• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

Visage said:
Nope. Firstly, that article doesnt even mention the word cycle, let alone provide any evidence for it. What it does do, however, is argue against many points you make.

For example, water vapour:



In other words, water vapour amplifies the greenhouse effect, but it doesnt cause it.

Also, on CO2:



So the greenhouse effect is caused, in part by atmospheric CO2, which you agree mankind has increased dramatically.



So you failed to prove the point you were asked to prove, and instead disproved two of your most oft-repeated claims. Well done.
Click to expand...
The point is that carbon dioxide sensitivity is disputed.
 
You talk a lot about natural cycles but ignore that Earth's current natural cycle would see the planet COOLING.
 
A bit off-topic but suitably apocalyptic for this thread - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/21/mass-extinction-science-warning

Be warned, it was written by a professor of paleobiology (a job which probably doesn't exist) rather than anyone with any real knowledge of electrical engineering.

All a bit depressing, but anything that doesn't include the phrase "natural forcing" is all right by me. If I wanted that, I'd read 50 Shades.
 
Seems pretty conlcusive.

No doubt the data has been "cherry picked" once HGW comes along.
 
 
So Long Architect said:
A bit off-topic but suitably apocalyptic for this thread - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/21/mass-extinction-science-warning

Be warned, it was written by a professor of paleobiology (a job which probably doesn't exist) rather than anyone with any real knowledge of electrical engineering.

All a bit depressing, but anything that doesn't include the phrase "natural forcing" is all right by me. If I wanted that, I'd read 50 Shades.
Click to expand...

Had to laugh at that, suppose that humanity is an incremental benefactor of biodiversity, the latter in general asymtotic to a previous 'normal' level.
 
There is some talk in the states that rising ocean temps are responsible for a recent glut of shark attacks in North and South Carolina (warmer water is driving sharks closer to shore IIRC).
 
...and making them angry.
 
I'd be sceptical about their winter claims.

I remember seeing a documentary on the really cold winters we've had and they are very closely linked to the amount of hurricanes in the US, the temperature of the Atlantic ocean, and the jetstream. They all affect each other in that order. Hurricanes take heat from the ocean as they pass over it, and the colder the Atlantic, the more the jetstream varies in it's wobble up and down. Get that jetstream dipping just at the wrong point over the UK and it's uncommonly cold.

Given that, I can only see the chances of extreme winters increasing not the other way around. Rising global temperatures will drive more hurricanes with more energy, which will sap more ocean heat as they cross the Atlantic, which will cause greater jetstream wobble.

When the jetstream goes the other way upwards is when we get the wetter winters. So we'd need less hurricanes and a warmer Atlantic to make that happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top