Global Warming/Climate Change 2

[sargeant]

Homer well over 100years however that really is immaterial

Lets say your house is on a street with 20 houses either side 40 in total

lets say it was built 5 years ago

lets say that in the last three weeks there has been 4 burglaries on your street

your neighbour says there is theft and stealing coming down on our street

do you say thats such a short time lets wait for another 3 4 5 just to be sure they are burglaries before we do something to stop it

after all the records of burglaries only started 2 years after this road was built and i am sure there were burglaries before that when it was a rice paddy

[STEVE G]

US science official says more extreme events convincing many Americans climate change is real
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the ... story.html

At least some people seem to be taking notice in the land of the gas-guzzlers:

"She said her agency was experiencing “skyrocketing” demand for climate change data and projections from individuals, businesses, communities and planners across the United States."

[Homer]

Records are but a drop in the ocean, but scientists are able to ascertain all sorts of records from analysis of rocks/soil/fossil remains and even ice from the polar regions

Such data are about climate, not weather. The number and location of sample points means the data are a non-representative sample.

[Dannie Boy]

Records are but a drop in the ocean, but scientists are able to ascertain all sorts of records from analysis of rocks/soil/fossil remains and even ice from the polar regions

Such data are about climate, not weather. The number and location of sample points means the data are a non-representative sample.

You can play with words as much as you want, but (most of) the "experts" are saying that the global climate is changing faster than it would appear to have changed at any stage in the past - make what you want of that.

[redzonerocker]

You can play with words as much as you want, but (most of) the "experts" are saying that the global climate is changing faster than it would appear to have changed at any stage in the past - make what you want of that.

Yep! but it's not warming like the 'experts' led us to believe, perhaps that's why they use the 'climate change' label these days, instead of 'global warming'

[STEVE G]

....perhaps that's why they use the 'climate change' label these days, instead of 'global warming'

Both terms have always been used:

Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?
Wallace S. Broecker
Science, 8 August 1975:
Vol. 189 no. 4201 pp. 460-463
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009 ... ming75.pdf

[sargeant]

Records are just a figure/data that is higher than the last figure/data
the time between records is what says the climate is changing
yes 0.001 degree on the last record is nothing significant but if that record was last year which was 0.001 degree higher than the year befores record and that record was 0.001 degree higher than the previous record two years before that and ad nauseum it could be half a degree in a pretty short time

it is not insignificant but almost everywhere in the world they have reported record weather over the last decade and before

I am between a rock and a hard place i do believe the earth is warming but not for the CO2 argument put forward and hammered to death by the global warming enthusiasts
so i am not in favour of the global warming argument and most certainly i am dead set against the stupid carbon tax BS they propose will solve it
As for the head in sand attitude of the sceptics nothing will change them which is why they rubbish at every opportunity any science factual or opinion based
When we are against our will lining the pockets of wall street and FTSE traders gambling the carbon taxes stolen from our wallets on carbon credits et al it is the sceptics i will blame they are making it easy for the thieves to implement the biggest RECORD scam on mankind ever

I believe that people should say PO to anyone talking taxes to solve nature its a nonsense but just saying it is not happening is as big a nonsense

[sargeant]

Just heard on the BBC 30 people have died of heat stroke in the USA heatwave
Apparently due to power cuts and no air conditioning

Question how many died each year before air con was invented

or were the heatwaves a lot cooler then

[STEVE G]

I am between a rock and a hard place i do believe the earth is warming but not for the CO2 argument put forward and hammered to death by the global warming enthusiasts

What is interesting though is that for all the denial over all these years, no one seems to be able to point out the flaws in the scientific arguement for C02 based global warming.

[MrPlum]

GW lead fraudster James Lovelock predicted in 2006 “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”



“Humble, stubborn, charming, visionary, proud and generous, his ideas about Gaia have started a change in the conception of biology that may serve as a vital complement to the revolution that brought us the structures of DNA and proteins and the genetic code.”

Wow! This guy is the dog's wotsits!

and yet...

http://www.omsj.org/corruption/global-w ... #more-4287

“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.

One of Time magazine's 15 “Heroes of the Environment,” the Prof definitely has a handle on the Science...

“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.

Hey. You can't argue with the physics.

Anyone who purchased one of Mr Bloodclots books, please contact Hot Air Publications for a refund.

[STEVE G]

“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.

"Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature."

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105, 19 PP., 2011
doi:10.1029/2011JD016263

Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2 ... 6263.shtml

[sargeant]

steve quoting myself

but i do not put it down to solely carbon emmissions (obviously it is having an effect but i just dont think it is the sole reason)

I firmly believe after spending a lot and i mean a lot of time at the insistance of Mr P researching the science involved that it is more probable that deforestation and urbanisation of the planet are the MAIN CAUSE

Quoting steve g

What is interesting though is that for all the denial over all these years, no one seems to be able to point out the flaws in the scientific arguement for C02 based global warming.

what is interesting to me is why the GW enthusiasts have pinned everything on CO2 and ignored the cause of CO2 people and a burgeoning population
I just do not believe that even if it was possible to cut CO2 emmissions by 50/60/70/80% (which is impossible and certainly not with Taxes) that it will do anything other than slow down the process started by deforestation and urbanisation
I also do not see any way to cut the population by concensus either

[STEVE G]

what is interesting to me is why the GW enthusiasts have pinned everything on CO2 and ignored the cause of CO2 people and a burgeoning population

Perhaps because there is no reasonable way of reducing the population but it is quite possible to use other energy sources as opposed to fossil fuels.

[sargeant]

Steve i agree
BUT and it is a big BUT

The population is still growing at an increasing pace

that population will require more room for housing etc ie Urbanisation will continue to grow
reflecting more heat into the atmosphere and more heat being refracted back

this growth in urbanisation will require more deforestation

This means less land and trees to suck in the CO2 allready up there

IF and its a big IF it is all down to CO2 it will continue to get warmer just on the CO2 already warming the planet

and that is only if all co2 emmissions stopped today

and the reason why there is no political talk of depopulation is because it is the kiss of death for any politition putting it up for debate

[STEVE G]

The population is still growing at an increasing pace

Actually it's growing at a decreasing rate and some predict a peak population of 9-11 billion around about 2050. The world could probably support that level of population with inovative techniques but what is required is a renewable approach and not something that requires simply using up what we have, like fossil fuels.
It's not all doom and gloom as I believe that some renewable energy sources, particularly Solar, are on the verge of becoming more economical in their own right and are set to boom within a decade. Who will bother to buy electricity from coal fired power stations when it's cheaper to get it off your own roof?