Global Warming

[spec]

Source: **broken link removed**
Anyone see a pattern? Solar, perhaps? Anyway, notable peaks (and valleys) that certainly preclude human influence. Or, to my way of thinking, pre-"Chicken Little" would be experts, politicians and media enablers... .

Nice one cowboy

 

[Musicmanager]

green taxes

I know what you mean Spec !

 

[spec]

View attachment 95726

I know what you mean Spec !

 

[Ian Rogers]

I'm with Les on this one... Too many babies, not enough trees..

This article is near enough for me.... The reason more and more kids have obscure diseases..

 

[spec]

Ian, a bit more about oxygen here: https://earthsky.org/earth/how-much-do-oceans-add-to-worlds-oxygen

 

[Musicmanager]

I'm with Les on this one... Too many babies, not enough trees..

My mind has gone into overdrive trying to figure a tree as a contraceptive !!

 

[Ian Rogers]

The point being... Trees kurb carbon dioxide... Air quality has definitely dropped... If you live in the city you are not getting the oxygen your body needs... Go into hospital and just see how many patients have oxygen masks. You should be able go outside and breath the bluddy stuff... I was brought up in a tiny village.. Open the window in the morning and suck it all in.... Now I live just outside Manchester... You have to keep the windows closed now or you wont be able to breathe... In the good of it all.. Carbon emissions have dropped immensely since the discussions started, so there is a plus side..

I also believe there is a cyclic global warming.. Every few centuries it turns... But this time there is a shed load of humans quite a few billion.... It's got to have an effect!!

 

[ronv]

It is a hot topic.
It all depends on if you think increased CO2 is a problem.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
I found this one interesting:
**broken link removed**

 

[Nikolai Petrenko]

Batteries charge in the day, and will be use in the night, many village in the world use this way, such as in Truong Sa islands.
In Britain, many village collect water from dew, it is a good way

 

[JoeJester]

ronv on the second link, in the second video, they talked about being careful not to skew the data, yet, it's been proven some weather stations in the pool have been influenced by external things including installation practices. **broken link removed**

There is a nice graph of the reporting stations and the error expected by that class of station.

 

[cowboybob]

Interesting refresher on methane sources:
**broken link removed**
Equally interesting discussion on methane (and its byproducts) and their effect on atmospheric conditions:
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/methane.html

Difficult to extract info/correlations. While there is little doubt that there are human activities effects, there is little to no concurrence on these combined effects' influence in the face of far greater, longer term solar and planetary natural events, both in production and in sequestration. Especially when compared to historical, derived temperature and CO2 concentrations data.

Thus, this has led me to be extremely suspicious of the current media fueled hysteria surrounding "climate change" (as though this is abnormal) that has the disquieting aroma of a contrived, sacrosanct narrative designed to divert our attention from far more significant and immediate dangers. Rather than fostering a reasoned, well informed and inclusive dialogue, by merely questioning the veracity of foregone conclusions will get one labeled a "denier", to be summarily dismissed as irrelevant at best, or dangerous at its worst, and summarily removed from consideration.

 

[ronv]

ronv on the second link, in the second video, they talked about being careful not to skew the data, yet, it's been proven some weather stations in the pool have been influenced by external things including installation practices. **broken link removed**

There is a nice graph of the reporting stations and the error expected by that class of station.

Seems like there are some pretty smart dudes crunching that data. I wouldn't think it would be difficult to spot an installation that is suddenly 5 degrees different and either fix it or toss it out.
cowboybob
I'm inclined to agree with you except from what I understand there may be a tipping point where there is positive feedback, whereas I don't see such a large downside from getting greener.

 

[granddad]

I see Mount Etna is sending fire and ash across the Sicilian skyline, The massive volcanic plume came from the Voragine crater in what was its first eruption to reach the surface since 2013. It is thought that activity started around a month ago with explosions inside the crater that the too small to reach the rim.

 

[Ratchit]

Hello Nikolai- we meet again.

I take it that 35.5C is hot for winter in Vietnam.

One of the basic tenants about the climate is that you can't draw conclusions from a single event or even fron a short time event. The world is a huge integrator, especially the sea, and things change very slowly, much longer than 1 year or even 10 years. When you say first time- is that since Vietnam was first formed by plate tectonics or since records first began.

I heard a thing on TV the other day that said it's been the hottest summer in so and so place 'since records began'- big worry, so I checked: records began in 1981. And they didn't mention on the news that the previous three years had been the coldest 'since records began'.

Also, weather is not predictable however convincing the weather men seem- how can it be? Have you heard about the butterfly effect? It says that, because of chaos theory, if a butterfly flaps it's wings in Australia it could cause bad weather in England.

Have you ever noticed how inaccurate the weather forecasts are? Where I live on the south west coast of England, we have predominately westerly winds and the weather forecasts are deadly accurate.. for a day. Why: because the weather radars and other sensors pick up the weather situation- clouds, temperature, barometric pressure, wind- say 240 miles away over the Atlantic. The wind speed is 10 miles per hour. You can do the sums. However if the wind changes, which it naturally does, even the 24 hour forecast goes to pieces. Any forecast further forward- forget it. These are the same people who are forecasting global temperatures 20 and 50 years ahead, which is conveniently far off that there are no consequences if they are wrong.

I have a load of global warming books from 20 years ago, and not only has the hockey stick graph, which was the only evidence the IPCC had, been proven to be a fabrication and has now been withdrawn, but the forecasts are way off too., around +2 deg C by 2015: actual increase, according to the the latest IPCC claims, 0.7 degrees.

All this stuff about sea level rise is also tenuous. First thing is how do you measure sea level. They talk about inches but waves are orders higher, not to mention tides which in this area are 22 feet, or thereabouts. I have a text book which says it is impossible to accurately gauge sea level- what is the reference point? The sea-level claims fly in the face of facts it seems.

What gets me hot under the collar is that it's obvious that the weather has been changed by the firing of the big guns on the Western Front in the First World War, and after that by letting off atom bombs in the 1940s and 1950s. Why can't people see that!

Here is my view on CO2 amd climate change. First of all, what is a greenhouse gas? When I sit in my car on a sunny day with all the windows closed, it warms up quickly to an uncomfortable temperature. Ok, that checks, because I exhale CO2. However, when I am not present, it still warms up quickly and uncomfortable. Since oxygen and nitrogen are not considered greenhouse gases, what is causing the car to heat up? Answer: It is the absence of convection. When I open the car's sunroof or doors to improve convection, it does not get so hot so fast. So CO2 and methane have nothing to do with greenhouse heating. Gases do have an insulating capability that can trap heat, but it is a misnomer to call that attribute a greenhouse effect, when greenhouses heat up due to lack of convection. There is plenty of convection in the atmosphere from storms and fronts.

Climate change is natural. Back in Roman times, certain warm weather crops like red grapes were grown near the southern borders of Scotland. Thousands of years ago we would have been under ice. There is no proof that CO2 has made us warmer, only empirical projections that could have been caused by other factors.

CO2 is a plant food, not a pollutant. It constitutes 0.1% of the atmosphere. Water vapor (WV) can vary from 0% to 4% depending on whether you are in the Sahara or the jungle. WV is more of a heat insulator than CO2 is. Are we going to try to reduce the WV, too? Good luck on that endeavor.

Let's face it. Climate change has put a lot of dinners on the table for a lot of people. There have been scads of political machinations, grants, scholarships, boondoggles (recent Paris conference), grant money, and whatever else that depend on belief that climate change is anthropogenic (human-caused). The climate change we have already seen is not beyond what we already know about from the past. I am not going to be stampeded into endorsing radical "solutions" that cost much and do nothing.

Ratch

 

[ronv]

Not quite the same with the earth as with your car. Almost all of the earths lost heat is from radiation, not conduction or convection. If you put a fan inside your closed car will it get cooler or only more uniform in it's heat? Anyway there is lots of stuff to read on this.
I'm guessing you think it is the government that is paying all these people for their views or is it the rich solar and wind companies.
I'm not sure I would shut down all the coal fired power plants either, but I did buy some LED bulbs. Really like them.

 

[ronv]

I see Mount Etna is sending fire and ash across the Sicilian skyline, The massive volcanic plume came from the Voragine crater in what was its first eruption to reach the surface since 2013. It is thought that activity started around a month ago with explosions inside the crater that the too small to reach the rim.

That will help things cool down.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/03/sicily-mount-etna-voragine-crater-erupts-lightning

 

[Ratchit]

Not quite the same with the earth as with your car.

Correct, the Earth has plenty of convection to even out the hot and cold spots. My car and a greenhouse does not have any cold spots unless I open the doors and windows. Both get hot because convection does not bypass the insulation of the structures. The Earth gets hotter because its does not radiate the same amount of heat as it takes in. Outward radiation does not effect a greenhouse and a car very much. Therefore, the Earth should not be compared to a greenhouse. Since the amount of CO2 is miniscule compared to the oxygen and nitrogen, I believe it is safe to assume the insulation qualities of CO2 and water vapor, which are a physical phenomena, are not significant. If it were a chemical reaction, then I would believe that a very small amount could have a big influence.

Almost all of the earths lost heat is from radiation, not conduction or convection. If you put a fan inside your closed car will it get cooler or only more uniform in it's heat? Anyway there is lots of stuff to read on this.

A fan surely not lower the temperature unless it can circulate the air around a cold spot.

I'm guessing you think it is the government that is paying all these people for their views or is it the rich solar and wind companies.

The government likes a bloated bureaucracy, and the special interests encourage the anthropogenic viewpoint for the extra money the can make from it.

I'm not sure I would shut down all the coal fired power plants either, but I did buy some LED bulbs. Really like them.

No, not for the CO2, but they have to clean up their sulfer, carbon particulates, dirt, and radiation. Yes, there are radioactive substances in coal. Look at how things are in China from coal burning without scrubbers.

Ratch

 

[nsaspook]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/

The climate change debate has been polarized into a simple dichotomy. Either global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous,” as Pres. Barack Obama thinks, or it’s a “hoax,” as Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe thinks. But there is a third possibility: that it is real, man-made and not dangerous, at least not for a long time.

I'm on the third side.

 

[ronv]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/


I'm on the third side.

I hope you are right. I tend down that line myself.
I hear how more CO2 traps more heat
How less snow reflects less heat
How warmer oceans hold less CO2
How warmer creates more water vapor
But then I think temperature loss is a 4th power process so not much happens.
But if you stick to the science it is an interesting subject.

 

[nsaspook]

I hope you are right. I tend down that line myself.
But if you stick to the science it is an interesting subject.

Experiment and measurement is what science excels at so the data and trends science has collected about GW and some correlation with human activity is solid. The data also shows IMO science is falling (the stalling of the temperature rise) to make accurate future predictions with that data in models based on the the past and what we know today. Making accurate predictions is the hallmark of a true theory of a phenomenon. It's taken awhile (30+ years) for the error margin to grow to the point where it can't be dismisses as an error bar on the 'why' question. There is not a “pause” or “hiatus” in the common sense of the word but it's a scientific fact the rate has slowed when most models say it should be increasing.

The real problem is the population biology problem, there are just too many people on this planet.