Home > Archive > Cobol > February 2008 > Re: Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back
|
|
| Alistair 2008-02-27, 6:55 pm |
| On 26 Feb, 20:20, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> tlmfru wrote:
>
>
>
> Right. But it seems as if every location all over the world is  ing.
>
> "All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS,
> UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year,
> global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
>
> "Meteorologist Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The
> total amount of ing ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large
> enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100
> years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest
> temperature change every recorded, either up or down."
>
> http://www.dailytech.com/ Temperatu...l
obal...
>
> Looks like the Good Ship Hysteria hit an iceberg.
Do you know what VERTICAL EXAGERATION is? The graph only shows a
variance of -0.6 degrees centigrade over expected temperatures. I
certainly won't be breaking out my long-johns (basically leggings).
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-27, 6:55 pm |
| Alistair wrote:
>
> Do you know what VERTICAL EXAGERATION is? The graph only shows a
> variance of -0.6 degrees centigrade over expected temperatures. I
> certainly won't be breaking out my long-johns (basically leggings).
I agree. But the GW alarmists say that 0.6 degrees of warming (the amount of
the last 100 years) is indicative of Mother Nature's (or evil corporation's)
plan to kill us all. Now if +0.6 degrees in a 100 years is cause for
agitation, then -0.6 degrees in ONE year should soothe the beast.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-02-28, 6:55 pm |
| On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:30:35 -0800 (PST), Alistair
<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>When I asked about vertical exaggeration I did so because the drop is
>very dramatic on the scale shown especially over the last year. Note
>that it is a variance from the seasonal normal temperature that is
>displayed. I don't know what I am trying to get at there but there is
>some relevance only I cant phrase the words properly (or form the
>idea).
I wouldn't expect the water level to change uniformly with the
temperature, especially if the temperature reaches a level to melt a
continental ice mass.
In the past we have had some very quick climate changes when the
slower changes result in switches in ocean currents, specifically in
the North Atlantic.
|
|
|
|
|