New York State suffers 6 feet and counting of global warming

[Crush]

V88Dicky said:

Lost soul said:

durbster said:

As a percentage of my bodyweight, 2mg is a tiny, irrelevant amount... unless it's 2mg of cyanide.

Nasty stuff this CO2.

Maybe we could remove it from the atmosphere altogether?

It's Milliband! We found him!

[durbster]

V88Dicky said:

Lost soul said:

durbster said:

As a percentage of my bodyweight, 2mg is a tiny, irrelevant amount... unless it's 2mg of cyanide.

Nasty stuff this CO2.

Maybe we could remove it from the atmosphere altogether?

Hm. If you think I was equating CO2 to cyanide then you completely missed my point.

I should have known better and clarified I suppose, but gave people a bit more credit than that.

[plunker]

Jinx said:

plunker said:

280ppm (pre-industrial) to 400ppm (current) = 43% increase, or a third of the current levels.

How much is from the outgassing of the oceans due to all the natural warming

A few extra ppm from ocean warming is likely I believe.

Jinx said:

c'mon plunks aren't you just a little bit concerned that the earth isn't doing anything the CAGW high priests predicted?

Sure, I'm concerned both ways (is and isn't) - how about you?

[voyds9]

plunker said:

280ppm (pre-industrial) to 400ppm (current) = 43% increase, or a third of the current levels.

Ordovician period CO2 4400ppm to current 400ppm = industrialisation causes >90% drop in CO2

[Jinx]

plunker said:

Sure, I'm concerned both ways (is and isn't) - how about you?

As I've mentioned in the science thread I'm very concerned over the reframing of AR5 as somehow we are more confident in our understanding of climate (when the document itself hints at the opposite). I am concerned that China promising to increase CO2 for the next 15 years (last year they increased CO2 output from the previous years level by 2 whole Australias) is lauded by the CAGW faithful as a win! (logic and mathematics is obviously not a strong point).
I am concerned the UK has mere 2% margin on power generation due to poor energy policy (in some part caused by Ed Milliband's climate change act). A cold winter could kill a lot of vulnerable people this year.
And I am concerned that mother nature (as is usually her want) is going to hit us with some very cold weather for at least the next 15 years - based on solar cycle data - that if the Antarctic extent reaches past a certain point so the earth's albedo starts the ice age spiral then we are all in very big trouble. 2 degrees of warming is a benefit - 2 degrees of cooling (from here) is a disaster.

[dickymint]

gavsdavs said:

dickymint said:

Try this then...............



I'll leave you to do the math - Clue....it's very very small

Go buy some pistons that are 3.4% larger than they should be. See how that works for ya.

Saying its small is totally irrelevant if you don't know what tolerances you can work in.

Tolerances I think you'll find that our planet can cope very well with much much more (or less) CO2 fluctuations than us mere mortals can possibly pump out or indeed reduce!

CO2 is a very minor "greenhouse" gas and our contribution to it has little significance.

PS. I have a sound background in calibration and know a thing or two about tolerance

[Terminator X]

Breadvan72 said:

What I love most about the debate is the idea that we are being saved from Government lies and thousands of evil scientists who care only for research grants by a plucky, ragtag band of ... enormous oil companies and their hired PR guys.

You don't think that CO2 tax is a good incentive? IPCC are crooks, pure and simple.

TX.

[Terminator X]

CamMoreRon said:

This.

Only quoted to add that it is not my life's work, or even my area of expertise, to study AGW. I don't think any CC deniers on PH fall in this area either. Since PH'ers of either side will never have the knowledge required to make an absolute decision, true scepticism is required. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to sit on the side of the majority of scientific opinion, rather than against it.

Hook, line, sinker! Nobody is denying climate change FFS as it has been changing for millions if not billions of years

TX.

[jet_noise]

Dear d,

durbster said:

Jasandjules said:

No, you see, before.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls...

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

So?

One scientist gets one thing wrong and it means that entire field of science should be disregarded?

Is it so hard to believe that sometimes, scientists get things wrong. That's how science works. It gets it wrong then looks again until it gets it right.

Climate science is still new so is probably going to be wrong a lot of the time but that doesn't mean it's completely wrong all of the time. So far, the basic theory of AGW is still regarded to be correct by the majority of people who study it and the majority of scientific publications and establishments.

It's mainly just on Pistonheads that people know better

"One scientist gets one thing wrong" Here's a few more
How many wrongs do you need before you start to question the conjecture? And that's a deliberate word choice
Personally my assessment of the information available is that CO2 is a "greenhouse" (imprecise colloquial term) gas but its effect is tiny compared to all the others. It will absolutely not cause thermal meltdown of the earth and any contribution by man will actually benefit us - increased crop yield.

Drive a V8 - feed the earth

regards,
Jet

[dickymint]

jet_noise said:

Dear d,

durbster said:

Jasandjules said:

No, you see, before.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls...

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

So?

One scientist gets one thing wrong and it means that entire field of science should be disregarded?

Is it so hard to believe that sometimes, scientists get things wrong. That's how science works. It gets it wrong then looks again until it gets it right.

Climate science is still new so is probably going to be wrong a lot of the time but that doesn't mean it's completely wrong all of the time. So far, the basic theory of AGW is still regarded to be correct by the majority of people who study it and the majority of scientific publications and establishments.

It's mainly just on Pistonheads that people know better

"One scientist gets one thing wrong" Here's a few more
How many wrongs do you need before you start to question the conjecture? And that's a deliberate word choice
Personally my assessment of the information available is that CO2 is a "greenhouse" (imprecise colloquial term) gas but its effect is tiny compared to all the others. It will absolutely not cause thermal meltdown of the earth and any contribution by man will actually benefit us - increased crop yield.

Drive a V8 - feed the earth

regards,
Jet

Remember all those gardening programmes urging us to conserve water and best to plant Cacti and succulent plants because of man made global wombling? Well there's a few naive gardeners in my street that shelled out small fortunes (there was no subsidy for that )and have ended up with what looks like a Moonscape

[jet_noise]

graphene said:

I came only for the buffet. This debate has nibbles - right?

[dickymint]

[turbobloke]

graphene said:

Crush said:

Breadvan72 said:

What I love most about the debate is the idea that we are being saved from Government lies and thousands of evil scientists who care only for research grants by a plucky, ragtag band of ... enormous oil companies and their hired PR guys.

My favourite part of the debate is the scientists, campaigners and politicians flying around the world in private jets to various meetings telling us to reduce our carbon dioxide production in order to save the planet

I came only for the buffet. This debate has nibbles - right?

Quantity and quality requirements are met - there's another cat out of the bag on that score courtesy of a delegate to a previous climate beanfeast. IIRC it was the same COP that the planet saving socialist Michael-8-Homes-Meacher attended.



As for the nonsense knee-jerk referring to Big Oil and money flow, the UK Green Blob accounts for over £1trillion, the EU proposes spending 7 trillion euros fighting a non-existent problem.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/p...

Fortunately people have more sense including on a smaller scale across the pond, and recent attempts by gullible (or profiting, take your pick) green billionaires and green zealot groups to influence election outcomes using their money failed at the first fence. Oh dear how sad never mind.

Article by Laura Barron-Lopez on USA midterms said:

Environmental groups are on track to spend more than $85 million on key races this year, more than ever before, according to an internal memo. The record spending comes as green groups are worried about the fate of the Senate and the future of President Obama’s climate agenda. “The era of climate science denial will soon come to a close, and voters will demand leadership from their elected officials on this pressing threat,” the document states. Whatever the outcome [of the elections] on November 4th, all of the momentum is on the side of climate groups and candidates who want to act.

Washinton Times on 29 October this year said:

San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer has spent a staggering $76 million to promote climate change as a political issue in this year’s elections, but the subject isn’t exactly firing up the electorate. Polls show voters continue to rank climate change at the bottom of their priority lists. Even in races featuring the “Steyer Seven,” the Democratic candidates selected by Mr. Steyer as the chief beneficiaries of his largesse, the issue is barely registering on the campaign trail.

That worked well, bottom of voters' frozen snowy list. Money well spent squandered

The game was up well before this peachy remark on the real reason politicians peddle myths and prop up junkscience.

UN IPCC Official Ottmar Edenhofer said:

But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore

Now awaiting the usual dreck from the usual suspects who missed the ironic mention of 'global warming' in the thread title

[BillPeart]

Jinx said:

plunker said:

Sure, I'm concerned both ways (is and isn't) - how about you?

As I've mentioned in the science thread I'm very concerned over the reframing of AR5 as somehow we are more confident in our understanding of climate (when the document itself hints at the opposite). I am concerned that China promising to increase CO2 for the next 15 years (last year they increased CO2 output from the previous years level by 2 whole Australias) is lauded by the CAGW faithful as a win! (logic and mathematics is obviously not a strong point).
I am concerned the UK has mere 2% margin on power generation due to poor energy policy (in some part caused by Ed Milliband's climate change act). A cold winter could kill a lot of vulnerable people this year.
And I am concerned that mother nature (as is usually her want) is going to hit us with some very cold weather for at least the next 15 years - based on solar cycle data - that if the Antarctic extent reaches past a certain point so the earth's albedo starts the ice age spiral then we are all in very big trouble. 2 degrees of warming is a benefit - 2 degrees of cooling (from here) is a disaster.

Exactly so. But try telling the lunatics who run this asylum that.

[Gandahar]

rhinochopig said:

dickymint said:

Mr Gearchange said:

But the general PH view that all climate change is bks is absolute rank idiocy.

Think you're the one talking bks - show me anybody on here that believes that the climate is not changing!!

I think his point is that the PH view is that there is little anthropogenic influence on climate change.

Indeed, PH is a forum for petrol heads who have a slight bias to not being forced to drive a Prius to save the planet. So PH tends to be a bit biased. When you get most posts on the "debate" from people called TURBO or BLOKE or such then you know the debate is going to be influenced by the heady smell of racing octane fuel. Which is no bad thing. But quantity of posts never made anything true.

So either viewpoint on here is a bit pointless, people have it as a "hobby". It allows people on here to think they are right due to positive feedback from like minded petrol heads.

I know it's radical but when the final answer on global warming is found I doubt Pistonheads will be widely quoted

Edited by Gandahar on Friday 21st November 19:35

[Jasandjules]

Gandahar said:

I know it's radical but when the final answer on global warming is found I doubt Pistonheads will be widely quoted

Let's ignore the "answer" for a second, and concentrate on the question. WHERE is this "Global Warming" of which you speak.. Even when they try to fudge the data, it is still colder.

[turbobloke]

Gandahar said:

I know it's radical but when the final answer on global warming is found I doubt Pistonheads will be widely quoted

Such a comment is specious and facile. It's a waste of decent PH pixels to attempt such an empty smear. The data is what matters, if the position adopted by anyone is in line with that then fine - other positions will inevitably reflect ignorance, foolishness and bias in any combinaiton. Manmadeup warming and ridiculous claims around increasingly extreme weather which is not happening and meant to be due to global warming that's not been happening for 19 years (McKitrick analysis) is inconsistent with the data.

Scientists have interests outside science, some may be on a knitting forum somewhere and I'd put a shilling on the side that a knitting forum won't get a mention either. The above post as a failed group insult struggles to achieve irrelevance and insignificance.

[Engineer1]

Jasandjules said:

Gandahar said:

I know it's radical but when the final answer on global warming is found I doubt Pistonheads will be widely quoted

Let's ignore the "answer" for a second, and concentrate on the question. WHERE is this "Global Warming" of which you speak.. Even when they try to fudge the data, it is still colder.

Where is it colder? Equally one part of climate change is that things like the gulf stream and the jet streams could get permanently disrupted, meaning some areas get warmer and some much colder, but hey ho big science has much more to loose than big oil...

[sherbertdip]

Jasandjules said:

Let's ignore the "answer" for a second, and concentrate on the question. WHERE is this "Global Warming" of which you speak.. Even when they try to fudge the data, it is still colder.

I have no idea who "they" are to which you refer and I would like to see the data that says "it is still colder" than what i've no idea?

As for "Global Warming" proof why not do all or even one of the following:

Ask the Polar Bears that are year on year having to wait longer for the Arctic Ocean to freeze before they go and eat seals after starving for many months.

Or look at the massive reduction in thickness and extent of the Antartic Ice Sheets.

Or go and explore the barren rocky valleys in every area where glaciers used to be.

Sitting here in the UK with our changeable weather will not give you a clue as to what the effects of global warming (not climate change) caused by man over the past 200 years has done - stop being an ignoramus, read about real changes, then step back and think!!!!

Edited by sherbertdip on Saturday 22 November 19:17

[dickymint]

sherbertdip said:

Jasandjules said:

Let's ignore the "answer" for a second, and concentrate on the question. WHERE is this "Global Warming" of which you speak.. Even when they try to fudge the data, it is still colder.

I have no idea who "they" are to which you refer and I would like to see the data that says "it is still colder" than what i've no idea?

As for "Lobal Warming" proof why not do all or even one of the following:

Ask the Polar Bears that are year on year having to wait longer for the Arctic Ocean to freeze before they go and eat seals after starving for many months.

Or look at the massive reduction in thickness and extent of the Antartic Ice Sheets.

Or go and explore the barren rocky valleys in every area where glaciers used to be.

Sitting here in the UK with our changeable weather will not give you a clue as to what the effects of global warming (not climate change) caused by man over the past 200 years has done - stop being an ignoramus, read about real changes, then step back and think!!!!

Where to start? have a