Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Still Waters

Global warming 'on pause' but set to resume

184 posts in this topic

As I understand it a greenhouse gas runaway effect could occur if enough methane should be released because of more gradual warming -- turning us into a planet much like Venus.

I also understand that there is a lot of water on Mars -- it is just that it is frozen a little under the surface, and that it became frozen because of dust storms.

These are no doubt remote possibilities, but in risk theory the seriousness of a possibility is a combination not just of its odds but also the intensity.

I think you are entirely too glib when what I see is humanity and all other life on earth at risk, and you are way too patronizing with me, which is no way to convince me of anything. In fact from what I can see your ignorance of how to handle statistics properly is abysmal and you should back off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been no global warming in the last fifteen years according to the met, this is what the op story says. I can tell that nether of you have read the story.

Frank long before we become venus we will enter an ice age to cool things down. No chance we can become mars, earth is to wet.

Bc looks like your cherry picking again. Only one data points show warming, which means all of the other data points shows no warming.

The met office is not the most complete dataset after all, my mistake. the met office dataset doesn't cover the poles and so shows the weakest warming trend. The most complete dataset is GISS(NASA) which does cover the poles and shows warming over the last 15 years. I apologise for not checking my facts before stating them - but the best dataset shows continued warming as I stated. So only by using the dataset with the smallest coverage can it be said that the global mean temperature has not increased over the last 15 years.

You really don't know what you are talking about Daniel, look at the reference which I just posted - the most complete dataset shows continued warming and if you apply the analysis over a meaningful period to assess climate there is almost no change in trend. this is because the period leading up to 1998 had a very steep warming trend peaking out at the hottest year on record 1998. Since then its been to noisy to make a simple statement about the trend.

12month-runav-w.jpg

This is the reality.

.......

Frank, things can never go the way of venus on earth because we just couldn't get that much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. the reason that venus has a run away temperature is because it is so hot (due to its proximity to the sun) that all carbonate carrying rocks outgas their carbon to the atmosphere. This is helped by the high acidity of the atmosphere which dissolves surface rocks. It just can't go that way here.

Mars is a dusty planet because it is to small to hold its water which has been lost to space, the dryness is intrinsic to the nature of the planet. The earth could become hot and humid with a semi-tropical climate to the poles - but we could never lose the water to space in the same way. Depending on what the polar ice melt does to the deep ocean currents we could reach a new higher plateau of temperature or we could return to an ice age if the deep polar currents become blocked. The data is uncertain - but the best guesses at this stage say that even a deep ocean switch off would not be enough to halt the continued warming of the planet - in which case the northern latitudes would just get wetter and probably slightly colder.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not reassured by your response. Venus and Mars are the way they are because of their own histories and natures, and merely saying that the Earth is different doesn't say much.

I'm worried more about methane than CO2, although at late stages of such a process CO2 would enter into it, the damage would already be done.

With regard to the earth, I'm worried about deforestation or maybe smoke bringing about a planet wide dust storm similar to what happens occasionally on Mars. It would take only one to freeze all the water and create a Mars-like atmosphere.

I have the feeling Mars and Venus are models or perhaps warnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not reassured by your response. Venus and Mars are the way they are because of their own histories and natures, and merely saying that the Earth is different doesn't say much.

I'm worried more about methane than CO2, although at late stages of such a process CO2 would enter into it, the damage would already be done.

With regard to the earth, I'm worried about deforestation or maybe smoke bringing about a planet wide dust storm similar to what happens occasionally on Mars. It would take only one to freeze all the water and create a Mars-like atmosphere.

I have the feeling Mars and Venus are models or perhaps warnings.

The methane bomb has gone off before a number of times in our planetary history. Feedbacks mean that equilibrium returns after a period of relative chaos. The unfortunate fact is that those periods of chaos have resulted in almost total extinction of life on the planet (over 90% of species). However the planet never locked into a new meta stable state comparable to either Mars or Venus as a consequence.

Your fears are unfounded unless you are afraid for the extinction of most higher life forms.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The met office? how many times they have been wrong in 20 years? lots. They can't even provide updated weather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The met office? how many times they have been wrong in 20 years? lots. They can't even provide updated weather

Weather is far harder to predict than the progression of climate trends. Chaos is the dominant variable within weather but the statistics applied to climate smooth this variability out of the analysis.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How terribly informative.

You free market fundamentalists have your very own devil now :w00t:

Br Cornelius

It was informative. I agree. There is a concept called "viral memetic infection", a concept created by an ex-moonie to explain why she got so caught up in the moonies. I think Gore is using this very sociological concept to further the "inconvenient truth" cult. He is coining phrases that people will use to argue or discuss this topic, regardless of the fact that many of his concepts are based on inaccurate science.

I once wrote to his org. for a website to find the information he was presenting. They replied, merely asking for money, but did not direct me to the science I asked for. I refused to pay money for his viral memtic infection that I simply did not want. The only way I could get that information was to PAY to view it. I simply wasn't going to do that. I don't BUY mind-sets.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weather is far harder to predict than the progression of climate trends. Chaos is the dominant variable within weather but the statistics applied to climate smooth this variability out of the analysis.

Like my mathematician son uses to say: Never trust a statistic that you did not fake yourself.

Just step back for a moment and let sink in what the Al Gore and his "global warming" crowd are talking about.

The earth atmosphere contains 0.038 % (o point o three eight percent) carbon dioxide. Of this, only approximately 4 % (four percent) are contributed by human activity. Which mean 0.00152 % (o point o o one five 2 percent). So, among the thousands of factors that all undoubtedly have some small effect on climate (including cow farts, by the way), the global warming crowd wants to convince us that by changing the percentage of 0.00152 % of a substance naturally occurring in the atmosphere, to, say, half of of it (0.00075 % or so), we can regulate the "global climate" like a friggin airconditioners.

And all that these 0.00075 % of CO2 content in atmosphere do, by the way, is help to *reflect* infrared light, not create it! Water vapor, by the way, has the same effect, only much stronger.

You don´t even need to go further than that. OF COURSE you can concoct mathematical models that correlate the 0.00075 % content of this or that in the atmosphere to this or that. My son can do that in a minute. So can I, for that matter.

If you want to look for the very definition of gullability, look no further than the people who swallow this b0ll0cks.

But of course the motivation for politicians has nothing to do with saving our oh-so-fragile planet, it is the opportunity to expand taxation and government.

"One must say clearly that we want to redistribute the world`s wealh by climate policy".

(Ottmar Edenhofer, United Nations IPCC)

Edited by Zaphod222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The earth atmosphere contains 0.038 % (o point o three eight percent) carbon dioxide. Of this, only approximately 4 % (four percent) are contributed by human activity. Which mean 0.00152 % (o point o o one five 2 percent). So, among the thousands of factors that all undoubtedly have some small effect on climate (including cow farts, by the way), the global warming crowd wants to convince us that by changing the percentage of 0.00152 % of a substance naturally occurring in the atmosphere, to, say, half of of it (0.00075 % or so), we can regulate the "global climate" like a friggin airconditioners.

And all that these 0.00075 % of CO2 content in atmosphere do, by the way, is help to *reflect* infrared light, not create it! Water vapor, by the way, has the same effect, only much stronger.

Something about your numbers doesn't add up. The atmosphere just passed the 400 ppm CO2 level (That's 0.040% CO2.). The CO2 level in the atmosphere was 280 ppm during the Ice Age. That's an increase of 120 ppm, or an increase of 42.4% attributable directly or indirectly to human activities.

If you fit the Keeling curve to a logistic with an asymptote added, the result is a baseline CO2 level of about 305 ppm of CO2. That fits your assumptions a little better, but still leaves a long way to go. OR: the Keeling curve model might indicate that something happened before 1959 that we just don't know about. Example: I still can't explain that "bump" in 1937/1938.

I'm not questioning your statistics, just your arithmetic and your sources.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.