Is global warming running out of letters?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
JAYDEEJOHN

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Aug 23, 2006
19,840
0
50,860
Anybody from the 4 corners to the UP of Michigan knows this winter isnt over, thats about one half the US.
The current storm is called Zeus, yes, the last name of the alphabet.
The storms are increasing, not the hurricanes as was said, not the heat waves as was said, since 2007, global warming has peaked, and now portions the size of New England will be getting at least another half a foot of snow.

I know, they revised the "any different weather is global warming", but new record cold is being set all over, the drought, oh yea, were supposed to be having drought, is all but gone everywhere in the US, flooding is just now starting to happen, and will continue into June.
Here in Minnesota, where the fishing opener brings out over a million fishermen, and to celebrate, the governors fishing opener, all may well have to be done thru the ice, yes the ice.
Breaking records going back to 1888 is different, here or anywhere, man all I know is, we could use a little Al Gore with his hot air
 
I used to live in Sault Ste. Marie back in the early 1980's. I remember it being cold, very cold with six to eight feet of snow dumped during a storm being the norm. Sometimes the snow drifts got so high, they covered my second story apartment window and they had to dig a tunnel so we could out the main a entrance to the apartment building. I miss ice-fishing though and the salmon run at Two-Hearted river. Good times!

Anyway, don't you know that it is BECAUSE of global warming that the earth is getting colder! At least that was the last load of crap I heard from the AGW crowd.

Also, conspiracies and Planet X aside, I believe that the pole shift has more to do with the past several decades of weather changes than anything man-made.
 
For the record I propose we shut this obvious bait thread down.... So this will be my only post in reply to JDJ.

Hottest years on record

1-2: 2010, 2005
3-8: 2007, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2009
9-12: 2012, 2011, 2001, 2004
13: 2008
14: 1997
15: 1995

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/12/climate_change


Seems like an awfully big bet to place on "Pole Shift" or those evil scientists that just want money.

But since we all know this isnt a debate (Just another circle jerk by a few users) Im out.
 
Well, the thread was more in jest, and suffering.
But I do believe theyve changed the way the monitor the heat, using differing methods etc, and its like comparing 2 differing arches looking for the same clock speed to do the same work on both.
Moving goal posts doesnt help, so I cry foul
 
Do you actually believe in global warming?

 
You know, Im not sure.
When I was little, I remember huge storms, tornadoes, blizzards, then when I got older, it seemed to have slowed some, record cold, record snow yes, but not the violence I remembered.
Now? The violence seems to be back, maybe more in those storms, Living this long, its hard to say what is normal, and putting too much trust in others telling me I have to change my life for their numbers vs my experience, just too tough to buy into, though I wont stop listening, amybe someday, for now, Im just not sure.
Some will undoubtedly say my experience is too small, some will say the current thread here means nothing, that what were seeing isnt that important.
Well, the numbers they give really wont hit home with people until they see changes, and its where the pros for global warming miss their mark.
Difference is, theyve become the accusers and the ridiculers , and Im tired of this type of interaction, they want to win me, this isnt the way to do so, but my minds still open, despite them
 
A lot more concrete around those cities today than 100 years ago too. Cities tend to be warmer anyhow due to the ground and lack of vegetation. The sampling, while generally acceptable for day to day operations, is by no means scientific.

40,000 years old the earth was an ice cube. We have what.. 10,000 years of written history?
 
The problem is, they use different methods, and less areas, and more in or near cities etc.
Now, say whatever you will, thats moving the goalposts, even if it were to be found as being colder, wouldnt matter, the whole situation as to how, where to monitor has changed.
I woke up today and it was 16 degrees.
Weve been averaging nearly 30 degrees below normal on and off for awhile now, Minneapolis has reached 56 once this year, and that was in mid March.
The record lows found this year in wide swaths of the US, the snow totals, and the timing......
Im sitting here looking out at old snow thats over 2 feet deep, and were heading into May soon.
Means only more records, all time ones are to be set, both for cold and snowfall amounts.
If this happens again next year, what then?
They were closing schools yersterday, the flooding will be extremely late this year, meaning more water in and on the ground, the droughts all but gone, the complexeties of the global weather cant be ignored in one area and lifted in the other as the poster child.
Heres England
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/23/uk-weather-winter-storms-sweep-the-country_n_2938150.html
Some Russian heart warming facts
http://rt.com/news/winter-snow-russia-weather-275/
Japan earlier
http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/tokyo-first-snow-japan-winter-20130114

It was from this storm where they said its what to be expected, the global folks said.
But they had no idea it would continue til now, so again, a feeble attempt to prove they were right, yet they were so wrong, it wasnt supposed to happen this way, having such snow and cold temps this late, which shows how awful they are, both in seizing on headlines, and interpreting the weather.

Im still chuckling as to how the governor is going to fish, as even many of the rivers here are still totally icebound heheh
http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/winter-storm-zeus-20130422
 


Physics is not my specialty but from what I remember, magnets and magnetic fields do not have any effect on visible light as visible light has no charged particles. There are instances where light is effected by magnetic fields but only when passed through a medium, i.e.; the Faraday Effect, the Voigt Effect, etc. Even then, it is believed that the only reason the light is changed is due to the effect of the magnetic field on the medium and not so much the effect of the magnet/magnetic field on the light beam itself.

Magnets and magnetic fields can change the shape of charged light waves like the steering coils effect the electron beam in a CRT television. But this is the difference between a beam of charged particles and a beam (like visible light) that has no charge.

Also, quantum field theory states that powerful magnetic fields like those around neutron stars can "bend" light around it but this is believed to be due to the magnetic field altering the vacuum of space to affect the light beam.

Regarding my link to the shifting of the poles and the effects on weather, there have been studies linking cosmic rays, the strong/weak points of the magnetosphere, and the pole shifts to world wide weather changes. However, these theories are largely dismissed by climatologists and the AGW crowd stating that there is no proof that changes in the strength of the magnetosphere and charged particles from cosmic rays have no effect on the lower atmosphere where the earth's weather actually occurs. But, that is what I would expect the AGW crowd to say as if somehow that what happens to the earth's magnetic field an changes in the ionosphere have absolutely no effect on the earth as a whole.
 
then everyone agrees it effects matter to some extent, and in the situation also doubles the area as well, and not half the globe as in sun light?
I would think before hanging my hat on something, the entire complexity should at least be somewhat understood.
I guess if you actually believe the sooner before its too late idea, and the, Man has the ability to change this idea, where as natural phenomenon we cant affect, you would think youd be justified by not exploring and including the findings of those explorations into your data, but weather is so diverse, has soo many influences to not grasp the full scope of influence is a fools bargain.
Anyone thing that effects the weather could be the real tipping point, and the current known theories could just be along for the ride where other culprits are thre actual movers.
I know this, theyve moved the goal posts several times, and I wont let them do it again before I lose my faith in their ability to come up with anything useful.
I would gather theyve looked into coronal ejections, the magnetosphere, the deflection points and angles and strengths in regards to our wandering pole, but I find no evidence of this, only the continued accusations and negativity
 
This issue is very conflicting indeed.It is also confusing to.

 
The problem I see is, those that follow the man made carbon situation make claims others who dont adhere to their science dont know what they need to know.
Meanwhile, theres others saying it just isnt the Co2 and other factors are making this change, and show it using the Co2 models, where the levels change, but temps were already rising.
Things like clouds, magnetic poles as well as the magnetosphere, solar contributions as well as galactic/universe , certain massive currents in the oceans and other contributions others are delving into, but havnt truly been let in by the Co2 crowd, and thats not only wrong, but its our money being spent, not theirs
 
I can sum up Global Warming by Greenhouse Gases easily:

The number one greenhouse gas, ~77% in fact, is water vapor; clouds.

Take into consideration we are spreading water into areas that generally may not have water and we are also doing things to turn water into steam (turbines) and whatnot. So we're putting a lot of extra water into the atmosphere, I mean.. we're putting a lot of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Breathing causes water vapr.. we're overpopulating the planet with people!!

Try to debunk that. haha
 
Some more facts that will confound everyone
International Falls, Minn. - Recorded a low of just 4 degrees on the morning of April 20. In records dating back to 1897, it's never been this cold before this deep into April.

Baton Rouge, La. - The low temperature bottomed out at 39 degrees on the morning of April 20. This was the lowest temperature ever recorded this far into the spring season.

Sheridan, Wyo. - Saw a bone-chilling low of -1 on the morning of April 23 after Winter Storm Zeus passed through. This beat the previous record low for April 23 by a full 23 degrees. This was also the coldest low temperature ever recorded this far into April.

Amarillo, Texas - The cold air mass that followed behind Winter Storm Zeus dropped the low temperature to 21 degrees on April 24. This is the coldest Amarillo has been this late in the season in records dating back to 1892.

Fargo, N.D. - The first 50-degree temperature reading of the year will occur after April 17 for the first time in history.
 


I wonder what effects might the ozone hole over the Antarctic have on adding to water vapor in the atmosphere?

Interestingly enough, the ozone hole actually shrinks in size during seasons of warmer weather. The colder the air the more the polar vortex allows for the formation of polar atmospheric clouds building up chlorine in the clouds which destroys the ozone. So, if that's the case, then wouldn't global warming actually be better for the ozone layer?
 


It seems you are getting the greenhouse effect confused with the cycling of our ozone layer.

The formation of the atmospheric clouds absorb the CFC's during the winter and then release the chlorine during spring. The Hole heals some naturally by itself during the summer due to UVC rays creating ozone molecules. Every winter the hole returns and then becomes subsequently bigger, however due to the montreal protocol I think this is less of a concern that it was not too long ago.

To clarify, retaining more heat within the atmosphere (greenhouse effect) will not create more ozone.

Side note - The earth's natural production of these substances accounts for 17 percent of the chlorine and 30 percent of the bromine in the stratosphere
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom