The 'pause' in global warming is not even a thing

gort51


We have NOT had 48 deg in Adelaide.... The hottest has been about 44.5 Deg., and that is only for 1 hour out of a complete 24 hour day.

As an Adelaidean, you would be aware that the 'official' temperatures are measured at places where radiant heat does not affect things. On our hottest day I drove down Main North Road and all the sign boards along with the external temperature gauge in my car were reading 48. Just because it is not official, it does not mean that it didn't happen.

As for Adelaide's general weather, I've been here for a few summers now. I've seen the 'once in a 1,000 year' heatwave that was quickly followed by a worse one. I've seen some lovely summers where it was not too hot at all as well.

reply to post by FlyersFan


You posted links to pages that are misinterpreting the data to further their own agenda. At least you are not denying that the trend of the globe's temperature has been upwards. People need to understand that heat increases entropy, which means that things can become more random. The hotter the atmosphere gets, the more unpredictable the weather will become.

DJW001
You posted links to pages that are misinterpreting the data to further their own agenda.

You say it's purposely misinterpreting data for an agenda? Really?
How about Michael Mann - 'Hide the decline". Remember that??

At least you are not denying that the trend of the globe's temperature has been upwards.

The climate is changing. It could be naturally cyclical. It could be pushed along by humans. We don't know.
But we must also state the fact that the entire solar system has a changing climate. Gotta look at it all.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Unfortunately it does matter what the cause is. Our releasing of greenhouse gasses traps heat on our planet if that doesn't change the warming will get exponentially worse.

reply to post by markosity1973


Funny you should bring this up i was just reading this this morning.

"This is a complex detective story," said Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, lead author of the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that gives the most detailed account yet of the cooling impact of volcanoes.

"Volcanoes are part of the answer but there's no factor that is solely responsible for the hiatus," he told Reuters of the study by a team of U.S. and Canadian experts.

Volcanoes are a wild card for climate change - they cannot be predicted and big eruptions, most recently of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, can dim global sunshine for years.

Sun-dimming volcanoes partly explain global warming hiatus-study
Small volcanic eruptions help explain a hiatus in global warming this century by dimming sunlight and offsetting a rise in emissions of heat-trapping gases to record highs, a study showed on Sunday.

But with all things involving global warming there's a caveat notice he said this isnt the only cause so something else causing the cooling as well i guess.

reply to post by markosity1973


Yes, quite right, and if you left a thermometer in your car parked outside, you will see the temperature climb to 60-65 deg.

As it always does ever year.

You realise that all "Official" temperatures are measured in the shade, dont you?

On a 40 deg. day, if you are standing in the Sun, the actual temperature would be 50-60 degrees.

This is the same the World over.

Actually, that map is quite inaccurate. You will recall just 6-7 months ago, we had the coldest weather (winter) we havve had for 20 years.....we even had what we call "Snow" on Mt Lofy (only happens every 10 years or so)....well, we call it snow...you and the Northerners would call it wet slush......

reply to post by FlyersFan


As I've told you before Climate Gate was a manufactured scandal. When each of the emails are seen in their full context you would see that there's nothing scandalous about those emails at all. You are buying into a meme and I think you're better than that.

Link
Media Matters puts some of the emails in context.

reply to post by dragonridr

But with all things involving global warming there's a caveat notice he said this isnt the only cause so something else causing the cooling as well i guess.

I think that is the biggest problem we face as a species for response to our changing climate. Some want to say nothing at all is happening...and it's just routine variations on a statistical norm. Well.. Hogwash. Outright on that, I say. Others want to suggest it's all about certain gasses and this always seems to come around to how certain nations in very specific example, need to do this or that. Politics as usual there, and it's as reliable as clockwork. Still others figure it's 100% natural and man can have no impact at all (I wasn't far from this point of view myself, until fairly recently) and that too, doesn't track. Some things changing, aren't changing on geologic timelines but MUCH MUCH faster and beyond what nature is generally known for in changes of any significance.

I think the truth of this lay in it being a very complex interaction of factors. Some we can control, and some we caused. Most we haven't...but it won't matter if the one we DID is the trigger that nudges other natural processes over into critical phases. Whatever the case for cause though, I think it's causes in the plural, and a variety of them. Some, I really think we haven't even discovered or realized yet. Some..very likely..in the depths of our Oceans, to watch some of what is happening and marine life's reactions to it.

[itere]reply to [iurl=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread999317/pg2#pid17582852]post by gort51[/url]


Yes, I am aware that it 'snowed' on Mt Lofty and I even saw the pictures of the snowman in the Advertiser.

However, there was an article in the same paper that counter intuitively said that it had been a very warm winter. I think we just got a cold blast when it snowed. I only remember seeing frost for a couple of days this winter just gone.

I am unsure how a BOM map that is based upon actual temp readings can be innacurate though.

reply to post by Kali74


It's been shown in ice core samples that the co2 levels were much higher in the past and we humans didn't have to do anything to bring them down to someones exceptable levels they are claiming that we need to now .Of coarse back then they didn't have the tax systems and stock exchanges to make the $$ they do now . One should ask ...did it really matter back then? ....were we almost wiped out? ..more co2 helps the plant life grow much faster with bigger yields .. seems that is a good thing ...

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by markosity1973

 

lol... Global Weirding.. I like that. It fits. It REALLY fits.

Mind if I use it?

Go for it

you are correct. It ticks all the boxes on both sides of the cooling / warming argument.

Lol its funny when people think human don't affect the earth, and the climate because of that.

Smog consisting of chemicals that normally does not even form naturally, amount of Pollution from factories(this is not just CO2), and the human abomination called plastic... yup its all natural.

Some deny it because they think it some sort of political agenda, but pollutions and other human atrocities existed before such countries existed.

the2ofusr1
reply to post by Kali74

 

It's been shown in ice core samples that the co2 levels were much higher in the past and we humans didn't have to do anything to bring them down to someones exceptable levels they are claiming that we need to now .Of coarse back then they didn't have the tax systems and stock exchanges to make the $$ they do now . One should ask ...did it really matter back then? ....were we almost wiped out? ..more co2 helps the plant life grow much faster with bigger yields .. seems that is a good thing ...

Yeah, but back then there was WAY more tree's and plantlife to absorb the CO2, we don't have that luxury anymore as we have changed the landscape in to barren land, agricultur, beton and asfalt.

It's funny people forget that part every time.

Interesting Education

Human interference had altered the surface of the earth long before the present era (Thomas, 1956). The first major change started about 7000 years ago when man developed agriculture. This led to systematic changing of forested areas to fields and pastures. Other reasons for deforestation were the needs for structural timber and lumber. In recent times, paper requirements have led to large-scale reductions of forests. Only gradually is a systematic harvesting and replacement policy taking over.

Agriculture and lumbering have undoubtedly led to mesoscale climatic changes, but these are poorly documented, although one can make some approximate guesses at their magnitude. In many instances secondary changes have been more far-reaching. After the clearing, wind and water erosion have washed or blown the top soil away. Bare rock has become exposed, and now far more extreme temperatures and lower humidities prevail where once the even-tempered mesoclimate of the forest dominated. Stretches of Anatolia, the Spanish plateau, and some slopes of the Italian Apennines are silent witnesses to this development.

But by far the most alarming development has been the substitution of rocklike, well-compacted, impermeable surfaces for vegetated soil, a development that is the natural consequence of urbanization. Square kilometer after square kilometer has yielded to the bulldozer and has been converted to buildings, highways, and parking lots. Reservoirs and irrigation also have become important.

the2ofusr1
reply to post by Kali74

 

It's been shown in ice core samples that the co2 levels were much higher in the past and we humans didn't have to do anything to bring them down to someones exceptable levels they are claiming that we need to now .Of coarse back then they didn't have the tax systems and stock exchanges to make the $$ they do now . One should ask ...did it really matter back then? ....were we almost wiped out? ..more co2 helps the plant life grow much faster with bigger yields .. seems that is a good thing ...

And when the CO2 levels were much higher, the planet was much hotter. Does it matter where the CO2 comes from? Whether it's released naturally as in the extreme past or by humans burning fossil fuels, when Co2 or any other greenhouse gas begins to accumulate in the atmosphere the planet warms up. Greenhouse gasses don't change their behavior just because the method of introduction changes.

We weren't around the last time Co2 levels were as high and higher than they are now. History has also shown that in times of rapid climate change (cooling or warming) mass extinctions happen. When climate changes slowly and only due to the Milankovitch cycle, species have time to adapt.

reply to post by Kali74


No, the causes could not be less important. Here is why.

If the planet getting warmer is happening because of natural climatological changes, then we need to stop churning out waste and burning fuel because that will not help matters, and if it is all man made, then equally so. However, if we go all green BEFORE we deal with the immediate security of coasts, rivers, and the people and property on them, there will be devastation like you would not believe, no matter how green our cars become, or how many shopping bags are made from hemp rather than plastic.

In short, the damage has been done to a degree, if indeed it is our abuse of the planet which is responsible for this increase. Whether you believe that it was humanity, or the planet therefore, which is causing this heating trend, the only legitimate answer now, is to mitigate the effect as best we can, by altering our way of life so that coastal and river flooding no longer present insurmountable threats, and so that places which will come under the thermonuclear gaze of a relentless heat wave will have the best possible chance to cool homes and buildings using power supplied from the sun.

Obviously, I am suggesting that these things need to be done in tandem with a reduced reliance on fossil fuel products, NO MATTER WHICH CAUSE YOU BELIEVE IS THE CULPRIT! Using fossil products to the extent that we do, is foolish, because it leaves most nations beholden to a relatively small number of countries to supply their lifeblood, which makes about as much sense as a business card for Charles Manson: Baby Sitter.

What I AM saying, is that these lifestyle and technology changes should be made whether humanity is to blame for the changes or not, and that knowing which it is, is not as important as mitigating the effects. It just is not important to know, only important that we act correctly from here on.

reply to post by Mianeye


Yes.. there is that. That would be the part lost in the Co2 is plant food argument. It is plant food and plants need Co2 to produce oxygen. So in a very real way, we require Co2. Without it, our Oxygen generators have nothing to generate it from and we suffocate eventually, right out in the open "air"..which isn't air as we know it anymore.

We raise the level of Co2, or watch it increase through natural process ... either way..while, around the world, the wholesale clear cutting of forest of all kinds continues. Clear cutting to bare ground...to destroy the ground which supported the forest. I.E....it isn't coming back, however many thousands of little saplings get dropped into dry holes in a blazing sun.

So we have the worst of both sides there blowing the balance beyond reason. More plant food with less plants to absorb it, means it becomes more the toxic element than the helpful one as the balance continues to shift.

Although, frankly, Carbon is a handy thing to point to so we can be put on long term guilt trips and open our wallets to relieve our collective guilt. Methane, as only one gas of several...is 40 times more potent for the negative impact than Co2, has no similar positive benefit to anything for supporting the ecosystem, and is being generated by man 24/7, at levels far FAR beyond what nature could ever have accomplished, in ANY scenario we could think to consider.

Many factors in a complex network of perfect storm conditions, IMO. Adaptation, rather than mitigation may well be the course to pursue at this stage.

reply to post by TrueBrit


You've added to my perspective, thank-you.

Regarding all of this being a cyclical change, here's the thing

It will affect our ability to grow crops and raise animals to feed ourselves. Drought and flood are becoming the new norm and they are not conducive to growing record crops.

The human body is not well adapted to living in high temperatures like we see in Adelaide's heatwaves. If our infrastructure of electrical supply and air conditioning starts to break down, we will start to see deaths as a result of warming. The same can be said of the extreme winters in the East Coast of USA / Canada. If you lose your heating you're frozen.

So, cycilcal or not it still poses some very big threats to our existence.

reply to post by Mianeye


Actually during ice ages there were'nt many trees either, you would think.

If you believe the scientists, much of the Northern Hemisphere, including Asia, North America, Europe etc, were covered with up to 3 km of Ice (I dont know how they figure that out, but they are scientists??).

I dont think too many trees grow under ice, do they?

The Antarctica is the driest continent on Earth, but it is covered with Ice.......but it has no liquid water or rain.....or trees. .

reply to post by gort51


I believe OZ was quite the place to be in the last ice age - home to mega flora and fauna. Is Kings canyon not some remnant from that time?