Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
The BBC's weather analysis for the first half of November.
Wet rather than icy might suggest more warmth transfer via the prevailing winds from the south coming over the Atlantic at a time of year when northerly influenced events are not uncommon.
Yet, despite the heat transfer from the south that brought the rain, the average UK temp was nearly a whole degree cooler for the period discussed.
I wonder what the tree rings will look like for this year when assessed in the future?
ETA: Forgotten link
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-50572041
Wet rather than icy might suggest more warmth transfer via the prevailing winds from the south coming over the Atlantic at a time of year when northerly influenced events are not uncommon.
Yet, despite the heat transfer from the south that brought the rain, the average UK temp was nearly a whole degree cooler for the period discussed.
I wonder what the tree rings will look like for this year when assessed in the future?
ETA: Forgotten link
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-50572041
Edited by LongQ on Thursday 28th November 11:49
We can also read about many Survey ships on missions to investigate retreating sea ice and 'Global Warming' getting stuck in ice that isn't meant to be there.
https://principia-scientific.org/arctic-global-war...
In fact, I read recently about the BAS team having to call upon a Russian Ice breaker to help - We didn't read about that in the Guardian or hear about it on Sky News.
https://principia-scientific.org/arctic-global-war...
In fact, I read recently about the BAS team having to call upon a Russian Ice breaker to help - We didn't read about that in the Guardian or hear about it on Sky News.
TellYaWhatItIs said:
We can also read about many Survey ships on missions to investigate retreating sea ice and 'Global Warming' getting stuck in ice that isn't meant to be there.
https://principia-scientific.org/arctic-global-war...
In fact, I read recently about the BAS team having to call upon a Russian Ice breaker to help - We didn't read about that in the Guardian or hear about it on Sky News.
I don't have any problem with such expeditions arriving in situation that they had not really expected provided that the potential risk, like getting stuck in ice should one's expectation of conditions be a little off target, had been allowed for and suitable precautions put in place. https://principia-scientific.org/arctic-global-war...
In fact, I read recently about the BAS team having to call upon a Russian Ice breaker to help - We didn't read about that in the Guardian or hear about it on Sky News.
Good precautions would be along the lines of having well stocked supplies and being able to sit out the problem whilst undertaking some useful work.
Calling an icebreaker, with all of the eco damage that implies, should be needed only in an extreme emergency but would be a reasonable back up plan in that event.
Providing the project plan included options that has been pre-agreed in those (and other) situations it would seem reasonable.
If they had not thought of them at all, despite the obvious potential risk, or simply had not thought them worth making arrangements for in advance, then I would have some concerns about the ability of the people involved to carry out the project and to do it to plan.
That, in turn, would lead me to some concerns about people undertaking some of the projects related to some of the more extreme ideas for 'fixing' the claimed problems of the planet's climate. Maybe also some of the less extreme ideas since they might slip under the risk analysis radar and prove to be just as dangerous as the more obvious ones.
kerplunk said:
"It is now 50% higher than in 1750"
CO2 levels have been as high as 4000ppm in the past. The permanent gases whose percentages do not change from day to day are nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%. Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere.
Do you think a gas that accounts for <1/10 of 1% of our atmosphere will have a greater affect on our climate than the big orange ball in the sky that heats the oceans and everything else?
Historical data also shows CO2 lags Temperature fluctuations, therefore not the cause or the control knob.
TellYaWhatItIs said:
kerplunk said:
"It is now 50% higher than in 1750"
CO2 levels have been as high as 4000ppm in the past. The permanent gases whose percentages do not change from day to day are nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%. Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere.
Do you think a gas that accounts for <1/10 of 1% of our atmosphere will have a greater affect on our climate than the big orange ball in the sky that heats the oceans and everything else?
TellYaWhatItIs said:
Historical data also shows CO2 lags Temperature fluctuations, therefore not the cause or the control knob.
The cause of what?Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 28th November 13:03
TellYaWhatItIs said:
You are making yourself look silly now old bean.
Just to keep you on track, You asked the cause or control knob of what?
The clue is in the title of this thread, at the top of every page 1 through to 150.
Like I say, you are making yourself look silly.
He’s playing with you Tellya. Plunkers is one of few on here that actually knows his stuff - it’s his interpretation that many disagree with Just to keep you on track, You asked the cause or control knob of what?
The clue is in the title of this thread, at the top of every page 1 through to 150.
Like I say, you are making yourself look silly.
TellYaWhatItIs said:
You are making yourself look silly now old bean.
Just to keep you on track, You asked the cause or control knob of what?
The clue is in the title of this thread, at the top of every page 1 through to 150.
Like I say, you are making yourself look silly.
The recent climate change (warming) lags the CO2 increase.Just to keep you on track, You asked the cause or control knob of what?
The clue is in the title of this thread, at the top of every page 1 through to 150.
Like I say, you are making yourself look silly.
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
The recent climate change (warming) lags the CO2 increase.
Show your working KP. CO2 levels have only been accurately measured since 1950. Are you seriously suggesting the warming post little ice age didn't start until after this point?TellYaWhatItIs - I notice in one of your links they say volcanic eruptions cause the earth to cool. How can that be when the amount of stuff ejected into the the atmosphere by a volcanic eruption is tiny compared to the entire mass of the atmosphere (smaller even than man's CO2 emissions)??
Surely it's that big ball of fire in the sky that's most important.
Crazy stuff!
TellYaWhatItIs said:
CO2 levels have been as high as 4000ppm in the past.
The permanent gases whose percentages do not change from day to day are nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%. Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere.
Do you think a gas that accounts for <1/10 of 1% of our atmosphere will have a greater affect on our climate than the big orange ball in the sky that heats the oceans and everything else?
Historical data also shows CO2 lags Temperature fluctuations, therefore not the cause or the control knob.
Seeing as you're into research, could you please save us all some time and read these before posting again:The permanent gases whose percentages do not change from day to day are nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%. Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere.
Do you think a gas that accounts for <1/10 of 1% of our atmosphere will have a greater affect on our climate than the big orange ball in the sky that heats the oceans and everything else?
Historical data also shows CO2 lags Temperature fluctuations, therefore not the cause or the control knob.
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspo...
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little...
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-ba...
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-fo...
tight fart said:
kerplunk said:
maths not your strong point then
What bit is wrong then, co2 has doubled, is that not a 100% increase while the population has increased 10 fold?CO2 production might be, but the level doesn't change instantly to reflect that.
You're essentially asking why if you have a partially filled bath of water and turn the tap from slightly on to fully on the bath isn't immediately ten times fuller.
Also, humans are not the only source of CO2 on the planet.
kerplunk said:
TellYaWhatItIs said:
kerplunk said:
TellYaWhatItIs said:
It is easier to fool a man, than it is to convince him he has been fooled. - Mark Twain.
Nasa do not 'admit it' - you made that up.No I didn't.
Predictions for the next solar cycle are numerous. Leif Svalgaard (who earned laurels for his SC24 prediction) predicts SC25 will be up on SC24 not down https://www.leif.org/research/Prediction-of-SC25.p...
From https://principia-scientific.org/why-a-super-grand...
we have:
"Zharkova was one of the few that correctly predicted solar cycle 24 would be weaker than cycle 23 – only 2 out of 150 models predicted this. Her models have run at a 93% accuracy and her findings suggest a SuperGrand Solar Minimum is on the cards beginning 2020 and running for 350-400 years."
and from https://electroverse.net/professor-valentina-zhark...
we have:
"Coming as somewhat of a surprise however, Zharkova’s full and expanded analysis reveals the sun, following its next GSM cycle (2020-2055), will actually enter a 300+ year spell of increased-activity warming the earth at a rate of 0.5C (0.9F) per century, running until the next GSM cycle (2370-2415)."
There's clearly an anti-AGW agenda at 'Electroverse.net' and you can see their disappointment with Zharkova:
"It is a little confusing why Zharkova failed to mention these long spells of warming (2055-2370 and then 2415-2600) in her original ‘teaser’ presentation back in October, 2018. Whether it has been included to continue her funding and/or to see her GSM message reach a wider audience is honestly anyone’s guess.
Though to her credit, at least the 0.5C (0.9F) warming per century is driven by the sun, and not you, not CO2."
However Zharkova in her paper says:
"These oscillations of the estimated terrestrial temperature do not include any human-induced factors, which were outside the scope of the current paper"
So even if she's right about all this, the implications for AGW mitigation policy aren't great for the anti-lobby. All she's offering is a few decades of stalled warming and then when the GSM is over the greenhouse warming would kick back in with bells on.
"It is a little confusing why Zharkova failed to mention these long spells of warming (2055-2370 and then 2415-2600) in her original ‘teaser’ presentation back in October, 2018. Whether it has been included to continue her funding and/or to see her GSM message reach a wider audience is honestly anyone’s guess.
Though to her credit, at least the 0.5C (0.9F) warming per century is driven by the sun, and not you, not CO2."
However Zharkova in her paper says:
"These oscillations of the estimated terrestrial temperature do not include any human-induced factors, which were outside the scope of the current paper"
So even if she's right about all this, the implications for AGW mitigation policy aren't great for the anti-lobby. All she's offering is a few decades of stalled warming and then when the GSM is over the greenhouse warming would kick back in with bells on.
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 28th November 17:16
kerplunk said:
TellYaWhatItIs - I notice in one of your links they say volcanic eruptions cause the earth to cool. How can that be when the amount of stuff ejected into the the atmosphere by a volcanic eruption is tiny compared to the entire mass of the atmosphere (smaller even than man's CO2 emissions)??
Surely it's that big ball of fire in the sky that's most important.
Crazy stuff!
Because the clouds of stuff reduce the amount of big ball of fire stuff that reaches Earth?Surely it's that big ball of fire in the sky that's most important.
Crazy stuff!
deeen said:
kerplunk said:
TellYaWhatItIs - I notice in one of your links they say volcanic eruptions cause the earth to cool. How can that be when the amount of stuff ejected into the the atmosphere by a volcanic eruption is tiny compared to the entire mass of the atmosphere (smaller even than man's CO2 emissions)??
Surely it's that big ball of fire in the sky that's most important.
Crazy stuff!
Because the clouds of stuff reduce the amount of big ball of fire stuff that reaches Earth?Surely it's that big ball of fire in the sky that's most important.
Crazy stuff!
This changes everything.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff