Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Flibble said:
Oh is this the politics of climate change thread now? I thought this was for the science, not the BBC's political slant.
When one's weapon of choice is a blunderbuss the resulting shot can end up widely spread.So far as I am aware they never had a reputation for accuracy.
Some science. You can be on my patreon channel where you pay for my divorce from my wife due to spending too much time on the computer arguing about Turboboke ... lucky for him he has 18 wives in his cave...
Let's look at the antarctic
2014
Biggest increase since the odd satellite went down there in the 1960s.
Come 2015 ...one year later...
July into winter freezing took a nose dive... if you can follow the lime green thread
Roll onto 2016
Another unexpected drop in September which followed onto the next year.
It's a big swing and seems to be carried on into 2019
Why? An interesting conundrum.
Sadly for penguins down there it seems more than an interesting conundrum, rather sad considering
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/25/weather/penguin...
When drowning effects the life cycle of a bird that spends 3 months at -60C with an egg on its feet as "per natural" I find that rather disappointing.
Let's look at the antarctic
2014
Biggest increase since the odd satellite went down there in the 1960s.
Come 2015 ...one year later...
July into winter freezing took a nose dive... if you can follow the lime green thread
Roll onto 2016
Another unexpected drop in September which followed onto the next year.
It's a big swing and seems to be carried on into 2019
Why? An interesting conundrum.
Sadly for penguins down there it seems more than an interesting conundrum, rather sad considering
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/25/weather/penguin...
When drowning effects the life cycle of a bird that spends 3 months at -60C with an egg on its feet as "per natural" I find that rather disappointing.
To be honest if there is climate change we need to be less species centric and work out how to solve this
https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/catastrophic-bree...
rather than a bunch of rich people having to wear welly bobs around Venice at £300 per night minimum stay,
https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/catastrophic-bree...
rather than a bunch of rich people having to wear welly bobs around Venice at £300 per night minimum stay,
kerplunk said:
As I commented on the politics thread, November 11th is an odd time of year to issue a model-obs 'update' - most people do them early in the year when the annual averages come out.
Looks like McKitrick has seen how the 2019 data is panning out and didn't want a graph with a narrative-spoiling uptick at the end
.
Gavin Schmidt, not in any way triggered by McKitick's update, issues an up to date update Looks like McKitrick has seen how the 2019 data is panning out and didn't want a graph with a narrative-spoiling uptick at the end
.
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/11954275...
jet_noise said:
kerplunk said:
up to dated
Confirming that the model is running hot. jet_noise said:
The only time the mean is exceeded in the forecast region is by El Nino spikes.
Which is what you'd expect.The more interesting question is whether it's safe to conclude anything about climate sensitivity from the obs so far.
What would the sceptical response be if the obs were running a bit warmer than the model mean?
You might say something like:
It's premature to conclude sensitivity is on the high side.
Decadal variability could be speeding things up temporarily.
It's unrealistic to think it will track straight down the model mean.
It's not safe to extrapolate from the obs to date.
More data required.
And you'd be right.
This popped up on my youtube today.
Professor Ian Plimer -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqRkM5S6MiM
Worth a listen if you can spare the full hour, but certainly from 40 minutes in shouldn't be too difficult.
Don't know if it has been posted before here but from Jan 2018.
He seems to be asking the right questions. (I think).
Professor Ian Plimer -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqRkM5S6MiM
Worth a listen if you can spare the full hour, but certainly from 40 minutes in shouldn't be too difficult.
Don't know if it has been posted before here but from Jan 2018.
He seems to be asking the right questions. (I think).
JustALooseScrew said:
This popped up on my youtube today.
Professor Ian Plimer -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqRkM5S6MiM
Worth a listen if you can spare the full hour, but certainly from 40 minutes in shouldn't be too difficult.
Don't know if it has been posted before here but from Jan 2018.
He seems to be asking the right questions. (I think).
Why don't you summarize what are 'the right questions' in your opinion.Professor Ian Plimer -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqRkM5S6MiM
Worth a listen if you can spare the full hour, but certainly from 40 minutes in shouldn't be too difficult.
Don't know if it has been posted before here but from Jan 2018.
He seems to be asking the right questions. (I think).
I just had a quick flick click through and heard some right old gash but maybe I've missed the good bits.
btw in the first 40 mins or so where he appears to be discussing historical climate variation since the year dot does he ever mention greenhouse gas variation as one of the causes? Just curious, but not enough to sit through 40 mins to find out
kerplunk said:
JustALooseScrew said:
This popped up on my youtube today.
Professor Ian Plimer -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqRkM5S6MiM
Worth a listen if you can spare the full hour, but certainly from 40 minutes in shouldn't be too difficult.
Don't know if it has been posted before here but from Jan 2018.
He seems to be asking the right questions. (I think).
Why don't you summarize what are 'the right questions' in your opinion.Professor Ian Plimer -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqRkM5S6MiM
Worth a listen if you can spare the full hour, but certainly from 40 minutes in shouldn't be too difficult.
Don't know if it has been posted before here but from Jan 2018.
He seems to be asking the right questions. (I think).
I just had a quick flick click through and heard some right old gash but maybe I've missed the good bits.
btw in the first 40 mins or so where he appears to be discussing historical climate variation since the year dot does he ever mention greenhouse gas variation as one of the causes? Just curious, but not enough to sit through 40 mins to find out
Watching Country File today on the BBC when an ever-so earnest braggadocio vegan climate change activist said something I couldn’t understand. Not unusual, they frequently induce laughter rather than confusion from me.
However, he said deforestation to increase available land for agriculture, together with methane from cow and sheep defecation, releases into the atmosphere the carbon that has been stored in trees for millennia.
Are there any chemists or scientists out there who can explain in layman’s terms just how felling trees releases carbon? Oh, and how those singular atoms of carbon find two atoms each of oxygen with which to cling and combine? I think we should be told. Of course reduction in foliage has an effect in the atmosphere but release caused by felling?
However, he said deforestation to increase available land for agriculture, together with methane from cow and sheep defecation, releases into the atmosphere the carbon that has been stored in trees for millennia.
Are there any chemists or scientists out there who can explain in layman’s terms just how felling trees releases carbon? Oh, and how those singular atoms of carbon find two atoms each of oxygen with which to cling and combine? I think we should be told. Of course reduction in foliage has an effect in the atmosphere but release caused by felling?
Thorodin said:
Watching Country File today on the BBC when an ever-so earnest braggadocio vegan climate change activist said something I couldn’t understand. Not unusual, they frequently induce laughter rather than confusion from me.
However, he said deforestation to increase available land for agriculture, together with methane from cow and sheep defecation, releases into the atmosphere the carbon that has been stored in trees for millennia.
Are there any chemists or scientists out there who can explain in layman’s terms just how felling trees releases carbon? Oh, and how those singular atoms of carbon find two atoms each of oxygen with which to cling and combine? I think we should be told. Of course reduction in foliage has an effect in the atmosphere but release caused by felling?
It's the chainsaws innit However, he said deforestation to increase available land for agriculture, together with methane from cow and sheep defecation, releases into the atmosphere the carbon that has been stored in trees for millennia.
Are there any chemists or scientists out there who can explain in layman’s terms just how felling trees releases carbon? Oh, and how those singular atoms of carbon find two atoms each of oxygen with which to cling and combine? I think we should be told. Of course reduction in foliage has an effect in the atmosphere but release caused by felling?
Thorodin said:
Are there any chemists or scientists out there who can explain in layman’s terms just how felling trees releases carbon? Oh, and how those singular atoms of carbon find two atoms each of oxygen with which to cling and combine? I think we should be told. Of course reduction in foliage has an effect in the atmosphere but release caused by felling?
Well a quick google reveals:The trees and plants of the Amazon Basin absorb carbon dioxide during the process of photosynthesis . If there are fewer trees and plants, due to deforestation, then less carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. In this way deforestation contributes to global warming and therefore climate change.
Thorodin said:
Watching Country File today on the BBC when an ever-so earnest braggadocio vegan climate change activist said something I couldn’t understand. Not unusual, they frequently induce laughter rather than confusion from me.
However, he said deforestation to increase available land for agriculture, together with methane from cow and sheep defecation, releases into the atmosphere the carbon that has been stored in trees for millennia.
Are there any chemists or scientists out there who can explain in layman’s terms just how felling trees releases carbon? Oh, and how those singular atoms of carbon find two atoms each of oxygen with which to cling and combine? I think we should be told. Of course reduction in foliage has an effect in the atmosphere but release caused by felling?
What do you think happens to trees when they are felled?However, he said deforestation to increase available land for agriculture, together with methane from cow and sheep defecation, releases into the atmosphere the carbon that has been stored in trees for millennia.
Are there any chemists or scientists out there who can explain in layman’s terms just how felling trees releases carbon? Oh, and how those singular atoms of carbon find two atoms each of oxygen with which to cling and combine? I think we should be told. Of course reduction in foliage has an effect in the atmosphere but release caused by felling?
If you're clearing for farming, you burn it (CO2, bad). If you're lazy, you leave it rot (methane, worse). At best, you put it to good use, bit unless preserved and sheltered it will still like end up rotting or burned.
The best case if you turn it to charcoal and bury it.
Thorodin said:
Watching Country File today on the BBC when an ever-so earnest braggadocio vegan climate change activist said something I couldn’t understand. Not unusual, they frequently induce laughter rather than confusion from me.
However, he said deforestation to increase available land for agriculture, together with methane from cow and sheep defecation, releases into the atmosphere the carbon that has been stored in trees for millennia.
Are there any chemists or scientists out there who can explain in layman’s terms just how felling trees releases carbon? Oh, and how those singular atoms of carbon find two atoms each of oxygen with which to cling and combine? I think we should be told. Of course reduction in foliage has an effect in the atmosphere but release caused by felling?
Few, if any, trees have been around for millennia.However, he said deforestation to increase available land for agriculture, together with methane from cow and sheep defecation, releases into the atmosphere the carbon that has been stored in trees for millennia.
Are there any chemists or scientists out there who can explain in layman’s terms just how felling trees releases carbon? Oh, and how those singular atoms of carbon find two atoms each of oxygen with which to cling and combine? I think we should be told. Of course reduction in foliage has an effect in the atmosphere but release caused by felling?
Optimum arboreal carbon sequestration is most likely in most species to be during mid life growth although things get quite tricky to assess since root systems are a significant influence. All other parts of the tree being potential carbon dumps, by one means or another, once into midlife maturity.
Now grass and the like, as eaten by grazing animals, offers some perpetual options for rapid carbon 'fixing'.
Needs a lot of land though.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff