The Forum > Article Comments > Engineering the climate: is science fiction becoming reality? > Comments
Engineering the climate: is science fiction becoming reality? : Comments
By Kerryn Brent and Jeffrey McGee, published 19/12/2012It will be difficult for countries to resist experiments in geoengineering as it has the allure of being a relatively inexpensive and quick response to climate change impacts.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
-
- All
Posted by warmair, Friday, 21 December 2012 7:59:50 AM
| |
Warmair. Mate..... If you are going to call me names and others liken me to someone approving of pedophelia because the globe may or may not have increased in average temperature by less than 1 tenth of a degree over the past 16 years, and I positively refuse to get into a sweat and panick over it, then I suggest you get to a doctor and have a pill.
I mean, the temperature changes 10 times more than this when a bloody cloud goes over for heavens sake. As the world continues to recover from an ice age, I am somewhat surprised that there has not been a far more noticeable rise in temperature really. Considerably more surprised when, If you consider man induced Co2 emissions have a driving influence on temperatures, the correspondence seems to work in the opposite direction. If this is what terrifies you and the others so much, as I say, take a pill old boy. Posted by Prompete, Friday, 21 December 2012 3:11:20 PM
| |
"Methinks you pay too much attention to some very dodgy sources for your information"
Says warmair using GISS and NOAA; as my earlier comparative graph of GISS, HadCRut and RSS and UAH showed, GISS is the outlier with exaggerated temperature trends since 1998. Both GISS and NOAA share NOAA's GHCN and while Hansen's adjustments to GISS temperature are notorious NOAA are just as bad. Hansen: http://www.real-science.com/corruption-temperature-record NOAA: http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/12/noaa-ncdc-pursue-goal-of-warmest-year-ever-for-2010-release-newly-fabricated-global-temperatures.html This is scandalous. In the meantime the 2 satellite temperature records, RSS and UAH, the most accurate since 1979, and the most reliable land based temperature record [which is not saying much], HadCrut, clearly show 2010 NOT the warmest but 1998 and a downward trend since. Another approach to this is to correlate temperature change with natural events; 1998 was the year of a super El Nino, but as well was also the year in which the +ve PDO phase peaked and changed to a -ve phase. Other than the discredited theory of AGW, which relies on fake adjustments, there is no mechanism to explain the 2010 hottest year canard. Posted by cohenite, Friday, 21 December 2012 4:49:11 PM
| |
cohenite,
After 1998, Jan 2000 to Dec 2009 was the warmest decade on record. The "long-term trend" is still up. 2012 is set to be the warmest for the US. http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/video/2012/the-making-of-the-hottest-year-on-record-usa-temperature-update (sorry it's from NOAA...I know you prefer your info from blogs by people who aren't climate scientists) Posted by Poirot, Friday, 21 December 2012 6:34:58 PM
| |
Poirot, GISS and NOAA have corrupted their data. I get my info from reliable sources which are transparent.
Anyway, you'll never get it; temperatures down since 1998 despite increasing CO2. That's a fact no matter where you get it from. Posted by cohenite, Saturday, 22 December 2012 6:41:41 PM
| |
cohenite,
You're another one who doesn't understand the term "long-term trend". http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47 Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 22 December 2012 7:05:28 PM
|
Well lets start with NOAA this is what they have to say re 2010
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/13
Methinks you pay too much attention to some very dodgy sources for your information.