1929crash Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) but if CC is warmer and fuzzier than GW, and the main thrust of, for instance, the environmental movement, is to convince people that there is something to worry seriously about, why do they in the main use CC?It justs seems to be playing into the skeptics' hands who point out the coincidence that the terms changed roundabout the time that the warming stopped/slowed down. The IPCC itself was formed in 1988. Does Luntz pre-date that? No, Luntz is a current US pollster who has done a lot of work for the Republicans over the last eight years. When I said remember 1984, I meant Orwell's book. Sorry for any confusion. Edited May 28, 2009 by 1929crash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Just type global cooling into google.Falling Global Temperatures (blue line) Anyone tried to correlate that graph with house prices? Vague attempt at staying on topic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Spart Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) but if CC is warmer and fuzzier than GW, and the main thrust of, for instance, the environmental movement, is to convince people that there is something to worry seriously about, why do they in the main use CC?It justs seems to be playing into the skeptics' hands who point out the coincidence that the terms changed roundabout the time that the warming stopped/slowed down. The IPCC itself was formed in 1988. Does Luntz pre-date that? Climate Change is a more comprehensive term. (1) The atmosphere's overall temperature has risen and is expected to continue doing so. (2) Consequently other facets of the atmosphere throughout the planet are expected to change too, including precipitation patterns, wind patterns, cloud formation, evaporation rates, pressure, humidity and the like. (3) Despite temperatures increasing as a global average, some locations are, thanks to (2), actually expected to experience temperature falls. The picture is complex. Climate Change encapsulates (1), (2) and (3). Edited May 28, 2009 by Dave Spart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregG Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 You've only got to watch Jeremy Kyle and other touchpoints of western culture (or lack thereof) to understand that westerners, are least, are getting dimmer and dimmer. That seems more likely to destroy us or set us back a thousand years, before the lack of sunlight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Global Dimming..... I thought this was a thread about Sibley and McTavish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whojamaflip Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Anyone tried to correlate that graph with house prices?Vague attempt at staying on topic somewhere on the web there is a chart plotting economic growth and sunspot activity - both go in 9yr cycles. the theory is something to do with agricultural production being higher with more sunspots.. the 9yr thing is due to the orbits of jupiter and saturn (no kidding!). causes tidal forces on the sun blah blah sunspots make the sun brighter (slightly), so could link to human optimism .. might be better to look at birthrates for a better correlation me thinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whojamaflip Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 thats a nice link http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/upl...ice-4-21-09.jpg shows more sea ice in april for 8 years.. so much for drowning polar bears!! no tv channel would dare publish that stuff thou. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godley Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Climate Change is a more comprehensive term. (1) The atmosphere's overall temperature has risen and is expected to continue doing so. (2) Consequently other facets of the atmosphere throughout the planet are expected to change too, including precipitation patterns, wind patterns, cloud formation, evaporation rates, pressure, humidity and the like. (3) Despite temperatures increasing as a global average, some locations are, thanks to (2), actually expected to experience temperature falls. The picture is complex. Climate Change encapsulates (1), (2) and (3). Yep it is bloody complicated. That complicated that nobody on earth understands it, including you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Spart Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Yep it is bloody complicated. That complicated that nobody on earth understands it, including you. 2146316 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyMe Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 It's repetition of the language used in politics. Luntz was successful. Remember 1984.I use global warming in discussion. Climate change is an airy fairy term IMO. Climate change is when the world has problems with its menopause and starts getting hot flushes and forgetting where it is supposed to be in the cycle. Onlyme, aged 9 3/4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andykn Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 That doesn't sound right to me.The earth is either in balance or on its way to being in balance (in terms of heat in and heat out). If the primary source of heat reduces in output, then the balanced temperature is going to be lower, isn't it? Take the extreme scenario of the sun going out completely. Over time the heat will leak into space and we will become cold and desolate. No amount of CO2 is going to prevent that. Now, you can argue that the higher CO2 content will mean that the earth will heat up quicker once the sun recovers, but that is not what you said (or at least my interpretation of what you said). I think it's becasue the CO2 sticks around in the atmosphere for so long - its effect is quite quick but long lasting because CO2 is long lasting. So once solar activitiy resumes, the increased CO2 levels by then will have a fairly immediate heating effect. It's the effect that is long lasting, not the actual heat kept in long term. That is my understanding. Currently the cooling is less than we'd expect - sunspot activity is very low but temps are still quite high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andykn Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 That doesn't sound right to me.The earth is either in balance or on its way to being in balance (in terms of heat in and heat out). If the primary source of heat reduces in output, then the balanced temperature is going to be lower, isn't it? Take the extreme scenario of the sun going out completely. Over time the heat will leak into space and we will become cold and desolate. No amount of CO2 is going to prevent that. Now, you can argue that the higher CO2 content will mean that the earth will heat up quicker once the sun recovers, but that is not what you said (or at least my interpretation of what you said). I think it's because the CO2 sticks around in the atmosphere for so long - its effect is quite quick but long lasting because CO2 is long lasting. So once solar activitiy resumes, the increased CO2 levels by then will have a fairly immediate heating effect. It's the effect that is long lasting, not the actual heat kept in long term. That is my understanding. Currently the cooling is less than we'd expect - sunspot activity is very low but temps are still quite high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andykn Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 thats a nice link http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/upl...ice-4-21-09.jpgshows more sea ice in april for 8 years.. so much for drowning polar bears!! no tv channel would dare publish that stuff thou. Gosh, one tiny point higher than 8 whole years. You do know that this is about decadal changes, don't you? And where are your error bars? What was the level 10, 20 and 30 years ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whojamaflip Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Gosh, one tiny point higher than 8 whole years.You do know that this is about decadal changes, don't you? And where are your error bars? What was the level 10, 20 and 30 years ago? its not my chart, i've got better things to do than measure ice. if the sunspots dont start up again the ice will come down as far as scotland, and it could be 50years before they start up again. what you also need to know that 2007 was a massive year for sunspots, and the amount of extra energy hitting each square meter of the earth would add more to warming than the insulation given from an extra 0.005% CO2 in the air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AteMoose Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 its not my chart, i've got better things to do than measure ice.if the sunspots dont start up again the ice will come down as far as scotland, and it could be 50years before they start up again. what you also need to know that 2007 was a massive year for sunspots, and the amount of extra energy hitting each square meter of the earth would add more to warming than the insulation given from an extra 0.005% CO2 in the air. I'lll see you skating down the Thames I'm really looking forwards to the powers that be explaining what happened to global warming:P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Spart Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 (edited) Correct. I worked on a paper that studied the effects of Global Dimming after 911 as all air craft was ground globally, used pan evaporation and tree ring data to correlate with other historical events like volcanic eruptions etc. When I was trying to obtain data from NOAA I spoke with one of their top gurus who suggested I was wasting my time on Global Dimming ie it didnt exist. The subsequent data suggested otherwise. According to the latest Wikipedia entry the global dimming trend has, since about 1990, reversed and we have entered into a period of global brightening. This is actually even worse news. It means even more of the sun's energy is reaching the surface and hence being trapped inside the atmosphere amplifying climate change. Interestingly this year's winner of the FT Climate Change Challenge was the Kyoto Box, a solar cooking box designed to replace the highly polluting smokey barbecue cookers found everywhere in poorer sunny countries. The aim of the Kyoto Box was, among other things, to cut particulate emissions from the hundreds of millions of street cookers that are left to burn all day everyday throughout Latin America, Africa and Asia. The extent of its adoption in these countries will depend to some extent on its marketing. My own invention, which I have alluded to several times in the past here, uses the the same principles of extreme simplicity and low cost but exploits the use of international global brands and their distribution networks to ensure its commercial appeal and widespread distribution. Edited May 29, 2009 by Dave Spart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Spart Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Yep it is bloody complicated. That complicated that nobody on earth understands it, including you. You guys kill me If only. The number 2146316 relates to you, but in what way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andykn Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 its not my chart, i've got better things to do than measure ice.if the sunspots dont start up again the ice will come down as far as scotland, and it could be 50years before they start up again. what you also need to know that 2007 was a massive year for sunspots, and the amount of extra energy hitting each square meter of the earth would add more to warming than the insulation given from an extra 0.005% CO2 in the air. What everyone else needs to know is that you're simply making things up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whojamaflip Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 What everyone else needs to know is that you're simply making things up. if the sunspots dont start up again the ice will come down as far as scotland, and it could be 50years before they start up again. what you also need to know that 2007 was a massive year for sunspots(this is true), and the amount of extra energy hitting each square meter of the earth would add more to warming than the insulation given from an extra 0.005% CO2 in the air. normally the sun delivers something like 1200watts/sq meter of energy (i.e heat) to the earth. comparing with the suns activity in 1900-1950, the past decade recieved an extra 15watts/sqm. the contentious bit is obviously comparing heating of 15watts with insulation with CO2. this is the first link I found... * Carbon dioxide: 1.5 Watts per square meter. * Methane: 0.5 Watts per square meter. * Nitrous oxide: 0.2 Watts per square meter. * Halocarbons: 0.2 Watts per square meter. * Total from all greenhouse gases: 2.4 Watts per square meter. http://www.am.ub.es/~jmiralda/fsgw/lect3.html i.e. sunspots are waywayway more important than global warming. BUT assuming the sunspots come back (and we might not be at the top of the cycle, so more energy from the sun maybe...) then earth is gonna get very hot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clv101 Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 The whole MMGW movement is a politically motivated scam IMO Sorry, that's just wrong. The science of global warming hasn't changed much at all in over 20 years. Critically it PRE-DATES any political interest. As it pre-dates political motives its scientific conclusions can't be politically motivated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clv101 Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 shows more sea ice in april for 8 years.. so much for drowning polar bears!!no tv channel would dare publish that stuff thou. Is that sea ice coverage or sea ice volume? I believe the ice thinning leaves us with a record low amount of ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.O. Johnny Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Sorry, that's just wrong. The science of global warming hasn't changed much at all in over 20 years. Critically it PRE-DATES any political interest. As it pre-dates political motives its scientific conclusions can't be politically motivated. How can it pre-date any political interest if it's only 20 years old. Creating a spurious reason for taxation has been around for longer than 20 years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whojamaflip Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Is that sea ice coverage or sea ice volume? I believe the ice thinning leaves us with a record low amount of ice. wtf is it today with ice? " ice thinning" coined on HPC by clv101. its a whole new world of reasearch grants, bbc panoramas, and ponzi potitics. ice & a slice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clv101 Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 " ice thinning" coined on HPC by clv101. Hardly. Thinning Arctic sea ice alarms expertsVolume of Arctic sea ice last summer may have been lowest on record – and possibly worst in 8,000 years The total volume of sea ice in the Arctic is likely to have reached a record low last summer, despite previous reports that the area of ice recovered slightly from the previous year's dramatic decline, leading experts have warned. ... The latest volume estimates come from the NSIDC, at the University of Colorado, and are based on a study mapping the age of different ice flows in the Arctic ocean. These show a dramatic loss of the thicker "multi-year" ice in recent years, particularly after the summer of 2007, when the sea ice lost an area the size of Alaska in a single season. In 2008, the NSIDC reported that summer sea ice area recovered by 9% but was still the second lowest recorded. However, based on the latest data about the much greater area of thin first-year ice and losses of multi-year ice, especially that of five years or more, they believe that in volume terms last summer was the lowest since records began in the 1930s – and probably for at least 700 years and possibly up to 8,000 years, said Walt Meier, a research scientist at the Boulder-based centre. "Our estimate is that it was probably the lowest volume on record," Meier told the Guardian. "Certainly 2007 and 2008 [were] the two lowest [years for] volume and extent." http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...sea-ice-warning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whojamaflip Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Hardly. well done. you earn a £20k research cheque. now go & do something useful. "probably for at least 700 years and possibly up to 8,000 years," btw... ever wonder where those bodies of 1000year old people that come from glaciers.. you see.. 700 years ago it was much hotter than now... and FYI this year is gonna be cold!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! que linky http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.