Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Global warming or Not?


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#16    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 March 2012 - 05:39 PM

View PostJayMark, on 29 March 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

I can't do all the experiments and studies myself alone, that is for sure. But no man alone on this planet can so that's why many people are working on it. The best proof is the 4th IPCC report. On the other side, I don't think you can prove it wrong yourself.

Just look at the data, it speak for itself.

There's so many free available data sets on the internet.

View PostAlienated Being, on 30 March 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:


If global warming truly existed, then there simply would not be some areas of the earth that are not rising in temperature. Everywhere would be rising in temperature, regardless. The science behind man-made global warming states that CO2 traps heat energy as it is being reflected off of the earth. I


To keep it simple.

If you fart in your living room does it smell in the kitchen?

"Its not true, before my brain says so" - BFB

#17    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 30 March 2012 - 07:16 PM

View PostAlienated Being, on 30 March 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

No, you're right - I can't prove it myself, however... there exists a lot of physical evidence to suggest the contrary of supporting postulation of man-made global warming.
Do you have any source? I would be curious to see those "evidences".

Quote

Okay, and the scientists involved with carrying out the research in support of man-made global warming are not? Do you know how much money is made in the man-made global warming campaign? $5 Billion in grants is being accumulated annually for global warming research. Al Gore alone is worth $100 million, resulting from his "Inconvenient Truth" campaign.
If for you accumulating money to keep going with the reasearch (because it inevitably costs money) is a sign of corruption (or whatever), I fail to understand your point. Do you have a source expalining this more in detail?

And why would gas and oil industries fund an organization/scientists that state that we need to cut down massively on GHG emissions that are majorly produced by these same industries? Makes no sense.

Also, you should consider how much money has to be spent or that is lost as a concequence of man-made pollution and climate change as well. The $5.1 billions you talk about are rediculous compared to the actual costs generated/lost by climate changes, and all the lifes it is threatening and taking away.

Santé Canada (Health Canada) states that $4 billions alone are spend annually in medical care as a concequence of atmospheric pollution just in the Québec province (under 8 million people, clearly not the most polluted and/or affected place in the world).

Quote

Also, IPCC's entire purpose is to support their purported theories, even if they are wrong...
Their purpose is to know the facts and the truth about it (not to just back their pals) and they do it through rigourous and valid scientific observations, experiments and studies.

Quote

The fact of the matter is that, if man-made global warming DID undeniably, irrefutably exist, then there would simply exist no room to challenge the claims - it would simply... be. Clearly there are holes in global warming, hence why those scientists had gotten together to go and argue the validity of such claims.

Could you explain to me what are these holes? And could you explain to me where/what is the "room" to challenge it? Do you have any source?

Quote

If global warming truly existed, then there simply would not be some areas of the earth that are not rising in temperature. Everywhere would be rising in temperature, regardless. The science behind man-made global warming states that CO2 traps heat energy as it is being reflected off of the earth.

This is an assumption made out of a lack of knowledge about the heat distribution mechanism of the planet earth.

About the other part, CO2 traps heat period. Whether it's from the incoming irradiance from space or from the land-reflected irradiance that also came from the sun, it traps it. The CO2's radiative forcing can be determined in a lab. Same with every GHG.

So basically more of them in the ATM will inevitably raise the radiative forcing resulting in a warming of the system unelss solar activity decreases enough to compensate for it, which is not happening. That is the basis of it.

Quote

Yes, and Al Gore's campaign is evidence of that.

The only ones that still doubt either lack of knowledge about the physics behind it all, refuse to see the truth or do it purposely for cash.

Quote

I, again, disagree with this. The earth has been warming for a very, very long time. The natural cycles of earth have converted the Sahara desert from being a thriving, beautiful grassland to the largest desert in the world.

The earth has been warming and cooling many times in the past. It's simply not a valid argument to imply it's not warming anymore or even that the current warming is simply not the result of human activity. The IPCC covers all that.  

Quote

If it's a natural change, then how can we be the cause? Like I said, the earth has been warming, and cooling, for a much longer time prior to our existence.

I misinterpreted myself there. Our activity mainly results in an increase in radiative forcing. Then all the concequences are mainly just "natural reactions" to this increase. Hope you get what I'm trying to say here.

Quote

I have gone through the fourth report, and I am still not convinced.

I seriously don't think you went through the report at least enough to understand the physics behind it. If you did, it seems that you have at some point a lack of knowledge and understanding about the basic physics behind it all (no harm intended) or refuse to understand them.

Saying global warming is not happening can only be proven if you demonstrate that the net radiative balance of the earth hasen't globally changed (in average) as the IPCC report states.

Peace.

Edited by JayMark, 30 March 2012 - 07:41 PM.

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...

#18    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 30 March 2012 - 07:21 PM

View PostBFB, on 30 March 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

Just look at the data, it speak for itself.

There's so many free available data sets on the internet.

To keep it simple.

If you fart in your living room does it smell in the kitchen?

Depends on the volume of gas you expel and the air currents. Oh, wait, isn't it the same for the earth? I thought so.

Thank you.  :tu:

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...

#19    blackdogsun

blackdogsun

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 127 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2011

Posted 30 March 2012 - 10:02 PM

well if insurance companies and the military around the world are convinced then who am i to disagree
http://davidbrin.blo...-insurance.html


#20    Alienated Being

Alienated Being

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2006

  • "The best way to predict the future is by inventing it."

    "Record

Posted 31 March 2012 - 01:54 AM

View PostJayMark, on 30 March 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

Do you have any source? I would be curious to see those "evidences".
A simple search on Google will return the results that you seek, I am almost certain.


Quote

If for you accumulating money to keep going with the reasearch (because it inevitably costs money) is a sign of corruption (or whatever), I fail to understand your point. Do you have a source expalining this more in detail?
My point is quite evident - you stated that people are simply argue against global warming are paid to do it, and I was merely stating that those who argue in support of global warming are, as well. I don't understand what was so difficult to comprehend about that.

Quote

And why would gas and oil industries fund an organization/scientists that state that we need to cut down massively on GHG emissions that are majorly produced by these same industries? Makes no sense.

Quote

Their purpose is to know the facts and the truth about it (not to just back their pals) and they do it through rigourous and valid scientific observations, experiments and studies.
Out of all of the reading I have done with regards to global warming, I find no reason to believe in it. Not at all. I'd hardly consider it as being "fact" or as being a "truth".

Quote

Could you explain to me what are these holes? And could you explain to me where/what is the "room" to challenge it? Do you have any source?
Google will do this for you.

Quote

This is an assumption made out of a lack of knowledge about the heat distribution mechanism of the planet earth.
I think I have a pretty firm grasp on it, to be honest.

Quote

About the other part, CO2 traps heat period. Whether it's from the incoming irradiance from space or from the land-reflected irradiance that also came from the sun, it traps it. The CO2's radiative forcing can be determined in a lab. Same with every GHG.
A lot of the reports that I have read regarding man-made global warming have stated that the heat is only trapped when it is leaving the earth, not when it is entering; hence that is why I am skeptical about global warming as a whole, because this notion is exercised rigorously.


Quote

The earth has been warming and cooling many times in the past. It's simply not a valid argument to imply it's not warming anymore or even that the current warming is simply not the result of human activity. The IPCC covers all that.
Um, well, if it has been warming and cooling in the past, and it is in the process of a warming state at this point, then I am rather inclined to believe that it is a natural cycle of the earth, and not the result of human interference. I never said that it wasn't warming now... I said that WE are not the cause of the current warming of the earth. Why should we believe that we are, when it is completely evident that it has gone through many warming/cooling trends in the end? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Quote

Saying global warming is not happening can only be proven if you demonstrate that the net radiative balance of the earth hasen't globally changed (in average) as the IPCC report states.

Peace.
You seem to put a lot of faith into the IPCC...

Edited by Alienated Being, 31 March 2012 - 01:55 AM.


#21    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,647 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 31 March 2012 - 09:01 PM

View PostAlienated Being, on 28 March 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

Can you prove that? If that were the case, then why would 400 highly reputable, international scientists challenged the theory of global warming? If it were so undeniable, and irrefutable, there would be for 400 scientists to gather around and argue that global warming is not man made.
400 is a drop in the bucket.  There are thousands of scientists working on problems related to global warming.  Because a person is an expert in one subject area doesn't mean he/she knows anything in another one.  I once had a MATHEMATICIAN try to tell me how a silvicultural thinning was bad for the forest.  He didn't even know the units of measurement, let alone anything about biology.  Some geologists really think we could go into another ice age.  A quick look at atmospheric physics/chemistry will take care of that idea.  At any rate, I'd like to know who these scientists are and in what fields their expertise lies.

Quote

Pretty sure global warming suggests that temperatures are increasing in our atmosphere, hence the incorporation of the term "global", and simply not "localized based on urbanization".
The term applies to "surface" temperature.  For ground weather stations, that means a height of 20 feet above the surface.  For satellite observations, that means the surface itself; a satellite looks at the one-quarter inch of snow on the surface and doesn't see the warm rock underneath.

The 0.8 degrees often cited for the twentieth century is an average taken over land at mid-latitudes.  The amount is about half this over the sea and about four times this in polar regions.  Warming is damped by water, so is much less near an ocean (like the Gulf and Atlantic).  It is greater in dry areas (Amarillo, Tx) because there is less water there to damp down temperatures.

Quote

Again, if this were a globally accepted truth, then 400 reputable scientists would not have felt the need to argue the validity of such models/data.
There are a few scientists who have legitimate questions about some aspects of climate science.  Robert Lindzen, for one, challenges any minor glitch he sees in anybody's statistics.  For many years he insisted that the science did not support the conclusion that cigarette smoking is bad for your health - the statistics had problems.  Now, those problems have been corrected, so he has gone on to climate science.

And I have seen names on lists of debunkers of people who were totally unqualified.  A better idea than looking at lists of specialists in other fields would be to find out what CLIMATOLOGISTS are saying.  What do people who really know about climate have to say?

Quote

Funnily enough, IPCC stated, "The Earth's atmosphere-ocean dynamics are chaotic; its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the initial conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by our uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes." - Climate Change 2001


AS will a natural change in the earth's climate.
Absolutely.  But "chaotic" does not mean "haphazard."  Read up on Chaos Theory - it spells out the "Laws of Chaos."  Chaotic systems follow definite rules.

And what IPCC is talking about are climate models.  They have a few difficulties -  like treating glaciers like giant ice cubes and not taking ice dynamics into account.  If you want to know what will happen in the future, look at the past.  When the world was four degrees hotter, how high was sea level?  How much CO2 was in the air?  What was the solar irradiance?  How much carbon was sequestered?  That will tell you what to expect this time.

Do you want to bet the future of the planet, even all of humanity, on what the debunkers are saying?  Especially those who have no qualifications in climatology?  Especially some who let their Ph.D.s go to their heads?  Especially when limiting greenhouse gases, particuarly CO2 is cheaper than our current business-as-usual practices?
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#22    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,647 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 31 March 2012 - 09:33 PM

View PostAlienated Being, on 28 March 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

Can you prove that?
For openers:  there are lists of globally-averaged temperatures available for free on line.  NCDC and NOAA have two.  The Hadley Institute has several more.  All show warming since about 1907/1908 with a brief interuption in the late 60s and now a decline in the rate of increase since 1998 (Hadley III shows a slight decline.).  If you can't find these yourself, PM me and I'll send the NCDC one to you (It's in an EXCEL file.).  The deniers have been unable to post a dataset of their own, even though all data needed to do it are available for free.

We have a continuous record of CO2 levels in the atmosphere beginning in 1957 when the CO2 concentration was about 315 ppm.  It is now close to 400 and may even be there as I write this (I also have a copy of this on EXCEL and will be glad to send it to you.).  I am a dendrochronologist (someone who studies tree rings) and find it necessary to correct my ring widths for CO2 fertilization before I can extract information on storms and climate from them (This is one of the things the "climategate" emails were about:  the "trick" of removing CO2 from the ring-width data.).  Tree rings provide independent confirmation of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere; it's a nice, simple linear relationship, easy to use, but removal of the CO2 signal can also remove the temperature signal, so care is needed.

CO2 levels are now about 120 ppm higher than they were 200 years ago.  We know of no sources of this much CO2 in the air that are not human-caused.  The "proof" consists of a carbon budget:  start with the total amount of CO2 released last year (change in CO2 concentration times amount of air).  Then subtract the carbon contributed by each natural source.  The human-caused part is what is left over.  We can easily break this down further by subtracting out the carbon from coal (tons of coal mined times proportion of that toaage that is carbon), the carbon from oil, etc.

There's a huge amount of data to go through; that's why people are reluctant to do it - it would take a huge amount of time.  I suggest you pursue a doctorate in climatology if you want all the details (Even then, you won't get them all.).
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#23    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,647 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 01 April 2012 - 04:18 PM

View PostAlienated Being, on 30 March 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

Okay, and the scientists involved with carrying out the research in support of man-made global warming are not?
I believe you misunderstand the mechanism.  The guy who will peer review your paper may well be a supporter of global warming.  You don't know, because it is the editors who choose the final reviewers.  Unless you have really solid evidence, you don't want to go too far out in left field or you won't get published.  The lack of anti-warming papers is a function of the weakness of the data supporting those conclusions.

So if you think previous author(s) got it wrong and your evidence isn't the best, what do you do?  You publish something that is a little closer to what you think the truth is, but still reasonable from the perspective of previous research.  Now YOU are part of the status quo.

The next author thinks you're both wrong and publishes an article detailing his ideas.  As this process repeats over time, published estimates move closer to the truth.  Eventually, somebody publishes something showing why the original study wasn't quite what it should have been and the entire field shifts its position.

But I see no movement away from human-caused warming.


About financing of research:  most researchers are salaried.  I am one such.  I have no need for grants as my funding comes from the USFS by way of the McEntire-Stennis program.  I am limited to the study of shortleaf pine, but as long as my papers have "Shortleaf Pine" in the title, I can do pretty much anything I want.  So I am studying the effects of ice storms on shortleaf pines.  The big disadvantage is shortleaf pine's short life-span (The oldest known tree dates from 1580; an the datasets I am able to extract reach back only to 1700.).

I will soon start work on an ice storm history of the Ouachita National Forest.  To do this, I must remove the climate signal from my data.  And that means I have to define that signal exactly.  I have already run some preliminary studies to find out if CO2 is affecting tree ring width - it is.  That CO2 levels have risen since 1960 and correlate very well with tree ring width is proven independently by my own climate models.


There are about 120 ppm more CO2 in the air than is "natural."  All you have to do to calculate how much of that came from coal, for example, is to take the number of tons mined each year since 1900 and multiply by the proportion of that tonnage that is carbon (about 50%).  CO2 is 27.3% carbon.  Divide the tons of carbon by 0.273 and you have the number of tons of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere by burning coal.  Do the same for oil and the same for natural gas.  Total those.  Divide that number by the total weight of the atmosphere.  Then add in the current 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and you have the current CO2 concentration.

Except for one detail:  the number you get is about 520 ppm.  Humans have put twice as much carbon dioxide into the air as is there now.  The question is not where did that extra 120 ppm come from:  it's where did those extra 120 ppm go?

Most probably went into the ocean.  As more and more goes there, the ocean's ability to absorb more decreases exponentially.  The extra stays in the air, causing an exponential increase in atmospheric CO2.  What does Keeling's graph show?  An exponential increase in CO2!



A lot of research is being done by graduate students at their own expense, or with minimal support.  The discovery that plants actively fight fire by pumping extra water into their leaves was made by a graduate student whose only financial support was a drying oven supplied for free by Edmund Scientific.  Even if funding dries up, a few people, like me, will continue doing studies.  Truth will out.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#24    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 02 April 2012 - 03:57 PM

View PostAlienated Being, on 31 March 2012 - 01:54 AM, said:

A simple search on Google will return the results that you seek, I am almost certain.

I have seen a lot of them but most of them are rediculous and can be debunked pretty easily. If you have a more solid source, again, I'd like to see it. Anyhow, most sites that are concerned aren't even consistent with their "facts" and they all have diffrent "theories" and other crap. They also play with actual facts and number to fool people in many wrong ways.

Quote

My point is quite evident - you stated that people are simply argue against global warming are paid to do it, and I was merely stating that those who argue in support of global warming are, as well. I don't understand what was so difficult to comprehend about that.

I know but in what way is it an evidence that they lie? Not like they would all do it for free on their week-ends.

Quote

Out of all of the reading I have done with regards to global warming, I find no reason to believe in it. Not at all. I'd hardly consider it as being "fact" or as being a "truth".

That's because you simply don't want to see it or plain and simply don't understand the physics of it. I've given you a lot of hints regarding it but you hardly talk about anything scientific. That's why I think you simply don't understand.

Quote

Google will do this for you.

Already done. Found nothing that is close to disproving global warming or our impact on it.

Quote

I think I have a pretty firm grasp on it, to be honest.

Then why do you imply something that suggests the oposite? If you stand by your affirmation, then you just don't know enough about it.

Quote

A lot of the reports that I have read regarding man-made global warming have stated that the heat is only trapped when it is leaving the earth, not when it is entering; hence that is why I am skeptical about global warming as a whole, because this notion is exercised rigorously.

Most of it is. A small part is trapped upon passage while the rest is trapped as you said. Global warming as a whole is simply the average rise in temperatures all around the world. Some places are very affected while some are not and even cooler. What matters concerning the notion of "global warming" is the net average of the whole, which is positive by about 0.8°C. That's why it dosen't necessarly imply that the T° is rising everywhere. Just that there is more warming than idle or cooling.

Quote

Um, well, if it has been warming and cooling in the past, and it is in the process of a warming state at this point, then I am rather inclined to believe that it is a natural cycle of the earth, and not the result of human interference. I never said that it wasn't warming now... I said that WE are not the cause of the current warming of the earth. Why should we believe that we are, when it is completely evident that it has gone through many warming/cooling trends in the end? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Well you said in this very post that "Out of all of the reading I have done with regards to global warming, I find no reason to believe in it. Not at all." I thought you didn't plain beleive in it.

About the rest, just check the picture I posted in earlier message. Your anwser is right there conserning natural vs human influence in the radiative forcing. In the past, there were diffrent but also similar causes. We are only one added cause which is by far the greatest in the current situation. Not only are we a great source of GHG, our activity has greatly negatively altered the natural GHG sinks. Also most major causes of the past aren't even in play here such as a change in the orbital/axis or very intense volcanic activity. Sun has only contributed to a small increase in forcing since 1900's as well.

Quote

You seem to put a lot of faith into the IPCC...

I do. There is no better report. The thing is solid, valid and the conclusions are established and validated. Global warming is real, we are the major cause. That is an established fact. Proving both points have been done quite a while ago. Nobody ever has been able to prove those simple affirmations wrong simply because they aren't. Period.

Peace.

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...

#25    Toolite

Toolite

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 483 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Female

Posted 02 April 2012 - 05:38 PM

unfortunately global warming is a problem... I believe we will see hotter summers and not as cold winters..  Proactively, I think we have to think of how to make it better..

All The Glory Belongs To God Forever!


#26    Krakatoa

Krakatoa

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Joined:02 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Montreal

  • Hi everyone!

Posted 02 April 2012 - 10:54 PM

View PostToolite, on 02 April 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

unfortunately global warming is a problem... I believe we will see hotter summers and not as cold winters..  Proactively, I think we have to think of how to make it better..

All The Glory Belongs To God Forever!

almost 2 weeks ago, we had 5 days with almost 80 F. I am in South West Quebec, Canada, 500 feet to the U.S. Boarder NY state. It never happened, especially in march.

The frog sang, the trees were in the process of being green.

Then we went back to normal temps. but last night I heard a frog, that is a good sign, real spring is coming, the grownth of the leaves stopped but it is still green, when it is sunny like today, it is very good for them, I say it this way, because I was afraid that the trees would suffer with sub zero temps and also the frogs.

They told us the meteorologists, that from now on, we will have more rain than snow in winter and warmer summers.

Some people, think that the heat is coming from withing earth and that is the only reason the weather is warming, but that the truth is that an Ice age is coming.

We will know soon enough.

Krakatoa.

Edited by Krakatoa, 02 April 2012 - 10:58 PM.


#27    GoldenRabbit

GoldenRabbit

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 213 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney Australia

Posted 03 April 2012 - 03:38 AM

Im in Australia and the global warming theory is not looking to good over this way.

Quote

2011, like 2010, was a La Niña year with well-above-average rainfall. Flooding was a persistent feature of the year, affecting large areas of the north and east of Australia. Back-to-back La Niña events led to a highest-on-record two-year rainfall total, and for 2011 alone, it was the second-wettest year on record. 2011 was the first time in a decade that Australia recorded a cooler-than-average annual mean temperature, although below-average temperatures were mostly confined to northern Australia. Globally, 2011 was the equal-tenth-warmest year on record.
12 January 2012 - Record cold temperatures in SE states. A cold outbreak across Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales occurred on 11 and 12 January following a very strong cold front.On the 11th, the mercury only rose to 0.6C at Mt Hotham summit, setting a new record low maximum temperature for Australia by a considerable margin. Mt Buller and Mt Baw Baw also broke the previous January low maximum record of 1.9 held by Thredbo and Mt Hotham. Full details are in a Special Climate Statement issued by the Bureau of Meteorology today. My link


Edited by david_36, 03 April 2012 - 03:41 AM.

Go The Bunnies :)

#28    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,302 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:28 AM

View Postdavid_36, on 03 April 2012 - 03:38 AM, said:

Im in Australia and the global warming theory is not looking to good over this way.
??  I'd advise you to take a wider view, and also read all the information at your own link, which includes words like:

Quote

Australia was one of the few places on the globe to experience cooler than average temperatures in 2011.
Despite the slightly cooler conditions in Australia in 2011, the country's 10-year average continues to demonstrate the rising trend in temperatures, with 2002-2011 likely to rank in the top two warmest 10-year periods on record for Australia
There's weather, and then there's climate, and then there's global warming..

All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

"Like the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, the UFO issue probably will not go away soon, no matter what the CIA does or says. The belief that we are not alone in the universe is too emotionally appealing and the distrust of our government is too pervasive to make the issue amenable to traditional scientific studies or rational explanation and evidence." - Gerald K Haines

#29    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 03 April 2012 - 02:55 PM

View PostKrakatoa, on 02 April 2012 - 10:54 PM, said:

almost 2 weeks ago, we had 5 days with almost 80 F. I am in South West Quebec, Canada, 500 feet to the U.S. Boarder NY state. It never happened, especially in march.

The frog sang, the trees were in the process of being green.

Then we went back to normal temps. but last night I heard a frog, that is a good sign, real spring is coming, the grownth of the leaves stopped but it is still green, when it is sunny like today, it is very good for them, I say it this way, because I was afraid that the trees would suffer with sub zero temps and also the frogs.

They told us the meteorologists, that from now on, we will have more rain than snow in winter and warmer summers.

Some people, think that the heat is coming from withing earth and that is the only reason the weather is warming, but that the truth is that an Ice age is coming.

We will know soon enough.

Krakatoa.

I also live in Québec. Here is a quick summary of how it is evolving.

- July 1996: Great flood of Sagueney. In 2 days, the equivalent of all the precipitaions of the whole month of July have fallen (50 mm to 275 mm). $1.5 billion worth of damages. 16 000 evacuated people.

- 1998: Great ice rain storm of south Québec. 5 days or so worth of ice rain. Up to 100mm of thickness in some places. About 3 150 000 people were affected (app. 900 000 houses) from hours to weeks. We are talking mainly about power issues and physical damages. $6.4 billion of economical losses. A similar even occured in the east recently.

- 2007-2008: Unusually high snow falls. We have received about 500 cm of snow which is about 200 cm over the average. Boy did I shovel.

- 2009-2010: Warmest winter so far in whole Canada. About 4°C over the average. In south Québec, we were 3°C over. Note that the previous record had happened in 2005-2006.

- 2010: Unusually intense heat waves. That was (I think) the warmest summer ever in the whole world (haven't checked 2011 yet). At night the temperature was about 10°C over average and in April, the Montréal temperature was 5°C over the average.

- 2010 again: Erosion of the "Îles de la Madeleine". Shortage of ice that usually protects the shores, winds eroded a year worth of it in 2 days.

- 2010 again: Great tides. Rare meteological phenomenons have been causing ususually high tides which resulted in great economical and ecological losses. In Rimouski, tides of over 5.5 m have been measured which crushed the previous record.

- 2010-2011: Absence of ice in the Saint-Laurent gulf. For two concecutives years, ice have not been forming where it usually does. It is the first time it ever happened. It had an impact on economical activities and tourism (eastern Québec beeing beautiful and attracting lots of tourists). Also the cause of the brutal erosion mentionned earlier in this post.

- 2011: Flood of the Richelieu. Record snow falls and rain flooded a great part of the Montérégie affecting over 3000 houses. The Richelieu river had never been recorded to have been as high.

That's it for now. We are only having a taste of what's coming in the next decades.

Peace.

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...

#30    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 03 April 2012 - 03:05 PM

View Postdavid_36, on 03 April 2012 - 03:38 AM, said:

Im in Australia and the global warming theory is not looking to good over this way.

Global warming isn't a theory. It's a proven reality.

The fact that some areas do not warm as fast or at all isn't an evidence that it is not happening.

To understand the principles behind it, you have to study how air/water currents work. They are the "heat distribution mechanism" of the earth and are partially ruled by thermodynamic laws.

Unusually intense El Nino (warming) or La Nina (cooling) phenomenons are majorly the result of radiative balance disturbances (directly and indirectly) which is positive (rising) in our case, hence the global warming fact.

Peace.

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users