Hey! That's very similar to the thread title
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.
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.
Contributors to those extra billions of tons (and there will be others as well..)
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.
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
. 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.
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.
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.
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.
* * * *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
Current projection for making provision to year 2070 air conditioning systems : 35% higher cooling load for Brisbane
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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?