Anyone sick of the 'green'/Global warming stuff yet?
#541
Is English your first language? Because I can only assume it isn't seeing as you have clearly not understood a single word I have said.
I'll say it again.
I have an open mind on the subject. I am not convinced one way or the other.
I am willing to accept that there are people that have devoted thier life to studying this sort of thing that know a lot more than I do.
Which bit of that are you struggling with. I am more than happy to rephrase it into something which maybe a little easier to understand.
Lemme know, 'k?
I'll say it again.
I have an open mind on the subject. I am not convinced one way or the other.
I am willing to accept that there are people that have devoted thier life to studying this sort of thing that know a lot more than I do.
Which bit of that are you struggling with. I am more than happy to rephrase it into something which maybe a little easier to understand.
Lemme know, 'k?
3/10
Your imaginary 'winter heatwave' has clearly addled your brain!
Last edited by Suresh; 01 May 2008 at 03:36 PM.
#542
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#543
Maybe its my poor Inglish , but "will be" indicates a degree of certainty, which I equated to a conviction that it is going to happen (we now know it didn't) and then put you into the MMGW camp. If you had said "could be" or "might be", then I wouldn't have done so.
Making a statement like that doesn't fit the profile of having an open mind really, does it?
From my side I do actually care about the planet. Saw the Gore film and found it convincing. Then found out about the half-truths, spin and downright lies that were used to 'sell his story'. It was not a balanced view of what is known at this point. Being lied to makes me angry, so by way of reaction, I'm not interested in his crusade or the IPCC lies and all the hysteria anymore, as the foundations of the arguments are far from sound (though always possible).
#544
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This why Venus it is so hot in comparison with Mercury (which is a far more interesting comparison given the relative distance from the sun).
#545
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About 3 - 4 billion years ago?? And in 3 - 5 billion years, our Earth will be no more, burnt to vapour! You are comparing geological events, in human timeframes. 150 years, on a scale of 3 - 4 billion!!! Get real!
If Earth reaches concentrations of 95 Co2, it may happen. Problem with that Peter, is that there is a clear record of Co2 at 1500-1800 PMM WITHOUT that feared "runway greenhouse effect".
If Earth reaches concentrations of 95 Co2, it may happen. Problem with that Peter, is that there is a clear record of Co2 at 1500-1800 PMM WITHOUT that feared "runway greenhouse effect".
So at last we agree then, the very reason we starter talking about bloody Venus was because someone (huttond) said that Co2 wasn't even a greenhouse gas, I said it is, and you only have to look at Venus to see it's effects.
I have never said Earth will turn into a 'Venus'....EVER
Your problem prof, is that you see the words greenhouse effect or Global Warming, and you immediately default to trying to disprove it, this time that approach has made you look a bit silly.
Last edited by Martin2005; 01 May 2008 at 08:58 PM.
#546
You have just repeated most of the IPCC unscience, scaremongering and propaganda. Can't you do any research yourself? With regards to climate, climate shouldn't be anything we humans consider as "normal" in only 150 years. To think we can infleuence or change it is rediculous.
I won't prvide a "link" to "back up my post", which is what you are after. I've done my research for me, I am not a "gofer" for someone who appears not to have an ounce of independent thought. But I will indentify one for you. Look up "hockey stick temperature graph". Then look up The Medievil Warm Period, The LIttle Ice Age, The Carboniferous Period...and have agood read there.
Can you guess what industry Al's family made their multimillions? It's ain't about saving the planet BTW.
I won't prvide a "link" to "back up my post", which is what you are after. I've done my research for me, I am not a "gofer" for someone who appears not to have an ounce of independent thought. But I will indentify one for you. Look up "hockey stick temperature graph". Then look up The Medievil Warm Period, The LIttle Ice Age, The Carboniferous Period...and have agood read there.
Can you guess what industry Al's family made their multimillions? It's ain't about saving the planet BTW.
I don't want to discuss any further on this topic because words won't help for this much needed change in GW. All we need is ACTIONS and not additional words, debates, books or celebrities.
#548
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
Klaatu, somehow I have the feeling that you suddenly feel insecure with your knowledge and points. Anyway, what I wanted to tell you is... you can study and study and study some more, maybe for your whole life long. What I suggest to you is to put your learnings aside just for once and go outside and take a look for yourself on how nowadays life works and in what condition our nature is. How we as human beings are dealing with things and what value we are giving our so much needed mother nature. Your scientific numbers and learnings won't save your life or the life of our next generation. It's up to us and each individual to change their habits. I have my mind set to a more natural/green living a long time ago and I didn't need Al Gore or you or anybody else to underline or change it. When I saw Al Gore's movie I was just shocked on how fast things are changing and I saw that not only the Swiss Alps are suffering with melting glaciers and flooded valleys but also other countries and regions around the word. This leads me to strongly believe that what we are dealing with here and now, is not regionally but rather a global phenomenon -> Global Warming.
I don't want to discuss any further on this topic because words won't help for this much needed change in GW. All we need is ACTIONS and not additional words, debates, books or celebrities.
I don't want to discuss any further on this topic because words won't help for this much needed change in GW. All we need is ACTIONS and not additional words, debates, books or celebrities.
I'm not so sure it is, not extreme in my view either way. What can't be said, is that we are without shadow of a doubt causing climate change, or that we're not. Different sides will produce information to support their view, but there is nothing definitive.
If you choose to be more 'green' then fine, but don't force the action on others, until it is proven we are significantly responsible. I'm no expert, but changes in global systems are not new, whether they are influenced by human activity, or at least by how much is still debateable.
#549
#551
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I mean if someone insists that they won't accept that pouring petrol on their arm and setting light to it will cause horrible burns, when they actually do it and say "oh yeah".. it's a bit late in the day.
#552
The point about Venus wasn't whether the is a runaway greenhouse effect going on, it's that there was a runaway greenhouse effect, that's why it so hot and there's so much co2 in the atmosphere, there's little or non left on the planet itself
This why Venus it is so hot in comparison with Mercury (which is a far more interesting comparison given the relative distance from the sun).
This why Venus it is so hot in comparison with Mercury (which is a far more interesting comparison given the relative distance from the sun).
#553
So at last we agree then, the very reason we starter talking about bloody Venus was because someone (huttond) said that Co2 wasn't even a greenhouse gas, I said it is, and you only have to look at Venus to see it's effects.
I have never said Earth will turn into a 'Venus'....EVER
Your problem prof, is that you see the words greenhouse effect or Global Warming, and you immediately default to trying to disprove it, this time that approach has made you look a bit silly.
I have never said Earth will turn into a 'Venus'....EVER
Your problem prof, is that you see the words greenhouse effect or Global Warming, and you immediately default to trying to disprove it, this time that approach has made you look a bit silly.
#554
Klaatu, somehow I have the feeling that you suddenly feel insecure with your knowledge and points. Anyway, what I wanted to tell you is... you can study and study and study some more, maybe for your whole life long. What I suggest to you is to put your learnings aside just for once and go outside and take a look for yourself on how nowadays life works and in what condition our nature is. How we as human beings are dealing with things and what value we are giving our so much needed mother nature. Your scientific numbers and learnings won't save your life or the life of our next generation. It's up to us and each individual to change their habits. I have my mind set to a more natural/green living a long time ago and I didn't need Al Gore or you or anybody else to underline or change it. When I saw Al Gore's movie I was just shocked on how fast things are changing and I saw that not only the Swiss Alps are suffering with melting glaciers and flooded valleys but also other countries and regions around the word. This leads me to strongly believe that what we are dealing with here and now, is not regionally but rather a global phenomenon -> Global Warming.
I don't want to discuss any further on this topic because words won't help for this much needed change in GW. All we need is ACTIONS and not additional words, debates, books or celebrities.
I don't want to discuss any further on this topic because words won't help for this much needed change in GW. All we need is ACTIONS and not additional words, debates, books or celebrities.
We're talking about how Co2 relased by humans (At about 450pmm today) is the cause of "rapid and dangerous global climate change". Some of the points, about how humans live in the modern age, should be given a separate thread. I agree with you, the modern consumerisum world is not sustainable. Every time I go to the supermarket, or just to see how modern life is heading, it depresses me to see so much of our resources being wasted. A paradigm shift in attitudes is required. But Co2 is the cause of rapid climate change, and only the Co2 from humans, and primarilly only Co2 from fossil fuels, particularly cars. C'mon, who's fooling who?
The problem is with your natural/reen living is that it's not sustainable either due to the sheer expanses of land required. I'd love a plot of land to grow veggies, raise a few beasts...don't see that happening in my rented apartment complex somehow. Or there needs to be a population cull...and if you look about the world today, the pieces are being moved into place for Govn't to achieve this.
Are you suggesting I change my ways, like conserving reasources, water, power, reduce waste, use public transport etc? I already do and have done for many decades. So how much effect do you think these "one day events" (Earth Hour etc) that seem so popular these days will actually have?
Al Gores mocumentary was designed to shock, that was the point. I started to watch it. I asked my self, what has his political career and the death of his son got to do with GW? To stir emotion? And then the hockey stick graph was shown...I turned it off a that point. Believe all you like, but please, research facts, not spin Al "I invented the internet" Gore like.
Al Gore's wealth was derived, primarilly, from oil. He now has a UK based company trading carbon credits. The synic in me suggest he has a vested interest somewhere there.
If you believe media outlets, news, cinema, documentaries of the Al Gore type etc, then you have been fooled. The truth is out there (Just most of it isn't on the net).
Live long and prosper, get ready for the next little ice age.
Last edited by Klaatu; 02 May 2008 at 04:43 AM.
#556
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#558
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: a more anarchic place
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#559
Still, at 450ppm, no "rapid and dagerous" warming, and even at 1500-1800pmm, no "rapid and dagerous" warming.
My olds live in a village, in Hampshire. They live on one of the hills. When I lived there there were fields in the valley between us and the major highway on a opposite hill. Every winter, the fields in the valey flooded, and snow drifts filled the lows. Now there is a small "development" on what was once fields (Which regularly flooded every winter with heavy rain), now we have "flood damage due to climate change" whereby a few houses get flooded (In a flood plain FFS).
A carbon tax on fuel will sort that out! Yeah right!
#560
Les
#561
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: a more anarchic place
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You asked about a change in atmospheric pressure in post #555.
Boyle's law does not apply exactly as the atmosphere is not a closed system, but gravity means that it's a partially closed system so the principle of increasing pressure causing an increase in temperature applies, just with a smaller temperature increase.
Boyle's law does not apply exactly as the atmosphere is not a closed system, but gravity means that it's a partially closed system so the principle of increasing pressure causing an increase in temperature applies, just with a smaller temperature increase.
#562
You asked about a change in atmospheric pressure in post #555.
Boyle's law does not apply exactly as the atmosphere is not a closed system, but gravity means that it's a partially closed system so the principle of increasing pressure causing an increase in temperature applies, just with a smaller temperature increase.
Boyle's law does not apply exactly as the atmosphere is not a closed system, but gravity means that it's a partially closed system so the principle of increasing pressure causing an increase in temperature applies, just with a smaller temperature increase.
Les
#563
You asked about a change in atmospheric pressure in post #555.
Boyle's law does not apply exactly as the atmosphere is not a closed system, but gravity means that it's a partially closed system so the principle of increasing pressure causing an increase in temperature applies, just with a smaller temperature increase.
Boyle's law does not apply exactly as the atmosphere is not a closed system, but gravity means that it's a partially closed system so the principle of increasing pressure causing an increase in temperature applies, just with a smaller temperature increase.
Last edited by Klaatu; 06 May 2008 at 01:02 PM.
#565
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ah! Back from the dead ...... excellent!
Go take a look at American Thinker: The Climate Alarmist Manifesto
Refers a lot to US bills and situation but don't forget that one gov. minister has suggested *personal* carbon quotas for Brits.
Last paragraph sort of sums it up ... " ... In his book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, Vaclav Klaus wrote:
"The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.''
With all due respect to the wise Czech President, they are indeed one in the same ... ".
Dave
Go take a look at American Thinker: The Climate Alarmist Manifesto
Refers a lot to US bills and situation but don't forget that one gov. minister has suggested *personal* carbon quotas for Brits.
Last paragraph sort of sums it up ... " ... In his book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, Vaclav Klaus wrote:
"The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.''
With all due respect to the wise Czech President, they are indeed one in the same ... ".
Dave
Last edited by hutton_d; 14 June 2008 at 08:12 PM. Reason: carbon for climate .....
#567
Wonder when the warmalists will bang on about "global climate cooling change warming by the very same gas...d'oh!" and the recent floods in the US mid-west (Flood plains and improperly made/maintained man-made levees don't work).
Last edited by Klaatu; 19 June 2008 at 04:20 AM.
#568
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh look - Data @ NASA GISS: GISTEMP -- Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature
Just what I've been arguing on here many times. How the H3ll do you measure *average* temperature! From this link those unqualified NASA folks say you can't ......
"GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT)
Q. What exactly do we mean by SAT ?
A. I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10 ft or 50 ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest), the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50 ft of air either above ground or above the top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted. Even if the 50 ft standard were adopted, I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50 ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location.
Q. What do we mean by daily mean SAT ?
A. Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the temperature every 6 hours and report the mean, should we do it every 2 hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the highest and lowest temperature of the day ? On some days the various methods may lead to drastically different results.
Q. What SAT do the local media report ?
A. The media report the reading of 1 particular thermometer of a nearby weather station. This temperature may be very different from the true SAT even at that location and has certainly nothing to do with the true regional SAT. To measure the true regional SAT, we would have to use many 50 ft stacks of thermometers distributed evenly over the whole region, an obvious practical impossibility.
Q. If the reported SATs are not the true SATs, why are they still useful ?
A. The reported temperature is truly meaningful only to a person who happens to visit the weather station at the precise moment when the reported temperature is measured, in other words, to nobody. However, in addition to the SAT the reports usually also mention whether the current temperature is unusually high or unusually low, how much it differs from the normal temperature, and that information (the anomaly) is meaningful for the whole region. Also, if we hear a temperature (say 70F), we instinctively translate it into hot or cold, but our translation key depends on the season and region, the same temperature may be 'hot' in winter and 'cold' in July, since by 'hot' we always mean 'hotter than normal', i.e. we all translate absolute temperatures automatically into anomalies whether we are aware of it or not.
Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?
A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a 'climatology') hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year.
Q. What do I do if I need absolute SATs, not anomalies ?
A. In 99.9% of the cases you'll find that anomalies are exactly what you need, not absolute temperatures. In the remaining cases, you have to pick one of the available climatologies and add the anomalies (with respect to the proper base period) to it. For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14 Celsius, i.e. 57.2 F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58 F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse".
Enjoy!
Dave
Just what I've been arguing on here many times. How the H3ll do you measure *average* temperature! From this link those unqualified NASA folks say you can't ......
"GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT)
Q. What exactly do we mean by SAT ?
A. I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10 ft or 50 ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest), the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50 ft of air either above ground or above the top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted. Even if the 50 ft standard were adopted, I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50 ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location.
Q. What do we mean by daily mean SAT ?
A. Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the temperature every 6 hours and report the mean, should we do it every 2 hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the highest and lowest temperature of the day ? On some days the various methods may lead to drastically different results.
Q. What SAT do the local media report ?
A. The media report the reading of 1 particular thermometer of a nearby weather station. This temperature may be very different from the true SAT even at that location and has certainly nothing to do with the true regional SAT. To measure the true regional SAT, we would have to use many 50 ft stacks of thermometers distributed evenly over the whole region, an obvious practical impossibility.
Q. If the reported SATs are not the true SATs, why are they still useful ?
A. The reported temperature is truly meaningful only to a person who happens to visit the weather station at the precise moment when the reported temperature is measured, in other words, to nobody. However, in addition to the SAT the reports usually also mention whether the current temperature is unusually high or unusually low, how much it differs from the normal temperature, and that information (the anomaly) is meaningful for the whole region. Also, if we hear a temperature (say 70F), we instinctively translate it into hot or cold, but our translation key depends on the season and region, the same temperature may be 'hot' in winter and 'cold' in July, since by 'hot' we always mean 'hotter than normal', i.e. we all translate absolute temperatures automatically into anomalies whether we are aware of it or not.
Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?
A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a 'climatology') hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year.
Q. What do I do if I need absolute SATs, not anomalies ?
A. In 99.9% of the cases you'll find that anomalies are exactly what you need, not absolute temperatures. In the remaining cases, you have to pick one of the available climatologies and add the anomalies (with respect to the proper base period) to it. For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14 Celsius, i.e. 57.2 F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58 F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse".
Enjoy!
Dave
#569
Woohoo, it's heating up ! The debate that is:
Veteran climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' | The Register
Have a look at some of the comments on that article...
Veteran climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' | The Register
Have a look at some of the comments on that article...
#570
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ah yes, old Hansen. Go read The Reference Frame: James Hansen: 20 years later
Interesting graph at Picasa Web Albums - lumo - The Reference...
Dave
Interesting graph at Picasa Web Albums - lumo - The Reference...
Dave