Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Solar activity and natural variation from year to year (that doesn't form a long-term trend) could certainly open it up for short periods of time. The problem today is that solar activity is at a minimum yet these things are occurring, and starting to occur consistently.So this is the fourth time its opened in recorded history? If that is true then how come it is CO2 that is causing the warming when clearly there wasn't enough CO2 in the atmosphere the last three times to open it?
What was the mechanism of warming for the passage to be opened before?
Can't show what? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs heat and warms the Earth? There's plenty of proof for that.
That's like saying "paper burns so if we stuff enough of it into a rocket we can reach the Moon"
It's really low-brow and unscientific.
No one is disputing that CO2 is a GHG, we're just asking you to show us ONE time in a lab setting how a 200PPM increase does any of the things you say it does.
Democrats controlled Congress during most of this recent warming period so maybe a Dem Congress is responsible for the Arctic Ice melting.
This study shows how a doubling of CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm increases temperature between 1.5 and 6.5 degrees C, with 3 to 3.5 being the most likely. This study has it between 2.5 to 3.5 degrees. This one has it between 2.3 and 4.1 degrees.
So this is the fourth time its opened in recorded history? If that is true then how come it is CO2 that is causing the warming when clearly there wasn't enough CO2 in the atmosphere the last three times to open it?
What was the mechanism of warming for the passage to be opened before?
The Northeast Passage opened for the first time in recorded history in 2005 and the Northwest Passage in 2007.
You might want to take that up with old Roald Amundson He did it back in 1903-1906! and it has been accomplished many times since then in ice hardened vessels.
Sigh...what's the use?
Maybe one day we can both get the schooling necessary. Until then, I'll let your pure partisan ideology discount the work of very smart individuals.
Speaking of which, why do you discredit the actual science involved here. Is it because you associate it with socialism/Obama/Al Gore/Liberal Democrats? Or is it because you have actually disproven the evidence I've shown (of which none is of the "OMG it's so hot today" variety).
There is no real science involved in anything you've posted!
Warmers claim they've isolated all variables except for a de minimus change in CO2 as the proximate cause of the "Global Warming" all I'm asking is for any of you to show me how that works in a Laboratory setting
And you never do.
Not even once.
The Northwest Passage is now open for business. And, as this satellite image composited by the The University of Illinois Cryosphere Today shows, the Northeast Passage is too. Jeff Masters at WunderBlog reports:
"It is now possible to completely circumnavigate the Arctic Ocean in ice-free waters, and this will probably be the case for at least a month. This year marks the third consecutive year—and the third time in recorded history—that both the Northwest Passage and Northeast Passage have melted free. The Northeast Passage opened for the first time in recorded history in 2005 and the Northwest Passage in 2007.
Northwest and Northeast Passages Now Open | Mother Jones
The Northwest Passage is now open for business. And, as this satellite image composited by the The University of Illinois Cryosphere Today shows, the Northeast Passage is too. Jeff Masters at WunderBlog reports:
"It is now possible to completely circumnavigate the Arctic Ocean in ice-free waters, and this will probably be the case for at least a month. This year marks the third consecutive yearand the third time in recorded historythat both the Northwest Passage and Northeast Passage have melted free. The Northeast Passage opened for the first time in recorded history in 2005 and the Northwest Passage in 2007.
Northwest and Northeast Passages Now Open | Mother Jones
For the first time in Recorded history eh?
Recorded history goes back about 6000 years yet our knowledge of the conditions in the NW passage only go back a few hundred years.
Do try and be more honest with your sensational Headlines would you.
Before just a few hundred years ago we have NO IDEA if and when the passage was open and when it was not.
besides why do you keep trying to prove things are warming up. Virtually nobody denies that the earth is warming up. The Debate is over the cause and how much CO2 is to blame, and how much other factors like the SUN are in play.
Do you realize there's a difference between 200PPM and 500,000PPM?
How much CO2 did she pump into the bottle? Was it 200PPM? NO!
Do you know why the best thing you can come up is this stupid thing?
Because you don't get a temperature increase at 200PPM CO2 increase!
The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.
The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.
Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.
The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.
Climate change odds much worse than thought
Do you realize there's a difference between 200PPM and 500,000PPM?
How much CO2 did she pump into the bottle? Was it 200PPM? NO!
Do you know why the best thing you can come up is this stupid thing?
Because you don't get a temperature increase at 200PPM CO2 increase!
Any increase in CO2 results in a temperature increase.
That was proven experimentally in 1859.
The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.
The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.
Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.
The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.
Climate change odds much worse than thought
Do you realize there's a difference between 200PPM and 500,000PPM?
How much CO2 did she pump into the bottle? Was it 200PPM? NO!
Do you know why the best thing you can come up is this stupid thing?
Because you don't get a temperature increase at 200PPM CO2 increase!
Any increase in CO2 results in a temperature increase.
That was proven experimentally in 1859.
No, it wasn't. All that occured in 1859 was to prove that CO2 is a GHG that's all.
Any increase in CO2 results in a temperature increase.
That was proven experimentally in 1859.
No, it wasn't. All that occured in 1859 was to prove that CO2 is a GHG that's all.
Which means that if you increase atmospheric CO2 by 40% in 200 years, you are warming the earth.
Thanks for proving my point.
No, it wasn't. All that occured in 1859 was to prove that CO2 is a GHG that's all.
Which means that if you increase atmospheric CO2 by 40% in 200 years, you are warming the earth.
Thanks for proving my point.
Prove it if it's so easy then. Here's a prediction for you. It is going to be cold next year. It will be cold the year after that. there will be local hot spots but the overall trend will be cooler. This will go on for the next 10-20 years.
Any increase in CO2 results in a temperature increase.
That was proven experimentally in 1859.
No, it wasn't. All that occured in 1859 was to prove that CO2 is a GHG that's all.
Which means that if you increase atmospheric CO2 by 40% in 200 years, you are warming the earth.
Thanks for proving my point.
