| Welcome to the Avian Flu Talk Forums -- Select a topic below and join the discussion! |
Global Climate Change (Temperature Puzzle) |
Post Reply
|
Page <1234 16> |
| Author | ||||
Technologist
Moderator
Joined: May 05 2009 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 1192 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: March 14 2010 at 3:12pm |
|||
|
mrmouse: I fixed one of your links but the other link has a weird character in it.
Gas hit $5 a Gallon where I live. I'm guilty! I bought a 2008 8,200 pound (empty) Twin Turbo Diesel Truck because of that $25K 179 deduction. With all write-offs I "saved" money by buying that truck. With my tax bracket its like, Hey you want a free truck and some extra cash? If the savings were for a 100-200 MPG vehicle I would jump on that instead. |
||||
![]() |
||||
Turboguy
Moderator
Joined: October 27 2007 Status: Offline Points: 1764 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: March 14 2010 at 4:08pm |
|||
How about not laying the vast majority of the pain on the lowest wage earners? Isn't that what the Democratic party, and in particular the Liberal position happens to be? When gasoline hit $4 a gallon it didn't hurt the rich, it far disproportionally affected the Lower Middle class and the poor. The entire position that healthcare is necessary is to control costs on the poor, but then the Dems are toying with the idea of raising the costs of everything else 75% to 150% or more. I'm at a loss as to how that's a net gain... Right now it costs me right around $75 a month to heat my house, and I am a warm blooded person that leaves the thermostat at 63. If the cost of natural gas is raised as little as 50% my wintertime heating bill jumps well over $100. In this part of the country you absolutely must have heat just to live as life in -30f is extremely difficult. Then the price of electricity jumps 100%, and gasoline jumps 150% to let's say a conservative $4.65 a gallon, if you think people are struggling now, wait six months after Cap and Trade is enacted! You see, the problem with gasoline jumping 150% or even 100% is that the cost of everything must also jump as those trucks that haul the grub to the shelves just don't run on "Hope" and "Change." They run on Diesel, which will also jump dramatically. Truckers don't drive when they're not going to make any money by doing so because they had to spend $700 filling up. $5.75 a gallon for diesel is the zero point, the event horizon if you will, where truckers stop making money by hauling. Beyond this point they are actually going to start losing money hauling even the lighter goods.
Cap and Trade isn't just about oil, or gasoline that we put in our cars so we can get to and from work. It's about trying to fund a bloated boondoggle with another boondoggle and acting like they're helping anyone out in the process. Don't get me wrong, we are in for a major oil-tastrophe in our lifetimes and there simply isn't any real way out of it. Is jacking up the price of everything going to help anyone or anything in the end? Probably not. Regardless of what anyone wants to say, there isn't going to be a "Soft Landing." There's not going to be any super technology that's going to pop in at the last second and save our way of life. It's just not going to happen. I suppose if your position that by raising the price of gas you're going to get all those dirty poor people off the road is the goal, then that's exactly what you're going to get, along with extreme crime, further dichotomy of rich and poor, and extreme classism.
And I'd buy me one if the price isn't astronomically high and the car could fit my 6'1" 195 frame comfortably. I totally agree that we should be giving tax breaks for buying more economical vehicles as that will drive the price of gasoline for our cars down and I wouldn't have to spend all my hard earned cash burning it in my engine. That still doesn't solve the problem I touched on above with the truckers and the heat and whatnot though.
Yeah that was a stupid one wasn't it? So was bailing out the manufacturer of that pink beast that not many people wanted in the first place... |
||||
![]() |
||||
Mahshadin
Admin Group
Joined: January 26 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2627 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: March 17 2010 at 9:54am |
|||
|
[QUOTE=Technologist]
Gas hit $5 a Gallon where I live. I'm guilty! I bought a 2008 8,200 pound (empty) Twin Turbo Diesel Truck because of that $25K 179 deduction. With all write-offs I "saved" money by buying that truck. With my tax bracket its like, Hey you want a free truck and some extra cash? If the savings were for a 100-200 MPG vehicle I would jump on that instead.[/QUOTE] ______________________________________________________________________
So would a lot of Americans, now that it looks as though our transportation costs will stay 35% higher and rising (Gas). I have a larger vehicle as well (2008 Tahoe), and also a more economical (2006 Prius). The Tahoe we have because we need the room when transporting family (Large Extended Family) and 4X4 excursions. The Prius I used to commute to and from work 48 miles round trip. That Vehicle was very good on gas (Depending on your lead foot). I got to the point where could average around 45-50 miles to the gallon with it. The some young kid whaled into the back of me going 55-60 while I was sitting at a red light (Toast). The amazing thing is the car was totaled but the battery was in perfect condition as was the back and front seating (I walked away). I bought it just before the gas thing went through the roof. When gas was in the mid 4 dollar range Toyota called me back wanting to buy the car back for 5 grand more than I paid (Guess I should have sold it) I have not replaced the car yet and am now driving the Tahoe and wow what a difference in (Money) (Gas). The Prius I would fill up once ever 2 to three weeks, and it was a small tank. The Tahoe, well I don’t have to tell you, I might as well just buy the frickn gas station, I am there so much, but it is still useful 4X4, and seating for 8, just not a good everyday commute car. It is a flex fuel vehicle so if I go to the Midwest or brazil I guess I could use that but in the desert here the closest gas station that carries it is 30 miles away. Times they are a changing. |
||||
|
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." G Orwell
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Mahshadin
Admin Group
Joined: January 26 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2627 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: March 17 2010 at 10:54am |
|||
_______________________________________________________________________
We the People (Government) have very little to do with pricing of gas mrmouse. We have spent the past 30 years derugulating these idustries. When we give up our control it does not disappear it just shifts into other hands, in this case Corps who have but one mission
Profits
More Profits
Add a little greed
Excesive Profits
In this case Economy Crippling Profits
But hey everythings good right, especially if your at the top of that pyramid scheme. You even get the Government (The People) to fight the wars to secure your supply & Contracts.
WOW
What A Deal
Where do we all sign up
|
||||
|
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." G Orwell
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Dr.Who
Advisor Group
Joined: January 08 2009 Status: Offline Points: 392 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: March 17 2010 at 5:10pm |
|||
|
Anti corporate paranoia can be irrational sometimes.
Corporations work against each other but they work hand in hand with congress. The one who holds the puppet strings is more likely to be congress than an imaginary coalition of corporations. Restore the proper role of congress to police people and corporations who do wrong and not to micromanage our lives and the actions of corporations, get congress out of bed with the lobbyists and we will all be better off. |
||||
![]() |
||||
Mahshadin
Admin Group
Joined: January 26 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2627 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: March 17 2010 at 6:21pm |
|||
_____________________________________________________________
Corporate Paranoi-izm (Where)? I havent heard any All I hear is .Gov Paranoi-izm (Over & Over & Over). Must be something to that whole repetition thing huh We just spent 30 years taking the handcuffs off thus crippling .gov (The People) from overseeing Corps in any significant way. Perhaps we should blame ouselves instead of others, we all got conned together. |
||||
|
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." G Orwell
|
||||
![]() |
||||
sjf53
Moderator Group
Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: March 17 2010 at 10:25pm |
|||
|
During the years 800-1200, Iceland and Greenland were settled by the Vikings. These people, also known as the Norse, included Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, and Finns. Fig. 12 shows the various routes the Vikings took to these locations and others.
Figure 12: Routes various Vikings traveled. (Source: McGovern and Perdikaris, 2000) Fig. 13 illustrates a knorr, the type of ship Vikings used to travel these long distances.
Figure 13: A Viking knorr. (Source: McGovern and Perdikaris, 2000) The warm climate during the MWP allowed this great migration to flourish. Drift ice posed the greatest hazard to sailors but reports of drift ice in old records do not appear until the thirteenth century (Bryson, 1977.) The Norse peoples traveled to Iceland for a variety of reasons including a search for more land and resources to satisfy a growing population and to escape raiders and harsh rulers. One force behind the movement to Iceland in the ninth century was the ruthlessness of Harald Fairhair, a Norwegian King (Bryson, 1977.)
Vikings travelling to Iceland from Norway during the MWP were probably encouraged by the sight of pastures with sedges and grasses and dwarf woodlands of birch and willow (Fig. 14) resembling those at home.
Figure 14: Sedges, grasses, and dwarf woodlands of birch and willow. (Source: McGovern and Perdikaris, 2000) Animal bones and other materials collected from archaeological sites reveal Icelandic Vikings had large farmsteads with dairy cattle (a source of meat), pigs, and sheep and goats (for wool, hair, milk, and meat.) Farmsteads also had ample pastures and fields of barley used for the making of beer and these farms were located near bird cliffs (providing meat, eggs, and eiderdown) and inshore fishing grounds. Fishing was primarily done with hand lines or from small boats that did not venture across the horizon (McGovern and Perdikaris, 2000.)
In 960, Thorvald Asvaldsson of Jaederen in Norway killed a man. He was forced to leave the country so he moved to northern Iceland. He had a ten year old son named Eric, later to be called Eric Röde, or Eric the Red. Eric too had a violent streak and in 982 he killed two men. Eric the Red was banished from Iceland for three years so he sailed west to find a land that Icelanders had discovered years before but knew little about. Eric searched the coast of this land and found the most hospitable area, a deep fiord on the southwestern coast. Warmer Atlantic currents met the island there and conditions were not much different than those in Iceland (trees and grasses.) He called this new land "Greenland" because he "believed more people would go thither if the country had a beautiful name," according to one of the Icelandic chronicles (Hermann, 1954) although Greenland, as a whole, could not be considered "green." Additionally, the land was not very good for farming. Nevertheless, Eric was able to draw thousands to the three areas shown in Fig. 15.
Figure 15: Ancient Norse settlements. (Source: Bryson, 1977) The Greenland Vikings lived mostly on dairy produce and meat, primarily from cows. The vegetable diet of Greenlanders included berries, edible grasses, and seaweed, but these were inadequate even during the best harvests. During the MWP, Greenland's climate was so cold that cattle breeding and dairy farming could only be carried on in the sheltered fiords. The growing season in Greenland even then was very short. Frost typically occurred in August and the fiords froze in October. Before the year 1300, ships regularly sailed from Norway and other European countries to Greenland bringing with them timber, iron, corn, salt, and other needed items. Trade was by barter. Greenlanders offered butter, cheese, wool, and their frieze cloths, which were greatly sough after in Europe, as well as white and blue fox furs, polar bear skins, walrus and narwhal tusks, and walrus skins. In fact, two Greenland items in particular were prized by Europeans: white bears and the white falcon. These items were given as royal gifts. For instance, the King of Norway-Denmark sent a number of Greenland falcons as a gift to the King of Portugal, and received in return the gift of a cargo of wine (Stefansson, 1966.) Because of the shortage of adequate vegetables and cereal grains, and a shortage of timber to make ships, the trade link to Iceland and Europe was vital (Hermann, 1954.)
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Mahshadin
Admin Group
Joined: January 26 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2627 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: March 18 2010 at 9:44am |
|||
|
This years Sun-Earth day focuses on Magnetism (Our Solar System)
________________________________________________________
NASA
SUN-EARTH DAY (March 20, 2010)
______________________________________________________________________
Good look at the sun (near real time) and other various measurements (SOHO Mission)
______________________________________________________________________
NASA's New (Space Weather Media Viewer) (Near Real-Time)
|
||||
|
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." G Orwell
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Mahshadin
Admin Group
Joined: January 26 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2627 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: March 18 2010 at 4:20pm |
|||
|
NASA IceBridge Mission Prepares for Study of Arctic Glaciers
03.18.10
![]() NASA's DC-8 sits on the runway at Dryden's Aircraft Operations Facility in Palmdale, Calif., prior to the Operation IceBridge test flight on March 17, 2010. Testing objectives for each instrument were successfully met during the 5.8-hour flight. Credit: NASA/Tom Tschida The IceBridge mission allows scientists to track changes in the extent and thickness of polar ice, which is important for understanding ice dynamics. IceBridge began in March 2009 as a means to fill the gap in polar observations between the loss of NASA's Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite, or ICESat, and the launch of ICESat-2, planned for 2015. Annual missions fly over the Arctic in March and April and over Antarctica in October and November. "NASA's IceBridge mission is characterizing the changes occurring in the world's polar ice sheets," said Tom Wagner, cryosphere program manager at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "The mission's goal is to collect the most important data for improving predictive models of sea level rise and global climate change." Researchers plan to resurvey previous flight lines and former ground tracks of ICESat while adding new areas of interest. Scientists also will target some areas that have been undergoing mysterious changes. The major glaciers in southeast Greenland once thinned simultaneously, but some of those glaciers have been thinning at an accelerated rate -- as much as 40 feet per year -- while others have thickened. And glaciers in northwest Greenland, once a stable region, have mostly begun to thin. ![]() NASA research pilots Dick Ewers (center) and Bill Brockett (right) of Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif., and crew are briefed prior to an Operation IceBridge "shake down" test flight on March 17, 2010, from Dryden's Aircraft Operations Facility in Palmdale, Calif. Credit: NASA/Tom Tschida In preparation for approximately 200 science flight hours during the spring 2010 campaign, engineers have been outfitting NASA's DC-8 aircraft with an array of science instruments. On March 21-22, the aircraft will travel to Thule, Greenland, where researchers and crew will spend about five weeks making 10 to 12 science flights. The first priority is to survey Arctic sea ice, which reaches its maximum extent each year in March or early April. High- and low-altitude flights also will survey Greenland's ice sheet and outlet glaciers. In mid-April, the engineers will transfer the science instruments to the smaller, more maneuverable P-3B aircraft. The crew will spend May making another 10 to 12 science flights from Kangerlussuaq and Thule, Greenland. Both aircraft will carry the Airborne Topographic Mapper, or ATM -- a laser altimeter similar to those on ICESat. ATM measures changes in the surface elevation of the ice by reflecting lasers from the ground back to the aircraft and converting the readings into elevation maps. Another laser altimeter, the Land, Vegetation, and Ice Sensor, operates at higher altitudes and can survey larger areas quickly. The spring flights are led by project scientists Lora Koenig of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and Michael Studinger of Goddard Earth Science and Technology Center at the University of Maryland. The mission also includes scientists, crew and technicians from Goddard, Wallops, NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center in Edwards, Calif., NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif.; The Earth Institute at Columbia University in Palisades, N.Y.; the University of Kansas; and the University of Washington.
NASA's Operation IceBridge mission will make science flights from Kangerlussuaq and Thule, Greenland, in spring 2010 to survey the area's ice sheet, outlet glaciers and sea ice. Credit: NASA The versatility of the planes will allow some new observations not currently possible from satellites. Radar instruments from the University of Kansas and a gravimeter from Columbia University will allow scientists to "see" snow, ice, and bedrock characteristics at depths below the surface. Such information will enhance our understanding of glacier and ice sheet processes and will help scientists predict a glacier's future behavior.
"NASA has a unique capability to look at these things from a bird's-eye perspective, not only from space but also from multiple long-range, high performance aircraft," said John Sonntag, a senior scientist with URS Corporation in Wallops Island, Va., and member of the IceBridge management team. "If not for IceBridge, the global science community and the public would miss out on a great deal of knowledge about Greenland and Antarctica." Kathryn Hansen
NASA's Earth Science News Team ![]() |
||||
|
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." G Orwell
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Turboguy
Moderator
Joined: October 27 2007 Status: Offline Points: 1764 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: March 18 2010 at 6:01pm |
|||
COOL WEBSITE MAN!!! Imma favorite that one. Astronomy has always interested me like nothing else. In other news: My leg ![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
Mahshadin
Admin Group
Joined: January 26 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2627 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: March 18 2010 at 10:57pm |
|||
Whats up with the leg?
That looks like some serious workmanship!
|
||||
|
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." G Orwell
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Turboguy
Moderator
Joined: October 27 2007 Status: Offline Points: 1764 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:20am |
|||
|
Trimalleolar break of my ankle.
I snapped my Fibula right where the gap in the screws is on the eight hole plate and the two longer screws is where I snapped off the side of my Tibia and then another chip. The doctors have me moving it around to regain the range of motion and whoo boy does it hurt when I move it around. |
||||
![]() |
||||
mrmouse
V.I.P. Member
Joined: April 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 705 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: March 19 2010 at 8:39am |
|||
|
I feel your pain Turboguy! I had my right knee joint crushed, tibial plateau fracture in April of 2000. I had a O.R.I.F. with nine screws and a four and half inch t-plate. Scare tissue was a huge issue for me because I was none weight bearing for six months, and stuck in a hinged brace. Time heals all wounds brother, and never give up the fight!
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Turboguy
Moderator
Joined: October 27 2007 Status: Offline Points: 1764 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: March 19 2010 at 10:15am |
|||
|
Six times in war, two before OIF/OEF, five after eight deployments to hotspots including Sudan, Rwanda, Colombia and Bosnia. Never got hurt.
Wrestling around with my younger (Not necessarily little) brother and I break my leg. Mouse, it's interesting that your procedure was called the same thing as mine. ORIF. The after surgery pain was like nothing I've ever experienced before. It was absolutely incredible! I couldn't even form a coherent thought it was so intense. I thought getting shot in the leg hurt like a bitch, but in comparison, it was nothing. |
||||
![]() |
||||
Mahshadin
Admin Group
Joined: January 26 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2627 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: March 19 2010 at 11:33am |
|||
__________________________________________________________________
Ouch, I feel your pain just looking at that x-ray (Thats gotta hurt). My thoughts and prayers go with you in what looks to be a bit of a recovery time and therapy. On the positive side: You will probably be able to tell when the weather is changing before the weather man. _____________________________________________________________
NASA's New (Space Weather Media Viewer) (Near Real-Time) http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/spaceweather/FlexApp/bin-debug/index.html#
________________________________________________________________
Myself as well
Heres a few of my favorites
Incredible shot of Saturn
A rare alignment of three of Jupiter's largest moons
![]() Two spiral galexies that appear to be colliding but are actually just passing by each other.
|
||||
|
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." G Orwell
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Mahshadin
Admin Group
Joined: January 26 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2627 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: March 19 2010 at 11:36am |
|||
Very interesting SJF53
There are Lots of pieces to the puzzle
thanks
|
||||
|
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." G Orwell
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Hotair
Moderator Group
Joined: March 17 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 667 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:32pm |
|||
|
I am so sorry, Turbo! Your leg must of been in a really wierd position to do all that damage. So how are planning your revenge?
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Turboguy
Moderator
Joined: October 27 2007 Status: Offline Points: 1764 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: March 19 2010 at 6:14pm |
|||
Naw, if you're laying on your side with your legs crossed just above the ankles and have a 265 lb beefcake fall on your foot and you too can enjoy a trimalleolar break. I dunno, but since he really didn't mean to, and I kinda slipped and kicked his legs out from under him so at worst I can do something funny, not quite painful. Awesome sites and pick Mahshadin. |
||||
![]() |
||||
Mahshadin
Admin Group
Joined: January 26 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2627 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: March 20 2010 at 8:13am |
|||
NOAA: U.S. Winter and February Cooler Than AverageMarch 10, 2010 NOAA�s State of the Climate report for the winter season (December through February) and the month of February, state that temperatures were below normal for the contiguous United States. The winter season was wetter than normal; however precipitation in February alone was slightly below average. Based on data going back to 1895, the monthly analyses, prepared by scientists at NOAA�s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., are part of the climate services that NOAA provides to businesses, communities and governments so they may make informed decisions to safeguard their social and economic well-being. U.S. Temperature Highlights
U.S. Precipitation Highlights
Other Highlights
Background information on this winter�s snowstorms and the links to climate change is available online: http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/index.html. NCDC�s preliminary reports, which assess the current state of the climate, are released soon after the end of each month. These analyses are based on preliminary data, which are subject to revision. Additional quality control is applied to the data when late reports are received several weeks after the end of the month and as increased scientific methods improve NCDC�s processing algorithms. Scientists, researchers, and leaders in government and industry use NOAA�s monthly reports to help track trends and other changes in the world's climate. This climate service has a wide range of practical uses, from helping farmers know what and when to plant, to guiding resource managers with critical decisions about water, energy and other vital assets. NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth�s environment, from the depths of the oceans to surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources. |
||||
|
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." G Orwell
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Mahshadin
Admin Group
Joined: January 26 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2627 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: March 20 2010 at 8:34am |
|||
|
Short-term Cooling on a Warming Planet There IS a problem with global warming, one headline recently quipped, it stopped in 1998. Making the same argument about declining temperatures since 1998, another headline proclaimed, Alarmists still heated even as world cools. These articles suggest that climate scientists have misled the public. While climatologists warn that greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels are warming our planet, some people argue that Earth is actually cooling: they point to declining temperatures since 1998 as proof that global warming has stopped. But this argument about global cooling begs an important question: Why measure temperatures since 1998? Why not 1997 or 1999?
Global temperature anomalies from 1992 through 2008 as estimated by the Hadley Centre. Temperatures are shown as the difference from the 1961-1990 average. The colored lines drawn on the graph illustrate how temperatures for 1997, 1998, and 1999 compare to 2008. The answer might lie in the fact that 1998 was arguably the warmest year on record. The reason we had such a warm 1998 is that we had a very, very strong El Nino, probably one of the strongest El Ninos of the twentieth century, explains David Easterling, Chief of the Scientific Services Division at NOAAs National Climatic Data Center. If you have a very strong El Nino an extensive swath of the oceans surface with much-warmer-than-average temperatures that tends to warm the globally averaged air surface temperature. If global temperatures from subsequent years are compared to those of 1998, warming since that time is certainly difficult to detect. Easterling himself pointed out in a 2009 paper that a linear trend line from 1998 to 2008 shows no statistically significant trend up or down. While a straight line drawn from 1998 to 2008 does indicate that 2008 was cooler, a line from 1999 to 2008 shows that the planet warmed, and a line from 1997 to 2008 is almost flat. But Easterling doesnt advocate starting the measurements from either of those years. Instead, he suggests looking at the bigger picture.
David Easterling of NOAA�s National Climatic Data Center. The bottom line is that current temperatures are way above the long-term average, Easterling says. The United Kingdoms Met Office and the World Meteorological Organization concur; in December 2009, the organizations described the first decade of the twenty-first century as by far the warmest on record.
Average global temperature anomalies by decade, estimated by the Hadley Centre, shown as the difference from the 1961 � 1990 average. Vertical lines indicate the upper and lower 95% uncertainty ranges for each decade. The cooling argument is challenged even further in that not every estimate pegs 1998 as the warmest year. One group of climate researchers instead finds 2005 to be the warmest year. The difference doesn�t result from error or whim, but from the inherent difficulty in measuring global temperatures. The Challenge of Measuring the Past
Michael Schlesinger, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Michael Schlesinger is a professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and he has devoted almost four decades to studying global climate. He has worked extensively with global temperature records, and he recognizes their limitations. “The observations of temperature over Earth were not made for the purpose of climate, they were made for the purpose of weather,” he says. People naturally built weather stations where weather conditions would affect human activity, which excluded sparsely populated or rarely traveled areas. The addition of new weather stations over the years has enhanced recent temperature records, but not historical records. Meanwhile, some older weather stations have been moved, for instance, from city centers to airports. More importantly, the weather stations have focused on land even though oceans cover 70 percent of our planet. “Earth is unique in our solar system in that it has an ocean,” Schlesinger explains. “The atmosphere stirs the ocean by wind, and as warm surface waters mix with cooler waters below, they take heat away from the surface. This reduces the amount of surface warming that would occur if Earth were all land.” This complicates the task of calculating a representative average temperature for the entire globe, and different research groups choose different methods to account for the complexities. “If you had the ability to uniformly distribute thermometers over the planet, and gather measurements from this regular grid, then I think everybody would analyze the data in the same way,” Schlesinger says. On our real world, however, climatologists must work with “a hodgepodge of measurements over the continents.” Not surprisingly, climatologists have developed more than one approach to understanding historical temperature records based on weather station measurements.
Global temperature anomalies estimated by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISTEMP) and the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (HadCRUT3). The consistently higher temperature indicated by GISTEMP is the result of the two groups measuring anomalies from different base periods: GISTEMP values show how much the world has warmed compared to the average from 1951 – 1980 while HadCRUT3 values show the change from the 1961 – 1990 average. Differences in how each group calculates global temperature result in differences in each year’s ranking. HadCRUT3 lists 1998 as the warmest year, followed by 2005 and 2003. GISTEMP shows 2005 as the warmest year, followed by 2007 and 1998. Two of the world’s foremost global temperature data sets are from the Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom, and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS) in the United States. Both groups use a combination of land-surface air temperature and sea-surface temperature records, incorporated from satellite observations and historical records, to calculate values for global temperature. Though the groups use different equations in processing the data, they do so consistently so their successive values indicate how global temperature has changed over time. One area that has experienced some of the most dramatic warming in recent years—but lacks permanent weather stations—is the Arctic, and the Hadley Centre and GISS handle the lack of observations in the region differently. The Hadley Centre offers a data set that works only with existing temperature measurements, essentially excluding the Arctic from its global temperature calculations. GISS offers a data set that accounts for Arctic temperatures by interpolating from the surrounding region. Like the Arctic, the high-latitude region around it has seen greater rates of warming than the global average over the last decade, including substantial warming in 2005. As a result, the Hadley data set identifies 1998 as the warmest year on record whereas the GISS data set identifies 2005 as the warmest year on record. “It’s a question of whether you interpolate or not, and different people handle it differently,” observes Easterling. “There’s no exactly right or wrong way.” And his overriding conclusion remains: Recent years rank among the warmest on record. Deciphering Natural Variability“There are two components influencing temperatures over time,” Easterling says. “You have a trend due to increasing greenhouse gases and you have natural variability superimposed on that trend.” Beyond our control, natural variability includes large-scale oceanic changes affecting regional and global temperatures. Cooling between 2006 and 2008, for instance, has likely been driven by La Niña. Opposite of El Niño conditions, the area of cooler-than-average sea surface temperatures that defines La Niña conditions can push global temperatures downward, if the phenomenon is strong enough. Schlesinger, who has served as a co-author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, knows quite a bit about natural variability. In 1994, he described the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, an alternating pattern of heat-distributing ocean circulation that brings warmed waters from the tropics to high latitudes. “On average, ocean circulation transports a petawatt of heat,” Schlesinger explains. “A petawatt is the numeral 1 with 15 zeros after it, or a million billion watts of heat energy. If you could just acquire one percent of that heat, you could satisfy all your energy needs for planet Earth.” One cycle of the oscillation takes about 65 to 70 years. Over that time, the amount of heat moved northward along the western side of the North Atlantic Ocean waxes and wanes, increasing and decreasing temperatures in the North Atlantic Ocean and the surrounding continental margins. Although not directly dictated by this decades-long phenomenon, global temperatures are influenced by the oscillation, just as average temperatures can be driven up or down by El Niño and La Niña events. The transport of such a massive quantity of heat helps explain some counterintuitive temperature trends during the twentieth century. Despite the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations that began in the mid-1800s, between 1850 and 1900, global temperatures showed little significant change. Between 1900 and 1940, temperatures rose. After 1940, temperatures declined for 35 years. The lack of a direct correlation between greenhouse gas concentration and global temperature over this time span “was confounding understanding of the observed temperature record,” Schlesinger recalls, “and it was allowing people to make the argument, ‘If there was this early twentieth-century warming when humanity was putting relatively fewer greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, why wasn’t there a larger temperature increase later when humanity was putting vastly more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?’ By discovering this oscillation, we were able to refute this argument.”
This graph shows Global Average Temperature compared with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) Index. The AMO Index is the average sea-surface temperature over the North Atlantic Ocean. The roughly parallel curves of the two parameters show that they are related: the increase in global temperature over time, coincident with the increase in greenhouse gases observed since the Industrial Revolution, is alternately obscured and enhanced by the AMO. Like Schlesinger, Easterling is also familiar with natural variability, and his knowledge of such variability caused him to question the cooling-since-1998 argument. Working with his co-author Michael Wehner, Easterling examined both observed temperatures and model simulations. Confident that the “cooling” was a short-term trend, Easterling wanted to see if he could find periods of no trend or with slight cooling over other time spans. He could. For observed temperatures, Easterling relied on a data set generated by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, incorporating globally averaged surface air temperatures from 1901 to 2008. In that data set, he found two periods—1977 to 1985 and 1981 to 1989—that showed slight cooling, similar to what appears in the Hadley Centre’s data set from 1998 to 2008.
Global temperature anomalies calculated by NOAA for 1975 through 2008. Despite the long-term warming trend evident in the graph at the bottom, global temperature decreased slightly from 1977 to 1985 and from 1981 through 1989, as shown by blue arrows in the insets. Graph modified from Easterling, 2009. For model simulations, Easterling used a database of predicted temperatures, validated by its ability to retroactively “predict” temperatures for years past. He assumed a “business-as-usual” scenario in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, with little future reduction. When projecting temperatures for the twenty-first century, he found two more periods—2001 to 2010 and 2016 to 2031—that showed no trend, again similar to 1998 to 2008. Every one of these no-trend periods occurred against a backdrop of rising temperatures. “The supposed cooling is really a non-issue,” Easterling explains. “It’s just natural variability.” What the Future May HoldEasterling’s finding that natural variability can cause short-term cooling, or no-trend periods within longer-term warming, correlates with other predictions about future temperatures. In May 2008, a group of climate modelers in Germany published projections that incorporated current understanding of natural cycles to make a climate forecast for the next decade. The group forecast that global surface temperatures might not increase much over the next decade, as cooling driven by natural variability offsets human-caused warming. After a decade or so of stability, however, the model indicates that temperatures would begin to rise. In contrast, the UK Met Office predicted warming beginning in a few years from 2009. Both groups, however, agreed that after a short period of negative or no trend in the early 2000s, global temperatures would begin to rise, perhaps quickly. In other words, the no-trend period in the Hadley Centre’s data set not only doesn’t surprise these climatologists, it’s consistent with what they have predicted. “You’re going to see these episodes where you don’t get warming in the surface air temperature and then it starts back warming very strongly,” Easterling says. “If it kept cool for the next 25 years, I’d think maybe I was wrong,” Easterling continues, “but you can see periods as long as 16 years in our model run where temperatures stay the same without changing the long-term trend.” ![]() Each year, the area covered by Arctic sea ice melts to its smallest extent by the end of summer in September. This map shows the median extent of sea ice during September from 1979-2000 (in yellow), and the minimum extent observed in 2009. Image courtesy of NASA Earth Observatory and National Snow and Ice Data Center. The National Snow and Ice Data Center also offers an animation of images showing ice extent each September from 1979 to 2009. Besides global temperatures, other lines of evidence point strongly to a warming planet. Since 1998, the extent of Arctic sea ice reached new record lows in 2002, 2005, and 2007. Arctic sea ice retreated so dramatically in 2007 that it broke all previous records a month before the end of melt season. And dramatic changes haven’t been unique to the Arctic. In 2002, some 3,250 square kilometers of the Larsen B Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula shattered over a period of just five weeks. In the wake of the ice shelf disintegration, glaciers feeding the shelf accelerated on their route into the Weddell Sea. “The reason people believe strongly that Earth has warmed is not just the temperature record, but all these other things,” Easterling explains.
Maximum Arctic sea ice extent for 2009 occurred in March, and minimum Arctic sea ice extent occurred in September 2009. In each image, the magenta line indicates the median extent of ice cover for that month for the period 1979–2000. View larger version in a new window. Images courtesy of National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Both minimum and maximum sea ice extents have decreased over the period of satellite observation. This graph shows the trends in minimum extent (red) and maximum extent (black) from 1979–2009 as the percentage difference in ice extent compared to the mean from 1979-2000. View larger version in a new window. Graph courtesy of Arctic Report Card.
The colors on these maps show Arctic sea ice distribution in March 2007, 2008, and 2009. Multiyear ice is shown as white, mixed ice is aqua, first-year ice is teal, and ice with melting on the surface is red. Dark blue represents open water and gold is land. These images were prepared using a combination of satellite observations and drifting ice buoys. Courtesy of Son Nghiem and Arctic Report Card. “When you’re in a court of law, you have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The people who have been focusing on the ‘cooling’ have not been telling the whole truth,” Schlesinger remarks. “Natural variability may mask the effects of greenhouse gas emissions in the short term, but once an oscillation changes back to a mode that increases global temperatures, it will reinforce the effects of burning fossil fuels, and we could face a double whammy. So the worst mistake we could make is to confuse short-term cooling for a reversal of global warming.” |
||||
|
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." G Orwell
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Post Reply
|
Page <1234 16> |
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum |