Posted on 12/17/2007 11:43:27 AM PST by dangus
In 2000, when scientists declared that the Earth's temperature was rising, much anxiety ensued, even though the increase was only half of a degree over sixty years. In just the past year, however, the Earth's temperature has reversed, yielding back one-half of that increase.
The past month's (November's) global oceanic data from the National Climatic Data Center has now been released, and the Earth's oceans surface is .2548 degrees warmer than the 1880-2007 average. That's down from .5250 last year and .5597 roughly a decade ago.
There have been drops of roughly a couple tenths of a degree previously, in spite of the general warming trend. But such drops, blamed on "La Ninas," have occured immediately following temperature spikes. What makes this current La Nina unusual is that the current temperature drop follows an imperceptibly small temperature spike.
As a result, the cold snap is pulling down even the six-year running average of temperatures.
This does not mean that the warming trend has necessarily reversed itself; there have, indeed been declines in running averages even longer than that during this decline. In fact, a cooling trend lasted from the 1940s through the 1970s.
However, unable to justify drastic temperatures with fears of the temperature rising a single degree or less next century, the global-warming doomsday-preachers have been asserting that the surge in global warming in the late 1990s indicated an acceleration of global warming.
The notion of such an acceleration seems difficult to reconcile with the new data: The world's oceans were warmer during warm spells of the 1940s.
Hmmm...well, here’s a question from the ignorant. The average temparature of the ocean is about 17 degrees celsius (62 degrees farenheit.) Water melting from glaciers should be right above the freezing point. To make this simple, let’s say it’s 0 degrees Celsius.
Now let’s convert everything to Kelvin. The ocean would 290 degrees Kelvin and the melting ice would be 273 degrees Kelvin. Some freeper chemists can help me here, but if I’m recalling my high school chemistry correctly, the resulting temperature should be approximately a weighted average of the two temperatures in Kelvin.
To lower global ocean temperatures by a quarter of a degree, the amount of added water at 273 degrees Kelvin would have to be about 1.3 of the total volume of water in the ocean. Since the average depth of the ocean is 3,795 meters, that much addition of water would raise the depth of the water by about 50 meters or about 165 feet in the past year. That would have flooded out the entire east coast.
So it seems that melting glacial water alone couldn’t have lowered temperatures by a quarter of a degree in a year, unless there are factors I’m not considering. I’m probably making mistakes here, but I’m curious as to where.
That’s very important. It takes a long time for the oceans to warm up or cool off. They act as a giant heat (or cold) storage unit that attenuates the effect of changes in air temperature.
If this is true, it means that the whole “Global warming” hype is a lot of hot air.
To call me an AGW acolyte is stupid. I personally think he is off base on many of his assumptions. I think you should apologize. Perhaps you should take a remedial reading comprehension course?
Nope..already made is millions/billions AND got the Nobel Peace Prize. No crying for him, just laughing all the way to the bank.
Don't laugh. From what I have read we are more likely than not to experience another "ice age" than a "hot age" and I am sure you know that it would be much better for human life on earth if the earth were to get warmer rather than cooler. But of course we all know what this is about don't we? Control of our lives by elites. Those who are soooo much smarter than the hoi polloi.
The ultimate measure will be when the seas stop rising.
The other data is interesting but since the 80’s, under President Reagan, we have known the earth was warming by the rise of the seas. You can’t fake it and you can’t change the data because sea level can be measured all over the world by so many different groups.
Perhaps you aren't an acolyte but you sure quack like one.
We’re DOOMED (and Global Warming caused this!)
Ray of hope: Can the sun save us from global warming?
*******************Intro Excerpt************
Could the Sun's inactivity save us from global warming? David Whitehouse explains why solar disempower may be the key to combating climate change
*******************************
Posted on 12/05/2007 11:54:02 AM PST by Pyro7480
Something is happening to our Sun. It has to do with sunspots, or rather the activity cycle their coming and going signifies. After a period of exceptionally high activity in the 20th century, our Sun has suddenly gone exceptionally quiet. Months have passed with no spots visible on its disc.
We are at the end of one cycle of activity and astronomers are waiting for the sunspots to return and mark the start of the next, the so-called cycle 24. They have been waiting for a while now with no sign it's on its way any time soon.
Sunspots – dark magnetic blotches on the Sun's surface – come and go in a roughly 11-year cycle of activity first noticed in 1843. It's related to the motion of super-hot, electrically charged gas inside the Sun – a kind of internal conveyor belt where vast sub-surface rivers of gas take 40 years to circulate from the equator to the poles and back. Somehow, in a way not very well understood, this circulation produces the sunspot cycle in which every 11 years there is a sunspot maximum followed by a minimum. But recently the Sun's internal circulation has been failing. In May 2006 this conveyor belt had slowed to a crawl – a record low. Nasa scientist David Hathaway said: "It's off the bottom of the charts... this has important repercussions for future solar activity." What's more, it's not the only indicator that the Sun is up to something.
Run for the hills!! BTW, what data are you basing that on?
Actually, it is hard to measure, because the change is so small.
And it can be faked. If you measure it relative to a piece of land that's sinking, it seems bigger than it is is. Or you can knock down a tree on low-lying land to falsely claim that it was drowned.
“Canard” should be “the canard”
“predicted” should be “predicated”.
I think you're a lot closer than the 40 tons that's claimed.
By my rough calculation: Each atom of carbon burned (atomic weight 12) combines with two atoms of oxygen (each atomic weight 16) and results in a CO2 molecule with an atomic weight of 44. Ignoring the hydrogen atoms (atomic weight 1), 1200 pounds of jet fuel, if all carbon, would result in about 4400 pounds of CO2 produced.
Remember they are reading the surface of the Ocean. You wouldn’t need such a huge volume of cold water to affect that. Water on the surface is usually warmer than the water below it so the intermixing is very slow since as we all know colder water is heavier and stays at the bottom. I really don’t know where they are measuring the water either.
Everyone does agree that GW is happening. Maybe it happened but not for the last 10 years and now this!
I love this stuff. The numbers get crunched and re-crunched using all this science and stuff and then... what does it matter in the large scale of things. I mean, how much difference does it make if we fly around spewing CO2 into the air with our little jet "aeroplanes"? Hmmm? Not a lot really. I have seen the makeup of our atmosphere and co2 is but a small portion. Do you think that putting a little bit more into the mix makes that much difference to our temperature here on earth. I think the sun would beg to disagree.
FRee Republic- the best place to find stuff to beat your lib friends over the head with.
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.
