How does this fit with the BS "they" feed us on global warming?

[LBD]

Global warming or climate change, lies or not, ....we cannot expect to take billions of tons of hydracarbons laying relitively inert in natural resoviors below the earths surface, and convert it to gasses and pollutants in the atmosphere, and not expect changes as a consequence....

[carbonhed]

"In the Waikato, we're seeing low soil moisture levels that we don't normally expect to see until the end of January and after the winter we've had that's not good at all," says Stew Wadey, Federated Farmers Waikato provincial president.

We're also experiencing higher temperatures than normal, on Sunday Hamilton recorded the highest temperature for November in 100 years. This certainly doesn't help and due to evapotranspiration, we're losing in excess of 5 millilitres a day of soil moisture due to the heat.[/I]

Skyryder

Holy cow! They've got weather in the Waikato! Colour me convinced.

Actually I'm kind of suprised that your lefty spidey sense hasn't given you the inkling yet that it's time to slither on to the next great religious cause. People are starting to snigger and point. Soon they'll be wanting the billions you've pissed away returned.

How's Cancun working for you?

[Jantar]

How's Cancun working for you?

I see Japan are refusing to extend the Kyoto agreement.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...it-japan-kyoto

The brief statement, made by Jun Arima, an official in the government’s economics trade and industry department, in an open session, was the strongest yet made against the protocol by one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases.

He said: “Japan will not inscribe its target under the Kyoto protocol on any conditions or under any circumstances.”

[Skyryder]

Holy cow! They've got weather in the Waikato! Colour me convinced.

Actually I'm kind of suprised that your lefty spidey sense hasn't given you the inkling yet that it's time to slither on to the next great religious cause. People are starting to snigger and point. Soon they'll be wanting the billions you've pissed away returned.

How's Cancun working for you?

Just the sort of post that shows why I do not post on here as often as I used to. Try and add something to the debate instead the flippant and sarco response.

Skyryder

[carbonhed]

I see Japan are refusing to extend the Kyoto agreement.

The wheels have fallen off this particular bandwagon but it's still got enough momentum to cost us the other arm and leg.

[Skyryder]

From your link:

This paragraph sums up most of it really. "..there was a declining El Niño effect.." and as any climatologist will tell you, the effects on temperature lag El-Nino and La-Nina by 6 to 9 months. The recent La-Nina started to show up in May, and its only in November that global temperatures are really starting to fall. The Tropics have already dropped below the 1979-1998 average, and the Global anomaly has fallen from 0.603 in september to 0.381 in November.


Yes, New Zealand is currently seeing a warm spell of weather, (not climate) and the reason can be seen right here: http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

Note the very warm patch of water in the Tasman sea. It has been growing warmer there ever since the blocking high established itsel around 15 days ago. This is typical of a southern La-Nina pattern, and I'm picking warm dry conditions on average right through until at least May. The cold water south of Australia may cool down coastal areas of westrn New Zealand in mid summer, but probably won't have any major effect on the rest of the country.

The general consensus in the scientific community is that the planet is getting warmer. Most, not all believe the cause to be CO2 emissions.
Monkton refutes arguements that show an increase in climate change.

i read his response and was not that impressed. i don't have the necessary training to refute Monkton's response but since he has no qualifications and is allied to the 'climate deniers' I tend to question his arguments and go with those that have a proven track record in what they are talking about. i.e. those that have been peer reviewed and published.

Most not all of the scientific community hold the view that the the earth is getting warmer due to CO2 emissions. Some dispute this but they are in the 'minority.'

Whatever the cause we now have methane being released in small amounts.

http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/jou.../3_Methane.htm


Vast amounts of methane are bubbling up from the East Siberian sea, raising fears of a massive hike in global warming.

Permafrost in the seabed has been previously assumed to act as an effective cap for the enormous amount of methane in the area.

But researchers at the Russian Academy of Sciences, the University of Alaska and Stockholm University have found that eight million tonnes of methane are currently leaking into the atmosphere every year.

"The amount of methane currently coming out of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is comparable to the amount coming out of the entire world's oceans," said Shakhova, a researcher at UAF's International Arctic Research Center. "Subsea permafrost is losing its ability to be an impermeable cap."

It's not known how long the methane release has been going on. But models suggest that if just one percent of the methane contained in the region were released, it would cause rapid warming.

Earlier periods of rapid climate change have been associated with sudden releases of methane from the seabed.

During the ISSS expedition measurements of methane were made in the seabed, at different depths in the water and in the overlying air at over one hundred locations.

Combined with measurements from previous expeditions, it was found that methane concentrations in seawater are elevated in 80 percent of sea bottom samples and in more than half of the surface water samples and air samples.

Some areas had concentrations up to 100 times above the natural background levels, and the ISSS expedition discovered methane chimneys on the ocean floor and fields of methane bubbles that rose to the surface of the sea so fast that the methane did not have time to dissolve in the seawater.

"Our concern is that the subsea permafrost has been showing signs of destabilization already," she said. "If it further destabilizes, the methane emissions may not be teragrams, it would be significantly larger."

The full study appears in Science.

[James Deuce]

The claimed temperature increase is mostly ascribed to atmospheric methane, which has increased 120% since the advent of industrialisation.

[Jantar]

The general consensus in the scientific community is that the planet is getting warmer.

Not true at all. If there is concensus, then it is not science. There is no way that the scientific community would ever say there is a concensus. There is a general agreement that the earth has been warming for the past 150 - 200 years; ever since the Little Ice Age. Now maybe you have an explanation as to how how the planet can recover from a LIA and not warm up? Logically the planet has been warming, but that doesn't mean it is still warming. A least mean square regression of the data from 2000 to 2010 shows that there has been a slight overall cooling, despite the El-Nino driven high for 2010. Even Phil Jones from UEA has acknowledged that.

Most, not all believe the cause to be CO2 emissions.
Monkton refutes arguements that show an increase in climate change.

Do you have a source for this claim? If you said that "Most, not all believe a cause to be CO2 emissions" then I would agree entirely. The effect is calculable and beyond dispute. there is disagreement about the amount of the CO2 increase that is anthropogenic, and the amount that is natural.

i read his response and was not that impressed. i don't have the necessary training to refute Monkton's response but since he has no qualifications and is allied to the 'climate deniers' I tend to question his arguments and go with those that have a proven track record in what they are talking about. i.e. those that have been peer reviewed and published.

Maybe you should review Monkton again. The majority of his data is from peer reviewed and published sources. A further large part is from the IPCC itself, and the very small remainder is referenced so the reader can repeat the research.

Most not all of the scientific community hold the view that the the earth is getting warmer due to CO2 emissions. Some dispute this but they are in the 'minority.'

Again, do you have a source for this claim? As before, most agree that CO2 is a contributer, but all efforts to place numbers in one camp or the other have failed (from both sides of the argument). The reason why attempts to lable scientists in one camp or the other is because science doesn't work that way. Scientists look at what they know, and ask about the things they don't know. eg, there is dispute about the value of feed backs on the forcing. IPCC put forward the figure of +2.7. Sure enough if a feedback of +2.7 is applied to the forcing from change in CO2 concentration then that neatly explains the temperature rise from 1979 to 1998. It doesn't explain the failure to increase since then, nor is there any allowance for any other forcing. If that same +2.7 is applied to the 0.3% increase in TSI then that neatly explains the temperature rise from 1979 to 1998, and it explains the failure to increase since then, but there isn't any allowance for any other forcing.

So I'm of the camp the feedback value is much lower, and probably less than unity. Some even go so far as to claim a negative feedback. But if that is the case the data doen't yet add up.

Unfortuantely, some in the climate science communtity have presented computer model outputs as if it is actual data. Media then pick up on this and make claims such as the "The earth may have warmed 0.7 C since 1979." If they actually read the research they would find error bars and other statements that plea for caution.

Whatever the cause we now have methane being released in small amounts.

.... snip ...

The full study appears in Science.

And this is one of the natural drivers that further complicate the issue. But this methane release isn't new. I learnt about it in primary school in the early 1960s where we saw a movie of scientists burning the gasses given off through the tundra in Siberia.

[James Deuce]

And this is one of the natural drivers that further complicate the issue. But this methane release isn't new. I learnt about it in primary school in the early 1960s where we saw a movie of scientists burning the gasses given off through the tundra in Siberia.

Natural methane emissions haven't substantially increased compared to the methane given off in the extraction of carbon based fuels.

New report out just today, heard on BBC World.

[carbonhed]

The general consensus in the scientific community is that the planet is getting warmer. Most, not all believe the cause to be CO2 emissions.
[/I]

The planet's been warming since the end of the Little Ice age. CO2 has risen, at least in part, due to human emissions. Raised CO2 levels should lead to some limited warming. None of these points are actually in much dispute at all.

The crux of the dispute lies around the feedbacks that amplify the CO2 derived warming into something much more serious. There is no empirical evidence for these feedbacks. They are all derived from the deeply inadequate computer models of the atmosphere. They don't adequately model the ocean circultion. Hell they don't even know how cloud cover works.

You don't have to be a climate scientist to understand why people suppress opposimg views, exagerate the threats, and flat out fabricate results.

Even little old NZ has it's own bullshit artist in Dr Salinger who'se manipulated our own climate history. Tragically we can't check his workings because the dog ate his homework... as per fucking usual with these bastards.

Sarcasm and flippancy may seem harsh but stick around... ridicule, loathing and contempt will surely follow.

[Jantar]

Natural methane emissions haven't substantially increased compared to the methane given off in the extraction of carbon based fuels.

New report out just today, heard on BBC World.

Do youhave a link? I have tried searching the BBC World website but can't easily find any new references.

[sinned]

The wheels have fallen off this particular bandwagon but it's still got enough momentum to cost us the other arm and leg.

Check this out - "I cannot recall ever before seeing such a huge mismatch between the views of the establishment — the politicians, the media, the chattering classes — and real people, on any issue."

I am not giving up riding the bike any time soon.

[Skyryder]

Not true at all. If there is concensus, then it is not science. There is no way that the scientific community would ever say there is a concensus. There is a general agreement that the earth has been warming for the past 150 - 200 years; ever since the Little Ice Age. Now maybe you have an explanation as to how how the planet can recover from a LIA and not warm up? Logically the planet has been warming, but that doesn't mean it is still warming. A least mean square regression of the data from 2000 to 2010 shows that there has been a slight overall cooling, despite the El-Nino driven high for 2010. Even Phil Jones from UEA has acknowledged that.




Do you have a source for this claim? If you said that "Most, not all believe a cause to be CO2 emissions" then I would agree entirely. The effect is calculable and beyond dispute. there is disagreement about the amount of the CO2 increase that is anthropogenic, and the amount that is natural.





Maybe you should review Monkton again. The majority of his data is from peer reviewed and published sources. A further large part is from the IPCC itself, and the very small remainder is referenced so the reader can repeat the research.



Again, do you have a source for this claim? As before, most agree that CO2 is a contributer, but all efforts to place numbers in one camp or the other have failed (from both sides of the argument). The reason why attempts to lable scientists in one camp or the other is because science doesn't work that way. Scientists look at what they know, and ask about the things they don't know. eg, there is dispute about the value of feed backs on the forcing. IPCC put forward the figure of +2.7. Sure enough if a feedback of +2.7 is applied to the forcing from change in CO2 concentration then that neatly explains the temperature rise from 1979 to 1998. It doesn't explain the failure to increase since then, nor is there any allowance for any other forcing. If that same +2.7 is applied to the 0.3% increase in TSI then that neatly explains the temperature rise from 1979 to 1998, and it explains the failure to increase since then, but there isn't any allowance for any other forcing.

So I'm of the camp the feedback value is much lower, and probably less than unity. Some even go so far as to claim a negative feedback. But if that is the case the data doen't yet add up.

Unfortuantely, some in the climate science communtity have presented computer model outputs as if it is actual data. Media then pick up on this and make claims such as the "The earth may have warmed 0.7 C since 1979." If they actually read the research they would find error bars and other statements that plea for caution.



And this is one of the natural drivers that further complicate the issue. But this methane release isn't new. I learnt about it in primary school in the early 1960s where we saw a movie of scientists burning the gasses given off through the tundra in Siberia.

The consensus is my interpretation of what I read on the subject and that is the scientific community accepts that the earth is getting warmer. Most agree that this caused by CO2 emissions.


i tend to think that that most opposition from the community is based on their opposition to Carbon trading schemes and as such they support data that is in accordance with opposition to climate change due to CO2 emissions. That's just my personal opinion.
As for links we can both find links to support our position.

I don't know if methane levels are increasing or not. But the scientific community is worried on this issue.

Skyryder

[Jantar]

The consensus is my interpretation of what I read on the subject and that is the scientific community accepts that the earth is getting warmer. Most agree that this caused by CO2 emissions.

Now this is new. So what you are say is that the concensus is your belief. I can understand that because if a lie is repeated often enough and loudly enough then it can be taken a a truth. That is what has happened with the idea of concensus.

However actual data is what seperates religion from science and why most skeptics consider the warmist view to be a religion rather than science.

i tend to think that that most opposition from the community is based on their opposition to Carbon trading schemes and as such they support data that is in accordance with opposition to climate change due to CO2 emissions. That's just my personal opinion.
As for links we can both find links to support our position.

I don't know if methane levels are increasing or not. But the scientific community is worried on this issue.

Skyryder

Yes, the methane levels are increasing, and they have been increaing along with CO2 levels since measurements began. I don't believe that the scientific are worried by this at all, it is just something else to observe, comment on and, if possible, explain.

[carbonhed]

Check this out - "I cannot recall ever before seeing such a huge mismatch between the views of the establishment — the politicians, the media, the chattering classes — and real people, on any issue."

I am not giving up riding the bike any time soon.

Our governments are incapable of admitting they screwed up... which is puzzling... you'd think with all the practice... it would get easier.

Rag the Hayabusa till it squeals!