By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
That opening sentence should earn him a nomination for the Nobel Prize for Bellendery
The Univ. of East Anglia seems to be a erm... hotbed of eco warriors. There's been a couple of other academics from there on current affairs programmes in the past few days. Think UEA has a well-funded climatology faculty, but hasn't term started yet?
Footnote. 10 years on, the BBC is now spinning this as an attempt to undermine the research by climate deniers. There is a Parliamentary report which recognises that prof Jones was attempting to protect the copyright of the data but that the UEA should have helped him. Interestingly it uncovers the fact that lots of climate scientists use the same data sets and computer code in their calculations. A criticism that has been levelled at the IPCC figures which are compiled from about 30 "different"computer models, none of which , it is claimed take water vapour , the biggest greenhouse gas into account in their figures thereby placing all the blame on CO2
[Post edited 11 Oct 2019 10:54]
1
Is Rupert Reid the biggest bellend you have ever seen on 10:49 - Oct 11 with 3477 views
Footnote. 10 years on, the BBC is now spinning this as an attempt to undermine the research by climate deniers. There is a Parliamentary report which recognises that prof Jones was attempting to protect the copyright of the data but that the UEA should have helped him. Interestingly it uncovers the fact that lots of climate scientists use the same data sets and computer code in their calculations. A criticism that has been levelled at the IPCC figures which are compiled from about 30 "different"computer models, none of which , it is claimed take water vapour , the biggest greenhouse gas into account in their figures thereby placing all the blame on CO2
[Post edited 11 Oct 2019 10:54]
I'm curious 49th, as you keep saying CO2 isn't a problem and water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas. Are you asserting that these are the only 2 green house gasses (ignoring methane which increases daily with a greater demand for meat)? Also, why is water vapour increasing?
Is Rupert Reid the biggest bellend you have ever seen on 14:38 - Oct 11 by DaleiLama
I'm curious 49th, as you keep saying CO2 isn't a problem and water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas. Are you asserting that these are the only 2 green house gasses (ignoring methane which increases daily with a greater demand for meat)? Also, why is water vapour increasing?
I realise there are other so-called greenhouse gases, but it seems to me that if the computer models cant / dont take into account water vapour and clouds, then there is a big problem with the scenarios they are extrapolating from the data. So why is CO2 always the culprit? Equally if lots of these climate models are using each others data and computer codes its hardly a surprise that they agree on the outcome... however... They all depend on ice core data for their historic CO2 data, whereas the geocarb ( carbon stored in rocks (by chemical weathering effects)data indicates historially higher levels of CO2 (and therefore lower recent rises). The plant data also indicates higher CO2 levels historically (stomata). I cant find any evidence about the accuracy of the CO2 levels found in ice cores. The CO2 gets trapped when it snows but then what is the effect of the transition to ice and the compression of subsequent layers over thousands of years? I can see that the ice will be different in warmer periods and therefore we can tell that the climate has been warmer previously but without knowing about the effect of thousands of years and tons of pressure how can we be sure the CO2 results are accurate? Since the 1950s, CO2 has been measured on top of a volcano in Hawaii whereas the Ice cores are mainly from the Poles.
I also note that the Mann "hockey stick " is in doubt too since he ( Mann) sued someone who called it a fraud but then refused to let the court see his calculations and data. He lost the case and owes a fortune in costs. Why the reluctance?
According to Al Gore, the science is settled but there is a difference between producing current and recent data and drawing the conclusion that there is a global crisis by comparing that data with what has been extrapolated from ice records and data from weather stations of 100 years and more ago. Even NASA admits that there are no more storms than previously but there are more people living in places that in the past they would not have bothered with. We now have 6 Billion people exhaling CO2 every minute of every day, maybe man would be better to stop trying to interfere and let Gaia do her job?
2
Is Rupert Reid the biggest bellend you have ever seen on 18:56 - Oct 11 with 3101 views
Is Rupert Reid the biggest bellend you have ever seen on 14:38 - Oct 11 by DaleiLama
I'm curious 49th, as you keep saying CO2 isn't a problem and water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas. Are you asserting that these are the only 2 green house gasses (ignoring methane which increases daily with a greater demand for meat)? Also, why is water vapour increasing?
Could the water vapour be simply increasing because the world's population is increasing and therefore....more exhaling and all that extra warm/hot air condensing?
Could water vapour be increasing due to the increase in use of air conditioning? Never seen this mentioned as a factor before but what is the resultant waste output of an air conditioning unit creating cool air in buildings? Heat and water vapour directly in to the atmosphere. Or am I missing something and things cancel each other out?
The worm of time turns not for the cuckoo of circumstance.
0
Is Rupert Reid the biggest bellend you have ever seen on 09:12 - Oct 13 with 2683 views
Is Rupert Reid the biggest bellend you have ever seen on 17:36 - Oct 11 by 49thseason
I realise there are other so-called greenhouse gases, but it seems to me that if the computer models cant / dont take into account water vapour and clouds, then there is a big problem with the scenarios they are extrapolating from the data. So why is CO2 always the culprit? Equally if lots of these climate models are using each others data and computer codes its hardly a surprise that they agree on the outcome... however... They all depend on ice core data for their historic CO2 data, whereas the geocarb ( carbon stored in rocks (by chemical weathering effects)data indicates historially higher levels of CO2 (and therefore lower recent rises). The plant data also indicates higher CO2 levels historically (stomata). I cant find any evidence about the accuracy of the CO2 levels found in ice cores. The CO2 gets trapped when it snows but then what is the effect of the transition to ice and the compression of subsequent layers over thousands of years? I can see that the ice will be different in warmer periods and therefore we can tell that the climate has been warmer previously but without knowing about the effect of thousands of years and tons of pressure how can we be sure the CO2 results are accurate? Since the 1950s, CO2 has been measured on top of a volcano in Hawaii whereas the Ice cores are mainly from the Poles.
I also note that the Mann "hockey stick " is in doubt too since he ( Mann) sued someone who called it a fraud but then refused to let the court see his calculations and data. He lost the case and owes a fortune in costs. Why the reluctance?
According to Al Gore, the science is settled but there is a difference between producing current and recent data and drawing the conclusion that there is a global crisis by comparing that data with what has been extrapolated from ice records and data from weather stations of 100 years and more ago. Even NASA admits that there are no more storms than previously but there are more people living in places that in the past they would not have bothered with. We now have 6 Billion people exhaling CO2 every minute of every day, maybe man would be better to stop trying to interfere and let Gaia do her job?
The point I was making about water vapour and it's contribution to global warming is based on fundamental scientific factors. Water exists in three states on our planet (the only substance to do so I believe, but remain open to correction). Solid, liquid and gas.
Heat solid water up and it melts as anyone knows who has put an ice cube in a drink. This is what is happening to the polar ice caps. It's a measurable phenomenon - satellites are doing so. Mighty lumps of glaciers are falling off into the ocean. Certainly CO2 can be trapped in ice but the best way to trap it is fixing it (i.e. plants when they grow). As an aside, lots of the plants in for example marshy bogs do best at this job and they won't do well if drought conditions prevail (i.e. when the moorlands burned last summer, releasing more CO2, doing untold damage and setting back habitats - and our atmosphere - by decades).
Anyway, back to water - melting ice caps due to higher temperatures means rising ocean levels (again an entirely measurable phenomenon) and warmer oceans. Warmer air and warmer oceans means one thing and one thing only - more liquid water turns to gas - water vapour.
Again, this is fundamental science - warmer air can carry more water. More water in the atmosphere to reflect heat back means more of the suns energy stays in either the land, the oceans or the atmosphere, which is a vicious circle. The above is just a small part of the picture.
Anyway, I've said enough on the subject now - folk who believe this is a phenomenon will try to do something about it (change their personal habits etc) and folk who don't, wont. I am not trying to evangelise and have some sympathy with the argument "what difference will what I do make". Thing is, the reverse is actually true - "what will happen if I do nothing?". If every person, every company and every country did something, things would change. Many companies are radically altering their carbon footprint. So are many people. It's really an individuals choice and to an extent a leap of faith. Sky cycling team's David Brailsford and rugby's Clive Woodward pioneered the concept of "marginal gains" by reengineering every single thing you do to optimise the outcome towards a desired goal. I can't and won't tell anyone else what they should be doing. If you want to try to make a difference, you don't have to do a lot. Turn lights off, use less water, eat less meat, walk more instead of getting into the car to go down to the shop etc etc. If anyone doesn't want to believe there is an issue or doesn't want to try to make a difference, so be it.
Is Rupert Reid the biggest bellend you have ever seen on 09:12 - Oct 13 by DaleiLama
The point I was making about water vapour and it's contribution to global warming is based on fundamental scientific factors. Water exists in three states on our planet (the only substance to do so I believe, but remain open to correction). Solid, liquid and gas.
Heat solid water up and it melts as anyone knows who has put an ice cube in a drink. This is what is happening to the polar ice caps. It's a measurable phenomenon - satellites are doing so. Mighty lumps of glaciers are falling off into the ocean. Certainly CO2 can be trapped in ice but the best way to trap it is fixing it (i.e. plants when they grow). As an aside, lots of the plants in for example marshy bogs do best at this job and they won't do well if drought conditions prevail (i.e. when the moorlands burned last summer, releasing more CO2, doing untold damage and setting back habitats - and our atmosphere - by decades).
Anyway, back to water - melting ice caps due to higher temperatures means rising ocean levels (again an entirely measurable phenomenon) and warmer oceans. Warmer air and warmer oceans means one thing and one thing only - more liquid water turns to gas - water vapour.
Again, this is fundamental science - warmer air can carry more water. More water in the atmosphere to reflect heat back means more of the suns energy stays in either the land, the oceans or the atmosphere, which is a vicious circle. The above is just a small part of the picture.
Anyway, I've said enough on the subject now - folk who believe this is a phenomenon will try to do something about it (change their personal habits etc) and folk who don't, wont. I am not trying to evangelise and have some sympathy with the argument "what difference will what I do make". Thing is, the reverse is actually true - "what will happen if I do nothing?". If every person, every company and every country did something, things would change. Many companies are radically altering their carbon footprint. So are many people. It's really an individuals choice and to an extent a leap of faith. Sky cycling team's David Brailsford and rugby's Clive Woodward pioneered the concept of "marginal gains" by reengineering every single thing you do to optimise the outcome towards a desired goal. I can't and won't tell anyone else what they should be doing. If you want to try to make a difference, you don't have to do a lot. Turn lights off, use less water, eat less meat, walk more instead of getting into the car to go down to the shop etc etc. If anyone doesn't want to believe there is an issue or doesn't want to try to make a difference, so be it.
[Post edited 13 Oct 2019 9:29]
"mighty lumps of glaciers are falling off into the ocean"
Glaciers don't just fall off, they begin as compacted snow becomes ice and moves towards the sea, much slower but as a river does. Once the flow has nowhere else to go the inevitable happens. Recently, more snow has fallen on Greenland than ice has been lost.
Forest and moorland fires have happened forever and are quite natural, wildlife will always recover. Anyone remember swailling? One of the greater dangers to birds are windmills which kill hundreds of thousands of winged animals many of which are raptors in short supply!
This myth about sea level rise would be laughable if it wasn"t so serious. Back in the '90's we were being told that many low lying Islands would have to be evacuated due to rising seas. It hasn't happened. Even places where the land is sinking are still not yet in jeapardy.
YOU do not have the right to give someone else permission to tell me what I can and can't do.
0
Is Rupert Reid the biggest bellend you have ever seen on 17:53 - Oct 18 with 2184 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
