Registered Members Login:
   
Forgotten Your Details? Click Here To Recover +
Welcome To The ShareCafe Community - Talk Shares And Take Stock With Smart Investors - New Here? Click To Register >

13 Pages (Click to Jump) V   1 2 3 4 > »    
 
  
Reply to this topic

Climate, Earth's Climate
joules mm1
post Posted: Feb 14 2020, 12:36 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,195
Thanks: 293


Earth just had its hottest January on record
Weather Last night
"According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the planet experienced the hottest January in recorded history last month. Four of the planet's hottest Januaries have all occurred since 2016."

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment...sm_npd_nn_tw_ma
Feb. 14, 2020, 3:31 AM AEDT
By Denise Chow

The planet experienced its hottest January in recorded history last month, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Thursday.

It was the 44th consecutive January, and the 421st consecutive month, with temperatures above the 20th century average, according to NOAA. The milestone is just the latest in a string of climate records set in recent years.

The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces in January was the highest in NOAA’s 141 years of climate records, surpassing the 20th-century average of 53.6 degrees Fahrenheit (12 degrees Celsius) by 2.05 degrees F (1.14 degrees C).

The new milestone highlights a worrisome trend as the planet continues to warm at an accelerated pace. The four warmest Januaries on record have all occurred since 2016, and the 10 warmest Januaries have occurred since 2002, according to NOAA.

Last month bested January 2016, which previously held the record for warmest January, by only 0.04 degrees F (0.02 degrees C).

Russia, Scandinavia and eastern Canada experienced the most dramatic warmer-than-usual conditions last month, with some of these regions seeing temperatures at least 9 degrees F (5 degrees C) above average. Conversely, most of Alaska and part of western Canada experienced cooler-than-usual temperatures in January.
Attached File  warmest_january_on_record_140220.png ( 47.66K ) Number of downloads: 0

https://twitter.com/i/moments/1228001725770092544




--------------------
. . . . . . . . everything has an art.....in the instance of the auction process, the only thing, needed to be listened to; price
 
joules mm1
post Posted: Feb 14 2020, 10:08 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,195
Thanks: 293


and the hits just keep coming:
The Antarctic has registered a temperature of more than 20C (68F) for the first time on record, prompting fears of climate instability in the world’s greatest repository of ice.

The 20.75C logged by Brazilian scientists at Seymour Island on 9 February was almost a full degree higher than the previous record of 19.8C, taken on Signy Island in January 1982.

It follows another recent temperature record: on 6 February an Argentinian research station at Esperanza measured 18.3C, which was the highest reading on the continental Antarctic peninsula.

These records will need to be confirmed by the World Meteorological Organization, but they are consistent with a broader trend on the peninsula and nearby islands, which have warmed by almost 3C since the pre-industrial era �" one of the fastest rates on the planet.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/...rst-time-record

Scientists, who collect the data from remote monitoring stations every three days, described the new record as “incredible and abnormal”.

“We are seeing the warming trend in many of the sites we are monitoring, but we have never seen anything like this,” said Carlos Schaefer, who works on Terrantar, a Brazilian government project that monitors the impact of climate change on permafrost and biology at 23 sites in the Antarctic.

Schaefer said the temperature of the peninsula, the South Shetland Islands and the James Ross archipelago, which Seymour is part of, has been erratic over the past 20 years. After cooling in the first decade of this century, it has warmed rapidly.

Attached File  marambo_guardian_report_140220.png ( 59.27K ) Number of downloads: 0



Scientists on the Brazilian antarctic programme say this appears to be influenced by shifts in ocean currents and El Niño events: “We have climatic changes in the atmosphere, which is closely related to changes in permafrost and the ocean. The whole thing is very interrelated.”

The impacts vary across Antarctica, which encompasses the land, islands and ocean south of 60 degrees latitude. This region stores about 70% of the world’s fresh water in the form of snow and ice. If it were all to melt, sea levels would rise by 50 to 60 metres, but that will take many generations. UN scientists predict oceans will be between 30cm and 110cm higher by the end of this century, depending on human efforts to reduce emissions and the sensitivity of ice sheets.

While temperatures in eastern and central Antarctica are relatively stable, there are growing concerns about west Antarctica, where warming oceans are undermining the huge Thwaites and Pine Island glaciers. Until now, this has led to a relatively low amount of sea-level rise, but this could change rapidly if there is a sustained jump in temperature.

The Antarctic peninsula �" the long finger of land that stretches towards Argentina �" is most dramatically affected. On a recent trip with Greenpeace, the Guardian saw glaciers that have retreated by more than 100 metres in Discovery Bay and large swathes of land on King George Island where the snow melted in little more than a week, leaving dark exposed rock. While some degree of melt occurs every summer, scientists said it had been more evident in recent years, with temperatures rising more quickly in winter. This is believed to be behind an alarming decline of more than 50% in chinstrap penguin colonies, which are dependent on sea ice.


Schaefer said monitoring data from these areas could indicate what is in store for other parts of the region. “It is important to have sentinel areas like the South Shetlands and the Antarctic peninsula because they can anticipate the developments that will happen in the future, the near future,” he said.



--------------------
. . . . . . . . everything has an art.....in the instance of the auction process, the only thing, needed to be listened to; price
 
sprotty
post Posted: Feb 12 2020, 08:07 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 40
Thanks: 1


In Reply To: mullokintyre's post @ Feb 11 2020, 02:52 PM

Or perhaps he was asked to step down because he was taking backhanders from Koch industries to act as a spokesman.

I do agree we will never find middle ground so best we call it a day.

I'll finish with the question I posed to you - what if AGW is caused by humans and we do nothing because we can't agree on the science (for whatever reason)? Is it worth the risk?

 
mullokintyre
post Posted: Feb 11 2020, 02:52 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 2,112
Thanks: 791


In Reply To: sprotty's post @ Feb 11 2020, 01:41 PM

And here in lies the problem.
You claim Legates paper has been debunked by the anthropological supporters.
The fact that legates was asked to step down was because like peter Ridd, he did not follow the consensus viewpoint.
Just another example of the attenpts to sllence anyone who provides evidence that does not conform with the consensus.
Skeptical science , desmogblog, realclimatescience etcs are one sided fora , just as Whattsupwiththat, Jonova, judithcurry etc are on the other side.
The papers they claim to show global warming were all taken from pro consensus journals, analysed by pro anthropological researchers, what else would one expect.
You don't seem to think that bias and one sided viewpoints don't happen on the consensus side??
Especially as so many of the journals refuse to even look at much less publish anything that is counter to the consensus.
I think I am wasting my time trying to discuss this with you , just as you are likely to be wasting your own time discussing it with me.
I think i will stick to shares and macro economics.
Mick



--------------------
sent from my Olivetti Typewriter.
 
sprotty
post Posted: Feb 11 2020, 01:41 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 40
Thanks: 1


In Reply To: mullokintyre's post @ Feb 11 2020, 12:18 PM

I think that Trump has demonstrated his proclivity to saw off anyone who doesn't agree with him to silence them - which is why I'm surprised that NASA has not been asked to take their "findings" down.

The 97% consensus that is oft cited is based on a survey of peer researched papers on climate change.

https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-con...discredited.htm

Legates is another fossil fuel shrew who has largely been discredited and was asked to step down from his tenure at the University of Delaware due to his "unfounded" views on climate change..

I'm sure the 10000 people in Greenland will be overjoyed with Climate change - shame for the 30+% who live coastal regions and many more in already hot climates who are facing neverending droughts.I acknowledge that some climate change may be beneficial to some environments.

I'm not sure my wildlife statement is overly emotive but rather more factual. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/b...edented-report/

One thing we can agree on - Nuclear Energy is ignored and is undoubtedly our one chance to create the power requirements of the human race in the future. Shame Trump shut down Bill Gates' "clean" nuclear power pilot with the Chinese.

 
mullokintyre
post Posted: Feb 11 2020, 12:18 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 2,112
Thanks: 791


In Reply To: sprotty's post @ Feb 11 2020, 10:16 AM

What makes you think Trump is any different to cutting out anyone who disagrees with him?
What is this other majority of scientists?
I am not aware of any definitive survey of scientists, climatic or otherwise that can prove this point.
The original attempts by Oreskes and Cook to to create this premise had more holes than a collander.
have a look at the paper by Legates here David Legates
There are lots of scientists who do not follow the 97% consensus, you just need to broaden your reading somewhat.
Yes, peak oil is right (though whether it has already happened, is about to happen or is some distance into the future is a moot point.).
Pollution? Are you suggesting that Co2 is a pollutant or are you talking about soot particles, Sulphur compounds, CFC's PFAS methane etc?
One of the best ways of getting rid of soot particles is to provide poorer countries that currently burn wood, animal dung, rubbish,(including plastic) with electricity or gas for heating.
The myriad of plants that have a requirement for CO2 might argue with that.
As to the others, yes they are pollutants, and all man made, but so is the Urban Heat Island effect, the rapid expansion of the human population and the requirement to feed them all.
You ruined everything with your wildly exagerated and emotive statement about dealing with it before wewipe out all the wildlife on the planet.
Start by demanding that no one be allowed to keep pet dogs, pet cats, pet pigs, pet rabbits. pet horses, pet goldfish, pet camels, etc .
feral animals have wiped out and continue to wipe out whole species in OZ.
Introduced species such as foxes, rabbits, cane toads, carp, trout, redfin or english perch, deer, horses, pigs, rats, have added to the list.
And then theres all the introduced plant species that have taken over complete habitats and driven out the original wildlife.
and finally, no one ever makes the case for climate change being good.
Can you imagine how much happier the countries that can't grow sufficent temperate climate food products might be if there was two degrees of warming, or maybe 3 or 4 degrees even.
The people of Greenland may well long to be able to grow wheat on their land as they did during the medieval warming period.
Perhaps its no surprise that Russia is happy to sell petroleum and gas products to the rest of Europe.
And just to top it off, we ignore the one industry that will provide enormous continuous base load power, Nuclear Energy.

Mick



--------------------
sent from my Olivetti Typewriter.

Said 'Thanks' for this post: Pendragon  henrietta  
 

sentifi.com

Share Cafe Sentifi Top themes and market attention on:


sprotty
post Posted: Feb 11 2020, 10:16 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 40
Thanks: 1


In Reply To: mullokintyre's post @ Feb 11 2020, 10:09 AM

Fair point although given Trumps stance on climate change and proclivity to cut of anyone who disagrees with him would suggest otherwise. And the other majority of scientists who say it is caused by humans are also all supported by vested interests?

Is it worth the risk to be right? Pollution and peak oil are both real right? Certainly worthwhile at least dealing with those before we wipe out all of the wildlife on the planet?



 
mullokintyre
post Posted: Feb 11 2020, 10:09 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 2,112
Thanks: 791


In Reply To: sprotty's post @ Feb 11 2020, 09:59 AM

What makes you think NASA is not funded by vested interest groups??
Indeed it has only one vested interest group, the US Government.
NASA perhaps should have stuck to space exploration, but I guess prior to current incumbent, the previous 4 terms of the POTUS were Democrats who wanted to use the climate to drive their other political agendas.
At the least the org that you questioned the conflicts of interest has multiple vested interests, some of them not entirely related to making money.

Mick



--------------------
sent from my Olivetti Typewriter.
 
sprotty
post Posted: Feb 11 2020, 09:59 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 40
Thanks: 1


In Reply To: henrietta's post @ Feb 10 2020, 01:12 PM

I guess I am not qualified to answer that and I rely on those who do this sort of thing for a living. I would tend to trust NASA scientists rather than a bunch of retired scientists funded by vested interest groups (who are in the minority amongst peers)

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Question - is it worth the risk to be right?


 
henrietta
post Posted: Feb 10 2020, 01:12 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 4,145
Thanks: 653


In Reply To: sprotty's post @ Feb 10 2020, 01:08 PM

Could be, Sprotty, but is their statement wrong in fact ?

Cheers
J


Said 'Thanks' for this post: Pendragon  
 
 


13 Pages (Click to Jump) V   1 2 3 4 > » 

Back To Top Of Page
Reply to this topic


You agree through the use of ShareCafe, that you understand and accept the TERMS OF USE.


TERMS OF USE  -  CONTACT ADMIN  -  ADVERTISING