Posted on 12/31/2006 6:39:39 AM PST by since 1854
A few tidbits to pass along at year's end on one of our favorite topics:
In a story with a quite different headline and bent, Russ Schnell, director of Observatory and Global Network Operations for NOAA, says that climate change is cyclical and that "the planet’s vegetation, over millions of years, sucks in and spits out carbon dioxide." Yeah, we knew that.
Here's an AP article that says, "One hundred scientists from four countries are working on the Antarctic Geological Drilling Program, or ANDRILL, coordinated by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. They gather rock core from deep below the Antarctic sea floor, then analyze it. So far, the cores show a dynamic ice sheet that advanced and retreated more than 50 times over 5 million years. Some of the ice shelf's disappearance was probably during times when the planet was 36 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) to 37 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius) warmer than it is today." (Emphasis ours) Yeah, we knew that, too.
In this article, MSNBC touts the popular headline about the big chunk of ice that broke off and was floating away, but this New Scientist blurb says, "The size of the world's largest ice shelf has fluctuated wildly over the last 10 million years. Sediments extracted from the Ross Ice Shelf in the Antarctic show that it disappears and reappears in cycles." Yup, knew that, too.
Finally, there's this -- also from the New Scientist -- on our second favorite topic, global cooling. "In July 1971, Stephen Schneider, a young American climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in New York, made headlines in The New York Times when he warned of a coming cooling that could 'trigger an ice age'. Soon after, George Kulka, a respected climatologist from the Czech Academy of Sciences, warned on TV that 'the ice age is due now any time.' What prompted this panic? Three decades of evident, if mild, cooling had set the scene, but there was also genuine concern among climate scientists based on predictions of both natural and human-made climate change." We also knew that.
We wish you a happy New Year which we hope is filled with healthy skepticism and sound science.
I'm more worried about the sun.
One day it's gonna burn out, and then what....
Turn on the lights?
I read that the sun won't burn out for another 30 millions years. I think we have some time.
What lights?
The enviro-whackos will have us on candles before long.
"...MSNBC touts the popular headline about the big chunk of ice that broke off and was floating away..."
When engaged in absurdities, it's proper to write in the absurd mode, thus...
We can report that John Smith, of Flagstaff Arizona, while driving his two children to soccer practice in an SUV, broke off a giant hunk of ice from Ellesmere Island, Canada’s northernmost land mass.
The iceburg is about 37 metres thick and measures roughly 15 kilometres by five kilometres. That's the size of a small city, or larger than 11,000 football fields. The iceberg is now stuck in the winter ice, but the researchers believe it is just a matter of time before it is freed and floats towards the Beaufort Sea.
Assorted barking con-men, who live off taxpayer grants, blame the giant iceburg on human-enduced global warming, caused by Americans driving SUVs and using energy at their homes and work.
Mr. Smith says he has no regrets and continues to drive his children to soccer practice in the evil SUV. In fact, he may buy a second SUV for his wife. Eskimoes and polar bears, who are falling through the ice by the millions, are bracing for new calamities.
There's got to be a joke or an SNL skit in this line. Something like an old-time railroad conductor or station master consulting his watch and looking anxiously in a vaguely northwards direction. "ConSARN it! She was due at 3:08. Donno whut could be the matter. Musta been held up a customs er sumthin'." A chorus singing "She'll be comin' round the mountain when she comes," as a glacier slowly advances down stage....
Okay. maybe not.
Something tells me this might happen long before the pole reversal.
36 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius)
36F = 20C
Turn off the lights when you leave.
36F = 20C
20C is not 36F. 20C is 69F. 36F is 2C.
"Do you believe that the natural state of Earth surface temperatures is to be stable? That is to say, do you believe that any observed warming or cooling over 50+ year intervals must have an unnatural explanation?"
Correct: 36 degrees Fahrenheit (2.222222 degrees Celsius)
Wrong: 36F = 20C
See http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/temperature
Formula it F = (9/5)*C +32 or C = (5 * ( F - 32))/9
Yes and no. A thermometer reading of 20 C is actually the same as 68 F (not 69) but a CHANGE in temperature of 20 degrees C is equivalent to a CHANGE of 36 degrees F. For example, 0 C is 32 F. It it went up to 20 C it would be 68 F. That is a change of 20 degrees C or a change of (68-32) degrees F, that is, 36 degrees F.
It is important to distinguish between temperature and change in temperature.
I ordered two books by Brian Fagan. He is anthropologist and has written books about past climate changes and how it affectd humans. One of his books is THE LITTLE ICE AGE. One is THE LONG SUMMER. Only Allgore thinks the earth is doomed by hot air (HIS)
This clearly is talking about a change or difference in temperature, not an actual temperature. Therefore, the author should NOT be using 2 to 3 degrees C, but rather a change of 20 degrees C. When a temperature changes by 20 degrees C it also changes by 36 degrees F.
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.