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

WEATHER REPORT……………….
January 8, 2010 " budsimmons

WEATHER REPORT……………….

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen , Norway . Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers
all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions
report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf
stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many
points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals
of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few
years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

I’m sorry, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922 as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post.

Where do you think it came from?

Quote:

(parados)Your information is only 15 years old ican.

(parados) I realize it is much easier to just roll your eyes than look at any actual science, so roll away.

Thank you, Adanac, for posting that article. It reinforces the fact that GLOBAL WARMING IS REALLY HAPPENING IN THE ARCTIC, because what was abnormal in 1922 and not characteristic of the ensuing decades, was

Because the earth has a internal heat source and an atmosphere it retains heat from the sun. Temp swings are largely due to weather, not climate. Climate is a result of very long term trends. Weather is a result of heat distribution.

For the n time, I did provide the reference.

Your argument is to ignore it as you dont like it. If you show up after the link has been given then you read it. If I provide it again, what will be your excuse then ? I didnt read it for you ?

How do you think weather stations get an average temp ? Radio relay every second ?

As for providing the link, make it worth my while to cater for your laziness.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
358
Lev Zeleny, director of the Institute of Space Research at the Russian Academy of Sciences and an Academy corresponding member, rejects man-made climate fears. According to a September 28, 2007 article in the Russian publication RIA Novosti, Zeleny "believes that before making Kyoto Protocol-like decisions, we should thoroughly study the influence of all factors and receive more or less unequivocal results. In order to treat an illness, we must diagnose it first, he insists." Zeleny noted, "Judging by Venus, a planet, which is similar to the Earth in all respects, we can see how far this can go. The temperature on its surface is about 500° C (mostly due to a greenhouse effect). At one time, Venus did not have a layer of clouds, and this is probably when it was warmed up by the Sun, causing a greenhouse effect. What if the Sun is responsible for the warming of our climate?" Zeleny asked. "There are two channels of energy transfer from the Sun - electromagnetic and corpuscular radiation," he explained. "The bulk of it - about 1.37 kW per square meter of the Earth's surface - which equals the power of an electric kettle - comes via the electromagnetic channel. This flow of energy primarily fits into the visible and infrared range of the spectrum and its amount is virtually immune to change - it alters by no more than a few fractions of a percent. It is called the 'solar constant.' The flow of energy reaches the Earth in eight minutes and is largely absorbed by its atmosphere and surface. It has decisive influence on the shaping of our climate," Zeleny said. "Solar wind becomes more intense when the Sun is active. It sweeps space rays out of the solar system like a broom," he added. "This affects cloud formation, which cools off both the atmosphere and the whole planet. We know from historic records that it was quite cold in 1350-1380. The Sun was very active during this time," he said. "Some dangers are much less discussed today, for instance, the inversion of the Earth's magnetic field," Zeleny warns. "It is gradually changing its polarity; the poles are crawling to the equator at increasing speed. There were whole epochs in the Earth's history when the magnetic field all but disappeared. Such oscillations have taken place throughout almost its entire geological history," he concluded. (LINK)

359
CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano compared Gore's film to "fiction" in an on air broadcast on October 4, 2007. When a British judge ordered schools that show Gore's An Inconvenient Truth to include a disclaimer noting multiple errors in the film, Marciano applauded the judge saying, "Finally, finally." Marciano then added, "The Oscars, they give out awards for fictional films as well." Marciano specifically critiqued Gore for claiming hurricanes and global warming were linked. (LINK)

I have no idea why you introduce the "internal heat source".

Because the earth has a internal heat source and an atmosphere it retains heat from the sun.

what happened to the part of the globe that the heat came from?

Temp swings are largely due to weather, not climate. Climate is a result of very long term trends. Weather is a result of heat distribution.

Where did you provide it?

I don't know for sure how they work. But I do know for sure that I don't trust the unsourced allegations that you are putting forward, and apparently nobody else here does either.

No. You are obligated to perform this duty as the proponent of an argument.

But no obligation rests with me to do anything at all.

Quote:

Where did you provide it?

Start searching at around page 700, you lazy incompetent.

Quote:

I don't know for sure how they work. But I do know for sure that I don't trust the unsourced allegations that you are putting forward, and apparently nobody else here does either.

You mean you dont know.

As for your ESP as to what everybody else thinks, you are on dangerous ground with your opinion. Dont drag them into failure to do the simplest research.

Quote:

No. You are obligated to perform this duty as the proponent of an argument.

I did provide the link. You are too stupid or lazy to find it. Have trouble wiping your own arse ? Let me guess...you got through High school by having homosexual relations with the teachers...you never did qualify, did you ? I am not repeating myself because you are incompetent.

Quote:

But no obligation rests with me to do anything at all.

Not even read apparently. You are full of **** if you think you are the final word on what is acceotable.

Both are important factors in the retention of heat by our planet, but they are not the only ones, they are certainly the main ones. What do you think would be the temp of our planet without an internal heat source ? Do you have any idea now ?

It got cooler. As I said

You really should try to understand before asking questions..try reading what I write first.

That means we would be .06% cooler or considerably less than the warming we have seen during the last 100 years.

No. You are making the argument, you provide the evidence. It isn't my job to do it for you.

I just said I don't know. Can't be any clearer then that.

You're a foulmouthed bigot,

I am following internationally recognized debate standards

You have now spent about 30 times the effort on defending your need to not find the information then it would have to actually link to it.

This is usually the sign of someone who is full of ****.

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure.htm
I have never seen someone so determined to be lazy. Was it that hard to find or did your incompetence and laziness present huge obstacles ?

Jesus Supported Separation of Church and State: "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" [Matthew 22:21]

United Nations No Longer Supports Separation of Church and State: According to Article 18 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion"

But On Dec. 18, 2009 the U.N. General Assembly adopted yet another resolution condemning "defamation of religions" to suppress freedom of speech and calling for what amounts to a global blasphemy law.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ionus wrote:

Quote:

No more so on a parking lot than anywhere else.

Do you have any knowledge of how heat is absorbed, retained and radiated ?

More then you, sir. That much is plainly obvious.

Quote:

Quote:

What matters is averages.

Wrong. The total amount of heat is what matters. Temperature has not been averaged, the mid point between maximum and minimum temp is used for conveniance sake. The argument is that the earth is getting hotter, not that the average mid point temperature is getting higher. If you cant see the difference then ask someone to explain it.

Are you quite sure about this? I just want to ask before we move on where you get your data from, to make that assertion. I also wonder if you realize that average temperatures - taken daily - from monitoring stations were the topic under discussion, not the average temp. of the Earth's atmosphere as a whole.

Cycloptichorn

The Measurement of Global Temperatures



[last update: 2009/07/05]

The term “global warming” is based on an increasing trend in global average temperature over time. The IPCC reported in 2007 that “Global mean surface temperatures have risen by 0.74°C ± 0.18°C when estimated by a linear trend over the last 100 years (1906"2005).” [4AR, Chapter 3, 2007]. However, the measurement of a “global” temperature is not as simple as it may seem. Historical instrumentally recorded temperatures exist only for 100 to 150 years in small areas of the world. During the 1950s to 1980s temperatures were measured in many more locations, but many stations are no longer active in the database. Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature were begun in 1979.

The main global surface temperature data set is managed by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). This is the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php]: “The period of record varies from station to station, with several thousand extending back to 1950 and several hundred being updated monthly”. This is the main source of data for global studies, including the data reported by the IPCC.

Average surface air temperatures are calculated at a given station location based on the following procedure: record the minimum and maximum temperature for each day; calculate the average of the minimum and maximum. Calculate the averages for the month from the daily data. Calculate the annual averages by averaging the monthly data. (Various adjustments are also made, so it is not actually that simple, as discussed later in this document.)