662Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksHey, the best of luck. I do read, however, that Harper's government have a good lead in the opinion polls ... any comment on that?Originally Posted by Agnotologist
Hey, the best of luck. I do read, however, that Harper's government have a good lead in the opinion polls ... any comment on that?
He is the Water Vapour content of the atmosphere.
It is following the ocean el nino of 2010
And from Owedtojoy's quote:
“The pervasive increase in water vapour changes the intensity of precipitation events with no doubt whatsoever,” Kevin Trenberth of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research told a meeting in January. “Yes, all events. Even if temperatures or sea surface temperatures are below normal, they are still higher than they would have been, and so too is the atmospheric water vapour amount and thus the moisture available for storms.”
Water Vapour is back down of recent. But the issue of rainfall is best explained from Svensmark. He shows from Satellite Data how the water content of low lying cloud falls when their is a drop in cosmic rays hitting the Earth. A 3% drop in low lying cloud equates to a drop of 7 Billion tonnes of Water to fall as rain.
Shall we quote the infamous Kevin Trenberth of Climategate fame? "We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't"
Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But Conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular;but one must take it simply because it is right. -MLK
Idiot.
I wonder if you're seeking facts or just massaging your ego? Idiot you!
It's, I suppose, part of the distortion of the climate debate that you end up with people that strike positions, then claim everyone on an opposing view is ignorant, and do this without ever producing one piece of evidence countering the overwhelming evidence in favour of the opposing view.
I'm not in the camp of climate alarmists, I really can't say how much the climate will change by, but I know this:
No scientists set out to take a position on climate change, it was only discovered by reviewing measurements.
On the opposing side are large energy companies wishing to avoid costs. nuff said.
Perhaps if you took a few steps back and looked at this from a different way; throughout the eons life on earth has, through biological processes removed CO2 from the air and geologically locked it up in fossil fuels and limestone and chalk formations.
Then we come along and reverse that process.
CO2 levels are rising and it is caused by the burning of fossil fuels; the oceans are becoming more acidic and temperatures are rising, all this is indisputable and taking one set of possibly flawed data and aggressively stuffing down everyone's throats to try to undermine this is Canuteism.
Your protestations Tombo verge on the hysterical.
I'm not an alarmist but I am a rationalist and rational scientific observation has and is confirming ever stronger evidence of Anthropological Warming.
Now the question is no longer whether, but how. How do we deal with it or do we just learn to adapt? I personally feel that its too late, no matter what we decide, its too late to change anything, the climate will alter and in ways we cannot reliably predict and ways in which nature will no doubt react badly to.
To worry about the conspiracies is just a waste of time, and lucky for us there are clearer, cooler heads looking into this rationally and they don't go by an avatar called Tombo.
For clear concise data on climate change and sensible explanations I'll continue to look this way and ignore the baying from lesser quarters.
Climate Change - Met Office
The term 'climate change' usually refers to man-made changes that have occurred since the early 1900s.
While there are noticeable highs and lows in year to year data, over longer periods of time there is a discernable warming trend across the globe. Natural causes can explain only a small part of this warming. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that this is due to rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere caused by human activities.
Harper has a lead, it is true. But, his support is never more than about the mid 30s. The problem is that the other 65% splits between the Liberals, the NDP (Socialists); the Greens, and the Bloc - a Quebec separatist party that, while it can get no more than 10% of the vote, can end up with 20% of the seats because of its geographical concentration.
I'm waiting for Tombo to rise to the occasion.
Hey Tombo, if you live in Ireland, I had something to do with the carbon tax you pay everyday!
Asbestos underwear will be in order.
The usual denialist economy with the facts.
The charts are classic ... take the data over a short timeframe and pretend that is "normal" without reference to the previous century. Here is the same chart since 1970:
See http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/snow/#more-3561
It seems bizarre to be talking about lack of rainfall in a year that has seen record rain, snowfall and flooding (Tennessee, Pakistan, Australia, Sri Lanka and more recently Namibia).
As for the Trenberth quote-mining (an old creationist stunt: pull out-of-context quotes from scientists), go here:
Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
Trenberth's views are clarified in the paper "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy". We know the planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide but that surface temperature sometimes have short term cooling periods. This is due to internal variability and Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system.
Last edited by owedtojoy; 29th March 2011 at 07:17 AM.
That is just being too sensible and rational.
Don't you realise the carbon taxes are plain WRONG!. Therefore global warming cannot be happening!!!
I am interested in what effect taxing an inelastic energy source such as petrol in a country with a dire public transport system outside of Dublin has had on emissions. Any data?
The carbon tax had little impact on transport emissions. It stimulated the switch from petrol to diesel, but the changes in Vehicle Registration Tax and Motor Tax were more important.
Reply With Quote
