Toasty!

[rick49]

"If The Present Refuses To Get Warmer, Then The Past Must Become Cooler" (animations)

tinyurl.com/lk2vftg


"US Drought At Historically Low Levels"

"The animation compares current drought vs. 60 years ago and 80 years ago."

tinyurl.com/mwatr95

[lala]

Dec 18, 2014 17:09:19 GMT rick49 said:

After breathless warnings that the Arctic would be totally ice free in 2013, warmers/doomers are suddenly becoming a bit more low key in their predictions.

tinyurl.com/laqvmyn

It is worth noting that Al Gore's comments were criticised at the time by the scientist whose work he relied on:

Speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, Mr Gore said new computer modelling suggests there is a 75 per cent chance of the entire polar ice cap melting during the summertime by 2014.

However, he faced embarrassment last night after Dr Wieslav Maslowski, the climatologist whose work the prediction was based on, refuted his claims.

Dr Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, told The Times: “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at.
“I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

...

Mr Gore’s speech also provoked criticism from leading members of the climate science community, who described the projection as “aggressive”.
Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told The Times: “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics.

“You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”

Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, said: “It's possible but not likely. We're sticking with 2030."

link

I suppose it would be too much for Rick to present information honestly and in a balanced way.

[Scooby Do]

Dec 18, 2014 19:03:21 GMT lala said:

In the ground. Where else does one plant trees?

Like I said, all the answers, no solutions.

ps

Not all plants grow in the ground.

[rick49]

Dec 19, 2014 3:52:21 GMT lala said:

Dec 18, 2014 17:09:19 GMT rick49 said:

After breathless warnings that the Arctic would be totally ice free in 2013, warmers/doomers are suddenly becoming a bit more low key in their predictions.

tinyurl.com/laqvmyn

It is worth noting that Al Gore's comments were criticised at the time by the scientist whose work he relied on:

Speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, Mr Gore said new computer modelling suggests there is a 75 per cent chance of the entire polar ice cap melting during the summertime by 2014.

However, he faced embarrassment last night after Dr Wieslav Maslowski, the climatologist whose work the prediction was based on, refuted his claims.

Dr Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, told The Times: “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at.
“I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

...

Mr Gore’s speech also provoked criticism from leading members of the climate science community, who described the projection as “aggressive”.
Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told The Times: “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics.

“You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”

Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, said: “It's possible but not likely. We're sticking with 2030."

link

I suppose it would be too much for Rick to present information honestly and in a balanced way.

"Scientists (plural) in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice."

Maslowski - "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC."

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

He would never try to estimate the likelihood? Uh, huh.

I suppose it would be too much for lala to present information honestly and in a balanced way.

[lala]

Dec 19, 2014 3:59:25 GMT Scooby Do said:

Dec 18, 2014 19:03:21 GMT lala said:

In the ground. Where else does one plant trees?

Like I said, all the answers, no solutions.

ps

Not all plants grow in the ground.

I was rather under the impression we were discussing trees. Are there many species round your way that do not grow in the ground?

And what was wrong with my answer? You asked where we would plant them, and I answered. It seems an obvious solution. Why won't planting tree in the ground work?

[lala]

Dec 19, 2014 5:57:08 GMT rick49 said:

I suppose it would be too much for Rick to present information honestly and in a balanced way.
"Scientists (plural) in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice."

Maslowski - "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC."

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

For what it is worth, "On September 16 [2012], Arctic sea ice appeared to have reached its minimum extent for the year of 3.41 million square kilometers (1.32 million square miles). This is the lowest seasonal minimum extent in the satellite record since 1979 and reinforces the long-term downward trend in Arctic ice extent." (Here) So Maslowski et al are certainly not left looking hopeless and deluded. The trend is still downwards, and to levels frighteningly below the recorded norm.

Anyone ignoring the significance of that is a fool, or dishonest.

[Scooby Do]

Dec 19, 2014 6:59:29 GMT lala said:

Dec 19, 2014 3:59:25 GMT Scooby Do said:

Like I said, all the answers, no solutions.

ps

Not all plants grow in the ground.

I was rather under the impression we were discussing trees. Are there many species round your way that do not grow in the ground?

And what was wrong with my answer? You asked where we would plant them, and I answered. It seems an obvious solution. Why won't planting tree in the ground work?

What is wrong with your answer?

You're on a wind up, right?

[mango]

Toasty? Very!
39 deg today. Too much

[mango]

And part of my retic not working. 'Waiting for parts'
Hand watering my back lawn. It's gone crunchy

[rick49]

Dec 19, 2014 8:54:28 GMT lala said:

Dec 19, 2014 5:57:08 GMT rick49 said:

I suppose it would be too much for Rick to present information honestly and in a balanced way.
"Scientists (plural) in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice."

Maslowski - "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC."

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

For what it is worth, "On September 16 [2012], Arctic sea ice appeared to have reached its minimum extent for the year of 3.41 million square kilometers (1.32 million square miles). This is the lowest seasonal minimum extent in the satellite record since 1979 and reinforces the long-term downward trend in Arctic ice extent." (Here) So Maslowski et al are certainly not left looking hopeless and deluded. The trend is still downwards, and to levels frighteningly below the recorded norm.

Anyone ignoring the significance of that is a fool, or dishonest.

You are the one who posted him saying he never made the 2013 prediction. I showed he did make that prediction. When his prediction failed to come true, he threw Al Gore under the bus.

[lala]

That isn't how time works.

The article I linked was from the Daily Telegraph, published in 2009, so Maslowski's projection had still not been confirmed or falsified.

Maslowski was complaining about Gore expressing likelihood at 75%; he obviously didn't like the degree of certainty expressed by putting the likelihood at that level, when his work was only suggesting it was a possible scenario if certain things happened as per the projection.

[lala]

Dec 19, 2014 12:21:18 GMT Scooby Do said:

What is wrong with your answer?

You're on a wind up, right?

Try explaining your question in more detail.

[Scooby Do]

Simple enough questions, where are you going to plant all these trees?

Who looks after them?

Who pays for them?

How much CO2 are they going to replace?

How much CO2 is generated by the planting?

You really haven't thought it through have you?

[lala]

Dec 20, 2014 4:26:31 GMT Scooby Do said:

Simple enough questions, where are you going to plant all these trees?

On disused or marginal agricultural land, at least at first. Most of Britain was under forest until a thousand years ago. New Zealand was the same. The history hof human development is largely the history of clearing forests for timber and for farm land. Time to start putting it back.

Who looks after them?

that depends on where they are being planted, and the business model used. If they are planted on private land, they could be managed privately; on public land, they would be managed by a crown body, just as current forestry is managed.

Who pays for them?

Again, this depends on the model chosen. Private entities would be quite happy to plant them, I imagine, if they can anticipate a return on the investment from the government, or through a carbon trading system or from eventual timber sales.

How much CO2 are they going to replace?

Apparently, a tree is typically worth a tonne of CO2. So plant a million trees and you will - over time - offset a million tonnes.

Of course, that will mean a lot of immigrants to Aussie ...

How much CO2 is generated by the planting?

Not very much, I would imagine. Obviously, if you drive up, plant a tree and drive off, then its not going to be as efficient as planting hundreds at a time. But I credit people with enough intelligence to work that out for themselves.

You really haven't thought it through have you?

Tree planting, of course, is only one part of it. I also pointed out we need to cut back on fossil fuel use. Trees can't be used as an ongoing solution to 'business as usual.' We emit about 50 times as much CO2 as large re-forestation projects could absorb. So cutting back on fossil fuels is going to be much more important. So you see, I have thought about this quite a bit.

Out of interest, do you have a better solution?

[Eric]

bcove.me/bk5tp3yg

www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2014/12/statelessness-britain-secret-courts-2014121895842702446.html

[rick49]

Well, we can add squirrels to the list of wildlife that has to be eradicated in order to save the planet.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2877313/Scientists-ground-squirrels-beavers-contributing-global-warming-previously-released.html#ixzz3MH9zKWfK

Used to be only cattle were a danger to the planet. Now wildlife itself is destroying the planet.

[Eric]

I hope you mean those ugly American squirrels.

We have been looking for an excuse to do them for decades.

[Scooby Do]

On disused or marginal agricultural land, at least at first. Most of Britain was under forest until a thousand years ago. New Zealand was the same. The history hof human development is largely the history of clearing forests for timber and for farm land. Time to start putting it back.


The land was cleared for a reason, and with a growing population, more land is needed for growing crops, not less.Hence the continued

cutting down of the Rain Forest.



Maybe you have a scheme to irrigate the deserts of the world, and plant your trees there, they did have trees in the past, they were lost, probably due to climate change.

[lala]

We can feed the population quite comfortably on a smaller amount of farm land than we have just now; we just have to use it a bit more sensibly, and make sure the produce is more evenly distributed, instead of Flatandy guzzling it all.

Desert irrigation would be a rather pointless waste of energy and possibly counter-productive. I imagine deserts have a hight albedo (reflective capacity) and growing trees there might result in more heat being retained.

[rick49]

Oh, oh. Now vegetation causes global warming.

"Climate Craziness of the Week"

"Yes, somehow, more plants growing due to increased CO2 will cause more carbon dioxide in a vicious cycle."

tinyurl.com/mkc22cw

So now we have to eradicate wildlife and vegetation to save the planet.