'Bundle Up, It's Global Warming'

fizzycyst

Ok, I do understand where you are coming from but a good debate on the topic isn't a bad thing. Anyway, here's my tuppence worth. There's no doubt that mean temperatures across the globe have increased, and there has also been an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, but there is some debate about how catastrophic the warming effect will become. In my own opinion, it's better to be safe than sorry, so the general population being aware of (and reducing) their carbon footprint certainly will not hurt. But as I alluded to earlier, climate models are not necessarily that dependable currently.

sharper

thetonynator wrote: »

I agree with you that activity is stable up until 1995or a bit later on all of you graphs. However it is stable when you look at a tiny section, i.e. less than 20 years.

If you look at more than 20 years it's down.

And it is stable at a high level, which corresponds perfectly with the warming trend.

Stable corresponds with warm, it does not correspond with warming. Temperatures have continued to increase over the entire time period with no or declining trend in solar activity, that's a negative correspondence.

Going back to the other graph which includes a much longer time period

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-basic.htm


You can see that solar activity was likely higher in the 1950s and this supported by graphing the sunspot count since 1950 with annual means



It clearly makes no sense whatsoever to attribute warming since 1980 to solar activity. It also doesn't match other observations like the cooling in the stratosphere

http://skepticalscience.com/Stratospheric_Cooling.html

sharper

fizzycyst wrote: »

but there is some debate about how catastrophic the warming effect will become.

I wouldn't personally use the word catastrophic but yes the regional effects of warming (or any projection of regional changes at all) are among the most uncertain aspects of climate science. That's why the debate tends to center around the most certain predictions like sea level increases and loss of polar ice. Predicting what will happen to Ireland or even the United States is extremely difficult and maybe nothing will happen (the flip side of that is maybe the climate will change abruptly and unfavorably for those regions)

In my own opinion, it's better to be safe than sorry, so the general population being aware of (and reducing) their carbon footprint certainly will not hurt. But as I alluded to earlier, climate models are not necessarily that dependable currently.

Climate models are currently used mostly to predict global decadal temperature trends and as a basis for other scientists to test their work, they do a pretty good job at both these tasks. The task for modelers is to make them useful for regional predictions but they're nowhere near close.

Turtwig

sharper wrote: »

Climate models are currently used mostly to predict global decadal temperature trends and as a basis for other scientists to test their work, they do a pretty good job at both these tasks. The task for modelers is to make them useful for regional predictions but they're nowhere near close.

100% Agree, I think another part of the regional predictions problem is that current precipitations models are rubbish, even at large resolutions they tend to be inconsistent. Hopefully with time these will become more refined so that the regional models won't have as much of a headache. That said, even at low resolutions the temperature models are inconsistent for regional effects, so there is quite some time and work to be done.

Turtwig

Godge wrote: »

Interesting that you reference Newton and Einstein. Newton's laws works, everything else being equal and constant. Einstein showed that not everything else was equal and constant. A gross over-simplification but what-the-heck, everyone else on boards is guilty of one of those sooner or later.

We have the theory that in a closed system, increased CO2 emissions lead to higher global temperatures. Nothing wrong with that..........except we are not in a closed system. The earth depends on an external heat source, the oceans (and the atmosphere?) are affected by the gravitational pull of the Moon. Lesser agreement on the electro-magnetic effects of the solar system but nonetheless, whether these influences are minor or major, they mean that we do not have a closed system.

Economics assumes people behave rationally. Global warming assumes a closed system. Each of them is good enough to a point, until people behave irrationally or an external influence takes hold.

I do not doubt the principles underlining the effects of increased CO2 emissions, I doubt the degree of their influence as compared to the external influences on our climate. To put it another way, acceptance of global warming theory as a small influence on our climate. To put it simpler, imaging how bad the winter would have been (Liffey freezing over?) if it wasn't for the effects of global warming.

I really don't understand your point here. Perhaps I'm taking you up wrong but it does seem like you are putting the forward the point that the models don't account for external influences, or that it does account for them just not accurate enough. This is most likely true, but temperature models - and this is the key point most people fail to grasp, overlook or ignore -don't just predict future temperatures they are also used to predict to past climates. In some cases this is done, before the physical evidence of proxies and the likes have been measured. This allows a good deal of confidence in the reliability and accuracy of such models to within their estimated parameters of accuracy. All models even those used in the IPCC reports list their estimated sources of possible error and their size.

Godge wrote: »

2. My theory is that CO2 increase is happening and correlated temperature increase is happening but this winter is showing that it is being counteracted by the solar decrease. We might not reach the stage of the Liffey freezing thanks to increased CO2 emissions.

The next few years will tell a lot. The original global warming activists said ten years ago that we would never again see serious snow in northwestern Europe in winter. They have changed their theory to reflect the reality of three increasingly cold European winters to say that it is caused by global warming. All that does is show that their original theory was incomplete. It is not too much of a jump to wonder if it was incomplete in one aspect, was that the only aspect.

The first thing I would like to point out is that last winter (I haven't yet seen figures for this one) was freezing in parts of Europe and the U.S, yet globally it was one of the warmest winters since records began. While an explanation for the snow would be nice and siberian theory is nice, the thing we should not lose sight of is that Europe and US does constitute the world. It's the global winter we should be looking at not, not regional ones. Put it another way, like it or not, land mass is not the world most of Earth is ocean.

The second thing is that I would love to see a source on the claim that we would never see serious snow. And by source I am not referring to a newspaper article, I'd very much prefer a prediction from a reviewed paper. Basically if you do find such a paper I think it's safe to say that the author isn't worth their salt. Precipitation models today suck, those 10 years ago were far worse, no one in their sane mind would make a definite statement about snow or rain - you'd be bonkers. To my knowledge the future forecast (I hate the term forecast as people are more inclined to confuse climate and weather when you use the term) for Ireland back in 1995 was warmer summers with more intense rainfall and longer spells of drought. Slightly Colder winters and more extreme rainfall. Britain, has got a similar projection. It's still far too early for us to even assess if such predictions (which are themselves being refined as models become better understood.) are turning out true or not.

Finally, the theory is incomplete, but to get a more accurate picture of where we do stand I cannot recommend this article in Nature highly enough.:D

isle of man

cant sea a problem if it gets warmer.

as we are coming out of an ice age, then really the warming is normal:rolleyes:

thetonynator

isle of man wrote: »

cant sea a problem if it gets warmer.

as we are coming out of an ice age, then really the warming is normal:rolleyes:

Living on a tiny island in a big sea, you should be worried about rising sea levels . .:P

isle of man

thetonynator wrote: »

Living on a tiny island in a big sea, you should be worried about rising sea levels . .:P

its ok i dont live by the sea:D,
but when the great ice sheets melt and the sea raises a few meters, (still waiting for that to happin)

i will have some nice prime buliding land for sale £££££££

Min

Program on RTE2 at 7pm tonight, it says new research shows volcanic activity has increased by 300% in the past 1,000 years.

If that is true then that adds another question mark over man made climate change.

thetonynator

Min wrote: »

Program on RTE2 at 7pm tonight, it says new research shows volcanic activity has increased by 300% in the past 1,000 years.

If that is true then that adds another question mark over man made climate change.

Really depends when it rose though, if it was before the little ice age, it messes up all the theories!

Sparks

220+ posts from (using the definition strictly) a group of mostly untrained amateurs talking about local weather or misunderstood statistics on wider-scale data, all to say that the IPCC report, which is the most conservative consensus of all the research that has been done on this by trained fulltime professionals, is either wrong or a deliberate hoax.

Lads, this is an embarressment. Seriously, can someone go read this link and see if there are any questions at all in here that are not answered there?

Min

Volcanoes exploding causes cooling but it is also one of the biggest contributors to CO2 in the atmosphere.

According to the USGS, over 130 million tonnes of CO2 released by volcanoes every year.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H2O), followed by carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Volcanoes also release smaller amounts of others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and helium (He).

Water Vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas on Earth, it was in the Guardian last year that water vapour accounts for at least one third of the warming that has been observed.
Next thing the government will be charging for water
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/29/water-vapour-climate-change

Min

deleted as it might be seen as unfair.

sharper

Min wrote: »

According to the USGS, over 130 million tonnes of CO2 released by volcanoes every year

Versus 30 billion tonnes by humans.

Water Vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas on Earth, it was in the Guardian last year that water vapour accounts for at least one third of the warming that has been observed.

Water vapour condenses out of the atmosphere in hours or days.

4gun

Sparks wrote: »

220+ posts from (using the definition strictly) a group of mostly untrained amateurs talking about local weather or misunderstood statistics on wider-scale data, all to say that the IPCC report, which is the most conservative consensus of all the research that has been done on this by trained fulltime professionals, is either wrong or a deliberate hoax.

Lads, this is an embarressment. Seriously, can someone go read this link and see if there are any questions at all in here that are not answered there?

if people didn't ask question to try to understand the world around us a bit better...where would we be....still swinging from a tree
basically what you just said is children go play and leave the big stuff to the adults.....thought you were better that that Sparks

isle of man

Sparks wrote: »

220+ posts from (using the definition strictly) a group of mostly untrained amateurs talking about local weather or misunderstood statistics on wider-scale data, all to say that the IPCC report, which is the most conservative consensus of all the research that has been done on this by trained fulltime professionals, is either wrong or a deliberate hoax.

Lads, this is an embarressment. Seriously, can someone go read this link and see if there are any questions at all in here that are not answered there?

Would that be the IPCC that is funded by the govenments of the world.

And would that also be the IPCC, that the govenmnets say who can write the reports, who does the peer reviews, who say which inderpended experts can do the checking. and the same IPCC that the govenments have to have the last check b4 going to print.

Call me cynical if you like. but do you trust your own govenments that much and have 100% utter faith in them, that they have never once bent the truth to suit that needs.

And this is the reason why so many people will go IPCC, "not worth a carrot"

I bet given the millions the IPCC have had, and the agenda diffrent, that thay could convinve the world the earth is cooling if that was there job.


Right can somebody point me in the way of the conspires fourm i think i am lost:D

Sparks

4gun wrote: »

if people didn't ask question to try to understand the world around us a bit better...where would we be....still swinging from a tree
basically what you just said is children go play and leave the big stuff to the adults.....thought you were better that that Sparks

Basically what I just said is that these guys aren't idiots, there are too many of them from too many places to be in the pay of some happy conspiracy theory, and they've checked their results too often to be just throwing out ideas like you would over a pint. You want to ask questions, yes; but when someone gives you the answers, along with the supporting data and those answers have been cross-checked and verified by other independent work; it's time to say "okay, that's the answer" and ask the next question, not act the gombeen because you didn't like the answer you were given.

I mean, if you lot were talking about going out and doing your own study, of collecting your own actual data, that'd be one thing - but this is all stupid conspiracy theory stuff. It's saying "Oh, that's wrong because you're from the government", not "Oh, that's wrong because I measured that data myself and even allowing for the error rates in the instruments, my data is still statisically significantly different from yours so your work is erroneous". That's the problem with conspiracy theory mentality - it doesn't produce reliable data to back itself up.

fizzycyst

Sparks

Not everyone posting here is saying that the global warming concept is a conspiracy theory made up by governments. My posts here related to the fact there is much more to add to the theory due to climatology being a relatively new science.

As science progresses some new theories emerge and also some old theories evolve into better theories. There is no doubt that global warming is happening, but, there is much to learned on the subject.

Some people here may not be aware of some of the data that is being presented to them, so it is a good thing to have a thread like this to keep people informed.

Frankly, I find your post offensive and uncalled for. The weather forum is at least, partially, a place where people come to find new information on all aspects of weather and climate. Speaking to people in such a patronising way is just unfair.

Fizzy

Sparks

Fizzy, while the details are still a matter for debate, the bones of this won't change. The global climate is changing, the amount of CO2 we've contributed to the atmosphere is a proximate cause and is wildly above levels previous seen on the planet, and we are the proximate cause of all of this. That's accepted in the scientific field. It's only in the sensationalist media field that it is not, and there it is not so much disputed as the "underdog effect" is exploited by marketers. If the IPCC report stated that we were not the proximate cause, you would have a group the same approximate size as the global warming deniers calling for carbon taxes because we were the proximate cause; it's nothing to do with the actual issue and everything to do with marketing psychology.

As to patronising language, what do you call 220-odd posts calling professional scientist by turns incompetent, inept, arrogant, and plain, old-fashioned corrupt? If you'd named any one scientist in those posts, they'd have a very solid case against boards.ie ltd for defamation. We're only saved from that because we're talking about such a large group of people.

4gun

Sparks wrote: »

Basically what I just said is that these guys aren't idiots, there are too many of them from too many places to be in the pay of some happy conspiracy theory, and they've checked their results too often to be just throwing out ideas like you would over a pint. You want to ask questions, yes; but when someone gives you the answers, along with the supporting data and those answers have been cross-checked and verified by other independent work; it's time to say "okay, that's the answer" and ask the next question, not act the gombeen because you didn't like the answer you were given.

I mean, if you lot were talking about going out and doing your own study, of collecting your own actual data, that'd be one thing - but this is all stupid conspiracy theory stuff. It's saying "Oh, that's wrong because you're from the government", not "Oh, that's wrong because I measured that data myself and even allowing for the error rates in the instruments, my data is still statisically significantly different from yours so your work is erroneous". That's the problem with conspiracy theory mentality - it doesn't produce reliable data to back itself up.

and again we are to accept the word of a group whose very existance depends on climate change,
take for example in our own country were the financial controller was "swayed" by the banks to turn a blind eye...
do you not think that it might be plausible that the IPCC has not been lobbied in some way by business that might have a vested interest in climate change....

and why is it that any one that questions popular opionion now-a-days is a conspiracy theorist..... a tin foil hat wearer
are we now expected to accept every thing we are told ...a kind of bully senario of " if I want your opionion ,I'll give it to ya"

Duiske

Sparks wrote: »

Basically what I just said is that these guys aren't idiots, there are too many of them from too many places to be in the pay of some happy conspiracy theory, and they've checked their results too often to be just throwing out ideas like you would over a pint. You want to ask questions, yes; but when someone gives you the answers, along with the supporting data and those answers have been cross-checked and verified by other independent work; it's time to say "okay, that's the answer" and ask the next question, not act the gombeen because you didn't like the answer you were given.

I mean, if you lot were talking about going out and doing your own study, of collecting your own actual data, that'd be one thing - but this is all stupid conspiracy theory stuff. It's saying "Oh, that's wrong because you're from the government", not "Oh, that's wrong because I measured that data myself and even allowing for the error rates in the instruments, my data is still statisically significantly different from yours so your work is erroneous". That's the problem with conspiracy theory mentality - it doesn't produce reliable data to back itself up.

But on the other side of the coin, people who actually place all their trust in the IPCC will look for data sources that seem to verify the IPCC line. You look to papers that agree with the AGW theory and then say,"There, more proof, the science is settled"

No doubt you will think the following, from the International Journal of Geosciences, is "stupid conspiracy theory stuff" simply because it does not fit your view.



Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes (Full Paper)

Abstract.

The dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence. The comparison of temperature changes and CO2 changes in the atmosphere is made for a large diversity of conditions, with the same data used to model climate changes. Correlation of historical series of data is the main approach. CO2 changes are closely related to temperature. Warmer seasons or triennial phases are followed by an atmosphere that is rich in CO2, reflecting the gas solving or exsolving from water, and not photosynthesis activity. Interannual correlations between the variables are good. A weak dominance of temperature changes precedence, relative to CO2 changes, indicate that the main effect is the CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to temperature rising. Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 capture by the oceans, not by gas re-absorption. Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase. The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis. The absence of immediate relation between CO2 and temperature is evidence that rising its mix ratio in the atmosphere will not imply more absorption and time residence of energy over the Earth surface. This is explained because band absorption is nearly all done with historic CO2 values. Unlike CO2, water vapor in the atmosphere is rising in tune with temperature changes, even in a monthly scale. The rising energy absorption of vapor is reducing the outcoming long wave radiation window and amplifying warming regionally and in a different way around the globe.

The above study could well be wrong. My reason for posting it is to show that there are actually other sides to the story, and the science is certainly not settled.

sharper

Duiske wrote: »

But on the other side of the coin, people who actually place all their trust in the IPCC will look for data sources that seem to verify the IPCC line. You look to papers that agree with the AGW theory and then say,"There, more proof, the science is settled"

I see people presenting evidence that supports the IPCC position and looking for those who claim that position is wrong to provide either alternative evidence or a better explanation. What they get instead are accusations of manipulation and fraud along with highly generic conspiracy theories ("well they would say that wouldn't they") which can be used to dispute anything.

The above study could well be wrong. My reason for posting it is to show that there are actually other sides to the story, and the science is certainly not settled.

The logic the author is using that annual C02 varies (higher in winter, lower in summer) so therefore there should regional seasonal variations in temperature which correlate with those changes i.e.

The main conclusion one arrives at the analysis is that CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed. The main argument is the absence of immediate correlation between CO2 changes preceding temperature either for global or local changes.

This is not something anyone has ever proposed so he's disproved something people didn't think was the case anyway. The paper also notes

The role of vapor is reinforced when it is observed that the regions with a great difference between potential and actual specific humidity are the ones with high tempera- ture increase, like continental areas in mid to high lati- tudes. The main implication is that temperature increase predictions based on CO2 driving models are not reliable.

i.e. the regions which warmed the most have also seen the greatest increases in water vapour. The author makes no effort whatsoever to explain what caused this warming having dismissed C02 on the basis of regional seasonal variation.

Sparks

Duiske wrote: »

No doubt you will think the following, from the International Journal of Geosciences, is "stupid conspiracy theory stuff" simply because it does not fit your view.

No, I'll think it's an argument that's had it's own web page explaining why it's wrong since 2004.

The above study could well be wrong. My reason for posting it is to show that there are actually other sides to the story, and the science is certainly not settled.

That's simply an incorrect grasp on what the real situation is. Are all the details agreed upon? No, here's a list of what's still being argued over.

What's not being argued over includes:

• whether or not it's real (answer: yes, it is, everyone can see it in evidence from all over the globe);
• whether or not the global average temperature is rising (answer: yes, it is, we can see it doing so); and
• whether or not it's caused by us (answer: yes, it is. Our industries have driven CO2 levels to almost 100% over the highest peak they've shown in the last 450 thousand years, and that is causing the problem)

.

Where the differences are comes down to what the highest secondary causes are, and what the effects will be of this rise and how bad they'll be and how best to solve the problem. And it's that last one that drives me round the bend, because when all the evidence and all the scientific community agree that the problem is real and about what's causing it, people who insist on second-guessing them are actively worsening our chances of solving the problem purely because they don't understand the science and won't trust the scientists. That's not well-meaning open-minded inquiry, that's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Min

The climate scientists don't know, they trust computers models, totally fantasy island stuff.

isle of man

Sparks wrote: »

What's not being argued over includes:

• whether or not it's real (answer: yes, it is, everyone can see it in evidence from all over the globe);
• whether or not the global average temperature is rising (answer: yes, it is, we can see it doing so); and
• whether or not it's caused by us (answer: yes, it is. Our industries have driven CO2 levels to almost 100% over the highest peak they've shown in the last 450 thousand years, and that is causing the problem)

.
.

thats really 3 quastions to answer the same thing.

1. cause its real, the world warms and cools,
2. see above!!!!
3. Now this could been seen as the no bit.

Ice cores show it as being that high in last thousand of years,
But ice cores are not 100% true are they. yes they may well be the BEST way of knowing,
but many other cliams of that other tests show the base line being 20-30ppm higher, which would cause the CO2 climb not to be as high.

Its proven by Nasa and many other climate people that CO2 is not diluted 100% around the globe,
so ice core readings COULD be wrong, could be showing to little or even to much.

Also theres the many reports that CO2 lags behind temp, Apart from at the moment where it seams to be near perfect.

And what caused the highest CO2 b4 man was on this earth, what caused the temp to be higher than it was b4 man was here.

With out knowing what caused that, then how can we 100% say that at the moment its all our fault. Nooby can prove why it was like that b4 or what caused it.
Theres many that Have there IDEAS but noboody knows 100% why,
and that is the point and the problem.

There is so much we dont know about our climate that how can we 100% say this is what does it, Because without knowing all the other effects that the earth causes then noboody can say 100% this is the reason.

And one last thing.
WHY is it so bad if the earth warms.
without the earth warming we would not have the earth we have today.
Why is it so bad if it warms.

And in my mind whats more worrying, is not the slow increase of temps, that we have time to plan and sort our lives out with,

Its the Use of geoengineering ideas to combat climate change.
While at the moment its in its early stagers and IMHO i dont think can cause to much effect, but 10-20 years down the line, when they make this new machine (i have no idea what)

When that switch is pressed we have no idea how earth could reacted to it.
It could just change the blance of a slow rise in co2 and temps to a sudden loss of CO2 in the air.
And we have no idea what that could do to anything, and that is the worrying part.

Man tries to save earth, man kills earth.

micro_dot

What is good about this forum is the concentration on data, and forecasts from that data. I like science. I'm not good at maths. But maths is a language you could use to talk to aliens, if they weren't afraid of being mugged here.

Postulations about world governments are usually found on other forums.
2006 is a long time ago, and I would like a good roundup from people good at physics and maths about what's the idea now. I wouldn't go to the barber for brain surgery, not since 1857. So amateurs are interesting, but need to have high standards.

What I don't want to hear is from people who spend too long in their bedrooms or people who are clinically paranoid. That last bit may be harsh, but sometimes plain bluntness does more good than harm. Like, wake up sheeple!

It'd be really funny if a future IPCC report had to include a section on world governments. But I will take it that there is no global warming if the scientists get back together and say it doesn't. End of. Don't care about Fred from Dalkey.

The politics of who will profit is entirely different. If anyone saw the end of RTE's documentary 'Green Gold', it is the same old faces from IBEC and business life here were talking about keeping government control out of any free money for new technology. No regulation, like in banking. No control over infrastructure, like Eircom. No obscure villains, but people need to take positions on the future, once we all get our personal issues out of the way. Nobody expected the oil boom either, or horseless carriages.
So if anyone wants world governments to have no control over free money, I would like to slap your tin hat (moderator, is that allowed?). Try to have more input into your world government. Start with society. Start by making friends.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

fizzycyst wrote: »

Sparks



There is no doubt that global warming is happening, but, there is much to learned on the subject.

Fizzy

utter rubbish
there is no doubt global cooling is happening how ever , and NONE of it is man made.

hotwhiskey

Interesting Stuff!

Looks like there was climate change or Global warming whatever take's your fancy when the Roman Empire was alive and kicking.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/01/fall-of-rome-recorded-in-trees.html?ref=hp

Emissions must of been high back then.:rolleyes:

Sponge Bob

The " Roman Warm Period " is what our Green Ubermisters would call an inconvenient truth....that and the warm period before that when the Céide Fields were fields rather than a bog.

bealtine

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The " Roman Warm Period " is what our Green Ubermisters would call an inconvenient truth....that and the warm period before that when the Céide Fields were fields rather than a bog.

The church where I used to live is called the Church of the Vineyards because when it was built the hills around it were covered in (you guessed it) vineyards.
I bet all those medieval cars and trucks caused the vineyards to flourish and all the polar bears to die.