girlfriend moving away lol
If I made the mistake of saying most, I will stand corrected.
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
You mean only the ones that are driving all the warming right?
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? Once again you've made wild assertions without so much as a Fruit Loops box as a reference. Shameful.
Happy?
No.
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.
Watch 131 Years of Global Warming in 26 Seconds
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/...=Google+Reader
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?
http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/...-activity.html
http://www.livescience.com/18255-sol...e-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.
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.
true, for the most part. Depending on the al ude of the orbit, satellites can remain for decades before notably degrading.
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.
LOL... Is this journalist serous? He thinks astronomers don't know? That's a lie, or he is ignorant.
Maybe more than slightly.
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.
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.
Not necessarily testable. I could very well be inside the range of noise.
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:
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.
Will Global Warming Ruin Football in the South?
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/2012/0...-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.
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.
Can you please show me that NASA link that says so? I see this as an article that references material outside of NASA.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
