• 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

Because global warming doesnt imply everywhere gets warmer. Because of changes to ocean currents, for example some areas may get cooler while others get warmer.

Theres also the notion that sea ice is a very variable thing. Even while the long term trend is for us to have less of it, you may get short term trends where it increases:

ArcticEscalator450.gif
 
Visage said:
Also, the pause isnt a pause at all. Its a statistical aberration. Ever wonder why its always 1998 (or possibly a year either side) thats chosen as the start point?

Its because that year there was a very strong El Nino - global temperatues spiked taht year. Then, over subsequent years, the effect died away, and temperatures stayed fairly stable - a long term trend (AGW) was masked by a short term trend (post El Nino temperature drop).

http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

See - 1998 was *huge*. What you're doing is the equivalent of going to a beach after high tide has passed and gone 'Look! the sea level isnt rising! Its falling! AGW is bunk! Drinks all round!'....
Click to expand...

Even the IPCC have acknoledged the pause. Trenberth et al acknowledged it. There have been about 60 excusing explanations for it.
If you want a statistical aberration look no further than Mann's 'hockey stick'.
Sensible analysis including recent ENSO (1998/2010) events show neatly in the UAH and RSS satellite data sets. The zero trend predates 1998 by a year or so.
 
Last edited:
FrankMunro-371 said:
I always read this thread with great interest, though to be honest most of it is far too clever for me.

Anyway may I ask a question. Why when there is global warming has the Arctic sea ice increased over the last three years?
Click to expand...

The arctic ice satellite record is only 36 years old and it is not just coverage that has to be considered. Volume, wind and ocean currents have an influence. Alarmist predictions of the likes of Al Gore hold no weight (pardon the pun). Antarctic sea ice has actually increased, debated reasons there.
 
Last edited:
Visage said:
Because global warming doesnt imply everywhere gets warmer. Because of changes to ocean currents, for example some areas may get cooler while others get warmer.

Theres also the notion that sea ice is a very variable thing. Even while the long term trend is for us to have less of it, you may get short term trends where it increases:

ArcticEscalator450.gif
Click to expand...

There are multiple multi-decadal and centenial scale oscillations, nobody has much idea about historical sea ice extent much more than 50 years ago. Sea ice by nature exists in a very narrow band of physical constraints.
 
If you don't know about sea ice older than fifty years how do you identify centennial scale patterns?
 
Visage said:
If you don't know about sea ice older than fifty years how do you identify centennial scale patterns?
Click to expand...

There are some things that paleo-geology and even historical record can identify in terms of climate. The reality with arctic sea ice is that there is little that can confirm or deny that there is anything other than natural cycles at play, PDO and AMO probably cover it.
The usefulness of the North West Passage over the last two centuries and submarine surfacing at the North Pole in the 1950s should illustrate the uncertainty here.
Just for laughs:

http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2006/jul/28/travelnews.uknews.climatechange

David Viner is the same clown that predicted that snow would be a rare event in the UK.
 
On snowfall, there is a definite downward trend since the 1960s. P 13-14 of this - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/h/UK_climate_trends.pdf

"Table 10 shows that there has been a strong downward trend in the number of days with snow cover at 0900 since 1961. The strongest trend has occurred in southern England (Map 9), where there are now about 75% fewer days wi
th snow cover compared to 1961. Northern England has also experienced a very significant downward trend. The negative trend is present in all seasons, but is most significant in the autumn period, although absolute decreases are greatest in the winter, which is the season in which the most snow occurs. The 1980’s were a particularly snowy period for the UK, as well as the start of the 1960’s, with 1962/63 being the snowiest season for England and Wales. The decreases are weaker but still significant for most districts when starting from 1963/64, to avoid skewness introduced by the high values of 1962/63. "
 
So Long Architect said:
On snowfall, there is a definite downward trend since the 1960s. P 13-14 of this - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/h/UK_climate_trends.pdf

"Table 10 shows that there has been a strong downward trend in the number of days with snow cover at 0900 since 1961. The strongest trend has occurred in southern England (Map 9), where there are now about 75% fewer days wi
th snow cover compared to 1961. Northern England has also experienced a very significant downward trend. The negative trend is present in all seasons, but is most significant in the autumn period, although absolute decreases are greatest in the winter, which is the season in which the most snow occurs. The 1980’s were a particularly snowy period for the UK, as well as the start of the 1960’s, with 1962/63 being the snowiest season for England and Wales. The decreases are weaker but still significant for most districts when starting from 1963/64, to avoid skewness introduced by the high values of 1962/63. "
Click to expand...

What is not to like?
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34149392

good to see delivery of the reportedly most subsidised energy project in history is going so well and will contribute fuck all to the capacity shortfall the nation could experience prior to 2023 as a result of the abject failure of privatisation to deliver adequate generation.

The OECD report shows that the cost of a nuclear plant in Britain is projected to be almost three times higher than in China or South Korea.

Costs of nuclear are hard to compare from one country to another, but the gulf between projected costs in China and the UK is indisputable.

It is partly a question of scale given that China is building dozens of new nuclear stations. But it is also partly because state-run nuclear enterprises can borrow at very low or even zero rates of interest

oooh, surprise surprise!
 
nimrod said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34149392

good to see delivery of the reportedly most subsidised energy project in history is going so well and will contribute fuck all to the capacity shortfall the nation could experience prior to 2023 as a result of the abject failure of privatisation to deliver adequate generation.

The OECD report shows that the cost of a nuclear plant in Britain is projected to be almost three times higher than in China or South Korea.

Costs of nuclear are hard to compare from one country to another, but the gulf between projected costs in China and the UK is indisputable.

It is partly a question of scale given that China is building dozens of new nuclear stations. But it is also partly because state-run nuclear enterprises can borrow at very low or even zero rates of interest

oooh, surprise surprise!
Click to expand...

I think the whole thing stinks as well, it isn't however a view that nuclear is a bad option if the price and engineering is right.
As I have written before that the UK lost the initiative 30 years ago.
 
Last edited:
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I think the whole thing stinks as well, it isn't however a view that nuclear is a bad option if the price and engineering is right.
As I have written before the UK lost the initiative 30 years ago.
Click to expand...

difficult to comment other than i have done in the past tbh. i have to say it would be amusing for me to meet you one day.

i approve of nuclear development, that's never been an issue, no different to any other technology

if this thread is really about how many double standards you can demonstrate then, fair play. you win.
 
nimrod said:
difficult to comment other than i have done in the past tbh. i have to say it would be amusing for me to meet you one day.

i approve of nuclear development, that's never been an issue, no different to any other technology

if this thread is really about how many double standards you can demonstrate then, fair play. you win.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with looking at both sides and the edge of a coin. On that subject even the english lit graduate FOE Climate Change Act architect has some double think:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34191713

CCS should never happen anyway IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top