The NEW (in)breed of NASA scientists:
Posted on 10/06/2014 11:14:44 AM PDT by rktman
The deep ocean may not be hiding heat after all, raising new questions about why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years, said the US space agency Monday.
Scientists have noticed that while greenhouse gases have continued to mount in the first part of the 21st century, global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising along with them, said NASA.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Maybe, just maybe ...there a natural cycle of heating and cooling...
I know why. Enough people followed the exhortations of Al Gore and several others, and by buying compact fluorescents, switching to solar, making appliance choices wisely, and by industry prudently switching to natural gas, WE DID IT!
WE saved the Earth! Thank you Al, thank you NASA, thank all the people who educated us about Human Caused Catastrophic Climate Change! Thank yo Hadley Climate Research Unit!
We have FEWER hurricanes and they are weaker, we have fewer tornadoes, there is no sea level rise, Arctic ice is within 2 sigmas of average, Antarctic ice is growing, IT WORKED!
The NEW (in)breed of NASA scientists:
Well, obviously, the climate is “wrong”, because the models show Global Warming.
Could it be that CO2 doesn’t cause globull warming?
Maybe they should divert some resources from their muslim outreach program and investigate why the planet gets warmer sometimes and cooler at other times.
It’s a real puzzler for those who have forgotten their history.
I wish the people at NASA were interested in Science back when they were leading people to believe the Socialist Man Made Climate Change Scam
Wow, it’s not Global Warming, it’s Global Idiocy!
Let me take a wild stab at this: It has something to do with that ball of fire up in the sky.
EEEEEEEEE squeal squeal now EEEEEEEE
One of the signs of a bad scientist is the refusal to re-examine their premise in the face of contrary data.
[ Could it be that CO2 doesn’t cause globull warming? ]
Or the only way it would be in quantities that are so high that it would be toxic at those levels...
1,000,000 ppm of a gas = 100 % concentration of the gas, and 10,000 ppm of a gas in air = a 1% concentration.
At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 (10,000 parts per million or ppm) and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy.
The concentration of carbon dioxide must be over about 2% (20,000 ppm) before most people are aware of its presence unless the odor of an associated material (auto exhaust or fermenting yeast, for instance) is present at lower concentrations.
Above 2%, carbon dioxide may cause a feeling of heaviness in the chest and/or more frequent and deeper respirations.
If exposure continues at that level for several hours, minimal “acidosis” (an acid condition of the blood) may occur but more frequently is absent.
Breathing rate doubles at 3% CO2 and is four times the normal rate at 5% CO2.
Toxic levels of carbon dioxide: at levels above 5%, concentration CO2 is directly toxic. [At lower levels we may be seeing effects of a reduction in the relative amount of oxygen rather than direct toxicity of CO2.]
Carbon dioxide content in fresh air (averaged between sea-level and 10 kPa level, i.e., about 30 km altitude) varies between 0.036% (360 ppm) and 0.039% (390 ppm), depending on the location.[
So basically, it has to be at level several hundred TIMES! and only at a THOUSAND times higher does it start causing issues....
For years now, Freepers have said that warming happens first, followed by a rise in CO2. The CO2 doesn't cause warming, it follows it. The warming is caused by natural causes (primarily this pesky thing called the Sun). That's always been the case for millions of years. Man has only been around a tiny sliver of time on the time scale of the Earth. How insignificant we are! The CO2 rises and wanes naturally, our contribution is meaningless and the Earth deals with it naturally.
Pretty much. But if you word it like that, you’ll get no respect from scientists.
It’s not that Carbon Dioxide doesn’t cause global warming. It does; without Carbon Dioxide, the earth would be a lot cooler. IIRC, sixteen degrees cooler. And that’s before we get to the effect of all that ice reflecting heat so effectively.
BUT the question is whether additional CO2 causes additional warming. A very sloppy analogy would be blankets. If you wear one blanket on a cold night, you get a lot warmer. If you wear two, you get still warmer... but your change in temperature is much less. By the time you get to ten blankets, another ten won’t make much of a difference.
CO2 makes the earth warmer by being transparent to solar radiation at some frequencies, and then opaque at others; it’s visible to light, but opaque to certain IR frequencies. Incoming light is reflected at those lower frequencies. But at some point, opaque is opaque; you can’t make it much more opaque.
My guess is that CO2 output will probably raise temperatures a whopping 1 degree in the next century... resulting in no loss of polar bears, no loss of walruses, no great melting of Antarctic ice, an expansion of global food productivity, and a rise of about 4 inches in global sea levels.
The word “scientist” no longer has any value or purpose in western civilization outside of deception.
The “best and brightest” are stumped by weather?
....
Whatever happened to “settled science”??
Global Warming is over, yay. Pin a medal on their forehead and cancel those grants.
Their computer models don’t jive with Real life ,ah that’s toooooo bad
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.