1. OCAU Merchandise is available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion in this thread.
    Dismiss Notice

Consolidated Climate Change/CO2/Global Warming Thread

Discussion in 'Science' started by hlokk, Feb 12, 2007.

  1. clonex

    clonex Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2001
    Messages:
    24,966
    Location:
    north pole
    Hasnt Muree had almost 40 days over 35 degrees this summer making it the hottest place on average this summer?

    I rather dry heat any day of the week working out in the sun:thumbup: What was the humidity % on those 45/46 days?


    EDIT: the air we breath in is getting better everyday tho surely? :D
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2017
  2. whatdoesthisdo

    whatdoesthisdo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    10,522
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    What's your point?

    I can't believe that some people still think climate change is scam, it's fucking ridiculous with the massive amounts of data out there.

    A good watch for those to lazy to do there own research.

     
  3. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    I think his point was that weather isn't climate.


    And a terrible watch for those who are interested enough to research actual science from scientists.

    Fake news, fake science and fake orgasms all come from the fake media.
     
  4. whatdoesthisdo

    whatdoesthisdo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    10,522
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    But you haven't. You would know better if that was the case however you just choose to read from the tiny portion of scientists that don't have a clue but provide you with confirmation bias.

    Lol I think you have wrapped your tinfoil a little too tight.

    You think that is fake but yet you quote a comment from a non scientific document trying to pass it off as fact from a guy who sexually harasses women, hates gays, and loves guns thinking everybody should own one.

    Quality, pure quality.

    The problem with your view is it is wrong but for whatever reason you don't want to be wrong and instead of applying critical thinking and reasoning you look for confirmation bias. Finding authors, scientists etc that back your view instead of looking at the OVERWHELMING evidence and consensus of 90-100% of scientist believe that humans are causing climate change.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=3498B5D3D46B5B062D57493A09011EED.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org
     
  5. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,251
    Location:
    Sydney
    Another great video from Dr Muller:



    What happens is counter-intuitive and why it happens reveals how careful one needs to be with physics.
    I suspect this is the same kind of issue that many of the deniers have. It seems counter-intuitive that such a feeble species as us humans compared to the vast size and mass of the biosphere could do any harm.
     
  6. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,251
    Location:
    Sydney
    See as how the east coast of Au is now sweltering under a record breaking heat wave and what AGW predicts regarding extreme weather events has been a hot topic this is a pretty good read:

    Election FactCheck: are larger, more frequent storms predicted due to climate change?

    TL;DR
    Overall Turnbull's claim was correct but it's more complicated than can be put into a single sentence. Everyone who knows WTF they're talking about does agree though, no one event can generally be attributed to AGW.
     
  7. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney

    So sad and so stereotypically Left, to play the person rather than the proposition.

    But keep it coming though, and please spread your sentiments as widely across the population as possible, because Pauline and Cory will be the beneficiaries at the ballot box.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2017
  8. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    It's also wrong. Even if the intensity of storms is expected to increase, the frequency isn't, and may in fact be heading in the opposite direction, globally as well as regionally. How many tropical cyclones have we had this season?

    Also, extreme heat in the eastern states has been balanced by below average temperatures in the west, so it's a weather event, and for all we know won't be repeated for another 50 years.
     
  9. dr_deathy

    dr_deathy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,000
    Until its cold, then its proof climate change isnt real right?

    :lol:

    I really cant even bother anymore, it seams the internet is full of these types, you put any info ANYWHERE and a hoard of raging deniers come in. Usually religious nutters as well.
     
  10. clonex

    clonex Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2001
    Messages:
    24,966
    Location:
    north pole
    hasnt it been quite wet in the west?
     
  11. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    Of course; Environmentalism is the fastest growing religion.
     
  12. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,251
    Location:
    Sydney
    Huh? I'm having a real problem with you saying it's wrong when it in part says exactly what you're saying.

    According to the BOM there's also been low intensity heatwave conditions in W.A. with patches of extreme heatwave conditions.
    Of course it's a weather event. Weather is what we experience, climate is the aggregate of weather. Climate is defined by the long term weather.

    As the article points out:
     
  13. clonex

    clonex Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2001
    Messages:
    24,966
    Location:
    north pole
  14. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney

    The very first sentence...
    It's a rubbish statement. Globally, it's been well established that storms are not increasing in frequency. The IPCC AR4 report (2007) says regarding global tropical storms: "There is no clear trend in the annual numbers [i.e. frequency] of tropical cyclones."


    There's almost always a low level heatwave somewhere in WA, so nothing unusual there.

    OTOH, we've had measurable climate warming now (apparently) since 1980 and in 37 years we've not seen such a procession of heat waves across NSW as we've had this summer. If "climate change" was the primary driver then it begs the question of where the compelling evidence has been during the previous 36 years. Of course if it happens again and again over the coming decade or so then it would be reasonable to arrive at such a conclusion, but at this point it's just a rare weather event, much like the floods across SW WA.

    And although temperature records are being broken, how many of them are a result of changes to station and sensor hardware?

    A rhetorical question of course because it's not something that's ever been properly examined.

    For example, the 12:00pm temperature at Hay yesterday was 43.9, and within the 60 second time interval a high temp of 44.5 was recorded - with time stamp 12:00pm.

    It highlights the effect on measurements that we now see from the low thermal mass of modern solid state sensors, and it goes without saying that such a variation would simply not be possible with the old higher mass MIG sensor.
     
  15. kally

    kally Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    1,036
    Location:
    Fremantle
    Tropical cyclones do not equal all storms. And arguments in changes in intensity has not been addressed.

    With more energy in the system, the hypothesis has sound reasoning, more study is needed.

    www.atmos-chem-phys.net
     
  16. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    No, the reasoning is dreadful.

    On it's own, more energy doesn't imply more storms; Even a global temperature rise of 3 degrees is only a 1% increase which is trivial.

    It's the collision of warm air with cold air that causes typical thunderstorms, and globally, the two most important temperature gradients for weather, namely the vertical lapse rate and the polar - equatorial gradient, are both are heading in the wrong direction with greenhouse warming.
     
  17. chip

    chip Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    3,984
    Location:
    Pooraka Maccas drivethrough
    If you're talking about +3 degrees C increase in average temp, no it fucking is not trivial.
     
  18. MonoJoker

    MonoJoker Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2001
    Messages:
    2,775
    Location:
    SE Qld
    During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity.[1]

    The only people left who seriously deny AGW are wingnut CTers, vested interest groups and the plain ignorant/stupid. Hard to believe there's still people bothering to engage in serious debate with them :rolleyes:

    [1] Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.
     
  19. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    Yet another meaningless statistic, and yet another use of a meaningless statistic to make a meaningless point.
     
  20. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    I was referring to the amount of energy being added to the climate system as a percentage of the energy that existed previously.

    Surface temperature is a poor proxy because it constitutes a tiny fraction of the troposphere, so a better proxy are the satellite based RSS or UAH temperature constructions.

    The aggregate RSS trend is approx 0.1C / decade or 1 degree k / century, which means that it will take 300 years to add 1% more energy to the climate system, assuming a linear trend.

    I see lots of scientists expressing horror at the number of Joules of energy (or H bombs etc) being added to the climate system every day, month, year etc, but apparently none of them have ever stopped to consider the amount of energy that actually exists and existed prior to the climate holocaust.

    Like most people, even scientists can be idiots at times.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: