The scientists are frighted

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-10-22 6:37 PM

 

 

Anyway - Global Warming always gets a bad press from the Alarmists - John always dismissed the Scottish Geriatrician's report that warmer winters would be better for the elderly - and that report is true and indeed has been repeated by those that care for the elderly. In fact just tonight - Sir John Major is saying that expensive energy - in part due to green taxes as well as greedy providers - and a predicted very cold winter is catastrophic for the elderly.

 

 

Hello again - briefly! I will be venturing back into dongle-free territory soon but while I am back I cannot let that post go without comment.

 

You continue to pick out bits of information and ignore the whole in order to make you tenuous point. Of course, warmer winters would be good for Scottish geriatrics but that is not the point. The climate changer that is likely to bring about those warmer winters would almost certainly also bring more and more violent storms and higher rainfall - as well as the fact that Scotland is, like the rest of us, dependent on wider global trends (for example, they import food from areas of the world where production is potentially going to decrease through greater aridity.

 

You really must learn to look at the whole picture. You fail to understand that climate change is continuous and complex, so to pick out warmer winters in Scotland and ignore the other effects, or to pick out decreased temperatures at altitude and ignore the warming at sea level, or to say that more CO2 will mean bigger cabbages and to ignore the potential polluting effect of the gas, or to stress the greater horizontal extent of the ice sheets and ignore their decreasing volume etc etc is to go against the actual recorded figures (which you have dismissed on several occasions) - as well as to misunderstand the system.

 

 

[CliveH]

John 47 - 2013-10-23 12:04 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-10-22 6:37 PM

 

 

Anyway - Global Warming always gets a bad press from the Alarmists - John always dismissed the Scottish Geriatrician's report that warmer winters would be better for the elderly - and that report is true and indeed has been repeated by those that care for the elderly. In fact just tonight - Sir John Major is saying that expensive energy - in part due to green taxes as well as greedy providers - and a predicted very cold winter is catastrophic for the elderly.

 

 

Hello again - briefly! I will be venturing back into dongle-free territory soon but while I am back I cannot let that post go without comment.

 

You continue to pick out bits of information and ignore the whole in order to make you tenuous point. Of course, warmer winters would be good for Scottish geriatrics but that is not the point. The climate changer that is likely to bring about those warmer winters would almost certainly also bring more and more violent storms and higher rainfall - as well as the fact that Scotland is, like the rest of us, dependent on wider global trends (for example, they import food from areas of the world where production is potentially going to decrease through greater aridity.

 

You really must learn to look at the whole picture. You fail to understand that climate change is continuous and complex, so to pick out warmer winters in Scotland and ignore the other effects, or to pick out decreased temperatures at altitude and ignore the warming at sea level, or to say that more CO2 will mean bigger cabbages and to ignore the potential polluting effect of the gas, or to stress the greater horizontal extent of the ice sheets and ignore their decreasing volume etc etc is to go against the actual recorded figures (which you have dismissed on several occasions) - as well as to misunderstand the system.

 

 

Yawn!

 

You are another one that classically accuses everyone else of doing exactly what you do John.

 

Why not try and take the blinkers off - read the article - and read a bit more about the subject.

 

So far we have you saying the pause is not happening.

 

Then we have you saying that the Climate Scientists would not use the word "Pause"

 

Then when I show that they do indeed use this terminology you say they are all wrong and you are right because they are guilty of using bad english!

 

You try to make out that ice extent is not relevant because of ice thickness - but ignore the fact that the scientific sites cited do indeed take this into account such that the measurement of Ice Extent is indeed relevant.

 

Typical - John it seems

 

Everyone is wrong bar you.

 

Which can be an occupational hazard it seems for a Teacher

 

Which is sadly why Teachers often have trouble dealing with adults.

 

Just because you keep saying the same nonsense John does not make it true.

 

Read the article (I would say from your rehash of past arguments that you have not done this) think about it, do some research and then engage brain before hitting the keyboard.

 

Thank you in anticipation.

 

 

 

 

[CliveH]

"The chief benefits of global warming include: fewer winter deaths; lower energy costs; better agricultural yields; probably fewer droughts; maybe richer biodiversity. It is a little-known fact that winter deaths exceed summer deaths — not just in countries like Britain but also those with very warm summers, including Greece. Both Britain and Greece see mortality rates rise by 18 per cent each winter. Especially cold winters cause a rise in heart failures far greater than the rise in deaths during heatwaves."

 

Source - http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/

 

Also:-

 

"The increase in average carbon dioxide levels over the past century, from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent of the air, has had a measurable impact on plant growth rates. It is responsible for a startling change in the amount of greenery on the planet. As Dr Ranga Myneni of Boston University has documented, using three decades of satellite data, 31 per cent of the global vegetated area of the planet has become greener and just 3 per cent has become less green. This translates into a 14 per cent increase in productivity of ecosystems and has been observed in all vegetation types.

 

Dr Randall Donohue and colleagues of the CSIRO Land and Water department in Australia also analysed satellite data and found greening to be clearly attributable in part to the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect. Greening is especially pronounced in dry areas like the Sahel region of Africa, where satellites show a big increase in green vegetation since the 1970s.

 

It is often argued that global warming will hurt the world’s poorest hardest. What is seldom heard is that the decline of famines in the Sahel in recent years is partly due to more rainfall caused by moderate warming and partly due to more carbon dioxide itself: more greenery for goats to eat means more greenery left over for gazelles, so entire ecosystems have benefited.

 

Even polar bears are thriving so far, though this is mainly because of the cessation of hunting. None the less, it’s worth noting that the three years with the lowest polar bear cub survival in the western Hudson Bay (1974, 1984 and 1992) were the years when the sea ice was too thick for ringed seals to appear in good numbers in spring. Bears need broken ice."

 

.................................

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-10-23 3:28 PM

 

"The chief benefits of global warming include: fewer winter deaths; lower energy costs; better agricultural yields; probably fewer droughts; maybe richer biodiversity. It is a little-known fact that winter deaths exceed summer deaths — not just in countries like Britain but also those with very warm summers, including Greece. Both Britain and Greece see mortality rates rise by 18 per cent each winter. Especially cold winters cause a rise in heart failures far greater than the rise in deaths during heatwaves."

 

Source - http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/

 

Also:-

 

"The increase in average carbon dioxide levels over the past century, from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent of the air, has had a measurable impact on plant growth rates. It is responsible for a startling change in the amount of greenery on the planet. As Dr Ranga Myneni of Boston University has documented, using three decades of satellite data, 31 per cent of the global vegetated area of the planet has become greener and just 3 per cent has become less green. This translates into a 14 per cent increase in productivity of ecosystems and has been observed in all vegetation types.

 

Dr Randall Donohue and colleagues of the CSIRO Land and Water department in Australia also analysed satellite data and found greening to be clearly attributable in part to the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect. Greening is especially pronounced in dry areas like the Sahel region of Africa, where satellites show a big increase in green vegetation since the 1970s.

 

It is often argued that global warming will hurt the world’s poorest hardest. What is seldom heard is that the decline of famines in the Sahel in recent years is partly due to more rainfall caused by moderate warming and partly due to more carbon dioxide itself: more greenery for goats to eat means more greenery left over for gazelles, so entire ecosystems have benefited.

 

Even polar bears are thriving so far, though this is mainly because of the cessation of hunting. None the less, it’s worth noting that the three years with the lowest polar bear cub survival in the western Hudson Bay (1974, 1984 and 1992) were the years when the sea ice was too thick for ringed seals to appear in good numbers in spring. Bears need broken ice."

 

.................................

 

 

Forgive me but I can't be bothered reading the rest of this thread in depth as, after about ten minutes, I want to go out and shoot myself.

 

However, I'm puzzled. I thought at first that you were arguing that man-made global warming isn't happening and that those who think it is are 'alarmists'.

 

Now, you seem to be saying that it is actually happening but are arguing that it doesn't matter because it's a good thing?

 

 

[CliveH]

Frank - you ask a sensible question - I will try to answer it honestly and truthfully - I hope you take my answer in the spirit in which it is given - the issue is far too important to be part or our stupid spat

 

Sceptics are called "deniers" by Alarmists because they think it a good idea to associate anyone who disagrees with them to a term linked to holocaust denial - this was coined by Monbiot in the Guardian some years ago when he wanted all those who questioned catastrophic global warming to be put on trial for their future crimes against humanity.

 

But the truth is more complex - the Climate has always changed - it is changing still - it is supreme arrogance to think that we can control it - it is also extremely stupid to decide on behalf of the population of the planet that todays climate is the "correct" one and any deviate from it is some sort of sin.

 

What most sceptics of the catastrophic scenarios say is that the models are running hot and that higher CO2 levels are not having the predicted warming. This is the "Pause" referred to in the literature and is certainly NOT their use of bad english.

 

What is now being demonstrated is that CO2 levels ARE increasing - but from a very small base to a ever so slightly increased base.

 

But this has not lead to the increase in global temps that the alarmist models have predicted.

 

So the alarmists are running round like headless chicken littles because this proves the sky is not falling. They are trying to say the oceans are acting like a huge heat sink - and this may be true - no one can say yet - more work needs to be done. But even if that is the case - it demonstrates one thing clearly and postulates another both of which drive a huge hole in the Alarmist Catastrophic scenarios.

 

a) It proves the Alarmist models are wrong because they are not taking this natural cycle of events into account - they simple say that CO2 is bad and it is all mans fault.

 

b) If this is true and the heat is being stored in the ocean, then the minuscule increase in deep ocean temperature is going to have one hell of a job regurgitating itself back into the atmosphere. (it is the boiling kettle poured into the swimming pool scenario - how is that heat going to get back into the kettle so as to cause a problem?)

 

In fact there is much evidence to show that as plant life evolve on the planet when CO2 levels were very much higher - the slight increase in CO2 is producing a demonstrable increase in crop yields. Hardly a bad thing I would suggest.

 

As biologist of many many years ago - I know a little bit about Krebs cycle and how CO2is a plant food NOT a poison. Anyone that tries to make out CO2 is a pollutant or poison is truly ignorant of the true facts.

 

An excess of water will kill you. But H2O is not classified as a poison. Neither is N (Nitrogen) but again too much of it such that it excludes O2 will kill you via suffocation NOT poisoning.

 

So to put it simply - I do believe that Man has an effect on Climate - I do not believe that any increase in CO2 caused by man is the biggest issue. Deforestation has huge negative environmental effects - one of which is its negative effect on Climate both local and global. One of the biggest issues is the slash and burn of rain forests in order for Europe to meet its CO2 targets.

 

If we are going to disrupt our society in the name of saving the planet - I feel we had better make damn sure we are taking the right action.

 

Palm Oil production via what was rainforest so we in Europe can be "green" is an abomination.

 

Green taxes on utility bills so the elderly and the poor have to choose food or heat whilst the Green taxes collected go to already rich land owners as Feed In Tariffs is a similar abomination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-10-23 6:07 PM

 

 

So to put it simply - I do believe that Man has an effect on Climate - I do not believe that any increase in CO2 caused by man is the biggest issue. Deforestation has huge negative environmental effects - one of which is its negative effect on Climate both local and global. One of the biggest issues is the slash and burn of rain forests in order for Europe to meat its CO2 targets.

 

 

So humankind's actions are having a deleterious effect on climate? You say it isn't the biggest issue, which clearly implies that it is still an issue. So what's the argument all about then? If we are having an impact, even if it's not the biggest impact then surely we should be taking steps to minimise that impact? Answers in less then 500 words preferably.

 

 

 

[CliveH]

No - what i am saying is that it is wrong to focus all our efforts on reducing our CO2 emissions.

 

CO2 is trace gas (0.038% of the atmosphere) but it is vital to plant growth.

 

The Alarmists say that we must reduce our CO2 output - whereas biologists ask why? - increased CO2 will increase crop yields - that is why Market Gardeners increase CO2 in their greenhouses to over 1000ppm or 0.1%. Yields increase when they do this.

 

The alarmist models have one huge flaw and that is they all assume that there is a positive feedback mechanism between CO2 and Water Vapour - such that the models predict a "tipping point" when CO2 triggers a catastrophic increase in water vapour and we all end up looking like broiled chicken.

 

But the reality is from REAL DATA - NOT MODELS! - is that if anything there is a negative feedback such that increase CO2 leads to more Clouds and so more shade and so the temperature of the planet does not go into a logarithmic meltdown.

 

By now the models predicted a significant temperature spike for a given CO2 level.

 

This has not happened.

 

The Met Office has significantly reduced its alarmist projections.

 

So - I do not think that CO2 is a significant problem and question why we have to virtually destroy our economy via taxes to make us less competitive when the rest of the world craps itself laughing at our stupidity!

 

What galls me is that those CO2 quotas have had a direct effect on pristine habitat such as the Rains Forests that are being destroyed just so we in the West can make a totally pointless target.

 

 

 

[CliveH]

:-S No response to a sensible post then? *-)

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-10-23 7:58 PM

 

:-S No response to a sensible post then? *-)

 

 

Actually, I didn't think it was sensible. You freely admit that we contribute to global warming in one breath and decry our attempts to minimise our contribution in another! And the rest of the world isn't laughing. The western democracies certainly aren't - do try to keep up!

 

Anyway, this is far too boring and I don't want to be forced into suicide by reading any more of your self-opinionated tripe so I'll leave John47 to shoot you down yet again! ;-)

 

Come back John - all is forgiven! (lol) (lol)

[CliveH]

You had trouble reading the article from the Spectator then Frank. have to say - I am not surprised - I thought you would.

 

You seem to lose the thread of even simple posts - let alone a reasonably in depth article.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-10-23 8:22 PM

 

You had trouble reading the article from the Spectator then Frank. have to say - I am not surprised - I thought you would.

 

You seem to lose the thread of even simple posts - let alone a reasonably in depth article.

 

 

 

 

 

[CliveH]

Yep - a cartoon of a tired old faht just about sums you up (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

 

 

[Will86]

We live in an area where there are millions of trees, each tree has thousands of leaves, each leaf draws water from the earth beneath it, as the water evaporates carbon is released. Each time a single leaf falls off a measure of carbon is released. Trees were here long before mankind. Nuff said

[CliveH]

Yep - a better summation and description of Krebs cycle you could not have Will.

 

 

 

 

 

[CliveH]

If anyone is interested the "Pause" is demonstrated in the graph at the link below:-

 

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CanESM/CanESM_GL_Surf.jpg

 

The Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis located at the University of Victoria in British Columbia submitted five runs of its climate model CanESM2 for use in the fifth assessment report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The climate model produces one of the most extreme warming projections of all the 30 models evaluated by the IPCC. The model badly fails to match the surface and atmosphere temperature observations, both globally, regionally, as presented in six graphs.

 

The graph demonstrates very well what the Alarmist Projections try to indicate was going to happen - tho it MUST be appreciated - that the models in this graph are at the more extreme end o the spectrum.

 

Currently all the models are being re-run but even then the more modest predictions are still running overly hot compared to real data.

 

In the graph, the five thin lines are the climate model runs. The thick black line is the average (mean) of the five runs.

 

The satellite data in red is the average of two analysis of lower troposphere temperature.

 

The radiosonde weather balloon data is from the NOAA Earth Space Research Laboratory.

 

The surface data is the HadCRUT4 dataset.

 

The best fit linear trend lines of the model mean and all datasets are set to zero at 1979, which is the first year of the satellite data.

 

You can see why those of sceptical of the hype and spin of Global Warming Alarmism are asking questions!!!!!!!

 

 

[CliveH]

This new paper is in German but the graphs are clear - and the summary makes the point even if the literal translation is a tad difficult to fathom initially.

 

http://www.meereisportal.de/de/meereisbeobachtung/meereis_beobachtungsergebnisse/beobachtungsergebnisse_aus_satellitenmessungen/einschaetzung_der_aktuellen_meereissituation_antarktis/

 

Marcel Nicolaus and Stefan Hendricks from the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI)

 

“This winter there is in Antarctica as much ice as long gone, if it has ever been since the beginning of the regular satellite observations ever so much sea ice.”

 

The Paper states that there is this year, the most sea ice in Antarctica for 30 years by extent AND by volume.

 

.....

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

I blame the aerosols ;-)

 

Ozone chemicals ban linked to global warming 'pause'

 

By Matt McGrath

Environment correspondent, BBC News

ozone layer

Even after the ban on CFCs the thinning of the ozone layer continued, although it is now recovering

 

Why has global warming stalled?

A new study suggests that the ban on ozone depleting chemicals may have also impacted the rise in global temperatures.

 

CFC gases were responsible for a massive hole in the ozone layer but they also had a powerful greenhouse effect.

 

The authors link a ban on their use to a "pause" or slowdown in temperature increases since the mid 1990s.

 

The research is published in the journal Nature Geoscience.

 

The subject of a hiatus or standstill in global temperatures rises since 1998 has been the subject of intense debate among scientists, and it has been used as a key argument by some to show that the impacts of global warming have been exaggerated.

 

Competing arguments

There have been a number of theories as to why the rise in emissions from CO2 and other gases has not been mirrored in temperatures since the late 1990s.

 

These include increases in China's use of coal, changes in solar output, and the impact of the El Nino weather cycle.

 

One report earlier this year suggested that it was caused by long-term changes in the warming of waters in the eastern Pacific.

 

Now this latest piece of research says that it has been caused by attempts to protect the ozone layer.

 

A team of researchers carried out a statistical analysis on the connection between rising temperatures and rates of increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere between 1880 and 2010.

 

They concluded that changes in the warming rate can be attributed to specific human actions that affected greenhouse gas concentrations.

 

 

The onset of the current pause coincides with a spike in upper ocean heat uptake around 2002 (lower graph).

It may have begun when energy trapped by greenhouse gases was buried below the surface of the ocean

However, the continuation of the pause in global surface warming beyond 2004 coincides with a decline in upper ocean heat uptake

Understanding the cause of this decline in upper ocean heat content is crucial for explaining the continuation of the pause in surface warming

They were able to show that when emissions were reduced during both world wars and the Great Depression, temperature rises also stalled.

 

They also argue that the introduction of the Montreal Protocol, originally signed in 1987 by 46 countries, had an impact on global temperatures as well.

 

The treaty phased out the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). These chemicals, used as spray can propellants and in refrigeration, had helped thin the ozone layer over Antarctica.

 

But CFCs were not just damaging the ozone layer, they were also having a warming impact, as they are 10,000 times more powerful than carbon dioxide and can last up to 100 years in the atmosphere.

 

Their removal, say the authors, was a critical factor in the slowdown.

 

 

The phasing out of CFCs in spray cans may also have impacted the increase in temperatures in the 1990s

"Our analysis suggests that the reduction in the emissions of ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol, as well as a reduction in methane emissions, contributed to the lower rate of warming since the 1990s," the authors write.

 

In a commentary on the research, Felix Pretis and Prof Myles Allen from Oxford University suggest that the CFC ban is "unlikely to be the whole story", but they acknowledge it did make a difference.

 

"The impact of this change is small but not negligible: without the reduction in CFC emissions, temperatures today could have been almost 0.1C warmer than they actually are."

 

Follow Matt on Twitter.