|
Post by eamonnshute on Jun 9, 2011 10:42:26 GMT 1
Those are just the planes. Doesn't it occur to you that planes and ships travel? The prevailing trade winds in Hawaii are from the north-east, the same direction as the United States. There's also a seasonal variation where they're mainly from the north-west, the same direction as Japan - and Honolulu, for that matter. When there are no trade winds, the kona wind blows from the south-west instead, the same direction as Australia and Indonesia. At virtually any time of year, the wind is blowing towards Mauna Loa along the busiest trade routes in the world. You also have to consider that it's a mountain ridge, and traps any ocean wind in a rotating circulatory pattern, from either north or south. Mauna Loa is south east of Honolulu so planes from the USA do not fly over Big Island, so no problem there. Hawaii is as far from any industry as you can get. And Mauna Loa is not a ridge, it is a volcano and therefore conical. If your argument was correct then they would notice an increase in CO2 when the wind was blowing from Beijing number two steelworks, or wherever. So are the scientists too stupid to have thought about any problems with the site, or do you share M's view that they are all corrupt?
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on Jun 9, 2011 10:52:29 GMT 1
Mauna Loa is south east of Honolulu so planes from the USA do not fly over Big Island, so no problem there. No problem, huh? For the 2,500 miles a plane flies acorss the Pacific from the US to Hawaii, or in the opposite direction, its spewing its exhaust into a prevailing wind blowing towards Hawaii, for most of the year. For the rest of the year, planes from Japan or Australia are doing the same. Three jets from or to the US every five minutes. It's in the middle of a network of the busiest trade routes in the world. It's in the middle of a huge ridge. No. My argument is correct, it's self-evident. Your counter-argument is just absurd nonsense. I suspect it's a mixture of stupidity and convenience and wishful thinking and insouciance, more than anything. Above all, it's a very nice little job, no doubt; I wouldn't mind it myself.
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Jun 9, 2011 12:27:15 GMT 1
Sorry, but your claim that the Pacific Ocean is a hive of industrial activity is just to ridiculous for words. I suggest you look at a map.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jun 9, 2011 12:28:01 GMT 1
Eamonn
Stupid? Not by a long chalk. Perhaps they know the problems with the site and it suits their aims just fine. Sorry to be so sceptical, but there's too much money in the climate change game to be anything else, I'm afraid.
Stu's article shows just how far down the absurd path of "virtual" carbon trading, hidden taxes and subsidies we have gone. None of which needs to be audited or verified in any MEANINGFUL way.
P
|
|
|
Post by clh on Jun 16, 2011 23:01:13 GMT 1
Why place the principal CO2 measuring station on the side of a CO2 outgassing volcano? Bizarre isn't the word! If we really want to understand CO2 levels there should be a widespread network sampling the entire global surface and at different levels of the atmosphere. STA seems to think this sort of data sampling can be cleverly statistically averaged so why not set it up instead of using Mauna Loa and a couple of others, then rejecting the majority of the readings and cherry-picking only the ones that conform to theory. This is no way to do science! It is TOTALLY indefensible but undoubtedly STA will find a justification for it. "If we really want to understand CO2 levels there should be a widespread network sampling the entire global surface and at different levels of the atmosphere." you mean like this? www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/Here is the data from just 4 stations at wildly different locations in the world. If the record at Mauna Loa had been affected by local factors (the volcano, shipping, whatever) it should have turned out very different from those other far away sites not affected by things local to Mauna Loa.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 16, 2011 23:31:55 GMT 1
I'm impressed! Three posts in the hour since You've been registered here. I'm converted, I believe in this global warming thinghy now. Are You a Bolshevic? StuartG
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 17, 2011 9:10:42 GMT 1
All the CO2 measuring stations, and there are only a handful of them, are in areas of volcanic outgassing, aren't they?
If the network were being designed from scratch today would these stations be located on the sides of volcanoes? Why? Please explain, since the rationale for choosing remote places is that they offer the opportunity to access "well-mixed" atmospheric gases. If industrial areas are to be avoided because of high CO2 so too are volcanic ones.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Jun 17, 2011 14:40:06 GMT 1
I just had a very quick look at a couple of the sampling sites which as far as I know are not in volcanic areas, such as Ireland, and blow me down, they seem to correspond almost exactly the same as those shown on the graph above, which seems pretty convincing to me.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jun 29, 2011 12:03:09 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 29, 2011 12:38:35 GMT 1
You may have READ stuff M, but not critically -- because let's just remember how many of your favourite authors can be shown to be demonstrably incorrect in their assertions.
Plus if you're so knowledgable on the CO2 question, how come you could come out with that ridiculous 30% CO2 figure as you did a while back?
You repeat what others say, but you don't know enough about the science to discuss it in depth, and you don't CHECK the assertions that others make. Hence it is all personalities and repetition and daft conspiracy theories....................
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 29, 2011 11:00:54 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Aug 29, 2011 20:47:06 GMT 1
So wouldn’t you think that all those millions of tons of emitted CO2 (food for plants) as a result would drive the global temperatures up? You seem to have conveniently forgotten that CO2 is not the only factor that affects temperature.
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Aug 29, 2011 22:09:16 GMT 1
The warmists conveniently ignore the fact that the global mean temperature anomaly has not actually increased in the last ten years. Even over the last hundred years the warming is only a fraction of a degree C. I don't doubt that CO2 makes the planet warmer than it would otherwise be but I am very sceptical about the magnitude of the effect.
Politicians are spending billions of pounds based on theoretical predictions that have not been confirmed by observation.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 30, 2011 9:36:11 GMT 1
"You seem to have conveniently forgotten that CO2 is not the only factor that affects temperature."
And YOU seem to have forgotten that for decades we have been lectured that more fossil fuel CO2 means catastrophic anthropogenic global warming!
You can't have it both ways, Eamonn. Or are you getting ready to jump ship in the face of the lack of evidence that sane and sensible observers have pondered over all along?
If you are suddenly becoming more moderate what proportion of the purported 0.7oC global temperature rise over the last century do YOU allocate to other causes? And could you have a stab at telling us what those other causes are, please?
And when you have done that perhaps you could consider the totally evidenceless myth of climate "sensitivity", i.e. water vapour amplification of the supposed anthropogenic CO2-induced warming signal.
It would be really useful if you could abandon your perennial carping and offer some discussion of the facts insofar as they are known or knowable.
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Aug 30, 2011 9:48:25 GMT 1
The warmists conveniently ignore the fact that the global mean temperature anomaly has not actually increased in the last ten years. Even over the last hundred years the warming is only a fraction of a degree C. I don't doubt that CO2 makes the planet warmer than it would otherwise be but I am very sceptical about the magnitude of the effect. . The hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010. Also, look at the number of countries that recorded record high temperatures last year, and compare it with the number of record lows: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_temperatures#Highest_temperature_ever_recordedSo it is still getting warmer. As for you "fraction of a degree" warming, even if we stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow the temperature would continue to rise for a long time. So with continued burning the ultimate increase will be many times the present increase of ~0.8 degrees.
|
|