Earth Hour

[biffvernon]

[Phil UK]

burning coal is no threat to the planet. infact it is coal that lifted us out of a medieval primitive way of life and gave us power. there are those who hate the modern way of life and want to return us to the stone age way of life. coal is the best thing we have and it does not carry the dangers of other engery means like nucler. what some dont seem to understand that if the rich world got poor so will the third world because the rich world world will be less able to help the poor.

And then it came to pass, that the stone age way was the ultimate answer.

Oh no! Birmingham City conceded another goal Barney!

Phil.

Edited March 30, 2008 by Phil UK

[laserguy]

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/darkhour.html

:lol:

The above link will generate the usual howls of outrage,but what the hey the guy is bang on. The rest of his site is a testament to commonsense in the CO2 quagmire. Click on 'back to homepage from here' on that link to see a pertinent video delivering a serious message in a humorous way (not for minors due to choice of language). Recommended. A serious question asked in all sincerity: Temps have all but flatlined in the last ten years and have even shown signs of reversal. Don't insult my considerable intelligence by going on about 'trends' etc. Are we to assume then that without the effects of our CO2 we could have fully expected to see a much more definite and pronounced fall in said temperatures over that period? Anyone who answers 'no' to that yet believes in the warming effect of our CO2, is demonstrating the most blatant double standards. Ok so it's our CO2 which is keeping global temps 'artificially' high,you say? Would a cooldown of any magnitude be a good thing? Well,would it? Of course not,but as we have zero ability to influence climate it's a moot point anyway. But if you really,truly believe that to be so,you'd positively encourage the production of the stuff to counter the natural slide which is now occurring courtesy of ,what else,the sun.

CO2= politics,economics,control. I said a while back that I've lost interest in the 'science' because it doesn't stack up. Every other aspect I still find fascinating,funny,sad and annoying all at the same time.

[biffvernon]

Temps have all but flatlined in the last ten years and have even shown signs of reversal.

Since that is just plain wrong the rest of your post does not make a lot of sense.

[Cakie]

we never liked that much in the 70s mind pp.......................3 day week etc

There are a lot on here that won't remember that but I'm sure that's why a lot of the older generation like gas cookers cos at least when the leccy went off you could cook your tea :lol:

We did our bit last night and I shall do my bit by nagging Mr Loo to switch lights off more

[PersianPaladin]

There are a lot on here that won't remember that but I'm sure that's why a lot of the older generation like gas cookers cos at least when the leccy went off you could cook your tea :lol:

We did our bit last night and I shall do my bit by nagging Mr Loo to switch lights off more

Hannegan still uses coal.

[Phil UK]

We did our bit last night and I shall do my bit by nagging Mr Loo to switch lights off more :lol:

I've no comment to make on that Mrs Loo.

Phil.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Since that is just plain wrong the rest of your post does not make a lot of sense.

I thought everyone was agreed that temperatures had levelled off over the last decade. Several people (in the "Pro" camp - for want of a better phrase) have commented that it is to be expected since we are at solar minimum right now, but regardless of the supposed cause it is generally accepted that there has been no appreciable warming over the past few years.

:lol:

CB

[PersianPaladin]

I thought everyone was agreed that temperatures had levelled off over the last decade. Several people (in the "Pro" camp - for want of a better phrase) have commented that it is to be expected since we are at solar minimum right now, but regardless of the supposed cause it is generally accepted that there has been no appreciable warming over the past few years.

:lol:

CB

Nope.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Nope.

You've obviously not been having the same discussions as the majority of us then...

:lol:

[kaz]

i would have turned everything off last night but as we had a power cut of 2 hours plus the other day i think i have done my bit :lol: ..

lol kaz

[PersianPaladin]

You've obviously not been having the same discussions as the majority of us then...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71213101419.htm

You're denying that then.

[Admiral_Bobski]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71213101419.htm

You're denying that then.

If temperatures have levelled off (i.e. not increased, but not decreased either) at a high level then of course all the years of the last decade are going to be pretty high up on the list. Being in the Top Ten does not mean that it is getting warmer - it only means that it is consistantly warm.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

If temperatures have levelled off (i.e. not increased, but not decreased either) at a high level then of course all the years of the last decade are going to be pretty high up on the list. Being in the Top Ten does not mean that it is getting warmer - it only means that it is consistently warm.

CB

I do miss your pedantry when you take your sabbaticals C.B. Strange that over the period you speak we've lost most of the multiyear ice over summer up north and large swathes of ice shelf in the south. As i understand things the 'extra' energy that heat imparts to the air molecules can be passive (and raise temps) or active (and employ the energy affecting state changes in other materials). If you imagine 'active' heat melting ice then you can see where the energy may go (and produce a lot of cold water for other 'heat' to work on.

The Argo system has reported some 'anomalous' temp records since they went operational and maybe this reflects the Greenland melt/multiyear ablation. Hope not 'cause once that 'cooling agent' is no more then what?

[Admiral_Bobski]

I do miss your pedantry when you take your sabbaticals C.B. Strange that over the period you speak we've lost most of the multiyear ice over summer up north and large swathes of ice shelf in the south. As i understand things the 'extra' energy that heat imparts to the air molecules can be passive (and raise temps) or active (and employ the energy affecting state changes in other materials). If you imagine 'active' heat melting ice then you can see where the energy may go (and produce a lot of cold water for other 'heat' to work on.

The Argo system has reported some 'anomalous' temp records since they went operational and maybe this reflects the Greenland melt/multiyear ablation. Hope not 'cause once that 'cooling agent' is no more then what?

I'm astonished by the way this discussion has gone, I have to say. How is it pedantic to point out that temperatures have levelled off over the last decade or so? How is it pedantic to accept that temperatures, while having levelled off, are still high enough to be included in the top ten warmest years (or top thirteen, or whatever)?

It is blind ignorance to say that temperatures haven't levelled off - despite quite clear evidence (data) that they have - simply because temperatures remain high.

As for the polar ice, I think it is far too simple to say "it's warmer, so the ice is melting". There's a whole load of things going on at the poles and, even if temperatures alone were to blame, "continued melt" still doesn't prove that temperatures are still increasing.

This is not pedantry - it is observation of facts. Facts, I might add, which large numbers of people seem to want to ignore. If filling in important details is pedantry then I can only assume that AGW hypothesis is founded on nothing but broad brush strokes - after all, the scientists involved don't want to be pedantic do they?

CB

Edited March 31, 2008 by Captain_Bobski

[Gray-Wolf]

C. Bob!

We've all been recently treated to the 'perils of plastic' both as a pollutant and it's ability, when broken down, to concentrate toxins around it. We've been dumping plastics for a much shorter time than our airborne pollutants and yet still I get the impression that you do not see the scale of the impacts that this pollution is capable of.

Would you argue that , over the last 50yrs, the temp trend is stable or would you concede that the planet is still capable of having it's own 'cycles' (however great the augmentation AGW places on them) for the time being and that the trend is still up?

If this past 3 years is part of our '20yr cold ' cycle (augmented by a moderate La Nina through the northern winter) then it doesn't seem to be measuring up to past '20 year cold cycles' does it? Temps still pop up over the 20yr year rolling averages and , on occasion, are higher than the middle of our last '20 yr warm period'.

I think what I'm driving at is that the heating goes on and to zoom in on a short period and hold it up as an example of current temp trends is highly disingenuous.

Edited March 31, 2008 by pottyprof

[Admiral_Bobski]

C. Bob!

We've all been recently treated to the 'perils of plastic' both as a pollutant and it's ability, when broken down, to concentrate toxins around it. We've been dumping plastics for a much shorter time than our airborne pollutants and yet still I get the impression that you do not see the scale of the impacts that this pollution is capable of.

Would you argue that , over the last 50yrs, the temp trend is stable or would you concede that the planet is still capable of having it's own 'cycles' (however great the augmentation AGW places on them) for the time being and that the trend is still up?

If this past 3 years is part of our '20yr cold ' cycle (augmented by a moderate La Nina through the northern winter) then it doesn't seem to be measuring up to past '20 year cold cycles' does it? Temps still pop up over the 20yr year rolling averages and , on occasion, are higher than the middle of our last '20 yr warm period'.

I think what I'm driving at is that the heating goes on and to zoom in on a short period and hold it up as an example of current temp trends is highly disingenuous.

The trend for the last 50 years taken as a whole may be upwards, but that does not negate the fact that the trend for the last ten years is level (or perhaps even slightly downwards).

What is highly disingenuous is to gloss over the last ten years' worth of data simply because it adds fuel to the skeptics' fire. It would be far better to put the fire out than to ignore it and allow it to continue burning. Give us a legitimate reason to disregard the last ten years' temperatures, by all means, but don't just ignore them.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

The trend for the last 50 years taken as a whole may be upwards, but that does not negate the fact that the trend for the last ten years is level (or perhaps even slightly downwards).

What is highly disingenuous is to gloss over the last ten years' worth of data simply because it adds fuel to the skeptics' fire. It would be far better to put the fire out than to ignore it and allow it to continue burning. Give us a legitimate reason to disregard the last ten years' temperatures, by all means, but don't just ignore them.

CB

Firstly I'd need to hotly dispute your 10yrs if you take the anomalous 'El-Nino' ,'hottest on record' year as well within you graph (as it would greatly distort things). That said we must then surely look at the moderate La-Nina we are in and the impact this will have on world temps too. Not a simple as you would have it painted C-Bob and similar to the efforts of the oil/fossil fuel lobby throughout the 60's,70's and 80's. As I have said, highly disingenuous of you.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Firstly I'd need to hotly dispute your 10yrs if you take the anomalous 'El-Nino' ,'hottest on record' year as well within you graph (as it would greatly distort things). That said we must then surely look at the moderate La-Nina we are in and the impact this will have on world temps too. Not a simple as you would have it painted C-Bob and similar to the efforts of the oil/fossil fuel lobby throughout the 60's,70's and 80's. As I have said, highly disingenuous of you.

Okay then, just take the last 8 or 9 years then, if you really want to avoid 1998 (after all, we don't want something as inconvenient as a natural phenomenon to muddy the waters, do we?). And the "moderate La Nina" we are currently experiencing - this has been going on for the last 8 or 9 years has it?

No, nothing is ever as simple as it is presented, but comparing my (valid and pertinent) points about the recent temperature record with the supposed evil influence imparted by the fossil fuel industry is insulting and irrelevant. As I say, ignoring facts because they upset your argument is disingenuous, but I'm not going to sit here and carry on tossing the Disingenuous Potato back and forth all day.

CB

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

In all seriousness guys, I have just one question.

How did Chelsea's laptop work during a powercut in Eastenders? And was it in conjunction with Earth Hour?

Edited March 31, 2008 by ChrisL

[Admiral_Bobski]

How did Chelsea's laptop work during a powercut in Eastenders? And was it in conjunction with Earth Hour?

Battery backup - they've got quite a good life expectancy these days...

CB

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Battery backup - they've got quite a good life expectancy these days...

CB

You see, thats what I thought. However, how did she get a connection.

[Admiral_Bobski]

You see, thats what I thought. However, how did she get a connection.

Telepathy.

?

CB

[Devonian]

I'm astonished by the way this discussion has gone, I have to say. How is it pedantic to point out that temperatures have levelled off over the last decade or so? How is it pedantic to accept that temperatures, while having levelled off, are still high enough to be included in the top ten warmest years (or top thirteen, or whatever)?

It is blind ignorance to say that temperatures haven't levelled off - despite quite clear evidence (data) that they have - simply because temperatures remain high.

As for the polar ice, I think it is far too simple to say "it's warmer, so the ice is melting". There's a whole load of things going on at the poles and, even if temperatures alone were to blame, "continued melt" still doesn't prove that temperatures are still increasing.

This is not pedantry - it is observation of facts. Facts, I might add, which large numbers of people seem to want to ignore. If filling in important details is pedantry then I can only assume that AGW hypothesis is founded on nothing but broad brush strokes - after all, the scientists involved don't want to be pedantic do they?

CB

But, but... what does 'temperatures levelled off' mean? Well it means you have a period of time over which you can say that it has? Now if I take the recent period 1999 to 2005 what has happened to temperatures? They have, over that period, risen.

The problem I have is that today, or 2008 if you like, is a point in a time scale - and an end point at that. If one of 2008, 2009 or 2010 are the warmest ever year (and I wouldn't be surprised if one of them is) then what seem like levelling of to you will once again be part of a warming trend (no, I'm not ruling out a fall, but I think it's unlikely). I think that's problem with start and end point data. In the middle of a set of timed data you know where it's going because you have the forward data, at the end you don't, at the beginning you don't know what it was doing previously. I think end points are a great problem, it's why I stick to the long term trend - which is a warming on - we simply don't know if this 'temperatures levelling off' is for real yet.

As I say, I expect more warming. So I see all this talk of flat lining as 'timespan picking'. But, we will see. And if it doesn't happen I wont deny it.

Edited March 31, 2008 by Devonian

[biffvernon]

I thought everyone was agreed that temperatures had levelled off over the last decade.

No, not everyone, just the few remaining denialists, contrarians and flat earthers.