Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

If thats the case, mark the bacteria article off. At least read the Coleman article.

parados wrote:

More proof you don't live in a climate where it can rain on frozen ice.

I've lived in both northern and southern areas of the temperate zone. In the northern areas of the temperate zone, I have witnessed following rain in the winter time more ice on lakes and rivers as well as on the land.

parados wrote:

you also seemed to have missed the part about the average temperature in Antartica during the summer down there. It is -20c.

Yes, currently air close to polar ice is below freezing. But if there were a general warming of the earth, there would also be a general warming of the atmosphere above the polar regions.

parados wrote:

It isn't me. It's science.

No, it is not science. It is religion.

parados wrote:

If there is an increase in the concentration of any green house gas then the temperature should warm. It's simple science that a HS student can conduct tests to show.

That is beside the point we are discussing. We are discussing whether the alleged warming of the earth (0.5C to 1.5C) over the last 100 years is caused primarily by the alleged increase of CO2 (300 to 400 ppm) in the atmosphere over that same period.

parados wrote:

No, we don't know if there would be more clouds. We know it is warmer at the equator but there are not clouds there all the time. In fact if you check I bet Seattle has more cloud cover for the year than Miami, yet Miami is quite a bit warmer.

I bet you are right about the cloudiness of Seattle versus Maimi. The variable locations of the respective jet streams relative to each city are the primary determining factors about where the moisture in the atmosphere will collect. The amount of moisture evaporated into the entire atmosphere, is primarily affected by the temperatures of the surfaces of large bodies of water. If the earth were to be warming significantly, there would be significant increases in the evaporation of water into the atmosphere. If that significant increase in evaporation of water has not been observed, the earth is not warming significantly. And if the earth is not warming significantly and the CO2 ppm in the atmosphere is increasing significantly, then the CO2 increase is not the primary cause of global warming.

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:

More proof you don't live in a climate where it can rain on frozen ice.

I've lived in both northern and southern areas of the temperate zone. In the northern areas of the temperate zone, I have witnessed following rain in the winter time more ice on lakes and rivers as well as on the land.

What was the air temperature when the rain fell? Was it -20C? Was it even -5c? Rain only falls in winter when a warm front moves in and the air temperature is above freezing.

you also seemed to have missed the part about the average temperature in Antartica during the summer down there. It is -20c.

Not just below freezing but 20 degrees Celsius below freezing. That would be -4F. I highly doubt you ever saw rain at that temperature. Like I said, you would need to warm 20 degrees celsius to get the air to a temperature to make rain instead of frozen precip. You have ignored that simple fact.

It isn't me. It's science.

If there is an increase in the concentration of any green house gas then the temperature should warm. It's simple science that a HS student can conduct tests to show.

Beside the point? Then why did you claim that water vapor would cause cooling since it prevents the CO2 from getting IR? You didn't think it was beside the point until you got the science wrong then suddenly it was no longer important.

No, we don't know if there would be more clouds. We know it is warmer at the equator but there are not clouds there all the time. In fact if you check I bet Seattle has more cloud cover for the year than Miami, yet Miami is quite a bit warmer.

I already listed several sites for okie that show that there has been an increase in atmospheric humidity.

The relative humidity and cloudyness for Seattle is here
http://www.cityrating.com/cityweather.asp?city=Seattle
for Miami is here
http://www.cityrating.com/cityweather.asp?city=Seattle

They really aren't that much different. Seattle has lower relative humidity during the day in summer but higher in winter yet Seattle has 86 more cloudy days. Your argument that heat will create cloud cover isn't holding much water.

Only the the north polar ice cap is decreasing. I asked you why. You explained why you thought that was happening. Because your explanation was not based on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere--and therefore was irrelevant to our discussion--I chose not to examine your explanation further.

My argument that the difference in the jet streams in the vacinities of Seattle and Miami explains the difference in cloudiness over these cities. The jet stream over Seattle is cooler than the one over Miami and tends to condense the moisture in the atmosphere over Seattle into clouds more than does the jet stream over Miami. But those are local differences that would continue to occur whether the earth is warming or not. The particular average global temperature does affect the amount of water absorbed by the atmosphere, and therefore generally does affect the amount of clouds in the atmosphere. The more water evaporated into the atmosphere, the more clouds there will be in the atmosphere. The more clouds there are in the atmosphere the more the surface of the earth will be cooled, thereby offsetting the effect of whatever CO2 is in the atmosphere and whatever IR that CO2 re-radiates.

Quote:

Only the the north polar ice cap is decreasing. I asked you why. You explained why you thought that was happening. Because your explanation was not based on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere--and therefore was irrelevant to our discussion--I chose not to examine your explanation further.

I see. You chose to ignore how science works for your own ideas.

...

Now do you understand why the Arctic ice can thin even if the temperature never gets above freezing?

So let me see if I got this right. The WARMER jet stream causes there to be fewer clouds.

But if the earth warms then a WARMER jet stream would cause there to be more clouds?

Ican, that isn't 'evidence.' That's your theory.

Evidence would be an experiment of some type showing that what you claim is true. I expect you to link to your evidence forthwith.

Cycloptichorn

However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

See John's full blog story here.. See John's forecast blog on the KUSI site here.

Accordinbg to some reports I have read, the retreating glaciers have exposed tree stumps and villages that are hundreds if not thousands of years old.

During the time of the vikings Greenland WAS green, it was a farming settlement.
Now, its mostly ice.

So here is my question, if all that is true (and I have no reason to doubt it), couldnt it be said that the earth, at least in those areas, was warmer in those times then it is now?
After all, those tree stumps are approx 7000 years old.
So,the earth had to be warmer then, since it is the retreating glaciers that are exposing them.

Yes! Warming of the water above 0C that flows beneath ice, will melt the ice.

Accordinbg to some reports I have read, the retreating glaciers have exposed tree stumps and villages that are hundreds if not thousands of years old.

During the time of the vikings Greenland WAS green, it was a farming settlement.
Now, its mostly ice.

So here is my question, if all that is true (and I have no reason to doubt it), couldnt it be said that the earth, at least in those areas, was warmer in those times then it is now?
After all, those tree stumps are approx 7000 years old.
So,the earth had to be warmer then, since it is the retreating glaciers that are exposing them.

...

If you are correct Ican, it would mean much of what we know about the universe could well be wrong since spectroscopy requires that molecules always react the same to electromagnetic energy.

...

ican wrote:

Yes! Warming of the water above 0C that flows beneath ice, will melt the ice.

This statement pretty much shows you don't understand the physics of heat transfer.

Ican,

As I minored in Physics I have little doubt that I've taken more physics courses then you have; and the ones that you may have taken would be half a century or so ago, so you probably can't remember then anyways.

Link to the evidence showing that experiments have proven what you say is, in fact, true.

Cycloptichorn

parados wrote:

...

ican wrote:

Yes! Warming of the water above 0C that flows beneath ice, will melt the ice.

This statement pretty much shows you don't understand the physics of heat transfer.

That statement of yours shows you pretty much do not understand logic. I didn't say in that sentence when, where or how that water is warmed. However, whenever, wherever, or however that water is warmed above 0C, when that water flows beneath ice, it will melt that ice.

parados wrote:

...

If you are correct Ican, it would mean much of what we know about the universe could well be wrong since spectroscopy requires that molecules always react the same to electromagnetic energy.

More correctly stated: spectroscopy requires that molecules OF THE SAME KIND WITHIN THE SAME PHYSICAL CONDITIONS always react the same to electromagnetic energy.