|
|
Post by flatandy on Dec 3, 2014 16:55:13 GMT
It looks like this year is going to be even warmer than the Daily Mail's favourite artificial baseline of 1998! How are they going to fiddle the figures now? www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30311816This year is in the running to be the hottest globally and for the UK since records began, early estimates show. In the first 10 months of 2014, global average air temperature was about 0.57 Celsius above the long-term average. |
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Dec 3, 2014 17:37:36 GMT
If I was a chartist I'd be putting my money on a downturn looking at that graph.
|
|
voice
New Member
Goals are a form of self inflicted slavery
Posts: 41,220
|
Post by voice on Dec 3, 2014 17:50:58 GMT
the climate change deniers (liars) will still be pointing to the cold snap last week in the US as proof its getting colder and ice age is upon us.
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 60,988
|
Post by mids on Dec 3, 2014 17:55:01 GMT
And yet there has been not a single person severely affected by global warming.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Dec 3, 2014 17:55:52 GMT
Bullshit, Mids. It's raining today. And rained yesterday. That's 2 consecutive days of rain. Count them. 2!
How can you say I've not been seriously affected?
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Dec 3, 2014 17:58:13 GMT
The Mail actually seems to have a bit of a change of heart in the last six months. There have been a few articles that admit climate change might actually be real and happening. There was one acknowledging a probably link between CO2 and atmosphere yesterday, and today they also reported 2014 as likely to be the warmest EVAH, and included this rather good graphic:  As you can see, 1998 is now down to 4th place. No warming in 17 years? My furry Scottish arse. |
|
Eric
New Member
Posts: 22,041
|
Post by Eric on Dec 3, 2014 18:21:21 GMT
What part of its phase is the sun in?
How are Mars's poles? Found a job yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Dec 3, 2014 18:22:25 GMT
The moon has phases.
How would the sun have phases?
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Dec 3, 2014 18:22:37 GMT
The sun is gibbous!
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 60,988
|
Post by mids on Dec 3, 2014 18:27:43 GMT
The Mail actually seems to have a bit of a change of heart in the last six months. Someone at work went on a media for scientists course a while ago that was run by some journo that worked for or had worked for the Independent. The journo said that the Mail was one of the best British papers for reporting science. The worst was, apparently, the Express. |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Dec 3, 2014 18:30:55 GMT
the Mail was one of the best British papers
In the top 8, at least, of the national dailies
|
|
Eric
New Member
Posts: 22,041
|
Post by Eric on Dec 3, 2014 18:36:02 GMT
|
|
Scooby Do
New Member
Where's my pic?
Posts: 21,324
|
Post by Scooby Do on Dec 3, 2014 18:51:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Dec 3, 2014 18:53:22 GMT
It has cycles, if that's what you mean, of sunspot activity. Which appears to be at least partially related to solar irradiance.
I'm not sure what that has to do with greenhouse warming, though.
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Dec 3, 2014 18:57:03 GMT
The sun has cycles of about 11 years. Once those are factored in, they don't appear to make a real difference. They make hot years a bit hotter, or cooler, but the underlying trend is for more hot years. As you can see, there's actually a divergence between temperature on Earth (getting hotter) and the amount of solar IR being emitted (tailing off a bit). The temperature here is going up while solar activity is going down, overall. Which suggests another mechanism at play. Hmmm. WOnder what that could be?  |
|
voice
New Member
Goals are a form of self inflicted slavery
Posts: 41,220
|
Post by voice on Dec 3, 2014 18:58:57 GMT
a site lala will love, loads of graphs to drool over.
|
|
Scooby Do
New Member
Where's my pic?
Posts: 21,324
|
Post by Scooby Do on Dec 3, 2014 22:11:27 GMT
It has cycles, if that's what you mean, of sunspot activity. Which appears to be at least partially related to solar irradiance. I'm not sure what that has to do with greenhouse warming, though. Everything has an effect, some more than others, even little effects can have a knock on effect which can be out of all proportion to the initial minor effect. |
|
Eric
New Member
Posts: 22,041
|
Post by Eric on Dec 3, 2014 22:53:53 GMT
You mean there are butterflies on the sun?
|
|
Eric
New Member
Posts: 22,041
|
Post by Eric on Dec 3, 2014 22:59:51 GMT
The sun has cycles of about 11 years. Once those are factored in, they don't appear to make a real difference. They make hot years a bit hotter, or cooler, but the underlying trend is for more hot years. As you can see, there's actually a divergence between temperature on Earth (getting hotter) and the amount of solar IR being emitted (tailing off a bit). The temperature here is going up while solar activity is going down, overall. Which suggests another mechanism at play. Hmmm. WOnder what that could be? That's an interesting chart lala. A perusal of it shows that up until 1980 there is a high correlation between the two lines. Specifically, the change in temperature of Earth weather systems is predicting solar activity, with a lag of 13 years. If we allow the temperature of the Earth to climb too high we might cause our sun to go supernova. We cannot say we were not warned. |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Dec 3, 2014 23:11:02 GMT
Specifically, the change in temperature of Earth weather systems is predicting solar activity, with a lag of 13 years.
Heh! That's what I saw, too. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
|
|
