Other meteorologists disagree.
"But we don't listen to them, do we, George?"
Posted on 05/24/2013 4:07:13 PM PDT by Biggirl
Maybe she's going through menopause.
I plant them anyway and cover them if I need to.
Just like any other crop.
I come from Alabama with my banjo on my knee,
I’m going to Louisiana, my true love for to see.
It rained all night the day I left, the weather it was dry
The sun so hot I froze to death, Susanna, don’t you cry.
That made me smile... Thought of my Memere sharing similar stories back in her childhood... Connecticut .... 1910 to 1917. She would have opted not to swim.
; )
Maybe she just doesn’t want to give any warmth to the Climate Liars.
To put it more simply, the natural rise in CO2 from the natural warming of the oceans by 1C or so would have resulted in 5-10 ppm rise of CO2 in the atmosphere from outgassing Instead we we have seen 110 or 120 ppm rise so far.
central_va, when you say "some meteorologists expect that the average temperature of the earth will increase by about 2.5 degrees Celsius. This doesn't sound like much, but it could be enough to cause glaciers to melt, which would cause coastal flooding." you are leaving out a lot of information.
The phrase "some meteorologists" is true enough, but it's a small number. The people who mainly push catastrophic warming are not meteorologists but climate modelers who know very little about weather. It's mostly not in the models. For example the strong storms that are a claimed result of manmade "climate change" are a negative feedback. Therefore the 1C or so warming from CO2 itself would be diminished by weather feedback. But the models don't predict stronger storms (on average) which is about the only way your 2-3C claim can come true.
More importantly the temperature rise in the last 10-20 years is more like 0.05C per decade so there is almost no chance of the a 2C (or more) rise in 100 years as is claimed by alarmists. Even more importantly, as most meteorologists know, the weather drives the global climate. Thus water vapor cannot properly be viewed as a feedback but as the controller of equilibrium temperature. Very briefly, if water vapor is spread out evenly there will be more warming. If water vapor in bunched up, then there will be cooling. All the "extreme" weather being claimed as manmade is actually a result of natural patterns. For example droughts start and stop naturally. The high temperatures in the drought may be a teeny bit higher thanks to added CO2, but that doesn't affect the global temperature more than trivially. As another example, heavier rains are another "extreme" weather claim. but that just increases the water cycle and negative feedback.
It must be man’s fault. Too warm, CO2 from fossil fuels. Too cold, particulates blocking the sunlight. Man is always to blame and we need more govt grants for research, and more laws to control people and industry.
After that it is usually safe.
Not this year.
Other meteorologists disagree.
The cause is pretty straight forward .....
The adibatic atmospheric turbulence resulting from jet stream boundary layer friction of increased green house gases results in temporary local temperature reductions.
It’s just that simple
34 degrees with mixed rain and snow overnight in Soviet Red Hampshire...
I am interested in the global cooling argument. There does seem some evidence for it. And, on the anecdotal level, it is a very cold winter, already, in the southern hemisphere, and the New Zealand snow season has started early.
Just follow the climate related threads on FR, and you'll soon see posts with charts and solid evidence for a decades long cooling trend coming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.