Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[turbobloke]

April 2015 looks to have the same average lower troposphere temperature as April 1980 within the scientific margin known as a gnat's nadger. It may be a tad lower. 35 years, how cool is that.

The corresponding atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are 340ppmv in 1980 and 400ppmv in 2015. It's clearly time for politicians to act decisively.

By repealing the CCA.

[mybrainhurts]

400ppm was supposed to be Armageddon time.

The only thing that melted was the father of the CCA, Ed Miliband.

Which was nice....

[AreOut]

so here we go, climate change is actually responsible for Boko Haram and ISIS while "adjusted" historic temperature data will show that it's responsible for nazi Germany too...

http://therightscoop.com/outlandish-obama-says-the...

[wc98]

mybrainhurts said:

400ppm was supposed to be Armageddon time.

The only thing that melted was the father of the CCA, Ed Miliband.

Which was nice....

i remember some bloke called ed davey was quite keen on that ,way back in the day

[Otispunkmeyer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3283...

Should I be saying goodbye, nice knowing you all as per the person who posted this on my page?

Full paper http://m.sciencemag.org/content/348/6237/899

Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Friday 22 May 07:27

[dickymint]

Earthquake in Kent.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32840579

How long will it take to hear "we will have to get used to them"?

[rovermorris999]

Otispunkmeyer said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3283...

Should I be saying goodbye, nice knowing you all as per the person who posted this on my page?

As usual, plenty of 'might', 'probably' and 'may' in there. And this: 'At issue will be the models that describe snow conditions on the ice. The top snow is much less dense than the underlying ice, and if the elevation changes observed by the satellites are attributed to the wrong fraction then the calculation of any mass loss will go awry.' But they're convinced they're right of course.

[turbobloke]

Purely for entertainment value, though there may be some utility if an explorer is worried about whether there'll be anything to stick their pole in, here are weather forecasts for the South Pole and North Pole.





Air temperature doesn't quite cut it or melt it. Ocean circulation may be a suspect, so no dropping iced lollipops at the beach this summer or a penguin gets it.

Mean global temperature measured using sensors near aircon outlets, airport tarmac, car parks and trash burners is irrelevant.

Relax, flagpolers.

[PRTVR]

rovermorris999 said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3283...

Should I be saying goodbye, nice knowing you all as per the person who posted this on my page?

As usual, plenty of 'might', 'probably' and 'may' in there. And this: 'At issue will be the models that describe snow conditions on the ice. The top snow is much less dense than the underlying ice, and if the elevation changes observed by the satellites are attributed to the wrong fraction then the calculation of any mass loss will go awry.' But they're convinced they're right of course.

I think part of of the problem is they are looking for problems, the mind set is climate change is a problem, anything they find is linked to this perceived problem, they now have data from many different sources that were not available before, large ice break away are now witnessed in realtime, these events happened in the past but were not monitored... Maybe perhaps possibly we are all doomed.

[Pan Pan Pan]

PRTVR said:

rovermorris999 said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3283...

Should I be saying goodbye, nice knowing you all as per the person who posted this on my page?

As usual, plenty of 'might', 'probably' and 'may' in there. And this: 'At issue will be the models that describe snow conditions on the ice. The top snow is much less dense than the underlying ice, and if the elevation changes observed by the satellites are attributed to the wrong fraction then the calculation of any mass loss will go awry.' But they're convinced they're right of course.

I think part of of the problem is they are looking for problems, the mind set is climate change is a problem, anything they find is linked to this perceived problem, they now have data from many different sources that were not available before, large ice break away are now witnessed in realtime, these events happened in the past but were not monitored... Maybe perhaps possibly we are all doomed.

As Darwin concluded, it is not necessarily the strong who survive, nor even the smartest, but more often those who can adapt to changes in condition (which they cannot control) the easiest.
The ecomentalists are barking up the wrong tree in trying to create the myth that we can `control' the climate.
Their time would be better spent determining what changes in the environment we are likely to encounter, and seeing how we can use those changes to advantage. for example some areas of the planet are currently almost useless for living in, or growing crops, which owing to changes in the climate (which have occurred continuously since the planets formation 4.6 billion years ago) might become viable.
As pointed out before if they really believe we can control the climate, please could they point me to the climate controller, as I would like to paint my shed on Saturday, and a nice dry day would be perfect, Oh and if possible on Sunday too, as I might want to go the beach! If of course I get my nice sunny day on Saturday so I can finish painting the shed

[Kawasicki]

Not climate scientists though...

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[don4l]

The chairmanship of the Energy and Climate Change select committee has been given to the SNP.

Dear God!

[rovermorris999]

An interesting article by Delingpole
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3091982/Pu...

[motco]

turbobloke said:

Purely for entertainment value, though there may be some utility if an explorer is worried about whether there'll be anything to stick their pole in, here are weather forecasts for the South Pole and North Pole.





Air temperature doesn't quite cut it or melt it. Ocean circulation may be a suspect, so no dropping iced lollipops at the beach this summer or a penguin gets it.

Mean global temperature measured using sensors near aircon outlets, airport tarmac, car parks and trash burners is irrelevant.

Relax, flagpolers.

How can the humidity be above zero percent at those temperatures?

[turbobloke]

There's no reason not to have some water vapour in air at and below freezing, and liquid water can and does exist below zero deg C too (supercooling, clouds, freezing fog). Some water vapour will arise from sublimation of ice. The 'concentration' will be low at and around 0 deg C and not a lot below about -40 deg C.

[dickymint]

turbobloke said:

There's no reason not to have some water vapour in air at and below freezing, and liquid water can and does exist below zero deg C too (supercooling, clouds, freezing fog). Some water vapour will arise from sublimation of ice. The 'concentration' will be low at and around 0 deg C and not a lot below about -40 deg C.

It's all 'relative'

[Diderot]

Turbobloke your forecast is too warm - Vostock is -70 right now. We're all doomed I tell you.

[turbobloke]

dickymint said:

turbobloke said:

There's no reason not to have some water vapour in air at and below freezing, and liquid water can and does exist below zero deg C too (supercooling, clouds, freezing fog). Some water vapour will arise from sublimation of ice. The 'concentration' will be low at and around 0 deg C and not a lot below about -40 deg C.

It's all 'relative'

The point about 50% or 70% of saturation level (say) is right enough but there's still the apparent curiosity of having either liquid or vapour below freezing point which I took to be the hub of the question.

Clearly 70% of potentially a lot is more than 70% of bugger all - it is indeed all relative and flagpolers will find it's a bit different to stepping off the aircraft at BKK

Diderot said:

Turbobloke your forecast is too warm - Vostock is -70 right now. We're all doomed I tell you.

Dammit. I'll send the seaweed and fir cone back to Mystic Met and ask for a refund.

[motco]

turbobloke said:

dickymint said:

turbobloke said:

There's no reason not to have some water vapour in air at and below freezing, and liquid water can and does exist below zero deg C too (supercooling, clouds, freezing fog). Some water vapour will arise from sublimation of ice. The 'concentration' will be low at and around 0 deg C and not a lot below about -40 deg C.

It's all 'relative'

The point about 50% or 70% of saturation level (say) is right enough but there's still the apparent curiosity of having either liquid or vapour below freezing point which I took to be the hub of the question.

Clearly 70% of potentially a lot is more than 70% of bugger all - it is indeed all relative and flagpolers will find it's a bit different to stepping off the aircraft at BKK

Diderot said:

Turbobloke your forecast is too warm - Vostock is -70 right now. We're all doomed I tell you.

Dammit. I'll send the seaweed and fir cone back to Mystic Met and ask for a refund.

I take the point. The 'possible' or 'potential' water bearing capacity at such low temperatures is
very low, so any odd molecules will carry a disproportionate amount of weight on the RH scale. This occurred to me when I recalled being in transit at Anchorage airport in January 1975 and feeling as if the moisture was being sucked out of me by the dry atmosphere, and experiencing massive static discharges from anything conductive in the airport buildings.

[turbobloke]

motco said:

turbobloke said:

dickymint said:

turbobloke said:

There's no reason not to have some water vapour in air at and below freezing, and liquid water can and does exist below zero deg C too (supercooling, clouds, freezing fog). Some water vapour will arise from sublimation of ice. The 'concentration' will be low at and around 0 deg C and not a lot below about -40 deg C.

It's all 'relative'

The point about 50% or 70% of saturation level (say) is right enough but there's still the apparent curiosity of having either liquid or vapour below freezing point which I took to be the hub of the question.

Clearly 70% of potentially a lot is more than 70% of bugger all - it is indeed all relative and flagpolers will find it's a bit different to stepping off the aircraft at BKK

Diderot said:

Turbobloke your forecast is too warm - Vostock is -70 right now. We're all doomed I tell you.

Dammit. I'll send the seaweed and fir cone back to Mystic Met and ask for a refund.

I take the point. The 'possible' or 'potential' water bearing capacity at such low temperatures is
very low, so any odd molecules will carry a disproportionate amount of weight on the RH scale. This occurred to me when I recalled being in transit at Anchorage airport in January 1975 and feeling as if the moisture was being sucked out of me by the dry atmosphere, and experiencing massive static discharges from anything conductive in the airport buildings.

Deary me. That extreme weather you encountered and those shocks in the airport were obviously due to global warming. How could you miss that?!