What Do We Think About Climate Change

Ehmmm Pericles, you can do better...?
THAT picture is screaming photoshop against any bugger looking at it, All stars in the exact same position? same lightening? I also happen to have my cabin located in the Norwegian mountains, ehh in one of the white spots.... Last year there was absolutely no snow at this time of the year (I was up there hunting...), The photo clams ther was snow (but we actually got 2,7 meters of snow in the next couple of months...). Now today, there's snow, so that part of the picture is correct for this day...
The date 10/21/2007 and 10/21/2008; in the first 0 (in the 10 th), in the hole, lower part, there's a star, the same star on both pictures, what's the chance for the same star in the exact same position in a picture taken with a year in between?

So, if that internet page is lying or fabricating their biased view, what else are they messing with? "donate here"...****, I would not donate a f***ng nickel to a bunch of liars.

The only thing we can be sure of; some people have an agenda, our brains and calculators will be our weapon.....

 

Ok. that link states that the ice has increased significantly the last year 31,3%.

Well if I zzzzooooom into: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png you all see where the red line stops? 8 x e6 km2, go straight down to the yellow line; My guess is 6,5 e6 km2; that's a difference/ increase of 23,0769%, on the other hand... If we go a little to the left the yellow line has a "dip"? Is that point/ date used as it is more convenient (higher percentage)? And not the day's (end) date of the graph, which would be more unbiased?

On that same site there's also a link to a document that states this:

Quote:

Annual snow cover extent (SCE) over Northern Hemisphere lands averaged 24.0 million square kilometers in 2007. This is 1.5 million sq. km. less than the 38-year average and ranks 2007 as having the 3rd least extensive cover of record (table 1). This evaluation considers snow over the continents, including the Greenland ice sheet. The SCE in 2007 ranged from 45.3 million sq. km. in January to 2.0 million sq. km. in August. Monthly snow extent values are calculated at the Rutgers Global Snow Lab from weekly SCE maps produced by NOAA meteorologists, who rely primarily on daily visible satellite imagery to construct the maps.

Hemispheric SCE was below the long-term mean in every month except December. Departures were as large as -3.0 million sq. km​

Quote end.

"This is 1.5 million sq. km. less than the 38-year average"....?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgECKj9LSH4

 

Seems to my there are too many lies, damn lies and statistics, and all are massaged (manipulated) or falsified to present the case for any point of view.... I just think "que serah", and wouldn't it be nice to be nicer and smoke less, throw so much rubbish about and care a lot more? - - - Then maybe the place (this little planet we call "earth") would be a lot more pleasant and beautiful naturally....

Greed is NOT good - what do you want everything for - do you use it all the time or just occasionally - - then do you really NEED it.... My basic premise is "If it is not used regularly, give it to the "Salvos" or your favourite charity or sell it... - I DO !!!! what about you?

 

Knut,

If you can't accept the simple, well established scientific fact that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and BY FAR the most important greenhouse gas for planet Earth, then I just can't discuss this any further with you, for you are LOST, and I'm not your GPS. When you have found your way again, maybe THEN you can add something relevant to the discussion. The rest of your analysis above is tragically flawed as it seems you've taken heat properties of liquid water and tried to apply them to water in a vapor form acting as a heat trap ..... Knut, those are not the salient properties under discussion! What can I say? LOST!!!

Sorry to be so blunt.

Jimbo

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
For anyone interested in this topic- take the time to read the follow up discussion. Decent observations and info for both sides of the fence.

Knut needs to catch up with the science?
What is it they say about glass houses?

 

"One should not stow thrones in grass houses" (BBC radio program "My Word")

 

Thomas,

Michael Mann's site is NEVER going to be anything but a cheerleading gallery for the AGW alarm crowd. That is the very reason the site exists! Don't you know this??!! The site was established to defend the hockey stick graph, and still does so. What more needs to be said of it?

Jimbo

 

We don't need to go there Jimbo do we?

You are citing credible sources?

 

Thomas,

When you say 'The Science', you mean the latest research on a particular subject under discussion, to wit, climate change. That is NOT what I was referring to. Knut was attempting to model the greenhouse capacity of atmospheric water vapor a heat problem (Q=MC x DeltaT) but using the heat properties of liquid water. This is wrong on at least two different levels, maybe three if I think about it. You might think my post on the Campos Basin oil find is a flawed analysis, but Knut's rambling takes flawed to a whole other plane

Jimbo

 

Fair enough- not my fight was just butting in.

Ok?

To continue:

You have still not defended this position:

"CO2 was on the same trend BEFORE the industrial revolution, hundreds of years before in fact."

By the way....

A culling factor?

Has a certain ring to it, no?

 

Credible sources for what? The provenance of Realclimate.org? It's fairly well known. Go to the wayback machine and see when they began. Right AFTER the hockey stick debacle. Golly, what a coincidence

The data I posted on the relative greenhouse potential of CO2? Look at the sources yourself; DOE Oak Ridge Lab, The EPA. Their numbers look like those published by many others and are not even in question. Only question is still what conclusion to draw from the data. And the DOE and EPA both count themselves in the AGW alarm crowd, don't you know.

Maybe your are so incredulous because when you ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE NUMBERS, the whole thing does not look scary AT ALL, and you are having a hard time bringing your mind around to the conclusion that the AGW alarm crowd really is FULL OF **** and their arguments have little technical merit.

Again, what is this mystery process whereby CO2, a TRACE GAS, can leverage its meager intrinsic (and logarithmic) greenhouse potential to regulate the entire climate, so that modest changes in concentration can cause the climate to run away in a positive feedback loop? Increasing water vapor has its own negative feedback systems that are quite robust, after all. You've probably even heard of them; clouds and precipitation.

Jimbo

 

So you are unable to defend your position:

"CO2 was on the same trend BEFORE the industrial revolution, hundreds of years before in fact."

Since your own sources agree with the abundant evidence for significant anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2:

"During the past 50 years, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 22%. Much of that CO2 increase is attributable to the 6-fold increase in human use of hydrocarbon energy."

I would be willing to start discussing how this change in atmospheric chemistry caused by mans activities may be effecting climate.

 

Is this relevant? - - - - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/24/2400051.htm?section=justin
Greenhouse gas 4 times more than thought: study

Posted 3 hours 27 minutes ago

Levels of a powerful greenhouse gas are four times as high as previously thought, according to new measurements released on Thursday.

New analytical techniques show that about 5,400 metric tons of nitrogen trifluoride are in the atmosphere, with amounts increasing by about 11 per cent per year.

Ray Weiss of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, and colleagues said it had not been possible to accurately measure this gas before.

They said nitrogen trifluoride is 17,000 times more effective at warming the atmosphere than an equal mass of carbon dioxide, although it does not yet contribute much to global warming.

Scientists estimate the gas contributes to just 0.15 per cent of total global warming.

Previous estimates had put levels of the gas at less than 1,200 metric tons in 2006.

Nitrogen trifluoride, a colorless, odorless, nonflammable gas, is used to etch silicon wafers and in some lasers.

Writing in Geophysical Research Letters, Weiss and colleagues said they analysed air samples gathered over the past 30 years under the NASA-funded Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment.

Weiss said nitrogen trifluoride needs to be regulated, as carbon dioxide is.

"From a climate perspective, there is a need to add nitrogen trifluoride to the suite of greenhouse gases whose production is inventoried and whose emissions are regulated under the Kyoto Protocol, thus providing meaningful incentives for its wise use," he said.

Michael Prather, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at Irvine, noted nitrogen trifluoride is being used more commonly and predicted that more would be found in the atmosphere.

"It is now shown to be an important greenhouse gas," Mr Prather, who was not involved with the Scripps study, said in a statement. "Now we need to get hard numbers on how much is flowing through the system, from production to disposal."

 

I just cant bring mysellf to read all the other posts - but I presume Methane (from landfill, grazing cattle etc) has been mentioned before?

It has a much bigger effect on the warming effect than CO2 has.

Its all academic anyway - if these gasses are going to do these bad things - we are stuffed. Its never going to be reduced in time -well, unless bird flu or something kicks in.

Especially now that the oceans are turning acidic and warm, the big dropoff in small marine organisms that sequester up to 40%
( http://www.aad.gov.au/asset/magazine/2007-12/23carbon_sinks.pdf )
of the worlds carbon are either being collected by Russion Krill trawlers, or dying off.

We are all going to a very warm place, we are doomed ... I tell you, doomed!!!! (insane cackle, exit stage right to mail chicken feathers to all parts of the world)

 

He he he ha ha ah ha ah - - cannot stop laughing - takes an Australian sense of humour.... to knock some of the pontificated stuffing around....