Climate change anyone?

Dear Dr

And that's the point isn't it? "incontrovertible" is indicative of the whole global warming belief system. If you have an open mind on the subject, you are a "denier,"and the only other time that word is used in the media is for a Holocaust denier. Pretty heavy prejudice.

On the other hand, global warming is now passe'. Now it's climate change which really means: "We don't know."

But I like it's inclusiveness. We can all agree on climate change, because the climate has always been changing.

But I think it's primarily hubris that makes belief in anthropogenicity attractive.

Cheers

Frederick

 

A nobody in the world of climate science resigns....whooooah!
He got a Nobel Laureate (no mean feat obviously) for physics.
Apparently never published any climate related articles.
It's alright for him though the Heartland and Cato Institutes, two fine right wing organisations, still quote him!
I thought you wouldn't make a squeak this week Steve, with Texas and Oklahoma recording some of the hottest months ever in recorded history for the USA.

 

Dear Mark

Get with the program. It's not global warming anymore, it's climate change. We don't know if we're going up or down.

Cheers

Frederick

PS When you answered me back a while ago with "FY," did you mean forever young? And if so, thank you.

 

Hi mark
Well, i happen to be in Green Bay Wi where we had frost warnings last night!!!!
And the wildfires in minnesota are being extinguished by ---- you ready----- SNOW FALL.

If you want to talk " first hand experience" with our global "warming" trend, i'm not the one to ask since we don't see it here. Its "unseasonably" cold here. Guess that doesn't matter, it's only significant if its unseasonably warm, right?

BTW: does anyone else have trouble typing on an iPAD?

Steve

 

I see that last week though Green Bay was above average Min-Max temp's.
And as climate scientists, the ones that know about climate, say it's not all about temperature it's about increased energy retention, the increased absorption then re-radiation back to the Earth's surface atmosphere caused by INCREASED levels of 'greenhouse gases', mark

 

Dear Mark

C'mon Mark, "climate scientists" are just jumped up weathermen. They can predict the climate about as well as earth scientists can predict earthquakes.

But here's a thought Mark: Since you believe mankind can affect the climate, and global warming will have a net beneficial affect on mankind, what we really should be doing is preventing another ice age. Which really would be bad. Our role as carbon metabolizers (animals) requires that we recycle the sequestered carbon, and toss it into the air as carbon dioxide to feed the plants, increasing growth. The world would be a better place.

Oh, sorry, maybe not Oz.

Cheers

Frederick

 

If I've got a query about podiatry I ask messr's Spooner, Kirby, Fuller etc (and the podiatrists they respect), If I've got a query about my plumbing I ask a qualified plumber, If I've got a query about climate I don't ask a podiatrist called Frederick, I read / listen to climate scientists, make sense?
Where did you get the absurd idea that 'global warming' will have a net beneficial effect? ? We have adapted (homo sapiens) to a certain CO2 level, the atmospheric level has increased from ~315 to 385 ppmv just in the last 50 years!

 

I do not have time to read in detail the responses above, so apologise if I am repeating what is said already - but suffice to say this - do not mix issues.

Issue 1) is the climate getting warmer?
Issue 2) is it caused by human intervention?

No one short of a moron is doubting that the climate is getting warmer; however it has varied up and down on human scales since humans were invented. Did we cause it? Not sure. However many would agree, me included, that we are currently on an upward cycle, that is being augmented by human intervention. When I was a Geology student in the 1980's, we had to calculate how much CO2 had been produced since the start of the industrial revolution, and what that should have added to the atmospheric CO2. A rough and dirty calculation laid it at about 18% - yet it clearly isn't. Where is it? The dissociation of CO2 combined with H2O (to H2CO3) in the oceans is pushing itself as far right as it can go - this simple buffer solution cannot carry on for much longer. In 1984 I wrote an essay on acidification of the oceans, and was laughed out of the class by my lecturers; not laughing now. Rob

 

Good post, Rob - well said. The worrying aspect of the impact on oceans from atmospheric changes is the increase in the release of methane from the sea bed - itself a greenhouse gas more potent than CFCs and CO2. Coupled with the commercial extraction of methane - a process that destabilises the sea bed considerably further potentates methane release - which has the effect of increasing atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, which in turn releases more methane. Methane, below a certain temperature, is similar to a gluey sludge and this binds shale and sand deposits. When the sea temperature rises, methane changes into a gaseous form and escapes from the sea bed and releases into the atmosphere.

We live in a very fragile environment; a few degrees of change in the mean temperature can have drastic effects on the environment - which has serious consequences for mankind. I would have thought than one of the goals of every generation of the human race, would be to leave the planet in the same or a better condition than they inherited it. The extraction and burning of fossils fuels on the scale evidenced during the last two centuries could not have anything else than a negative impact on the environment - but this is only one small example of mankind's folly and wasteful selfishness. Thousands of different types of animals, insects, fish, birds have become extinct as a direct result of our activities - and yet it is only when humans are threatened with extinction, that we chose to do something about it - or not, as the case may be. There aren't many planets like the Earth in the universe; it's such a shame that the inhabitants couldn't look after it properly.

 

Dear Mark

I would never suggest you take my advice on anything, Mark. I am only offering my opinion. Personally, I don't take anyone's advice (except my wife's) on anything, I listen to opinions, try to determine what is factual, and make up my own mind.

The medieval warming period was beneficial to Europeans. Grapes in England, farms in Greenland. Ever wonder why it was named Greenland?

Mankind can suffer a little more CO2 in the environment. Don't you spend most of your time indoors? And plants love it. Hydroponics growers have been introducing CO2 into their glass houses for years.

So, I know it will fall on deaf years, but don't worry. There isn't anything we can do about it anyway. If we could have followed the Kyoto Protocols, it wouldn't have changed anything. It would only have been a good start.

Basically, this belief that mankind is a blight on the planet hearkens back to Original Sin.

If you want to worry about something, worry about overpopulation. That's the elephant in the room.

Cheers

Frederick

 

The northern Atlantic 'warm' period during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly certainly was beneficial to the agricultural communities just as they are 'benefiting' nowadays.

Thanks Frederick, agree again, overpopulation, finite resources, economies built on continuous growth it's a worry for all our descendants, Mark

 

Nice article and video on the retreating glaciers in the Himalyas...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15216875