NASA Report: Greenhouse Gases, Not Sun, Driving Warming

[InRareForm]

http://www.livescience.com/18255-solar-cycle-climate-change-warming.html

[Spurminator]

They're not gonna get any funding back if they keep putting out reports like this...

[Nbadan]

Oh, don't worry....we're going back to the moon!

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

The intensity of the sun isn't going to change if there is a net gain or loss. If it wan't Hansen making the statement, I might listen. Look at his words carefully.

"The fact we still see a positive imbalance despite the prolonged solar minimum isn't a surprise given what we've learned about the climate system,"
Who's he trying to fool?

Now consider this, when ocean currents take an average 800 years to circulate and the sun has been warming after the Maunder Minima for the last 250+ years:


"Our data show that Earth has been accumulating heat in the ocean at a rate of half a watt per square meter (10.8 square feet), with no sign of a decline," Loeb said. "This extra energy will eventually find its way back into the atmosphere and increase temperatures on Earth."

NASA study solves case of Earth's 'missing energy' (http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=672); 01.31.12

The oceans have been and will continue to collect extra heat until we are in balance. They collect far more solar heat directly than, about 90+% of the light from the sun. Greenhouse gasses make little difference as only the very top of the ocean car release IR, but the light penetrates very deep.

The OP linked article also doesn't address other reasons that cause warming, like soot on the Arctic ice.

Cleaning the Air Would Limit Short-Term Climate Warming (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/cleanair-warming.html)

What is black carbon, and where does it come from?
Black carbon, or soot, is a type of dark particulate matter produced by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, wood, and other biofuels. It’s linked to a number of health problems, and it also warms the atmosphere by intercepting sunlight. Black carbon, along with other particles, can come from motor vehicles, residential stoves, forest fires, and certain industrial processes. All in all, it’s pretty nasty stuff.
BC also cause snow to melt at a far greater rate. The norther ice, Arctic and Greenland, gets blanketed by a very light coat of it. The ice then absorbs far more of the solar energy than normal, melting it.

BLACK SOOT AND SNOW: A WARMER COMBINATION (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1223blacksoot.html)

New research from NASA scientists suggests emissions of black soot alter the way sunlight reflects off snow. According to a computer simulation, black soot may be responsible for 25 percent of observed global warming over the past century.

Black Carbon Deposits on Himalayan Ice Threaten Earth's "Third Pole" (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20091214/)

Black soot deposited on Tibetan glaciers has contributed significantly to the retreat of the world's largest non-polar ice masses, according to new research by scientists from NASA and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Soot absorbs incoming solar radiation and can speed glacial melting when deposited on snow in sufficient quantities.

Arctic Nations Order Investigation of Black Carbon, Blamed for Significant Ice Melt (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20090429/arctic-nations-order-investigation-black-carbon-blamed-significant-ice-melt)

Soot, or black carbon, is believed to be responsible for 18 percent of the planet’s warming, an impact that wasn't well understood just two years ago when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report.
Since the 2007 AR4 report, they have revised the impact upward.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hey WC how about you link the natural gas boiler sales brochures for us again. You still going to explain how a satellite up in the stratosphere 'looks' down into the troposphere. Better yet lets talk conservation of energy, systems analysis, or electronics parts.

These threads are always the best at outlining how stupid you are.

[Wild Cobra]

You still going to explain how a satellite up in the stratosphere
LOL...

LOL...

:stfu :idiot

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Satellite in the stratosphere...

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And who here is surprised that he misses the point?

[Wild Cobra]

And who here is surprised that he misses the point?
I have a hard time remembering when and if you ever had a valid point.

I guess I need you to link and elaborate on what you are talking about, because to me, it appears you think there are satellites in the stratosphere.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Give WildDumbass enough rope and he inevitably ends up hanging himself. This is actually reminiscent of when you tried to ridicule me over the existence of 1F caps...

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=5362225

So to everyone reading that may not be familiar with WC and his stupidity I ask this question: why are engineers trying to improve the performance of something that doesn't exist?

[Wild Cobra]

Idiot.

Just because they choose to call it that, doesn't make it that. It is still a balloon.

[Agloco]

Idiot.

Just because they choose to call it that, doesn't make it that. It is still a balloon.

It orbits the earth. What, pray tell, would you classify it as?

[Wild Cobra]

It orbits the earth. What, pray tell, would you classify it as?
No it doesn't. It doesn't properly fit the appropriate definitions.

The earth includes the atmosphere. It therefore is not orbiting, but inside the bounds of the earth. Because of that, it doesn't classify as one body orbiting another.

I see why they like to call it a satellite, but is is still just a sophisticated balloon.

I can call my cat a dog. That doesn't make her a dog.

Does it follow Kepler's laws of motion? I think not.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No it doesn't. It doesn't properly fit the appropriate definitions.

The earth includes the atmosphere. It therefore is not orbiting, but inside the bounds of the earth. Because of that, it doesn't classify as one body orbiting another.

I see why they like to call it a satellite, but is is still just a sophisticated balloon.

I can call my cat a dog. That doesn't make her a dog.

Does it follow Kepler's laws of motion? I think not.

You really like making shit up. Satellites orbit the Earth. These orbit the Earth.

As for Kepler, yes lets go down this path. He is a nuclear physicist so you being a parts changer are bringing a spork to a gun fight as concerns field theory. I guess your dumb ass thinks that the Earth's gravitational field ends if there is vapor.

And just cause its funny watching you be stupid: what 'appropriate definitions?'

[Wild Cobra]

In reading about these stratospheric satellites, looks like they have only prototyped failures. I couldn't find any reference to functioning systems beyond test flights. i like the idea, and yes, they exist, but again... they are only balloons.

[Wild Cobra]

You really like making shit up. Satellites orbit the Earth. These orbit the Earth.

As for Kepler, yes lets go down this path. He is a nuclear physicist so you being a parts changer are bringing a spork to a gun fight as concerns field theory. I guess your dumb ass thinks that the Earth's gravitational field ends if there is vapor.

And just cause its funny watching you be stupid: what 'appropriate definitions?'
Just because you found something that is called that, doesn't mean it's a satellite. Even all the literature i find in these still refers to tghem as balloons. It is just they call this varietuy of balloon a satellite.

Whoop-tee-do...

If you wish to call that a victory over me, then by all means... take it. My... oh... my... what standards you [don't] have.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In reading about these stratospheric satellites, looks like they have only prototyped failures. I couldn't find any reference to functioning systems beyond test flights. i like the idea, and yes, they exist, but again... they are only balloons.

Most people realize that most things are many things all at the same time. This particular parts changer only knows of developments from the 1960s. Thats actually quite sad because NASA sent their first sateloons up into orbit 50 years ago.

But you know more than NASA or any of the engineers who work on these things.

Dumbass.

[SnakeBoy]

New Research Show Earth Has Not Warmed in 15 Years
By Jon E. Dougherty at 29 Jan 12:42

(Newsroom America) -- New data released by a noted climate research institute last week indicated that the earth has not warmed in more than a decade, findings that are sure to challenge the global warming mentality for years held by a number of scientists.

The data, released with little fanfare by the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit in London, shows that the earth has not warmed in at least 15 years. The university's conclusion was based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations.

In fact, the university said, it was possible the earth was moving into a cooling cycle, suggesting "that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century," London's Daily Mail newspaper reported.

Leading climate scientists told the paper that the sun, after emitting high energy levels throughout the 20th century, may be entering a period of "grand minimum" output, which could produce colder summers, extreme winters and shorter seasons for growing food.

Other climate scientists made similar predictions.

"World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more," Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute, told the paper.

"It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help," he said.

Some scientists said models set forth by in 2000 by the British government have not yet run their course and could still wind up producing warmer temperatures.

Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, a noted U.S. climatologist, said many scientists "are not surprised" by the warming pause.

She said it's becoming more evident that factors other than CO2 affect global warming and cooling, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, the Mail reported.

[Wild Cobra]

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when considering global temperature trends.

"Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.
Isn't that similar to what I have said?

Thanx for the find Snake.

[Wild Cobra]

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

Beginning of article:


The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

[Wild Cobra]

Most people realize that most things are many things all at the same time. This particular parts changer only knows of developments from the 1960s. Thats actually quite sad because NASA sent their first sateloons up into orbit 50 years ago.

But you know more than NASA or any of the engineers who work on these things.

Dumbass.
Notice the difference in terminology between what the first echo's were, and what they now call a stratopheric satellite? My God... You go with stratopheric satellites, then change the goal post to sateloons...

In my other post, I was saying it doesn't appear they have fully functioning stratospheric satellites yet. They are still in development. If you wish to twist my words again, what can I say. I was going to ignore you, but figured I would point out once again how you twist things first.

[johnsmith]

Oh Good..... A global warming thread.....something new.

[DarrinS]

Wolf!

[xrayzebra]

All I can say is that it was good thing Liberals and Greenies didn't exist
during the ending of the last ice age. Can you just picture it.....:rollin:rollin
:downspin:

[clambake]

ray!!!!!!

[xrayzebra]

Oooops, sorry I woke you clam.....

[clambake]

it wasn't you. i was awake cuz of the boiling global warming.

[xrayzebra]

Yeah, well a good tax increase will take care of all that "boiling global warming".
That's what all the experts say, anyhow.

[clambake]

i just turn on the a/c

[xrayzebra]

Me too. Which reminds me, gotta call my a/c man to check that little jewel out.

[Agloco]

The earth includes the atmosphere.

I recognize this for what it is. You'll draw no further responses from me on this matter.

[Agloco]

Does it follow Kepler's laws of motion? I think not.


Gah......I can't resist teaching. I'll help you out here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_%28astronomy%29

The presence of atmospheric contents is a special perturbation (orbital) and explains any deviation from Keplers Laws.

My rate is $300/hr for additional lessons. :toast

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Notice the difference in terminology between what the first echo's were, and what they now call a stratopheric satellite? My God... You go with stratopheric satellites, then change the goal post to sateloons...

In my other post, I was saying it doesn't appear they have fully functioning stratospheric satellites yet. They are still in development. If you wish to twist my words again, what can I say. I was going to ignore you, but figured I would point out once again how you twist things first.

The goal? God you are dumb what part of


Most people realize that most things are many things all at the same time.

A dog is a canine, an animal, a mammal, a carnivore, a domesticaed species etc.

Those satellites are also stratospheric, balloons, mylar, electronic, etc.

its things like this that make me say that you are dumb. This is a very simple concept that most people understand. You OTOH require it be dumbed down into singulars.

thats why I treat you with such contempt when a scientific discussion happens. its like the soot argument. Scientist actually consider the effect it has an include it in the whole yet you portray it as this all or nothing thing and try to pass off there admission that it exists as some sort of triumph.

Its pathetic.

[Wild Cobra]

Gah......I can't resist teaching. I'll help you out here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_%28astronomy%29

The presence of atmospheric contents is a special perturbation (orbital) and explains any deviation from Keplers Laws.

My rate is $300/hr for additional lessons. :toast
LOL...

Atmospheric drag and winds changing the path isn't quite the same as gravitational changes.


In astrodynamics and the case of man-made satellites, orbital perturbation may be a consequence of atmospheric drag or solar radiation pressure.

I know this is what you mean, but the consideration is for the molecules of gas that exist above the atmosphere where is still isn't like open space. Not continually being in the atmosphere. Hell... we may as well call ships at sea satellites if we are going to call balloons that. I wonder ay what TORR low earth satellites operate in?

$300/hr... That's might be on the cheap for private tutoring, of what you may be capable of.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thats not his point dimwit. He is talking about multiple forces impacting a system. A Satellite that impacts anything including gas will be deviated from Keplers geometric predictions. Kepler attributed geometry to celestial bodies and you should look up the definition of celestial anyway. What he is getting at is Newton's F=ma which was inspired by Kepler's observations. Newton understood that there were multiple forces that could act on a body.

What you are doing here is once again dumbing it down to a singular. Your pea brain cannot fathom complex systems. The definition of a satellite is not an orbiting body only influenced by gravity but you are so stupid you have to frame it as such.

That you are arguing with a physics research scientist when your specialty is limited to troubleshooting checklists that you have memorized is just sad.

Pathetic.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Thats not his point dimwit. He is talking about multiple forces impacting a system. A Satellite that impacts anything including gas will be deviated from Keplers geometric predictions. Kepler attributed geometry to celestial bodies and you should look up the definition of celestial anyway. What he is getting at is Newton's F=ma which was inspired by Kepler's observations. Newton understood that there were multiple forces that could act on a body.

What you are doing here is once again dumbing it down to a singular. Your pea brain cannot fathom complex systems. The definition of a satellite is not an orbiting body only influenced by gravity but you are so stupid you have to frame it as such.

That you are arguing with a physics research scientist when your specialty is limited to troubleshooting checklists that you have memorized is just sad.

Pathetic.


It's not so much as he is dumbing it down here or elesewhere, it's that he's subjectively dumbing it down

If you break it down the right way, obeying conservation laws (thermodynamics) it becomes simple.

Greenhouse gasses have lower specific heat capacity than normal ambient air. They also absorb more sunlight. By inserting them into the atmosphere and out of the ground, we're putting them first in line to absorb solar energy. Significant T increase should be anticipated.

All of the extra crap is just filling gaps in the energy balance equation, we already know what these gases do.





$300/hr... That's might be on the cheap for private tutoring, of what you may be capable of.

:lol

AqoSxVf4qTY

[MannyIsGod]

LOL...

The intensity of the sun isn't going to change if there is a net gain or loss. If it wan't Hansen making the statement, I might listen. Look at his words carefully.

Who's he trying to fool?

Now consider this, when ocean currents take an average 800 years to circulate and the sun has been warming after the Maunder Minima for the last 250+ years:



NASA study solves case of Earth's 'missing energy' (http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=672); 01.31.12

The oceans have been and will continue to collect extra heat until we are in balance. They collect far more solar heat directly than, about 90+% of the light from the sun. Greenhouse gasses make little difference as only the very top of the ocean car release IR, but the light penetrates very deep.


Wow there is so much thermodynamic fail in this statement. If the ocean is collecting heat, its not driving any warming. Also, if only the top of the oceans can release IR then how the hell are the bottom of the oceans warming anything? And LOL @ light penetrating very deep. 200 meters in an ocean 10s of kilometers deep is not "very deep" by any stretch of the imagination. Dr. Optics ftw.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh and no, ocean currents do not take an average of 800 years to circulate. Europe is not being heated by Gulf Stream waters that predate Columbus. SMH.

[MannyIsGod]

But seriously, even a modest understanding of thermodynamics is needed to understand that an ocean that is warming can not possibly be driving atmospheric heating.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Oh and no, ocean currents do not take an average of 800 years to circulate. Europe is not being heated by Gulf Stream waters that predate Columbus. SMH.

This made me spit juice out. :lmao This country is going to shit I swear, nobody should be this stupid.

Great for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, but the rest of us are screwed.

[MannyIsGod]

Pretty sure WC is a troll account but I sometimes still cant' resist responding to him when he posts the so obviously wrong climate change crap.

Can you imagine the number of hurricanes we'd have in the winter months if the ocean moved heat that slowly? You could kiss seasonality good bye.

[Wild Cobra]

When you're ready to step out of the peanut gallery, let me know.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When you're ready to step out of the peanut gallery, let me know.

Rather then responding to specific refutations you resort to this. I understand you not wanting to discuss thermodynamics. Even the 2-D heat equation would make your pea brain explode.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL 800 years.

http://texasgeography.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/glfmexspdcur_nowcast_anim365d.gif

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL 800 years.

http://texasgeography.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/glfmexspdcur_nowcast_anim365d.gif

But don't you know the heat was all hiding in the ocean to explain the heating he formerly argued did not exist. The entire line is asinine.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL 800 years.

http://texasgeography.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/glfmexspdcur_nowcast_anim365d.gif
That's right. Choose a small segment rather than the whole. Probably all a peanut gallery seat holder can comprehend.

Maybe you can try to wrap your head around this:

Thermohaline circulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation)


While the bulk of it upwells in the Southern Ocean, the oldest waters (with a transit time of around 1600 years) upwell in the North Pacific (Primeau, 2005).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Thermohaline_Circulation_2.png/800px-Thermohaline_Circulation_2.png

As for thermodynamics, I'm not going to try to guess what your accusation is. It has several mechanisms. Without a specific example of what you think I don't understand, it would a complete waste of time for me to keep guessing what you are assuming.

[InRareForm]

http://news.yahoo.com/18-mile-crack-seen-nasa-antarctic-glacier-205345573--abc-news.html

[Agloco]

LOL...

Atmospheric drag and winds changing the path isn't quite the same as gravitational changes.

That's the point really. Think about it. Since you invoked them, re-read Keplers Laws again then review general and special perturbations.



I know this is what you mean, but the consideration is for the molecules of gas that exist above the atmosphere where is still isn't like open space. Not continually being in the atmosphere.

Atmospheric density is a gradient no? Here you imply that you have knowledge of a cutoff density, above which consideration of special perturbations comes into play. Do share.

Hint: For purposes of this argument, providing a link to any published study would clinch it for me.



I know this is what you mean, but the consideration is for the molecules of gas that exist above the atmosphere where is still isn't like open space. Not continually being in the atmosphere. Hell... we may as well call ships at sea satellites if we are going to call balloons that. I wonder ay what TORR low earth satellites operate in?

Because ships at sea operate in low pressure systems and are subject to the same perturbations as satellites operating in thin atmosphere? smh.

If you know of any ships at sea whose inertial frames correlate with those observed for perturbed orbiting objects, I'd like to hear about it. In layterms, turn off the engine and observe where your boat floats.

Side note: Kudos for actually reading the link this time. I didn't think you would. :toast



$300/hr... That's might be on the cheap for private tutoring, of what you may be capable of.

Equal opportunity biller. You, Mayo Clinic, et al.......

https://multimedia-site.s3.amazonaws.com/multimedia-site-mcnn/assets/268/AZfactsheet_original.pdf

[Agloco]

:lol

AqoSxVf4qTY

:lol

I'm glad I never met Will.

[MannyIsGod]

That's right. Choose a small segment rather than the whole. Probably all a peanut gallery seat holder can comprehend.

Maybe you can try to wrap your head around this:

Thermohaline circulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation)



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Thermohaline_Circulation_2.png/800px-Thermohaline_Circulation_2.png

As for thermodynamics, I'm not going to try to guess what your accusation is. It has several mechanisms. Without a specific example of what you think I don't understand, it would a complete waste of time for me to keep guessing what you are assuming.

You did say most ocean currents, right? Large scale longer circulation =! Most currents but nice try!

As for the thermodynamics, its obvious you don't know what I'm talking about. You made that quite clear. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

That's the point really. Think about it. Since you invoked them, re-read Keplers Laws again then review general and special perturbations.

I completely understand your point. However, when you get to that extreme, do you honestly consider it the notion of a celestial body, which is what a satellite is by definition as well?


Atmospheric density is a gradient no? Here you imply that you have knowledge of a cutoff density, above which consideration of special perturbations comes into play. Do share.

Consider when you stop reading pressure by lbs/inch, bar, etc. and start reading what vacuums are read in. Torr.


Hint: For purposes of this argument, providing a link to any published study would clinch it for me.

Not that important. You guys can call it a satellite all you want. take the hollow win if you like.


Side note: Kudos for actually reading the link this time. I didn't think you would. :toast

I generally do read the links. Sometimes I don't take the time, generally because I already spend too much time here. I often bring up parts I think others miss in an article, or have a different view on what's said, and it's funny when people think I didn't read it the times I do.


Equal opportunity biller. You, Mayo Clinic, et al.......

https://multimedia-site.s3.amazonaws.com/multimedia-site-mcnn/assets/268/AZfactsheet_original.pdf

You live in AZ? My girlfriend is talking about moving to a suburb of Phoenix. Forget the name, but it's just SW of Sun City. If she moves, and I visit her there, do I need to prove to you she's black?

Oooops...

Deleted the ship part. However, a ship will follow the currents until it gets beached. the same as those balloons, though they are given power to navigate also. Real man made satellites on use power rarely to maintain a given orbit. have you read about the stratospheric satellite sails, control, etc?

...Again... SAILS!

[clambake]

girlfriend moving away lol

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

You did say most ocean currents, right?

If I made the mistake of saying most, I will stand corrected.

[Wild Cobra]

http://news.yahoo.com/18-mile-crack-seen-nasa-antarctic-glacier-205345573--abc-news.html
Yes, saw it on the news. Must have been a slow news day, or someone thinks we need to scare the public about global warming some more.

You know this is normal for that glacier flow, right?

Google maps has a previous break off captured currently:

Pine Island Glacier (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=pine+island+glacier+antarctica&ll=-74.771515,-102.183838&spn=1.000123,4.0979&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hnear=Pine+Island+Glacier&t=h&z=8)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If I made the mistake of saying most, I will stand corrected.

You mean only the ones that are driving all the warming right?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

:lol:downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin::downs pin::downspin::rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin: rollin:downspin::lol

[Agloco]

Consider when you stop reading pressure by lbs/inch, bar, etc. and start reading what vacuums are read in. Torr.

Considered. Again, what is the cutoff? Apparently you know more than I do here, thus I'm asking for some insight into the matter.



Not that important. You guys can call it a satellite all you want. take the hollow win if you like.

Not that important? Once again you've made wild assertions without so much as a Fruit Loops box as a reference. Shameful.

14IRDDnEPR4

Happy?


You live in AZ?

No.



My girlfriend is talking about moving to a suburb of Phoenix. Forget the name, but it's just SW of Sun City. If she moves, and I visit her there, do I need to prove to you she's black?

I'll buy both of yous a beer the next time I'm in town. That is, assuming she's not moving away from you.....then I'll just buy her one......for moving away from you.




Deleted the ship part. However, a ship will follow the currents until it gets beached. the same as those balloons, though they are given power to navigate also. Real man made satellites on use power rarely to maintain a given orbit. have you read about the stratospheric satellite sails, control, etc?

:lol

[Nbadan]

Watch 131 Years of Global Warming in 26 Seconds

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/131-years-of-global-warming-in-26-seconds?utm-source=feedburner&utm-medium=feed&utm-campaign=Feed%3A+climatecentral%2FdjOO+Climate+Cen tral+-+Full+Feed&utm-content=Google+Reader

[RandomGuy]

In reading about these stratospheric satellites, looks like they have only prototyped failures. I couldn't find any reference to functioning systems beyond test flights. i like the idea, and yes, they exist, but again... they are only balloons.

Where exactly is the boundary of the earth's atmosphere?

The answer would surprise you.

The lifespan of what you would think of as a conventional satellite is limited by stationkeeping fuel. Once that fuel is gone, the satellite then moves out of its useful orbit, be it geosynchronous or otherwise.

What causes the satellite to drift?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1534-solar-cycle-sun-activity.html
http://www.livescience.com/18255-solar-cycle-climate-change-warming.html

Basically, irrelevant semantic arguments about sensors aside, we are approaching a period in time with slightly reduced solar output.

It has long been an old saw among the rabid denialist crowd that "it's the sun stupid", meaning that recent warming, if acknolwedged at all, was driven by solar output.

Usually missing is any hard data showing this relationship.

As we study the sun and its affects, and have come to some indications that the sun's input will be going down a smidge, then we have a fairly testable way to see how much this variability is affecting warming/cooling.

If the CO2 and other gases is as big of a driver as throught, then we will still be getting warmer, even as the sun's output is less.

That would be yet another debunked bit from the denialist crowd.

It will be interested to see what their reaction will be to that bit of data.

My guess, is that they will go for the personal attacks on the researchers, as 9-11 nutters do when some real scientists dares to puncture some cherished truther dogma.

I guess we'll get to see.

[Wild Cobra]

Where exactly is the boundary of the earth's atmosphere?

The answer would surprise you.

No it wouldn't. The gasses pretty much start dissipating real rapidly at about 60 miles. There isn't a perfect vacuum, but not far above that point, which i don't remember, solar wind has a greater effect on orbiting objects than the lack of a perfect vacuum.


The lifespan of what you would think of as a conventional satellite is limited by stationkeeping fuel. Once that fuel is gone, the satellite then moves out of its useful orbit, be it geosynchronous or otherwise.

true, for the most part. Depending on the altitude of the orbit, satellites can remain for decades before notably degrading.


What causes the satellite to drift?

What? You don't know?

Other gravitational forces like the moon.

Solar winds.

Collisions with gasses that exists because there is no perfect vacuum, measured in Torr with negative exponents.

Magnetic forces.

There may be more, that's off the top of my head.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1534-solar-cycle-sun-activity.html
http://www.livescience.com/18255-solar-cycle-climate-change-warming.html
Currently, the sun is in the midst of Cycle 24, and the star is swelling toward a maximum in 2013. An extremely long stretch of subdued activity in recent years puzzled astronomers, and many solar physicists are working on developing better forecasting models of the solar cycle.
LOL... Is this journalist serous? He thinks astronomers don't know? That's a lie, or he is ignorant.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/solarvariationsandformula.gif




Basically, irrelevant semantic arguments about sensors aside, we are approaching a period in time with slightly reduced solar output.

Maybe more than slightly.


It has long been an old saw among the rabid denialist crowd that "it's the sun stupid", meaning that recent warming, if acknolwedged at all, was driven by solar output.

No, you are twisting that. There was a definite solar increase from the 1700's to (I forget) about 1800. There was another definite increase from about 1900 to about 1950. There are all kinds of natural cycles to drive temperature, but the sun is the source of nearly all the earths heat. When it is more intense, nearly all systems that drive climate respond to it.


Usually missing is any hard data showing this relationship.

There is known scientific theories that nobody has disproved yet. You might want to familiarize yourself with the formulas of how radiation heats, and heat generates infrared.


As we study the sun and its affects, and have come to some indications that the sun's input will be going down a smidge, then we have a fairly testable way to see how much this variability is affecting warming/cooling.

Not necessarily testable. I could very well be inside the range of noise.


If the CO2 and other gases is as big of a driver as throught, then we will still be getting warmer, even as the sun's output is less.

Yes, so why haven't we?

Why, when CO2 increased so much after coming out of this last ice age, has CO2 had no notable effect? Why do all proxy records show that CO2 lags temperature changes? Here's one you might remember:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TemperatureandCO2overthelast1200-2.jpg

Please take note that when the CO2 increased from about 7,000 years ago, the long term temperature average remained unchanged.

please note that throughout this period of long term stability, the short term temperature varied by about +/- 2C.

[boutons_deux]

Will Global Warming Ruin Football in the South?

http://files.technologist.geblogs.com/files/2011/11/11-southeast-pg-112_top-590x393.png

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/05/419061/romm/2012/01/03/397048/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Hayhoe-warming.gif

Back in November, GE’s TXCHNOLOGIST blog pointed out that climate change “could ruin Texas football,” indeed all southern U.S. football:

The effects of climate change, so far, have been most noticeable in Texas, where a terrible drought has dried up football fields in small towns that used to look forward to Friday nights above all. But climate change will have a terrible effect on communities throughout the cradle of football in the Southern and plains states.

Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas. The home states of the last five college football champions? Yes. But these are also states that are projected to experience 150-180 days a year with peak temperatures over 90 degrees Fahrenheit by the final decades of the 21st Century. That’s almost six months of the year. In parts of Florida and Texas the number is likely to exceed 180 days a year. Not only will the high temperatures be hotter, the lows will also be higher, so there will be less relief from the sultry conditions. This warming effect will have devastating effects on the ecology and economies of these area and make watching and playing football outdoors almost unbearable.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/05/419061/will-global-warming-ruin-football-in-the-south/

===========

People moved to the South to avoid cold weather and the $100s/month in heating oil, but now are getting clobbered by high electricity bills to run the A/C harder and longer.

Easy and unquestionable to see how rising energy costs will impoverish everybody, over the decades, compared to when energy costs were insignificant.

[MannyIsGod]

ITT: Some more terrible graphing

[FuzzyLumpkins]

ITT: Some more terrible graphing

Its more than that. Its just the real portion of to eulers descriptions of circular motion added together and multiplied by the amplitude. Its called forcing a square peg into a round hole. You use that technique to design something that you want to do that and that does not mean that is how a natural system works.

Thats the distinction that the original quote was saying. Their models did not predict the whole accurately. You use approximations of that nature to reproduce things however that is a far cry from actually understanding the real natural system.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol saying that the sun is underestimate while the global temp rises and solar output decreases.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.livescience.com/18255-solar-cycle-climate-change-warming.html
Can you please show me that NASA link that says so? I see this as an article that references material outside of NASA.