Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead

Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead (508984)	Home · Maps · About

Home > OTChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2]

< Previous Page

Page 2 of 2

(509902)	view threaded
Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead
Posted by SMAZ* on Tue Oct 13 01:46:36 2009, in response to Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Oct 12 22:27:52 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d More reason to tear down the East River!
Post a New Response

(509906)	view threaded
Re: It's official: Global warming is dead and ''anthropogenic'' same never existed
Posted by WillD on Tue Oct 13 01:51:32 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is dead and ''anthropogenic'' same never existed, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 12 23:36:43 2009. edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Rather, you have. Furthermore, you have zero familiarity with the lack of scientific credibility of the IPCC. No, I've attempted to educate you because you appear to be utterly scientifically illiterate and you've remained stubbornly ignorant. Physics aren't partisan, they're not political. You can't rewrite the laws of thermodynamics in a committee, and because of this your patently nonscientific objections are completely and utterly baseless. Venus is 0.815 times the mass of Earth whereas Mercury is 0.055 times the mass of Earth. Not only a lot more surface area, but a lot more mass too. Mass has nothing to do with the energy retained by an atmosphere. Other than the first few feet of the crust, no planetary body in the solar system receives a significant part of the heat that drives its subterranean processes from the sun. Solar irradiance is normalized by area (wm^-2), so surface area factors out as well. The only thing being compared here is the amount of energy being retained by a given portion of the planet's atmosphere at the surface. Because of the dense sulfur dioxide clouds in the upper atmosphere solar irradiance is lower at the surface on Venus than it is on Earth. The surface temperature being greater than those on Mercury are directly attributable to the energy retained by the carbon dioxide atmosphere. I don't care what Mercury's mass is, I'm simply using it as an illustrative example of the extreme temperature rather than writing "460 degrees centigrade". Venus and Earth are about as close to an apples to apples comparison one can find in the known universe. That's an assumption, not a scientific fact. The only honest word there is "possible", which still allows for "impossible". No it is a verfiable fact based on experimentation which can be performed in a laboratory and matched with data from direct observation of the atmosphere. It isn't hard to shine a light of a given frequency on a sample of gas and monitor the emitted radiation for longer wavelengths. . The IPCC's BS "global warming potential" is thoroughly unscientific Unscientific by what standard? Their results are based on theory tested through experimentation. Water vapor consists of over 95 percent of the so-called "greenhouse effect" that doesn't exist (using IPCC sophistry). The greenhouse effect is very much real, it's why we exist in the first place. The question is not whether global warming from all greenhouse gases natural and anthropogenic exists. It's plainly obvious that it does because temperatures do not fall to 4 kelvin every night. The IPCC is at this point mostly dealing with anthropogenic global warming. The question is whether we are having an effect on global warming, whether the anthropogenic global warming, the 5% above what water and natural carbon dioxide emissions, are enough to cause even minor changes. We currently have virtually no direct effect on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, so almost all global warming from that source is attributable to natural processes. However, the total quantity of gaseous carbon dioxide in the atmosphere released by natural processes is miniscule in comparison to the amount released by man made sources. It is possible that we'll see an increase in atmospheric water vapor as a secondary effect of global warming. If that comes in the form of clouds then the net effect could be one of cooling. But if it comes in the form of higher humidity in areas that are currently dry, the net effect would be positive. The big fear is that the positive feedbacks will compound and lead to a runaway global warming issue. That's of course on the edge of the current possibilities, but it's about as likely as the possibility that we have had zero effect on the atmosphere and that everything is self-regulating. It's the global warming doubters who are always complaining about the short term of the 150 year instrument record. As such crowing over a trend based on less than 10 years of data is completely hypocritical.
Post a New Response

(509912)	view threaded
Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead
Posted by SelkirkTMO* on Tue Oct 13 02:09:42 2009, in response to Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead, posted by SMAZ on Tue Oct 13 01:46:36 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Nah ... Hudson's gotta go first ... attracts too many planes. :)
Post a New Response

(509917)	view threaded
Re: It's official: Global warming is dead and ''anthropogenic'' same never existed
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Oct 13 02:30:55 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is dead and ''anthropogenic'' same never existed, posted by WillD on Tue Oct 13 01:51:32 2009. edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d I've attempted to educate you because you appear to be utterly scientifically illiterate and you've remained stubbornly ignorant. Physics aren't partisan, they're not political. You can't rewrite the laws of thermodynamics in a committee, and because of this your patently nonscientific objections are completely and utterly baseless proof? You're reacting in a very political manner. No scientist would talk like that. Politicians would, though. Unscientific by what standard? The (IPCC's?) results are based on theory tested through experimentation Did you read the BBC article? The IPCC doesn't produce "results". They publish propaganda. The greenhouse effect is very much real, it's why we exist in the first place . . . thanks to water vapor. (Two-thirds of the earth's surface, remember.) It's the global warming doubters who are always complaining about the short term of the 150 year instrument record. As such crowing over a trend based on less than 10 years of data is completely hypocritical Why so, if the data doesn't prove the "consensus" and violates the scientific method at the same time? The earth continues to cool . . .
Post a New Response

(509918)	view threaded
Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead
Posted by Olog-hai* on Tue Oct 13 02:32:29 2009, in response to Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 13 02:09:42 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Cool. New real estate, and no need for tunnels for NJT. (Maybe if the Dutch controlled the area longer, that would have been a land-reclamation project?)
Post a New Response

(509972)	view threaded
Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport* on Tue Oct 13 08:02:01 2009, in response to Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 12 23:40:36 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d All matter can undergo phase change. Okay. See that plank of wood. I'd like you to heat it up and turn it into a liquid. ;-)
Post a New Response

(509980)	view threaded
Re: It's official: Global warming is dead and ''anthropogenic'' same never existed
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Oct 13 08:37:57 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is dead and ''anthropogenic'' same never existed, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Oct 13 02:30:55 2009. edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d No, he's explaining basic scientific principles to you.
Post a New Response

(510004)	view threaded
Re: It's official: Global warming is dead and ''anthropogenic'' same never existed
Posted by Fred G on Tue Oct 13 10:58:32 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is dead and ''anthropogenic'' same never existed, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Oct 13 08:37:57 2009. edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d We all saw Olog's technical prowess in a thread describing how to form a junction between rail lines intersecting. Will D and those of us with experience in the field could see the correct construction path. Olog's solution was to call Will a nazi. your pal, Fred
Post a New Response

(510048)	view threaded
Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead
Posted by SelkirkTMO* on Tue Oct 13 14:25:31 2009, in response to Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Oct 13 08:02:01 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d And SINCE it's made of wood therefore? A DUCK! :)
Post a New Response

(510074)	view threaded
Re: It's official: Global warming is over
Posted by Spider-Pig* on Tue Oct 13 16:00:39 2009, in response to It's official: Global warming is over, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 10 19:52:54 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Isn't it obvious? The increase in Somali piracy is responsible for staving off global warming.
Post a New Response

(510105)	view threaded
Re: It's official: Global warming is over
Posted by SMAZ* on Tue Oct 13 18:47:50 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is over, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Oct 13 16:00:39 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Isn't it obvious? The increase in Somali piracy is responsible for staving off global warming The PROFF
Post a New Response

(510147)	view threaded
Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead
Posted by JohnL* on Tue Oct 13 19:30:26 2009, in response to Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Oct 13 08:02:01 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Don’t confuse him. Pyrolysis is Greek to Olog!
Post a New Response

(510159)	view threaded
Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport* on Tue Oct 13 20:24:28 2009, in response to Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead, posted by JohnL on Tue Oct 13 19:30:26 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d RIMSHOT!!!
Post a New Response

(510490)	view threaded
Re: It's official: Global warming is over
Posted by David Fairthorne* on Wed Oct 14 15:17:53 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is over, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 00:13:23 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Climate, by it's definition is always changing. It is true that climate has changed throughout the ages (not by definition but based on the evidence). Some politicians say that they want to "combat climate change"; in other words they want to keep the climate constant. You might be able to keep the global average temperature constant for a short while, and as it happens there has been very little change in global average temperature for the last ten years. However if what you really want to do is to combat global warming, that could be done by reducing greenhous gas emissions, which could have the desired effect if you believe Al Gore and the IPCC "consensus".
Post a New Response

(510491)	view threaded
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand
Posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Oct 14 15:24:46 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by JohnL on Sat Oct 10 20:17:42 2009. edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand OBS? Disambiguation please.
Post a New Response

(510492)	view threaded
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand
Posted by Easy on Wed Oct 14 15:35:36 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Oct 14 15:24:46 2009. edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Orange Blossom Special
Post a New Response

(510493)	view threaded
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand
Posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Oct 14 15:37:15 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by Easy on Wed Oct 14 15:35:36 2009. edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Thanks!
Post a New Response

(510506)	view threaded
Re: It's official: Global warming is dead and ''anthropogenic'' same never existed
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Wed Oct 14 16:23:11 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is dead and ''anthropogenic'' same never existed, posted by Fred G on Tue Oct 13 10:58:32 2009. edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d LOL I missed that one!
Post a New Response

(510519)	view threaded
Re: It's official: Global warming is over
Posted by Chris R16/R2730* on Wed Oct 14 16:36:45 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is over, posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Oct 14 15:17:53 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Said consensus never really existed.
Post a New Response

(510533)	view threaded
Re: It's official: Global warming is over
Posted by italianstallion* on Wed Oct 14 17:08:16 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is over, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 14 16:36:45 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d If you think scientists, constituting maybe 1% of the total, disagreeing with the vast majority destroys a consensus, so be it.
Post a New Response

(510536)	view threaded
Re: It's official: Global warming is over
Posted by SelkirkTMO* on Wed Oct 14 17:11:22 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is over, posted by italianstallion on Wed Oct 14 17:08:16 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d He can't help it, he's a republican. ANYONE out of lockstep gets shot. :)
Post a New Response

(510551)	view threaded
Re: It's official: Global warming is over
Posted by Chris R16/R2730* on Wed Oct 14 18:08:55 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is over, posted by italianstallion on Wed Oct 14 17:08:16 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d It's far more. It was never more than 60% pro-AGW. Again, you like to swallow lies. Hmmmm .....
Post a New Response

(526650)	view threaded
Re: It's official: Global warming is over
Posted by Olog-hai* on Fri Nov 20 08:55:49 2009, in response to It's official: Global warming is over, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 10 19:52:54 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Not even left-leaning der Spiegel can hold the line, even with anti-Obama op-eds on the subject . . . also funny how the pseudoscientific discipline of "climatology" has come to the fore, eh . . . 11/19/2009 Stagnating Temperatures Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out By Gerald Traufetter Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents. At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average. Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year. Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations. Reached a Plateau The planet's temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact." Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility. "It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point." Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius — in other words, a standstill. The differences among individual regions of the world are considerable. In the Arctic, for example, temperatures rose by almost three degrees Celsius, which led to a dramatic melting of sea ice. At the same time, temperatures declined in large areas of North America, the western Pacific and the Arabian Peninsula. Europe, including Germany, remains slightly in positive warming territory. Mixed Messages But a few scientists simply refuse to believe the British calculations. "Warming has continued in the last few years," says Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). However, Rahmstorf is more or less alone in his view. Hamburg Max Planck Institute scientist Jochem Marotzke, on the other hand, says: "I hardly know any colleagues who would deny that it hasn't gotten warmer in recent years." The controversy sends confusing and mixed messages to the lay public. Why is there such a vigorous debate over climate change, even though it isn't getting warmer at the moment? And how can it be that scientists cannot even arrive at a consensus on changes in temperatures, even though temperatures are constantly being measured? The global temperature-monitoring network consists of 517 weather stations. But each reading is only a tiny dot on the big world map, and it has to be extrapolated to the entire region with the help of supercomputers. Besides, there are still many blind spots, the largest being the Arctic, where there are only about 20 measuring stations to cover a vast area. Climatologists refer to the problem as the "Arctic hole." The scientists at the Hadley Center simply used the global average value for the hole, ignoring the fact that it has become significantly warmer in the Arctic, says Rahmstorf. But a NASA team from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, which does make the kinds of adjustments for the Arctic data that Rahmstorf believes are necessary, arrives at a flat temperature curve for the last five years that is similar to that of their British colleagues. Marotzke and Leibniz Institute meteorologist Mojib Latif are even convinced that the fuzzy computing done by Rahmstorf is counterproductive. "We have to explain to the public that greenhouse gases will not cause temperatures to keep rising from one record temperature to the next, but that they are still subject to natural fluctuations," says Latif. For this reason, he adds, it is dangerous to cite individual weather-related occurrences, such as a drought in Mali or a hurricane, as proof positive that climate change is already fully underway. "Perhaps we suggested too strongly in the past that the development will continue going up along a simple, straight line. In reality, phases of stagnation or even cooling are completely normal," says Latif. Part 2: The Difficulties of Predicting the Climate Climatologists use their computer models to draw temperature curves that continue well into the future. They predict that the average global temperature will increase by about three degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, unless humanity manages to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, no one really knows what exactly the world climate will look like in the not-so-distant future, that is, in 2015, 2030 or 2050. This is because it is not just human influence but natural factors that affect the Earth's climate. For instance, currents in the world's oceans are subject to certain cycles, as is solar activity. Major volcanic eruptions can also curb rising temperatures in the medium term. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in June 1991, for example, caused world temperatures to drop by an average of 0.5 degrees Celsius, thereby prolonging a cooler climate phase that had begun in the late 1980s. But the Mount Pinatubo eruption happened too long ago to be related to the current slowdown in global warming. So what is behind this more recent phenomenon? Weaker Solar Activity The fact is that the sun is weakening slightly. Its radiation activity is currently at a minimum, as evidenced by the small number of sunspots on its surface. According to calculations performed by a group of NASA scientists led by David Rind, which were recently published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, this reduced solar activity is the most important cause of stagnating global warming. Latif, on the other hand, attributes the stagnation to so-called Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO). This phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean allows a larger volume of cold deep-sea water to rise to the surface at the equator. According to Latif, this has a significant cooling effect on the Earth's atmosphere. With his team at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Latif has been one of the first to develop a model to create medium-term prognoses for the next five to 10 years. "We are slowly starting to attempt (such models)," says Marotzke, who is also launching a major project in this area, funded by the Federal Ministry for Research and Technology. Despite their current findings, scientists agree that temperatures will continue to rise in the long term. The big question is: When will it start getting warmer again? If the deep waters of the Pacific are, in fact, the most important factor holding up global warming, climate change will remain at a standstill until the middle of the next decade, says Latif. But if the cooling trend is the result of reduced solar activity, things could start getting warmer again much sooner. Based on past experience, solar activity will likely increase again in the next few years. Betting on Warmer Temperatures The Hadley Center group expects warming to resume in the coming years. "That resumption could come as a bit of a jolt," says Hadley climatologist Adam Scaife, explaining that natural cyclical warming would then be augmented by the warming effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. While climatologists at conferences engage in passionate debates over when temperatures will start rising again, global warming's next steps have also become the subject of betting activity. Climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf is so convinced that his predictions will be correct in the end that he is willing to back up his conviction with a €2,500 ($3,700) bet. "I will win," says Rahmstorf. His adversary Latif turned down the bet, saying that the matter was too serious for gambling. "We are scientists, not poker players." Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
Post a New Response

(527288)	view threaded
Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead
Posted by Olog-hai* on Sat Nov 21 16:24:00 2009, in response to Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Oct 13 08:02:01 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d You're not good at chemistry, are you? You need controlled conditions to do something like that. The flash point of wood is 572°F (300°C). You can't take organic solvents and turn them into gas by heating unless you remove the oxygen either, due to their flash points.
Post a New Response

(527289)	view threaded
Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead
Posted by Olog-hai* on Sat Nov 21 16:28:16 2009, in response to Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead, posted by JohnL on Tue Oct 13 19:30:26 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Do you know what pyrolysis is? It's a chemical reaction. Chemical reactions and phase changes are not the same thing. You ever hear of sublimation/deposition, besides? There isn't just melting/freezing and boiling/condensing.
Post a New Response

(527290)	view threaded
Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead
Posted by Olog-hai* on Sat Nov 21 16:29:07 2009, in response to Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Oct 13 20:24:28 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d No . . . epic fail. All matter can undergo phase changes. Chemical reactions aren't the same thing.
Post a New Response

(527297)	view threaded
Re: It's official: Global warming is over
Posted by Olog-hai* on Sat Nov 21 16:45:53 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is over, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Oct 13 16:00:39 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Do you stand for something or just fall for anything . . . ?
Post a New Response

(527303)	view threaded
Re: It's official: Global warming is over
Posted by AlM* on Sat Nov 21 17:27:35 2009, in response to It's official: Global warming is over, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 10 19:52:54 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d 100 years of warming, 10 years of up and down that makes for a more or less level trend.
Post a New Response

(529873)	view threaded
Re: It's official: Global warming is over
Posted by Olog-hai* on Fri Nov 27 20:14:42 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is over, posted by AlM on Sat Nov 21 17:27:35 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d What 100 years of warming?
Post a New Response

[1 2]
< Previous Page	Page 2 of 2

[ Return to the Message Index ]