This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Climate change another name for Weather

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
One last comment about the assertion (by Bolt and others) that the world has been cooling since 1998.
a) it was a single year of high value which coincided with El Nina - and of course el Nina's are part and parcel of the problem of GW/CC in any case i.e. their frequency and severity are all due to GW - but moving on
b) were the results averaged it would show the continued upward trend, especially when the lesser solar activity was deducted to show the continuning increasing contribution of CO2
c) 1998 was an "outlier" - i.e. a statistical blip - a bit like the diving judges when they ignore the top and mottom arks and average the rest.
d) as they also say, there are liars, outliers, and out-an-out liers.

PS try telling your Uni maths professor that that you'd like to do a PhD on the subject, and your first comment was that you'd looked at the data, and it's clear that
a) the world has generally been cooling since 1998 (based on one spike), and
b) that proves that the ghg contribution in particular is a furphy
I'm guessing you'd be laughed out of the faculty.

Hell, half the time the same people who say a) is true ...
also agree that b) is currently influenced by a slow start to the next possibly milder 11-12 yearly solar cycle
 

Frequency and severity are as a result of increased CO2?
Do you have a cite if I've assumed correctly.
 
2020,

especially when the lesser solar activity was deducted
Click to expand...

Was the higher solar activity of before added to prove the figures?? or do we only take lesser solar activity into account???

We simply do not understand the sun and its cycles enough to fully know its impact on our climate, however there is plenty of evidence that these cycles are directly related to hotter and colder periods, irrespective of the levels of CO2.

Here is another site with lots of inconvenient facts for the true believers..

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

brty
 
I cannot believe how you Warmeners still persist with your claptrap.

There are so many variables in weather.

How can you pin anything on CO2.??

I myself generally drop the window on the Arnage if I need to get an opinion on climate or weather, or ask some bloke who has seen more than a few cycles of weather in the district I am in.

I certainly wouldn't ask that big fat capitalist bastard Al Gore.

gg
 

They can pin it on CO2 because there is historical evidence of it causing big climate shifts in the past. Global warming is the wrong label for it as well because some parts of the world will actually get colder.
 

The lack of scientific reasoning on that site is a worry - that's the problem i have with all the sceptics, never enough reasoning and study involved in their arguments - half of it's put together by people with very little scientific background and the other half comes from people with vested interests.

They leave out too much very important information.
 

They are not sceptics in the true sense. They are reactionary.
There is no point arguing.

According to half of them, man didn't land on the moon.
 

Change "sceptics" to "alarmists" and you start to make sense.
 
brty, what a great article you have found from geocraft. It is something I have always believed to be the truth. I sincerely hope all the alarmist read it.

Please send a copy to Penny Wong and Al Gore, I'm sure they would love to read it. Pigs might fly too!
 
The site is a non-event in the climate change debate.
Latch on to it for all it's worth - which is very little.
It comes as no surprise to those that have half a brain that Hieb's links are to fossil fuel, while his "climate" contributions could be put together by a primary school student on google.
 
One and the same Gumby, one and the same. Sceptics are raving on about shadows that do not line up and a flag fluttering when impaled into the surface. No wind on the moon right? Why did it flutter then? Knida stuff. I remember a journalist hack asking Buzz Aldrin (His mums name was Marion Moon by the way. Irony is a b!tch sometimes) the same question. Poor guy woke up in hospital with a broken jaw.
 
I'm not going to get sucked in to debating the CO2 thing but.....

One of the really funny (Ha Ha) things about this whole issue is.... SO WHAT? So sea levels are going to rise because of increasing CO2. So what? They are going to rise anyway regardless of human activity. So some people will have to relocate. So what? It's happened in the past and will happen in the future. So, get over it.

Temperatures will rise. Maybe. So what? It's happened before. Live with it, things change, life changes, species come and go. Yes sure humankind has caused direct extinction of many species. But a damned site more have been made extinct my humans uncaring selfish land clearing, pollution (no, not CO2, but stuff far more dangerous) etc, than the number that will go down because of increased CO2.

Climate will change. Yes. But it's going to anyway, regardless of human activity. I would be far more worried about global cooling than warming, based on current scientific knowledge.

Really, this whole debate should be taken away from the pollies. They're just crackers anyway. As soon as the pollies got involved in this thing, the opportunity arose to get more control over "the people", get more money (read TAX) for the polly dumb ideas and to make certain folks (eg Gore) richer. Come on guys, do you really think this guy gives a damn about anything but himself? He's just another ponzi Maddoff.

Now...........having done my rant........... That is not to say we should not be "doing something". But for different reasons than the populist global warming mantra.

Oil & gas will be depleted. So it makes sense to come up with a better energy source. Besides, oil and gas should preferably be used as feedstock for petrochemicals, not sent up the chimney stack to make cheap electricity. Also for transportation fuel, until a viable alternative is developed. And, the problem with Coal is that it is a messy way to generate electricity. Yes it is relatively cheap but it needs large infrastructure to support it - massive mining operations with all the waste and rehabilitation problems, extensive transport requirements (railways, trucks, ships, etc). In time, coal fired power stations will be viewed as old technology. There are better ways...eg large scale thermal solar, wind & wave to a limited extent, geothermal (very promising), 4th-5th (and beyond) generation fission, and fusion (in time). And... lets make all our gadgets more energy efficient!

Cut pollution and rejuvinate the planet. How about cutting back on real pollution. There are still bad industrial practices in the developed world that need improving. But nowhere near as bad as the so called underdeveloped world (including India, China, S.E. Asia, Russia& soviets). These people are making the place uninhabitable in my mind, and is far more serious than CO2 levels. Spend some money on improving farming practices and rehabilitate tha land (eg salt de-graded land in Australia, land clearing (or should I say raping) in the Amazon, unsustainable forrestry practices in S.E. Asia and Africa.

And above everything else solve the fckulation problem. If people got that under control about 100years ago, we wouldn't have half the problem we have now.

So there you go, thats my 4 cents worth.
 
2020hindsight said:
a) it was a single year of high value which coincided with El Nina - and of course el Nina's are part and parcel of the problem of GW/CC in any case i.e. their frequency and severity are all due to GW - but moving on
Click to expand...
El Nina

Is that opposite to La Nino ?
 

rederob, I don't think you have any brain at all.
 
La Niña translates from Spanish as "the girl-child". The term "La Niña" has recently become the conventional meteorological label for the opposite of the better known El Niño.

The term La Niña refers to the extensive cooling of the central and eastern Pacific Ocean. In Australia (particularly eastern Australia), La Niña events are associated with increased probability of wetter conditions.

Changes to the atmosphere and ocean circulation during La Niña events include:

Cooler than normal ocean temperatures across the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.
Increased convection or cloudiness over tropical Australia, Papua New-Guinea, and Indonesia.
Stronger than normal (easterly) trade winds across the Pacific Ocean (but not necessarily in the Australian region).
High (positive) values of the SOI (Southern Oscillation Index).

A La Niña event is sometimes called an anti-ENSO (anti-El Niño-Southern Oscillation) event.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...