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.

CrackisWhack

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.

The amount of toxins/pollutants being pumped into the atmosphere daily:




Has to have some impact on the atmosphere, these chemicals do not just disappear.

I don't understand why some people will argue to the hilt thats its not scientifically proven, climate has always changed etc. Surely caution would be the better approach, at least if we're wrong(which I don't think we are) it will have had no or little effect on the planet.

The world needs to cut emissions drastically in my opinion.

espinolman

My theory is that climate change is caused by something else that co2 , the reason co2 is blamed is because it can be taxed easily .

What else could be causing the climate to change , it could be that damage was done to the earths protective layer from aerial thermonuclear tests in the 50s and 60s and that the reason for chemtrails is to stop radiation from entering the athmosphere from damage caused by those tests .

Torakx

I think if we just kept a mind first to the enviornment we live in(green energy etc) and second to everything else we would not have to wonder about the issue.
Maybe the scientists(along with layman advisors for moral and ethical reasons ) should be running the countries instead of politicians(actors) and business men.
Because theres money involved the issue is not resolved properly and we will continue to argue over the symptoms as the average people.
If they brought out cheaper alternatives it would be fixed much faster and we would then see if we were effecting a climate change or to what extent.

studiorat

espinolman wrote: »

My theory is that climate change is caused by something else that co2 , the reason co2 is blamed is because it can be taxed easily .

Interesting, how did you come about this theory? Would you like to share the research you have done?

Undergod

Human emissions will have an effect on the atmosphere, but we don't know how much cause we can't really set up a control group.

The reasonable answer seems to be that we have influenced the atmosphere; CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we've released quite a bit of it- not an unreasonable hypothesis to work with.

Surely caution would be the safest route; if CO2 is damaging the climate, then hooray we've stopped it! If CO2 doesn't, then, oh well, better safe than sorry.

Espinolman, why would CO2 be more easily taxed than anything else? CO2 is produced by combustion and is known (as I understand) to have these effects, so it's certainly a prime candidate.

espinolman

studiorat wrote: »

Interesting, how did you come about this theory? Would you like to share the research you have done?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z99FIOSetGw

IrelandSpirit

robtri wrote: »

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

I have a caravan by the sea, it's only a stone's throw away from the tide line. It's been there for over 12 years. It's still there last time I checked.

So can someone please explain the sea level rising theory. Because if the polar icecaps are melting due to man-made global warming, to the point whole islands are vanishing under water, :eek: why hasn't sea levels risen here?

I seriously don't get that!

Richard tea

The day draws near when we can call bull**** on this '' Man made Global warming '' theory.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Take that tree huggers:D

Yitzhak Rabin

Richard tea wrote: »

The day draws near when we can call bull**** on this '' Man made Global warming '' theory.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Take that tree huggers:D

*sigh*

Did you read the article? Or was it just the headline?

Let me quote you a few bits;

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

...

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."

...

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

...

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

...

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

So next time you want to "Call Bullsh*t :D:D:D:D:D" on climate change, please, at least read beyond the headline

Richard tea

Yes I read it all. Its a step closer to the truth:D Like I wrote '' the day draws near''

All we need is a few more dodgy e-mail & a few whistleblowers

Yitzhak Rabin

Richard tea wrote: »

Yes I read it all. Its a step closer to the truth:D Like I wrote '' the day draws near''

All we need is a few more dodgy e-mail & a few whistleblowers

Some actual evidence would be a help too.

Richard tea

yekahs wrote: »

Some actual evidence would be a help too.

Yes evidence would be nice. We have detailed climate records going back about since the 1800's. Its hardly enough time to make such statements as man is causing the earths temp to rise. Maybe 10,000 years of records would be a good starting point.

Metalfan

haha you guys are nuts

bonkey

Take a week off

stevoslice

one of the theories against man made climate change is that we are coming to the end of our current ice age and the earth is warming up naturally as it has been for a good few thousand years or so.
Some quarters point to the temperature rises in the equatorial african regions over the last few hundred years as an indicator of this.
In my opinion, this is the more convincing of the climate change theories i have heard.

IrelandSpirit

yekahs wrote: »

Some actual evidence would be a help too.

Let's start with my caravan by the sea, as explained earlier, it's only a stone's throw away from the tide line. It's been there for over 12 years. It's still there last time I checked. We're repeatedly told man-made global warming is melting polar icecaps and sea levels are rising - whole islands are vanishing under water, why is my caravan still there?

I'm not being obtuse asking this question, I would really like to know.

stevoslice

forgot to add that i do believe being responsible in our energy needs ain't a bad thing. Although i do believe that carbon taxes are a step too far.

meglome

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Let's start with my caravan by the sea, as explained earlier, it's only a stone's throw away from the tide line. It's been there for over 12 years. It's still there last time I checked. We're repeatedly told man-made global warming is melting polar icecaps and sea levels are rising - whole islands are vanishing under water, why is my caravan still there?

I'm not being obtuse asking this question, I would really like to know.

Funny i was at a friends mobile home a couple of years ago and the bank next to the sea was being totally eaten away. And it wasn't when they went there originally.



On a general note I can't believe the arrogance of some people when it comes to climate change. If we make changes and it turns out it's not happening we've lost very little. But if we don't make changes and it turns out to be happening we could lose everything. I don't need to be a scientist to understand that.

IrelandSpirit

meglome wrote: »

Funny i was at a friends mobile home a couple of years ago and the bank next to the sea was being totally eaten away. And it wasn't when they went there originally.

Funny that yeah, and your friend's caravan's not underwater either! I'm not referring to coastal erosion, but polar ice-caps melting and entire islands vanishing under the sea. I just don't understand if that's true, then why havent sea levels risen here?

On a general note I can't believe the arrogance of some people when it comes to climate change. If we make changes and it turns out it's not happening we've lost very little. But if we don't make changes and it turns out to be happening we could lose everything. I don't need to be a scientist to understand that.

I agree, climate does change - we've not seen a decent summer here for over a decade - and I would also agree with a radical shift from fossil fuels to a clean alternative, and to an end to pollution in general.

But I saw islands vanishing on TV a couple of years back and it was because of global warming melting the ice-caps, they said. Seriously, how can sea levels rise on one side of the planet but no anywhere else?

RoboClam

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Let's start with my caravan by the sea, as explained earlier, it's only a stone's throw away from the tide line. It's been there for over 12 years. It's still there last time I checked. We're repeatedly told man-made global warming is melting polar icecaps and sea levels are rising - whole islands are vanishing under water, why is my caravan still there?

I'm not being obtuse asking this question, I would really like to know.

Here's the average increase since 1880:



So unless your caravan is less than 5 cm above sea level, I think you'll be OK for quite a while.

There are a few reasons why small island nations are more at risk from increasing sea levels. As stated here http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/estimated-contributions-to-sea-level-rise-1993-2003

" The two main reasons for sea-level rise are thermal expansion of ocean waters as they warm, and increase in the ocean mass, principally from land-based sources of ice (glaciers and ice caps, and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica). Global warming from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations is a significant driver of both contributions to sea-level rise."

The waters around Ireland can hardly be considered warm, so this wouldn't be a problem for us.

Another contributing factor is that Tuvalu for example is only 4.5 m above sea level at it's highest. Even still, I've only found reports of severe flooding that have been linked to increased sea levels. Any "sinking" islands seem to be a result of Subsidence rather than climate change.