[ShepherdsDog]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011 ... -hole.html

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into warming water. Now the upper atmosphere(15 km - 35 km) is too cold above the arctic.

[jeff744]

I'm going to love hearing the explanation behind yet another counter trend climate event.

[Freakinoldguy]

I'm gonna love hearing anything about climate change that hasn't been tainted by a political, financial or my theory is can beat up your theory agenda.

[jeff744]

Freakinoldguy wrote:

I'm gonna love hearing anything about climate change that hasn't been tainted by a political, financial or my theory is can beat up your theory agenda.

Pretty much, personally I just use historical information to prove my argument that climate change has existed in some pretty nasty forms in the past (original Gothic movement from northeast Europe, Greenlandic population, Eric the Red's journal ice ages, etc) and this is nothing new. All a person can do nowadays is sit and wait for technology to remove human influence on climate change. Then we will still hear about all these species going extinct/endangered because for some reason the earth keeps shifting temperature like it is natural. Eco nuts have become as bad as the deniers for how much they want to influence the natural cycle of the planet, one denies making it worse, and the other wants to deny the earth's natural cycles.

[eureka]

jeff744 wrote:

Freakinoldguy wrote:

I'm gonna love hearing anything about climate change that hasn't been tainted by a political, financial or my theory is can beat up your theory agenda.

Pretty much, personally I just use historical information to prove my argument that climate change has existed in some pretty nasty forms in the past (original Gothic movement from northeast Europe, Greenlandic population, Eric the Red's journal ice ages, etc) and this is nothing new. All a person can do nowadays is sit and wait for technology to remove human influence on climate change. Then we will still hear about all these species going extinct/endangered because for some reason the earth keeps shifting temperature like it is natural. Eco nuts have become as bad as the deniers for how much they want to influence the natural cycle of the planet, one denies making it worse, and the other wants to deny the earth's natural cycles.

The explanation is fairly simple. As the Troposphere warms, the stratosphere above it cools.

This is exactly what might be expected from a warming climate. Also, it is not unusually or exceptionally different from the normal. It has happened before.

I can link you to the explanation of stratospheric cooling if you like, but it is just a scientific fact. Predictable and inevitable.

So, indulge your passion and, if you can make some coherent question out of the screed uu have posted we might be able to look at them.

[BartSimpson]

eureka wrote:

The explanation is fairly simple. As the Troposphere warms, the stratosphere above it cools.

This is exactly what might be expected from a warming climate. Also, it is not unusually or exceptionally different from the normal. It has happened before.

I can link you to the explanation of stratospheric cooling if you like, but it is just a scientific fact. Predictable and inevitable.

So, indulge your passion and, if you can make some coherent question out of the screed uu have posted we might be able to look at them.

So the reason it is so cold is because it is so warm?

It must be nice to have a theory or belief that's substantiated by all evidence.

Cow turds, hot and steaming on a fall day? Proof of global warming.

18 meters of snow piled up on a Hawaiian beach? Proof of global warming.

-72C temps in the Arctic? Proof of global warming.

I don't know if you're paying any attention, but nature isn't cooperating with your entrail readings of gloom and doom.

[eureka]

BartSimpson wrote:

eureka wrote:

The explanation is fairly simple. As the Troposphere warms, the stratosphere above it cools.

This is exactly what might be expected from a warming climate. Also, it is not unusually or exceptionally different from the normal. It has happened before.

I can link you to the explanation of stratospheric cooling if you like, but it is just a scientific fact. Predictable and inevitable.

So, indulge your passion and, if you can make some coherent question out of the screed uu have posted we might be able to look at them.

So the reason it is so cold is because it is so warm?

It must be nice to have a theory or belief that's substantiated by all evidence.

Cow turds, hot and steaming on a fall day? Proof of global warming.

18 meters of snow piled up on a Hawaiian beach? Proof of global warming.

-72C temps in the Arctic? Proof of global warming.

I don't know if you're paying any attention, but nature isn't cooperating with your entrail readings of gloom and doom.

You are slowly getting there, Bart, but still confused and getting your information backwards.

A cooling stratosphere is the expected companion of a warming troposphere, And a warming troposphere is the necessary companion of a warming Earth.

Snow piled up on a Hawaian beach! Last year, sea level declined ever so slightly. It declined because of the massive increase on rainfall, and snowfall in some areas. That rain and snow was a result of the the increase of moisture in the atmosphere due to the warming climate and the greater evaporation.

-72 in the Arctic. Pray tell where and when. The Arctic as a region has now a mean annual temperature 2C warmer than it was in 1880 - most of that increase in the past forty years. That while the Planet as a whole has warmed .8C.

Scary stuff but too far away to frighten some parochial politicians.

Politics may be local but climate is not.

[jeff744]

Tell me why this climate change is so different from the previous ones, the earth produces a massive amount of C02, methane and other gases too.

[BartSimpson]

eureka wrote:

-72 in the Arctic. Pray tell where and when.

Did you even read the paper this article is based on? Are you REALLY denying the science you're trumpeting here?

See, this is what I just love about you asshats is that you're so knee-jerk in your defense of your religious beliefs that you'll even jump to conclusions against facts that SUPPORT your argument.

Pathetic.

[eureka]

Indeed I did. I would not even look at something that said there was such and such a temperature on any particular date, though. It is meaningless unless it was something quite out of the ordinary. Then it might have interest as some anomaly.

Anti AGW, btw, is religious. Its main adherents are a few religious groups and a few "religious" politicians in the US who rely on their support and money. Like Perry who is both anti-climate change and anti-evolution.

Citing science is "knee jerk!"

[Canadian_Mind]

It was -72 in Omsk, wasn't it?

[DanSC]

eureka wrote:

Citing science is "knee jerk!"

Citing bad science is definitely knee-jerk. This usually occurs with confirmation bias.

[eureka]

jeff744 wrote:

Tell me why this climate change is so different from the previous ones, the earth produces a massive amount of C02, methane and other gases too.

Why it is so different, Jeff, is that it is caused by human activity. Entirely so! The first time in the history of the Planet, and, for all we know, the first time any life form has been able to affect the climate of this or any other world.

The Earth may produce those things. It does not need us adding to the production.

[eureka]

DanSC wrote:

eureka wrote:

Citing science is "knee jerk!"

Citing bad science is definitely knee-jerk. This usually occurs with confirmation bias.

What bad science, Dan? And where does your confirmation of that charge come from? My confirmation comes from the agreement of every researching climate scientist except for the handful who have been totally refuted.

[DanSC]

eureka wrote:

DanSC wrote:

eureka wrote:

Citing science is "knee jerk!"

Citing bad science is definitely knee-jerk. This usually occurs with confirmation bias.

What bad science, Dan? And where does your confirmation of that charge come from? My confirmation comes from the agreement of every researching climate scientist except for the handful who have been totally refuted.

That was a general statement. Bad science has existed as long as science has.