Climate change another name for Weather

[wayneL]

Yep, the melting ice is absorbing all the heat.

You have not responded to my last post to you for some enlightenment?

Yes I have. Read it.

 

[rederob]

Looks like it's hotter somewhere, then colder somewhere else, for what it's Worth:

Record high temperature hit on day after Christmas
By MIKE LEEmikelee@star-telegram.com
Posted on Fri, Dec. 26, 2008

It's official. Friday's high temperature of 83 [at Fort Worth] was 2 degrees higher than the previous record set on Dec. 26, 2005.

That's about 30 degrees warmer than normal for this time of year.A storm system moving in from the Midwest began drawing warm southerly winds, which gusted as high as 35 mph, up from the Gulf of Mexico.

The wind blew away the overcast and dampness that prevailed in the morning.

"We got a break in the clouds, and that allows it to warm right up," National Weather Service meteorologist Jason Dunn said. The normal for this time of year is about 55 degrees.

 

[Aussiejeff]

CHINA is aiming to increase its coal production by about 30 per cent by 2015 to meet its energy needs, the Government has announced, in a move likely to fuel concerns over global warming.

Beijing plans to increase annual output to more than 3.3 billion tonnes by 2015, said Hu Cunzhi, chief planner of the land and resources ministry.

That is up from the 2.54 billion tonnes in produced 2007, according to the ministry....

... However China has repeatedly defended its use of coal, pointing to its efforts to develop renewable energies while blaming industrialised countries for the bulk of the greenhouse gases that are already doing the damage.

It also emphasises that the per capita emissions of greenhouse gases of China, the world's most populous country with more than 1.3 billion people, are far lower than those of the US and other developed nations.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24887816-5005961,00.html

While we yap, yap - China makes a predictable move - Checkmate.

Wonder where this leaves KRudd, PWong & SoopaGarret's plans?

 

[2020hindsight]

Current data set on sea ice.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

spooly (oops),
I believe that graph can be summarised that 2007 is the worst (least) extent of summer sea ice on (satellite) record, and 2008 is the second worst. agreed?

btw, Here's an animation of Polar Sea Ice in the 1990s... (takes a while to load, nothing particularly quantitative but sorta interesting in the range of the extent , both north and south poles)

This animation depicts sea ice extent in each polar region from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1999. Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/ReleaseImages/20031112/a002738.mpg

from this website...
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=2003111016173

Also here is NSIDC's bet for 2009 :-
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Ultimately, summer 2008 finished with the second-lowest minimum extent in the satellite record, 9% above the 2007 minimum and 34% below average. A more diffuse ice cover and a thinner pack nevertheless suggested a record-low ice volume (ice area multiplied by thickness) at the end of summer.

As the sun set in the Arctic with the advent of autumn, seasonal ice growth was initially quite rapid, but slowed during early November. Average ice extent in December was well below average and very close to that measured in 2007. Heading into 2009, the Arctic sea ice cover is again young and thin; given this set-up, a continuation of well-below-average sea ice extent in 2009 is a near certainty.

Two ways to compare 2008 with the past :-

 

[Calliope]

2020.
Do you honestly think that anybody reads or looks at your overload of cyber- garbage? Or don't you care, and you just get your satisfaction from muddying the waters?

 

[2020hindsight]

2020.
Do you honestly think that anybody reads or looks at your overload of cyber- garbage? Or don't you care, and you just get your satisfaction from muddying the waters?

Calliope
I'm just hoping you write a letter to your grandkids - along the lines of one of your recent posts ...

"Dear kids and grandkids
I suspect - no , I am absolutley sure , that there is no merit in these claims that the globe is warming, and that climate will change significantly as a result based on alleged models in various stages of development...

please thank me for avoiding a lot of bull**** spread by those scientific buffoons - thus avoiding the distress that they said you would end up experiencing - even avoid trying to understand climate and weather - even try to do something irrespective of whether or not man is responsible ...

signed
grandpa Calliope"

just keep nailing your colours to the mast fellas ...
I will enjoy (not) reading these posts in 10 years ...

This report mentions an English survey in 2006 of 750 11 to 17 year olds. It showed that while they were concerned about climate change, they were optimistic they could do something about it.

Having grandchildren in that age bracket I can assure you that a similar situation applies here. From their indoctrination in state schools children accept as a universal truth that global warming is here and is caused by us.

Are they prepared to something about it.
Yes.
What?
Switching off lights and stuff like that.

But they have an inbuilt much more powerful universal truth;

They were put on this earth to enjoy themselves

Two incompatible truths. Which one should they follow?

Dum loquimur, fugerit invida Aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero

Or as the kids would say "stop wasting time, let's party.'

I feel that this thread is an exercise in futility.

 

[2020hindsight]

mind you, after the threads on Hicks, the Ab apology, Obama etc , I'm getting a bit tired of stating the obvious

 

[wayneL]

Calliope
I'm just hoping you write a letter to your grandkids - along the lines of one of your recent posts ...

"Dear kids and grandkids
I suspect - no , I am absolutley sure , that there is no merit in these claims that the globe is warming, and that climate will change significantly as a result based on alleged models in various stages of development...

please thank me for avoiding a lot of bull**** spread by those scientific buffoons - thus avoiding the distress that they said you would end up experiencing - even avoid trying to understand climate and weather - even try to do something irrespective of whether or not man is responsible ...

signed
grandpa Calliope"

just keep nailing your colours to the mast fellas ...
I will enjoy (not) reading these posts in 10 years ...

You'll have to write one to yours then too, because I doubt that your carbon footprint is any different to Calliopes... 'cept you'll have to explain the hypocrisy of the warm lobby.

 

[Smurf1976]

Interesting article in the Australian today. A survey of how people think we will actually be generating "most" of our electricity in 20 years time.

26% said solar

23% coal

20% nuclear

10% wind

9% gas

1% other

Apart from the missing 11% (geothermal? tidal? hydro? oil?) there's the rather obvious point that 36% of Australians think that something that is impractical to do, use predominantly solar or wind, is actually going to happen.

A further 20% are expecting a crash course in nuclear plant construction and the subsequent decommissioning of virtually new coal and gas-fired plants. A possibility but one that seems highly unlikely in the same way as it would not be impossible to rebuild literally all the country's roads in the same time - but it's highly unlikely to actually happen given the cost.

I'd say that only 32% of Australians have any real idea about the electricity industry from that survey. Coal is what will happen by default, indeed the single largest source of our electricity in 20 years time will be plants already built and they are predominantly coal-fired. Gas could be done if we went crazy building pipelines, halted exports and converting coal-fired plants to gas - possible but not likely in view of the rising (trend) export value of gas.

So I'm thinking that basically one third of Australians have some idea about the scale of this from those figures. And perhaps 40% understand how difficult it will be to achieve large emissions cuts. The rest are clutching at straws, confused as to why unworkable ideas aren't being implemented and looking for someone to blame.

 

[2020hindsight]

Coal is what will happen by default, indeed the single largest source of our electricity in 20 years time will be plants already built and they are predominantly coal-fired. ...

yep - 20 years time they'll be inheriting our decisions of today.

But 50 years - that might be a different story (maybe)

Flannery :-

The majority of new nuclear power plants are being built in the developing world, where a less tight-laced bureaucracy and greater central control makes things easier.

China will commission two new nuclear power stations per year for the next 20 years, which from a global perspective is highly desirable, for 80% of China's power comes from coal.

India Russia Japan and Canada also have power stations under construction, while approvals are in place for 37 more in Brazil, Iran, India, Pakistan, South Korea, Finland and Japan.

Hey does this one give you a smile maybe :-

At the moment around a quarter of the world's demand for uranium is being met by reprocessing redundant nuclear weapons

 

[mayk]

I don't know why in 50 years china will need all that extra electricity. Remember, in 50 years time China's population will be less than the current population, unless their one child policy is repealed.

While it is against human rights, China is doing its bit for environment. But no one talks about this ...

In fact India will be a bigger problem in a few decades.

 

[rederob]

2020.
Do you honestly think that anybody reads or looks at your overload of cyber- garbage? Or don't you care, and you just get your satisfaction from muddying the waters?

I seldom read it.
Making the same point 100 ways is still the same point.

 

[Smurf1976]

yep - 20 years time they'll be inheriting our decisions of today.

But 50 years - that might be a different story (maybe)

Situation today is as follows. The key point is that we are very heavily reliant on the previous generation's spending on infrastructure in an industry where project lifetimes can span multiple generations.

Another key point is the timeframe as it relates to technology. Interestingly, it's a similar relationship in every way - time to build, time it will last, lifespan of the resource base. Longest being hydro, then brown coal, then black coal with natural gas being relatively short.

A nuclear plant is comprable to brown coal in this sense - if we'd been in nuclear right from the start instead of coal then we'd be heavily reliant on 1960's and 70's plant designs today.

NSW - most power is from decisions made in the 1970's, 60's, and 40's.

Vic - most power is from decisions made in the 1970's, 60's and 50's.

SA - most power is from decisions made in the 1990's and 70's.

Tas - most power is from decisions made in the period 1934 - 1983 although the oldest working plant still in permanent use dates back more than a century.

NT - mostly from decisions made in the early 1980's.

WA and Qld - with higher growth rates, recent decisions are more relevant in the total supply mix but there is still a substantial reliance on generation decisions made decades ago (since the 1960's).

In short, things don't change that quickly in the energy industry. The huge physical constructions and the capital involved in them are largely the reason why.

 

[wayneL]

An interesting article fro Von Mises Blog:

The Dangers of Disputing Warming Orthodoxy

 

[rederob]

An interesting article fro Von Mises Blog:

The Dangers of Disputing Warming Orthodoxy

More of the same from the camp of CC disbelievers.
This is not credible: Source information has been twisted by those contending it's the other camp doing it. Proof is here: http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/08/climate_scientists_views_on_cl_1.html
While the detailed survey results are here: http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf

The "scientific" camp is continuing with its (funded) business; For many it's along the lines of their research stretching beyond IPCC and the snout in trough snipes of CC deniers.
The CC deniers continue to trot out obfuscation and junk science.
Here's yet another recent example of their spin: http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
The linked report contains no analysis and readers might get the impression that nothing has changed.
Yet anyone following this thread will know that the situation in North and South Poles is very, very different.

 

[Calliope]

2020,

Okay, you fall back on the old cliche that your grandchildren will be forever grateful because grand-dad helped save the world.

This still doesn't explain how you expect your long, boring, repetitious posts will help bring this about.

 

[2020hindsight]

calliope I have the choice of listening to Walter H Thompson, or reading your posts ...
sorry, you lose again

...

ok it's finished (Churchill's Bodguard)

Hey man, what you write to your grandkids is for you to sort out - I can't help you...
btw, If I've misunderstood your post to me, it's probably because I can't really be bothered reading it in its entirety

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

calliope I have the choice of listening to Walter H Thompson, or reading your posts ...
sorry, you lose again

...

ok it's finished (Churchill's Bodguard)

Hey man, what you write to your grandkids is for you to sort out - I can't help you...
btw, If I've misunderstood your post to me, it's probably because I can't really be bothered reading it in its entirety

2020 you should submit an article to Quadrant Magazine, the editor Keith Windschuttle is quite open to publishing articles from both the left and the right on Global Warming.

He pays $200 an article and you might , with one article recoup some of the energy that you have expended on this thread , making silage out of a very complex argument.

gg

 

[Calliope]

If I've misunderstood your post to me, it's probably because I can't really be bothered reading it in its entirety

Exactly. If three lines is a little long for your attention span, at least you can understand why long winded, boring posts like yours are an object of amusement and not edification.

But keep them coming. Your short posts are juvenile.

 

[Julia]

2020 you should submit an article to Quadrant Magazine, the editor Keith Windschuttle is quite open to publishing articles from both the left and the right on Global Warming.

He pays $200 an article and you might , with one article recoup some of the energy that you have expended on this thread , making silage out of a very complex argument.

gg

You must have read the Crikey.com article about Windschuttle, g.g. Made him look just a little silly, did it not?
When reading it, I thought of this thread. So easy to prey on people's vulnerability to be seen to be embracing the most popular whim of the times.