The Polar Vortex

[Rickie Welsh 27]

Hello,  Recently an American met a well known "Celeb" and asked what he thought about the Polar Vortex, the "Celeb" answered "I don't know, I drive a Ferrari".  Richard Welsh.

[duggy35 4]

Hottest summer on record in Australia wasn't it? Which followed one of the warmest winters.

 

This is what man made global warming deniers can't grasp. [or refuse to] That while it might may be chilly in the UK, or Europe, at the same time elsewhere in the world it's hotter than average. It's long term [30 years plus] global average temperatures, not it's chilly in my road so it's not happening.

 

 

 

 

 

The narrow-minded BOM here in Oz continues to adjust the temperature record by cooling the past and warming the present. Summer in Oz is hot, has been hot and will be hot. The greenhouse effect is real, the result of water vapour (95%), CO2 (3%) and other gases. The world is slowly becoming aware of the reality and the damage done by the lefty greenies (measured in billions of dollars). Things are a-changin'. Next time you hear "record" or "unprecedented" do some research to see past the b.s.

 

Makes it interesting flying a heavy 737 into and out of Alice Springs (YBAS) on a 46 deg day

[martin-w 3,238]

Sorry, but I'm finding it hard to interpret your post, whether your post is pro or anti MMGW.  I'm assuming you are anti-MMGW?
 
If so, you seem to be under some misconceptions.
 
I don't know what's been happening in Australia, so I can't comment on that, but you must understand that it's GLOBAL warming that's the issue. Not warming in Australia. It's global, not local, average, long term, warming we look at. And when we look at the instrumental temperature record, we see an increase in temperature in step with our CO2 emissions.
 

 

The greenhouse effect is real, the result of water vapour (95%), CO2 (3%) and other gases.

 
 
Again, assuming you are making an anti-Man made global warming statement, and blaming water vapour rather than our CO2 emissions...
 
Yes, you are absolutely right. Water vapour is the most powerful green house gas. But what you may not realise, is that our CO2 emissions warm the planet to a degree, however, that warming causes greater evaporation, and thus, we see an increase in the water vapour in the atmosphere. And as we have already established, water vapour is the most powerful green house gas. In addition, as a result of that increase in temperature, we then see a release of methane from permafrost, which exacerbates the issue even further. It's a chain reaction.
 
So just because our CO2 emissions are relatively small compared with the bulk of the atmosphere, and "on their own" responsible for only 3% of green house warming... we shouldn't be fooled into thinking our emissions are not responsible for MMGW.
 
Apologies if I misinterpreted your intentions.


 

Next time you hear "record" or "unprecedented" do some research to see past the b.s.

 
 
Again, I have no idea what's going on in Australia, but...


When we look at the instrumental temperature record, in addition to long term temperature increase, we also see plataues, where warming remains at a low level for sometimes years, a dercrese in tempretures, and yes, sudden increases in temperature, but the point is that the "average tempreture continues to rise. The peaks and troughs I refer to are as a result of natural temperature variation, for example volcanism, solar activity etc. This is precisely why we look at climate, over 30, 40, 50 years plus. We do this to factor out natural variability.

 

Whether individual record temperature events in Australia or anywhere else are as a result of MMGW, is a difficult question to answer, they might be, and they might not. We don't currently have the capability to make definitive statements like that. However, the more record weather events we see, the more likely we can say it is that MMGW is responsible.

[january 19]

martin-w  Interesting analysis, thank you - but doesn't explain why the mile high icecap on the north western North America coast disappeared between 10,000 years ago and when Capts.Cook and Vancouver explored there.

Additionally, if you compare their charts with more recent charts, it is evident that the ice recession continued since their time and long before the advent of automobiles and airplanes and exploding world population.

Additionally, how to explain the Viking farm settlements on Greenland that subsequently disappeared under an ice sheet - now melting -  and going back to where it was a thousand years ago? 

Or the draining of a giant lake covering much of north-central North America a millenia ago - and ripping out a channel we now know as the Columbia River en route to the Pacific?

I have to conclude that the warming and cooling cycles of earth's atmosphere are natural phenomena and given a few thousand years, my home may well be under a new ice cap again along with the Aussies!

january

[hopskip 253]

martin-w  Interesting analysis, thank you - but doesn't explain why the mile high icecap on the north western North America coast disappeared between 10,000 years ago and when Capts.Cook and Vancouver explored there.

Additionally, if you compare their charts with more recent charts, it is evident that the ice recession continued since their time and long before the advent of automobiles and airplanes and exploding world population.

Additionally, how to explain the Viking farm settlements on Greenland that subsequently disappeared under an ice sheet - now melting -  and going back to where it was a thousand years ago? 

Or the draining of a giant lake covering much of north-central North America a millenia ago - and ripping out a channel we now know as the Columbia River en route to the Pacific?

I have to conclude that the warming and cooling cycles of earth's atmosphere are natural phenomena and given a few thousand years, my home may well be under a new ice cap again along with the Aussies!

january

 

Most evidence suggests that the Continental plate that Australia sits on is pushing north, in part lifting Papua New Guinea's mountains higher, at a rate of several mm per year. Given a few thousand years, Australia may well be on the equator

[martin-w 3,238]

martin-w Interesting analysis, thank you - but doesn't explain why the mile high icecap on the north western North America coast disappeared between 10,000 years ago

 

 

10,000 years ago sounds like it's at the end of the last  glacial period to me. During this period, there were several changes between glacier advance and retreat.

 

But the point, is that there  are many "natural" mechanisms at work, that can cause climate change. None of them have been a factor since the industrial revolution. 

 

 

 

Additionally, how to explain the Viking farm settlements on Greenland that subsequently disappeared under an ice sheet - now melting - and going back to where it was a thousand years ago?

 

 "Natural" mechanism at work. Unfortunately, cherry picking past "local" climactic events, doesn't negate the validity of current climate change theory. Climate variation occurs as a result of many mechanisms.  For example, volcanism cools the planet, as does a reduction in solar output, as a result of the 11 year sunspot cycle, and significant events like the Maunder Minimum. In addition, wobbles in the Earths orbit, variations in the Earths axis. None of the natural mechanisms we know of that cause an increase in average global temperature have been either present, or significant enough to cause the warming we have seen since the industrial revolution. Which once again, is in step with our emissions.

 

The point to remember in terms of MMGW, is that it's not just significant that the temperature of the planet "globally" [not locally] is increasing, but the "rate" of change is unprecedented.

 

 

 

Or the draining of a giant lake covering much of north-central North America a millenia ago - and ripping out a channel we now know as the Columbia River en route to the Pacific?

 

 

Again, not relevant, that's a local event, not long term average temperature over the entire planet. And as said, there are a number of natural mechanisms that can cause local and global temperature change.

 

 

I have to conclude that the warming and cooling cycles of earth's atmosphere are natural phenomena and given a few thousand years, my home may well be under a new ice cap again along with the Aussies!

 

Of course warming and cooling and other forms of climate variation are natural phenomena, the climate is dynamic. But what the planet does naturally is nothing to do with global temperature since the industrial revolution that is in step with our emissions.  

 

 

It's your right to deny man made climate change, but you will be disagreeing with literally thousands of climate scientists, and scientists in other associated fields, with PhD's, that form a huge consensus that mankind's emissions are warming the planet.

 

We have to remember that none of us here are talented, highly qualified climate scientists, dedicated to research in this field. Quite frankly, we haven't a clue, we are utterly naive. Our best course of action, is to avoid the dodgy internet sites, the deniers with agendas, the conspiracy theorists, and take some time out to study the science objectively.

[january 19]

martin-w- Good analysis but reality doesn't always flow from theory. 

In 1895, Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society made a definitive statement that- 

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible".

I suppose Wilbur and Orville were early "deniers" or we might all, still be riding bicycles!

january

[january 19]

martin-w- Good analysis but reality doesn't always flow from theory. 

In 1895, Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society made a definitive statement that- 

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible".

I suppose Wilbur and Orville were early "deniers" or we might all, still be riding bicycles!

january

Sorry for the double post- seems system caused?

january

[duggy35 4]

quote name='martin-w' timestamp='1390824776' post='2915294']

I'm assuming you are anti-MMGW?

 

Do you work for the government? Or a greenie organisation? You have the mantra right. I'm a realist, which means I believe in looking at the data myself and not believing what those with vested interests want us to believe. We (humans) are having an effect certainly but the man-made signal is so miniscule as to be not discernible from natural variation. Climate sensitivity to CO2 remains unproven.

 

 

And when we look at the instrumental temperature record, we see an increase in temperature in step with our CO2 emissions.

 

Current GLOBAL temperature is stagnant and that's even after 'data adjustment' by government-funded organisations like CRU, GISS, NOAA and BOM. In the meantime CO2 has increased exponentially. The tenuous link between CO2 increase and global temperature remains just a theory.

 

 

So just because our CO2 emissions are relatively small compared with the bulk of the atmosphere, and "on their own" responsible for only 3% of green house warming... we shouldn't be fooled into thinking our emissions are not responsible for MMGW.

 

Don't just regurgitate the memes laid down by the prophets Gore, Mann et al. Of that 3% attributable to CO2, man's contribution to that CO2 is less than 10% of it.

 

 

Whether individual record temperature events in Australia or anywhere else are as a result of MMGW, is a difficult question to answer, they might be, and they might not. We don't currently have the capability to make definitive statements like that. However, the more record weather events we see, the more likely we can say it is that MMGW is responsible.

 

Most people's interpretation of extreme weather events is from the shortsighted/forgetful (wilful ignorance?) Mainstream Media, which has its own interests in keeping the AGW story alive. Extreme weather events are not on the increase.

 

That 'might or might not be' has cost billions globally, and destroyed economies (most notably Europe which is abandoning the AGW, lefty/Greenie movement) but what do we have to show for it? A steadily increasing CO2 level and no temperature rise.

[martin-w 3,238]

martin-w- Good analysis but reality doesn't always flow from theory. 

In 1895, Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society made a definitive statement that- 

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible".

I suppose Wilbur and Orville were early "deniers" or we might all, still be riding bicycles!

january

Ha, yes indeed, reality doesn't always flow from current theory. However... when you have an absolutely huge consensus, literally thousands of scientists all telling you the same thing, numerous pier reviewed papers, results replicated and confirmed, I think you'll find they are likely to be on the right track.

 

Science doesn't work by taking a single study and proclaiming it as fact, it has to be replicated.

 

 

Do you work for the government? Or a greenie organisation? You have the mantra right.

 

No Duggy... I ignore the greenie's, ignore the media, and look at what science tells me. I then decide if it makes sense, if it works the way they say it does. I also consider how big the consensus is. If the consensus is significant, then common sense tells me there's a good chance that the current theory is likely to be on the right track.

 

P.S. It's not the greenie mantra, it's excepted scientific theory.

 

 

 

We (humans) are having an effect certainly but the man-made signal is so miniscule as to be not discernible from natural variation. Climate sensitivity to CO2 remains unproven

 

Sorry Duggy but you are way off the mark. I would say the same to you do not consider what those with a vested interest say, for example right wing organisations with ulterior motives. Listen to the scientists only, and only to the consensus.

 

What you need to consider is how sensitive our atmosphere is to CO2. The green house effect is good, yes good, without it this world of ours would be a cold barren rock. We need the green house effect. Despite the fact that green house gas takes up a small percentage of the atmosphere, it's effect is potent. As I said, we would be a cold barren rock if that wasn't the case.

 

In regard to the small quantity of CO2 we add to the atmosphere, the consequences are significant, simply because it stimulates a chain reaction. The atmosphere is finely balanced, when we release CO2, it causes evaporation, and water vapour is far more powerful than CO2 as a green house gas, this in turn stimulates other environmental changes that exacerbate the problem even further.

 

You need to understand that scientists [not greenie's and politicians] have quantified the anthropomorphic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.

 

you need to consider and understand, radiative forcing, and climate sensitivity...

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

 

Scientist aren't idiots. We on the other hand are uneducated in the field, and are pretty much guessing. We are arrogant if we think we know better than a huge scientific consensus by those who are eminently qualified.

[martin-w 3,238]

The tenuous link between CO2 increase and global temperature remains just a theory

 

Certain right wing organisations more concerned about their own interests might tell you that Duggy. And some of them are the same organisations that denied smoking was bad for us. They are even using the same tactics, denying the science and attacking the reputation of the scientists. But no, Duggy, it's actually scientific fact that CO2 is a green house gas. Something we all learnt at school I recall.

 

 

 

Current GLOBAL temperature is stagnant and that's even after 'data adjustment' by government-funded organisations like CRU, GISS, NOAA and BOM. In the meantime CO2 has increased exponentially

 

Well no, not exactly stagnant, but there has been a bit of a reduction in the rate of warming. But what did you expect? Did you really expect an absolutely linear increase in temperature, with no peaks and troughs? Plateaus in terms of temperature increase are not unusual. Lack of solar activity can affect temperature [usually in the northern hemisphere] as can all manner of natural events like volcanism for example. This is precisely why we look at "climate". We look at LONG TERM temperature over the entire globe. 30, 40, 50 plus years and more. There are actually a number of not just plateaus, but significant decreases in temperature since the industrial revolution, since mankind started emitting large quantities of CO2. Such a thing is normal and to be expected.

 

 

 

While climate deniers like yourself seize on the reduction in the rate of warming as evidence that MMGW is garbage... scientists know that heat is continuing to build in the climate system. The most likely culprit is El Nino. El Nino pumped massive amounts of heat out of the oceans and into the atmosphere, enough to tip the equatorial pacific into a protracted cold state that has supressed global temperature ever since. Not definitive yet, but looking far more likely.

 

 

 

Most people's interpretation of extreme weather events is from the shortsighted/forgetful (wilful ignorance?) Mainstream Media, which has its own interests in keeping the AGW story alive. Extreme weather events are not on the increase.

 

 

 

"Most people" and "mainstream media" are not qualified scientists. Scientists aren't yet sure if extreme weather events are on the increase or not. However... global warming theory suggests that it would be a likely outcome. How you can definitively state "NOT on the increase" I have no idea, when even the scientific community isn't sure if it's yet the case.

[troyk 27]

What the??? This has gone completely off-topic!

 

Oh well, my 2 cents.

 

Martin, you seem pretty clued up.

 

Duggy, you sound like you've been reading to many conspiracy books. It sounds like you have every government and Science organisation involved in this evil plot.

 

Me, I'm powering up my Sim, and Martin you'll be pleased to know that all PMDG's aircraft emit zero CO2.

Kudos to PMDG for making eco friendly aircraft :lol:

[duggy35 4]

Wow. You're link at the bottom says it all (speaking of vested interests). That propaganda site is not top of the tree when it comes to unbiased, impartial and factual climate information.

 

That consensus argument was dead the moment it was uttered. Consensus as a means of scientific argument is bogus. John Cook's ridiculous paper has been torn to shreds a thousand times over.

 

'empirical observations'? Climate models are not evidence. Models are only as good as the dodgy data that goes into them and any parameter can be tweaked to produce the desired outcome.

 

Do yourself a favour and get away from the blog sites and discover the truth behind the CO2 scapegoat

[duggy35 4]

 

 

it's actually scientific fact that CO2 is a green house gas

 

No one's denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas

 

 

 

Certain right wing organisations

 

What have right-wing organisations got to do with anything? It's supposed to be science isn't it?

 

 

 

some of them are the same organisations that denied smoking was bad for us

 

Straight from fearless, self-proclaimed, low-carbon footprint (NOT) leader himself, Mr Gore and his ridiculous propaganda film.

[duggy35 4]

 

 

While climate deniers like yourself

Who denies climate? I'm not denying global warming, or that CO2 plays a part, just the catastrophic alarmism that keeps the funds flowing and the degradation of science.

 

"Most people" and "mainstream media" are not qualified scientists

They certainly aren't but they have the most profound influence. Now that 'the cause' has become a moral issue where to deny the 'consensus' is a sin, there's no way media outlets are going to back pedal and say "hey, maybe we over-reacted a bit. You were right, we were wrong. Sorry about the economy. Can I keep my job?"

 

likely

That one word in the context of climate science with respect to warming is enough to conjure billions in funding and drive global fiscal policy. Scary

 

 

This has gone completely off-topic

Sorry, mate. Can't help myself when the global warming religion nuts pipe up.

 

Martin, you seem pretty clued up

He's just regurgitating the 'blog' site mate and the almighty IPCC

Now, back to flying digitally! Amen