Re: The Global Warming Lie
Posted: 30 Nov 2011, 10:34
Agreed.
An archive of the South African PCFormat forums.
https://tuhinga.ron2k.za.net/pcformat/
Climate is expected to change, but when we help it along, we have something we can, at least in principle, control. The fact that we aren't doing it is of concern.RuadRauFlessa wrote:Ok... point conceded. Well then it would still stand to reason that the climate would change. Like I said I would be worried if it did not.
My statement was in reply to your stating that he seemed '... a bit of a moron'.KALSTER wrote:Impressive enough, though no guarantee of competence in climate science. Neither is being a nice guy I'm afraid.Kenny is a consulting engineer with degrees in physics and mechanical engineering.
GreyWolf wrote:Temperatures back down to 1997 levels.
*It is Mr Stott's job to attribute climate change to man-made and natural causes. The Met Office says he is an expert in doing this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impa ... nvironmentIn 2006 FAO estimated that meat industry contributes 18% of all emissions of greenhouse gasses. This figure was challenged in 2009 by two World-Watch researchers who estimated a 51% minimum
RuadRauFlessa wrote: How about we all stop eating red meat![]()
I think I might be coming across as a supreme a-hole.doo_much wrote: My statement was in reply to your stating that he seemed '... a bit of a moron'.
I have the same crap detector, but this case is a bit different. The fact is that, as far as we can tell, the climate is warming and we are to blame. The repercussions of this could be devastating to our progeny, but precious little is being done about it, even given the seriousness of the matter.but I have a deep seated distrust in something that is being 'sold' with so much fervour. Too much PT Barnum and too little clear-cut facts.
I am not convinced.KALSTER wrote:we are to blame.
+ 1GreyWolf wrote:I am not convinced.KALSTER wrote:we are to blame.
Doesn't matter now anymore anyway. We are all going to die.doo_much wrote:+ 1GreyWolf wrote:I am not convinced.KALSTER wrote:we are to blame.
True. I think I'll use cirrhosis of the liver, although I do not discount the possibility of a massive miocardial infarction.KALSTER wrote:Doesn't matter now anymore anyway. We are all going to die.
I don't really care about this subject but I'm curious how many sources of the base data to make all these claims have been used Oh and for good measure anyone know how much green house gasses that volcano in Greenland or Iceland or some such that grounded all those flights added?KALSTER wrote: I have done this and my conclusion, and that of the vast majority of appropriately qualified scientists, is that there is a general climate warming trend and that we are largely responsible for it. The evidence available is just overwhelming.
The ground based weather stations number in the thousands, with only a few marine stations. The satellite data though covers the majority of the planet. They all show warming and exactly in the way predicted.I don't really care about this subject but I'm curious how many sources of the base data to make all these claims have been used
The Iceland volcano in 2010 pumped around 150000 tonnes of CO2 into the air every day, but it actually caused a slowing in CO2 emissions, as the planes it grounded would have produced much more.Oh and for good measure anyone know how much green house gasses that volcano in Greenland or Iceland or some such that grounded all those flights added?
They look at a combination of greenhouse gasses, including CO2, methane and water vapour. The thing is that while some greenhouse gasses are stronger than CO2, CO2 is one of the primary climate forcing agents because of the length of time it spends in the atmosphere. Methane for example is a much stronger greenhouse gas, but it does not last long in the atmosphere before being broken down into it's components (which include CO2). So while CO2 is not the only culprit (we have 1.5 billion heads of cattle in the world that each belch out around 200 litres of methane every day), it is the most significant anthropogenic source of climate change.Oh yes and were they only looking at CO2 (yes I stupidly only asked about CO2 sue me) when comparing it to the plains since there are much worse green house gasses than CO2?
Great, because after ignoring all the controversy about anthropogenic global warming, the science is actually very interesting indeed. I recommend this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... start-here . A very nice site that.Oh and ok fine I'll maybe spend 5 minutes to go read up on it some time
Indeed. Even some ones with fully functional ones.KALSTER wrote:... but is probably alienating a lot of people with half a brain as well.
Lynx_Fox wrote:This last month, Nature published a reconstruction of artic sea ice going back 1400 years.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 10581.html
A good run down of the paper is here:
"Prior to the recent decline, there were periods of sustained greater sea ice (about 1250 to 1450, and 1800 to 1920) and periods of sustained lesser sea ice (before about 1200). The minimum of sea ice before the industrial revolution was even earlier, around the year 640. There were also two later episodes of sea ice decline, in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, but none of these other declines even comes close to the “falling off a cliff” of sea ice we’re seeing today."
1400+ Years of Arctic Ice | Open Mind
Results are in: 2011 was hot, but not that hot
By John Timmer | Published 12 minutes ago
A number of organizations (NASA, NOAA, and the UK's Met Office) all track the changes in global temperatures. With 2011's data complete, all of them have now run the numbers, and their results are roughly in agreement. Different groups have placed the year as either the 9th or 11th warmest year of all time, largely as a result of a persistent cold period in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation(⇣?) .
NASA is the odd man out, placing 2011 as the 9th warmest year on record. Slight differences in analysis methods—issues like how to handle areas with very few records—lead NOAA and the Met Office to place it just on the other side of the top 10. This is largely because the Pacific has been in the cold, La Niña phase of ENSO since part way through 2010. That was enough to keep 2010 from being exceptionally hot, and has now dropped 2011 to the bottom of the top-10. A warm, El Niño phase is expected to arrive some time in 2012. Since there's some lag between the onset of ocean warming and a response in the atmosphere, we shouldn't expect to see any records broken again until 2013 or so.
By NASA's estimate, this means that nine of the 10 warmest years in the instrument record have occurred this century; as NOAA puts it, all 11 years of this century are within the 13th warmest on record. NOAA also notes that it's the 35th consecutive year that temperatures have been above last century's average. Despite this general warmth, most of the past decade has seen a very similar annual temperature, suggesting that climate change may have plateaued. NASA's announcement addresses this explicitly, but concludes that we really can't reach any conclusions until we have readings from the next El Niño.
Realistically, the planet is going to keep us waiting for a couple more years before we can determine if the similarity of recent temperatures is a trend or a momentary blip. Which is rather inconsiderate, given that people will undoubtedly continue to argue about climate change in the intervening two years.
Good riddance!GreyWolf wrote:New Australian PM wants to remove Carbon tax