You have it backwards bubba louie. la nina makes for droughts and heat waves el nino makes for wetter cooler conditions.
So what do we do about the SAA and it causing rising and lowering of sea levels?
Last edited:
U.S. summer a global warming preview, scientists say
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
So what do we do about the SAA and it causing rising and lowering of sea levels?
That's sort of inaccurate. The global climate is a sort of energy average and is much more predictable than the weather. Certain weather phenomena such as hurricanes (which you might think of as unpredictable) are favored by warmer oceans. At first order, one would conclude that their annual frequency would likely increase.
However, the frequencies of these things can be predicted much more accurately than merely holding your thumb to the wind like I just did. There are of course statistical fluctuations which might be characterized as unpredictable, but the overall causes are known and give rise to predictable behavior. That is why there is a hurricane season, after all.
It's called Global Warming for a reason, you can have brutally cold winters across North America, it doesn't mean that the global climate is cooling, it means that the highly complex systems that distribute heat around the globe are moving it somewhere else.
When glaciers and ice shelves and ice sheets are melting around the planet(and they are) it's a very reliable indicator that the planet is warming. Add in surface, atmospheric and satellite temperature measurements and it becomes even more reliable. Throw in sea level rise and all the extreme weather events and it nears certainty...it will never get there, that's not science, dead certainty is reserved for religion.
Based on the science we almost certainly live on a warming planet, and we're probably going to see some even more dramatic evidence of that in the next few years.
When glaciers and ice shelves and ice sheets are melting around the planet(and they are) it's a very reliable indicator that the planet is warming. Add in surface, atmospheric and satellite temperature measurements and it becomes even more reliable. Throw in sea level rise and all the extreme weather events and it nears certainty...it will never get there, that's not science, dead certainty is reserved for religion.
Based on the science we almost certainly live on a warming planet, and we're probably going to see some even more dramatic evidence of that in the next few years.
Sea level rise cools oceans which are the big mysterious force that control climate on the planet.
Explain this phemonemom.....
Climate is weather averaged over time and even small changes in climate can result in dramatic extremes in weather.
And it's not a linear system, even small changes in how energy is moved around in the system can result in significant changes in weather. For instance even though El Nino favors increased warming in the tropics which should favor hurricane formation, it can suppress the formation of hurricanes as strong upper level winds reverse and blow to the east in the sub tropics preventing the formation of high altitude clouds that help "feed" a hurricane. As the entire global system moves to a new state it becomes very difficult to predict with any reliability the short term weather effects.
How does rising sea level cool the oceans?
They expand as they warm and they also rise as land ice melts and enters the ocean, there may be local cooling but the overall effect of the increased radiative forcing by greenhouse gases means more heat uptake by the oceans.
Maybe this is a factor in some warming, but we can estalbish a clear connection between increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and global warming. The Quantum Electrodynamics(how the electromagnetic radiation travels and how it is absorbed and re-emitted by greenhouse gases) the thermodynamics and the climatics all indicate with high confidence that as we increase the concentration of CO2 and other GHGs in the air that the planet will warm.
What spectrum?
We're dependent on solar radiation for our survival although some components of it like UV are dangerous. The problem we have now is a rapid shift in the radiative balance, how fast solar radiation is coming in as opposed to how fast the converted longer wave radiation can leave. More CO2 and other GHGs and the slower that release of converted solar radiation is. Which heats the planet.
How does rising sea levels make them cooler? Well, I'll ask you this: "why do you blend cold water with hot when you have a shower?" Would cold water added to oceans maybe make them cooler for some odd reason?
Maybe a giant hole that has increased by 400% in the last century in our first line of defense from solar radiation has something to do with "global warming" and sea levels? Why wouldn't a 10% reduction and massive shift of the magnetosphere have an impact on climate and jet stream patterns? 10% more solar radiation means what? Warmer or colder? Spectrum is moot when solar radiation is entering the atmospher raw.
If the greenhouse effect wasn't being enhanced year after year, incoming solar radiation would equal outgoing longwave radiation. Or have you now disproved thermodynamics? Spectrum is not moot at all. What's the difference between raw and ripe radiation? Or is it cooked? :roll:
As I said, it will have a local effect, the overall thermal mass of the oceans and circulation will remove the local cooling.
It's a big maybe and is still a local effect that doesn't predict the global effects we're seeing which increasing levels of greenhouse gases does. Most solar radiation passes unimpeded through the Earth's atmosphere warming the planets surface. This is then re-emitted at a longer wavelength which doesn't pass as easily through the gases it's quantized to be absorbed by. This energy is then re-emitted in all directions some of it heating the planets surface further. The more GHGs the more heating, it's a fairly straightforward effect.
I think you're confusing issues, the magnetosphere redirects charged particles, not electromagnetic radiation. The issue is the same amount of sunlight reaching the Earth but less being transmitted back into space. This gives increased global temperatures.
IPCC's Himalayan Glacier 'Mistake' No Accident - US News and World Report
By Janet Raloff, for Science News' Science & the Public Blog
A London newspaper reported yesterday that the unsubstantiated Himalayan-glacier melt figures contained in a supposedly authoritative 2007 report on climate warming were used intentionally, despite the report’s lead author knowing there were no data to back them up.
The report is by David Rose in the Daily Mail. The frirst thing you should know is that both are frauds. Rose has been caught lying and distorting so often that some have termed his stories "Rosegate."
In this, he is distorting the interview.
First, the comment does not refute the melting of the glaciers which have receded by 30% already on the Southern and Eastern slopes. Only in the highest and coldest regions are they still somewhat stable. That is in the higher Northern slopes. That should be obvious. The regions that are not yet warm enough in summer and are still receiving precipitation in the frozen from will not yet be receding.
Then, there was no deliberate error in the report. In fact, some researchers - as far as this is a scientific judgement - say that the Himalayan glaciers will be completely gone by 2350. And there is the error.
The report itself was not the state of the science report but the impacts section. The tiny error changes nothing.
If the hole in the magnetoshpere keeps getting bigger and bigger......
Want to see the graphs and timeline?
Wait for the next big volcano, cool us down nicely.
Researchers say aerosols from small volcanic eruptions could cool climate
Researchers say aerosols from small volcanic eruptions could cool climate
That's what they said about last decade.
Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summer as early as 2010
You're confusing the poor fellow: cut it out.
Filtered and unfiltered. You realize the magnetosphere is a filter right?
Coke drinkers and their polar bear cans.
I take a rabid environmentalist who spends hours on a computer with the same grain of salt that I take a PETA freak eating a Big Mac....
Prove it! For once try to give a basis for your disagreement. You are losing badly.
That article said between 2010 and 2015, Walter. Have you an aversion to truth?
Who is to say that he is not right. It is possible that he is with a few El Nino years to come. However, there is quite broad acceptance that it will happen within 10 to twenty years.
There are many factors beside temperature that will drive that event.
And who is this "rabid" environmentalist? Is he someone we should be hearing from as very likely to be much better informed than you and, consequently, not sititng home with his fingers in his ears at every report on the worsening situation.