Global Warming |
Post Reply | Page <1234 6> |
Author | |||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
No the argument doesn't fall apart. Don't you think that the eminently talented scientists out there, like Hawking, etc, that have nothing to do with climate science, but posses extreme talent, and have a grounding in basic science, would spot such an obvious error immediately? Especially in regard to concepts they are familiar with, like black body radiation, and the inverse square law? Concentrations of CO2 have increased by more than 35% since industrialisation began, and they are now at their highest for at least 800,000 years. It is predicted that at the present rate, we could see a three degree rise in temperature, and we absolutely know what the earth was like with those temperatures. We just need to look at history. From that we can extrapolate a possible outcome. We know that in the Pliocene, three million years ago, temperatures were 2 - 3°C higher than our pre-industrial levels, so it gives us an idea what the 3°C world would be like. The northern hemisphere was free of glaciers and ice sheets, beech trees grew in the Transantarctic mountains, sea levels were 25 metres higher, and atmospheric CO2 levels were 360–400 ppm, very similar to today. [See below] There are also strong indications that during the Pliocene, permanent El Nino conditions prevailed. Rapid warming today is already heating up the western Pacific Ocean, a basis for a coming period of “super El Ninos”. Between 2°C and 3°C, the Amazon rainforest, whose plants produce 10% of the world’s terrestrial photosynthesis and which have no evolved resistance to fire, may turn to savannah as drought and mega-fires first destroy the rainforest, turning trees back into CO2 as they burn or rot and decompose. Atmospheric CO2 levels were 360–400 ppm, very similar to today... However, we don’t yet see the extremes of the Pliocene, because, A major factor in the warmth of the early Pliocene was the persistence of El Niño in the Pacific; it contributed to global warming by causing the absence of stratus clouds from the eastern equatorial Pacific, thus lowering the planetary albedo, and by increasing the atmospheric concentration of water vapor, a powerful greenhouse gas. Today the atmospheric concentration of another greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is comparable to what it was in the early Pliocene, but the climate of the planet is not yet in equilibrium with those high values. It is possible that a persistence of high carbon dioxide concentrations could result in a return to a globally warm world if it were to melt glaciers and increase temperatures in high latitudes, and as a consequence cause the tropical thermocline to deepen by a modest amount, a few tens of meters. It could take a few decades for the climate to respond, thanks to the affects mentioned above, and issues like global dimming, when it does, Pliocene temperatures and conditions are likely.
And Vulcan, I am fully aware that the latest strategy by the denialists, is in regard to black body radiation, and it’s pseudo scientific interpretation.
The implications of climate change threaten some very large economic interests and in addition, some dearly-held political beliefs. So yes, we can expect such twisting of the facts, misinterpreting of scientific principles, attacks on the science, and even personal attacks on the scientists. We've seen it all before with the tobacco industry. And interestingly, some of the same individuals and bodies are involved.
|
|||||||||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
I don't read denialist sites - I wholesale avoid anything to do with climate change for the following reason:
To think that we can stop the planet warming by regulating CO2 is preposterous. Sciebtists have yet to provide solid evidence of CO2 and its effect on temperature. Black body research is the only way to do it. It is good enough for NASA when looking at distant objects - it is good enough for us! As I already highlighted they are not interested in it as it would screw their argument completely. If the pro-MMGW camp think it is simply a denalist ploy - PROVE IT. Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
I don't read denialist sites Yeah right, thats why you quote the hockey stick denialist stuff then is it? And seem to have plenty of rubbish handy from the 9/11 conspiracy sites, the stuff that's contrary to everything structural engineers and demolition experts tell you? And are now pushing the black body radiator stuff that the denialists have recently started quoting? To think that we can stop the planet warming by regulating CO2 is preposterous. So says he with zero qualifications in the field. He who makes the comments at the bottom of the page. He who has trouble with the basic premise. No it's not, if we got our act together it would be possible. Will we get our act together? No, not while deny everything chaps like you abound. Chaps that keep falling for the denialist movements con.
Scientists have yet to provide solid evidence of CO2 and its effect on temperature. Plenty of evidence, what do you think the scientists have been doing for decades? Absolute proof on the other hand is impossible. Beyond any reasonable doubt is what you get and all you need. Black body research is the only way to do it. And you think climatologists with impressive qualifications, years at university,have never heard of such a thing? Only you and your conspiracy buddies have? trust me, scientists understand such thing better than you even could. And they certainly wouldn't engage in pseudo science and twisted logic when they consider such things. The black body thing is just the latest attempt by the denialist movemnt to attack climate science. Another in a long list of attempted attacks. I do't expect you to grasp such things, not when you make coments like this... Care to explain then why it is we are currently buried under snow? 2 inches in one night? Whilst people moan and complain that it is getting warmer, they seem to ignore when it hits record lows. Everything you need to understand the basic concept is available, if you take the time to read it one day, then you might stop making the same claims over and over again.
|
|||||||||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
I really didn't know that. It makes sense though, and is the only physics we can use to prove it categorically. Why doesn't the pro camp produce the results and prove it then? The merry go round keeps on turnin'. Oh - that's what I'm not getting - "trust us - we're climatologists". No - show me some solid science and not someones interpretation.
The con is suggesting we can stop the planet warming up by regulating CO2 only, and to stop burning fossil fuels (the same ones we are running out of, curiously)! Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
I really didn't know that. It makes sense though, and is the only physics we can use Okay, apologies if the following sounds assertive. But there’s no other way to put it. As I said [many times] climatologists are not morons. They do use black body radiation in their science. I even touched on it at photographic college. It's not new, it's not special, although it may be new to you. Black body radiation. Page 3 onward. http://www.iac.ethz.ch/education/master/radiation_and_climate_change/download/Heinzskript2009 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html to prove it categorically. Why doesn't the pro camp produce the results and prove it then? Okay, after the recent attempt to sabotage the climate talks by the denialists, by hacking into climatologists email accounts, and misinterpreting, and taking out of context casual email chat, and wrongly claiming that data correction [normal in science and essential] was some sort of con... the climatologists in question agreed to release the data... But you are still not happy, you still deny, you still make daft claims like... “Climatologists don't consider black body radiation”, claims that demonstrate your total lack of understanding of the basic concept, like... “why is it snowing down my road?” Statements that demonstrate that you still have zero grasp of the basic notion, that it's GLOBAL, LONG TERM warming that's the issue. The above, is the comment you keep making time and time again. I've now told you how it really works... do you agree with me, or do you want to counter the fact??? The merry go round keeps on turnin'. For you it keeps turning. Simply because you have programed your brain, to believe that every “official” claim is part of a highly implausible world-wide conspiracy. Well Vulcan... if you want real science, then you have to go to the real scientists, you won’t get it from the denialists who make up their own version of science. Their own pseudo science, their own twisted science, their own junk science... to further their agendas. Scientists will give you the facts, your amateur web sites, constructed by those with ulterior motives, and no idea about climate change science, will give you lies, that only a fool would be conned by. |
|||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
The con is suggesting we can stop the planet warming up by regulating CO2 only
As said [once again] the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere is small. But we know that it generates a significant increase in temperature, that keeps us alive on this planet. We would be dead without it.
We've increased that small, potent quantity of CO2 by a significant amount. 35% to be precise. So yes, if human kind stopped pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, it would have a dramatic affect. We have a rough idea of a date that would be the point of no return. An estimate of the degree to which we need to reduce our output of CO2, to prevent a catastrophic warming. To prevent the environmental conditions of the Pliocene from making a return.
We already have pumped into the atmosphere, the same [or close to] the amount of CO2 that was in the air during the Pliocene.
It is likely that a persistence of high carbon dioxide concentrations will result in a return to a globally warm world of the Pliocene, in a few decades when atmospheric equilibrium returns if it were to melt glaciers and increase temperatures in high latitudes.
|
|||||||||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
Where is the research that demonstrates the exact warming potential of CO2 in the context of Earth? Where is it?
You forget our friend, the logarithmic scale, too. I'll bite and throw some numbers around (totally without anything to substantiate them). if ln(350) = ~5.857 and we say this is responsible for 30 degrees of warming then ln(400) = ~5.991. = ~30.686, or 0.686 degrees of warming (2.28% increase). Let's assume a CO2 concentration of 700 ppm (double todays approximate average): ln(700) = ~6.551 or 3.55 degrees of warming, or 11.8% increase (note that is for a doubling, which we can't achieve by burning all the fossil fuels in the world!). If we double it again: ln(1400) = ~7.244, or 7.1 degrees of warming (23.6%). By QUADRUPLING the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we could only hope to increase the bit of warming caused by CO2 by 23.6% of the 30 degrees we presume is caused by CO2 already, ignoring anything else. I'll also mention yet again the point that CO2 traps heat from long range infra-red emissions by the earth. If CO2 was preventing this from escaping into space, NIGHT TIME TEMPS should be higher, and rising. Based on current events, and the record lows from last winter, that is not the case. I know our current cold weather is as a result of the winds from Siberia, but the point is Siberia is not immune from CO2, and thus should be warming too. The bottom line is these cold temperatures shouldn't be possible, but they are. That the Earth can still get very cold, means there is some other mechanism at work resulting in higher temperatures (such as poorly placed measurement stations - plenty of examples exist). This long term average - is it an average of days highs, lows, or an average of daily averages? Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
Remember when I told you that a little knowledge is a bad thing? well your attempts to obtain a maths qualification are a prime example. I'll ignore your dodgy attempts to be a climatologist. And arrogant assumption that you know better than those with years of training under their belts, literally thousands of experts. If you could disprove such things with your meager ability, there would be no debate, MMGW would have been proven invalid before it even got off the ground. If CO2 was preventing this from escaping into space, NIGHT TIME TEMPS should be higher, and rising. So, you actually dispute that the green house effect exists at all? Of course green house gas is restricted form escaping. You would be dead otherwise along with most life on the planet. Night time temperatures are getting warmer. They have been in many parts of the world, they have been in Columbus Ohio for example for 60 years.
Atmospheric scientists call that the Diurnal Temperature Range or DTR-- the difference between the daytime high and night time low. It's one of the markers that seem to indicate a warming climate, according to some scientists. http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/02/clevelandarea_nighttime_temper.html And hotter in the night in California... In fact loads of US states and elsewhere around the globe...
You haven’t just shot yourself in the foot there, you’ve blown your foot clean off. Based on current events, and the record lows from last winter, that is not the case. you can't base whether MMGW is happening on short term, local weather phenomenon.
How many times do I have to say it?
You are STILL making the same mistake. Record lows from last winter are local and not
worldwide, they are also short term.
I know our current cold weather is as a result of the winds from Siberia, but the point is Siberia is not immune from CO2, and thus should be warming too.
Siberia is warmer.
"Another brutally hot year for the Siberian tundra"
But you still don’t get it. Some places are warmer, some places aren’t. Some places would be warmer if it wasn’t offset by other climactic factors. It’s the average temperature globally over the decades that indicates global warming. Not whether Siberia is cold this year.
The entire globe will not warm simultaneously. That would be so bizarre as to be untrue. Temperature varies throughout the globe. Temperatures in some locations may even drop initially. Temperatures in the UK may drop as a result of MMGW, due to the Atlantic conveyor diverting. But on average, long term, the average global temperature is rising. The average temperature globally in the 2010’s was hotter than the 90’s, which was hotter than the 80’s etc, etc.
The bottom line is these cold temperatures shouldn't be possible, but they are.
You know what, it’s like I’m beating my head against a brick wall, trying to explain simple concepts that anyone could understand.
You have a serious mental block.
|
|||||||||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
When the UK, Siberia, Russia, Canada and Peru ALL suffer RECORD LOWS, that is not local, it is GLOBAL (Peru is at the southern tip of the SOUTHERN hemisphere for crying out loud!). Last night we achieved a new record low of -16.5 degrees C. In November. When CO2 levels are rising. Go figure. Remember this? http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html Monday, 20 March 2000
LOOOOOOOOOOL! I guess the winters of 2009/2010 just aren't playing ball, huh! Pesky climate! You think you can predict with certainty natural phenomena using perfect computer models then it goes and throws a curve ball. Aww, shucks. Note that this is from our friends at the University of East Anglia. I digress....... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11950882
LOOOOOOOOOOOL AGAIN!!!! A bunch of politicians meet and they say they want to limit warming to 2 degrees. Someone didn't get the memo that Mother Nature isn't attending the summit.
This is what it is really about. MONEY.
Don't get personal. My studying for a maths degree has nothing to do with this (and isn't "a little knowledge" either! If you think it is so easy - you do it!). Do not forget that I'm also big-time into my astronomy, and have been for nearly 20 years. My citing the effect of CO2 on temperature being logarithmic goes back a long time - search the forum. I refuse to swim in circles. Prove my hypothetical idea wrong. Show me any black body research papers that do not support the position that CO2 only absorbs a tiny proportion of IR radiation. As I said before, this scientific area is robust enough that NASA uses it frequently to analyze distant objects. If you know of research that demonstrates a flaw or extreme inaccuracy, then you had better write to them and let them know. Show me some real science that doesn't involve a few pretty graphs and lots of interpretation of data. Show me actual experimental results. I could devise a simple experiment to test this, but unfortunately I have neither the time nor funding to carry it out. They were saying yesterday on the radio that the levels of CH4 in the atmosphere are CONSTANT, and have been for the last decade. They do not know why as man-made sources and natural sources have INCREASED in output over that same period. I suppose you have the answer to this, too? Here is some real science to sink your teeth into: http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm Note that on the graph where the values DROP, is where the CO2 is OPAQUE (that is, ABSORBS the IR at those wavelengths), and note how narrow these regions are. I have added the image to this post so there is no mis-understanding over which graph I'm referring to. Note the x-axis is exponential. Scientific research paper on IR absorption by CO2 in Earths atmosphere. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed074p316
I suppose this research is also used by MMGW denialists? Note that it forms part of the second year undergraduate studies in Environmental Chemistry. I will keep finding and citing these types of research papers - this is the REAL science behind "MMGW" and the effect of CO2 upon temperature. I haven't seen anything of this standard from any of the sources you have cited so far. So far I keep reading that most of the Earths IR emissions are around 10 μm. If you refer to the graph of CO2, you will see that CO2 is nearly transparent to IR in this range. http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/ask_astronomer/faq/obs.shtml The biggest issue for earth-bound IR telescopes is water vapor, not CO2! The more I dig, the more I find to blow apart the case for CO2 causing warming to the extent claimed. I'm just about totally sick of discussing this topic now. You have yet to make a solid case proving CO2 causing all the warming. Stop quoting dubious scientists, and start showing some real research! I have a suspicious feeling you will be utterly unable to. Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
I can't believe you are back on this again. It's taken you weeks to figure out a response.
When the UK, Siberia, Russia, Canada and Peru ALL suffer RECORD LOWS, that is not local, it is GLOBAL (Peru is at the southern tip of the SOUTHERN hemisphere for crying out loud!).
Listen carefully... the 2010's were the hottest on record. The 90's were the hottest on record. The 80's were the hottest on record. Do you understand? GLOBALLY and LONG TERM.
I don't know which time period you are talking about above, perhaps you could clarify?
But even if global, it's STILL SHORT TERM. Global warming is LONG TERM... and GLOBAL. You could quite conceivably have a cold world temperatures for a few years, if the Earth does a wobblee in it's orbit, or the sun throws a short term wobbly. But thats nothing to do with MMGW.
You have a serious mental block on this my boy.
I'll reply to the rest later... if I can summon up the patience. And counter the frustration I feel.
|
|||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
Please stand by, while I beat my head against a brick wall! The above, once again, clearly demonstrates that you haven’t a clue Pointy. Don’t mean to be unkind, but you can’t even grasp the simplest concept regarding this. But despite the above... you go on to attempt to interpret research papers, and even claim your advanced research, your “digging” has revealed the flaws in the experts research. Such audacity, it's actually very impressive. You now the answer, have you not read the rest of this thread or anything I have ever typed, or has your memory failed already? What happens in November, in the UK, IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING RELATED. You have been told why! a single bout of cold weather—or hot, for that matter—doesn’t actually say anything about long-term climate patterns. It just tells you it’s cold, “here” and “now”. Meanwhile, decadal measurement of global temperatures continues to rise. Don't get personal. My studying for a maths degree has nothing to do with this (and isn't "a little knowledge" either! If you think it is so easy - you do it!). Do not forget that I'm also big-time into my astronomy, and have been for nearly 20 years. What I’m referring to, is you commencing your maths studies [a laudable endeavor] and then attempting to apply that embryonic knowledge to advanced climate science, and posting your “calculations” in an attempt to dispute the work of PhD climate scientists... quite frankly Pointy how you have the nerve I don’t know, especially when your quote at the top demonstrates you can’t grasp simple concepts regarding this topic. But it is very entertaining. I could devise a simple experiment to test this, but unfortunately I have neither the time nor funding to carry it out. That’s the most arrogant thing ever to disgrace the forum to be honest. You are a nincompoop that thinks if it’s cold in the UK, this winter, then global warming isn’t happening. Go figure. I will keep finding and citing these types of research papers - this is the REAL science behind "MMGW" and the effect of CO2 upon temperature. You bet, thanks Mr Pointy. I should have known you would have the answers, answers that are beyond qualified climate scientists. You must have been just testing us then, when you posted your ludicrous first post, the quote at the top of this post. I haven't seen anything of this standard from any of the sources you have cited so far.
No that’s right Pointy. You have a far more advanced knowledge of climate scientists than the thousands of climate scientist that study this... because it’s their job. Oh those foolish climate scientists. How could they be so stupid? And the plethora of scientists in other fields, how come they didn’t spot the flaws, which a non-scientist, non-qualified MR Pointy did. I think they should employ you, it’ the only solution.
|
|||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
Here's just a few of the quotes from Mr Pointy, that clearly demontsrates his inability to grasp the most basic concepts regrding man made global warming...
I rest my case. |
|||||||||||||
Magic Man
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
...MM sneaks in, looks around and then drops something on the pile before sneaking back out again...
"New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64°C warming" - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
|
|||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
Yep, great news if this one off, [unverified by others] climate model turns out to be true.
Not so hot is good news... but the planet is still warming.
It also flies in the face of Vulcan's theory, that the scientists are all colluding in a big conspiracy, along with the governments of the world... if they were, they wouldn't have released this "theoretical" model would they?
But beware... Bounoua is but one scientist. Others may well dispute her ideas.
|
|||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
And if we look at the original NASA article we see "The Register" got it wrong, deliberately, or intentionally, who knows.
the new computer model suggests 1.94, not 1.64. Sligthly cooler, compared to other computer models. 0.3°C.
From NASA...
There will be uncertainty in regrd to the expected tempreture range. Due to uncertainty about "feedbacks" How different aspects of the Earth system will react to a warming world, and then how those changes will either amplify or dampen the overall warming.
Positive feedback may well overpower the efects above. If warming temperatures caused forests to grow in the place of Arctic tundra. Then the darker surface of a forest canopy would absorb more solar radiation than the snowy tundra, which reflects more solar radiation. This greater absorption would amplify warming. |
|||||||||||||
Magic Man
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
So evidence from the real astronomy guys then that GW is still a fact...
|
|||||||||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
I'll say it again: climate science is the only science that seems to be certain of anything. They think their models are infallible, they act like their data is perfect, and they seem to think that on all this, they can claim with pin-point accuracy the future of the global climate. It isn't possible for humans to do this yet. I do not dispute the planet is warming. I dispute the mechanisms and predicted impact. I showed you the article from 2000 to demonstrate the veracity of the claims from 10 years ago, and look at the last two years of those 10 - we've had hard winters of record breaking proportions. No year in the last decade was the hottest on record. That trophy goes to 1998. Despite that, atmospheric CO2 keeps on rising. I do understand what you are saying about long term vs. short term, but we have not seen enough recent long term to make any comment on the trends we have seen so far. 150 years is only 15 decades. We have no records before this time that are close to being accurate. Again, the last two years alone have had record low temps across the world. If everything the MMGW camp says is to be believed, this should not be possible, but it is. Look out the window once in a while. A reality check is a good thing. The bottom line is that we can not predict the future, and we do not know where it is going. By the way, there isn't an issue with my calculations further up the page.
There are plenty of scientists that dispute the IPCC findings, but let's ignore them shall we? From MM's link:
'nuff said. We do not know enough to comment, and much more research is required. It is bad science to take flawed and incomplete research and to then act like it is solid fact. It is even worse that drastic actions are being taken on the back of all of this. It is convenient for politicians though as it gives them something to scare the world with to try and get them to reduce their use of the ever reducing supplies of oil. Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
Utter Nonsense! Vulcan, I’d swear blind you exist in an alternate reality. Climate science never claims to be 100% certain. Where have you been these last few decades? They fully admit their climate models are less than perfect. It’s even in the NASA link I posted. They don’t even claim global warming is a 100% fact, they assign it a 90% probability that we are responsible... [At current estimates]
Nonsense again! Computer models are admitted to be less than perfect. But improving as we fine tune them with new knowledge of both positive and negative forcing.
And they don’t! Except in your fantasy world.
Based on your zero knowledge of climate science - And inability to grasp simple concepts like... GLOBAL and LONG TERM and MEASURED OVER DECADES. And non global warming related terms like... NATURAL VARIABILITY and SHORT TERM and LOCAL. Climate scientists too, discuss the predicted impact, and they too vary in their opinions. But all agree the long-term scenario is less than pleasant for the globe.
Again... you are incapable of grasping the basics. Hard winters for the last two years in the 2010’s is irrelevant. No year in the last decade the hottest is irrelevant. What is relevant, is that the AVERAGE temperature for the whole of the 2010’s was a record.
Yes it was... 2010 is equal to the previous record holder 1998. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/around-world-thermometers-point-to-2010-being-hottest-year-yet-2149808.html
Your previous comments clearly demonstrate that you have no grasp of the concept of LONG TERM, and GLOBAL. Your comments are above for all to see, and in previous topics on MMGW.
20 years plus, is climate. 150 years is enough to form a meaningful evaluation, when the temperature rise we clearly see, is in step with our green house gas emissions. If you want longer term, then we know that since the industrial revolution, CO2 and temperature rise has kept in step, and with zero natural events to account for it. The infamous hockey stick graph has been repeated dozens of times by other teams. None of that data is an exact match, but the overall trend in relation to our emissions is as plain as the nose on your face.
Hear we go again... once more you can’t grasp a simple concept like SHORT TERM VARIABILITY. In this case... predicted by the climatologist before it happened, as a result of ocean currents.
And here we go again... ignoring my previous comments and links. WRONG, DEAD WRONG... The last two years have been cold in the northern hemisphere, BUT RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURES IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE. 2010 is EQUAL to the previous record holder 1998. And 2009 was the second hottest year in the modern record. And that’s... GLOBALLY. Another clear indication that you can’t grasp extremely simple concepts like, LOCAL and GLOBALLY.
Excuse me while I beat my head against the wall again... until it bleeds.
No there isn’t, there is a consensus that the Earth is warming because of us. The dispute is over how long, and extent. There are a minority of scientists that don’t agree we are responsible, many of them in the pockets of the oil industry, some with other ulterior motives and some without climatology qualifications, and some just disagree, as you’d expect. [quoter] 'nuff said. [/quote] She is referring to negative forcing as a result of additional growth of plants ONLY. Read the original NASA article, not the link MM posted. A difference of just 0.3 degrees. Computer models are not perfect, as climate scientist frequently tell us. There will almost certainly be more fine-tuning, as a result of factors that introduce both positive forcing and negative forcing. Some will increase temperature predictions, and some will reduce the predictions. The fact that NASA released this new estimate flies in the face of your “big conspiracy” and “scientists are lying” fantasy. They wouldn’t have released this if they were trying to con you would they???????????????? And2009009 was tied for the second
|
|||||||||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
...but despite this, they still claim the world faces certain doom unless we cut back the use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas... You said:
then went on to say:
It is not irrelevant. 2 years out of 10 (or 1/5 of the decade) has had record low temperatures across the globe. You go on about measuring over decades, but if we count the last 150 years, that gives us only 15 data points! The reality is we just do not know enough! I'm not going to respond to the rest (yes, I did read it) - it's a waste of time whilst you keep contradicting yourself that measuring over decades is what it is about, then saying 1/5 of a decade is insignificant. It represents 1/75 of the entire data set (or 1.333%)!
What do you think they are doing in Mexico right now? Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11966710
Money money money! Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||||||||
Post Reply | Page <1234 6> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |