What Do We Think About Climate Change

What do you mean much shorter days? How long ago are we talking about?

 

800 peer reviewed papers to deny

 

Well, first of all you are just a cheap manipulator and twister. I never wrote
"Your idiotic comment about how to type spanish bla bla.

So you may want to take your retarded comments back with you to your toilet and poder over them while they shower your arse, falling into the bowl.

And yor "advice" you so long to be thanked for is another proof of your retarded nature. Only some pc's work that way, and even those that do need to have spanish language kit for the operating system installed. Now, that is not great a challenge, except for you where you must have had it installed since you have no idea how it really works, but I couldn't be bothered. It is annoying to have a laptop (bought overseas) with anglo letters only and make regular gymnastics to be able to write spanish characters.

But to make you understand how stupid your remarks are is an insurmontable challenge. You simply cannot fathom that fact exactly because of that inellectual impairedness mentioned above.

So stick to your little toilet activity and self-pleasure yourself on someone else. You simply do not have what is necessary to smart-arse your way with me.

 

This quote by marcus the smart-arse also shows that my post was removed, but his and other insults around are still hapily up.

Double standards by Jeff, as per usual. Another reason why this thread shoud be shut down, but obviously Jeff is on a deniers side so no chance of that. Only a few posts will be "democratically" removed when not to Jeff's taste.

Pitiful.

 

Hi Masrapido, still around?
Hmm, sure its removed? that (frankly) seem to be one of your more "quiet" posts...?

Well, news here in Norway goes like; " last period globally is the warmest since 1880, we're still waiting for the summer....".

I personally thinks the summer here've been ok. But thats a pretty locally opinion....

We could ask Russian firemen (Moscow or Ozersk, fires due to dry weather)....
Or some inhabitants in Pakistan (13,8 mill people affected)...?
Or China (earthslides after heavy rain)

My "early" statement in this discussion still stands (or something like this...); If our "behavior", kills people in other places by changing the weather/ climate? Then, where is the lower limit of our impact on the climate, where is it etical or ok to set a "limit"?

Is it ok to be 5000 people with our way of living to kill let''s say 4 people in Pakistan? Killing by remote ("control" (or lack of?)) Or is 500 a more acceptable number? (I mean their income isnt as big as mine, so they're clearly worth less? Does Russians love their children?).

On the other hand, I may be a *****/whimp to consider this "better safe than sorry" attitude of quite a number of "scientists" NOAA, IPCC etc.... We probably will never grasp the full set of rules on this game (or experiment) we're playing....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

 

when the moon first formed it was much closer and the day was 18 hours or less


the moon is receding at about 2.5 inches a year causing the day to get longer

 

This is good news. I had thought that I was just tiring out quicker than I did twenty years ago.

 

Knut, you are forgetting the current very cold winter in South America, the last very cold winter in North America, the present freezing regions of Siberia, pretty close to where the present zone of heat is, the current low air temperatures in the Artic, the greening of the Sahel, the still in a 30 years minimum global hurricanes index, etc, etc, etc.

What happens if your "better safe than sorry" policy results in the killing of millions of people because measures to protect huimankind from the plausible and much more dangerous cooling are not been taken because we are losing our time and efforts innecessarily fighting against a CO2 warming phantom?

 

The two polar regions are usually identified as key regions for monitoring global climate change, because the surface air temperature is expected to increase especially rapid in these two regions along with the ongoing increase of atmospheric CO2. But surface air temperatures both in Arctic and Antarctic show till now little correspondence (if any) with athmospheric CO2 levels.


First attached diagram shows Arctic monthly surface air temperature anomaly 70-90ºN since January 1900, in relation to the WMO normal period 1961-1990. The thin blue line shows the monthly temperature anomaly, while the thicker red line shows the running 13 month average. In general, the range of monthly temperature variations decreases throughout the first 30-50 years of the record, reflecting the increasing number of meteorological stations north of 70ºN over time. Especially the period from about 1930 saw the establishment of many new Arctic meteorological stations, first in Russia and Siberia, and following the 2nd World War, also in North America. Because of the relatively small number of stations before 1930, details in the early part of the Arctic temperature record should not be over interpreted. The rapid Arctic warming around 1920 is, however, clearly visible, and is also documented by other sources of information. The period since 2000 is warm, about as warm as the period 1930-1940. Data source: HadCRUT3 temperature data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Last month shown: May 2010. Last diagram update: 15 July 2010.


Second attached diagram shows Antarctic monthly surface air temperature anomaly 70-90ºS since January 1957, in relation to the WMO normal period 1961-1990. The year 1957 was an international geophysical year, and several meteorological stations were established in the Antarctic because of this. Before 1957, the meteorological coverage of the Antarctic continent is poor. The thin blue line shows the monthly temperature anomaly, while the thicker red line shows the running 13 month average. In general, the Antarctic temperature record appears to be more variable than the contemporary Arctic record, presumably at least partly due to the smaller number of meteorological stations south of 70oS, compared to the number of stations north of 70ºN. Data source: HadCRUT3 temperature data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Last month shown: May 2010. Last diagram update: 15 July 2010.

Credit: Ole Humlum. Bolded is mine.

 

Mean annual surface air temperature (MAAT) anomaly 70-90ºN compared to the WMO normal period 1961-1990, as estimated by Hadley CRUT. HadCRUT3 temperature data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has been used to prepare the diagram. A description of these data can be seen by clicking here. The HadCRUT3 data can be downloaded from the same website. The temperature record shows that the Little Ice Age apparently ended around 1920 in regions north of 70ºN with a marked temperature increase, much more rapid than any other temperature on record. Temperatures then reached a maximum around the start of the 2nd World War, followed by a new temperature decrease. The WMO normal period 1961-1990 represents the period of maximum cold north of 70ºN after the 2nd World War. Since around 1990 surface air temperatures have again increased, although modern temperatures still are slightly below the level characterising the period shortly before 1940. The number of available meteorological stations in the early part of the 20th century is low, and this best estimate therefore associated with relatively large uncertainty for this part of the total period. Last year shown: 2009. Latest update: 20 February 2010.

Credit: Ole Humlum.

 

Arctic Basin ice is more concentrated in 2010 than in past years

Attached graphs show Artic basin se ice volume, thickness and area from data taken from the U. S. Navy Polar Ice Prediction System (http://www.oc.nps.edu/~pips3/)

- 2010 ice volume is above 2007-2009 and just below 2006.
- 2010 average ice thickness is approximately the same as 2006 and 2007. It is higher than “rotten ice” 2008 and 2009.
- 2010 Arctic Basin ice area is just below 2006 and 2007. It is higher than 2008 and 2009.

Arctic Basin is the region which corresponds approximately to the maximum September extent in the NSIDC records (last image).

Credit: Steve Goddard.

 

Accept it, it's getting hotter.

 

The notion that the world is cooling instead of warming is completely implausible, and unsupported by any scientific data; it's being brought up as a distraction to muddy the waters. And nothing done to deal with global warming would kill 'millions of people' if the world cooled instead, anyway.

Can we at least pretend to stick with reality here?

 

If it's raining where you are that doesn't mean it's raining in the sahara.

it's global mean temp that is rising, if the Atlantic conveyor shuts down because of the influx of fresh water, europe will get a lot colder and other places a lot warmer so the net effect is a mean rise in temp globaly

wont matter, london will be under water anyway along with holland

 

So what you are really saying G is that you disagree with the conclusions of the hundreds of trained scientists at the national ice data center and would like to reinterpret there data.

hmmmmm
who do I believe here

they hundred or so guys in the lab and the thousands out in the field

or the guy sitting in an office overlooking the harbor somewhere who's biz is boats and not climate change