Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Climate Change: The Megathread - Read Post #1 before posting

11012141516

Comments



  • Backdating the projections to the 1880s to make the data fit is at best an outright manipulation of the data, and at worst fraud!

    For starters it makes the cooler period between the late 1940s & 1980 completely disappear and also the 1880s were at the end of a cool century.

    If the projection lines were aligned on the 1210 - 1945 period instead of 1980 - 2000, the projections would be off the chart!




  • dolanbaker wrote: »
    Backdating the projections to the 1880s to make the data fit is at best an outright manipulation of the data, and at worst fraud!

    For starters it makes the cooler period between the late 1940s & 1980 completely disappear and also the 1880s were at the end of a cool century.

    If the projection lines were aligned on the 1210 - 1945 period instead of 1980 - 2000, the projections would be off the chart!
    I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about? You're disagreeing that the IPCC projection made in 1990 was reasonably accurate? Observed temperatures over the last two decades or so have fallen within the projected range, have they not?




  • Slightly tangential to the main discussion, but still relevant to climate change, I had always assumed that the growth of trees slowed as they aged. But, a paper out today in Nature suggests otherwise:
    Here we present a global analysis of 403 tropical and temperate tree species, showing that for most species mass growth rate increases continuously with tree size. Thus, large, old trees do not act simply as senescent carbon reservoirs but actively fix large amounts of carbon compared to smaller trees...
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7490/full/nature12914.html




  • djpbarry wrote: »
    Slightly tangential to the main discussion, but still relevant to climate change, I had always assumed that the growth of trees slowed as they aged. But, a paper out today in Nature suggests otherwise:
    Here we present a global analysis of 403 tropical and temperate tree species, showing that for most species mass growth rate increases continuously with tree size. Thus, large, old trees do not act simply as senescent carbon reservoirs but actively fix large amounts of carbon compared to smaller trees...

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7490/full/nature12914.html

    Quite possibly one of the main reasons that CO2 levels are rising as fast as they are, deforestation is far worse for the environment that the burning of fossil fuel! imho

    Burning fossil fuel is still bad of course, but removing carbon sinks is even worse as the levels continue onwards and upwards even if the burning slows down.




  • The food production -v- Population growth addressed by the UN


    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/hunger-warning-over-climate-change-1.1743855


  • Advertisement


  • A new IPCC report on climate change says that "the world will be devastated by the effects of climate change".
    The IPCC report says that the effects of climate change are being played out in real-time, with melting sea ice, the depletion of coral reefs and extreme weather.

    However, the report says that worse is to come. Climate change, they say, poses a risk to security, food stocks and global poverty.

    The report says that though it will not cause conflict, climate change will complicate and worsen existing global security problems, such as civil wars, strife between nations and refugees.

    The report says that greenhouse gas emissions could cost the world’s economies trillions of dollars a year in damage and repairs.

    Source: http://www.thejournal.ie/un-report-says-the-world-is-not-ready-for-effects-of-climate-change-1390051-Mar2014/

    From the IPCC's press release:
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report today that says the effects of climate change are already occurring on all continents and across the oceans. The world, in many cases, is ill-prepared for risks from a changing climate. The report also concludes that there are opportunities to respond to such risks, though the risks will be difficult to manage with high levels of warming.

    The report, titled Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, from Working Group II of the IPCC, details the impacts of climate change to date, the future risks from a changing climate, and the opportunities for effective action to reduce risks. A total of 309 coordinating lead authors, lead authors, and review editors, drawn from 70 countries, were selected to produce the report. They enlisted the help of 436 contributing authors, and a total of 1,729 expert and government reviewers.

    The report concludes that responding to climate change involves making choices about risks in a changing world. The nature of the risks of climate change is increasingly clear, though climate change will also continue to produce surprises. The report identifies vulnerable people, industries, and ecosystems around the world. It finds that risk from a changing climate comes from vulnerability (lack of preparedness) and exposure (people or assets in harm’s way) overlapping with hazards (triggering climate events or trends). Each of these three components can be a target for smart actions to decrease risk.

    ...

    Observed impacts of climate change have already affected agriculture, human health, ecosystems on land and in the oceans, water supplies, and some people’s livelihoods. The striking feature of observed impacts is that they are occurring from the tropics to the poles, from small islands to large continents, and from the wealthiest countries to the poorest.

    Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/pr_wg2/140330_pr_wgII_spm_en.pdf




  • Trocaire are mounting a campaign to get 10,000 people in 24 hours to email the Taoiseach calling for strong Climate Legislation.

    http://www.trocaire.ie/climate




  • The first data on the 2014 global average temperature is in, and 2014 is recorded as the hottest year on record

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/




  • Akrasia wrote: »
    The first data on the 2014 global average temperature is in, and 2014 is recorded as the hottest year on record

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/

    This "hottest year on record" is bull****. Records only began to be recorded with any kind of accuracy in the late 19th century and using satellites in the 70s. We are at the top of a solar cycle so of course it is the hottest year in a very limited dataset.

    SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610.gif




  • So are you making a particular point with that large graph?


  • Advertisement


  • Iwannahurl wrote: »
    So are you making a particular point with that large graph?
    I think the point is that solar irradiance can affect the weather as in the weather systems can be more active during the periods of higher irradiance relative to the lower periods. The winters eitherside of 2010 being a case in point.




  • Solar radiance is actually declining

    Solar_vs_temp_500.jpg

    Half the global warming deniers claim that we're actually in danger of entering an ice age, the other half say that a hotter sun is causing our hotter global climate

    The actual science shows that the earths climate has diverged from solar output. The last few decades have shown slightly reduced solar radiance, accompanied with increasing global average temperatures.

    This is bad, beacause when the solar output starts to increase again as part of it's normal cycle, it'll result in accelerated warming.




  • This "hottest year on record" is bull****. Records only began to be recorded with any kind of accuracy in the late 19th century and using satellites in the 70s.
    Eh, you've just produced a graph showing solar irradiance all the way back to 1610?




  • djpbarry wrote: »
    Eh, you've just produced a graph showing solar irradiance all the way back to 1610?

    Exactly.

    Realclimate explains it much better than I ever could on the link below
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/

    We have very little data to make confident predictions about historical solar radiance. All we know are about the trends in solar radiation over the past half century, and we have measured that the solar radiance has slightly declined.

    I'd like to know from the other side how declining solar output can lead to record breaking global temperatures in 2014?




  • djpbarry wrote: »
    Eh, you've just produced a graph showing solar irradiance all the way back to 1610?

    And without explanation or further elucidation.




  • http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18760479
    Abstract

    Increased atmospheric CO(2)-concentration is widely being considered as the main driving factor that causes the phenomenon of global warming. This paper attempts to shed more light on the role of atmospheric CO(2) in relation to temperature-increase and, more generally, in relation to Earth's life through the geological aeons, based on a review-assessment of existing related studies. It is pointed out that there has been a debate on the accuracy of temperature reconstructions as well as on the exact impact that CO(2) has on global warming. Moreover, using three independent sets of data (collected from ice-cores and chemistry) we perform a specific regression analysis which concludes that forecasts about the correlation between CO(2)-concentration and temperature rely heavily on the choice of data used, and one cannot be positive that indeed such a correlation exists (for chemistry data) or even, if existing (for ice-cores data), whether it leads to a "severe" or a "gentle" global warming. A very recent development on the greenhouse phenomenon is a validated adiabatic model, based on laws of physics, forecasting a maximum temperature-increase of 0.01-0.03 degrees C for a value doubling the present concentration of atmospheric CO(2). Through a further review of related studies and facts from disciplines like biology and geology, where CO(2)-change is viewed from a different perspective, it is suggested that CO(2)-change is not necessarily always a negative factor for the environment. In fact it is shown that CO(2)-increase has stimulated the growth of plants, while the CO(2)-change history has altered the physiology of plants. Moreover, data from palaeoclimatology show that the CO(2)-content in the atmosphere is at a minimum in this geological aeon. Finally it is stressed that the understanding of the functioning of Earth's complex climate system (especially for water, solar radiation and so forth) is still poor and, hence, scientific knowledge is not at a level to give definite and precise answers for the causes of global warming.

    There is definitely room for debate. Consensus means nothing and is, in fact, damaging in science.




  • There is definitely room for debate.
    Off you go then – discuss the seven-year-old, bizarrely-titled, badly-written review paper (it doesn’t contain any original research) you just linked to.




  • djpbarry wrote: »
    Off you go then – discuss the seven-year-old, bizarrely-titled, badly-written review paper (it doesn’t contain any original research) you just linked to.

    Is it tilted because you disagree with it or can you prove your claim?
    How about you show me your regression analysis or some published research with regression analysis on non cherry picked data. I`m open for this to be proven wrong, its such a pity that people who debate this from the other side are frequently met with hostility.




  • djpbarry wrote: »
    badly-written review paper (it doesn’t contain any original research)

    Have you actually read the paper ?




  • Is it tilted because you disagree with it or can you prove your claim?
    How about you show me your regression analysis or some published research with regression analysis on non cherry picked data. I`m open for this to be proven wrong, its such a pity that people who debate this from the other side are frequently met with hostility.

    There are much better review papers published on this issue, they're the IPCC AR reports

    They've conducted 5 so far and the latest one, AR5, published in 2014, has said that
    Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes
    in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and
    in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for
    human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been
    the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf


  • Advertisement


  • Is it tilted because you disagree with it or can you prove your claim?
    The title of the paper is “Global warming and carbon dioxide through sciences” – what the hell does that mean? It makes no sense as a statement.
    How about you show me your regression analysis or some published research with regression analysis on non cherry picked data.
    Non-cherry picked data? I suggest you have a look at the paper you’ve linked to – a very large number of the references used are from books and websites, rather than peer-reviewed original research. In other words, they’re cherry-picking.

    A review paper is supposed to provide an up-to-date account of peer-reviewed research in a specific field. That is quite clearly not what this paper is attempting to do, which suggests very poor editorial standards at the journal that published it.




  • Duiske wrote: »
    Have you actually read the paper ?
    I’ve not read it in detail, no. I have, however, read the abstract that was pasted above. It is stated that “…we perform a specific regression analysis which concludes that forecasts about the correlation between CO(2)-concentration and temperature rely heavily on the choice of data used…” – I doubt you’ll find a climate scientist anywhere who would disagree, so nothing new there.

    It goes on to say “…one cannot be positive that indeed such a correlation exists (for chemistry data)…”; an utterly bizarre statement, as one cannot be positive about anything – that’s not how science works.

    On then to “…or even, if existing (for ice-cores data), whether it leads to a "severe" or a "gentle" global warming…”, which essentially means “yeah, a correlation exists when ice core data is used, but we’re not sure what adjective we should use to describe it”. Meaningless nonsense.

    And then we have “A very recent development on the greenhouse phenomenon is a validated adiabatic model, based on laws of physics, forecasting a maximum temperature-increase of 0.01-0.03 degrees C for a value doubling the present concentration of atmospheric CO(2).” Firstly, given that everything is based on the laws of physics, I find it bizarre that the authors feel the need to point out that this particular finding is in keeping with the physical laws of the universe (and that this term somehow made it through the peer-review process without being removed). Secondly, the claim in question is not taken from a peer-reviewed paper, but rather a book:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Global-Warming-Cooling-Developments-Environmental-ebook/dp/B0017X0UMW/ref=sr_1_1

    One of the papers on which this book is based was thoroughly debunked in a rebuttal, published by the same journal that published the original paper:
    It is astonishing that the paper of Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) (as well as Khilyuk and Chilingar 2004, for that matter) could pass the review process of a seemingly serious journal such as Environmental Geology. Such failures of this process, which is supposed to guarantee the quality of published literature, are likely to damage the reputation of this journal.
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00254-006-0519-3




  • If water vapours role has been underplayed then CO2 is less significant than we thought. Climate models would need adjusting.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35082422
    New calculations show that our already sizeable water footprint is 18% bigger than we thought.

    The study is based on a century's worth of observational data drawn from 100 river basins across the world.

    It reveals a significant increase in the water being "lost" to the atmosphere as a direct result of human activity.

    This occurs through evaporation from land and water surfaces, and from plants as they transpire.

    Link to the paper itself
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6265/1248
    This increase raises a recent estimate of the current global water footprint of humanity by around 18%, to 10,688 ± 979 km3/year. The results highlight the global impact of local water-use activities and call for their relevant account in Earth system modeling.

    This is not insignificant.
    "Dam and irrigation developments - even though local - have a big global impact on human water consumption. That's what has not been calculated before and what we've estimated in this paper," Prof Destouni said.

    "The water footprint could be up to 20% larger than previously estimated," Dr Jaramillo revealed.

    "In dry areas, reducing the water in the environment can have an enormous impact on humans and ecosystems. In a wet landscape, it is in relative terms not as big in the direr areas. Central Asia (Aral Sea), Middle East, areas around the Mediterranean - these are examples of most vulnerable."

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35121340
    A new global temperature forecast from the UK's Met Office says that 2016 is likely to be even warmer than 2015.

    This year has already been provisionally declared the warmest on record thanks to a combination of global warming and a strong El Nino.

    The Met Office believes that temperatures in 2016 could be 1.1C above pre-industrial levels.

    Last week in Paris, countries agreed that the world should pursue efforts to limit the rise to 1.5C.




  • If water vapours role has been underplayed then CO2 is less significant than we thought. Climate models would need adjusting.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35082422



    Link to the paper itself
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6265/1248



    This is not insignificant.



    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35121340

    Water vapour is not a driver of global warming, it's a feedback. Water only persists in the atmosphere for a few hours or days at most before falling to the ground as precipitation It's a feedback because warmer air can hold more water vapour, so unfortunately, the warmer we get, the more of an effect water vapour has on our climate, but the water vapour itself is not driving the higher temperatures, it's reacting to them.

    The reason CO2 is the most dangerous greenhouse gas is because the carbon cycle is a lot slower than the other greenhouse gasses and we are pumping a lot more carbon into the atmosphere than the natural processes can absorb, so we are adding a cumulation of gas to our atmosphere that will persist even after we are dead.

    Methane is another dangerous driver because our increases in emissions are faster than the natural absorption rate




  • After a very warm winter globally, arctic sea ice is starting the melting season from a very low base.
    If the trend continues, this will probably the worst season yet.
    A lot will depend on wind patterns, but there's also expected to be a strong feedback effect whereby the more clear dark water that exists, the greater the warming effect as the season continues.

    NqJioPR.png

    https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/




  • 2016 is almost guaranteed to be the warmest year on record.

    The last 7 months have all been record breaking months
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/16/april-third-month-in-row-to-break-global-temperature-records

    Currently, the warmest year on record is 2015, the previous warmest year on record was 2014

    So we're set to have 3 consecutive record breaking years in a row

    Where are all the 'Global warming has stopped' people now?




  • Disturbingly, these issues will not be dealt with until we sort out the mess in our economic and financial systems. I see big trouble ahead




  • Wanderer78 wrote: »
    Disturbingly, these issues will not be dealt with until we sort out the mess in our economic and financial systems. I see big trouble ahead
    Sorting out the environment (or should I say slowing its destruction down) is a polar opposite of the aims of our financial "masters of the universe!" ensuring continual growth is non-negotiable.




  • dolanbaker wrote: »
    Sorting out the environment (or should I say slowing its destruction down) is a polar opposite of the aims of our financial "masters of the universe!" ensuring continual growth is non-negotiable.

    I think continuing growth is possible but we need to grow in the right direction.

    A carbon free economy requires huge investment and would be a massive project, but it hurts the interests of the owners of polluting industry and they're fighting it tooth and nail.

    If it was a war, there would be an unlimited budget to defeat the enemy, until it is acknowledged that this is an existential threat as dangerous as any rogue nation armed with nuclear weapons, we will not see governments of the world take this seriously enough


  • Advertisement


  • dolanbaker wrote:
    Sorting out the environment (or should I say slowing its destruction down) is a polar opposite of the aims of our financial "masters of the universe!" ensuring continual growth is non-negotiable.


    Crux of the problem. We have to address these issues immediately or we can say bye bye to planet earth very very soon


Advertisement