Signs of Global Warming Strong in Korea
Harry Hope
Signs of Global Warming Strong in Korea
By Park Si-soo
Staff Reporter
A set of weather changes signaling global warming have been observed
around the Korean peninsula throughout this year, the Korea
Meteorological Administration (KMA) said in an annual report Monday.
The KMA described this year as ``sizzling and humid,'' saying the
average temperature of the year was the fifth highest since 1912 when
Korea adopted modern meteorological technology, while precipitation
notably increased.
``The average temperature for the first 10 months was 14.44 degree
Celsius, the fifth highest in KMA history," it said.
The highest was recorded in 1998, and the other three from the top
were set in 2005, 2003 and 2002, indicating the pace of global warming
around the Korean peninsula has gained momentum since the new
millennium.
Nearly 781 millimeters of rainfall drenched the country in the last
summer along, a 12 percent increase from previous years, KMA said.
``Despite the increase, most parts of the country were warmer this
year than previous years,'' the KMA noted.
The average temperature in spring -- technically defined between March
and May -- set a new record of 12.6 degrees Celsius, breaking the
previous record of 11.5 degrees in 1973, it said.
``An unusual expansion of a continental high pressure from Kamchatka
in Russia was attributable to the phenomenon," said Yook Myung-ryul, a
KMA official.
In a previous report, the KMA cited the fast urbanization of Korea and
neighboring countries including China and ensuing increased green
house gas emission as a major culprit behind the warming.
The report, based on research by the Korea Global Atmosphere Watch
Center, found the density of carbon dioxide and other major greenhouse
gases was higher here than elsewhere between 1999 and 2008.
The carbon dioxide density around the peninsula last year stood at
391.4 parts per million (ppm), compared with 370.7 ppm in 1999.
But the global average increased from 367.6 ppm in 1999 to 384.9 ppm
in 2008.
The latest report also found that manmade climate change is posing a
grave threat to the Arctic.
``Its size shrank to nearly 510 million square kilometers in
September, the third smallest since 1979," the KMA official said.
The smallest was 430 million square kilometers in 2007.
According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an
international decision-making body established to provide information
on climate change, if the current pace persists, the world's average
temperature will increase by 6.4 degrees Celsius by 2090, raising the
sea level by 59 centimeters.
If so, the IPCC warned, more than 300 million people around the world
living in coastal areas or on islands are expected to lose their homes
due to rising sea levels and more than 10 percent of all species now
existing will become extinct.
____________________________________________________
Harry
7
> 12-28-2009 20:54
>
> Signs of Global Warming Strong in Korea
>
>
> By Park Si-soo
> Staff Reporter
>
> A set of weather changes signaling global warming have been observed
> around the Korean peninsula throughout this year, the Korea
> Meteorological Administration (KMA) said in an annual report Monday.
Hey why do you spew your crap across so many unrelated newsgroups?
A lack of audience does not mean you are not being heard.
Everyone just thinks your holowarming crap is just that.
Holowarming is a hoax.
It has moved into pseudo science arrived at by faking data,
sneaking into peer review process, getting opposition sacked
from their jobs by ringing up their owners and the like.
Its become a means to an end.
Its a bad hoax at that. Its responsible for all
kind of unnecessary taxes and changes to the way
we live without any scientific or material proof.
Holowarming funding needs to be cut.
The holowarming crap needs to curtailed.
99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
It is the billions of liters of water in the form
of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
and thats why there is so much of it about.
The 0.05% of CO2 and other trace gases
DO NOT contribute to global warming AND CAN NEVER EVER
become a major factor to global warming.
They don't have the heat capacity unlike H2O gas
to carry heat around the globe.
The holowarmers faking their science DO NOT integrate their results over
a 24 hour period - instead some fruit cakes science is used
calculating between 12:00 noon and 12:01 to get an answer
and deliberately avoid discussion on finer points of the erroneous methods.
A desert cools at the rate of 1 degree every 10 minutes
in the night when there no water vapor (i.e. cloud cover) around, despite
all the trace gases being the same because nearly all of the heat
around the planet is carried by water vapor.
Anyone claiming otherwise is a steaming lying holowarming
crap artist in need of some urgent education.
JohnGr
This is a interesting issue where there seems to be much confusion
floating around the net,
so I thought I better start learning about it. Any help welcome.
The first point of confusion is the difference between water vapour
and cloud.
I think in standard references to the greenhouse effect, water vapour
is classified as a
greenhouse gas whilst cloud (which is not a gas) is not defined as a
greenhouse gas,
although of course cloud has many complex influences on the climate.
With this definition, Wikipedia states the following importance of the
major greenhouse gases:
water vapor, 36–70%
carbon dioxide, 9–26%
methane, 4–9%
ozone, 3–7%
Without any of these greenhouse gases the earth would be 33'C colder,
so although you are correct to say water vapour is the main cause,
carbon dioxide is far from negligible.
*us*
That's true. Subject line corrected.
John Q Public
But Cap & Trade (Aside from being a tax with only miniscule lipservice
in way of actual
AGW funds) estimates in 50 years it will only keep CO2 from changing
1/2 of 1% at the
global cost of trillions.
Thats the big lie that were really worried about!
Claudius Denk
> With this definition, Wikipedia states the following importance of the
> major greenhouse gases:
>
> water vapor, 36–70%
> carbon dioxide, 9–26%
> methane, 4–9%
> ozone, 3–7%
Wikipedia is controlled by AGW cultists. You can safely ignore it.
There is no science underlying the numbers you mentioned above.
*us*
>... cost of trillions.
You support spending them on war crimes,
but not on energy independence.
You must be really stupid.
7
Doh!
You are wrong.
Steam is H2O gas, water vapor is everything that clouds are made up of
and can be treated as a gas if you are trying to work out heat
transport.
> With this definition, Wikipedia states the following importance of the
> major greenhouse gases:
You should look at your definitions and terms of reference before quoting!
> water vapor, 36–70%
> carbon dioxide, 9–26%
Plain old lying.
The heat heat transport they are referring to has every form of
heat transport excluded except long wave.
WTF?!!
Great start for holowarming science eh?!
Even then, the effects are only calculated between the hours
of 12.00 noon and 12.01 pm!!!
They forgot to integrate their results
over all spectra and over the entire 24 hour period!!!
When you put all that into perspective, water vapor still
does 99% of the work and CO2 rears its head in at around
a contrived figure of 0.01% if you are lucky that is
to measure it.
> methane, 4–9%
> ozone, 3–7%
>
> Without any of these greenhouse gases the earth would be 33'C colder,
Really? Are you sure? Do you really believe that?
Even though its based on faulty calculations and useless adding up.
A desert has all your holowarming gases and yet it looses 60 degrees
between day and night!!!!
You must be an utter *fucktard* to really really really miss the plot here!
> so although you are correct to say water vapour is the main cause,
> carbon dioxide is far from negligible.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHA!!!!
Prove it.
You explain what you understand first!!!!!!!!!!
And then you will get marks where it makes sense.
If you are thinking pretentious pointing is going work, think again!
You get 1 mark for pointers if it has some remote significance.
You get 9 more marks if you add once sentence to your pointer
and explain what your pointer brings to your argument.
You get 90 marks if you quote relevant passage from your pointers
and string it into a coherent answer.
The answer must be your answer and you must believe in them.
You loose marks as soon as you rant / waffle or parrot
others to deliberately avoid thinking for yourself.
Holowarming still remains a hoax
--------------------------------
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>12-28-2009 20:54
>
>Signs of Global Warming Strong in Korea
>
>
>By Park Si-soo
>Staff Reporter
>
>A set of weather changes signaling global warming have been observed
>around the Korean peninsula throughout this year, the Korea
>Meteorological Administration (KMA) said in an annual report Monday.
>
>The KMA described this year as ``sizzling and humid,'' saying the
>average temperature of the year was the fifth highest since 1912 when
>Korea adopted modern meteorological technology, while precipitation
>notably increased.
>
>``The average temperature for the first 10 months was 14.44 degree
>Celsius, the fifth highest in KMA history," it said.
Isn't that awful Harry, almost as "HOT" as the
annual global average temperature!
Oh, boy!
$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto
> 12-28-2009 20:54
>
> Signs of Global Warming Strong in Korea
>
> By Park Si-soo
> Staff Reporter
>
> A set of weather changes signaling global warming have been observed
> around the Korean peninsula throughout this year, the Korea
> Meteorological Administration (KMA) said in an annual report Monday.
>
> The KMA described this year as ``sizzling and humid,'' saying the
> average temperature of the year was the fifth highest since 1912 when
> Korea adopted modern meteorological technology, while precipitation
> notably increased.
Global warmers have to make up their minds. Either localized weather
indicates climate changes, or it doesn't.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On Dec 28, 4:04 pm, 7 <website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
If you are really interested, search for references
that say "without an atmosphere" it would be 33 degrees
colder.
That was the original premise, and it seems somehow
it became "without GreenHouse Gases".
That shows the shoddiness of "climate science" (-IF-
I am correct about the original premise being "without
an atmosphere".
I have tried to get AGW proponents to discuss this,
but no luck. Almost every AGW paper concentrates
on CO2, and only gives water vapor a role as a "feedback".
I contend that GHGs _cool_ the atmosphere, and
more than 80 percent of the cooling of the entire
Earth is done by GHGs, less than 20 percent is by
the land and oceans radiating through the 10 um
window.
So I am forced to assume that an Earth with
an atmosphere but without GHGs (no water either),
would not be 33 degrees colder than at present.
I might give you satisfaction and comfort if
you can find the original reference(s) to an Earth
without an atmosphere, and it will be obvious
that is not the same thing as an Earth without GHGs.
leona...@gmail.com
• Total GHG
12,705 ppm
H2O vapour
12,387 " 97%
CO2 385
" 03%
NO2
Trace Trace
Ouroboros Rex
Does that mean you denialists are going to stop posting weather crap?
Nope, and you say nothing. lol
Ouroboros Rex
> Lubos Motl
....insane denialist liar.
Ouroboros Rex
> Harry Hope wrote:
>
>> 12-28-2009 20:54
>>
>> Signs of Global Warming Strong in Korea
>>
>>
>> By Park Si-soo
>> Staff Reporter
>>
>> A set of weather changes signaling global warming have been observed
>> around the Korean peninsula throughout this year, the Korea
>> Meteorological Administration (KMA) said in an annual report Monday.
>
>
> Hey why do you spew your crap across so many unrelated newsgroups?
>
> A lack of audience does not mean you are not being heard.
>
> Everyone just thinks your holowarming crap is just that.
>
> Holowarming is a hoax.
As usual, the denialist just makes some shit up.
Ouroboros Rex
>>> carbon dioxide, 9-26%
>>> methane, 4-9%
>>> ozone, 3-7%
>>>
>>> Without any of these greenhouse gases the earth would be 33'C
>>> colder, so although you are correct to say water vapour is the main
>>> cause, carbon dioxide is far from negligible.
>>>
>> That's true. Subject line corrected.
>
> But Cap & Trade (Aside from being a tax with only miniscule lipservice
> in way of actual
> AGW funds) estimates in 50 years it will only keep CO2 from changing
> 1/2 of 1% at the
> global cost of trillions.
Nope.
Ouroboros Rex
As usual, the denialist just makes some shit up.
Ouroboros Rex
Yep. And that's why
water vapor, 36�70%
carbon dioxide, 9�26%
methane, 4�9%
ozone, 3�7%
..of global warming.
Ouroboros Rex
>
>> carbon dioxide, 9-26%
>
> Plain old lying.
>
> The heat heat transport they are referring to has every form of
> heat transport excluded except long wave.
>
> WTF?!!
>
> Great start for holowarming science eh?!
>
> Even then, the effects are only calculated between the hours
> of 12.00 noon and 12.01 pm!!!
>
> They forgot to integrate their results
> over all spectra and over the entire 24 hour period!!!
>
> When you put all that into perspective, water vapor still
> does 99% of the work and CO2 rears its head in at around
> a contrived figure of 0.01% if you are lucky that is
> to measure it.
>
>
>> ozone, 3-7%
As usual, the denialist just makes some shit up.
Ouroboros Rex
>> carbon dioxide, 9-26%
>> methane, 4-9%
>> ozone, 3-7%
>>
As usual, the denialist just makes some shit up.
Bret Cahill
Rightards don't need no stinkin' science.
Bret Cahill
Michael Gordge
> Signs of Global Warming Strong in Korea
When in their part of the globe its the coldest temperatures and
deepest snow falls on record those who are in denial of the fact that
man making the globe hot and cold by fucking around with Co2 is a scam
must begin a desperate search looking for somewhere on the globe that
isn't so cold.
MG
leona...@gmail.com
• That begets idiocy
• Kamchatka is part of a volcanic chain the starts from
Alaska and Aleutians, Kamchatka and Japan. The
past two years Kamchatka has had 2 or 3 volcanos of
which there are many, in eruption constantly. That
alone could account for the warming weather
>
> The report, based on research by the Korea Global Atmosphere Watch
> Center, found the density of carbon dioxide and other major greenhouse
> gases was higher here than elsewhere between 1999 and 2008.
• There again the Kamchatka volcanos could well
be the source of the extra CO2.
>
> The carbon dioxide density around the peninsula last year stood at
> 391.4 parts per million (ppm), compared with 370.7 ppm in 1999.
• CO2 has no affect on the climate
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
leona...@gmail.com
• Touche!!
JohnGr
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for pointing out the distinction between
"without GHG" and "without atmosphere".
I've checked this out and I think I'm clear on it
all now. The best simple explanation of the
greenhouse effect I can find is at
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html
The confusion arises between 2 quantities:
1. the absorbtion by greenhouse gases of infrared radiation
emitted from the earth surface. This is a relative small effect
(about 20W/m2).
2. the total infrared radition emitted from the atmosphere to
the earth surface (324W/m2) . This is very large and is the
cause of the 33'C.
No.2 is larger than No.1 because the atmosphere obtains its
energy initially from several additional processes
(notably evaporation, convection, direct absorbtion of sunlight)
Some literature seems to restrict the greenhouse effect to No.1,
whilst others include the whole of No. 2.
dipsy
Numbers are fine, but if you would get outside more and, say, go to
the Sea of Japan and measure the temperature, you wouldn't have to
really look to see that the temperature has risen, you only need to
see the giant jellyfish that are spread out for miles and miles - like
no one has ever seen before. Ya see, they breed in nice warm water, so
I guess the jellyfish don't read the charts so good. I always knew
they lacked brains. I won't even mention the Arctic...but if you did
get out more, from behind all that number crunching and that air
freshener your mom sprays in your basement.....there is a world out
there ging thru some mysterious changes. But I'm sure you would
probably conjure up a reason for polar bears drowning because they
can't swim out to the multilayer ice anymore....aw they're probably
not in as good of shape as they were twenty years ago, yeah like you
say, the numbers are there......
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>
>>
Thanks for the link, it does at least say
the atmosphere is what keeps the Earth warm.
I am not comfortable with everything said
on that page, it still doesn't treat the concept
of "surface" correctly, there is very little data
on solid surface temperatures, it is the air
two meters up where temperatures are taken.
But Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium
is what holds temperatures so stable, the
distance Infra-Red radiation travels in the
lower atmosphere is very short, the travel
paths are not much longer than the kinetic
exchange of thermal energy.
There is no way the high watt numbers
are correct on a 24/365 basis, I seriously
doubt actual measurements of that exist.
I wish I could agree with the writings on
government and school lab web sites, but
some of it is pure fantasy or exaggeration.