Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 
Send Topic Print
Global warming, the science and the consequences (Read 29174 times)
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #405 - Aug 30th, 2017 at 5:07pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 11:48am:
No, it is logarithmic—but expresses linearly. Any idea why?

This should not be a hard question as it has been discussed before.


Any answer yet Lees?
Back to top
 

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #406 - Aug 30th, 2017 at 7:35pm
 
Consequences, hmmmm.

Quote:
as the self-styled "world capital of the oil and gas industry", there's a connection between rising global greenhouse gas levels and the extreme weather now being inflicted that some of your residents have understood for decades and had a hand in.

Houston and its surrounds are home to some 5000 energy-related firms, 17 of which are counted among the Fortune 500 list of largest US companies.


Ah yeah, kinda ironic, karma.

Quote:
One thing that hasn't changed for almost 200 years is scientists' basic understanding humans could alter the chemistry of the atmosphere. By releasing more carbon dioxide, methane (also known as natural gas), and other greenhouse gases, the atmosphere would trap more heat and alter our climate in the process.

The links between fossil fuels and climate change – clear to all but a handful of (often industry-funded) scientists – were hardly promotional talking points oil firms have been keen to trumpet.


Yeah, clear and not “correlation = causation” as a certain loud mouthed, small brained idiot keeps posting.

Quote:
In fact, as an important research paper by Harvard University researchers Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes released last week showed, the largest of them – ExxonMobil – deliberately told the public a story at odds with their own research.


Yeah and probably paid other scientists and others to prostitute their intellect to spout the denier crap. Names like JoNova, Ian Plimer and David Dubyne.

Quote:
By stoking doubts about the climate change consequences of burning fossils, the behemoth misled voters for four decades, successfully stymieing demands for action in the US and abroad, including in Australia.

From the department of the bleeding obvious.

Quote:
Those seeking to discourage debate about Harvey's climate boost will argue there hasn't been a major (category three or stronger) hurricane crossing the continental US coast in almost 12 years


They want MORE hurricanes?

Quote:
Scientists and climate models, though, argue a warming planet won't necessarily equate to more frequent and more intense tropical cyclones in all basins every year. Decadal patterns are what you need to watch.

The western Pacific is one basin where scientists are increasingly confident of a discernable trend that is not good news for the large populations in China, Japan and the Philippines – among others – that are exposed. One study last year found as much as a four-fold increase in the number of super typhoons.


Hmmm the PDO? Must be.

Quote:
Indeed, scientists are increasingly able to tease out a global warming signal in extreme weather events of many kinds.

These include a study last year that found the probability of an extreme rainfall event in the central US Gulf Coast had increased 1.4 times because of anthropogenic climate change.

A separate study in 2013 examined, among others, the contribution of climate change to super storm Sandy, which left a damage bill of $US60 billion ($75 billion) across the north-eastern US in 2012.

"Our future scenarios of Sandy-level return intervals are concerning, as they imply that events of less and less severity (from less powerful storms) will produce similar impacts," the paper found. "Further aggravating, the frequency and intensity of major storms/surges are likely to increase in a warming climate."


Wonder what the implications are for northern Australia?

Quote:
Andrew King, a climate extremes research fellow at the University of Melbourne and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, said the complexity of cyclones makes it difficult to attribute climate change to events such as Hurricane Harvey.

"These are hard to simulate, extreme cyclones, on the grid scale of climate models," he says.

What is clearer, though, is a warming atmosphere makes heavy rainfall events more possible. Each degree increase allows the atmosphere to hold roughly 7 per cent more moisture.

Similarly, rising sea levels means any storm surge accompanying a cyclone will be worse. "Even a small increase in sea levels creates a big increase of the extent of a storm surge going inland," King said.

Sea levels are rising globally – at about 3.4 millimetres a year – as glaciers and land-based ice sheets melt, and warming oceans expand.

Michael Mann, a prominent US climate scientist based at Pennsylvania State University, noted in a Facebook post how unusually warm Gulf waters, provided the energy for Harvey's near-record rate of intensification as it neared the coast.


Unusually warm waters, what you expect with AGW. And floods get a boost from sea level rising. King tide, storm surge etc—they start at a higher level, more likely to penetrate sea defences and will flood deeper and further inland.

Quote:
"This pattern, in turn, is associated with a greatly expanded subtropical high pressure system over much of the US right now, with the jet stream pushed well to the north," Mann says. "This pattern of subtropical expansion is predicted in model simulations of human-caused climate change."

When the clean-up eventually begins in Houston and other regions battered and drenched in this week's tempest, questions about what protection will be needed for the next big storm will no doubt surface.


http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/houston-you-have-a-problem-and-...
Back to top
 

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21533
Gender: male
Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #407 - Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:21pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 7:35pm:
In fact, as an important research paper by Harvard University researchers Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes released last week showed, the largest of them – ExxonMobil – deliberately told the public a story at odds with their own research.



Not that schlock again. Their own research was published. Did they know more than "climate scientists"? Must be a preety poor lot of "climate scientists". Grin Grin Grin Grin

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 7:35pm:
By stoking doubts about the climate change consequences of burning fossils, the behemoth misled voters for four decades, successfully stymieing demands for action in the US and abroad, including in Australia.

From the department of the bleeding obvious.



And so the fault is that people believed Exxon/Mobil and not the "climate scientists"? Not that the "climate scientists" couldn't convince the public? Grin Grin Grin Grin

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 7:35pm:
Quote:
Those seeking to discourage debate about Harvey's climate boost will argue there hasn't been a major (category three or stronger) hurricane crossing the continental US coast in almost 12 years


They want MORE hurricanes?



Nope. The AGW alarmists keep telling us about increased extreme weather. 12 years is soooo long. Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 7:35pm:
Scientists and climate models, though, argue a warming planet won't necessarily equate to more frequent and more intense tropical cyclones in all basins every year. Decadal patterns are what you need to watch.



That's not what they have been claiming. More often and more intense is the mantra. Wink

"There has been a substantial increase in most measures of Atlantic hurricane activity since the early 1980s, the period during which high quality satellite data are available.,, These include measures of intensity, frequency, and duration as well as the number of strongest (Category 4 and 5) storms. The recent increases in activity are linked, in part, to higher sea surface temperatures in the region that Atlantic hurricanes form in and move through."

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/extreme-weather

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 7:35pm:
Indeed, scientists are increasingly able to tease out a global warming signal in extreme weather events of many kinds.



Yes. Torture the data long enough, it will confess.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 7:35pm:
These include a study last year that found the probability of an extreme rainfall event in the central US Gulf Coast had increased 1.4 times because of anthropogenic climate change.



Or merely more likely because it had been 12 years since the last one? Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 7:35pm:
Michael Mann, a prominent US climate scientist based at Pennsylvania State University, noted in a Facebook post how unusually warm Gulf waters, provided the energy for Harvey's near-record rate of intensification as it neared the coast.



yes, and as I noted earlier he was blaming weak winds for Harvey being stationary, causing it to dump so much water. AGW can do anything, bigger storms and less wind to low them away. Wink

Proudly brought to you by super alarmist  Peter Hannam. Wink
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:27pm by lee »  
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21533
Gender: male
Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #408 - Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:36pm
 
Add another one -

"Climate change is fuelling more intense and damaging storms in Australia, our new report has found."

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/stormsreport

Brought to you by our very own Will Steffen of the Australian Climate Council. You have lauded him in the past, JM.

"As our planet continues to warm, intense and destructive storms are likely to become more and more frequent over many land regions. In fact, they already have."

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/climate-change/changing-atmosphere/intense-stor...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #409 - Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:41pm
 
Ah, the cry of the wounded denier.

Will Steffen? Did I quote him some time? Can’t remember.
Back to top
 

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #410 - Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:42pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 5:07pm:
Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 11:48am:
No, it is logarithmic—but expresses linearly. Any idea why?

This should not be a hard question as it has been discussed before.


Any answer yet Lees?

Back to top
 

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21533
Gender: male
Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #411 - Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:14pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:41pm:
Ah, the cry of the wounded denier.

Will Steffen? Did I quote him some time? Can’t remember.


You dick. I just completely destroyed what Peter Hannam wrote. And you won't admit it.

Poor sad little old man, losing grip on reality.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #412 - Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:18pm
 
Completely destroyed, eh? Ummm, how do I put this gently.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 31st, 2017 at 12:36am by Jovial Monk »  

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #413 - Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:20pm
 
BTW poor sad little denier, any answer re CO2 effecting climate linearly when its effect is logarithmic yet?
Back to top
 

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21533
Gender: male
Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #414 - Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:23pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:18pm:
Completely destroyed, eh? Ummm, how do I put this gently.

Wahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha



That must be why you haven't tried to refute what I wrote. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #415 - Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:30pm
 
How do you refute rubbish?
Back to top
 

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21533
Gender: male
Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #416 - Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:33pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:30pm:
How do you refute rubbish?



Well you could start by refuting that climate scientists have not said there will be more storms and more intense storms. Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #417 - Aug 30th, 2017 at 10:31pm
 
Any answer to my question on CO2 yet Lees?
Back to top
 

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #418 - Aug 30th, 2017 at 10:53pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:41pm:
Ah, the cry of the wounded denier.

Will Steffen? Did I quote him some time? Can’t remember.

Please don't quote Will Liar Steffen, he just makes people throw up.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #419 - Aug 30th, 2017 at 10:54pm
 
lee wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:14pm:
Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:41pm:
Ah, the cry of the wounded denier.

Will Steffen? Did I quote him some time? Can’t remember.


You dick. I just completely destroyed what Peter Hannam wrote. And you won't admit it.

Poor sad little old man, losing grip on reality.

yeah Hannam is the SMH's very own Climate Clucker.  We have Monk of course.  But this guy is incredibly lame. Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 
Send Topic Print