GeomanNL

I feel sorry for him. He was my favorite driver. Best wishes to him.

[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1759" id="3429960"]Have you not read about the record recovery of the arctic ice sheet?[/quote] Nope... must be another one of those hypes ? Yeah must be, found a blog of this fellow who has a pretty strong opinion on the subject :) http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/1002370

[quote who="petrossa" reply="1757" id="3429930"]It's how the whole agw circus operates. Absurd claims of disasters to be which never happen and then claim afterwards that it didn't happen is actually the disaster.[/quote] I'm afraid I have to agree with this... almost every extreme thing gets blamed on global warming, even if there's not that much global warming yet. Media hypes about record hot months and record hot summers... it's just too much. Record se

My 2 cents: the majority of people are not too bright and they're brought up with lots of fighting in school, so naturally the internet is full of a-holes and full of complete and utter nonsense everywhere. Sometimes you wonder if there's a competition going on about who writes the most incredible nonsense. I think the worst ones are journalists and opinion writers, although they don't fall exactly in the majority category; even bright people can sometimes&nbsp

Just a little thought on the Antarctic: it's almost completely white, with an albedo of almost 100%. This means that almost all light is reflected straight back into space. This means that CO2 has little energy that it can absorb, since there is little energy in the infrared in the Antarctic. That would mean that in the Antarctic, there is little to no direct relationship between temperature and CO2. That would mean that the Antarctic temperature is more sensitive to other physica

About aerosols in the stratosphere and their mitigating effect on global warming (on the whole climate system): http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/03/01/volcanic-aerosols-not-pollutants-tamped-down-recent-earth-warming-says-cu http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6044/

Poor people, what a mess they got themselves into ... I hope they can get out.

http://www.thegwpf.org/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-breaks-all-time-record/ This shows that the Antarctic sea ice has increased in area (on average) from 18.5 mln square km to about 19.1 mln square km. Gosh, a 0.6 mln square km increase. Although that's a different value then you can get here: ht

I wonder if you find this hilarious too: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1279&p=2 This article also adds a short note about the mitigating effect of ice sheet melt on global temperature rise. Although I'm not sure if it's possible to compare those heat contents 1:1 because the atmosphere has an efficient heat loss mechanism and leaks energy all the time, while

Ok... I'm not going to fall for that kind of promise of high returns, but good luck finding people for such investments, at the very least it'll be good for the developing world :)

[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1743" id="3429695"]I think deadman's got the idea.[/quote] Not really, he knows a few things but he is blissfully unaware of many aspects of the climate. I'm doubting if I should reply to this, but hell why not. So here I go one more time :) [quote who="deadman312" reply="1742" id="3429676"]Ok so from what i grasped in college. Global Warming is an Astronomy concept.[/quote] Only the onset of glacial periods coul

[quote who="Kamamura_CZ" reply="154" id="3429112"]Recent contribution from industry veteran - former BP geologist:[/quote] That's a good article. But there's always coal... And oil can be created from coal. Oil can even be created from thin air if there's a cheap enough power source available.

I agree with every comment in this topic, I have nothing to add but just wanted to say this :)

[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1735" id="3429560"]I'm sure he'll speak for himself, but not really fair to say he considers 'the rest bullshit' since he never said that. [/quote] Ok that's true, he never said that. Apologies.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1704" id="3429172"]Secondly, enough of a green house gas will have a measurable effect. The question is whether that's a change from 0.3% to 3% or 0.3% to 0.4%.[/quote] You are missing a digit. 4000 ppm would be 0.4%. 400 ppm is 0.04%. [quote who="Frogboy" reply="1704" id="3429172"]This is where we part ways. There's no evidence to support this. The IPCC report says it accelerated it. But "significant" is in the eye of the beholder. To me, g

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1704" id="3429172"]Agree. If you have sufficient quantities of green house gasses it can trap enough of the sun's energy to cause a significant warming. Similarly, when Cyanobacteria first did their thing and removed CO2 from the atmosphere down to near current levels, we experienced a massive cooling. However, suggesting that CO2 is a major warming factor because enough of a change can affect the temperature is like saying water is poisonous because if yo

More about the present... I've found a nicer example about the role of the ocean to the overall global warming. You can see how the total heat increase of the complete climate system (ocean + land + atmosphere) is unstoppable. The "stabilization" in heat content that we see in land temperatures (during the last 15 years) are fairly insignificant in the broader picture, and is offset by the much larger increase in heat content of the (deeper) oc

Oh I wanted to add to my previous post that to be honest I've also read about 200 year periodicity in sun spots, so it may be that on a 100 year period the solar cycles won't average out to zero exaclty, but well ... what difference does half a degree or less make, if we're talking about warming of between 2 and 6 degrees. [quote who="Jafo" reply="1724" id="3429417"]It looks like it has its own agenda/bias.[/quote] I've shown the skepticalscience

[quote who="Jafo" reply="1722" id="3429414"]Quoting GeomanNL, reply 1718We are talking about climate change here.If the sun is constant, it doesn't change anything globally, it's just there ... It isn't 'constant'....not when there are solar flares. As Frogboy said, the Sun is the energy source. It powers climate change, no matter whose fault it is. [or what's].[/quote] That's causing about a 0.7 degree celcius temperature difference between the h

[quote who="Jafo" reply="1719" id="3429408"]What is NEEDED [for everyone's sake] is secondary time-line records from more general sources that can demonstrate the ice core accuracy repeated in areas NOT 'under ice'. If that existed then the SIMPLE TIMELINE can be trusted.[/quote] But they exist, even for the last ice age. I've shown a link a few pages back. I've shown it several times. What's wrong with that link? Here's one f

deleted.

[quote who="Jafo" reply="1715" id="3429403"]The sun's 'influence' on climate can be discarded? OK, now we're being absurd AND obtuse. There IS NO climate without the sun. NO modelling of ANYTHING related to this planet can ignore the Sun. Nothing Nada Zip.[/quote] We are talking about climate change here. If the sun is constant, it doesn't change anything globally, it's just there ... Of course the sun is not constant on

[quote who="Jafo" reply="1712" id="3429399"]IT IS A GRAPH.[/quote] YES. I know that. But seeing that T jumps 1 degree in the Antarctic before CO2 rises doesn't mean that CO2 is meaningless. Even you say that, there's no cause / effect. I just don't get you get so upset about this, I'm only trying to discuss the interpretation of the data. The 1 degree jump could be from a different physical process u

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1687" id="3429068"]Ok ekko, so according to the IPCC report, what would the temperature be if CO2 were still 275ppm?[/quote] I've read articles about models that try to predict ice ages. Those models have shown that we'll skip the next ice ages because of the current level of CO2. With continued production, we'll skip a lot of ice ages. If CO2 levels were lower, we would enter another ice age in a few tens of thousands of years or so.</p

[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="1680" id="3429018"]But, the temperature responds to the greenhouse gases much more quickly. It doesn't take years or decades for the temperature to change once you change the state of the atmosphere.[/quote] Actually it's more complicated than this. Temperature is measured from the snowflakes and that has a fairly good temporal resolution. The CO2 is measured from gas bubbles, but the top 100 meters of the glaciers are porous to air, so the bubble