nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Global Warming

thebigshot

So now we have an about turn by the big boys.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm

We clearly know that the earth is not warming, it has not warmed since 1998.

We know that people are not the cause of earth temperature changes. The big boys predict the changes and then blame the people in order to restrict freedoms and rip them off.

Back in the 1970's it was global cooling, then global warming and now global cooling. What a joke.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

here's a link that put forward a theroy on the sun being responsible and that the Sun is responsible for 0.5 of the 0.6 increase in global climate...
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_04.php

From your link:

Many researchers believe the steady rise in sunspots and faculae since the late seventeenth century may be responsible for as much as half of the 0.6 degrees of global warming over the last 110 years (IPCC, 2001).

This was actually revised downwards (to 20%) in the most recent IPCC report. There is no correlation between solar activity and the increase in global average temperature over the last few decades.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

From your link:
This was actually revised downwards (to 20%) in the most recent IPCC report. There is no correlation between solar activity and the increase in global average temperature over the last few decades.

link please, I haven't read that one yet and would be interested.??

Sam Kade

djpbarry wrote: »

That's some nice copy and pasting. Is there a point in there somewhere?

You were saying about how long global temperatures were being taken. I showed you how long they have been using satellites and what they used before them. How easy was that?

bonkey

fishfoodie wrote: »

Hmmmm, so much for 'consensus'

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Already being discussed in a seperate thread.

Short version - that link has more holes in it than a block of Emmental.

djpbarry

Sam Kade wrote: »

You were saying about how long global temperatures were being taken. I showed you how long they have been using satellites and what they used before them. How easy was that?

How easy was what?

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

link please, I haven't read that one yet and would be interested.??

The 2007 IPCC report halved the maximum likely influence of solar forcing on warming over the past 250 years from 40% to 20%. This was based on a reanalysis of the likely changes in solar forcing since the 17th century.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650

Full IPCC reports are available here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm

Sam Kade

djpbarry wrote: »

How easy was what?

Forget it. And don't say forget what?

baldieman

According to this link 2008 is the 9th coldest year in the last 10.
So, what's causing the earth to cool now when were burning so much more coal and oil?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7786060.stm

djpbarry

baldieman wrote: »

According to this link 2008 is the 9th coldest year in the last 10.
So, what's causing the earth to cool now when were burning so much more coal and oil?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7786060.stm

And from the same article:

Using data from two major monitoring networks, one co-ordinated by the UK's Hadley Centre and University of East Anglia (UEA) and the other by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), the WMO reports that despite the cooling, 2008 still ranks among the 10 warmest years on record.

At 14.3C, the average temperature for the year was significantly above the 14.0C average for the 1961-1990 period, a commonly used baseline.

Temperatures are about 0.7C above pre-industrial times.

baldieman

The point is, the trend is now downward and guess what?? so is solar activity!!

djpbarry

baldieman wrote: »

The point is, the trend is now downward...

Not if the trend is computed over a meaningful time-period.

baldieman wrote: »

...and guess what?? so is solar activity!!

I've yet to see a demonstrated correlation between increasing temperatures and solar activity, probably because such a correlation doesn't exist.

derry

baldieman wrote: »

According to this link 2008 is the 9th coldest year in the last 10.
So, what's causing the earth to cool now when were burning so much more coal and oil?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7786060.stm

Really guys looking at small time slices of a few decades is pontless.it seems to take periods of 50,000 years to change the temperture unless two events take place suchas mega volcanoes teh size of Coloroda staye in the USA which pumps gazzilion of CO2 and SO2 or a Astroid the size of mount everest 6 cubic kilometers doing 40,000MPH hits the planet .

In terms of our CO2 emissions compared to a gigantic volcano of several thousand sqare miles our emissions would be 0.000001% of those mega emmisions.

When the mega volcanoes go off releasing lots of CO2 the problem is the SO2 and the ash freeze the planet and make a serious Ice age

Astroids are similar in the ash makes freezing conditions and new ice ages

Our emmision although big in millions of tons are tiny tiny tiny compared to the size of the planet and the atmoshere.

It is still only a therory out there with Evolution (Evolution or theory of relitivity are still not a 100% proven fact and still only a theory but thats another story ) that Higher CO2 will automatically create extreme global warming.

The evidence seems to be limited to is that no CO2 we would freeze so some CO2 is absolutly needed to create the right level of global warming to keep the temperature correct

The Global warming increases exponentialy from zero PPM to 100PPM .
Then the famous hokey stick kicks in and the global warming effect reduces dramaticaly up to 200 PMM and becomes near linear from 200 PPM to they think 2000PPM or more

Makes sense really. Example if you have no glass house the plants can freeze at night .You cover the plants with 4mm glass that keep them warm at night . If you cover the plants with 8MM glass you might barely increase the temperature much and might even cool it with the energy needed to penetrate the thicker glass.

The evidence is only CO2 is one of the coctail of of global warming gasses and that CO2 seems to work well at 280PPM before the industrial revoltion.Since then we are heading close to 400PPM and the DEBATE is is this a problem or is it even a benifit stopping even a new ice age taking place

Its still only in the early phases of debate and is not proven that higher CO2 is that bad.Even the famous IPCC report from which thousands of Emminent scientist withdrew support saying they were mislead and misquoteted is also a split report.The IPCC in one part uses the term they THINK that humans CO2 is big factor in global warming and in another part of the report they THINK that humans CO2 is small factor in global warming.They never use terms like 2% or 80% proven fact The IPCC hides behind vaugue terms like THINK or big or small and try to impress us the facts are solid when in fact the debate still rages on

However the NEO FASHIST SUV attacking mob using IPCC whip would want us all to ride bikes to save the planet

Other gasses are far more strong than CO2 at global warming such as methane and water vapour
The top thirty feet of the planet where Water vapour hugs the surface often the sea which is 70% of the surface trap possibly more than ~75% of the heat that keeps the planet at this temperature.This means that if CO2 is responsible for say 10% of the global warming which the planet needs and the doubling of CO2 caused lets say a .01% of global warming effect that would mean the result would be a0.001% extra warming effect.Now with this and that and the other like more clouds bounce back more sunlight whatever the CO2 global warming effect might be cancelled out

As the sun is a Million times bigger than the earth has many sterage pertubations like it expands in size buy 1% every few months and has sun spots thousands of times larger than the planet earth it a bit of a no brainer that nearly all major temperature fluctuations will come from this unstable heating source.

The other mega heat source which can heat the oceans a lot and create hotter ocean water and more water vapour creating possibly more global warming is the exposed hot lava belts at the fault lines in the oceans such as the Atlantic ridge.This super heated Lava coming into contact with the Oceans if this decides to spout out double or triple or even more lava than normal can raise sea temperatures faster than a normal possibly speed up climate changes in periods of a few thousand years or less

For me the CO2 story is going to cook our goose in a sea coctail of meaga inputs all which make CO2 look tiny tiny amounts is like saying a flea farting in jumbo jet will poison all the passenger in the plane before it reaches it destination

I don't buy the CO2 story is cooking our goose sorry

Put another way if one kiddy in the pool does a widdle in the pool and the parts per million of wee wee in the pool is now raised to say 200 PPM and a second kids piddles in the pool and the PPM increases to 201PPM how long before the POOL water is toxic

Same thing really that CO2 ~280PPM or CO2 ~2000PPM is probably little or no effect above 100PPM

Hockey stick stuff really in cold winter time I will stick to my tiny car ~50MPG Suziki swift as I am a tight bastard and hate giving the gouging oil giants a cent I don't have to and let the dick head morons who drive SUV alone .In summer i ride my bike a lot as no car parking costs:D
Me I am in the save my pocket trade and prefer to look at real issues like why cant I drink the local tap water in galway and let the planet look after itself as it so poxy big it can resist most all attempts to kill it from CO2 emmision best i can tell

Three decades of temperature reading what a hoot :pac:

Derry

csm

derry wrote: »

Really guys looking at small time slices of a few decades is pontless.it seems to take periods of 50,000 years to change the temperture unless two events take place suchas mega volcanoes teh size of Coloroda staye in the USA which pumps gazzilion of CO2 and SO2 or a Astroid the size of mount everest 6 cubic kilometers doing 40,000MPH hits the planet .

Take a zero off that figure and you're closer to the mark. Which is why the rate of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is such a concern. It is much faster than natural releases that we know of.

derry wrote: »

When the mega volcanoes go off releasing lots of CO2 the problem is the SO2 and the ash freeze the planet and make a serious Ice age

Ice ages do not occur from massive events like this, otherwise they would happen a lot quicker than the 50,000 years you claim. Oh and by the way fossil fuels are the major source of sulphur, at least in the northern hemisphere, in the atmosphere. So we manage to impact on that too.

derry wrote: »

Our emmision although big in millions of tons are tiny tiny tiny compared to the size of the planet and the atmoshere.

So? just because it's small doesn't mean it doesn't have a big effect. viruses are small, but they can kill you.

derry wrote: »

It is still only a therory out there with Evolution (Evolution or theory of relitivity are still not a 100% proven fact and still only a theory but thats another story ) that Higher CO2 will automatically create extreme global warming.

So you don't believe in evolution either? All scientific theories are theories based on certain assumptions. There are no 100% proven facts. If you remember mathematics from school then you'll remember that major ideas were referred to as theorums (eg Pythagoras' Theorum). It didn't make them any less true.

The evidence seems to be limited to is that no CO2 we would freeze so some CO2 is absolutly needed to create the right level of global warming to keep the temperature correct

derry wrote: »

The Global warming increases exponentialy from zero PPM to 100PPM .
Then the famous hokey stick kicks in and the global warming effect reduces dramaticaly up to 200 PMM and becomes near linear from 200 PPM to they think 2000PPM or more

The hockey stick graph is temperature versus time. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Radiative forcing of CO2? That's actually a logarithmic graph, not linear. If it were linear we'd be in even worse trouble!

derry wrote: »

The evidence is only CO2 is one of the coctail of of global warming gasses and that CO2 seems to work well at 280PPM before the industrial revoltion.Since then we are heading close to 400PPM and the DEBATE is is this a problem or is it even a benifit stopping even a new ice age taking place

Its still only in the early phases of debate and is not proven that higher CO2 is that bad.Even the famous IPCC report from which thousands of Emminent scientist withdrew support saying they were mislead and misquoteted is also a split report.{/QUOTE]

It is a debate. And the majority of climate experts think that it is a problem. To such an extent that to do nothing until we are absolutely sure is immoral: if it is a problem then we can't stop it. It's certainly not a gamble I'm willing to take.

derry wrote: »

The IPCC in one part uses the term they THINK that humans CO2 is big factor in global warming and in another part of the report they THINK that humans CO2 is small factor in global warming.They never use terms like 2% or 80% proven fact The IPCC hides behind vaugue terms like THINK or big or small and try to impress us the facts are solid when in fact the debate still rages on

They do this because it is impossible to quantify the exact uncertainties. Therefore they use their experience and knowledge to provide some estimate of the state of our knowledge on particular topics. Would you prefer they picked a number out of the sky (like 2% or 80%)? Page 5 of this pdf gives you some insight into dealing with uncertainty:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

derry wrote: »

However the NEO FASHIST SUV attacking mob using IPCC whip would want us all to ride bikes to save the planet

Neo-fascist? What? And nobody is suggesting that the world has to give up cars. We're looking for alternatives to fossil fuel economies. Fossil fuels won't last forever, even you accept that.

derry wrote: »

Other gasses are far more strong than CO2 at global warming such as methane and water vapour

water vapour is. methane isn't. if we're talking about radiative forcing.

derry wrote: »

The top thirty feet of the planet where Water vapour hugs the surface often the sea which is 70% of the surface trap possibly more than ~75% of the heat that keeps the planet at this temperature.This means that if CO2 is responsible for say 10% of the global warming which the planet needs and the doubling of CO2 caused lets say a .01% of global warming effect that would mean the result would be a0.001% extra warming effect.Now with this and that and the other like more clouds bounce back more sunlight whatever the CO2 global warming effect might be cancelled out

Couple of things here. Water has a much lower residence time in the atmosphere than CO2, so it has a lot less potential for global warming at timescales relevant to climate. Your calculations assume linearity. The climate is complex and highly non-linear so your assumptions are invalid. One of the reasons you actually touch upon; clouds, probably the biggest uncertainty in climate models. Low-level clouds do as you say, they reflect sunlight. High-level clouds (eg cirrus) do the opposite, they trap more heat. If we get more of them then the problem is exacerbated.

derry wrote: »

As the sun is a Million times bigger than the earth has many sterage pertubations like it expands in size buy 1% every few months and has sun spots thousands of times larger than the planet earth it a bit of a no brainer that nearly all major temperature fluctuations will come from this unstable heating source.

It is the main source of energy but calling it a 'no-brainer' implies you haven't used your brain. Do you have any proof? Does solar activity cause glacial/interglacial cycles?

derry wrote: »

The other mega heat source which can heat the oceans a lot and create hotter ocean water and more water vapour creating possibly more global warming is the exposed hot lava belts at the fault lines in the oceans such as the Atlantic ridge.This super heated Lava coming into contact with the Oceans if this decides to spout out double or triple or even more lava than normal can raise sea temperatures faster than a normal possibly speed up climate changes in periods of a few thousand years or less

This is completely off the wall. Because of the high specific heat capacity of water, the amount of water in the oceans and the residence time of water in the ocean there is no way that a tripling of 'lava' as you call it can have an effect on climate. It is orders of magnitude smaller than the other components in the ocean heat budget.

derry wrote: »

For me the CO2 story is going to cook our goose in a sea coctail of meaga inputs all which make CO2 look tiny tiny amounts is like saying a flea farting in jumbo jet will poison all the passenger in the plane before it reaches it destination

again, small things can make a difference. just because it's small doesn't make it unimportant.

derry wrote: »

Hockey stick stuff really in cold winter time I will stick to my tiny car ~50MPG Suziki swift as I am a tight bastard and hate giving the gouging oil giants a cent I don't have to and let the dick head morons who drive SUV alone .In summer i ride my bike a lot as no car parking costs:D
Me I am in the save my pocket trade and prefer to look at real issues like why cant I drink the local tap water in galway and let the planet look after itself as it so poxy big it can resist most all attempts to kill it from CO2 emmision best i can tell

And with any luck then emission of greenhouse gases will be related to people's pockets in stronger way. if the average person can save money by using less carbon-intensive methods then they will. keeping the climate stable will be a by-product of the economy.

oh and by the way, the planet will be fine. as will humans in the developed world more than likely. it's those poor countries that will suffer. and it's the rich countries that will have done the damage.

baldieman

There is snow at low altitude in southern California today, near LA. Las Vegas airport is closed under several ins of snow. Guess what, they've no snow clearing equipment.
The European ski resorts were told a few years ago, they'ed have to find a new business. Record snow this year
Climate change, but not the kind some of you are expecting.

csm

climate is 'average' weather. not just one year's weather. you can't observe weather for one year in the alps and LA and then extrapolate to global and decadal scales.

derry

There are 12 links for all the lecture this prof Richard muller gives on climate history and trends
I dont agree with all he says but at least he isn't so OTT we gonna get our goose cooked any day now

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

I have many many other links both for and against the CO2 story but this one is more half balanced than most

But I cant always find links on demand as I dont do climate full time for a living as that risks to have take a side fpor or against depending on who is the pay master

Derry

baldieman

csm wrote: »

climate is 'average' weather. not just one year's weather. you can't observe weather for one year in the alps and LA and then extrapolate to global and decadal scales.

that same logic should apply to 1998 and the other few warm years around that time, but does'nt seem to be the case from the ICCP.

djpbarry

baldieman wrote: »

that same logic should apply to 1998 and the other few warm years around that time, but does'nt seem to be the case from the ICCP.

Doesn't it?

baldieman

djpbarry wrote: »

Doesn't it?

Doesn't it???
Do you mean they don't blame the high temp. of 1998 on globle warming??
Thank god for that!

baldieman

Not only are they having record snow falls in Canada, but for the first time in 40 years every Provence is in for a white Christmas.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081221/winter_storm_081221/20081221?hub=CTVNewsAt11

djpbarry

baldieman wrote: »

Do you mean they don't blame the high temp. of 1998 on globle warming??

You’re taking one piece of data in isolation again. The fact that 1998 was the warmest year on record means nothing, when considered independently. However, the fact that most of the warmest years on record have all occurred in the recent past is indicative of a warming trend.

baldieman wrote: »

Not only are they having record snow falls in Canada, but for the first time in 40 years every Provence is in for a white Christmas.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081221/winter_storm_081221/20081221?hub=CTVNewsAt11

Climate ≠ Weather

derry

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re taking one piece of data in isolation again. The fact that 1998 was the warmest year on record means nothing, when considered independently. However, the fact that most of the warmest years on record have all occurred in the recent past is indicative of a warming trend.
Climate ≠ Weather

Its so warm the last few days in Dublin in deepest winter.
This warming trend the last few days has me spooked big time :eek:

Yikes ! How many days week months before our goose is cooked :pac::pac::pac:

Derry

baldieman

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re taking one piece of data in isolation again. The fact that 1998 was the warmest year on record means nothing, when considered independently. However, the fact that most of the warmest years on record have all occurred in the recent past is indicative of a warming trend.
Climate ≠ Weather

"Most of the warmest years" We are only a century and a half out of the end of the little ice age. As solar activity became more regular and stronger we had a warming trend which continued until 1998 then dropped slightly till 2006 07 and 08 even cooler. Guess what, looks like solar activity is in decline!! and the sudden return to heavy snow all over the world in the past too years may just have something to do with it.

Húrin

djpbarry I don't see the point in trying to convince these sceptics. Maybe it's because I'm not a climate scientist and baldieman and the rest are, but I would feel like a bit of a plonker if I was claiming that the IPCC, the Royal Society, Met Eireann and pretty much every group that knows something about the climate had got it wrong.

I expect the sceptics/deniers are either lying to us or deluding themselves with wishful thinking.

baldieman

Húrin wrote: »

djpbarry I don't see the point in trying to convince these sceptics. Maybe it's because I'm not a climate scientist and baldieman and the rest are, but I would feel like a bit of a plonker if I was claiming that the IPCC, the Royal Society, Met Eireann and pretty much every group that knows something about the climate had got it wrong.

I expect the sceptics/deniers are either lying to us or deluding themselves with wishful thinking.

I guess we'll agree on one thing, we're not going to convince each other of our way of thinking. We'll simply have to wait and see. If the current solar cycle remains weak for the next couple of years, the evidence may become more clear one way or the other.
But you dont have to worry about me burning the planet, I'm all for green energy and getting off our addiction to oil and other imported energy. I've got my own wind turbine solar panels wood burning stove etc...

BigUnit

Húrin wrote: »

but I would feel like a bit of a plonker if I was claiming that the IPCC, the Royal Society, Met Eireann and pretty much every group that knows something about the climate had got it wrong.

You mean all those people who are pulling out a big pay check.

Have you ever heard of the advertising industry? You sell your product, these clowns are no different with their pitiful "predictions".

BigUnit

djpbarry wrote: »

However, the fact that most of the warmest years on record have all occurred in the recent past is indicative of a warming trend.

What are you on??

Even the big boys accept that the earth has been cooling since 1998.

gerky

Just to save any of you the bother of replying to him, bigunit is casey back again.

Húrin

BigUnit wrote: »

You mean all those people who are pulling out a big pay check.

Have you ever heard of the advertising industry? You sell your product, these clowns are no different with their pitiful "predictions".

Welcome to the ignore list. In addition all of your recent posts have been reported, so enjoy your holiday!

Húrin

baldieman wrote: »

I guess we'll agree on one thing, we're not going to convince each other of our way of thinking. We'll simply have to wait and see.

Yes, let's wait and see until it's too late to do anything about the climate. :rolleyes:

I don't see why people see this as a matter of "belief" - it's not religion or metaphysics - it's a matter of physical facts.

So I simply cannot respect your position because it is based on debunked lies.