Maybe Al Gore can help?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509735,00.html
Three global warming researchers stranded in the North Pole by cold weather were holding out hope Wednesday as a fourth plane set off in an attempt deliver them supplies.
The flight took off during a break in bad weather after “brutal” conditions halted three previous attempts to reach the British explorers who said they were nearly out of food, the Agence France-Presse reported.
“We’re hungry, the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice,” expedition leader Pen Hadow said in e-mailed statement. “Waiting is almost the worst part of an expedition as we’re in the lap of the weather gods.”
Hadow, Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels began an 85-day hike to the North Pole on February 28 to measure sea ice thickness, the AFP reported.
With bad weather hampering supply flights, the team is was down to half-rations, battling desperate sub-zero temperatures and unable to proceed, the AFP reported.
"It'll be a relief to get our new supplies," Hadow said in a statement Wednesday. "Until (the plane) does arrive, we need to conserve energy and can't really move on."
The expedition now expects to arrive at the North Pole in late May.
Don't they already know. It's North America Warming, not Global Warming.
geez
If the idiots were paying attention to sites like Cryrosphere, they would have known better.
If they die, that's what they get for believing Al Gore.
The Cryosphere Today
It doesn't get cold in the winter?
let me ask a question:
Does the fact that Central Texas just got some rain prove that we aren't in a drought?
Using specific weather events to prove/disprove climate is like using the boxscore of one NBA game to predict a team's season.
this is why we need Superman
Nevermind that they're talking about it being cold during winter.
Oh noes!!!
"I'm going to try to make a point about global warming by making fun of people getting caught in the cold during winter!!"
Global warming does not mean it's going to be hot everyday of the year and to with the other seasons.
But this is standard neocon/denier tactics. Every effing time there is an isolated cold weather event some idiot (i'm talking about you, tlongII) will post it as "proof" there can be no such thing as global warming.
Then you have crap like Mild Cobra posting a one year cycle to slam Al Gore while not realizing that the chart shows that there is considerably less ice cover this year than in the 20+ years prior.
20 years is no more relevant that an isolated event when talking about global climate changes you dolt!
I think this was posted as an ironic statement.....not a statement about global warming.
20 years is a whole lot more relevant than one data point, rube, and there's a lot more than 20 years of observational data.
Yes, and the general trend indicates the earth is getting colder, not warmer!
Global Warming would be more credible if this guy pitched it:
Only 33 years ago. You people really need to chill out...forgive the pun
Billy Mays and Shamwow Vince need to just duke it out. It'll be the veteran vs. the rookie
tlong, you are a tool, and your threads are always bull . You seriously cite fox news as a source?
Yeah, except that has already been explained by the aerosols that were being put into the air by industry at the time (1945-75) reflecting enough radiation to delay the onset of enhanced global warming - it's called global dimming, look it up.
Only 33 years ago. You people really need to chill out...forgive the pun
As for Arctic sea ice, why don't we look at what happened in 2005 and 2007:
As you can see, almost half of the median ice sheet was gone in 2007.
And then let's look at Greenland, and the fact that 96% of the world's glaciers are retreating according to the World Glacier Monitoring Service.
And then how about you non-scientifically trained moneys STFU. I run a class on this stuff, and you could really do with coming along. You might, if you opened your ing eyes for a second, learn something.
Please explain to me how CO2, a proven GHG responsible for about 25% of atmospheric warming, is at 385ppm, over 80ppm MORE THAN AT ANY TIME DURING THE LAST MILLION YEARS (during which time there have been 13 glacial-interglacial cycles), and yet that is not having an effect on the climate. It is simple physics, so please explain to me where that extra trapped heat is going. Please do. You can't, because it isn't going anywhere. The earth is warming, and some of the first obvious signs of that are vastly increased polar and glacial melting rates.
I guess that's the new math they teach in Oregon.
You see that is just HORSE . CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere. There is no reliable data to validate your claim of it being responsible for 25% of atmospheric warming. Sloppy science.tlong, you are a tool, and your threads are always bull . You seriously cite fox news as a source?
Yeah, except that has already been explained by the aerosols that were being put into the air by industry at the time (1945-75) reflecting enough radiation to delay the onset of enhanced global warming - it's called global dimming, look it up.
As for Arctic sea ice, why don't we look at what happened in 2005 and 2007:
As you can see, almost half of the median ice sheet was gone in 2007.
And then let's look at Greenland, and the fact that 96% of the world's glaciers are retreating according to the World Glacier Monitoring Service.
And then how about you non-scientifically trained moneys STFU. I run a class on this stuff, and you could really do with coming along. You might, if you opened your ing eyes for a second, learn something.
Please explain to me how CO2, a proven GHG responsible for about 25% of atmospheric warming, is at 385ppm, over 80ppm MORE THAN AT ANY TIME DURING THE LAST MILLION YEARS (during which time there have been 13 glacial-interglacial cycles), and yet that is not having an effect on the climate. It is simple physics, so please explain to me where that extra trapped heat is going. Please do. You can't, because it isn't going anywhere. The earth is warming, and some of the first obvious signs of that are vastly increased polar and glacial melting rates.
...tlong, you are a tool, and your threads are always bull . You seriously cite fox news as a source?
Yeah, except that has already been explained by the aerosols that were being put into the air by industry at the time (1945-75) reflecting enough radiation to delay the onset of enhanced global warming - it's called global dimming, look it up.
As for Arctic sea ice, why don't we look at what happened in 2005 and 2007:
As you can see, almost half of the median ice sheet was gone in 2007.
And then let's look at Greenland, and the fact that 96% of the world's glaciers are retreating according to the World Glacier Monitoring Service.
And then how about you non-scientifically trained moneys STFU. I run a class on this stuff, and you could really do with coming along. You might, if you opened your ing eyes for a second, learn something.
Please explain to me how CO2, a proven GHG responsible for about 25% of atmospheric warming, is at 385ppm, over 80ppm MORE THAN AT ANY TIME DURING THE LAST MILLION YEARS (during which time there have been 13 glacial-interglacial cycles), and yet that is not having an effect on the climate. It is simple physics, so please explain to me where that extra trapped heat is going. Please do. You can't, because it isn't going anywhere. The earth is warming, and some of the first obvious signs of that are vastly increased polar and glacial melting rates.
WOWOWO! Watchout, he runs a class on this topic
...which just shows that you don't even understand the mechanics of global warming.
The fact that CO2 is a trace gas only means that it is a small part of the atmosphere (pre-industrial conc. oscillating between 210-300ppm for last million years, currently 385ppm due to anthropogenic emissions, which have been proven to be from fossil fuels by isotope ratio assays - want to read the seminal paper about that?), and has nothing to do with the mechanics of greenhouse warming.
GHGs are gases which absorb IR radiation, the mechanism by which the planet is kept warm by the atmosphere - the major components of the atmosphere, O2, N2 and Ar (which make up over 99% of the atmosphere), DO NOT absorb IR. Only trace gases (CO2, CH4, N20, halocarbons), and water vapour, absorb IR. Here's the absorbtion spectra for you:
And here's a lovely diagram that will explain for you the mechanics of greenhouse warming:
Only about 25% of total atmospheric warming is derived from incoming solar radiation since it is largely in the UV/visible/near IR, which is not absorbed and re-readiated by atmospheric particles - thus the atmosphere is largely transparent to solar radiation. So, the other 75% of atmospheric heating comes from heat radiated by the planet: the earth absorbs the UV/visible/near-IR that makes up the bulk of solar radiation and re-radiates it as longwave IR. A large proportion of that IR is then trapped by GHGs like water vapour, CO2, methane and N2O. But then you wouldn't know that because you don't even understand that this statement:
is utter horse . CO2's role as a GHG is completely undisputed in the scientific community, even by deniers, because it is clearly observable. You can't even get the parts of the science which are open to attack correct!There is no reliable data to validate your claim of it being responsible for 25% of atmospheric warming. Sloppy science.
Here's a concise explanation of the history of GHG research:
"Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (“infrared radiation”) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.
Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere."
Just so you know, that is from the American Ins ute of Physics!
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
...but no, there's no proof that CO2 is a GHG... we've only accepted it as fact for around 150 years!
Sorry, WHO doesn't understand the science again?
Still haven't explained to me how we can push a system (ie. greenhouse gas concentrations and consequent warming) far beyond limits it hasn't seen in 1,000,000 years and expect no result. Still haven't explained to me where the extra heat trapped by the extra GHGs is going. Please, enlighten me with your genius, and I will show you just how little you know about this subject.
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 03-21-2009 at 02:36 AM.
And what do you do for a living, place your foot in your mouth? Well done, idiot. Tied your horses up to the anic.
I actually know my and can't stand pig-ignorance, so going with the ignoramus probably wasn't the way to make yourself look good on this one, you cheer-leading little piece of .
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 03-21-2009 at 01:29 AM.
those people are gonna die and ya'll are debating global warming?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
