Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pixel42 said:
I assumed that when Iamme asked "So how much have we warmed since say 1960?" (s)he was asking for the global figure, having understood from previous responses that figures for small regions aren't particularly useful or meaningful.
Click to expand...
So you say, which is both unscientific, as well as making the question useless. Taking a global estimate of the land/sea anomaly and trying to extract anything useful out of it for any given area is as meaningless as it gets. It's like a farmer asking how much has rainfall changed for Kansas, and you give him the global precipitation anomaly figure for the last 50 years. It means less than nothing.

Iamme said:
Dont you feel like crawling in a hole when you consider someone already was kind enough to post the answer...after my post, and before yours?
Click to expand...
I saw the responses of course. The personal attacks from the usual suspects here is neither surprising nor bothersome. It's just what passes for science on the forum. It's meaningless.

What is meaningful is climate records from the NCDC, which show many useful and important things, for all the regions you mentioned. That is what you will never see here. Even when it would advance knowledge, be educational. Give the bored casuals something to discuss.
 
r-j said:
So you say, which is both unscientific, as well as making the question useless. Taking a global estimate of the land/sea anomaly and trying to extract anything useful out of it for any given area is as meaningless as it gets. It's like a farmer asking how much has rainfall changed for Kansas, and you give him the global precipitation anomaly figure for the last 50 years. It means less than nothing.

I saw the responses of course. The personal attacks from the usual suspects here is neither surprising nor bothersome. It's just what passes for science on the forum. It's meaningless.

What is meaningful is climate records from the NCDC, which show many useful and important things, for all the regions you mentioned. That is what you will never see here. Even when it would advance knowledge, be educational. Give the bored casuals something to discuss.
Click to expand...

this is a debate about GLOBAL warming. if you want to talk about regional climate or temperature changes. you need to point that out specifically. we are talking Global warming here.

:rolleyes:
 
That's a good point. There should be a topic about climate change.
 
Pontification from the ill-informed....nothing new there. :rolleyes:

You make a lot on noise r-j but I actually supplied him regional information specific to his state..a 61 year study of early spring event timing.
So ....wrong once more.

Global warming is THE driver for climate change including cold excursions as the midwest is undergoing just now thanks to the dipole.

That's SPECIFIC r-j ....it's derived from global changes where the changes are amplified four fold in the Arctic and spill over into the continents as a result.

Now do YOU have anything congent and useful to add to the climate change conversation?
 
r-j said:
That's a good point. There should be a topic about climate change.
Click to expand...

climate change is on topic here as macdoc already said, climate change is mainly driven by global warming.
 
Greenwashing or an honest attempt?? I notice there is an awful lot of green - even in their URL avatar.

Climate Change Action Plan

Griffin Coal believes that, actions to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions should be part of a coordinated global effort to achieve maximum effect. It must be implemented by all sectors including government, business and the community.

Griffin Coal recognises that the impacts of adapting to climate change will significantly influence business in Western Australia, providing both challenges and opportunities.

An emissions trading scheme is one option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Griffin Coal believes an emissions trading scheme should allow business to manage future emission price risk to encourage economic efficiency, whilst reducing greenhouse emissions.

Griffin Coal supports emissions trading provided it:

1. Is part of an international trading market.
2. Covers all emitters, gases and sinks.
3. Allows sufficient preparation time.
4. Provides for transitionary assistance to all emitters on a fair and just basis, compensating for any loss of asset or business value over the life of key forward contracts.
5. Is structured to promote investment certainty into the future.
6. Ensures industry participants that make an early investment are not disadvantaged.
7. Is designed to accommodate changes with the advent of improved scientific understanding of the effect of human activity on climate change.

The Griffin Group and its subsidiary entities are active contributors to the reduction of greenhouse gases through a range of initiatives that include:

1. Participation in the Australian Coal Association Research Program ( ACARP ).
2. Undertaking research into new clean coal technology, geosequestration, biosequestration and other technologies that reduce or offset greenhouse gas emissions.
3. The establishment of large sustainable energy projects such as wind farm projects.
4. Ensuring new power generation projects use the most efficient technology available for their size and fuel type.
Click to expand...
http://www.griffincoal.com.au/climatechangeactionplan.html

At least they acknowledge the problem...
 
macdoc said:
Greenwashing or an honest attempt?? I notice there is an awful lot of green - even in their URL avatar.


http://www.griffincoal.com.au/climatechangeactionplan.html

At least they acknowledge the problem...
Click to expand...

i like it. but they want to be sure its not a competitive disadvantage to them. i can fully understand that.

its like with te company i work for. i could do alot to reduce Co2 emisions somewhat , but we are restricted to the solutions that save us money, like LED lighting, better isolation etc. but as soon it actually costs money , we don't do it. it is a disadvantage compared to our competitors. and there is a huge competition in this region in this market. (powder coating)
 
AlBell said:
You'd be wrong. :D

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/warming-593355-global-temperature.html
Click to expand...

wow what ignorant drivel, no wonder deniers are so ignorant on this topic when those are the sources their get their science from lol-

Dr. David Viner, senior scientist at Britain’s University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit, confidently predicted that, within a few years, winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event.”
Click to expand...

he did so in an invterview and not a study at all. there are dozens of impact studies that give far more detailed predictions, yet this article rather bases his nonsense on a single interview....... why? because those impact studies were not as wrong as Dr. Viner was.
but then that doesn0't make good propaganda for the deniers......

very telling.

and the same with Hansen's predictions, they use interviews instead of a proper analysis of his model projections.

like here for example:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
If surface temperatures lose their credibility (and we side with those who long have said that’s the case), where will alarmists point to prove their point?
Click to expand...

what he really means is SAT, surface air temperatures. not surface temperature.

but yes, the media has concentrated too much on SAT. and ignored the OHC mostly.
scientists did not do that. and püeople that got their science not only from the media know that.

especially considering that more than 90% of the AGW excess heat goes into the oceans, the concentration on SAT was not very clever.
but to know if the planet is warming up or not is best viewed from something else, the energy imbalance of incoming radiation vs outgoing radiation, and this way we know for sure we are still warming up, and that is why scientists were so sure they are missing heat.

ad then the usual UHI myths and oh they adjust data, i don't understand why and how exactly, but it must be some evil conspiracy.....

"we have had 10 years of “accelerated global warming,”
Click to expand...

yes we had.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenber...s-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf

good to see the US having a president that gets his science on this important topic from the scientists instead of Frank Luntz
 
AlBell said:
You'd be wrong. :D

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/warming-593355-global-temperature.html
Click to expand...
You would be citing an ignorant climate change denier, AlBell :eek:!
Cherry picking personal opinions.

Ignorance of thinking that weather is climate.

Cherry picking old (1986) predictions and implicitly lying about it. Hansen predicted in 1988 that by the 2020s the U.S. average annual temperature would rise 9 degrees Fahrenheit, or more, and up to 3 degrees by the 2010s in a specific scenario but not in 2 others given his models assumption. One assumption was a higher sensitivity to doubling of CO2 than the current estimates (~3.4 rather than around 3).

Ignorance about the known urban heating effect.
 
Last edited:
AlBell said:
You mean join the Consensus which is a political opinion, not a scientific judgement? :crowded:
Click to expand...


How did you determine that the consensus by climatologists was derived from political beliefs and not scientific evidence? I trust you have something concrete to back up this allegation, yes?
 
ouch...


Global Warming: Four Degree Rise Will End Vegetation 'Carbon Sink', Research Suggests

Dec. 16, 2013 — Latest climate and biosphere modelling suggests that the length of time carbon remains in vegetation during the global carbon cycle -- known as 'residence time' -- is the key "uncertainty" in predicting how Earth's terrestrial plant life -- and consequently almost all life -- will respond to higher CO2 levels and global warming, say researchers.

Carbon will spend increasingly less time in vegetation as the negative impacts of climate change take their toll through factors such as increased drought levels -- with carbon rapidly released back into the atmosphere where it will continue to add to global warming.
Click to expand...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131216154851.htm
 
DC said:
how many scientific publications did you read on this topic?
Click to expand...

Clearly he hasn’t consulted any scientific sources. Any viewing of actual scientific sources makes it abundantly clear that the scientific consensus is that the earth is warming due to human influence.

Any other opinion is politically based wishful thinking. People utilizing information sources that tell them otherwise should review how they get your information because you are being played for fools.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom