Record Cold in Interior Alaska – heading into the USA, agriculture at risk

May 2, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Free Republic

Fairbanks reported a record low of 2 degrees F above zero Sunday, breaking the previous record of 8 from 1924.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of23
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Everseeing Eye

Ash Flat, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I thought we were having "Global Warming"?

Maybe this will slow the pollution.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

4

Everseeing is Neverknowing.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Everseeing Eye wrote:
I thought we were having "Global Warming"?
Maybe this will slow the pollution.
Actually you're not far off the mark. CO2 levels follow temps. The warmer it gets, the more CO2 is in the atmosphere. The colder it gets, more CO2 is sequestered.

Of course that's if you referring to CO2 as pollution.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you're not far off the mark. CO2 levels follow temps. The warmer it gets, the more CO2 is in the atmosphere. The colder it gets, more CO2 is sequestered.
Of course that's if you referring to CO2 as pollution.
I've noticed you study solar patterns, personally I'm disappointed at the most outspoken climate scientist's method of disregard of the solar effect on earths climate. I'm not someone who buys into conspiracy but am wondering what happen to our basic understanding of our universe.
litesong

Monroe, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

4

no education warning wrote:
I'm disappointed at..... climate scientist's ....disregard of the solar effect on earths climate.
toxic topix AGW deniers always think they know more than scientists with 10-16 years more science & mathematics than deniers. The toxic topix AGW deniers who are most certain they know more, are the ones with the least education... Dunning -Kruger effect. Flip a coin, whether 'no education warning' has no hi skule DEE-plooomaa.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you're not far off the mark. CO2 levels follow temps. The warmer it gets, the more CO2 is in the atmosphere. The colder it gets, more CO2 is sequestered.
Of course that's if you referring to CO2 as pollution.
It's getting warmer, and there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, but the normal sources of CO2 are observably absorbing billions of tons, not emitting it.

Humans have emitted half a trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere: that explains the 40% increase in CO2.

http://trillionthtonne.org/
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
I've noticed you study solar patterns, personally I'm disappointed at the most outspoken climate scientist's method of disregard of the solar effect on earths climate. I'm not someone who buys into conspiracy but am wondering what happen to our basic understanding of our universe.
I'm not sure that the claims of 'scientific consensus' include ignoring our knowledge of how our universe works. Like so many things what's real and what gets reported are two different things.

It's my political position that climate science has been hijacked by politics. So much of what you see in the media wouldn't pass the Paul Harvery 'rest of the story' test.

Ask if you think we've had global warming and it's a little hard to deny. But a yes to that simple question is used to support a whole array of positions that I don't think most scientists support.

I really do read the scientific papers for the aspects of climate science that interest me. Overall, there isn't the level of support the media thinks there is. It's evident when you read the papers. Not so much when the media/politicians take something out of context and plaster it in headlines.

Yes, my primary interest is history and the sun, it's been around for all of the history. Started this research when the IPCC 'lost' the Medieval Warm Period. Fell into the ice core data and the rest is history.

I'm pretty amazed at what we do know and the methods we use to discover. We can see solar activity in the ice core data. We can relate directly to what we know about history. Our sun is our source of energy and that energy is not constant, but varies greatly over time.

I know far more than when I started this, but no where enough to understand it all. But I can see when predictions are realized and when they're not. I'm going with the scientists with the best record.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
It's getting warmer, and there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, but the normal sources of CO2 are observably absorbing billions of tons, not emitting it.
Humans have emitted half a trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere: that explains the 40% increase in CO2.
http://trillionthtonne.org/
I don't think you understand how that sounds.

The warmer the earth gets the more the natural processes release CO2 into the atmosphere.

If you have found that a warmer earth somehow has started to sequester CO2 you will need to post a scientific paper to support that. Your web site citation...altho bold and eye catching, not good enough.
litesong

Monroe, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

4

fun farts wrote:
I'm pretty amazed at what we do know and the methods we use to discover.
'fun fart' is amazed that scientists discovered what they did, because 'fun farts' never had the science or mathematics to discover anything itself.
litesong

Monroe, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

4

fun farts wrote:
The warmer the earth gets the more the natural processes release CO2 into the atmosphere.
Of course,'fun farts' lies, as poorly as 'lyin' brian'. The excess CO2 in the atmosphere presently comes from burned oil that was stored thousands of feet underground. It is not 'natural', but man-produced CO2.

You know this but like to lie.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think you understand how that sounds.
The warmer the earth gets the more the natural processes release CO2 into the atmosphere.
If you have found that a warmer earth somehow has started to sequester CO2 you will need to post a scientific paper to support that. Your web site citation...altho bold and eye catching, not good enough.
An international team of scientists found that oceans have taken in about 118 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from human activities between 1800 and 1994, accounting for nearly a third of their long-term carrying capacity.

The 15-year study, conducted and analyzed with the help of several researchers around the world, looked at nearly 72,000 samples taken in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans.
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/n...
The amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed by the world's oceans has reduced, scientists have said.

University of East Anglia researchers gauged CO2 absorption through more than 90,000 measurements from merchant ships equipped with automatic instruments.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7053903.st...
Scientists have issued a new warning about climate change after discovering a sudden and dramatic collapse in the amount of carbon emissions absorbed by the Sea of Japan.

The shift has alarmed experts, who blame global warming.

Working with Pavel Tishchenko of the Russian Pacific Oceanological Institute in Vladivostok, Lee and his colleague Geun-Ha Park used a cruise on the Professor Gagarinskiy, a Russian research vessel, last May to take seawater samples from 24 sites across the Sea of Japan.

They compared the dissolved CO2 in the seawater with similar samples collected in 1992 and 1999. The results showed the amount of CO2 absorbed during 1999 to 2007 was half the level recorded from 1992 to 1999.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/ja...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Fair Game wrote:
I guess you couldn't find any scientific papers to support your position. Everything you posted appears to headlines. Journalists are not scientists.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you couldn't find any scientific papers to support your position. Everything you posted appears to headlines. Journalists are not scientists.
Journal of Geophysical Research: BBC

Geophysical Research Letters: Guardian

Planet Ark: Science

Are you really stupid enough to believe that those papers don't exist in those journals?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
May 4, 2013
 
Here you go: citations to the three papers discussed. A bit of weekend reading for you.

Schuster, U., Watson, A.J.(2007) A variable and decreasing sink for atmospheric CO2 in the North Atlantic. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans Volume 112, Issue C11.

Park, G-H, Lee, K., Tishchenko, P.(2008) Sudden, considerable reduction in recent uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the East/Japan Sea. Geophysical Research Letters Volume 35, Issue 23.

Feely, R.A., Sabine, C.L., Lee, K., Berelson, W., Kleypas, J., Fabry, V.J. and Millero, F.J.(2004) Impact of anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 system in the oceans. Science 305(5682), 362366.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
May 4, 2013
 
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure that the claims of 'scientific consensus' include ignoring our knowledge of how our universe works. Like so many things what's real and what gets reported are two different things.
It's my political position that climate science has been hijacked by politics. So much of what you see in the media wouldn't pass the Paul Harvery 'rest of the story' test.
Ask if you think we've had global warming and it's a little hard to deny. But a yes to that simple question is used to support a whole array of positions that I don't think most scientists support.
I really do read the scientific papers for the aspects of climate science that interest me. Overall, there isn't the level of support the media thinks there is. It's evident when you read the papers. Not so much when the media/politicians take something out of context and plaster it in headlines.
Yes, my primary interest is history and the sun, it's been around for all of the history. Started this research when the IPCC 'lost' the Medieval Warm Period. Fell into the ice core data and the rest is history.
I'm pretty amazed at what we do know and the methods we use to discover. We can see solar activity in the ice core data. We can relate directly to what we know about history. Our sun is our source of energy and that energy is not constant, but varies greatly over time.
I know far more than when I started this, but no where enough to understand it all. But I can see when predictions are realized and when they're not. I'm going with the scientists with the best record.
The political angle is obvious but this is a global issue, people here see the lie but figure the liar is my benefactor so help promote the lie. In other nations I'm sure people are thinking how can a man make a movie and deliberately deceive people about the historic relationship between temperature and Co2 and get the Nobel prize. Attitudes will change, even here eventually.
Fun Facts

Ruidoso, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
May 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
Here you go: citations to the three papers discussed. A bit of weekend reading for you.
Schuster, U., Watson, A.J.(2007) A variable and decreasing sink for atmospheric CO2 in the North Atlantic. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans Volume 112, Issue C11.
Park, G-H, Lee, K., Tishchenko, P.(2008) Sudden, considerable reduction in recent uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the East/Japan Sea. Geophysical Research Letters Volume 35, Issue 23.
Feely, R.A., Sabine, C.L., Lee, K., Berelson, W., Kleypas, J., Fabry, V.J. and Millero, F.J.(2004) Impact of anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 system in the oceans. Science 305(5682), 362366.
I will take a look at the references vyou posted.
litesong

Monroe, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
May 5, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

2

Fair Game wrote:
Are you(fun farts) really stupid enough to believe that those papers don't exist in those journals?
Why do you ask such a question from someone named,'fun farts'?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
May 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you ask such a question from someone named,'fun farts'?
It's called sarcasm.

We Brits are prone to it.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
May 5, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

2

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you ask such a question from someone named,'fun farts'?
To get a concession from ff, finally.

It is a weasel you know.
dixin cider

Mountain Home, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
May 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Most co2 in the ocean comes from natural sources....such as underwater volcanoes. Also over 90% of greenhouse gas is water vapor.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of23
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••