Articles Tagged "How About That!"
Thursday, February 21st 2013, 3:56 AM EST
The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
Click source for more
Thursday, February 7th 2013, 8:15 AM EST
(Reuters) - The Amazon rainforest is less vulnerable to die off because of global warming than widely believed because the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide also acts as an airborne fertilizer, a study showed on Wednesday.
The boost to growth from CO2, the main gas from burning fossil fuels blamed for causing climate change, was likely to exceed damaging effects of rising temperatures this century such as drought, it said.
"I am no longer so worried about a catastrophic die-back due to CO2-induced climate change," Professor Peter Cox of the University of Exeter in England told Reuters of the study he led in the journal Nature. "In that sense it's good news."
Click source to read FULL report
Monday, March 11th 2013, 8:14 PM EDT
The world's tropical forests are less likely to lose biomass, or plant material, this century due to the effects of global warming than previously thought, scientists said in a paper published in the journal Nature Geoscience on Sunday.
This adds to growing evidence that rain forests might be more resilient to the effects of climate change than feared....
...In 2009, a group of British scientists said that 20 to 40 percent of the Amazon could die off within 100 years if global temperatures rose by 2 degrees Celsius, and 85 percent would be lost if temperatures rose by 4 degrees, which is seen as increasingly likely.
But a study last month said the Amazon rain forest was less vulnerable to dying off because carbon dioxide also acts as an airborne fertilizer.
Click source to read FULL report
Wednesday, October 3rd 2012, 8:10 AM EDT
I came across this Royal Society of Chemistry competition recently (from June 2012), and it took me by complete surprise, in as much, I have supported the theory of CO2 increase due to the Oceans warming. But it never has occurred to me that in doing so there may be more ice as a result of less CO2 in the Ocean. Time will tell if I am correct on this, but as of today, and at the end of Summer in the Arctic, the warmer currents may have released more CO2 (inc. water vapour) from the ocean and in doing so, bring MORE ICE NOT LESS (and even MORE SNOW)...more to follow.....meanwhile take a look at this from the RSC.
RSC offers £1000 for explanation of an unsolved legendary phenomenon - rsc.org
Why does hot water freeze faster than cold water?
It seems a simple enough question - yet it has baffled the best brains for at least 2,300 years.
•Aristotle agonized over it fruitlessly in the fourth century BC
•Roger Bacon in the 13th century used it to advocate the scientific method in his book Opus Majus
•Another Bacon, Francis, wrote in his 1620 Novum Organum, that "slightly tepid water freezes more easily than that which is utterly cold" but could not explain why
•Descartes was defeated by it in the 17th century AD
•Even perplexed 20th and 21st century scientists and intellectuals have swarmed over it without result
Tuesday, December 4th 2012, 8:29 AM EST
The following extract comes The Guardian article Lord Deben: Thatcherite turned green warrior defends Climate Act by Fiona Harvey....Some Tory MPs have taken to booing and jeering every time the Climate Change Act is mentioned in the Commons. A growing section of the party would like the Committee on Climate Change to be scrapped and the act repealed.
Their hero is climate sceptic Peter Lilley, a former cabinet colleague of Deben's under John Major, and recently appointed to the select committee on energy and climate change, where he will play a key role in recommending changes to legislation. Lilley's appointment is seen as a bridgehead for his fellow rightwingers to attack the act and all green policies. Their campaign got a further boost when Osborne's father-in-law was recorded saying the chancellor was opposing the "absurd" climate targets. Another rightwing Tory, the junior energy minister John Hayes, has prompted a series of rows with the secretary of state, the Lib Dem Ed Davey, over wind energy....click source for full report from Fiona Harvey
to see all articles regarding "Repeal The Act" at this site
Monday, February 4th 2013, 5:58 AM EST
Click source to read FULL report from the BBC
Sunday, October 28th 2012, 8:59 AM EDT
Two days ago I picked up on what Graeme Archer at The Telegraph had to say about The L'Aquila earthquake trial, in as much, Graeme's essay stated that "The L'Aquila earthquake trial reminds us that scientific evidence shouldn't determine public policy".
Now the BBC have also joined in with a similar point of view with Charlotte Pritchard - "Should scientists stop giving advice?" All I can stress on these two essays is how far removed would it be for when the day comes, that the Met Office and other Institutions admit their failure to correctly correlate CO2 to Global Warming and also face crimminal action.
Just like scientists have at the L'Aquila earthquake trial, the Met Office and other Institutions have tried to achieve an impossible task as a result of Government Policy, rather then science....maybe that day is not far away!
L'Aquila ruling: Should scientists stop giving advice? by Charlotte Pritchard, BBC News
This week six scientists and one government official were sentenced to six years in prison for manslaughter, for making "falsely reassuring" comments before the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake. But was this fair?
Friday, October 26th 2012, 1:23 PM EDT
I had to pinch myself over this story from Graeme Archer at The Telegraph.....The L'Aquila earthquake trial reminds us that scientific evidence shouldn't determine public policy!..Graeme have you not thought of another area this may apply?
The L'Aquila earthquake trial reminds us that scientific evidence shouldn't determine public policy! by Graeme Archer - The Telegraph
People find it hard to understand the nature of risk: discuss. A pertinent assertion, in the week that scientists have been found guilty in an Italian court for understating the likelihood of the L’Aquila earthquake. Moreover, the assertion is true, as can easily be demonstrated. Stand behind someone in the queue at WH Smiths while they purchase a lottery ticket, and watch the care with which they select “their” (irrelevant) numbers. Or travel across the Atlantic on a plane, sat beside me.
The former is less physically demanding, as I’m less likely to claw at your arm in terror during the purchase of a lottery ticket than I am while the plane bounces around in turbulence. There’s no point telling me that there’s a very low probability of falling from the sky in a ball of flame, that such disasters happen only rarely. I don’t care about “long-run” arguments: I care about this flight. If the probability of any event is non-zero – if there’s a finite chance that it will occur – then it will happen, at some point; and nothing in the construction of a long-run probability (in its English sense, or its precise mathematical expression) has anything useful to say about any particular instance of any particular flight.
Monday, January 7th 2013, 9:25 AM EST
Scientists are to launch an experiment which could allow them to predict earthquakes before they happen and potentially save hundreds of thousands of lives.
They believe a rise in static electricity below the ground could be a reliable indicator that a quake is imminent.
Tom Bleier, a satellite engineer with QuakeFinder, has spent millions of dollars putting specialist measuring equipment- magnetometers - along fault lines in California, Peru, Taiwan, and Greece
The instruments are sensitive enough to detect magnetic pulses from electrical discharges up to 10 miles (16 kilometers) away, which could give people enough time to get to safety before a quake strikes.
Thursday, October 11th 2012, 10:39 AM EDT
AS THE world's elite global warming experts begin poring over the drafts of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report this week, one leading scientist doesn't believe the process should be happening at all.
''I think it will be less successful than the last assessment, and I think it will be blander - I'm disappointed in what I've seen so far,'' said Kevin Trenberth, the head of the climate analysis section at the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research.
Professor Trenberth's misgivings are not based on doubts about the strength of the science underpinning human-induced climate change, but on frustration with the bureaucratic nature of the IPCC.
Dozens of Australian scientists are among hundreds of international experts who started reviewing the IPCC's fifth summary report this week, with the final version to be published next September. The previous report, released in 2007, declared global warming ''unequivocal'' and said it was ''very likely'' to be being driven by human emissions of greenhouse gases.
19 articles foundshowing page 1 of 2« previous 1 2 next »