Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Global warming “can be reversed"


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

LOL, talk about self re-enforcing confirmation bias. Nowadays, every weather event is "extreme", and the media make it fit into their politically correct narrative.

How naive can you be.

Fact is, history is full of extreme weather events. It is only a couple of centuries ago that England was wine-producing area. And only a couple of thousand years ago that Europe was covered by an ice sheet. And none of this was caused by humans with SUVs.

Among all the politically correct fairy tales, this is one of the most ridiculous.

The insurance industry is the best barometer of recorded trends in extreme weather. There has definitely been an upward trend over the 20th century (after adjustments for inflation, effected population, etc);

http://www.cccep.ac.uk/Publications/insuranceBriefs/economic-trends-insured-losses.pdf

The same conclusion is given by the IPCC for areas where weather records are good - ie Europe and N.America.

This tracks the global upward trend in average surface temperature.

You must be a CT to believe that 97% of qualified climate scientists are making it all up - or are you a genius who can see their mistakes ?

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, talk about self re-enforcing confirmation bias. Nowadays, every weather event is "extreme", and the media make it fit into their politically correct narrative.

How naive can you be.

Fact is, history is full of extreme weather events. It is only a couple of centuries ago that England was wine-producing area. And only a couple of thousand years ago that Europe was covered by an ice sheet. And none of this was caused by humans with SUVs.

Among all the politically correct fairy tales, this is one of the most ridiculous.

Statements based on ignorance or just laziness do nothing to support the veracity of your knowledge which you are claiming.:

"The period from the end of the First World War to shortly after the end of the Second World War may well be the only time in two millennia that vines to make wine on a substantial scale were not grown in England or Wales. Doubtless, during that time, there were some vines being grown on a garden scale by amateur growers, but for more than 25 years there was a total cessation of viticulture and winemaking on a commercial basis".

LINK: http://www.english-wine.com/history.html

This really is why Climate Change deniers are held in low esteem for their efforts... because they either do not do the research to support their statements, or do not understand the Reasearch presented.

Edited by keithisco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know that climate change happens over time, sometimes drastically, leading to ice ages and whatnot. I don't know that there is much we are ever going to be able to do about that.

We also know that the abundance of CO2 and other anthropogenic gases in the atmosphere has been increasing steadily, enough to result, in a few decades, in world temperatures warm enough to have significant effects. This is a combination of the actual measurement of the densities of these gases and abundant lab experiment showing what effects this would predict.

There are other possibilities. Maybe the lab-measured effects will be offset by as-yet unknown correcting factors, or maybe not -- in fact, probably not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last years temps, and so far this year has shown we might be heading into an ice age. Hat would be short hot summers and long cold winters. Snow is not needed. The biggest desert in the world is antartica, it is covered in snow because it doesn't melt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys do know they mearsure co2 on top of a volcano in hawii

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys do know they mearsure co2 on top of a volcano in hawii

There are about a dozen sites worldwide, including one in Antarctica, that measure CO2. If you are suspicious that volcanic emissions are biasing the results, there are two ways to check: 1. Does the Hawaiian record show unexpected peaks ("burps")? Does the Hawaiian record differ from other sites? In both cases, the answer is "no." Sorry, Daniel, but your suspicions are misplaced.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the people of New York are self sufficient in New York. That is the assumption you have to make to follow your logic. The footprint of a New Yorker is global and covers 10's of acres of land.

Over the course of his life the average New Yorker will eat about 40 acres of wheat.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are about a dozen sites worldwide, including one in Antarctica, that measure CO2. If you are suspicious that volcanic emissions are biasing the results, there are two ways to check: 1. Does the Hawaiian record show unexpected peaks ("burps")? Does the Hawaiian record differ from other sites? In both cases, the answer is "no." Sorry, Daniel, but your suspicions are misplaced.

Doug

Setting you equipment on tp of a volcano, that is out gassing co2 will show peaks.

I also remember back in 1995, they claimed it was the hottest year of the century. It was if you lived in a city but if you lived in the country' it was one of the coldest. The dom sayers only used two thirdsof theavailable info to show what they wanted. Those same people sitting on top of a volcano with their sensers. So yea it is biased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Setting you equipment on tp of a volcano, that is out gassing co2 will show peaks.

I also remember back in 1995, they claimed it was the hottest year of the century. It was if you lived in a city but if you lived in the country' it was one of the coldest. The dom sayers only used two thirdsof theavailable info to show what they wanted. Those same people sitting on top of a volcano with their sensers. So yea it is biased.

Who were "they"? Were "they" referring to a specific town, specific City, specific State or specific Nation? Are you confusing the weather with global climate again?Show me the source for your statement as I can find supporting evidence for your statement...

Which Volcano was outgassing CO2 by the way? Please link to the relevant data so we can all see the evidence for this, and ignore the other CO2 sensors around the world (seems to fit the Deniers Modus Operandi)

OK, I have done your research for you from the CO2 Sensor on Mauna Loa (Hawaii) and of course you are wrong

LINK: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html

Edited by keithisco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys do know they mearsure co2 on top of a volcano in hawii

Best place for it. They also measure it at numerous other places - and they are all in agree4ment that global CO2 is steadily rising.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Setting you equipment on tp of a volcano, that is out gassing co2 will show peaks.

I also remember back in 1995, they claimed it was the hottest year of the century. It was if you lived in a city but if you lived in the country' it was one of the coldest. The dom sayers only used two thirdsof theavailable info to show what they wanted. Those same people sitting on top of a volcano with their sensers. So yea it is biased.

Can you explain daniel how the CO2 at the Mona Loa site shows a steady linear rise. Is the volcano outgasing steadily more gas each year ? Where are the up's and downs a varibale source such as a volcano should produce if they were effecting the results ?

There's are very specific questions ywhich you have to answer if we are to accept your logic. You wont answer because you cannot answer. that is because;

a ) you do not know

b )the record is in fact accurate.

And please supply a source for your assertion that the record has been tampered with to produce an anomalous warming in 1995 biased by cities. I suspect its Anthony Watts and is an unsupportable claim. Post it and we can dissects the errors.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

That's about all the effor this post deserves.

If erroneous posts are your concern, where were you when this inanity was posted on the first page?:

Erm...CO2 released by burning veg. is not the problem - this CO2 isnt the Co2 throwing the balance out of wack. It's CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels that is the problem. Minor details.

Quite a bit "wrong-er."

Zaphod222 is referring to the fact that there has been no significant warming over the last 15 years. Here's a news story about that:

Al Gore must be a very, very unhappy man.

The New York Times published a piece Monday evening to appear in Tuesday's paper that exposed the really inconvenient truth that despite a rapid rise in carbon dioxide the past fifteen years, global warming has plateaued (emphasis added):

The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists. True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.

But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/06/10/new-york-times-shocker-global-warming-plateaued-last-15-years-despite#ixzz2YzJPkANg

Some people take that fact and pretend it means global warming has ended. Here's a story about that:

The current favorite argument of those who argue that climate changes isn’t happening, or a problem, or worth dealing with, is that global warming has stopped. Therefore (they conclude) scientists must be wrong when they say that climate change is caused by humans, worsening, and ultimately a serious environmental problem that must be addressed by policy makers.

The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth.

Source: Forbes

BTW, CO2 is CO2 and the source is immaterial.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole 15 year pause argument is based on dodge stats. It only works if you start the period at 1998 which was a sever El Nino year which produced the warmest year ever recorded. Test the trend statistically for robustness and there is no valid trend for the last 15 years. Move the start point 2 years either side of 1998 and the trend returns to a steady rise of temperature.

This is a classic case of Cherry Picking one date to make an invalid point.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only answer seems for us to go back to a lifestyle like the dark ages.

Guess what, can't see anyone accepting that so ideas like this are needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole 15 year pause argument is based on dodge stats. It only works if you start the period at 1998 which was a sever El Nino year which produced the warmest year ever recorded. Test the trend statistically for robustness and there is no valid trend for the last 15 years. Move the start point 2 years either side of 1998 and the trend returns to a steady rise of temperature.

This is a classic case of Cherry Picking one date to make an invalid point.

Br Cornelius

Brother,

The title to the Forbes article I linked: "Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brother,

The title to the Forbes article I linked: "Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data

Harte

I wasn't disagreeing - just pointing out the issues in plain English.

--------------

The only answer seems for us to go back to a lifestyle like the dark ages.

Guess what, can't see anyone accepting that so ideas like this are needed.

It is now expected that 25% of all electricity will be produced from renewable s by 2016. This is still early days for the roll out of Renewables.

The conclusion is - there will be no need to return to the dark ages if we carry on investing in the alternatives to fossil fuels.

Only some people paid by the fossil fuel industry to lobby against renewables will try to convince you that there are not viable alternatives to gas and oil.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Setting you equipment on tp of a volcano, that is out gassing co2 will show peaks.

I have Keeling's records (copies). Just where is that "peak" you're referring to?

I also remember back in 1995, they claimed it was the hottest year of the century. It was if you lived in a city but if you lived in the country' it was one of the coldest. The dom sayers only used two thirdsof theavailable info to show what they wanted. Those same people sitting on top of a volcano with their sensers. So yea it is biased.

Did you check any of the rural site records? Or are you relying on your own memory?

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't disagreeing - just pointing out the issues in plain English.

--------------

It is now expected that 25% of all electricity will be produced from renewable s by 2016. This is still early days for the roll out of Renewables.

The conclusion is - there will be no need to return to the dark ages if we carry on investing in the alternatives to fossil fuels.

Only some people paid by the fossil fuel industry to lobby against renewables will try to convince you that there are not viable alternatives to gas and oil.

Br Cornelius

There aren't, at present, any viable alternatives. But that doesn't mean we have to return to Medieval technology.

I read the other day that the USA is currently meeting it's would-be obligations per the Kyoto Protocol, without being a signatory. This is no doubt in part due to the economic situation, but it is also due to the price of natural gas being so low and itilities making the switch.

Gas emits less CO2 per erg of energy released than coal or oil.

Copious amounts of energy can be saved by everyday means, if people would just do it. We haven't really even tried here in the US.

Obviously, nuclear is the way to go, but that'll take decades, thanks to the self-loathing ecofreaks.

The argument still holds water, though, that unilateral and draconian energy policies won't even make a dent in climate change. The US is no longer the world's largest emitter, and for what we do emit, we get twice the energy as China or India. Without the cooperation of those two, and the developing world (and that'll never happen,) anything the US does is just an interesting experiment in how far we can reduce our emissions while we drown.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China and India have very vigorous programs of alternatives development, much more so than the US and Europe. What they refuse to do is not develop to allow the US and Europe to carry on as normal. The Kyoto protocol was specifically designed to allow for this fact.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only answer seems for us to go back to a lifestyle like the dark ages.

Guess what, can't see anyone accepting that so ideas like this are needed.

Or convert to wind, which is cheaper anyway.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China and India have very vigorous programs of alternatives development, much more so than the US and Europe.

Br Cornelius

Let's hope it pays off.

In 2013, China produced 70% of its energy from coal, emitted more carbon dioxide than the next two largest countries combined (U.S.A. and India) and emissions had been increasing by 10% a year.

Chinese energy experts are estimating that by 2050 the percentage of China's energy requirements that are satisfied by coal-fired plants will have declined to 30-50% of total energy consumption and that the remaining 50-70% will be provided by a combination of oil, natural gas, hydropower, nuclear power, biomass and other renewable energy sources.

Source

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly don't agree with coal fired power stations. The stupid South African government have just bought a few more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to retort that the "Green" movement hippies, after their daylong protests against nuclear power, would all go home, wash their long hair in hot water, and blow it dry with 1500 Watt screaming blow dryers.

These days, I'm hopeful that "green" will soon mean nuclear.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to retort that the "Green" movement hippies, after their daylong protests against nuclear power, would all go home, wash their long hair in hot water, and blow it dry with 1500 Watt screaming blow dryers.

These days, I'm hopeful that "green" will soon mean nuclear.

Harte

Until they work out how to storte the waste - and the peak plutonium issues, I wouldn't count on that.

Fukishima was a statistical inevitability the literal fallout of which the world will have to deal with for thousands of years. That disaster hasn't played out yet and could get massively worse at any moment (for basic mechanical reasons that the containment pools could collapse at any moment). Recent radiation readings have massively spiked around the plants so it is definitely ongoing.

If you build more nuclear power plants expects a Fukishima scale disaster at about 10 year intervals - because that is what the risk analysis says to expect. I personally don't think that risk is one we can live with.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you build more nuclear power plants expects a Fukishima scale disaster at about 10 year intervals - because that is what the risk analysis says to expect. I personally don't think that risk is one we can live with.

I don't think we have to. Wind technology can do it now. All we need is to conversion strategy - and I think I know one that would work, at least in the US.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.