'Bundle Up, It's Global Warming'

thetonynator

The idea of the liffey freezing over was mentioned several times: Supercell reported that on the night of the 24th of December, the liffey froze from bank to bank at the east link bridge. Not sure how this relates to global warming, but the liffey did freeze!!!!

morticia2

Not sure why we are even having this debate anyway. The fact is that our civilization is based on non-renewable resources (fossil fuels), which are being depleted at an ever faster rate.

We are all discussing whether global warming is real when we should be asking; what can be used as an alternative transport fuel. Oil prices are over 90 bucks a barrel and rising. This isn't going away.

And frankly, the idea of ever colder winters combined with ever scarcer and more expensive heating fuel is a little worrying!

morticia2

morticia2 wrote: »

Not sure why we are even having this debate anyway. The fact is that our civilization is based on non-renewable resources (fossil fuels), which are being depleted at an ever faster rate.

We are all discussing whether global warming is real when we should be asking; what can be used as an alternative transport fuel. Oil prices are over 90 bucks a barrel and rising. This isn't going away.

And frankly, the idea of ever colder winters combined with ever scarcer and more expensive heating fuel is a little worrying!

Well if you believe the warmists, then in future we would need to build smaller houses with passive cooling and if you believe it's getting colder then we'll need to build smaller houses with lots of insulation and near passive heating.

As for peak oil, yes that's the elephant in the room! Future living will be more like victorian towns where everything will be within walking distance of everyone.

thetonynator

thetonynator wrote: »

Theres always one . . .:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

if that comment was directed at me, I was just putting some other information out there that I came across. Ok.

rebeve

Now having read though nine pages.I have come to the conclusion ,that there ia a lot of guess work going on ,and not very educated at that.

thetonynator

Jake1 wrote: »

if that comment was directed at me, I was just putting some other information out there that I came across. Ok.

No the comment was directed at the croatian scientist, sorry for not clarifying that!!!

thetonynator

thetonynator wrote: »

No the comment was directed at the croatian scientist, sorry for not clarifying that!!!

Thanks, appreciate that I was thinking' jeez what I do now? LOl'

Another take on the solar affect!
http://www.dailytech.com/Dust+Study+May+Invalidate+Most+Warming+Modeling+Work+Done+to+Date/article20516.htm

I. Recent Warming - Blame it on the Sun?

The study's key conclusion was to show that the ratio of small soil dust particles (clay), which cool the atmosphere, to large soil dust particles (silt), which yield an indirect heating effect, may be much higher than previous estimated. This is a critical finding because it shows that the Earth's climate may be much more sensitive to solar radiation than previous models have indicated, which in turn casts doubt on anthropogenic warming theory -- the idea that human carbon dioxide emissions bear the primary warming influence on the climate over the last several decades.

sharper

Deleted User wrote: »

Another take on the solar affect!
http://www.dailytech.com/Dust+Study+May+Invalidate+Most+Warming+Modeling+Work+Done+to+Date/article20516.htm

The actual paper bears almost no resemblance to that article

http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.5818.pdf

ABSTRACT
Mineral dust aerosols impact Earth‟s radiation budget
through interactions with clouds, ecosystems, and radiation,
which constitutes a substantial uncertainty in understanding
past and predicting future climate changes. One of the causes
of this large uncertainty is that the size distribution of emitted
dust aerosols is poorly understood. The present study shows
that regional and global circulation models (GCMs)
overestimate the emitted fraction of clay aerosols (< 2 μm
diameter) by a factor of ~2 – 8 relative to measurements. This
discrepancy is resolved by deriving a simple theoretical
expression of the emitted dust size distribution that is in
excellent agreement with measurements. This expression is
based on the physics of the scale-invariant fragmentation of
brittle materials, which is shown to be applicable to dust
emission. Because clay aerosols produce a strong radiative
cooling, the overestimation of the clay fraction causes GCMs
to also overestimate the radiative cooling of a given quantity
of emitted dust. On local and regional scales, this affects the
magnitude and possibly the sign of the dust radiative forcing,
with implications for numerical weather forecasting and
regional climate predictions in dusty regions. On a global
scale, the dust cycle in most GCMs is tuned to match radiative
measurements, such that the overestimation of the radiative
cooling of a given quantity of emitted dust has likely caused
GCMs to underestimate the global dust emission rate. This
implies that the deposition flux of dust and its fertilizing
effects on ecosystems may be substantially larger than
thought.

Summary and conclusions
The present study indicates that dust emission is a scale
invariant process (inset of Fig. 2), and uses this observation to derive
a simple theoretical expression of the size distribution of emitted dust
aerosols (Eqs. 5, 6). The theory is in excellent agreement with measurements (Fig. 2), and, when implemented in regional and
global climate models, can resolve the substantial overestimation of
the emitted clay fraction by these models (Fig. 3).
On local and regional scales, the overestimation of the emitted
clay fraction by models has likely caused errors in the magnitude and,
depending on local variables such as the suface albedo (4),
potentially the sign of the modeled dust radiative forcing (50), which
has implications for numerical weather forecasting and regional
climate predictions in dusty regions. On a global scale, the
overestimation of the emitted clay fraction has likely caused GCMs
to underestimate the size of the global dust cycle (Fig. 4 and S3).
This latter result implies that the deposition flux of dust to oceans,
and the resulting effect on atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations through the fertilization of marine biota (6), may be
substantially larger than previously thought, especially close to dust
source regions.
The theoretical model presented here could be applied to
fragmentation in analogous physical systems where the creation of
small fragments is limited by the presence of indivisible particles.
This includes dust emission on Mars and the fragmentation of small
asteroids (53), granular rocks (29), and other brittle materials with a
granular or crystal structure

Nowhere does the paper indicate that the findings cast doubt on anthropogenic warming or that solar activity can now be used to explain observed warming.

zenno

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

We are: this has been the coldest Dec. since records bagan in Ireland. Although the last few days may have scuppered that. Late November to Dec 25th was the coldest since records began in England. Records began in 1650.

wrong... Our cold snap was nothing compared to the great irish frost of 1740.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/our-cold-snap-was-nothing-compared-to-the-great-irish-frost-of-1740-2478360.html

Sponge Bob

zenno wrote: »

wrong... Our cold snap was nothing compared to the great irish frost of 1740.

Ah yes, Blian an Áir as it was called. It wiped out (relatively ) as many people in one year as did the Great Famine in 5 years some 100 years later.

Norway was also very badly hit by this event .

Rabble Rabble

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Ah yes, Blian an Áir as it was called. It wiped out (relatively ) as many people in one year as did the Great Famine in 5 years some 100 years later.

Norway was also very badly hit by this event .

You remember it? I said since records began. There was no met stations in 1740. Armagh started in 1795.

thetonynator

Jake1 wrote: »

Thanks, appreciate that I was thinking' jeez what I do now? LOl'

I have a very bad habit of putting myself across badly leading to much confusion and accidental insulting of other posters. I really should think before i type . . .:(

Sponge Bob

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

You remember it? I said since records began. There was no met stations in 1740. Armagh started in 1795.

How would I 'remember' it, what a silly assertion. There are plenty of contemporaneos writings including ones describing the extent of ice that blocked off Dublin Port on occasion.

However 1740 was not really climate but likely a Volcanic event. These have an effect for a year or two.

Paleoclimatologists have many methods for figuring out what causes sudden sharp freezes/famines such as 1740 or 1695 and the poisoning of 1783 and another big blast in Tambora in 1816 and indeed this article 535/536 AD where you can see how evidence is built up after the fact....if indeed you have any interest in evidence.

thetonynator

thetonynator wrote: »

I have a very bad habit of putting myself across badly leading to much confusion and accidental insulting of other posters. I really should think before i type . . .:(

I think we are all guilty of that at times. I know I am too. Engage mouth before brain

Still, its all just a bit of fun at end of day. Discussing or learning about the weather. Im just glas I found this place.

Happy new year to you.


Happy new year to all of you. May it be safe and happy for you and those you treasure.

morticia2

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Ah yes, Blian an Áir as it was called. It wiped out (relatively ) as many people in one year as did the Great Famine in 5 years some 100 years later.

Norway was also very badly hit by this event .

This article is somewhat worrying as it cites volcanic activity in Kamchatka as a possible cause. There's a current rumbly volcano there called Kizimen that has already blown ash 10000 feet into the air with more to come. It is thought to erupt on the scale of Mt St Helens.... but no-one really knows.

godwin

rccaulfield wrote: »

2010 was the warmest year on record for this planet, this is the warmest decade on record for those just browsing.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old weather records are only only 200? years old.
Global warming science is the only science that maintains credibility even though it's based on data which considering the age of the planet only reflects a minute fraction of its weather patterns.

zenno

and speaking of global warming...well I know that the sun has a main effect on the climate of this planet' it's quite obvious. if every human being and animal on this planet right now Farted at the same time and released C02 at the same time it would be a mini-fart effect compared to the volcano's that go off around the world annually. but the plants love it.(C02) people are making out that C02 is dangerous and bad but if it wasn't for C02 from volcano's blasting off all the time we and nature would not be here now.

all these environmentalists that have splooged about global warming for a decade or more are just looking for more funding because if these fakers didn't put presure on governments with their lies then they wouldn't get any funding and in that case thousands of so called environmental scientists would be out of work.

one more thing...these nutball so called scientists in the last few years have decided to change the name of "global-warming" to climate change, sure hasn't the climate being changing for millions of years before we had any technical knowledge to affect it ?.

the biggest scam in the history of the world. money talks.

Min

I think farts would be mostly CH4, another greenhouse gas but yeah... I call it man made up climate change.

4gun

then we'd have a totally different problem on out hands...global smell

sharper

zenno wrote: »

and speaking of global warming...well I know that the sun has a main effect on the climate of this planet' it's quite obvious. if every human being and animal on this planet right now Farted at the same time and released C02 at the same time it would be a mini-fart effect compared to the volcano's that go off around the world annually. but the plants love it.(C02) people are making out that C02 is dangerous and bad but if it wasn't for C02 from volcano's blasting off all the time we and nature would not be here now.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.

As mentioned people don't fart C02.

zenno

sharper wrote: »

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm


As mentioned people don't fart C02.

An average fart is 59% nitrogen, 21% hydrogen, 9% carbon dioxide, 7% methane and 4% oxygen.

if we were getting 30 degrees centegrade now at this moment the climatologists would say it's global cooling. it's a joke. us little specs on the crust of the earth with our ****ty combustion engines and powerplants and digging deeper into the ground releasing c02 is absolutely nothing compared to a normal volcanic eruption. c02 makes plants and forests grow more abundantly but this idea that c02 is bad and man has a real effect on the climate is nonsense. all scientists of the world know that they are limited in their understanding of how the climate works' with outside influences as the sun and solar storms. it makes me laugh how so many people are duped into this fake grant scam.

the ice is melting in the north pole LOL i mean comon look at the real evidence in snow layers each winter in the pole actually for the last 20 or more years the icecaps are growing. theres alot of brainwashing rubbish out there but if you research the weather you will see the real truth.

sure like i said before...the climatologists had no choice but to change their "ideals" from global warming to climate change because the world was actually cooling and still is on a major scale and they were already made fools out of because of this. anyway everyone has their own studies and thinking on this subject.

sharper

zenno wrote: »

us little specs on the crust of the earth with our ****ty combustion engines and powerplants and digging deeper into the ground releasing c02 is absolutely nothing compared to a normal volcanic eruption.

The evidence says otherwise. Volcanic eruptions release 1% of what "us little specs" do.

c02 makes plants and forests grow more abundantly but this idea that c02 is bad and man has a real effect on the climate is nonsense.

This is a complete non-sequitur, C02 could easily be good for plants and have a real effect on climate.

all scientists of the world know that they are limited in their understanding of how the climate works' with outside influences as the sun and solar storms. it makes me laugh how so many people are duped into this fake grant scam.

Ah yes all those scientists and their evidence and what-not, they should be just asking you because you know what's really happening.

the ice is melting in the north pole LOL i mean comon look at the real evidence in snow layers each winter in the pole actually for the last 20 or more years the icecaps are growing. theres alot of brainwashing rubbish out there but if you research the weather you will see the real truth.

All the evidence from satellite measurement and other observations says the arctic ice is at its lowest extent for at least 30 years and probably longer than that. Your idea of "truth" appears to be whatever you make up.

sure like i said before...the climatologists had no choice but to change their "ideals" from global warming to climate change because the world was actually cooling and still is on a major scale and they were already made fools out of because of this. anyway everyone has their own studies and thinking on this subject.

The world is only "cooling" if you ignore every single global temperature record as well as other multiple lines of evidence showing that it's warming. This appears to be more of you just making things up and calling it truth.

Redsunset

Sharper is a closed book,you cannot and will not change his/her views.So wasted energy here im afraid.

sharper

redsunset wrote: »

Sharper is a closed book,you cannot and will not change his/her views.So wasted energy here im afraid.

You can easily change my views with evidence. Grand assertions of fraud, conspiracy, that the Earth is really cooling, that current climate change (that isn't happening, it's all fraud) is driven by the sun or volcanoes won't change my views.

I note none of the people arguing against man made climate change have provided any evidence of anything nor have they rebutted evidence provided which runs contrary to their arguments. They simply ignore it.

Redsunset

Show me the proof that CO2 has caused global warming?

sharper

redsunset wrote: »

Show me the proof that CO2 has caused global warming?

Sorry I'm not going to argue against your personal incredulity. You're well aware of where the evidence for it exists and there's simply no way I'm going to fall into the trap of personally trying to educate someone hostile to the topic.

The very nature of your question reveals your lack of unfamiliarity with how science works, it doesn't "prove" things. You can't prove that HIV causes AIDS either.

If you want to argue that the planet isn't warming then you need evidence. If you want to argue that the planet is warming (or cooling) and that something is responsible for that you need evidence. If you don't have evidence then all you have is a belief backed up with paranoid conspiracy theories for why everyone doesn't believe what you do.

Your question can be reformulated in all sorts of ways. "Show me the proof the Earth is billions of years old", "Show me the proof the Earth is flat", "Show me the proof France really exists". The answer is the same in all cases, get yourself an education on the topic and come back when you have an informed opinion.

Redsunset

LOL:D I figured that would be your response.

I've a thread on sunspots and much more.I think your probably aware of that,and in it there is plenty of evidence to counter your theory,have a good read if you gave not seen it but if you have i suggest you reread it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055544236

sharper

redsunset wrote: »

LOL:D I figured that would be your response.

Yes lol indeed but that's the problem when you decide modern science is just wrong, you actually have to learn what it says and then show the contradictory evidence. Oddly not many conspiracy theorists advance the field.

I've a thread on sunspots and much more.I think your probably aware of that,and in it there is plenty of evidence to counter your theory,have a good read if you gave not seen it but if you have i suggest you reread it.

I've read the thread on sunspots. You'd be hard pressed to explain why declining solar activity leads to warmer temperatures. Focusing on particular regions and different metrics each week and month while ignoring both long-term and global trends isn't going to tell you much.

Redsunset

"You'd be hard pressed to explain why declining solar activity leads to warmer temperatures. Focusing on particular regions and different metrics each week and month while ignoring both long-term and global trends isn't going to tell you much".

Are you for real?
Like i said earlier your a closed book.

Solar activity has been rampant until only recently and we have been in a warm PDO.This tells me you have not properly read the thread.