Catastrophic climate change

espinolman

Is that real , could catastrophic climate change happen very quickly ?

And when is it going to happen , is it 2012 .

Why have we not been warned by the governments , or have we !

Are climate change deniers dis-info agents !

What is really going on !

Di0genes

espinolman wrote: »

Is that real , could catastrophic climate change happen very quickly ?

No see "the day after tomorrow"and "2012" were what we call "films". Or "make believe" or "lets pretend" or "imagination" "fantasy" "made up", "not really" "fairytelling" "science fiction" (emphasis on the fiction part) or "story time" "false" and "not real".

nullzero

It seems that the earth's climate fluctuates over time. We haven't been recording weather for long enough to have any sort of proper understanding of how the earth's climate works on any real level.

As for 2012, I'm not sold on it at all to be honest. I woudln't expect to wake up to disater move type scenes.

My name is URL

Catastrophic climate change already happens. There's a few inhabited Islands around the world disappearing due to rising sea levels, some have alreay vanished.. that's pretty catastrophic for the people living on them I would have thought.

espinolman

Di0genes wrote: »

No see "the day after tomorrow"and "2012" were what we call "films". Or "make believe" or "lets pretend" or "imagination" "fantasy" "made up", "not really" "fairytelling" "science fiction" (emphasis on the fiction part) or "story time" "false" and "not real".

Science fiction like climate change caused by co2 .

espinolman

nullzero wrote: »

We haven't been recording weather for long enough to have any sort of proper understanding of how the earth's climate works on any real level.

Maybe someone has and knows , who would that be !

Di0genes

espinolman wrote: »

Science fiction like climate change caused by co2 .

No I believe in man made climate change. I just don't think it'll happen suddenly and dramatically and the dog and cute kid will make it to the final reel.

digme

My name is URL wrote: »

Catastrophic climate change already happens. There's a few inhabited Islands around the world disappearing due to rising sea levels, some have alreay vanished.. that's pretty catastrophic for the people living on them I would have thought.

what islands?

My name is URL

digme wrote: »

what islands?

Carteret, some Islands within the Kiribati group, Islands off the coast of Southern Bangladesh, Tuvalu

digme

My name is URL wrote: »

Carteret, some Islands within the Kirabati group, Islands off the coast of Southern Bangladesh, Tuvalu

The Carteret islands likely consist of a base of coral that sits atop an extinct volcanic mount. In the usual geological course of events first proposed by Charles Darwin, such islands eventually subside due to weathering and erosion, as well as isostatic adjustments of the sea floor. It has also been speculated that dynamite fishing [5] in the Carterets such as occurred in the island during the prolonged Bougainville conflict may be contributing to the increased inundation. Coral reefs buffer against wave and tidal action, and so their degradation may increase an island's level of exposure to those forces. Another suggestion is that tectonic movement may be causing the gradual subsidence of the atoll. [7]

Historically other populated islands, for example Tuanaki in the Cook Islands (last seen in 1842), are known to have sunk entirely and relatively suddenly for causes unrelated to rising sea levels.[8


I don't buy this man made global warming sh!te at all.

My name is URL

digme wrote: »

I don't buy this man made global warming sh!te at all.

Neither do I, or at least I don't believe we play as big a part as we're told we do. I do believe that climate change is happening though, for whatever reason.. personally I think it's cyclic, but once something happens it can have a chain reaction on the rest of the planet

Yitzhak Rabin

digme wrote: »

I don't buy this man made global warming sh!te at all.

Give your best reason for not believing it, and I bet it doesn't hold up scientifically.

digme

It has to be scientifically or else I would be talking about something else entirely, such as economically.I don't need to explain the science,I just know that the earth is billions of years old and things happens every once in awhile but, man is so conceited and self absorbed that they think, just because they are alive at this point in time,it must be them that's causing it,it's pure bollocks.

Yitzhak Rabin

digme wrote: »

It has to be scientifically or else I would be talking about something else entirely, such as economically.I don't need to explain the science,I just know that the earth is billions of years old and things happens every once in awhile but, man is so conceited and self absorbed that they think, just because they are alive at this point in time,it must be them that's causing it,it's pure bollocks.

So let me get this straight.

You don't need a scientific explanation? You just know? Or did I read that wrong?

robtri

yekahs wrote: »

Give your best reason for not believing it, and I bet it doesn't hold up scientifically.

sure nor does a lot of theories on this forum...

digme

yekahs wrote: »

So let me get this straight.

You don't need a scientific explanation? You just know? Or did I read that wrong?

That's correct.

Yitzhak Rabin

robtri wrote: »

sure nor does a lot of theories on this forum...

I just get so sick of hearing the same "climate change is bullsh1t!" line over and over. I just want to hear a good reason to doubt the tons of literature and countless hours of research that claim the opposite

Yitzhak Rabin

digme wrote: »

That's correct.

Are you that gullible when it comes to all matters? Or just the ones where you don't like the accepted answer?

digme

Why would I be gullible?I like science.

Yitzhak Rabin

digme wrote: »

Why would I be gullible?I like science.

I just think its gullible to form your opinions without evidence.

You dismissed climate change without evidence.

digme

The climate changes,it's natural.

Yitzhak Rabin

digme wrote: »

The climate changes,it's natural.

Ok, so that proves the climate changes. I'd be more interested in why.

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up.

Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2

robtri

yekahs wrote: »

Ok, so that proves the climate changes. I'd be more interested in why.

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up.

Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2

there are a lot of scientfic thoeries out there that CO2 while it is part of the problem, that Co2 is not responsible for the overall gloabl temp rise we have seen.
Sun spot cycles are the current one at the moment...

Yitzhak Rabin

robtri wrote: »

there are a lot of scientfic thoeries out there that CO2 while it is part of the problem, that Co2 is not responsible for the overall gloabl temp rise we have seen.

Links if you have them please.

Sun spot cycles are the current one at the moment...

No, this is a myth. The claim that solar cycle length proves the sun is driving global warming is based on a single study published in 1991 by Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen which claimed a "strikingly good agreement" between solar cycle lengths (the fluctuating lengths of cycles undergone by sunspot numbers) and northern hemisphere land temperatures over the period 1860–1990. The Oil companies and vested interests Anti-climate change lobby picked up on that one paper and began claiming "ITS THE SUN!!11!1" Thats not what the scientific community is saying at all.

What the people who support that theory normally fail to mention is that one of the authors published a subsequent paper which refuted the claim and said since around 1990 the type of Solar forcing that is described by the solar cycle length model no longer dominates the long-term variation of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature link

Plenty of other papers comes to the same conclusion that solar forcing and sunspot activity is not responsible:

Kelly 1992 models the effects of a combination of greenhouse and solar-cycle-length forcing and compare the results with observed temperatures. They find that "even with optimized solar forcing, most of the recent warming trend is explained by greenhouse forcing".

Laut 1998 analyses the period 1579–1987 and finds "the solar hypothesis—instead of contradicting—appears to support the assumption of a significant warming due to human activities".

Damon 1999 uses the pre-industrial record as a boundary condition and finds the SCL-temperature correlation corresponds to an estimated 25% of global warming to 1980 and 15% to 1997.

Benestad 2005 concludes "There have been speculations about an association between the solar cycle length and Earth's climate, however, the solar cycle length analysis does not follow Earth's global mean surface temperature. A further comparison with the monthly sunspot number, cosmic galactic rays and 10.7 cm absolute radio flux since 1950 gives no indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming".

So, in conclusion, the theory that

robtri wrote: »

Sun spot cycles are the current one at the moment...

is based on one paper from 20 years ago, which has since been refuted by dozens of climate scientists including one of the original author.

espinolman

There has been global dimming and yet it is not getting colder , why ?

Myrddin

Wern't the 1990's the warmest (decade) on record? If co2 production is rocketing, why has this decade been cooler?

Co2 levels are 30% higher today than before the Industrial Revolution, why is the weather/temp more or less the same? Wern't there parts of London in the 1800's that a certain type of wine could be made, because it was a particular temp - a wine that couldn't be made today in the same place?

Sparticle

EnterNow wrote: »

Wern't the 1990's the warmest (decade) on record? If co2 production is rocketing, why has this decade been cooler

Has it?



You have to look back to see the full trend.



To clarify are people here denying climate change or anthropogenic climate change?

halkar

It's proven:

Myrddin

Sparticle wrote: »

Has it?



You have to look back to see the full trend.



To clarify are people here denying climate change or anthropogenic climate change?

The graph does make things clearer. 1996-1998 had a massive spike in temp, but in 2005-2008 the temperature fell. I just dont understand if the effect is as cumlative as they say, how can, over the course of three years of billions of tonnes of co2 being pumped out (2005-2008), the temperature fall so visibly on the graph? I also wouldn't mind seeing a longer scale of that graph, maybe back a couple of hundred years...

Admittedly I've no idea what anthropogenic means but I feel if CO2 was as powerful a climate chnager as whats said, then Earth should be like Venus now :pac:

Sparticle

EnterNow wrote: »

The graph does make things clearer. 1996-1998 had a massive spike in temp, but in 2005-2008 the temperature fell. I just dont understand if the effect is as cumlative as they say, how can, over the course of three years of billions of tonnes of co2 being pumped out (2005-2008), the temperature fall so visibly on the graph? I also wouldn't mind seeing a longer scale of that graph, maybe back a couple of hundred years...

Admittedly I've no idea what anthropogenic means but I feel if CO2 was as powerful a climate chnager as whats said, then Earth should be like Venus now :pac:

CO2 is not the only factor in temperature and there's bound to be fluctuations in other factors leading to dips and spikes in global temperature.


This is not nearly as accurate as the other graphs but it's apparently a good estimate.

Anthropogenic means man-made.

Venus has an atmosphere that's much much thicker than ours and 96.5% of that atmosphere is CO2. That's why it's a hellhole. Earth's is only .039% in contrast.

bonkey

I'd just like to remind y'all that this isn't a science forum.

I know that there's the angle that its a conspiracy to con us into believing that its happening when it isn't, or the conspiracy to con us into believing it isn't happening when it is.....and that's cool.

If all you want to discuss, though, is whether or not its actually happening...this isn't the forum.