What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

a myth is some story or legend not based on facts

do you have any facts with which to dispute the story or legend invented by the energy industries PR arm concerning this issue

if you do not then it falls within the definition of a myth

here is a graph of 4 measurement data sets from Yale university



as you can see they all roughly correspond

here is another one where four homogenized data sets are used and they all roughly correspond as well



I can do this all day long
over and over there is data to support the position that multiple data sets confirm the readings of other individual data sets

if the ground station data was really all that off it would show when compared to other data

it does not
therefor your argument does not hold water

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Hard to believe there are still people trying to defend the credibility of the Oregon Petition. It was very clearly designed and used simply to muddy the debate.

Gee, sounds like a fair description of Realclimate.org (AKA The Rathole, surrealclimate.org) which was established to defend the scientifically indefensible papers of Team Hockey Stick.

Just where is Yamal anyway

Jimbo

[Brent Swain]

A coil of black plastic pipe on the roof,covering most of it, with clear plastic over it, gets incredibly hot in the sun. That hot water can be pumped into a hot water tank for overnight heat, far simpler and cheaper than some of the proposals. Anyone can do it cheaply , which I think is the key to making solar heat more affordable and available.

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

.... gets incredibly hot in the sun.

Here in Norway, I tried that on a sunny day (this winter), surface temp was approx 55-60°C, ambient was -5°C... So it works, need more sun than we have in this place though... But could drill a hole in the ground, deep, fill with dynamite, break the rock, so in a sunny day you could circulate hot water down to that area, and "store" the heat for colder, darker days.

[spearaddict]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

A coil of black plastic pipe on the roof,covering most of it, with clear plastic over it, gets incredibly hot in the sun. That hot water can be pumped into a hot water tank for overnight heat, far simpler and cheaper than some of the proposals. Anyone can do it cheaply , which I think is the key to making solar heat more affordable and available.

Those panels get the water temperature up to ~450 degrees Fahrenheit. It creates steam, which drives a Rankine Cycle engine. You cant really do that without using a parabolic trough.
They can also be used to purify water, solar a/c, heat for cooking, etc. The list is endless, and they are 20-40% efficient.

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by nordvindcrew

how is global temperature measured and how sure are we of the accuracy ?

We're not sure of anything... But asphalt is not the correct place...
Sea is more accurate, we have many measurements of temperatures for sea temperatures, water need approx 10 x the energy to increase 1° than for instance steel does.

So water, is more safe for surface temperatures, and it covers approx 70% of this ball we're sitting on.

Don't need a thermometer to understand that something have changed;
Birds, springtime, they're back here, we have snow up to our ears...?! So if the temperature where they are in the Norwegian winter (and should have stayed, in my opinion) is what triggers them to go north, that may indicate that the temperature is higher further south, than here.... That type of birdsong, when we're in over our ears in snow, isnt right...

Arctic sea ice is thinning, Norway isnt too big, there are some strange persons here that actually does trips in that area for a living, they're pretty gathered in their opinion; more difficult ice, thinner, more open waters, which is a problem, if you land in the drink at a surface temp of approx -30°C, Antarctica is more uncertain, but pretty large chunks of ice have broken free. (probably something that have to happen anyway, sooner or later). And Great barrier reef is reported to have received som damages, probably due to higher temperatures.

All of this may be well within normal variations.... But, what if we add to this? my only some fractions? CO2 does have some mechanical properties, that can't be argued away from, we did use that gas in double windows... That chosen gas was not a coincidence, it was better for the purpose than N2....

AND we have a max consumption of an unrenewable source of energy, with less (easy available) resources of it left in the nature....?

We can deal with some of the problems now, and make a "gradually" conversion to what will have to come, anyway.

Or we can go at full speed into a pit of gravel...

IF we're ending up partly resposible for making large areas of this "ball" uninhabitable, well, around equator, there's a "belt" quite a lot of the land area is around that "belt", some of the areas are pretty crowded, if they heat up and looses the water for drinking and plants.... but still have their AK47 dug down somewhere, they'll migrate or they choose to stay and die... What would you do...?

To stay, in a heated environment, they'll need resources, tractors, drilling equipment, gas.. pumps... Lots of kg's with machinery... well out of financial reach for an average person ibn this area. An AK47 weights only approx 4,5-5 kgs, steel plastic and some wood, far more within reach for an average person in these regions.

(Well, for myself; I'd look at my children, and would think; not one to loose..., better find a better place than this one before we're too weak to dig in... can we consider them wrong to think like that?).

[Knut Sand]

My last post was a bit unclear, methinks...

It's a responce of sort to those who say that its not a problem, we'll adapt, we always have...

In my opinion, to adapt, you need resources (and living where I do, you should listen... I'm not always wrong...). Some of the warmest areas are some of the most populated ones, not too much resources either, and some of the most political unstable, also... (read that as "weapons").

In earlier times pre-industrial, when the weather heated up like it seem around equator, now.... we had lesser populations, lesser ability to travel or change position. People stayed and died, no internet, so we didn't know, they didn't know of the fat tribe up north either, so they didn't consider travel north or south a solution either. If you dont have the equipment or ability to get hold of that equipment to drill down to fresh water.... but you do have a gun... It'll only take a few out of a many to consider that solution further.

[spearaddict]

Your reference to the birds and snow this year has 0 bearing on a climate change conversation. That is weather, a snapshot of particular area at a particular time. Climate is more like a movie of what happens for a long time. All this snow we are seeing, especially on the east coast of the US, is related to El Nino, which causes a lot more precipitation than normal.

[masrapido]

For those "Australians" out here banging their old, dried out chests with "it's all a conspiracy!!!", CSIRO, australian scientific organisation with quite a good reputation for honest and scientific work, confirmed last week that the climate change is real, and that the human factor IS significant.

So, here's the thing. Between the scientists and some markey/zeddo neapolitan puddles, I think that the scientists, with a solid reputation, have more things to say than local ********ters pretending to know it all, posting charts and "discoveries" about yet another "conspiracy".

Of, course, it is quite plausible that CSIRO was taken by a communist rapid-reaction squad and that they are now transmitting their anti-capitalist propaganda against the nice and humanitarian private enterprises who only have our best in their hearts and minds.

I mean, who the **** are you to dispute this quite possible option? Show me the proof otherwise.

A chart would be good...

[Brian@BNE]

Originally Posted by masrapido

......... and that the human factor IS significant.

Here's a link to Megan's interview.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s2845580.htm

I can't find what you assert anywhere in it. Ok, you might have wanted her to say it - your enthusiasm is apparent. But its worth reading the interview objectively, noting what it does say and reflecting on what it doesn't.

Megan's a geologist by background, understands paleoclimate data and was suitably cautious. Go back further than 20my and you will find both higher levels of the gases referred to and, to the extent the data can be resolved, similar rates of change occasionally in the past.

Humans contributing to climate change- yes. At a significant level? Well, I'd realy like to see someone put a percentage figure on our hydrocarbon contribution to the totals that is supported by good data, because at present too many are jumping from contributing to almost 100% cause. And that could lead to governments making very bad decisions on taxes or spending taxes.

[masrapido]

I was not refering to that article, but to the news here on our, chilean TV. However, the very first sentence may have escaped you:

"Dr Megan Clark has come out in defence of climate scientists and says there's absolutely no doubt there's a link between humans and climate change."

[Brian@BNE]

Originally Posted by masrapido

a link [/b][/color]

you seem to want to go from 'a link' to something well beyond that.

It might seem subtle, but to me 'a link' is still a long way off your assertion. Maybe the translation into Spanish for your news was not accurate, I don't really know.

[masrapido]

Going back 20my is a bit irrelevant because back then the climate was definitely different, but for entirely different reasons. Calling up that period to make conclusions on our era is a bit naive, you would have to agree.

That is exactly what many are doing here. My good friend Guillermo among them too, despite his MANY informative links. The point that deniers (they may sue me for calling them this, but I like it.) are missing is that, just as in economy, the past performance is NOT the indication of the future trends.

In particular when there's a new factor in play, such as human intervention in environment. ANd we still do not know how seriously has our industrialisation damaged the earth. These effect may have the long term effect that will not be apparent right now.

So to dismiss it as a "conspiracy" is naive. The email fiasco has only uncovered a bunch of donkeys who should be sacked and never again be employed as scientists, or anything else other than street cleaners.

[masrapido]

Originally Posted by Brian@BNE

you seem to want to go from 'a link' to something well beyond that.

It might seem subtle, but to me 'a link' is still a long way off your assertion. Maybe the translation into Spanish for your news was not accurate, I don't really know.

Yes, Megan is not saying it specifically in this article, yet they had quoted her so here. WHo know what exactly did she say, but there's little subtle in that sentence. "there's absolutely no doubt". Which part did you find subtle?

Even teh moderate scientist who support the idea of humans influencing current climatic processes, agree that our contribution is significant. The mean annual deforestation rate from 2000 to 2005 (22,392 km2 per year) was 18% higher than in the previous five years (19,018 km2 per year).[33] At the current rate, in two decades the Amazon Rainforest will be reduced by 40%. That is not a "conspiracy". That is capitalist hysteria at its worst. Anything for a dollar. Screw the nature.

And that is just a drop in the ocean. Our multimillion megacities create so much of black waters, it all goes into the oceans. Can't find it right now, but I read recently that a citly of 4 millions creates a river of **** and piss (pardon my english) in a year that matches a flow of Danube in 5 months.

That is a LOt of pollution. Just look at the sattelite picture of the river Po in Italy and how far the brown waters go into the Adriatics.

There's no fish to speak of on Italian side since early 1990's. Croats are in panic because the poisons are now spreading to their side, as are the italian fishermen.

We are screwing this planet slowly, but surely.

[Boston]

interview tend to get edited a lot and often the intent of the speaker or the presenter can be muddled by the editing process

I tend to go with papers or articles authored by someone as a far better source for discovering that someones position

when in doubt I check source watch and a few other lists to see who is who