Global Warming

[Rorschach]

Let me know when you get it.
Let me know when you understand the difference between cooling and warming.

I may ask the same of you when you understand the relations between the two and the cause/effect one has on specific regions of the planet that are large land masses like Europe/Asia continents that are connected as one land mass. Not the point the Earth is not a box with internal cooling. Climate is a very complex system. Global warming is about an increase in temperatures globally.... or have you forgotten. The fact there are negative feedbacks and mechanisms in nature for them only strengthens the arguments against catastrophic man made global warming and shoots holes in the models used to predict the future to date. points I have made many times before.

[/quote]

"Not the point the Earth is not a box with internal cooling. Climate is a very complex system."

You don't understand the box that is the fridge. I understand the principles of refrigeration thanks... stop thinking I'm dumber than you and we may actually get somewhere. It is a box that is cooled but it relies on transferring energy from inside the box to the outside environment. Here's how is works, when a liquid evaporates, it absorbs heat in the process. If you want to get rid of heat, you need to coax a liquid to convert to its gaseous state and this release is done outside the box. gee thanks...

You don't have the basics yet but I am here to help you understand. patronise someone who needs it.

"Global warming is about an increase in temperatures globally.... or have you forgotten"

You said it is complex. The models showed that just considering temperature was wrong. We need to consider energy and were it is stored beyond temperature and we have been measuring surface temperature. Your argument is flawed nope because it does not consider what happens when the heat/energy sinks do not absorb anymore energy and things accelerate leading to raid temperature rises. You mean the models were wrong don't you?

"The fact there are negative feedbacks and mechanisms in nature for them only strengthens the arguments against catastrophic man made global warming and shoots holes in the models used to predict the future to date. points I have made many times before"

There are feedback mechanisms that may self adjust for a period of time until things become too out of balance. You are exhibiting blind faith in these mechanisms to just sort it out for us. That's not how it works. if they become completely unbalanced they will find a new balance. This new balance will be major climate change. Something we should avoid. We are creating this.

I hope this helps you understand this issue better. Well i'd feel better if you opened bioth eyes and stopped basing your faith on a flawed view of the science and reality. [/quote][/quote]

Could the Admin do something about the limits on embedded quotes please...

[Rorschach]

Here ya go roach.. After describing my reasoning an hour later I find this article that talks about what is happen now the sinks are not soaking up the slack anymore. So much for just leaving it to natures feedback mechanisms, it's a no go.

Confirms my understanding of matters is pretty good.

UN says time running out on climate change after carbon dioxide levels rise

The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen at the fastest rate for 30 years amid evidence that the world’s forests are no longer soaking up as much of the greenhouse gas, according to a UN report. Ah yes deforestation a point I made several times over tha last few years.

The findings indicate that a natural defence against global warming may be breaking down, meaning that future emissions could result in a faster rise in global temperatures. The report by the UN’s World Meteorological Organization came as it emerged that Britain could be fined for failing to hit emissions targets under a proposed global climate deal.

Ed Davey, the energy and climate change secretary, said that the world would have to rely on “moral sanctions” to pressure other countries who are exempt from penalties to keep to their carbon reduction pledges. “It is quite difficult to impose financial sanctions unless you have an organisation that is intertwined, like the EU, where we do accept the role of sanctions,” he said.

Mr Davey, at a conference to launch Britain’s proposals, said that a climate change deal should be “legally binding”. However, he added: “I don’t think we can punish countries. I think we can encourage, reward and persuade them.” A point I have made re countries with large forested areas like in the Amazon that if you wanted to keep them for GLOBAL purposes they should be paid/rewarded for doing so.

The WMO said the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 2.9 parts per million (ppm) last year, almost double the average annual increase in the 1990s of 1.5ppm. Atmospheric CO2 levels are at 396ppm, or 142 per cent of the levels in 1750, before the start of the Industrial Revolution. But we have a carbon tax...

The WMO said about a quarter of man-made CO2 emissions were absorbed by forests, but preliminary data indicated a “reduced uptake”. The oceans absorbed another quarter of emissions and as a result were becoming more acidic, damaging corals and other marine organisms. No definitive studies proving this globally at all as yet.

Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the WMO, said: “The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually increased last year at the fastest rate for nearly 30 years. We must reverse this trend by cutting emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases across the board. We are running out of time.”

David Reay, a climate change professor at the University of Edinburgh, said that if carbon storage in the world’s forests and oceans falter “then our chances of avoiding dangerous climate change become very slim indeed
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environme ... 201563.ece

yeah yeah yeah post me something I haven't already read and post me something factual... no ifs maybes coulds or in my imagination ok

[IQS.RLOW]

Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

[Rorschach]

Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

Actually I'm not.... no where near as much as you are dikwad.

Or are you now so demented you are actually disagreeing with what you've said in the past...
You know all the maybes and ifs etc....
Looks like you are losing it bigtime Tourettes?
Unlike you I won't be shooting allies down particularly in arguments when you get things right.

[Super Nova]

Dear Roach

I didn't mean to be rude however I'm not convinced you understand what I am trying to explain and maybe I don't understand your points beyond it is all wrong.

Shall we break it down into smaller digestible chucks and discuss each point in detail. The topic is so big we will not get anywhere if we don't I think.

[Rorschach]

Dear Roach

I didn't mean to be rude however I'm not convinced you understand what I am trying to explain and maybe I don't understand your points beyond it is all wrong.

Shall we break it down into smaller digestible chucks and discuss each point in detail. The topic is so big we will not get anywhere if we don't I think.

No need... I learned it waaay back in high school, I did science ya know. I also did Physics and Chemistry and Geography so I understand the planet and how the systems and climate works... you just aren't listening to what I've been saying, that's all...

I've been telling you lot how complicated the system is for years and you've been using the simplistic crap not me.

I told you the models were flawed.
I told you that there has been no substantive warming and that we'd have to wait years before you lot even concede it. You still don't, even though the IPCC calls it a pause a hiatus.
I told you that "scientists" were writing crap.
I told you that there is no real concensus.
I told you the IPCC agenda is political.
I told you about negative feedbacks, carbon sinks, the albedo effect etc, etc, etc.
I told you SN to watch ORBIT, bet you didn't.
I told you that temp stations used were unreliable re their data due to positioning.
The list goes on and on and on.

My points are that GLOBAL means the whole bloody planet.
That warming means increasing temps.

If you now think the original explanations of your lot are wrong fine... but stop moving the goalposts and admit it.

[Rorschach]

No substantive/appreciative/measurable (beyond the magnitude of error) warming for years.
Yet CO2 continues to rise in the atmosphere where "scientists" said it was proof of catastrophic AGW.
They said lots of stuff, mostly bunkum and proven wrong... so far there is no proof of their theory being correct. Correlation has gone right out the widow too since the "pause".

[Rorschach]

Rapid increases in CO2 (such as today) overload the system, causing surface waters to become corrosive.

In reality, it’s quite the opposite. The increase in CO2 is making the ocean, not more corrosive, but more neutral. Since both alkalinity and acidity corrode things, the truth is that rainwater (or more CO2) will make the ocean slightly less corrosive, by marginally neutralizing its slight alkalinity. That is the problem with the term “acidify”, and it is why I use and insist on the more accurate term “neutralize”. Using “acidify”, is both alarmist and incorrect. The ocean is not getting acidified by additional CO2. It is getting neutralized by additional CO2.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/t ... acidified/

[Rorschach]

Scripps blockbuster: Ocean acidification happens all the time — naturally

There goes another scare campaign.

Until recently we had very little data about real time changes in ocean pH around the world. Finally autonomous sensors placed in a variety of ecosystems “from tropical to polar, open-ocean to coastal, kelp forest to coral reef” give us the information we needed.

It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/scripp ... naturally/

[Rorschach]

Dear Roach

I didn't mean to be rude however I'm not convinced you understand what I am trying to explain and maybe I don't understand your points beyond it is all wrong.

Shall we break it down into smaller digestible chucks and discuss each point in detail. The topic is so big we will not get anywhere if we don't I think.

Happy to do this if you think it necessary... but I personally don't think it is.