2010 shaping up to be the warmest year on record

[JockoJohnson]

wolf that would work if he was imaging something fake. the problem is there really is a huge giant fucking ball of fire that has a significant impact on the Earths climate. so your link in order to "pwn" him kind of self pwns you

Exactly. What Drebo says is true...but we can still add a bit more heat to the equation. I don't think we will change anything unless all of the other countries on the entire globe agree to cut back. I just don't see that happening. And if we are the only idiots to do it, we still lose and we get run over by everyone else not committing to cut back.

I say we just nuke the sun a little bit. Maybe blow off a chunk or two so that there is less heat coming to the earth. That sounds just as good as giving money to the morons in gov't.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm guessing that if I read the first two pages, I'll see more of the same old "It's rising" "It's falling" "It's rising" "It's falling". Both sides will post graphs and charts of the temperatures showing a warming trend AND somehow a cooling trend.. one side says that we had the hottest year ever.. the other side saying we had the coldest year ever.

There's no illusion of coldest year ever. We'd have to go back 20,000 years to even get remotely close. Oh, but now suddenly the last 100 years is all doom and gloom because of us.

 

[Jaskalas]

Given the dissonance of reality between the two camps of this political and religious argument, you might be surprised to learn that if you simply cast aside this dogmatic reason for cutting emissions, you’d find that you have many more people who support the end goal.

It is your reason that is unreasonable, and your means that are meaningless. Our destination is much more destined if you simply cast aside old hatreds and speak positively about the good clean renewable energy will bring.

A negative portrayal of the end of the world will, and obviously has, cause such a divide that you will only murder your own cause. Surrender now and join us in a clean future, or be stuck in the filthy mud of partisan politics. The choice is yours.

Abandon Global Warming. Abandon Cap and Trade. Reach for clean renewable energy.

 

[umbrella39]

It's been cool and wet here,,,,
"The day before the summer solstice — when the sun's rays should shine strongest over the northern hemisphere — might instead have been "the darkest June day anyone's ever experienced" in Seattle, said Cliff Mass, professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...weather22m.html?prmid=related_stories_section

One day in Seattle it was dark! Are you serious with this?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Preparing For The Climate Jihad

(super-insulating house with R-25+ walls and R40+ ceilings)
​

--

 

[dainthomas]

One day in Seattle it was dark! Are you serious with this?

How about this: it's been over 9 months since it's reached 75 degrees in Seattle.

And Portland hasn't been much warmer. It's been one of the darkest, gloomiest spring/early summers I can remember.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I've always been of the opinion that people who think we are capable of affecting the climate to any noticable degree give the human populace WAY too much credit.

There is no POSSIBLE way that we affect the global climate more than the GIANT FUCKING BALL OF FIRE IN THE SKY. It's just not possible.

OH, I get it, sarcasm!

 

[Deeko]

Its been an unseasonably cold Spring here. Send some of your heat this way and stop whining.

 

[sandorski]

I've always been of the opinion that people who think we are capable of affecting the climate to any noticable degree give the human populace WAY too much credit.

There is no POSSIBLE way that we affect the global climate more than the GIANT FUCKING BALL OF FIRE IN THE SKY. It's just not possible.

fail

 

[sandorski]

wolf that would work if he was imaging something fake. the problem is there really is a huge giant fucking ball of fire that has a significant impact on the Earths climate. so your link in order to "pwn" him kind of self pwns you

fail

 

[Deeko]

One day in Seattle it was dark! Are you serious with this?

Its been unseasonably cold and dark in Seattle since March or so. Its not a one day phenomenon. Relax, sport.

 

[bfdd]

How about this: it's been over 9 months since it's reached 75 degrees in Seattle.

And Portland hasn't been much warmer. It's been one of the darkest, gloomiest spring/early summers I can remember.

Pretty much the same down here in LA.

 

[bfdd]

fail

I don't think you've thought this post through. There is no fail except on wolf's part and probably yours now since you've decided to you know... post about something you don't even understand. I actually like reading wolf's posts too so I wasn't trying to be a dick. You on the other hand are just such a monstrous moron I can't help it.

 

[Throckmorton]

Abandon Global Warming. Abandon Cap and Trade. Reach for clean renewable energy.

You can't abandon atmospheric chemistry. Try cracking open a textbook and maybe you'll get it.


How about you abandon the idea that wearing more clothes makes you warmer? Go out on a hot day wearing a parka, on a cold day wearing a tank top. Mushy feelings have no influence on reality. Physics isn't faith-based.

 

[mav451]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-f...le=map-blended-mntp&year=2010&month=5&ext=gif

I was loving the 70F days in January. Did not like the ridiculous snow in February though, that was FTL.

 

[sandorski]

I don't think you've thought this post through. There is no fail except on wolf's part and probably yours now since you've decided to you know... post about something you don't even understand. I actually like reading wolf's posts too so I wasn't trying to be a dick. You on the other hand are just such a monstrous moron I can't help it.

/facepalm fail on

 

[piasabird]

I think it is a bunch of baloney. You dont know what you are talking about. There has not even been a draught! In the late 70's we had a summer where the high for the day was over 90 for 30 consecutive days. They were also shipping in feed for animals because we had a draught and all the feed crops like hay and corn were failing.

A few hot days does not mean much if it rains every other day.

I can remember the heat being so bad the roads were buckling. They would expand till a bump like a speed bumb would form and force the road up all the way accross the road. This was happening everywhere.

I was trying to remember the year and I think it was about 1978 or maybe in the early 80's. One thing is for sure and that is that the summers use to be a lot hotter and the humidity use to be higher. I think it was a combination of high humidity and heat. It just seems like we just started having less humidity in the air in the midwest a while back and it just stayed that way.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Despite the 30 per cent increase of CO2 in the last 61 years, the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere (“greenhouse constant&#8221 remains unchanged at its theoretical value of 1.87. The atmosphere is not increasing its absorption power as was predicted by the IPCC.

How curious is that?

Edit: 750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming Alarm

 

[Jaskalas]

Physics isn't faith-based.

Yet you still cling to a faith that has you ignoring the facts that CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere with a logarithmic curve reducing its effect, with historical evidence of CO2 lagging BEHIND temperature and thus not driving temperature change.

There's no evidence of a earth ending catastrophe even if we had 2,000 PPM.

The inherent flaw in your effort is by using a polarizing method of fear mongering. One has to wonder what your priorities really are as pursing this will not result in clean renewable energy.

You want results? Drive people down to the gulf and have them take a swim. That will have a profoundly greater effect than religious dogma. Particularly since the cool shift in the PDO is going to result in global cooling for the next few decades. The fear of global warming is DEAD until that shifts back into a warm cycle.

 

[bfdd]

/facepalm fail on

So you deny that there is a huge ball of fire in the sky that has a huge effect on our climate? That's what you're saying? I'm not saying the dude who made the argument is right, I'm saying posting some nonsense like wolf did that has to do with imaginary shit has nothing to do with the guy making a factual statement about there being a giant ball of burning gas that heats up millions upon millions of miles of empty space.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Here in a local part of Europe it is possibly the coldest year in a long time..


I feel like adjusting

 

[sandorski]

So you deny that there is a huge ball of fire in the sky that has a huge effect on our climate? That's what you're saying? I'm not saying the dude who made the argument is right, I'm saying posting some nonsense like wolf did that has to do with imaginary shit has nothing to do with the guy making a factual statement about there being a giant ball of burning gas that heats up millions upon millions of miles of empty space.

Return to Reality, we'll talk you down from that Bad Trip.

Yes, there's a big ball of Fire in the sky, but that's not the point now is it?

 

[mav451]

Yet you still cling to a faith that has you ignoring the facts that CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere with a logarithmic curve reducing its effect, with historical evidence of CO2 lagging BEHIND temperature and thus not driving temperature change.

There's no evidence of a earth ending catastrophe even if we had 2,000 PPM.

The inherent flaw in your effort is by using a polarizing method of fear mongering. One has to wonder what your priorities really are as pursing this will not result in clean renewable energy.

You want results? Drive people down to the gulf and have them take a swim. That will have a profoundly greater effect than religious dogma. Particularly since the cool shift in the PDO is going to result in global cooling for the next few decades. The fear of global warming is DEAD until that shifts back into a warm cycle.

Is there an article related to that logarithmic graph (on diminishing effect of CO2)? I'd to learn more about that.

 

[bfdd]

Return to Reality, we'll talk you down from that Bad Trip.

Yes, there's a big ball of Fire in the sky, but that's not the point now is it?

That was the whole point. The guy said there's a huge fucking ball of fire in the sky that has an enormous impact on our climate. Regardless of the fact you disagree or not with it having more effect on the climate than we could possibly have, that ball of fire still exists it, it still has an effect on our climate, what wolf linked has nothing to do with the guys statement. Read the damn link giving examples ffs, the ball of fire isn't some imaginary thing it's really there. So how about you do a little reading and understand that kind of stuff instead of just spouting "fail" on these forums when you should be saying in the mirror.

 

[ShawnD1]

Is there an article related to that logarithmic graph (on diminishing effect of CO2)? I'd to learn more about that.

It's an effect called the beer-lambert law. We use it a lot in spectroscopy.

In simple terms, absorption and concentration are linear and directly proportional. The trick is that absorption is logarithmic. It's based on a value called transmittance. Transmittance is the ratio of how much light passed through divided by how much light I started with. Suppose I shine a light at a detector. With nothing stopping the light, I would say my transmittance is 1/1 or 100%. To make that into an absorption value, I take the negative log base 10 of transmittance. -Log(1) = 0, so I have 0 absorption.
If I put some chemical infront of it that so that only half the light passes through, I would say my transmittance is 0.5/1 or 50%. To convert that to a log scale of absorption, take the negative log base 10. -log(0.5) = 0.301 absorption units.

If I blocked it so only 10% of the light was passing through, my absorption would be -log(0.1/1) = 1 absorption unit. Notice how 90% of the light blocked happens between absorption 0 to 1. At an absorption of 2, 99% of light has been blocked. At absorption 3, 99.9% of light has been blocked. Going from 2 to 3 absorption, you need to increase the concentration by 50% just to block an extra ~1% of light.

Basically what this means is that the majority of light being stopped is stopped by the first particles there and the rest is diminishing returns. This is why it was such a huge deal to make sure absolutely no acetone was in the sample cuvette. 1 drop of acetone would absorb so much IR that it would ruin any sample no matter what. 2 drops of acetone wasn't any worse because 1 was already enough to completely mask everything.

The significance of adding more gas depends on where you are starting in the absorption numbers. If CO2 is currently absorbing at 0.1 absorption units, then this is serious business and adding more CO2 can have a very large effect. If the absorption is already at 3 then you can add CO2 until the cows come home and virtually nothing will change. Since CO2 is a trace gas, adding more of it can theoretically have a large effect. On a planet like Venus, adding more CO2 would do nothing because the air is already dense CO2 that absorbs everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer's_law