- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
You are so keen to take the xxx(?) out of people that you resort to stupid assumptions. Grow up!
Rubbish.
From your link:
Calliope just a few points.
1) I never said Russian scientists were lying. Knobby asked you if you thought they were after you dismissed an earlier post I wrote that highlighted the huge increase in methane emissions from the melting arctic zone. I was taking the xxxx out of you by suggesting that because they were Russians and taking about climate change etc they automatically had to be liars. So be clear- I never said the Russian scientist talking about the emissions of methane were liars
For your own sake can you at least re quote yourself accurately ? Your Post 231 says "There is absolutely nothing we can do to control the climate." Your Post 234 tries to requote your earlier statement but says "their absolutely nothing we can do about climate change". They have quite different meanings.
You'll even find your Russian researcher is on the scientific staff studying the polar bear population.
There was another Polar bear website (this time Russian based) which offered its own discussion on the subject. I have quoted one of the more relevant sections because it illustrates how some media can distort the threat to the polar bear population for its own ends.
Polar bears have not lost the skills inherited from their brown bear ancestors during the ‘settling’ of the Arctic sea ice cover. On the contrary, they have improved these skills and acquired new ones. In response to the question of whether the polar bear has a future in the face of global warming, we can answer in the affirmative. Due to the above qualities, the polar bear can survive lengthy warming periods and ice disintegration by relocating to coastal ecosystems
Calliope you really are bizzare.
Can we get it clear. When anyone wants to requote them-self or some else else we also expect to see "the same words used" . That is what quoting means. And there is quite a difference between your two statements.
And relatively soon of course all this melting ice is going to start impacting on the rest of the globe. The fact that the melting to date is also starting to release billions of tons of ice bound methane (as was reported earlier) just makes the situation even more precarious.
I am not much interested in what you expect. You have resorted to nit picking.
It's happened before. Species adapt.
"Field notes from a catastrophe"
Ms. Kolbert, a former reporter for The New York Times, doesn't doubt that human-induced global warming is real and will likely have dire consequences; the title of her book includes the word "catastrophe." The pages are replete with bad news: perennial sea ice, which 25 years ago covered an area of the Arctic the size of the continental United States, has since lost an area "the size of New York, Georgia and Texas combined." Carbon dioxide levels, if emissions go unchecked, could reach three times pre-industrial levels by the end of the century.
Based on a series of articles that appeared in The New Yorker magazine, the book is organized around notes Ms. Kolbert took on "field trips," not only to places where climate change is affecting the natural world but also to ones — labs, offices, observatories — where humans are trying to understand the phenomenon of human-induced global warming. Hers is the latest in a large crop of books on the subject — she notes that "entire books have been written just on the history of efforts to draw attention to the problem" — and there are inevitably some places where other authors have trod before.
In language that is clear, if somewhat dry, she examines the major pieces of the story, shedding light on some insider concepts of climatologists, like "dangerous anthropogenic interference," as she goes. The book may make a good handbook; it is both comprehensive and succinct. (If you have ever wondered how a climate model is put together, that's in there, too.)
Interesting Calliope. In just a few words you appear to be accepting that there is rapid warming happening in the Arctic and that it will cause some big changes.
As Explod suggests you might like to expand your understanding of the effects of the temperature increases that will happen if we continue on our current course.
Absolute and correctedReal or adjusted?
This year has been the worst year ever in the USA - by far- for natural weather disasters. They have got worse because there is more heat in the atmosphere. From PBS Newshour.
METEOROLOGISTS say 2011 will be Perth's hottest year in history - our third consecutive hottest year since records began.
Perth's mean daily maximum temperature from January to November was 25.3C, topping the 2010 record of 24.9C, according to the WA Bureau of Meteorology.
"When we factor in the seven-day forecast, for us not to break the record we would have to have average temperatures of less than 20.7C (this month) and we really don't think that is going to happen," bureau weather services manager Neil Bennett said.
"The interesting thing is we have 114 years of records of temperatures for the Perth metro area and when you take all the maximum temperatures over a year and you average them out, to get 25C or more, that has only happened on four occasions in that whole 114 years.
All good here in WA just weather.....
2011 to be Perth's hottest year ever on record
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/spe...ottest-year-ever/story-e6frg19l-1226224717115
All good here in WA just weather.....
2011 to be Perth's hottest year ever on record
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/spe...ottest-year-ever/story-e6frg19l-1226224717115
We would first note that we have never stated that the reason for the currently observed methane emissions were due to recent climate change.
In fact, we explained in detail the mechanism of subsea permafrost destabilization as a result of inundation with seawater thousands of years ago.
Heat - note that it was "almost" the hottest summer since records began. But then consider the huge amount of heat added by non-greenhouse gas sources. Fuel combustion, nuclear energy, land use change, hydro-electricity and wind energy are all adding plenty of heat directly to the atmosphere regardless of any CO2 they may emit. This alone would cause some warming, with or without the CO2 issue. Heat emission from these sources in the US are very much higher now than they were in 1936 when the use of coal, oil and hydro plus heat effects of land use change was very much lower whilst nuclear energy and electricity from wind power didn't exist at all (old style wind mills pumping water aren't really adding heat so far as I can work out).T
JEFF MASTERS: I mean, we talk about the Dust Bowl summer of 1936. Well, this summer pretty much matched that for temperature, almost the hottest summer in U.S. history. We also talk about the great 1974 tornado outbreak. Well, we had an outbreak that more than doubled the total of tornadoes we had during that iconic outbreak. And, also, we talk about the great 1927 flood on the Mississippi River. Well, the flood heights were even higher than that flood this year.
So, it just boggles my mind that we had three extreme weather events that matched those events in U.S. history.
I would certainly agree that from a scientific perspective (as distinct from climate change which is essentially a non-scientific political issue in practice) there is something which needs proper investigation regarding Perth's weather / climate.All good here in WA just weather.....
2011 to be Perth's hottest year ever on record
The gas and electricity utilities use a similar measure known as "degree days".Ag people talk about heat units, which uses max and min temps. Anyone got any data on this for global warming? It may be better than maximum. May try to calculate it myself if I get time...
On the other side of the nation ..............
<<IT'S a good thing December is almost over - it's been the coldest for more than 50 years. >>
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-our-summer-gone/story-e6freuzi-1226232958121
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?