn't mean we should.
So, third, I agree completely on being good stewards.


Geez, have I ranted enough?:unsure:

 

[wonka2000]

spacepony;594581 wrote: You will note that is a very traditional solar cycle plot - and note how the activity is now increasing</em>, and should reach it's predicted max in about 2013, as stated therein (I seem to be off from the APOD picture of SOHO data that shows 2012 to be a max).
Again, these solar cycles are actually very small compared to the overall influences of global warming. Yes, it is possible, and many would argue probable that a mini cool down might </em>be happening now if it weren't for the effects of global warming.




So you didn't read it because you didn't like the source? It's an Associated Press Study (if that makes you feel better) that uses NOAA and NASA data...the overall trend is of temperatures rising globally.



Where in the world did you get that idea??? </em>Carbon dioxide is an excellent heat absorber and reflector of longer wave reflected radiation from the Earth, thus trapping it in.....like greenhouses do with it's semi-transparent plastic!




If you read, it's a global </em>map, and refers to data points in all oceans world-wide - not just to the Pacific Ocean and its El nino/La nina effects. And then it talks about how European oceans seem to be really </em>heating up, and starting to severely affect marine life!



Yes, you are absolutely right! So, let's take a look at the ice core data for CO2 and temperature correlation for the last thousand years:
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical03.jsp">http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical03.jsp</a>

And CO2 patterns for the last several hundred thousand years: (please note, it's [I][B]NASA [/B]</em>data):
[IMG]http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/">http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/</a>

And, as you suggest, while we may not be able to confirm a climate change until it's happening, I certainly think the data is strikingly coincidental that the CO2 increases start right about the time of the industrial revolution...


First, I find it a bit shocking that, it seems we DO affect he Earth so dramatically (and in not a pleasant way - have you taken a look at the Great Trash patch twice the size of Texas in the Pacific?)
Second, you're right, Earth will prevail in a few million years, but as I somewhat stated in a previous post, just because we have the ability to royally screw up the Earth doesn't mean we should.
So, third, I agree completely on being good stewards.


Geez, have I ranted enough?:unsure:[/QUOTE]


You are funny and have no idea what you are talking about, rather read information brought upon other sources who take the truth and bend it. You must be related to Al Gore. There is NO global warming. Tired of talking to a brick, good day.

 

[wonka2000]

spacepony;594581 wrote:
Where in the world did you get that idea??? </em>Carbon dioxide is an excellent heat absorber and reflector of longer wave reflected radiation from the Earth, thus trapping it in.....like greenhouses do with it's semi-transparent plastic!

Actually I do have something else to say, you really need to learn more on the atmosphere and gases as well as their effects. Once you read and understand this, you will understand everything I stated as being facts, not reading time on wiki or other bogus resources.

spacepony;594581 wrote: If you read, it's a global </em>map, and refers to data points in all oceans world-wide - not just to the Pacific Ocean and its El nino/La nina effects. And then it talks about how European oceans seem to be really </em>heating up, and starting to severely affect marine life!

Guess with the ocean cooling off the east coast means nothing. Since you like links... http://www.wtvm.com/Global/story.asp?S=13732725">http://www.wtvm.com/Global/story.asp?S=13732725</a>

Once again, compensation.

 

[wonka2000]

Found it. Read. You will notice this statement.

"While this warming has no implications for climate change in the troposphere, a fundamental prediction of climate change theory is that the upper atmosphere will cool in response to increasing carbon dioxide. As the atmosphere cools the density will decrease, which ultimately may impact satellite operations through decreased drag over time."

Thank you, come again.

 

[wonka2000]

Forgot to post the link and not sure how to edit post on this forum.

 

[brianjfinn]

wonka2000;594584 wrote: You are funny and have no idea what you are talking about, rather read information brought upon other sources who take the truth and bend it. You must be related to Al Gore. There is NO global warming. Tired of talking to a brick, good day.

Keep it civil, guys. You don't want the mods to have to step in.

 

[spacepony]

wonka2000;594590 wrote: Actually I do have something else to say, you really need to learn more on the atmosphere and gases as well as their effects. Once you read and understand this, you will understand everything I stated as being facts, not reading time on wiki or other bogus resources.

I have a degree and background in Earth and Planetary sciences. As brianjfinn suggested, this is a civil </em>and lively debate.

wonka2000;594590 wrote: Guess with the ocean cooling off the east coast means nothing. Since you like links... http://www.wtvm.com/Global/story.asp?S=13732725">http://www.wtvm.com/Global/story.asp?S=13732725</a>

Once again, compensation.[/QUOTE]
It's a news story on local phenomenon, both temporal and spatial, and doesn't point to anything on the climate.

[QUOTE=][B]wonka2000;594593 wrote:[/B] Found it. Read. You will notice this statement.

"While this warming has no implications for climate change in the troposphere, a fundamental prediction of climate change theory is that the upper atmosphere will cool in response to increasing carbon dioxide. As the atmosphere cools the density will decrease, which ultimately may impact satellite operations through decreased drag over time."

Thank you, come again.[/QUOTE]
The warming is referring to the [I][B]upper [/B]</em>atmospheric warming due to solar cycles, and "has [B]no implications[/B] for climate change in the [I]troposphere</em>", where we live and deal with climate change. The [I][B]upper [/B]</em>atmosphere may cool (and <u>warm</u>, by their implication) dramatically due to solar cycle, they say nothing of climate for the troposphere here...of more interest is the statement further on:

"A fundamental prediction of climate change theory is that [I][B]upper [/B]atmosphere will cool</em> in response to greenhouse gases in the troposphere," says Mlynczak. "Scientists need to validate that theory. This climate record of the upper atmosphere is our first chance to have the other side of the equation."

Here I note that while they predict a link between thermosphere and troposphere, they also don't say anything about responses in the troposphere(no mention of it cooling or warming), which is where our more immediate climate concerns are, and our concentration of CO2.

 

[wonka2000]

spacepony;594609 wrote: I have a degree and background in Earth and Planetary sciences. As brianjfinn suggested, this is a civil </em>and lively debate.


It's a news story on local phenomenon, both temporal and spatial, and doesn't point to anything on the climate.


The warming is referring to the upper </em>atmospheric warming due to solar cycles, and "has no implications for climate change in the troposphere</em>", where we live and deal with climate change. The upper </em>atmosphere may cool (and <u>warm</u>, by their implication) dramatically due to solar cycle, they say nothing of climate for the troposphere here...of more interest is the statement further on:

"A fundamental prediction of climate change theory is that upper atmosphere will cool</em> in response to greenhouse gases in the troposphere," says Mlynczak. "Scientists need to validate that theory. This climate record of the upper atmosphere is our first chance to have the other side of the equation."

Here I note that while they predict a link between thermosphere and troposphere, they also don't say anything about responses in the troposphere(no mention of it cooling or warming), which is where our more immediate climate concerns are, and our concentration of CO2.

Not to sound like a (deleted), but because you have a degree in something doesn't mean you know everything. I do now see why it is like talking to a brick though.

 

[spacepony]

Ah hah here we go...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/02/040203234243.htm">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/02/040203234243.htm</a>

It basically explains how the excess CO2 from our troposphere (which [I][B]warms [/B]</em>our troposphere) was predicted (and now shown by your article) to have cooling effects on the upper thermosphere. It's actually further evidence for climate change based on the anthropogenic increase of CO2!
oooh, and here's another one...:
[IMG]http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=108187">http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=108187</a>

Enjoy!

-The Brick

 

[brianjfinn]

:argue: :bash: :spankme: :swordfight:




















:deadhorse:

 

[spacepony]

SnowManSnow;593726 wrote: "It is a difficult idea to fathom. But the science is clear: Unless we change the way we live, the Earth's coral reefs will be utterly destroyed within our children's lifetimes."
---J.E.N. Vernon

This comes from The Sixth Great Extinction: Is the end in sight for coral reefs? : Coral Magazine

So to bring this back around, I'm re-examining my thoughts on this statement. Here's a brief article on the topic which briefly covers both sides:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4707-great-barrier-reef-to-be-decimated-by-2050.html">http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4707-great-barrier-reef-to-be-decimated-by-2050.html</a>

I think due to the wording of the statement that "reefs will be [I][B]utterly destroyed[/B]</em>", I must generally disagree. I do think we'll damage them pretty well, but as pointed out, corals have been around for millions of years, and survived pretty drastic extinction events. Corals will continue, even despite global warming effects.

But back to another point made, I most definitely agree we should strive to be stewards of the Earth, not pillagers.

 

[brianjfinn]

spacepony;594733 wrote: So to bring this back around, I'm re-examining my thoughts on this statement. Here's a brief article on the topic which briefly covers both sides:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4707-great-barrier-reef-to-be-decimated-by-2050.html">http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4707-great-barrier-reef-to-be-decimated-by-2050.html</a>

I think due to the wording of the statement that "reefs will be [I][B]utterly destroyed[/B]</em>", I must generally disagree. I do think we'll damage them pretty well, but as pointed out, corals have been around for millions of years, and survived pretty drastic extinction events. Corals will continue, even despite global warming effects.

But back to another point made, [B]I most definitely agree we should strive to be stewards of the Earth, not pillagers.[/B][/QUOTE]

I think people on both sides of the climate change/global warming/ whatever-you-want-to-call-it debate can, and should, agree with this statement.

 

[ichthyoid]

+1

 

[brianjfinn]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/30/botched-environmental-forecasts/">http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/30/botched-environmental-forecasts/</a>

Talk amongst yourselves...

 

[spacepony]

I would bet you like to poke hornets nests with sticks....
(I admit, it can be fun...)

So, the source is obviously very biased right-wing Glenn Beck crowd. That's something to keep in mind here. So, they've cherry picked the failure of several extreme </em>views on global climate change. Half of them are about 40 years old.
The failures seem to be mostly in their predicted scope, not so much in absolute failure of idea. Nothing here contradicts global warming, just the extremity and/or timing of the impact. Temperatures are still rising (as it does say in #4),and Arctic ice sheets are still shrinking (as #3 states, also: http://news.discovery.com/earth/arctic-ice-melt-record.html">http://news.discovery.com/earth/arctic-ice-melt-record.html</a>). Here: counter-story (this was also published in [I]The Times</em> online, but it's explained better here)
[IMG]http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/200033">http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/200033</a>

 

[raisedonnintendo]

Not to mention there is a ton more Frey water in the ocean now that wouldn't have been there otherwise. All the lakes drying up where do you think that water went? You don't think it made it's way back to the ocean?? You don't think a different salinity is going to affect our oceanic super highways? Think Maby that's why ocean levels are rising?not to mention when water level rises it covers more of the ice caps. And if you have ever been scuba diving you already know water transfers temperatures faster then Air does. So what do you think will happen to the caps