Reply With Quote
hasn't that already been addressed? it's a spoof. You didn't happen to take it seriously did you?
Really, I'm not going to get into another pissing contest with the ostriches here.
I merely pointed out the stupidity of posting news reports about cold fronts in winter and using that as some kind of "proof" that the world isn't getting warmer.
hasn't that already been addressed? it's a spoof. You didn't happen to take it seriously did you?
You display a remarkable lack of reading comprehension in your first sentence. The NOAA article is not by the Associated Press, and it doesn't mention your cooling trend.
Very simple question:
What is the temperature trend for the years 2006-2008?
That's a 3-year period of time, not a single event.
3 year time periods mean less than 50-200 year trends, correct?
Which mean less than 50,000 - 200,000 year trends. Have you looked at that record?
so then ocean levels have gone way up then, right? that's a whole lot of water displacement.
Last edited by Viva Las Espuelas; 12-17-2008 at 11:05 AM.
Since there is such a STRONG correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, I would expect the temperature to continue rising.
How about the trend over the last 10 years? It's pretty flat. Have humans reduced emmisions in the last 10 years?
A friend of mine and I that I haven't seen for a few years had lunch yesterday. He brought up the magetosphere. He says it has been decreasing in intesnity. Now I haven't yet verified his word (he is often wrong) but it has me interested to see if there is such a thing happening. Like the sun, it's something we assume to be rather stable. However, if the earths protection from radiation is being reduced, it will be a cause of additional warming.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 12-17-2008 at 06:11 PM.
Just the magnitude of the forces depicted in that image kind of support the proposition anthropogenic climate change is nonsense.A friend of mine and I that I haven't seen for a few years had lunch yesterday. He brought up the magetosphere. He says it has been decreasing in intesnity. Now I haven't yet verified his word (he is often wrong) but it has me interested to see if there is such a thing happening. Like the sun, it's something we assume to be rather stable. However, if the earths protection from radiation is being reduced, it will be a cause of additional warming.
Here’s some more interesting stuff:
Sun Often "Tears Out A Wall" In Earth's Solar Storm Shield. First two paragraphs:
Here are a couple videos:Earth's magnetic field, which shields our planet from particles streaming outward from the Sun, often develops two holes that allow the largest leaks, according to researchers sponsored by NASA and the National Science Foundation.
"The discovery overturns a long-standing belief about how and when most of the solar particles penetrate Earth's magnetic field, and could be used to predict when solar storms will be severe. Based on these results, we expect more severe storms during the upcoming solar cycle," said Vassilis Angelopoulos of the University of California, Los Angeles, Principal Investigator for NASA's THEMIS mission (Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms). THEMIS was used to discover the size of the leak.
NASA's THEMIS mission has overturned a longstanding belief about the interaction between solar particles and Earth's magnetic field.
This animation shows the latest findings from the THEMIS mission
Here’s some information to support my friend:
Get a Straight Answer; about 80% down:
As for how much radiation makes it past the magnetosphere, it’s the dipole strength that matters! Decreasing by 7% per century... I wonder how much high intensity radiation gets past, and what the total increase is? It cannot really be much. If it's linear, and it affects only the cosmic radiation, then it is probably between 0.02% to .08% increase in radiation per century. Very little, except these changes wouldn't be measured by the satellites in the Langre 1 orbit. 0.02% is only about a 0.04 C increase, but 0.08% would be about a 0.16C increase! The only proxy we have to see these are Carbon 14 isotopes, which are about 60 years late at seeing the results.The field has been weakening since Carl Friedrich Gauss measured it around 1836, by about 5% per century, recently accelerating to 7%/century. The decrease in the dipole field is however accompanied by a growth of the non-dipole (=more irregular) components, as shown by Benton and Voorhies. This means that the field is not really weakening, just reshuffling its field linesy, reducing the "main dipole" (=north-south bar-magnet pattern, declining as noted by about 7% per century) and reinforcing the more complicated parts. These tend to contribute a weaker field, because the magnetism originates in the Earth's core, about half an Earth-radius down: all magnetic fields at the surface are weaker than those in the core, because of the distance, but the more complicated fields decrease faster.
.
All those polar bears drowning in the Antarctic can come live in my back yard... .
Record snowfall and freezing temperatures up here in north Idaho.
Polar bears live in the Arctic... .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
