Story Comments
Posted by: pc25 1 year, 7 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
pc251 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/nas...
NASA Confirms Natural Climate Shift
FTA
NASA has confirmed that a developing natural climate pattern will likely result in much colder temperatures.
"A cool-water anomaly known as La Niña occupied the tropical Pacific Ocean throughout 2007 and early 2008. In April 2008, scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that while the La Niña was weakening, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation-a larger-scale, slower-cycling ocean pattern-had shifted to its cool phase."
Reply-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned5 Replies
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL
Now NASA's JPL is owned by big oil.
The tracking of CO2 and Temperature on the graphs for millenia show in one of them CO2 lagging temperature. But everybody ignored that.
JPL and Hughs worked together to put up satellites to measure atmospheric change. I was told by a Hughs scientist I was working with that the Earth and moon were the same temperature. That is easy to verify. The GOES satellites send down an IR and visual full globe pictures every half hour. The IR picture can give average temperature. Compare the results with an IR pictures of the moon at full moon and new moon.
There is currently evidence that greenhouse gases don't give the greenhouse effect.
Reply-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.
What is more, further back in past there are examples of warmings triggered by rises in greenhouse gases, such as the Palaeo-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 millions years ago
What is more, CO2 is just one of several greenhouses gases, and greenhouse gases are just one of many factors affecting the climate. There is no reason to expect a perfect correlation between CO2 levels and temperature in the past: if there is a big change in another climate "forcing", the correlation will be obscured.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/ear...
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL
You don't want to realize that a lot of that theory is flawed. Just keep the blinders on. If you look closely at those graphs you will see that at least one of the times the CO2 lags the rise in temperature not leads it. So in that instance the case can be made that the rise in temperature caused the rise in CO2. Another problem you have is that a gas in a stable environment like a glass case is different than the gas in an atmosphere. The swirling around of the gases changes the characteristics of what happens. Meteorologists live with that problem all the time. That dynamic makes the CO2 not have the greenhouse effect it has in a closed system.
Reply
-
-
-
-
loading ...
bobo-in-texas
CactusAnnie
GLee
bugluver
ZiegfeldGirl
Wolfie2007
RickyDawkins
Dionys
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.