I will defer to the experts but IMO climate is the weather that is recorded over a long span of time. Global Climate is the climate of the whole earth over a long period of time.
IP: Logged
09:27 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I will defer to the experts but IMO climate is the weather that is recorded over a long span of time. Global Climate is the climate of the whole earth over a long period of time.
We know how to measure weather. How is climate measured?
That's very true, local weather isn't climate. Thermometers measure temperature, I'm not sure what you are asking?
So, climate change/global warming/global cooling/[insert next darling term of the GW crowd here] doesn't include or mean increases in temperature. That's interesting.
It doesn't make a rat's butt in hell what equipment temperature is measured with, the bottom line is : "Hey, it isn't as warm here as we said it should be--what's up with that?"--'eh--no problem--forget it--we'll just tag it anecdotal" "But Hey, it is warmer over there than ususal" "Oh really? Great!!! Grab it quick--that's obviously scientific data--put it up on that interstate billboard for everyone to see".
So, climate change/global warming/global cooling/[insert next darling term of the GW crowd here] doesn't include or mean increases in temperature. That's interesting.
It doesn't make a rat's butt in hell what equipment temperature is measured with, the bottom line is : "Hey, it isn't as warm here as we said it should be--what's up with that?"--'eh--no problem--forget it--we'll just tag it anecdotal" "But Hey, it is warmer over there than ususal" "Oh really? Great!!! Grab it quick--that's obviously scientific data--put it up on that interstate billboard for everyone to see".
And the faithful just eat that bs right up.
So you are saying that temperature and weather data is omitted on purpose? Oh yeah, I keep forgetting the only true account of what is happening somewhere is what some random person says about something. No need for facts, years of collected data or even asking experts in the field, just got to hope to ask the right people I suppose.
How would you study climate and track any changes that night occur?
I keep forgetting which argument people are using, is it that the earths climate changes no matter what man does to his environment or that nothing is changing?
And the deniers keep their heads buried in the sand.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 06-04-2011).]
And the true believers keep their blinders on, trodding steadfastly along whatever path they are led down, seeing neither side to side or behind them.
If a random native of the Himilayas says his thermomater moved 1 degree, and a scientist comes along with his device and says-"-yep, the temp changed 1 degree", does it change the accuracy of the native's pronouncement? No--not one bit, but if no "scientists" came along, there are a slew of ostriches who would immediately tell the native that HIS data is anecdotal and therefore means absolutely nothing. I've seen the Goreites do it countless times right here on PFF.
I saw a thread here about a month ago proclaiming global warming to be a myth just because temperatures had not gone over 85 yet in May. I guess thats all the proof we need that it doesnt exist? Or is it? Cuz its hot as hell here now. Is there a time and place for scientific data to be part of examining what may be happening?
I know this: we had 3 of the hottest years on Record here in the Miami valley by measuring average temperatures and comparing them to previous measurings being kept since around the Civil War. If that is the yard stick we should be measuring by, I dont know for certain if that "means" global warming (as I am no expert) but one thing for certain: 3 recent record hot years- its a bad warming trend of SOME KIND at the very least. Could be temporary, could be snowballing.
Would we have this warming anyway without human influence? Quite possible. Are we the straw breaking the camel's back? Thats possible, too. What scares me is the possibility of finding the most irrefutable evidence about global warming only after its too late. So, IMHO, conservationism is still a great idea, and also good for "just in case" no matter how you think the data is stacked.. its a good practice, and at the very least it will make us more efficient and less wasteful, at the very most it could actually be instrumental in our survivability. So like anything, with environmentalism and conservationalism, I treat it with a "prepare for the worst, hope for the best" attitude.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 06-04-2011).]
Originally posted by tbone42: Would we have this warming anyway without human influence? Quite possible. Are we the straw breaking the camel's back? Thats possible, too. What scares me is the possibility of finding the most irrefutable evidence about global warming only after its too late. So, IMHO, conservationism is still a great idea, and also good for "just in case" no matter how you think the data is stacked.. its a good practice, and at the very least it will make us more efficient and less wasteful, at the very most it could actually be instrumental in our survivability. So like anything, with environmentalism and conservationalism, I treat it with a "prepare for the worst, hope for the best" attitude.
There is Global Cooling. It is caused today, by the Sun's lower output. It can also be caused by other factors like volcanic eruptions. It is not caused by CO2.
This is a graph showing the temperature averages in the Troposphere. This eliminates "local" conditions and is much more accurate than surface readings.
You can plainly see the average temperature decline starting in 2010. Remember that the earth has a somewhat delayed reaction to Sunspot variations. CO2 is a delayed response by the earth to hotter temperatures creating more vigorous plan and plankton growth. But it is interesting to note that while CO2 goes up, the temps go down. Hmmm...........
This shows the US average temps before 2010. Notice how it correlates so well
I repeat, we are in a cooling period.
Arn
The chicken or egg, or mighty straw that broke the camel's back theories are all well and good if the Global Warming advocates were right. The fact is still that it is concocted. The forces at work in the planet and sun are so huge that our existence in totality does not have measurable effect.
What we do though, with chemicals and radiation is poison our atmosphere. Now that is a valid concern.
Arn
IP: Logged
01:36 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Weather over a long period of time from what I have read. Seriously do you not understand or are you attempting to lead me somewhere?
Then we can assume that the global temperature is determined by compiling temperature data from as many weather reporting stations as possible, and plotting any trends, correct?
Then we can assume that the global temperature is determined by compiling temperature data from as many weather reporting stations as possible, and plotting any trends, correct?
Depending on if you mean temperature at a specific moment or for average for a period of time. Also it's not just weather stations that can determine temperature there are other means such as satellites as well.
still leading somewhere?
IP: Logged
04:37 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Greenhouse gas emissions increased by a record amount last year, to the highest carbon output in history, putting hopes of holding global warming to safe levels all but out of reach, according to unpublished estimates from the International Energy Agency.
The shock rise means the goal of preventing a temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius – which scientists say is the threshold for potentially "dangerous climate change" – is likely to be just "a nice Utopia", according to Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA. It also shows the most serious global recession for 80 years has had only a minimal effect on emissions, contrary to some predictions.
Last year, a record 30.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide poured into the atmosphere, mainly from burning fossil fuel – a rise of 1.6Gt on 2009, according to estimates from the IEA regarded as the gold standard for emissions data.
"I am very worried. This is the worst news on emissions," Birol told the Guardian. "It is becoming extremely challenging to remain below 2 degrees. The prospect is getting bleaker. That is what the numbers say."
Professor Lord Stern of the London School of Economics, the author of the influential Stern Report into the economics of climate change for the Treasury in 2006, warned that if the pattern continued, the results would be dire. "These figures indicate that [emissions] are now close to being back on a 'business as usual' path. According to the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] projections, such a path ... would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4C by 2100," he said.
"Such warming would disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people across the planet, leading to widespread mass migration and conflict. That is a risk any sane person would seek to drastically reduce."
Birol said disaster could yet be averted, if governments heed the warning. "If we have bold, decisive and urgent action, very soon, we still have a chance of succeeding," he said.
The IEA has calculated that if the world is to escape the most damaging effects of global warming, annual energy-related emissions should be no more than 32Gt by 2020. If this year's emissions rise by as much as they did in 2010, that limit will be exceeded nine years ahead of schedule, making it all but impossible to hold warming to a manageable degree.
Emissions from energy fell slightly between 2008 and 2009, from 29.3Gt to 29Gt, due to the financial crisis. A small rise was predicted for 2010 as economies recovered, but the scale of the increase has shocked the IEA. "I was expecting a rebound, but not such a strong one," said Birol, who is widely regarded as one of the world's foremost experts on energy.
John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace UK, said time was running out. "This news should shock the world. Yet even now politicians in each of the great powers are eyeing up extraordinary and risky ways to extract the world's last remaining reserves of fossil fuels – even from under the melting ice of the Arctic. You don't put out a fire with gasoline. It will now be up to us to stop them."
Most of the rise – about three-quarters – has come from developing countries, as rapidly emerging economies have weathered the financial crisis and the recession that has gripped most of the developed world.
But he added that, while the emissions data was bad enough news, there were other factors that made it even less likely that the world would meet its greenhouse gas targets.
• About 80% of the power stations likely to be in use in 2020 are either already built or under construction, the IEA found. Most of these are fossil fuel power stations unlikely to be taken out of service early, so they will continue to pour out carbon – possibly into the mid-century. The emissions from these stations amount to about 11.2Gt, out of a total of 13.7Gt from the electricity sector. These "locked-in" emissions mean savings must be found elsewhere.
"It means the room for manoeuvre is shrinking," warned Birol.
• Another factor that suggests emissions will continue their climb is the crisis in the nuclear power industry. Following the tsunami damage at Fukushima, Japan and Germany have called a halt to their reactor programmes, and other countries are reconsidering nuclear power.
"People may not like nuclear, but it is one of the major technologies for generating electricity without carbon dioxide," said Birol. The gap left by scaling back the world's nuclear ambitions is unlikely to be filled entirely by renewable energy, meaning an increased reliance on fossil fuels.
• Added to that, the United Nations-led negotiations on a new global treaty on climate change have stalled. "The significance of climate change in international policy debates is much less pronounced than it was a few years ago," said Birol.
He urged governments to take action urgently. "This should be a wake-up call. A chance [of staying below 2 degrees] would be if we had a legally binding international agreement or major moves on clean energy technologies, energy efficiency and other technologies."
Governments are to meet next week in Bonn for the next round of the UN talks, but little progress is expected.
Sir David King, former chief scientific adviser to the UK government, said the global emissions figures showed that the link between rising GDP and rising emissions had not been broken. "The only people who will be surprised by this are people who have not been reading the situation properly," he said.
Forthcoming research led by Sir David will show the west has only managed to reduce emissions by relying on imports from countries such as China.
Another telling message from the IEA's estimates is the relatively small effect that the recession – the worst since the 1930s – had on emissions. Initially, the agency had hoped the resulting reduction in emissions could be maintained, helping to give the world a "breathing space" and set countries on a low-carbon path. The new estimates suggest that opportunity may have been missed.
IP: Logged
08:50 PM
Jun 6th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant"
The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.
Let’s set a few things straight.
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
The disagreement comes about what happens next.
The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.
This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.
At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.
There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.
But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.
They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade — yet they have the gall to tell us “it’s worse than expected.” These people are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.
One way they conceal is in the way they measure temperature.
The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in 10ths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the United States, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source.
Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off. Why does official science track only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results?
The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after the Second World War, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.
We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!
Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate 10-fold — in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!
Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.
David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 06-06-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:02 AM
PFF
System Bot
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
That is an excellent article, and pretty much summarizes the whole situation. It was written by a scientist responsible for the Australian government's global warming program. Therefore, newf (by his own standards) MUST accept what he says. How about it, newf? Ready to admit it?
IP: Logged
11:57 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
That is an excellent article, and pretty much summarizes the whole situation. It was written by a scientist responsible for the Australian government's global warming program. Therefore, newf (by his own standards) MUST accept what he says. How about it, newf? Ready to admit it?
Seems you forget your own "sources" Bear, do a little searching about your scientist as it seems you are regurgitating the same old stories again (you could even check the other climate threads on here). Oh.... in fact I think that particular winner calls himself a "Rocket Scientist" if I'm correct.
Also I don't know if I've ever said that I would believe anyone just because they are a scientist, admittedly though if they are experts in the field they do come from a place of greater knowledge than I or most others. I will still choose to trust the overwhelming majority of climate experts and scientists in this case.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 06-06-2011).]
The "overwhelming majority" are not Global Warming supporters. The Global Warming supporters who claim to be scientists are very few indeed. Don't forget that the IPCC fraudulently represented the number of scientists supporting its view.
