Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

Basilio, Goddard is more on the money than say..... Hansen?

Wasn't it you who protested me dissing Hansen, yet in the same breath prepared to diss others.

Let's have some continuity of logic ffs?

 

[trainspotter]

Hey! That's very similar to the thread title

You like potato and I like potahto
You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto

 

[trainspotter]

Yeah wayneL ... logic in this thread ... bahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa

Sounds to me like he was an undercover working for the oil lobby.

Climate Council, Pacific Institue, all infiltrated by oil lobby FBI to destroy credibilty of climate change

Lovely piece of work Ghotlib. I had seen a similar graph before but I love the way each contributing factor is identified and the impact noted.

One big interesting factor was the way aerosals are actually reducing global temperature. The problem with that is that if/when we reduce the amount of pollution from coal fired power stations and other similar factors temperatures will rise and quite significantly.

View attachment 65444

It would appear that we are doing nothing to save our planet?

Yeah you need to eat 3,500 per annum of them to get a buzz or about 10 a day to be 3% chance of getting a cancerous causing cell ... whatever.

E=Mc2 is part of societal law ERGO Newton's Law (Theorised in 1905) . This also is up for debate ...



http://www.circlon.com/living-universe/025-how-einstein-was-wrong-about-E=MC2.html

Nope .. not what I have said ANYWHERE ... Man is polluting this planet and it needs to change dramatically in the way we see how we fit in with the environment. Plastic dumped on the land ends in the ocean for instance ...


http://www.greenpeace.org/internati...ns/fit-for-the-future/pollution/trash-vortex/

View attachment 64963

Let's fix this and then talk seriously about pumping Co2 into the atmosphere

Oh wait I forgot about this little pet hate of mine in Indonesia ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-24/indonesian-haze-reaches-the-philippines/6881564

And you want to whinge about cars and factories in first world countries ??? Bring it on !!!!!!!!!! :shoot::shoot:

You want cause and effect on the atmosphere?? Try India for example ...

http://aqicn.org/map/india/#@g/24.0238/78.7424/4z


http://www.hindustantimes.com/india...ee-in-china/story-myTrPZM8DHmQOhxB9cc5hI.html

So before you write me off as a Lord Monckton ass kisser and Denier you might want to look at what is going on globally that is affecting the world before claiming rubbish (pun intended) facts.

Try as I might it get's more and more stupefying to the point where my brain is beginning to hurt from this

 

[basilio]

Your brain should hurt TS. It's clearly not capable of dealing with complex yet nonetheless simple issues.

The overall question of how our climate changes is complex. Lot's of factors have affected the climate on earth over millions of years. Our scientific understanding of that process is developing but certainly not complete.

The simple part however, the real simple part, is that Greenhouse Gases have been an integral part of creating a habitable earth. Without the traces of CO2 in the atmosphere we would be much colder.

Next simple part. Substantially increase the greenhouse gases and you will substantially increase the temperature on earth. Exactly how much ? Not quiet sure. But do we want to hang around and find out ? And what is the practical difference between 3C increase or 5C increase. We are just as cooked.

Or do we just bury our head in the sand and say "It can't happen to us !!" and pray that some "misguided" scientific outliers have more chance of being correct than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community ?

______________________________________________________________

By the way that crack you made about Ghotlibs graph and my response was priceless. On memory the graph was an excellent breakdown of the varying contributions to global warming from different sources. The takeaway story was that over the past 30 years the ever increasing contributor was human caused GG emissions.

My observation was completely accurate. If by some miracle we immediately stopped coal fired power stations there would be an increase in temperature.

This is because power stations also send out aerosol particles which in themself dim the sun and reduce temperatures ( The CO2 is raising temperatures in the longer term but in the short term the aerosols are reducing the immediate temperature) So sadly stopping the power stations would stop the aerosol shield that in the short term is masking the extra CO2 being pumped out..


http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/aerosol_cloud_nucleation_dimming.html

 

[noco]

We have bush fires in most parts of Australia every year as has occurred for centuries in the past....

Fossil fuel = Green house gases.....I have always understood from school days that the bush fires in south east Australia combined with the cold air drifting down from the Himalayas produces monsoon rains.

Does anyone on this thread have any details of the amount of green house gases produced in comparison to man made green house gases.....Does bush fires produce more or less green house gases than fossil fuel?

I also read where the oceans absorb an enormous amount of C02....The Pacific Ocean has to be a certain high temperature to be able to form a cyclone off the Queensland Coast but we have not had any cyclones this year or last year.

 

[wayneL]

Bas this might be fairly nuanced, but regarding "substantially increase".

300ppm to 400ppm is a substantial increase, 33%. But at 0.04% of the atmosphere, is it a substantive increase?

I don't believe that has been irrevocably established.

 

[Smurf1976]

Contributors to those extra billions of tons (and there will be others as well..)

Figures are approximate from various sources:

About half of all crude oil ever used by man has been used since 1990 and about three quarters of it since 1975.

Virtually all natural gas ever used has been used since 1960 and about three quarters of it since 1990.

Regardless of the CO2 issue, the rate we're using this stuff is frightening given that it's a non-renewable resource. That alone is a good reason to change, CO2 is just another reason to add to the list of problems with fossil fuels really - wars, acid rain, groundwater pollution, ocean pollution, economic and political troubles, impact on the landscape, air pollution in the conventional sense, and so on.

 

[cynic]

Bas this might be fairly nuanced, but regarding "substantially increase".

300ppm to 400ppm is a substantial increase, 33%. But at 0.04% of the atmosphere, is it a substantive increase?

I don't believe that has been irrevocably established.

And whilst considering these numbers, let's not overlook the contribution of biological (as opposed to technological) CO2 exhalations by the increasing human populace during the period in question.

 

[trainspotter]

My observation was completely accurate. If by some miracle we immediately stopped coal fired power stations there would be an increase in temperature.

This is because power stations also send out aerosol particles which in themself dim the sun and reduce temperatures ( The CO2 is raising temperatures in the longer term but in the short term the aerosols are reducing the immediate temperature) So sadly stopping the power stations would stop the aerosol shield that in the short term is masking the extra CO2 being pumped out..

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/aerosol_cloud_nucleation_dimming.html

This is why my head hurts

. There is only one aerosol — soot, also known as black carbon — that actually helps contribute to global warming by boosting the warming effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/215/

Soot as an airborne contaminant in the environment has many different sources, all of which are results of some form of pyrolysis. They include soot from coal burning, internal-combustion engines,[1] power-plant boilers, hog-fuel boilers, ship boilers, central steam-heat boilers, waste incineration, local field burning, house fires, forest fires, fireplaces, and furnaces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soot

And finally ...

By reducing aerosol (soot) emissions, we can buy ourselves some climate time — about 5 to 10 years — while we work on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) in parallel. CO2, you see, hangs around in the atmosphere for an extremely long time, from decades to centuries, so even if we implement cuts today, it will take years for them to take effect. Aerosols, on the other hand, have much shorter lifetimes. If we work to reduce soot emissions now, which can enhance the global warming effect of CO2 by 20-50 percent, the climate impacts will be felt more rapidly.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/215/

But but but aerosols mask GW don't you know ...

In contrast, atmospheric aerosol particles are largely localized near their sources, and do not linger in the atmosphere for long so that, even if we continue to emit them at current rates, their atmospheric concentrations will not build up markedly over time. Thus the effect of long-lived global warming emissions will far outweigh the cooling effect of short-lived particles.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...sols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.VwIqF5x961s

BAH HUMBUG one site contradicts the other yet again !

 

[trainspotter]

And yet it still continues ...

View attachment 66205

We are CONSUMING more than we can renew but never fear basilio is here to save the day with graphs telling me how warm it is on record and how we will be inundated with sea water and BURN from over heating our planet with nasty Co2 and Leo DiCaprio flies his private jet to say Indonesia is burning forests (lotsa Co2 there) but prolly more coming out the tail pipe of his Gulf 50 but that's another story whilst Plod is libeling oil execs and FBI agents into stooges and looking at Fiji cyclone data and China and America are burning coal polluting the skies with Co2 at a maddening rate but turn up to Paris with a Greenpeace logo tattooed to their foreheads and all is forgiven while Volkswagen codes their diesel engines to give false readings and pays a meagre fine to make it alright and I can buy carbon credits whenever I fly on Jetstar for a measly $2.60 (insert f@cken maniacal laughter here) and no one cares where the money goes.

WHAT A JOKE BASILIO

 

[basilio]

Great set of references TS. Learnt something extra from checking them out.

There is nuance in the discussion about the effect of different aerosols on the climate. As the NASA site pointed out most aerosols emitted by power stations cooled the earth thus masking global warming from the extra CO2 but the soot accelerated it.

Frankly I think it is detail. The big picture is that we have way too much CO2 / GG in the atmosphere and we must do whatever we can to reduce the amount. At the same time we already have a severe problem which will only get worse for the medium term. All of our understandings at this stage suggest that that the full effect of the current CO2 levels have not impacted on the environment. There is more heat to come even if we somehow manage to stop everything right now (which is not going to happen)

Regarding the amount of of CO2 going from 300-400 PPM and the effect this has on the climate. There are a range of historical data which suggest that earth eras with 400 plus PPM of CO2 were much warmer. This seems to be backed up by climate models which postulate big increases in trapped heat as the GG levels rise (this can also include methane, nitrous oxide, other gases as well).

The figures for suggested temperature increase are still within a range. But the uncomfortable facts are that at even the lower ranges of effect we will face further increases in temperature - and this is before any additional climate tipping effects come into play.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

 

[basilio]

Some food for thought on the consequences of further thawing of the frozen Arctic regions

Concern Over Catastrophic Methane Release ”” Overburden, Plumes, Eruptions, and Large Ocean Craters

The amount of methane in the Arctic hydrates alone is estimated as 400 times more than the global atmospheric CH4 burden. The question is timescale of the methane liberation: gradual, abrupt, or something in between. Satellite monitoring of methane over the Arctic Ocean is necessary. ”” Dr. Leonid Yerganov

* * * *

http://robertscribbler.com/2015/03/...den-plumes-eruptions-and-large-ocean-craters/

 

[Tisme]

Current projection for making provision to year 2070 air conditioning systems : 35% higher cooling load for Brisbane

 

[basilio]

Current projection for making provision to year 2070 air conditioning systems : 35% higher cooling load for Brisbane

They might need to review those figures again. Climate scientists are still considering new data on the effects of clouds on global warming.

Global warming may be far worse than thought, cloud analysis suggests

Researchers find clouds contain more liquid – as opposed to ice – than was previously believed, threatening greater increase in temperatures

Oliver Milman
@olliemilman


Climate change projections have vastly underestimated the role that clouds play, meaning future warming could be far worse than is currently projected, according to new research.

Researchers said that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere compared with pre-industrial times could result in a global temperature increase of up to 5.3C – far warmer than the 4.6C older models predict.

The analysis of satellite data, led by Yale University, found that clouds have much more liquid in them, rather than ice, than has been assumed until now. Clouds with ice crystals reflect more solar light than those with liquid in them, stopping it reaching and heating the Earth’s surface.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ate-change-analysis-liquid-ice-global-warming

 

[basilio]

With regard to leaking Methane gas (which is a 25 times more powerful GG than CO2).

Apparently the gas fields of the US are leaking like a sieve. Short story is that this is adding a huge boost to global warming even if CO2 emissions are moderated.

Methane leaks across US pose a much greater threat than Aliso Canyon
Utah, Colorado and Texas are being aggressively pumped for oil and natural gas, producing methane leaks in quantities much higher than previously thought – and little is being done to contain the problem
Leah Messinger

Thursday 3 March 2016 08.14 AEDT
Last modified on Friday 4 March 2016 02.19 AEDT

When Stephen Conley, an atmospheric scientist and pilot, saw an emissions indicator skyrocket in his Mooney TLS prop plane, he knew he had found a significant methane leak. His gas-detecting Picarro analyzer indicated he was flying through a plume of gas escaping at 900kg per hour. The colorless, odorless gas was enough to cover a football field to a height of 20 feet in a single day. But this flight wasn’t over the highly publicized Aliso Canyon in Los Angeles; Conley was circling the Bakken Shale, a rock formation in western North Dakota that has been aggressively pumped for oil and natural gas.

Day in and day out, small leaks in oil and gas producing regions like the Bakken Shale are emitting methane in quantities that collectively rival or even exceed Aliso Canyon. New figures released by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last month indicate the potent greenhouse gas is being emitted from leaks across the US in quantities “much larger” than previously thought.

“There’s all these small leaks everywhere and they eclipse [Aliso Canyon],” said Paul Wennberg, professor of atmospheric chemistry and environmental science and engineering at the California Institute of Technology.

http://www.theguardian.com/vital-si...yon-ghg-epa-edf-environmen-climate-change-gas

 

[noco]

Great set of references TS. Learnt something extra from checking them out.

There is nuance in the discussion about the effect of different aerosols on the climate. As the NASA site pointed out most aerosols emitted by power stations cooled the earth thus masking global warming from the extra CO2 but the soot accelerated it.

Frankly I think it is detail. The big picture is that we have way too much CO2 / GG in the atmosphere and we must do whatever we can to reduce the amount. At the same time we already have a severe problem which will only get worse for the medium term. All of our understandings at this stage suggest that that the full effect of the current CO2 levels have not impacted on the environment. There is more heat to come even if we somehow manage to stop everything right now (which is not going to happen)

Regarding the amount of of CO2 going from 300-400 PPM and the effect this has on the climate. There are a range of historical data which suggest that earth eras with 400 plus PPM of CO2 were much warmer. This seems to be backed up by climate models which postulate big increases in trapped heat as the GG levels rise (this can also include methane, nitrous oxide, other gases as well).

The figures for suggested temperature increase are still within a range. But the uncomfortable facts are that at even the lower ranges of effect we will face further increases in temperature - and this is before any additional climate tipping effects come into play.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11 °F warmer than it is now.

As we near the record for the highest CO2 concentration in human history ”” 400 parts per million ”” climate scientists worry about where we were then, and where we're rapidly headed now.



So at that time there were no coal fired power stations and no steel mills polluting the atmosphere.

Now we have modern coal fired power stations which capture C02 and sends only a steam vapor out.

We now have steel mills closing in Australia, England and the USA and reduced production in China.using less coal which means less pollution = a decrease in Global Temperature.

Whoopee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...Now everyone should be happy except Bas.

Man made Global manipulation by Green Alarmist...Phffft.

 

[Tisme]

They might need to review those figures again. Climate scientists are still considering new data on the effects of clouds on global warming.



http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ate-change-analysis-liquid-ice-global-warming

Unlike the various sham engineering institutes, Ashrae and Airah actually focus on lots of data sets, lots of transparent mathematics and lots of empirical feedback. It's not a politic, but a proper professional organisation that has pedigree.

But you may well be correct. but it won't be viewed with the emotional skepticism that has been attracted to the climate change debate. Even John Howard capitulated his attitude to kyoto and slavishness to Bush and signed us up. I'm not suggesting you are emotional, just every other bugger out there that doesn't agree with my point of view.

 

[basilio]

The risk of catastrophic collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet ie very quickly and very soon, can't be ignored.

If the risk and reality is legit our current society cannot function.

Climate Catastrophe, Coming Even Sooner?
By Elizabeth Kolbert

New research indicates that, due to global warming, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) may be headed for an unavoidable and disastrous collapse, triggering a rapid rise in sea levels. Credit Photograph by Natacha Pisarenko / AP

One of the first people to propose that climate change could result in rapid sea-level rise was an eccentric British geographer named John Mercer. A hesitant speaker in public, Mercer was less restrained in private. He was once arrested for jogging naked. It was said that he liked to do his fieldwork in the nude””a curious habit for a man who studied glaciers.

In a seminal paper published in 1968, Mercer proposed that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, known in scientific circles as WAIS, was vulnerable to collapse. The reason, he wrote, was that the ice sheet rests on land that is below sea level. It is buttressed by floating ice shelves that extend far out to sea, but were these to disintegrate, Mercer wrote, then “changing horizontal forces” would cause the ice sheet to lift off its base. At that point, the sea would rush in and WAIS would start to warm from below as well as above. This would initiate the ice sheet’s demise, which would be “rapid, perhaps even catastrophic.” Several meters of sea-level rise would ensue.

More recent research has tended to confirm Mercer’s worst fears. The latest example comes from a study published Wednesday, in the journal Nature. “Antarctic Model Raises Prospect of Unstoppable Ice Collapse,” ran the headline in the news story that accompanied it.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/climate-catastrophe-coming-even-sooner

 

[macca]

The risk of catastrophic collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet ie very quickly and very soon, can't be ignored.

If the risk and reality is legit our current society cannot function.



http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/climate-catastrophe-coming-even-sooner

As this was first suggested as a possibility about 50 years ago is there any indication as to what time frame is very quickly ? Another 50 years or next year ?

If it next year perhaps we should stop swallowing the BS about CO2 and start working on the real problem in the Northern Hemisphere, which is all the pollution being pumped out by China etc

The latest charts on the link supplied on this thread showing air quality monitor readings, make it very obvious for thinkers that while CO2 is a naturally occurring gas with some benefit to nature all that visible cr*p in the air is the elephant in the room.

 

[Ijustnewit]

As this was first suggested as a possibility about 50 years ago is there any indication as to what time frame is very quickly ? Another 50 years or next year ?

If it next year perhaps we should stop swallowing the BS about CO2 and start working on the real problem in the Northern Hemisphere, which is all the pollution being pumped out by China etc

The latest charts on the link supplied on this thread showing air quality monitor readings, make it very obvious for thinkers that while CO2 is a naturally occurring gas with some benefit to nature all that visible cr*p in the air is the elephant in the room.

I reckon you will see it happen by next year at this rate , April has been cooking down here in Tasmania and another record braking month is well on the cards .