*europe in a deep freeze[
*america experiencing coldest consequtive winters in years....
Even with the current cold snap,
2010 will likely be one of the three warmest years since 1850 - globally it has been a warm year.
*coldest australian november in 35yrs
*biggest rainfall on aus east coast since 1900
As I'm sure you are aware there is currently a strong
la Nina in force, a similar situation was
last seen about 35 years ago, that also coincided with the last time widespread rainfall and flooding of this magnitude was witnessed on the eastern seaboard. La Nina also sees more cloud cover and onshore winds that reduce temperatures, evaporation of rainfall also reduces the temperature too.
And why is a high intensity rainfall event an argument against global warming?
THE MAIN AGW WEAPON "MANNS HOCKEYSTICK GRAPH" HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE BOGUS!!
The work by
McIntyre was one of the first to find issue with Mann's work, and that issue was not with the data, but with the methodology he used with the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) statistics he used. They claimed that the PCA used produced the hockey stick from the noise that was the tree ring data. Analysis of McIntyre's work and the highly plagiarised Wegman report to US Congress largely based on McIntyre's work have some questions being asked of them
e.g.,
e.g.
This aside, assuming that Mann's data AND statistics are wrong,
why do all these other studies using many different palaeo datasets and different analysis methodologies all show the same upturned trend? Is the hockey stick shape always the shape of the wrong answer?
carbon IS NOT A POLLUTANT it is the basis of all life on earth, its plant food, the building blocks of life.. we wouldnt exist without it and man made CO2 only makes up 0.02% of the total carbon dioxide released into the earths atmosphere, the rest (99.98%) is natural... volcanoes, decomposing vegetation, even bloody white ants (termites) release more than we do...
Actually the man made CO2 is around
3-4% of the global CO2 exhalations. The natural CO2 cycle is in equilibrium, a state it has managed to find over a very long period of time where the CO2 sinks take up CO2 at the same rate that it is emitted. Now we have upset that in two ways,
1. we are releasing additional CO2 into the atmosphere and
2. through deforestation and land use we are degrading the carbon sinks.
Here is an analogy for you. Say you have a 2000 litre water tank with 1000 litres in it. It has a hole in the bottom that drains water at 1 litre per hour and a tap runs into it adding 1 litre per hour. The water level in the tank will remain constant, right? Now what happens if someone gives the tap a nudge so it is now running at 1.1 litres per hour and at the same time a leaf falls into the tank, settles to the bottom and partially obscures the hole so it only leaks at 0.9 litres per hour?
True, we wouldn't exist without carbon, it's ability to form long chain organic molecules is why it is the molecular backbone of life on Earth. But too much of a good thing isn't always a good thing. It's a bit of a double edged sword. Plants have two methods of fixing carbon, the C4 method (~25% of the food crop) is optimised and increasing CO2 has no real benefit whereas the C3 plants (~75% of food plants and includes wheat) have a less efficient method of fixing carbon and will benefit in both productivity (though recent trials have shown the
increase is less than was expected) and as the stomata have to be open less to acquire the necessary CO2 the plants will require less water too. One of the negatives of increased atmospheric CO2 is that
nitrogen intake is inhibited and as a result the nutritional value of the plant declines. This has the obvious consequences for humans in addition to both livestock and plant pests having to eat more to achieve their nutritional requirements.
At the end of the day atmospheric CO2 is rising at relatively significant rates, there is no escaping this. There is also no escaping that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.