climate change
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
It isn't. That's the point. It only absorbs a small percentage of it.
I assume you mean "insolation", since you brought that up. I'm not typo flaming, just making sure. I've done that myself.
Here's why:
Insolation is a good measure, as you suggested, because it's pretty much a raw measure of solar energy on the Earth. Other things, like cloud cover, urbanization, deforestation and greenhouse gases will of course change how much of that energy is retained, either by changing the albedo of the Earth, or by retaining the energy by absorbtion in the atmosphere.
Notice that while insolation has a periodic structure, global warming has steadily risen. Surely that cycle of insolation has an effect; it's just not enough to reverse the atmospheric CO2.
So far, it looks linear.
I don't see that so far, but there should be at some point. That's a lot farther up the curve, I think.
Well, let's take a look.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Only one year prior to 2000 was as warm as any year after 2000. (see the December-January or January-December annual average temps) Only one year after 2001 was cooler than 2001; the rest are warmer. If the remainder of this year is even average compared to this decade, it will be the hottest year on record.
Then you aren't willing to deal with the science using its own terminology.
Well, think about it rationally for a moment then. It can't be genuinely linear, because there is a finite amount of infrared radiation to trap. So there must be some level where the effect levels off. The fact that it appears almost linear right now indicates that the amount of heat that we are trapping is a small percentage, and that it is possible to trap a lot more.
We actually have satellites in orbit that sense the infrared radiation emitted by the planet. It is useful for remote sensing of the temperature. If the CO2 in the atmosphere were absorbing anything like all of that radiation, there would be nothing to image, even if it just cut all of one frequency.
Those living in poverty are the hardest hit by climate change despite being the least responsible for the crisis.
1. Australia Wildfires
- Australia, between August and November 2013, over 100 wildfires have raged across the state of New South Wales with unprecedented levels of scale and severity. Australia has just experienced its hottest 12 months on record.
- the IPCC Working Group II AR5 report predicts that Australia will experience up to 80% more droughts across its southeastern states, greater exposure to severe tropical cyclones along its east and southern coasts, many more days of +35C temperatures, and decreased profits due to shorter growing seasons and sparse rainfall
2. Russia Drought
- weather events are becoming increasingly common in Russia, and the 2012 drought – following hard on the severe drought of 2010 – confirmed this trend. During 2012, 22 regions suffered crop losses, with a state of emergency declared in 20 of these.
- the year’s gross grain harvest was 70.9 million tons, 24.7 per cent lower than in 2011 (94.2 million tons). There were also decreases in production volumes for sugarbeet, sunflowers, potatoes and vegetables
- global food prices soared by 10 percent in July 2012, with maize a nd soybean reaching all-time peaks. This meant hardship for vulnerable populations hard pressed to pay the higher prices for staple goods both within Russia and around the world
3. Guatemala Coffee Rust
- a fungal disease on coffee plants called la Roya (coffee rust) is attacking Arabica coffee plants across Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua at ever higher altitudes as the climate warms. Guatemala, Honduras and Costa Rica have declared national emergencies with up to 70% of this year’s crop in Guatemala affected.
- its exceptional spread this year has been blamed in part on several years of above-average temperatures and rainfall, attributed to global warming trends, creating the ideal humid conditions for the spores to spread.
- harvests are likely to decline by up to 15-25 percent in 2012/13 and 30-40 percent in 2013/14 compared to 2011/12 levels.
- 1.4 million unskilled laborers depend on wages from coffee harvesting for much of their annual income. Daily income from the coffee harvest labor is likely to be up to 50% below average this year and next. And it is likely that some 374,000 jobs will be lost in 2012/13 due to the rust.
4. Pakistan Floods
- in August 2013 floodwaters inundated up to one fifth of Pakistan and affected an estimated 20 million people. Research has shown that Pakistan is suffering from a global phenomenon of more frequent and intense weather patterns that put many communities’ lives and livelihoods at risk.
- since the mega-flood of 2010 four consecutive years of flood disasters have destroyed harvests, particularly in South Punjab and Sindh provinces which grow wheat and rice for the whole country.
- floodwaters contributed significantly to soil erosion and in some cases, to permanent farmland damage that will have a devastating effect on food security. Food insecurity in Pakistan has been worsening as underlying drivers of vulnerability turn natural weather occurrences – amplified by climate change – into long-lasting disasters, and hamper swift recovery
5. Philippines Typhoon
- Typhoon Haiyan is the strongest tropical cyclone to make landfall in history
- 11.3 million people are affected and over 700.000 people have been displaced
- devastated millions of hectares of crops, sent food prices rocketing and left millions facing hunger
I have studied climate change seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid - John Coleman, co-founder of the Weather Channel
gcthomas
New member
And with his 57 year old degree in journalism, I'm sure he's got the technical nous to know whether climate science is good science or not.
:chuckle:
Barbarian checks.
You're right. Not even a degree in meteorology, much less climatology. Is it not a good clue that deniers tend to be those ignorant of the science?
You're right. Not even a degree in meteorology, much less climatology. Is it not a good clue that deniers tend to be those ignorant of the science?
gcthomas
New member
I didn't think anyone had quoted him as a putative authoritative source. And I suspect his degree is close a science than 'journalism', wouldn't you agree?
beats me :idunno:
that's why i asked him
that's why i asked him
No, and although I did a brief study of glacier dynamics in graduate school (as part of a master's in systems), you'd have to be pretty dumb to prefer a biologist or a journalist as an expert, compared to real climatologists.
But yeah, a TV "weatherman" with a degree in journalism, and no climatology experience at all is probably in deeply over his head, talking about climate change.
And I suspect his degree is close a science than 'journalism', wouldn't you agree?
Nasa admits there are 'no early indications' to explain why Antares cargo rocket exploded on take-off
Maybe NASA should concentrate more on launching rockets, and spend less time perpetuating the global warming myth.
Maybe NASA should concentrate more on launching rockets, and spend less time perpetuating the global warming myth.
(Barbarian checks)
Unless the last two months get super cold, we will have yet another hottest year on record.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Surprise.
Evolutionists love discussing a man's qualifications instead of his ideas.
FYI: NASA didn't launch a rocket, Orbital Science Corp launched the failed Antares rocket on a NASA mission. Man made climate change is a well proliferated myth by NASA but, the failed mission tonight had nothing to do with the man made climate change myth per se. My heart goes out to my Orbital brethren, there is nothing worse in this business than losing a mission, the failure investigation, and the pain of going through the cause & corrective action to get back on track...very sad.
gcthomas
New member
Yup
When someone is presented as an expert we should all believe, and whom we can't cross examine, then it is important to judge whether he has appropriate expertise. I know you are happy to wholly trust charlatans, but I'd rather avoid that particular embarrassment. :up:
The rocket was launched from Wallops Flight Facility.
Wallops Flight Facility is operated by the Goddard Space Flight Center.
Goddard Space Flight Center is part of NASA.
Goddard Space Flight Center developed and maintains the satellite systems for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NOAA are the people who perpetuate the global warming myth.
Like I said, NASA should worry more about rockets, and less about the global warming myth.
Using your logic, no one should be an atheist because over 99.99% of all theologians claim that God exists.
As I'm sure you know, theologians study God, and therefore, if over 99.99% agree there is a God, then only a fool (a denier) would not believe God exists?
Right?