What happened to global warming?

yep, .. i'd give out of



...i paid a visit to the kennecott copper mine just SW of salt lake city utah a couple years back, ...man that was a mountain that had been turned inside out

 

Shrinking Sky! Cloud Tops Dropping Closer to Earth, NASA Satellite Finds
Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior WriterDate: 22 February 2012 Time: 04:47 PM ET



The sky is falling… sort of. Over the last 10 years, the height of clouds has been shrinking, according to new research.

The time frame is short, but if future observations show that clouds are truly getting lower, it could have an important effect on global climate change. Clouds that are lower in the atmosphere would allow Earth to cool more efficiently, potentially offsetting some of the warming caused by greenhouse gases.

"We don't know exactly what causes the cloud heights to lower," study researcher Roger Davies of the University of Auckland in New Zealand said in a statement. "But it must be due to a change in the circulation patterns that give rise to cloud formation at high altitude."

Clouds are a wildcard in understanding Earth's climate. Ephemeral as they are, they're difficult to track over time, and factors such as height and location make a big difference in whether clouds will slow the effects of global warming or exacerbate them. And no one fully understands how clouds will respond to a warming climate. [Album: Reading the Clouds]

For a decade, however, the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer on NASA's Terra spacecraft has been watching Earth's clouds. Now, Davies and his colleagues have analyzed the device's first 10 years of cloud-top height measurements from March 2000 to February 2010. They found that global average cloud height decreased by around 1 percent over the decade, a distance of 100 to 130 feet (30 to 40 meters). Most of the reduction stemmed from fewer clouds forming at very high altitudes.

The researchers reported their results in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. The Terra satellite is set to continue collecting data through the rest of this decade, which will help determine whether or not the cloud lowering is a consistent trend.

http://www.livescience.com/18604-cloud-heights-declining.html

 

This,
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_new...lock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

 

Oh I missed this thread last time it was resurrected. Too bad.

But to answer your question, you have provided incomplete information. First of all, the picture doesn't show the entire core sample. Second, we don't know where it came from or when it was collected. This information is critical in properly assigning age because we must be able to identify depositional setting and geologic history. Third, I see several markers in here that make me wonder whether the span for 1 million years ago is even included in the picture. About all geology can tell you with the information provided is that there is probably shale, limestone, sandstone, and probably some coal in this core.

Last, you are missing the point of science if you're asking for dates "BC." Some sciences may use BCE (before the common era) but more commonly in hard science dates are discussed "before present" or perhaps "MA" (million anum) in reference to 1 million years ago. You're trying to assign a scientific date using a religious calendar.



[/geologist] Let's go have a beer.

 

...if it could, ...the "earth" would laugh this bunch right out of the faculty lounge...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/con...olating-too-far-outs-others-as-alarmists-too/

quote from the source:

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.

 

Wippersnappers! We've been through this before! Kinda like the clothing your wearing! LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko

 

Thanks for the You Tube Paul... those (man-caused global warming) people are so funny.

 

...not funny, ... dangerous if not twarted...

 

Hahahaha

 

...internet, ...is serious business... is serious...

 

More fun on the climate front: Tree-ring study indicates possible long-term cooling
Published: Wednesday, July 11, 2012, 6:51 PM

By Paul Mulshine/The Star Ledger



This article describes a study of fossilized trees that indicates there may be a long-term cooling trend over the ast two millennia. An excerpt:

Measurements stretching back to 138 BC prove that the Earth is slowly cooling due to changes in the distance between the Earth and the sun. The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming.

It is the first time that researchers have been able to accurately measure trends in global temperature over the last two millennia.

Over that time, the world has been getting cooler - and previous estimates, used as the basis for current climate science, are wrong.

Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.

‘This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant,’ says Esper, ‘however, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C.

'Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia.’

Read the whole article and then ponder that this is just one piece of an extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al Gores of the world.

Such characters love to refer to their critics as "deniers," but that is obvious nonsense. The question is not one of denial vs. acceptance, as if this were some sort of fatal disease.

The question is one of cost-benefit analysis: Just how much effort should be expended to address just how much perceived risk?

If you want to see how complex this can become, read this colloquy on the question of denial vs. skepticism.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2012/07/more_fun_on_the_climate_front.html

 

I for one welcome the ice age overlords

 

Wait , whut ?

Fossilized trees dating back to 138 BC ?

 

Still wut ? ^^^^

 

And now this

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2012/08/04/climate-change-real-scientist.html

 

and a liar

 

There you have it