Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
wanna-b-fanboy

The Anthropogenic Climate Change Thread

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

 

Still images don't do this problem justice.

 

Chinese respond to protect their own interests, Chinese food grown for Chinese people on African soil, nonetheless I like their solution.

 
 
_2mKV59g_bigger.jpg
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.sciencealert.com/these-astounding-images-of-antarctica-s-ice-drenched-blood-red-are-an-ominous-sign

Quote

These microscopic green algae (we'll get to why they look red in a moment), a type of single-cellular seaweed, are common in all icy and snowy regions of Earth, from the arctic to alpine regions.

They lie slumbering during the brutal winter, but once the sunlight warms enough to soften their crystallised world, the algae spring awake, making use of the meltwater and sunlight to rapidly bloom.

"The algae need liquid water in order to bloom," University of Leeds microbiologist Steffi Lutz told Gizmodo in 2016.

Young C. nivalis are green due to their photosynthesising chloroplasts and they have two tail-like structures called flagella, which they flail about to swim with. As they mature, they lose their mobility and develop unique adaptations to survive their extreme environment, including a secondary insulating cell wall and a layer of red carotenoids, which changes their appearance from green to orange to red.

"[The algal blooms] contribute to climate change," the centre stated.

A study in 2016 showed that snow algal blooms can decrease the amount of light reflected from the snow (also know as albedo) by up to 13 percent across one melt season in the Arctic.

"This will invariably result in higher melt rates," the researchers wrote.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, the generosity of the AB. tax-payer and Jason Kenney's heart knows no bounds, I do wonder what the terms of these loans will be....make no mistake, it shouldn't in any way be considered subsidization of the oil-patch, that is  red-communist rhetoric .

Alberta to give $100-million loan to decommission orphan wells.

Alberta is offering a $100-million loan to decommission 800 to 1,000 orphan wells, a move that is expected to create 500 direct and indirect jobs in the oil services sector.  The investment to the Orphan Well Association (OWA) will help the non-profit start 1,000 environmental site assessments that aim to return the land to its condition before the wells were built. The details on the loan will be finalized by April 1.

 

https://edmontonjournal.com/business/energy/alberta-to-give-100-million-loan-to-decommission-orphan-wells

Edited by Throw Long Bannatyne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Wow, the generosity of the AB. tax-payer and Jason Kenney's heart knows no bounds, I do wonder what the terms of these loans will be....make no mistake, it shouldn't in any way be considered subsidization of the oil-patch, that is  red-communist rhetoric .

Alberta to give $100-million loan to decommission orphan wells.

Alberta is offering a $100-million loan to decommission 800 to 1,000 orphan wells, a move that is expected to create 500 direct and indirect jobs in the oil services sector.  The investment to the Orphan Well Association (OWA) will help the non-profit start 1,000 environmental site assessments that aim to return the land to its condition before the wells were built. The details on the loan will be finalized by April 1.

 

https://edmontonjournal.com/business/energy/alberta-to-give-100-million-loan-to-decommission-orphan-wells

Ah, Corporate welfare, the only welfare acceptable to cons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter MacKay virtue signalling  to Conservative voters that he intends to fight change but not necessarily willingly fight climate change,  he's "old school" , wink, wink.

Peter MacKay's claim that our emissions total is 'minuscule' doesn't really work as an excuse for inaction

Peter MacKay isn't saying he would do nothing to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. But he does have a narrow reading of the degree to which Canada shares the blame for climate change.

While MacKay has said Canada has an "obligation" to do "our part," he also has cast doubt on whether Canada can meet its target for 2030. He has twice said that "we're not the problem" and has described Canada's share of global emissions — 1.6 per cent — as "miniscule." His most forceful statement on the issue of climate change so far may have been a colourful analogy involving nudity and organic produce.

The annual rankings of global emissions are indisputably dominated by a handful of major emitters  But at 1.6 per cent, Canada ranks tenth among all nations in total emissions — more than 183 other countries, including large economies like the United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil and Mexico. Per capita, Canadians are among the highest emitters in the world — producing more than our fellow humans in China and India.

If Canada's totals emissions aren't the problem, then presumably the same can be said for the 183 countries that emit less than we do. But it's also not obvious why any line should be drawn at Canada.

If 1.6 per cent isn't enough to matter, it's also hard to say that Germany (2.2 per cent), Iran (1.9), Saudi Arabia (1.7) or South Korea (1.6) should shoulder much of the burden.

Absolving those nations would leave just five countries to deal with the problem: China (27.2 per cent), the United States (14.6), India (6.8), Russia (4.7) and Japan (3.3).

The annual rankings of global emissions are indisputably dominated by a handful of major emitters  But at 1.6 per cent, Canada ranks tenth among all nations in total emissions — more than 183 other countries, including large economies like the United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil and Mexico. Per capita, Canadians are among the highest emitters in the world — producing more than our fellow humans in China and India.

If Canada's totals emissions aren't the problem, then presumably the same can be said for the 183 countries that emit less than we do. But it's also not obvious why any line should be drawn at Canada.

If 1.6 per cent isn't enough to matter, it's also hard to say that Germany (2.2 per cent), Iran (1.9), Saudi Arabia (1.7) or South Korea (1.6) should shoulder much of the burden.

Absolving those nations would leave just five countries to deal with the problem: China (27.2 per cent), the United States (14.6), India (6.8), Russia (4.7) and Japan (3.3).

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-change-carbon-pricing-peter-mackay-conservative-party-1.5482284

Edited by Throw Long Bannatyne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardcore German left-wing activist Tom Radke – citing selfish leaders, fraudulent science, psychological manipulation and a cult-like atmosphere within the German Greens – has had enough of the Fridays For Future (FFF) Germany movement and has announced his resignation.  

https://notrickszone.com/2020/03/11/leading-activist-resigns-blasts-fff-science-largely-manipulation-fraud-feel-like-im-leaving-a-cult/

Just for you b&g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pigseye said:

Hardcore German left-wing activist Tom Radke – citing selfish leaders, fraudulent science, psychological manipulation and a cult-like atmosphere within the German Greens – has had enough of the Fridays For Future (FFF) Germany movement and has announced his resignation.  

https://notrickszone.com/2020/03/11/leading-activist-resigns-blasts-fff-science-largely-manipulation-fraud-feel-like-im-leaving-a-cult/

Just for you b&g

How the **** is this not trolling?

And how is this continued to be allowed?

Edited by wanna-b-fanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

How the **** is this not trolling?

And how is this continued to be allowed?

How is this trolling because I knew what b&g was going to say even before he opened his trap?

And what about the brainwashed kids who are waking up to the exploitation of the green movement? Not a single comment on that? What's the matter with you people are you totally heartless and devoid of feeling?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the drawing board for the warmists, they are going to need new models after this,

Now, in another new paper (Drotos et al., 2020), several more scientists are asserting the Earth system has an internal, self-amplifying negative cloud feedback mechanism so powerful that

“at CO2 concentrations beyond four times the preindustrial value, the climate sensitivity decreases to nearly zero as a result of episodic global cooling events as large as 10 K”.

The cooling events spawned by the high CO2 concentrations lead to temperature “drops below the coldest values of the control [278 ppm pre-industrial CO2]” such that the climate sensitivity to CO2 doublings is “practically zero” over time.

“In particular, the climatological mean value of the global mean surface temperature practically stops responding to an increase in the CO2 concentration. This practically zero climate sensitivity suggests that the effect of a feedback on the global mean surface temperature may turn out to be as strong as the radiative effect of CO2.”

In other words, scientists have found yet another way the claimed “runaway greenhouse” response of the climate system to elevated CO2 turns out to be a false alarm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pigseye said:

Back to the drawing board for the warmists, they are going to need new models after this,

Now, in another new paper (Drotos et al., 2020), several more scientists are asserting the Earth system has an internal, self-amplifying negative cloud feedback mechanism so powerful that

“at CO2 concentrations beyond four times the preindustrial value, the climate sensitivity decreases to nearly zero as a result of episodic global cooling events as large as 10 K”.

The cooling events spawned by the high CO2 concentrations lead to temperature “drops below the coldest values of the control [278 ppm pre-industrial CO2]” such that the climate sensitivity to CO2 doublings is “practically zero” over time.

“In particular, the climatological mean value of the global mean surface temperature practically stops responding to an increase in the CO2 concentration. This practically zero climate sensitivity suggests that the effect of a feedback on the global mean surface temperature may turn out to be as strong as the radiative effect of CO2.”

In other words, scientists have found yet another way the claimed “runaway greenhouse” response of the climate system to elevated CO2 turns out to be a false alarm.

You know that the paper is flawed. It uses a physically unrealistic global model to study the climate response in a simplistic system. Their model contains no land, only a "... perfectly vertically-conducting, fixed heat-capacity surface, which we refer to as a ‘slab ocean’... The heat capacity chosen for the slab ocean corresponds to that of a water column of 25 m depth."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

You know that the paper is flawed. It uses a physically unrealistic global model to study the climate response in a simplistic system. Their model contains no land, only a "... perfectly vertically-conducting, fixed heat-capacity surface, which we refer to as a ‘slab ocean’... The heat capacity chosen for the slab ocean corresponds to that of a water column of 25 m depth."

Land has nothing to do with the study, it's about what happens to clouds when you increase the CO2 concentration. Turns out that water vapor and clouds have a negative feedback effect, ie. they basically cancel and then overwhelm anything CO2 can do. The biggest problem with the GCM (Global Circulation Models) is that we don't know how to model clouds so they are the big wildcard in this.

It's not CO2 that is the problem, CO2 is well understood and scientists know it can only increase temperature a degree or two on it's own, it needs a positive feedback from water vapor to increase the temperatures beyond. Water vapor is the most powerful green gas and it was thought that with a warmer wetter world started off by CO2 that it would increase the water vapor in the atmosphere and cause run away greenhouse effects. Turns out the opposite may be true.

When someone tells you the science is settled, agree, because as far as CO2 is concerned it pretty much is, CO2 will cause a little bit of extra warming. What they still don't have a full understanding on is what everything else in the system does. This is just another small piece in the puzzle but it should improve the way the models work in the future. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to L’Ecuyer et al., 2019, the global annual net cloud radiative effect (CRE) at the Earth’s surface is estimated to be -24.8 ±8.7 W/m². In other words, when cloud cover increases, surface temperatures cool because the net shortwave effects of cloud (-51 W/m²) exceed the net longwave effects of cloud (+26.3 W/m²). The uncertainty value associated with this overall surface forcing estimate, ±8.7 W/m², has a range of 17.4 W/m².

If CO2’s net radiative effect in surface forcing is 0.02 W/m² per year and the uncertainty the radiative effects of clouds is ±8.7 W/m² per year, this means that uncertainty is 870 larger than the CO2 influence.

A CO2 forcing signal is therefore not detectable in the Earth’s energy balance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...