Climate Change & Global Warming

[KOYAANISQATSI]

way off topic and very insulting to be callin folk "some wag"

 

I seem to have failed in making the somewhat blindingly obvious clear to you, so I shall attempt once more...

 

KTL had come and used this line to describe climate change as it relates to snowy days and I'll repeat it here again because you seem to have missed this, not only when KTL posted it first but also when you yourself quoted them in full (wag word included) while you demeaned them with insults about their toys and lollipops.

KTL[/b]"]I was waiting till some wag said that we couldn't have climate change because it was snowing today, and one poster has delivered as expected.

Did you get that this time? KTL was calling someone a wag so I copypasted his/her very own words and sent them back at them for a little bit of fun but changed the context to refer to the inner city warming point they raised.

Getitgotitgood

 

Now on the inner city warming issue; my understanding is that a significant portion of incoming solar energy is used to evaporate water from vegetation and soil in rural locations. This energy, known as the latent heat of vaporization, is used to change water from the liquid state to the vapor state. This process does not raise the air temperature. Cities, however, do not have the open soil and vegetation that rural areas have. As a result, more of the incoming solar energy goes directly to heating the roads and buildings in cities. This allows the air temperature to rise more rapidly in the cities. During night, the stored heat energy in roads and other structures is slowly released into the air, which slows the cooling process. This keeps cities warmer than rural areas at night as well as during the day.

Vehicles, factories and air conditioners add more heat to the atmosphere and further enhances the heat island effect.

I'm pretty sure that me and mainstream thinking are in line for once over this but if you have something else in mind feel free to enlighten me.

Even better still; spend a little more time lurking and reading the actual thread you are posting on and try to figure out who said what to whom first, before you go off exploding in my face about me saying something to someone, who was in actual fact, the very person who had said it in the first place.

 

@KTL...

Sorry for dragging your name up in this. I know when you called whoever it was "a wag" that you had no ill intent behind it. It's just that some here can't figure out who's saying what to whom and for what reason; forcing me way off topic in the vain hope I can somehow clarify it for them.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

I found this post on another site , a good example of open minded skepticism

 

Confused about basic physics?. Basic physics results in hard numbers and set formulas. thinking that half baked unproven global warming theories should be categorized as "basic physics." This does not work in reality.

 

If it were basic physics, then you could list the exact ideal global temperature. You could list the event horizon of when CO2 is too much. In other words, what is that ideal parts per million of CO2? And of course, for it to be considered ideal, you have to explain why. And how can it remain ideal with so many other variables in constant change

 

We have yet to have a rational explanation of why a few degrees warmer is a bad thing as opposed to a few degrees colder.

 

There is definitely more politics than science in this whole mess, and the masses seem to be more and more aware of it.

[ArabiaTerra]

We have yet to have a rational explanation of why a few degrees warmer is a bad thing as opposed to a few degrees colder.

Are you aware that the difference between the middle of the last ice age and now was about 6 degrees. The change from then to now took 5000 years.

 

A business as usual emissions path suggests we could see 6 degrees rise by the end of the century, 100 years.

 

I would be interested to hear your ideas on how this would not be a bad thing.

[Skunnered]

It's one thing to say that AGW is definitely happening and to show the evidence of this (already discussed at length in this thread) but it's quite another thing to predict the consequences, and timing, of a rise in temperature of 2% or 4% or 6%, or whatever.

 

It's interesting to consider the various catastrophic consequences that have been stated so far:

 

- more hurricanes, and stronger. It seems that at least some scientists are now back-tracking on this and saying that there is no evidence that GW will cause more hurricanes, although they may be stronger.

 

- increase in sea levels due to expansion of the oceans. Presumably it is known how much the sea would rise for each 1% rise in ocean temperature, and how long it would take for the entire ocean to warm up by this amount. Would it be catastrophic? No doubt it would be in some parts of the world, and not in others. Also, it would depend upon how much warning could be given so that mitigating action could be taken wherever possible.

 

- melting ice caps and melting glaciers. It seems that some parts are melting while others are not. The extent of the catastrophe depends upon how much melts, and how quickly. Perhaps the level of "catastrophe" from this has been exaggerated in some reports, and by some politicians such as Al Gore.

 

- droughts. If they got it wrong for the hurricanes, might they have got it wrong for the droughts?

 

My point is, even if we accept that AGW is happening, we really don't know how accurate the predictions of the consequences are. There has definitely been some scaremongering going on in the past, and I'm not levelling that accusation at the scientists, but mainly at the extremists, politicians, and reporters. It's difficult to hear the rational voices of the scientists for the chatter and noise from the activists and politicians.

 

Instead of just assuming that any rise in temperature will be worldwide catastrophe, a more measured and rational approach is needed, without the hype.

[Evil Inky]

^^^^^

 

The problem with predicting the consequences of global warming is that they depend on how people ( individuals and nations ) react to changed circumstances. For example, will nations in a region with depleted water supplies (eg the Middle East) work together to ensure what water there is gets fairly distributed, or resort to military means to grab as much as they can ? Nobody knows for sure.

[Babsy]

Professor Jones admitted to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee yesterday that he had “written some very awful e-mailsâ€, including one in which he rejected a request for information on the ground that the person receiving it might criticise his work.

 

Well, that just about says it all - if something cant take criticism or close inspection - then its just a lot of hot air.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

 

Whilst we have had the coldest winter in over 30 years , it also appears North Africa has had the wettest on in a while .

The opposite of Arabia Terra's doomsday scenarios ......

[Guest Anonymous]

yay, what i said afore i got insulted , truth surely hurts

[Skunnered]

In a day or two they'll be telling us that last month was the hottest February on record...

[Malachy]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

 

Whilst we have had the coldest winter in over 30 years , it also appears North Africa has had the wettest on in a while .

The opposite of Arabia Terra's doomsday scenarios ......

 

The problem with picking and choosing your examples of weather that appears to contradict global warming is that there are always examples to contradict your own. For instance, did nobody notice the hullabaloo at the beginning of the winter Olympics in Canada because, for the first time in who knows how long, there was no snow?

 

Using the weather in Shetland as an argument against global warming really isn't very convincing.

[Seahorse]

No - sea levels are not rising at all.

 

Hi, I have googled the article you mentioned about Bangladesh and I think you are wrongly concluding that sea levels are not rising.

They are, but the sediment accumulation in the region is greater than that rise.

 

 

(AFP) – Jul 29, 2008

Maminul Haque Sarker, head of the department at the government-owned centre that looks at boundary changes, told AFP sediment which travelled down the big Himalayan Rivers -- the Ganges and the Brahmaputra -- had caused the landmass to increase.

 

But Sarker said that while rising sea levels and river erosion were both claiming land in Bangladesh, many climate experts had failed to take into account new land being formed from the river sediment.

[crofter]

Deliberately misinterpreting the critical thinking methods of others as fear and denial is, I suspect; just your own way to attempt to smear, slander and devalue the opinions of others and is a much over used and lame tactic by the pro AGW mob. Just as AT only started slagging the non believers as liars and deniars, after some git, in some Guardian column, said it was a good idea to do so.

 

 

 

 

The latest from the Guardian is that it is not appropriate to call somebody who disagrees with you a "denier"

 

We have been discussing such terminology, and some of my colleagues have suggested that Guardian style might be amended to stop referring to "climate change deniers" in favour of, perhaps, "climate sceptics".

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/climate-change-scepticism-style-guide

[Carlos]

Hmm denial is different than scepticism.... some people might not want to imply the degree of uncertainty "sceptic" carries?

[Guest Anonymous]

debate is warming a lot quicker as da climate noo , still weet snow forecast n whit month is dis noo ?

[ArabiaTerra]

Another excellent video on the subject: