|
|
Post by flatandy on Aug 29, 2015 20:24:32 GMT
The weather here in Western Canada is a bit crappy and has been for 2 days. I do not believe Global Wetting is here.
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Aug 29, 2015 20:25:46 GMT
It as a nice day yesterday but global warming went into reverse today and it rained, so I suppose we must have reached the tippig point where we move into the new ice age.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimboky on Sept 2, 2015 16:01:14 GMT
|
|
rick49
New Member
Posts: 17,031
|
Post by rick49 on Dec 7, 2015 20:06:58 GMT
|
|
voice
New Member
Goals are a form of self inflicted slavery
Posts: 41,270
|
Post by voice on Dec 7, 2015 21:32:37 GMT
Greenpeace is not lefty, the greens by definition are conservatives who recycle and like facial hair, but conservatives non the less.
|
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Dec 7, 2015 23:02:36 GMT
Bollox, conservatives don't share their weed.
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Jan 15, 2016 7:05:08 GMT
ho, hum. Nothing to see here, I'm sure. According to a new report from Berkeley Earth, preempting the official word from agencies such as NOAA, NASA and the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), "2015 was unambiguously the hottest year on record."
From the report:
For the first time in recorded history, the Earth’s temperature is clearly more than 1.0 C (1.8 F) above the 1850-1900 average. 2015 was approximately 0.1 degree C (about 0.2 degrees F) hotter than 2014, which had tied with 2005 and 2010 as the previous hottest years. 2015 set the record with 99.996% confidence. The analysis covered the entire surface of the Earth, including temperatures from both land and oceans.
"Berkeley Earth has taken a cautious approach to announcing hottest years," Elizabeth Muller, Executive Director of Berkeley Earth, said in a press release. "A year ago, we announced that 2014 was not a clear record, but only in a statistical tie with 2005 and 2010. Now, however, it is clear that 2015 is the hottest year on record by a significant margin." |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Jan 15, 2016 14:26:41 GMT
In fairness, I'll wait for one of the grown up science groups to tell us.
Although, also in fairness, I'm pretty sure all three will tell us it's the warmest year on record because of the f**k off huuuuge El Nino.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimboky on Jan 15, 2016 14:34:16 GMT
So are the chicken little's now back to Global warming instead of cooling, it's hard to keep up
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Jan 15, 2016 14:38:01 GMT
How often do you need to repeat this bollocks? Also, when was the last time you saw any grown up scientist saying that we're in the middle of a massive spell of global cooling?
(I mean, of course in the 80s (three decades ago!) there were concerns about nuclear winter should be have a nuclear war, but we haven't actually had one yet).
|
|
|
|
Post by jimboky on Jan 15, 2016 14:53:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Jan 15, 2016 15:01:56 GMT
Any paper that includes the phrase: "The stagnation of temperature since 1998" is not worth the paper it's written on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2016 15:18:39 GMT
It's more complex than anyone knows. Melting icecaps for example could cause colder and wetter temperate zones which might cause warmer zones to become dryer which could cause the oceanic air currents to change, which might cause storms along low lying coastlines, which could cause...
|
|
|
|
Post by jimboky on Jan 15, 2016 15:40:41 GMT
Weather data has been kept for a little over 100 years, I'm pretty sure weather has been going on for a little longer, even then there is no way the data was kept the same way as it is now, these numbers will be worth much in another 3 or 4 hundred years
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Jan 15, 2016 15:44:53 GMT
It's more complex than anyone knows. Melting icecaps for example could cause colder and wetter temperate zones which might cause warmer zones to become dryer which could cause the oceanic air currents to change, which might cause storms along low lying coastlines, which could cause... All true. But all the more reason to not muck with the system - overall warming can create all kinds of changes in all kinds of places, few of which are predictable and few of which you can prepare for. 500 million people in Europe are totally unprepared for the potential consequences of the thermohaline weakening and the gulfstream shifting 10-15 degrees further south. France would be almost as f**k*d as Britain with massively colder weather and massively less precipitation; looking more like the maritime provinces of Canada, covered in snow for 30% of the year... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2016 16:08:45 GMT
All this looming and few people ever entertain the prospect. You've said climate change is your thing - do you seriously think we'll ever get it together to do anything about it? Can we do anything about it? If we could and we had the collective will, is there enough time left? Must confess I'm pessimistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Jan 15, 2016 16:18:33 GMT
I'm less pessimistic than I was. The Chinese having shifted their position to trying to act on climate change has helped dramatically, as has Obama's two terms. But more to the point, over the last decade or so it's been much easier and cheaper to shift to a low-carbon economy. So there doesn't need to be so much collective will. Cheap solar, wind, tidal and wave power means that it really doesn't harm politicians so much to move a country away from coal.
So, there's a chance that we won't get to worst-case scenarios, purely because technology has advanced.
I'm not so optimistic about spending to mitigate the impacts we already have. Nobody spending big money on building flood defences in Bangladesh or finding ways of desalinating soil that gets flooded with sea water; and the investment's not going to come because the rich countries don't directly benefit from helping the poor ones in that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimboky on Jan 15, 2016 17:00:41 GMT
Some day Solar, wind, tidal power may be more cost effective then coal without the tax savings, why not wait till then to scrap the existing plants.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Jan 15, 2016 17:05:24 GMT
They're becoming more cost effective faster because of the tax savings - these have boosted efficiency, but have also boosted volume which has allowed cost savings. And waiting it out would allow another 10 or 20 or 30 years of warming with all the harm that would bring.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimboky on Jan 15, 2016 17:11:14 GMT
but take away the tax savings and they still cannot compete, or come close to competing with coal/nukes/hydro
|
|
