Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
AA999 said:
Is there the evidence yet that an increase of global temp (say 'x' degrees) equates to an increase of 'y' number of violent storms across the world?
Or is this violent storm scaremongering more about the fact that more storms are being video'd by mobile phones and the like?
In fact the opposite is what you would expect. Global warming was never due to be the same all over - the poles were expected to warm more than the equator (which has happened but not CO2 linked) . This reduces the thermal gradient - reducing the frequency and intensity of storms. Global cooling on the other hand increases this gradient causing an increase in storms and their intensity. By claiming global warming is causing an increase in storms and their intensity they are actually claiming the consequences of global cooling!Or is this violent storm scaremongering more about the fact that more storms are being video'd by mobile phones and the like?
This is evidence that the "climate experts" are not ignorant but duplicitous - they know/suspect global cooling is coming and therefore are warping the science so they can continue on the gravy train. There is no scientific link between CO2 emissions and storms. At all. It is a lie.
Edited by Jinx on Wednesday 24th September 10:00
Jinx said:
In fact the opposite is what you would expect. Global warming was never due to be the same all over - the poles were expected to warm more than the equator (which has happened but not CO2 linked) . This reduces the thermal gradient - reducing the frequency and intensity of storms. Global cooling on the other hand increases this gradient causing an increase in storms and their intensity. By claiming global warming is causing an increase in storms and their intensity they are actually claiming the consequences of global cooling!
This is evidence that the "climate experts" are not ignorant but duplicitous - they know/suspect global cooling is coming and therefore are warping the science so they can continue on the gravy train. There is no scientific link between CO2 emissions and storms. At all. It is a lie.
I don't think it's as simple as the above though. For example, increased atmospheric temperatures increase the ability of the atmosphere to hold moisture, so where warm, moisture laden air mass meets colder air you'd tend to get increased rainfall intensity etc.This is evidence that the "climate experts" are not ignorant but duplicitous - they know/suspect global cooling is coming and therefore are warping the science so they can continue on the gravy train. There is no scientific link between CO2 emissions and storms. At all. It is a lie.
Edited by Jinx on Wednesday 24th September 10:00
As for the "no scientific link between CO2 emissions and storms" a quick search using google scholar suggests that there are an awful lot of liars about.
Lotus 50 said:
I don't think it's as simple as the above though. For example, increased atmospheric temperatures increase the ability of the atmosphere to hold moisture, so where warm, moisture laden air mass meets colder air you'd tend to get increased rainfall intensity etc.
As for the "no scientific link between CO2 emissions and storms" a quick search using google scholar suggests that there are an awful lot of liars about.
How humid are the tropics? How much more humid do you think they can get? And yes there are a lot of liars about. As for the "no scientific link between CO2 emissions and storms" a quick search using google scholar suggests that there are an awful lot of liars about.
Jinx said:
How humid are the tropics? How much more humid do you think they can get? And yes there are a lot of liars about.
Who said anything about the tropics? There are plenty of other places with lower humidity where increases in atmospheric temperature could increase the ability of air masses to carry moisture. Similarly the potential decreases in temperature differentials that you referred to in your earlier post could lead to those air masses moving away from their more usual tracks.Lotus 50 said:
As for the "no scientific link between CO2 emissions and storms" a quick search using google scholar suggests that there are an awful lot of liars about.
I just searched "scientific link between CO2 emissions and storms" and read the first page (10 links). I couldn't see any scientific evidence, just generalizations and assertions. If you found a link which gives a genuine scientific proof of the connection (i.e. correlation plus demonstrable mechanism), please post it here?Well, the first paper that comes up when looking for "impacts of climate change on weather" references produced since 2014 gives a measured link between increased temp and increased precip in Northern Europe and decreased precip in Southern... rummaging back to earlier publications there's this amongst others:
http://www.geology.iastate.edu/gccourse/history/tr...
and for the link between CO2 and temp how about: http://www.geology.iastate.edu/gccourse/history/tr... ?
http://www.geology.iastate.edu/gccourse/history/tr...
Edited by Lotus 50 on Saturday 27th September 14:40
and for the link between CO2 and temp how about: http://www.geology.iastate.edu/gccourse/history/tr... ?
Edited by Lotus 50 on Saturday 27th September 14:44
My first thought is that "impacts of climate change on weather" have been happening for millions of years before humans were here, and will continue for millions of years after humans have gone, and was not what you originally suggested.
Anyway, since you took the time to reply, I will have a read, thanks.
Anyway, since you took the time to reply, I will have a read, thanks.
deeen said:
My first thought is that "impacts of climate change on weather" have been happening for millions of years before humans were here, and will continue for millions of years after humans have gone, and was not what you originally suggested.
Anyway, since you took the time to reply, I will have a read, thanks.
...and thanks back.Anyway, since you took the time to reply, I will have a read, thanks.
oops, posted the same thing twice above, here's another paper: http://www.agci.org/docs/2068.pdf
Edited by Lotus 50 on Sunday 28th September 11:29
Lotus 50 said:
and for the link between CO2 and temp how about: http://www.geology.iastate.edu/gccourse/history/tr... ?
A paper from 1998. Just about the same time that global temperatures stopped rising.Lotus 50 said:
Who said anything about the tropics? There are plenty of other places with lower humidity where increases in atmospheric temperature could increase the ability of air masses to carry moisture. Similarly the potential decreases in temperature differentials that you referred to in your earlier post could lead to those air masses moving away from their more usual tracks.
OK work with me here a minute. We are talking about global climate. Whilst your assertion there are other area's that may have an atmosphere that will "carry more moisture" locally this will be offset by the overall reduction in the temperature differential. Think of it this way the poles are increasing in temperature faster than the tropics - the tropics 100% moisture will slowly expand in total area therefore perhaps bringing storms to areas that previously were without major storms (weather) but over the entire world the storm frequency and intensity will drop given that "total moisture" is not the driver of storms. Don't confuse weather with climate.
Oh where, oh where, has my global heat gone, oh where can it be. hiding in the oceans? It seems it, not for all to see.
(I am no poet clearly)
Lack of ocean heat puzzles Nasa
(I am no poet clearly)
Lack of ocean heat puzzles Nasa
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Tuesday 7th October 09:15
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Oh where, oh where, has my global heat gone, oh where can it be. hiding in the oceans? It may not be.
Lack of ocean heat puzzles Nasa
It's the lack of ocean heat at deep levels that is puzzling them. Near the surface it is rising apparently. You cherry picked a bit there.Lack of ocean heat puzzles Nasa
Quote:
The findings present a new puzzle to scientists, but co-author Josh Willis of Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) said the reality of climate change is not being thrown into doubt.
"The sea level is still rising," said Willis.
Here's another spin on it:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/o...
It's never as simple as the headline makes out.
KareemK said:
Interesting graphic.
Is it true?
No - look at the source. Is it true?
Skeptical Science is neither science nor sceptical. It is a website created and maintained by a (poor) cartoonist who has been bitten by CAGW bug.
What is important is neither graphic correlates with CO2 emissions.
KareemK said:
It's the lack of ocean heat at deep levels that is puzzling them. Near the surface it is rising apparently. You cherry picked a bit there.
But a matter of weeks ago all the press releases seemed to be stating that the "missing heat" was waiting to be discovered somewhere in the ocean deeps.You are right about headlines.
Jinx said:
No - look at the source.
Skeptical Science is neither science nor sceptical. It is a website created and maintained by a (poor) cartoonist who has been bitten by CAGW bug.
What is important is neither graphic correlates with CO2 emissions.
Have another:Skeptical Science is neither science nor sceptical. It is a website created and maintained by a (poor) cartoonist who has been bitten by CAGW bug.
What is important is neither graphic correlates with CO2 emissions.
The two (CO2 and temp) are not mutually exclusive (nor do the graphs proclaim to display this information). Out of interest, are you able to explain what causes 'climate change' as we now experience it? Is it the sun? Some cyclical system? CO2 from the oceans? An energy imbalance somewhere in the system? Or do you deny that the CO2 that we have emitted into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is having no affect on our climate whatsoever?
Also, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this too:
Associated Press said:
In 2008, in a blind test, AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented.
Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880
Source: http://www.feltd.com/fox/archives/AP%20IMPACT_Stat...Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880
dub16v said:
Have another:
The two (CO2 and temp) are not mutually exclusive (nor do the graphs proclaim to display this information). Out of interest, are you able to explain what causes 'climate change' as we now experience it? Is it the sun? Some cyclical system? CO2 from the oceans? An energy imbalance somewhere in the system? Or do you deny that the CO2 that we have emitted into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is having no affect on our climate whatsoever?
Also, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this too:
Associated Press said:
In 2008, in a blind test, AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented.
Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880
Source: http://www.feltd.com/fox/archives/AP%20IMPACT_Stat...Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880
Before you go all "denier" on me given the current flat lining of temperatures that even the IPCC cannot explain - can you explain why CO2 increases are not being reflected in the surface temperature records?
Of course I don't even know why anyone would ever expect the surface temperature (daily min and max) to increase with a slight variance in total atmospheric IR absorption given the energy exchange is dominated by convection and evaporation at that altitude. If you haven't determined the entire entropy of the system how can you know the effect of varying the energy input/output?
I sense an attrition loop forming but given in the temperature record CO2 always follows temperature increases (out gassing from oceans) - isn't it for the CAGW camp to show why this natural variance isn't applicable?
Jinx said:
(with a large amount of UHI for good measure) .
Yes. i was at an RAF base recently and while stood outside the building where the confernce was being held i noticed a building with 'MET Office' written on it, i then saw, what looked like a very good weather station sat out between the main runway and taxi way. While looking at the weather station i couldn't help but notice a Tornado take off with it's afterburners booming, quite a site, must have been within 50 feet of the weather station. Then i couldn't help but notice another, much larger plane about the size of a Boeing 777 having maintanance where it's engines were near full power for quite a few minutes, though this was a good 100 metres from the weather station.With all the activity of the RAF and quite a fair amount of tarmac surrounding the weather station, i couldn't help but wonder how much the temperature records have been skewed?
I wasn't allowed to take a photo, the RAF are quite strict about that, so a good place to put a weather station.
kingofdbrits said:
Jinx said:
(with a large amount of UHI for good measure) .
Yes. i was at an RAF base recently and while stood outside the building where the confernce was being held i noticed a building with 'MET Office' written on it, i then saw, what looked like a very good weather station sat out between the main runway and taxi way. While looking at the weather station i couldn't help but notice a Tornado take off with it's afterburners booming, quite a site, must have been within 50 feet of the weather station. Then i couldn't help but notice another, much larger plane about the size of a Boeing 777 having maintanance where it's engines were near full power for quite a few minutes, though this was a good 100 metres from the weather station.With all the activity of the RAF and quite a fair amount of tarmac surrounding the weather station, i couldn't help but wonder how much the temperature records have been skewed?
I wasn't allowed to take a photo, the RAF are quite strict about that, so a good place to put a weather station.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff