Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

The Climate Change debate

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

The Climate Change debate

Old 27th Jan 2011, 01:34
  #7221 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 216
So it is agreed that higher SSTs will create more evaporation and there will be more water vapour in the atmosphere.

But the more water vapour, the more release of latent heat (on change of state from vapour to droplets), and the larger the convective system that can be supported. This (not the models) leads me to believe that some rainfall events will be more extreme. The rainfall events will either be more extreme i.e. more rain over some specific locations, or of a larger geographical extent or both. In short more extreme rainfall events.

Droughts, hmmmmmm ... if the el Nino/la Nina system itself is more energetic (again because of larger convective energies) then perhaps also the El Nino extreme over the western pacific will be more extreme leading to stronger droughts in Aus.... don't know if I believe this yet.

In any case, the feedback loops between SST, the atmospheric pressures and winds over the tropical pacific are very strong, so more energy in the system is likely to enhance extremes.....
Seabreeze is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2011, 02:10
  #7222 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414

Then there was the unintended irony when he accused skeptics of cherry picking and taking a position on a subject and then seeking evidence to prove it.
I think that's what you call projecting. You label others with characteristics that you yourself possess.

Laughable when you consider the tactics of the AGW proponents.
Yeah, it's not real science. Real science is looking for facts, gathering data, evaluating the data to arrive at conclusions.


The wheels are coming off. Off the rails. The light at the end of the tunnel is a headlight, etc. Pathetic desperation. Game Over.
I hope you're right. I should make it clear that those in power are often masterful at taking a failure and flipping it around into a victory. They aren't above inducing crises either...
Jane-DoH is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2011, 03:50
  #7223 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,141
Seabreeze, you're several steps down the path of "what ifs..." and scientists are still in disagreement on a basic assumption of whether clouds have a positive or negative feedback on temps. Models make no account for solar activity. We appear to have an increase in CO2 concentration. Many knowledgeable people seem to think the greenhouse effect of CO2 has just about reached a maximum. Any further increase in CO2 will not have much, if any effect on temps. The models ignore natural oscillations. A recent study seems to demonise a lack of ice at the North Pole as having a positive feedback on global temps, meanwhile totally disregarding the growth of ice coverage at the South Pole. Guess which viewpoint makes the news? "Mights" may be more than likely "might nots". We don't know. The alarmists appear to have the media spotlight...diminishing it appears.

Last edited by Lodown; 27th Jan 2011 at 04:34.
Lodown is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2011, 06:24
  #7224 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 13
Reading a book at the moment - called AIR CON. By a New Zealand Journo.

Once you get through all of the bias, it really is quite convincing.

I'm someone who watched An Inconvenient Truth and was totally turned by it. I wanted to save the world.

The facts against AGW are quite interesting though. One chapter I read showed that Al Gore used data that only went back 650,000 years or so, and, when you use actually climate data going back to the Paleozoic Era around 600 million years ago, there was once about 20 times as much carbon in the environment, and the average temperature of the planet remained at a mean 22 degrees celsius.

There have been fluctuations on the climate of the Earth dating back Millenia. With NO CORRELATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE AMOUNT OF CARBON IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

In fact, quite the opposite - there has been a slight correlation in terms of COOLING with more carbon in the atmosphere.

Im only one fifth through the book, and im already convinced. The science is there.

Global taxing, it is.
Nine_Inch__Wings is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2011, 08:10
  #7225 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,074
Torygraph: Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds

Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating, claims the first major study since a controversial UN report said they would be melted within quarter of a century.
ORAC is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2011, 08:11
  #7226 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
In fact, quite the opposite - there has been a slight correlation in terms of COOLING with more carbon in the atmosphere.
This may well be due to the veggative cooling effect, with more CO2 in the air the greater the plant growth and greater the cooling effect.
green granite is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2011, 12:39
  #7227 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Azervicestan
Posts: 68

James Delingpole on the Horizon aftermath;

"Taking the standard BBC/Guardian/Independent line on AGW (and related eco-threats) is a very safe thing to do if your target audience is young and hip and instinctively green/liberal-left. It requires no effort, no thought, and certainly no courage.

If Goldacre really wants to stick his neck out, why doesn’t he try arguing against a rich, powerful, bullying Climate-Change establishment which includes all three British main political parties, the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, the Prince of Wales, the Prime Minister, the President of the USA, the EU, the UN, most schools and universities, the BBC, most of the print media, the Australian Government, the New Zealand Government, CNBC, ABC, the New York Times, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, most of the rest of the City, the wind farm industry, all the Big Oil companies, any number of rich charitable foundations, the Church of England and so on?

I do, almost every day. Not because it makes me money or gets me lots of high-fives from right-on Guardian fans. But because I believe in the truth."

Mind you, in the last 48 hours...

- President of the USA - SOTU address apparently spent a lot of time talking about not Climate Change/Disruption but...high speed rail

- The Australian Government - taken a step back just today in relation to a few Climate Change initiatives in the wake of the Queensland floods, the cash-for-clunkers scheme just one of them

Now, whatever became of K. Rudd`s "greatest moral challenge of our time"?


Famous quote in relation to your wheels-coming-off quip "...but, perhaps, it is the end of the beginning". We can but hope.

Nine Inch

The internet is your friend, pros and cons re AGW aplenty - I am a mere pleb in terms of the scientific discourse that has taken place on this particular thread but, to say the least, from my research the science is far from settled ...and I only woke up from the WGAF state a couple of years ago when the incessant black balloons popping out of washing machines on TV ads, and the mantra of "Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme" became a little, um, strident...and Goebbels-esque.
Very reminiscent of the "Iraq - AlQuaeda - WMD" chant, just quietly...same principle?

BTW about to start on a newly purchased copy of "The Climate Caper" by Garth Paltridge. Seemed to be a must-read having seen a few quotes and excerpts!
konstantin is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2011, 13:47
  #7228 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Azervicestan
Posts: 68

You certainly make a potentially valid theoretical argument, but with respect, it is just that - theoretical. The "anthropogenic attribution" nitty-gritty is the problem of course...is what we are seeing out of our control anyway due to the exit from the LIA? And other variations/oscillations?

Perhaps here I should apologise for not linking to the Curry article (and the 452(?) responses, last sighted!);


I do not dispute the possibilities you mention in relation to rain (don`t know about drought or extremes per se though), but when I see Trenberth asserting percentage anthropogenic attributions... Yes, he of the "missing heat hiding deep down in the oceans" fame.

ARGO data ain`t got nuthin to do with it of course

Would appreciate your thoughts on the link anyway.


What you said... ...in toto...solar influence 40% is in the news I believe?
konstantin is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2011, 15:01
  #7229 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,074
More wheels come off. Can't be many left on the old jalopy.....

Grauniad: Greenland ice sheet is safer than scientists previously thought

New study overturns fears that increased melting could lubricate the ice sheet, causing it to sink ever faster into the sea

The threat of the Greenland ice sheet slipping ever faster into the sea because of warmer summers has been ruled out by a scientific study.....
ORAC is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2011, 15:18
  #7230 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
and conversely..

Climate change may not be as catastrophic for Greenland's icecaps as scientists first thought after researchers found hotter summers may actually slow down the flow of glaciers.

Increased melting in the warmer summer months is causing the internal drainage system of the ice sheet to 'adapt' and accommodate more melt-water, without speeding up the flow of ice toward the oceans.

This is because in hot conditions there is initially so much melt-water that it runs off into channels below the ice, thereby decreasing the lubricating layer which sits on top of the ice sheets and causes melting over a much larger surface area.

Owing to this, the acceleration of melting appears to stall early on in hot summers, whereas it does not in cool ones.

The findings, reported in the journal Nature, have important implications for future assessments of global sea level rise.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2011, 16:58
  #7231 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
I don't believe these studies any than I believe the IPCC's. All that seems to be indicated is that we haven't a clue.
Sciolistes is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2011, 17:59
  #7232 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
I don't believe these studies any than I believe the IPCC's. All that seems to be indicated is that we haven't a clue.
Which is exactly what some of us said when the whole AGW/Climate Change/Global Climate Disruption/whetevertheycallitnextweek kicked off.

We, humanity, only have (debatable) records that cover the tiniest of fraction of the planet's life. Anything that comes from innacurate readings, guesstimates or, my favourite, "extrapolation" does merely show that "we don't know" as, otherwise, there would be no extrapolation or guesstimates!

What these numpties have to remember is this. Just because you THINK you've found something doesn't mean it didn't actually exist naturally before.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2011, 10:01
  #7233 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Terra firma
Posts: 142
There has been a recent exponential increase of humans on the planet. It may be not that the amount of extreme events are increasing but that any given event is much more likely to impact on humans.
Jabiman is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2011, 13:03
  #7234 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,879
And with modern communications it is far easier for them all to gossip about said events.
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2011, 23:25
  #7235 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 13

I like that way of describing it.

Agreed - the science is far from settled, and may not ever be.

Green Granite - yes I've read about that. I was wondering why it happened. THanks for the enlightenment. Has it been proven that this is happening or could happen?
Nine_Inch__Wings is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2011, 23:33
  #7236 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Trangression Zone
Posts: 2,049
I don't believe these studies any than I believe the IPCC's. All that seems to be indicated is that we haven't a clue.
una vez mas

nature laughs at complex mathematics

pa alli por abajo, hay la guagua ahora me voy...
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2011, 08:26
  #7237 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Nine_Inch__Wings try reading to start with.

NASA Warns Global Warming Models Wrong -Don't Account for Cooling Factors
green granite is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2011, 09:04
  #7238 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Nine Inch whatever, might pay to read this before you believe any of Gory Al's propaganda movie -

35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore?s movie | Monckton
Slasher is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2011, 15:07
  #7239 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,321
The American High Speed Rail concept is as lame as AGW.

Let's assume we get a 300 mph train and the rail line that could facilitate its implemenation....how does one make it economical for the user? How do I get to the station...park my car (remember how wonderful our mass transit system is throughout the country?)...get on the rocketcar....and go...how far before I must stop or get off? Only...to have to find my source of ground transport to wherever I am going?

If we were to link Boston/NYC/Philly/Balltimore/Washington.....what value saving a few minutes over the journey?

Amtrac cannot make it now and never has.....I am not sure I would want to ride a government linked anything at 300 mph along a set of tracks!
SASless is online now  
Old 29th Jan 2011, 15:32
  #7240 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
conversely SASless, an old piper lance returns about 90mpg.. perhaps GA is the way forward
stuckgear is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.