Global Warming/Climate Change 2

[MrPlum]

I don't know, steve. This smack of another ripping yarn from the mainstream media GW storytellers. A clue is in the 'comments' section. They aren't allowing any. They know they will be given short shrift by the public.

Have you forgotten?

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
'In 2000 the Hadley CRU (the institution at the heart of the Climategate email and software scandal) stated “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 24017.html

WINTER TO BE MILD PREDICTS MET OFFICE
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/208 ... Met-Office

Who is in charge of the Met Office?

Robert Napier.

Who is Mr Napier and does he have any GW bias?

He is, or has been:

1. Chairman of the Met office
2. Chairman of the Green Fiscal Commission, seeking to impose massive green taxation
3. Director of the Carbon Disclosure Project, which has built the largest database on corporate ‘carbon footprints’ as a basis for discrimination against those who don’t go along with the eco agenda
4. Chairman of the trustees of the World Centre of Monitoring of Conservation, which is bankrolled by the UN Environment Programme to push and ensure compliance with the Green agenda
5. Chairman of the Homes and Communities Agency, which is seeking to grab land for ecotowns and determining compliance of housing to stringent Green standards.
6. Chief Executive of WWF-UK, a vast political pressure group seeking to grab land and stop development around the world
7. Director of The Climate Group, a huge international pressure group for the climate change agenda
8. Director of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation, a secular body seeking to infuse ‘Green’ values into all the major religions, and to designate land as ‘sacred’ to prohibit development, and galvanize religions as a powerful advocacy group for the eco agenda.

[redzonerocker]

They have ignored the snow in Siberia.

they have also ignored the vast majority of FOI requests for data relating to their GW claims

[hhfarang]

Whatever is happening, it's just normal climate change that has gone on for millions of years and there is nothing to be done about it. Get over it guys! Humans can't rule this planet forever just like the dinosaurs couldn't. the cockroaches will win out in the end.

[STEVE G]

I don't know, steve. This smack of another ripping yarn from the mainstream media GW storytellers.

Basically, if global warming isn't happening, there are only have two possible reasons for that:

Either basic physics as understood, Stefan–Boltzmann law and the related calculations for obtaining the temperature of a radiated planetary body due to the resistivity of the combined contituents of its atmosphere are flawed and if that is the case, and you can prove it, you'll be in for a Nobel prize in Physics.

Or, the level of C02 in the atmosphere isn't rising.

Which of these do you believe to be the case?

By the way, it was raining in Moscow today and it doesn't normally do that in late December.

[lindosfan1]

Found this article in the Daily mail
This is the season for quizzes. So ­fingers on buzzers, here’s your starter for ten. In percentage terms, how much electricity do Britain’s 3,150 wind ­turbines supply to the ­National Grid?
Is it: a) five per cent; b) ten per cent; or c) 20 per cent? Come on, I’m going to have to hurry you. No conferring.

Time’s up. The correct answer is: none of the above. Yesterday afternoon, the figure was just 1.6 per cent, according to the official website of the wholesale electricity market.

Over the past three weeks, with demand for power at record levels because of the freezing weather, there have been days when the contribution of our forests of wind turbines has been precisely nothing.

It gets better. As the temperature has plummeted, the turbines have had to be heated to prevent them seizing up. Consequently, they have been consuming more electricity than they generate.

Even on a good day they rarely work above a quarter of their theoretical capacity. And in high winds they have to be switched off altogether to prevent damage.

At best, the combined output of these monstrosities is equal only to that of a single, medium-sized, gas-fired power station.

To make matters worse, there is no way of storing the electricity generated on the rare occasions when they are working.

Yet the Government is ploughing ahead with plans to erect 12,500 of these War Of The Worlds windmills in the sea and across our green and pleasant. Some of them will be up to three times the size of the present structures.

Every time I drive up to North Norfolk, another crop of turbines has sprouted from the soil, disfiguring the scenery for miles around.

Swaffham, the picturesque location of Stephen Fry’s TV series Kingdom, is virtually surrounded. None of them ever seems to be turning. They just stand there, ominously, like invaders from outer space laying siege to the town.

Billions of pounds are being wasted on these worse-than-useless blots on the landscape. We’d be ­better off spending the money on snow ploughs.

While we’re on the subject of snow, Britain’s most tenacious ‘climate change denier’ Christopher Booker, occasionally of this parish, has just revealed the real reason why this country was so ill-prepared for the Arctic weather.

Airports, rail operators and local authorities all subscribe to the Met Office’s long-term forecasts. And over the past few years, the Met Office has become evangelical about ‘man-made global warming’.

Every weather forecast is now extruded through the prism of so-called climate change, even when all evidence points to the fact that the Earth is actually getting colder.

The Met Office’s predictions are based on a computer model which assumes ever-rising temperatures — so much so that it forecast that this winter would be significantly milder than the past two years.

Even though the winters of 2008 and 2009 were ferociously cold, they were dismissed as ‘random events’. The Met Office put the odds on a third harsh winter no higher than 20-1.

Those responsible for keeping our transport network running were stupid enough to swallow this bogus, optimistic forecast, and consequently failed to make proper provision for the blizzards which duly followed.

This, of course, was the same Met Office which predicted a ‘barbecue summer’ shortly before Britain was hit by gales and widespread flooding.

For this wildly inaccurate and deliberately skewed service, the British taxpayer is charged a staggering £200million a year.

Needless to say, the head of the Met Office is not even a weatherman. He’s a leading ‘climate change activist’ who buys into the propaganda pumped out by the fanatics at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — exposed for blatantly suppressing evidence which contradicts their messianic belief in ­‘global warming’.

Back in 2000, the CRU’s Dr David Viner told The Independent that winter snowfalls would soon be a thing of the past.

‘Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,’ he predicted confidently.

Even when they are proved wrong, the warmists will never admit it. They simply move the goalposts — which is how global warming morphed into ‘climate change’.

You can’t argue with them. That’s because ‘climate change’ isn’t a ­science, it’s a religion. Sceptics are trashed as heretics.

The climate change lobby is a curious mix of cultists and cynical opportunists. As I write, Sky News is spotlighting a project on Humberside aimed at brainwashing ­children into believing that wind is the fuel of the future.

Call Me Dave bangs on about all the jobs which will be created by the ‘green economy’ — ignoring the fact that almost all Britain’s wind turbines are built and installed by foreign firms.

The defining characteristic of all fanatics is that they have no sense of the ridiculous.

According to the BBC, Town Halls across the country have been appealing to owners of 4x4s to offer lifts to ‘essential staff’ during the cold snap.

These would be the same 4x4s which these very same councils want to ban, because they cause global warming and kill polar bears.

You couldn’t make it up.

Let them slip and slither their way into work. I shall be saddling up the SUV and tilting at windmills.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z19W3IUkfu

[STEVE G]

Yes, well suppose it would be a bit much to expect the Daily Mail to re-write the laws of physics to match their conclussions!

[MrPlum]

Yes, well suppose it would be a bit much to expect the Daily Mail to re-write the laws of physics to match their conclussions!

The abiding faith of WARM-ongers.

You know, when I put the kettle on, I get HOT water. I don't get a 12' snowdrift. This is a provable, repeatable, Law of Physics. But not to a member of the GW cult or NYT media propagandists like Judah Cohen. No. To both the spellbound and the spell-binders, the Laws of Physics are whatever you need them to be.

Orwell missed one...

'Cooling is Warming'.

[STEVE G]

You know, when I put the kettle on, I get HOT water. I don't get a 12' snowdrift.

You also get steam which goes into the atmosphere to later become precipitation, rain and snow.
Increased precipitation is indicative of a warming world, not a cooling one and we seem to be getting lots of floods and snowdrifts.
The laws of physics that make up the greenhouse effect have been understood for over a hundred years and are provable and repeatable.
When astronomers use the same laws to calculate the atmosheric effects of say the planet Venus, nobody doubts them.
As I've mentioned before, this is the reason that those in the energy lobby don't employ scientists to fight global warming legislation as they know that they can't do it.
Oil companies do employ many of their own scientists after all.

[redzonerocker]

Yes, well suppose it would be a bit much to expect the Daily Mail to re-write the laws of physics to match their conclussions!

maybe because they're not all they're made up to be ?

http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-h ... ciety.html

of course the integrity of the gentleman in question has been put under the microscope & the usual smear campaign as to his credibility.

then there is the response of the american physical society, which is pretty lame imo

[STEVE G]

No physics in any of that either.
Basic greenhouse gas theory dating back over a hundred years explains the process in question.
If it's all so obviously a scam, surely one of these doubting scientists can demonstrate to us where the understood physics are flawed.
I, for one, would be greatly relieved to find out that the climate isn't falling apart!

[redzonerocker]

No physics in any of that either.

well it was written by a highly respected physicist with over 60 years experience in the field & quite openly points out the $/£ is more important than the actual science.

Basic greenhouse gas theory dating back over a hundred years explains the process in question.

just that the data & calculations on which it is based have been deemed as unreliable & greatly exaggerated (for a bit of extra funding of course )

If it's all so obviously a scam, surely one of these doubting scientists can demonstrate to us where the understood physics are flawed.

well if it wasn't a scam, surely the climate research unit involved would have released the data?
& also not claimed to have lost vital data
instead, they have to be requested by FOI requests which still haven't been forthcoming

I, for one, would be greatly relieved to find out that the climate isn't falling apart!

not quite falling apart, but changing all the same. just like it has since the beginning of time

[STEVE G]

.

[HAPPYGOLFER]

We will never agree about this topic, nov-dec-2010 is the coldest measured month for over 100 years in Norway. Maybe we have a global warming, but when it,s so cold for 2 months, it,s difficult to convince me or anybody else
Airports all over Europe are closed for days, the same in North-America, maybe this happens occasionally , but----

[lindosfan1]

Steve g
I sit on the fence on this one. Historically through thousands of years, some caused by nature, some by mankind.
Lets look at causes:
1.The smogs of the 19th and 20th centuries, caused by the industrial revolution, coal burning
in particular.
2, Natural emissions caused by nature. Now the ice melting has uncovered natural forest sediment
methane gas
3, Cattle belching[ I put in an earlier thread it was farting) A recent test found that the level of gas escaping from one belch would be classified as dangerous in enclosed spaces
4 Forestation, we have been cutting down forest for thousands of years
5. Fuel consumption car and planes the problem here
6. Burying waste problems with methane gas
There have over thousands of years been massive climate changes ice age before that the world was warm. The causes in the ice age period and prior to that were natural. The world survived.
I agree we can improve the way we live but lets do it in an orderly fashion.
Wind farms Littlejohn pointed out the inefficiences of them in his article. Cannot store electricity do not work in high winds and in freezing weather they use more power keeping them warm than they produce farcical.
Another article not sure where it was that prescott bought in a new law about boilers must have a certain method of disposing of the waste water. Trouble is now the temperature has dropped the boilers stop working up because the waste freezes, Very good just when you need heat.
The world naturally cures itsself of some of the problems. but to many politicians back ideas that do not work. Who suffers from the effect of this we all do.
Emissions should be controlled but the worst countries do not play that game. Unless they do we are wasting our time. To many people are jumping on the band wagon to make a quick buck.
Unless the is a global agreement that every country signs up to it is a waste of time and money.

[STEVE G]

Yes, the politics of the matter is an entirely different subject but having spent some considerable amount of time studying the physics behind this, the fact of the matter is that if the level of C02 increases in the atmosphere, all other things being equal, the temperature will rise.
This is actually quite basic physics that hasn't been seriously challenged for a very long time.
If anyone wants to doubt this fact, they will have to rewrite the understood physics first.
The fact that it happens to be cold in Europe and North America at the moment is caused by weather and not climate.
Present levels of Global Warming are something in the region of between a half and one degree C, depending on where you start, which is obviously not going to be enough to stop it snowing when it's minus 17 or whatever!
What people seem incapable of understanding is that if it's minus 17 in one place, it will be correspondingly warmer somewhere else on the globe, otherwise you are creating and losing energy in huge amounts and you will need to rewrite physics to do that as well. There can be a loss of heat due to radiation into space (even that is reduced by the greenhouse effect) but when you get swings of a large magnitude, it's caused by movement of heat, not loss of it, otherwise when you got to minus 17 it would take a very long time to warm up again.