Global Warming

[Outlaw Yogi]

You don’t even read what is written before posting your boring response.

That's because he's only semi-literate.

He can't debate properly, so defers to IQ.
And IQ doesn't really debate the topic either, just sticks to the mantra the doomseeker church he's emotionally attached to pumps out.

So far the science indicating GW is a reality still stands, and the attempts at spuedo-science to debunk it changes every other month or so. The denial crowd over the past decade has so far failed to prove anything supporting their case/s, so nit picks over fuck all.

I think GW is great, because the result so far is my area is getting wetter, where as it was always dry before.

The El Nino/La Nina weather system in the Pacific currently has central America in such a drought that the Panama canal (recently had centenary) can't let super-tankers through because the lakes that feed the canal are at an all time low.
So my guess is the east coast of OZ is due for floods again this summer.
Yipee! .. floods are fun.

[GeorgeH]

why do YOU think Greenland was called Greenland?

You and I have debated this previously. Well I debated and you tried to argue despite your complete lack of debating skills.

Greenland was dubbed so by an outlaw - Erik the Red - to try to fool others into thinking it was a nice 'green' place, as opposed to the ice and rock reality. It's actually well known and documented history, but then schizos never let facts get in the way of a good fantasy, hey?

Besides which, the melt has already gone past the original Viking settlements. Greenland—green around the edges. Look at an aerial or space photo of Greenland now—“rivers” of meltwater meander across the ice.

I had to laugh at roach, I mentioned the ice minimum, he thought I meant maximum and he wouldn’t admit he was wrong and crapped on at booooring length that he knew when the end of the year was. Hilarious in a boring way.

[Rorschach]

Temperature rising in climate change debate
PETER HANNAM18 Sep, 2014 03:58 PM
Across Australia, fire crews are gearing up for another difficult season of bushfires.

Whether an El Nino event forms or not in the Pacific — and odds remain about 50:50 — it's becoming almost a given that large tracts of south-eastern Australia will burn during all but the wettest summers.

Climatologists say Australian summers are as much as a month longer because of global warming. The window for off-season hazard-reduction burning is narrowing.

In Australia, heatwaves are becoming more intense and prolonged, conditions that can rapidly prime the bush for major blazes, as fire authorities well understand.

For most of the rest of us, such trends can be lost in our naturally variable weather — recall how a month of mostly rainy days made Sydneysiders long for spring. Misleading recent commentary about the reliability of data-gathering only adds to public confusion.

In fact, records have been tumbling in Australia at a remarkable rate.

Few noticed that the 24 months to July this year were easily the warmest such period in records going back to 1910, with national mean temperatures a full one degree above the 1961-90 yardstick.

Prior to 2012, the largest anomaly, at 0.76 degrees, was during 2004-2006, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.

NASA and Japan's Meteorological Agency have reported last month was the hottest August on record for global surface land and sea temperatures. Recent months include the equal-warmest April and warmest May and June even before an El Nino event gives worldwide temperatures a nudge higher.

The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) added to the tally of worrying reports with its confirmation that atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels last year rose at a record annual rate of almost 3 parts per million to 396.

About a quarter of those emissions end up in the oceans — as a result, our seas are turning more acidic at a rate not seen in 300 million years.

Corals, crustaceans and another calcifying organisms struggle to build shells or skeletal material in more acidic waters.

Other processes unleashed include reduced mixing. Warmer, lighter surface water is less likely to be exchanged with cooler, often nutrient-rich waters from below, another blow to healthy oceans.

According to Andrew Glikson, a paleoclimate scientist at the Australian National University, the chemistry of the atmosphere hasn't changed this fast since the Chicxulub asteroid slammed into the Earth 66 million years ago, bringing the abrupt end of the dinosaurs.

Against this backdrop, we can expect a fllurry of climate-related reports and protests ahead of the UN's Climate Summit in New York on September 23.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has declined the opportunity to join US President Barack Obama and about 125 of the world's leaders at the summit, an absence that only stokes doubts over how serious his government takes climate change.

Certainly, it is not a priority and rarely mentioned in government reports, while some Coalition MPs even dismiss global warming as a hoax.

Mr Abbott has also surrounded himself by outspoken climate change sceptics such as Dick Warburton, who helmed the government's review of the Renewable Energy Target and called for a major reduction in the goal. Maurice Newman, chairman of PM's Business Advisory Council, says the world is heading for a period of global cooling.

Signs Canberra may be opting for ideology over science extend beyond its efforts – so far blocked – to scrap the Climate Change Authority and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

There's even an emerging difference between Canberra and Macquarie St., as the Herald has pointed before, on these issues.

Senior members of the NSW government were aghast when Federal counterparts tried to discourage Mike Baird from choosing Blair Comley as his new secretary of Premier and Cabinet.

Comley's crime, apparently, was to have been the former head of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency in the Gillard government with oversight for the carbon price.

The premier rightly ignored the interference, declaring Comley to have been the best candidate for the job.

Such petty wrangling, though, is likely to be looked on dimly by not-so-future generations.

As one senior climatologist told the Herald last week, "climate systems do not care whether you choose to believe in [global warming] or not".

Or, as Michel Jarraud of the WMO put it: "The laws of physics are non-negotiable."

(smh/Age)

I guess the “pause” is just hot air, if you will excuse the pun

The PAUSE Dunderhead was cited by the IPCC, they are on your side and started your side of the debate.
Even they aren't as stupid as you in denying it.

[Rorschach]

why do YOU think Greenland was called Greenland?

You and I have debated this previously. Well I debated and you tried to argue despite your complete lack of debating skills.

Greenland was dubbed so by an outlaw - Erik the Red - to try to fool others into thinking it was a nice 'green' place, as opposed to the ice and rock reality. It's actually well known and documented history, but then schizos never let facts get in the way of a good fantasy, hey?

Yes yogi, and you learned nothing then so I won't bother to try again now.
name-calling and ad hom won't make you right. It never has before.
Nice to see you cuddling up to Monk he must be feeling lonely here.

[GeorgeH]

Few noticed that the 24 months to July this year were easily the warmest such period in records going back to 1910, with national mean temperatures a full one degree above the 1961-90 yardstick.

You can lead a dunce to evidence but you can’t make him think.

[Rorschach]

You don’t even read what is written before posting your boring response.

That's because he's only semi-literate. Untrue...

He can't debate properly, so defers to IQ. Untrue
And IQ doesn't really debate the topic either, just sticks to the mantra the doomseeker church he's emotionally attached to pumps out.

So far the science indicating GW is a reality still stands, and the attempts at spuedo-science to debunk it changes every other month or so. The denial crowd over the past decade has so far failed to prove anything supporting their case/s, so nit picks over fuck all. Did you mean spew-do science perhaps?

I think GW is great, because the result so far is my area is getting wetter, where as it was always dry before.

The El Nino/La Nina weather system in the Pacific currently has central America in such a drought that the Panama canal (recently had centenary) can't let super-tankers through because the lakes that feed the canal are at an all time low.
So my guess is the east coast of OZ is due for floods again this summer. You mean like "droughts and flooding rains" like there have always been that sort of flooding?
Yipee! .. floods are fun.

If you've got nothing but ad hom, best you don't bother wasting everyone elses time... like Monk.

[GeorgeH]

"climate systems do not care whether you choose to believe in [global warming] or not".

[Lucas]

Few noticed that the 24 months to July this year were easily the warmest such period in records going back to 1910, with national mean temperatures a full one degree above the 1961-90 yardstick.

You can lead a dunce to evidence but you can’t make him think.

And you can feed a Dunce false evidence that he has no idea what he is looking at nor how it was created and send him out into the world to make an utter fool of himself spouting that which he knows absolutely nothing about like you do.

[Rorschach]

Few noticed that the 24 months to July this year were easily the warmest such period in records going back to 1910, with national mean temperatures a full one degree above the 1961-90 yardstick.

You can lead a dunce to evidence but you can’t make him think.

True but we all know that about you already Monk.

[Lucas]

SNAP!