"Global warming is real and humans are responsbile"

darkpagandeath

FootShooter wrote: »

Do the course and actually try to understand the science instead of just dismissing it and your opinion will change. Unless you're too stupid understand the science.

When I was younger I also had the opinion it was all just part of the natural cycle. My opinion was formed by watching youtube videos about it and looking at graphs that showed past climate change. I know now I didn't know anything about climate change back then, but I understand why I had that opinion. It was because I lacked knowledge about it, and didn't properly understand the science so I just dismissed it.

No one here does either. loads of people are making out there climate scientists when there just posting and re posting snippets of scientific journals. Then shouting down you don't understand or your to stupid as a valid argument against other opinions. Plenty of other scientist are saying it’s not human related or not as bad as made out. But they are then dismissed as crackpots and conspiracy nuts (some are) By people on here who just believe who shouts the loudest. Some will believe one thing some will believe another it’s not just as cut and dry as saying your stupid. Has man changed the climate in the last 200 odd years yes yes he has. Is it as big as made out that remains to be seen. If there so sure of there models are correct why have they been consistently wrong ? And wrong massively. Well over exaggerated temperature changes that have never surfaced. They keep saying were refining the model.

Mardy Bum

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Plenty of other scientist are saying it’s not human related or not as bad as made out.

Link to one reputable scientific body that says global warming is not related to human activity.

darkpagandeath

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Link to one reputable scientific body that says global warming is not related to human activity.

Define reputable ? You mean one that does not contradict the argument ? And is therefore wrong and dismissed does it have to have massive funding by lobby groups to be considered correct ?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/10/15/the-true-global-warming-crisis-is-the-fibs-underlying-the-theory/

IPCC also finally admits in an obscure footnote that “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

Thargor

Its not about belief though why can you not understand that?

What other established scientific consensus do you disagree with like this?

Mardy Bum

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Define reputable ? You mean one that does not contradict the argument ? And is therefore wrong and dismissed does it have to have massive funding by lobby groups to be considered correct ?

No just one that has a good reputation in the scientific world.
The massive funding comes from oil companies in fact.

Thargor

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Define reputable ?

Peer reviewed.

Could your problem be you just dont understand what the term means and how important it is?

darkpagandeath

Thargor wrote: »

Peer reviewed.

Could your problem be you just dont understand what the term means and how important it is?

IPCC also finally admits in an obscure footnote that “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

I'll just re post that

IPCC are saying they don't know

Arctic sea ice fluctuates normally. After declining during the 1978-1998 period, it expanded by 60% in 2013. Although there was no mention of this by IPCC, Antarctic sea ice recently increased by about 1 million square kilometers. The extent of global sea ice has not diminished in recent decades.

hansfrei

CO2 ouput is increasing faster than previous models were expecting, am I right? Even with this unexpected rise in the use of coal, gas, diesel, petrol etc how much greater is the threat compared to climate models made in that last decade?

Thargor

darkpagandeath wrote: »

IPCC also finally admits in an obscure footnote that “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

I'll just re post that

IPCC are saying they don't know

Arctic sea ice fluctuates normally. After declining during the 1978-1998 period, it expanded by 60% in 2013. Although there was no mention of this by IPCC, Antarctic sea ice recently increased by about 1 million square kilometers. The extent of global sea ice has not diminished in recent decades.

Did they? Or are you just cherry picking a sentence from a report that examined all available peer reviewed research on climate change and declared that it was undeniably happening and happening as a result of human activity?

Ill ask you again, what other pieces of established scientific consensus do you not "believe" like this?

hansfrei

Thargor wrote: »

Did they? Or are you just cherry picking a sentence from a report that examined all available peer reviewed research on climate change and declared that it was undeniably happening and happening as a result of human activity?

Ill ask you again, what other pieces of established scientific consensus do you not "believe" like this?

It will never occur to you that you may be wrong.

Turtwig

Do people here actually realise that the IPCC's is, if anything, conservative so as not to appear alarmist? In 1990 they projected sea level rise of between 2 -6 cm by 2010. The actual rise was over 6cm. So, they were actually conservative in choosing their scientific models to reference.

Regarding models being wrong, that's the assumption always they're wrong no matter what. To give one example of a complication. When ice melts there's less albedo to reflect sunlight thus adding to warming. There's also a darker body of fresh ocean water that absorbs heat better than bright blue water. When the model is created it has to predict a)how much ice will disappear and b)how much of the ocean water will now be exposed to the sun and c) what extra heat that will absorb. So there's a lot of variability to be refined and sorted out.

darkpagandeath

Thargor wrote: »

Did they? Or are you just cherry picking a sentence from a report that examined all available peer reviewed research on climate change and declared that it was undeniably happening and happening as a result of human activity?

Ill ask you again, what other pieces of established scientific consensus do you not "believe" like this?

No need it's all in the article i linked. And i think you will find the climate scaremongers are cherry picking an awful lot as well.

darkpagandeath

Jernal wrote: »

Do people here actually realise that the IPCC's is, if anything, conservative so as not to appear alarmist? In 1990 they projected sea level rise of between 2 -6 cm by 2010. The actual rise was over 6cm. So, they were actually conservative in choosing their scientific models to reference.

Regarding models being wrong, that's the assumption always they're wrong no matter what. To give one example of a complication. When ice melts there's less albedo to reflect sunlight thus adding to warming. There's also a darker body of fresh ocean water that absorbs heat better than bright blue water. When the model is created it has to predict a)how much ice will disappear and b)how much of the ocean water will now be exposed to the sun and c) what extra heat that will absorb. So there's a lot of variability to be refined and sorted out.

Taken from article linked

AR5 also claims that “The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence).” Fluctuating sea level rise over the past several centuries has averaged about 7 inches, and continues to rise at that rate with no evidence of acceleration.

Thargor

hansfrei wrote: »

It will never occur to you that you may be wrong.

You dont get it. You cant be wrong if you subscribe to the scientific method, you can only look at the weight of evidence on any subject, the available evidence determines what I think of everything, evolution, star formation, immunology, everything. If new evidence came on the scene that discredited global warming in the morning I would dismiss it like you do aswell, but the evidence is utterly overwhelming that it is happening and humans are the major contributors, therefore I have no choice but to "believe" as you and your friends would put it even though belief shouldnt come into it.

Thargor

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No need it's all in the article i linked. And i think you will find the climate scaremongers are cherry picking an awful lot as well.

I suggest you read the abstract of the IPCC report if you cant be bothered reading the whole thing then because it concludes nothing of the sort, the complete opposite, you're cherry picking as I said.

darkpagandeath

Thargor wrote: »

I suggest you read the abstract of the IPCC report if you cant be bothered reading the whole thing then because it concludes nothing of the sort, the complete opposite, you're cherry picking as I said.

How is linking something that contradicts someone's point cherry picking ?

Turtwig

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Taken from article linked

AR5 also claims that “The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence).” Fluctuating sea level rise over the past several centuries has averaged about 7 inches, and continues to rise at that rate with no evidence of acceleration.

You realise that our sea levels rose about almost 1/5 of a metre (and that's probably underestimated) since the beginning of the 1900s and that rate of rise is expected to increase. So I'm not even sure what your actual point is here?

Thargor

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How is linking something that contradicts someone's point cherry picking ?

darkpagandeath wrote: »

IPCC also finally admits in an obscure footnote that “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

I'll just re post that

IPCC are saying they don't know

Arctic sea ice fluctuates normally. After declining during the 1978-1998 period, it expanded by 60% in 2013. Although there was no mention of this by IPCC, Antarctic sea ice recently increased by about 1 million square kilometers. The extent of global sea ice has not diminished in recent decades.

The phrase in bold is an example of cherry picking, you are stating that is the conclusion of the IPCC, that they "dont know", that is blatantly not the conclusion of the report, there will always be quibbling over the exact values of anything.

FootShooter

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No one here does either. loads of people are making out there climate scientists when there just posting and re posting snippets of scientific journals. Then shouting down you don't understand or your to stupid as a valid argument against other opinions. Plenty of other scientist are saying it’s not human related or not as bad as made out. But they are then dismissed as crackpots and conspiracy nuts (some are) By people on here who just believe who shouts the loudest. Some will believe one thing some will believe another it’s not just as cut and dry as saying your stupid. Has man changed the climate in the last 200 odd years yes yes he has. Is it as big as made out that remains to be seen. If there so sure of there models are correct why have they been consistently wrong ? And wrong massively. Well over exaggerated temperature changes that have never surfaced. They keep saying were refining the model.

Maybe some people here actually are climate scientists, did you never consider that?
I'm not a climate scientist but I've taken several climate science courses in university and know the science quite well.

Plenty of scientists who aren't climate scientists, but scientists in completely different fields. They have no legitimacy. Some people will accept the what the scientific evidence says, others will deny it because of their cultural preferences or ability to understand it.

It does not remain to be seen how much contribution man has made. We know with high confidence how much contribution humans have made to the warming. Since 1950 near 100% of the warming can be attributed to humans.

Climate models have not been consistently wrong, that is a myth. And models are only an estimate anyway no one is expecting them to be 100% accurate and predict short-term natural climate fluctuations, like the slowdown in warming since 1998. There is a reason climate science always has used 30 year periods to deduce any sort of long term climatic trend. 30 years is long enough to filter out any natural short-term variability. Deducing a long term trend from a 15 year period like many climate change deniers do is very unscientific.

Some reading on climate model accuracy:
http://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-ipcc-far.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-projections.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/

FootShooter

darkpagandeath wrote: »

IPCC also finally admits in an obscure footnote that “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

I'll just re post that

IPCC are saying they don't know

Arctic sea ice fluctuates normally. After declining during the 1978-1998 period, it expanded by 60% in 2013. Although there was no mention of this by IPCC, Antarctic sea ice recently increased by about 1 million square kilometers. The extent of global sea ice has not diminished in recent decades.

They can estimate the amount of warming that comes from a given amount of CO2 emissions quite accurately. They can not accurately enough estimate the warming when they include all the feedback effects that will increase warming. A lot of studies are showing different estimates. That is what they mean.

It's typical misleading bull**** from Richard Lindzen. He gets paid by a bunch of think-tanks like the Heartland Institute to come up with this ****. His work does not get pubslished in peer-reviewed journals about climate science because they do not have the required standard of quality. His hypothesises have been widely criticised and deemed false. He doesn't even think smoking is correlated with lung cancer, also a Heartland Institute position. Heartland Institute is funded by oil companies like ExxonMobil.
http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Richard_Lindzen_quote.htm

Have you even read the full AR5 report? The 60% decrease is from 2012 to 2013. The lowest Arctic sea ice extent ever recorded was in 2012. The 2013 extent was 6th lowest on record btw. And as you say it fluctuates, so a 60% increase in lowest sea ice extent is not abnormal. Stop reading the Daily Fail and stop using it as your source on climate change.

Antarctic sea ice has increased because the Antarctic has a different regional climate, and is influenced by the ozone whole. However West-Antarctic land ice is melting. As well as glaciers all over the world.
Overall sea ice on Earth is decreasing. Saying global sea ice hasn't diminished in the last decades is completely false:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-Myth-6-Global-Sea-Ice.html
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

Akrasia

One interesting point about the global climate. It is very unusual for the planet to have two frozen poles. Usually throughout the history of planet earth there were many periods where the North was frozen while the south was ice free, and also the reverse. It was only on a few occasions when there have been ice caps on both poles.

This just illustrates how complex the global climate is. While climate change has shown with close to certainty that the global average heat content is increasing, we can not say for certain what the effects will be on all of the heat transfer mechanisms in the oceans and the atmosphere.

It is possible that there could be a subtle (or even a sudden) change to the atmospheric currents which could have very large changes to regional climates.

Similarly, if the ocean currents change, this will have severe local impacts to climate. (We've all heard what will happen to ireland if the North atlantic drift is diverted. We can not say for certain what the exact tipping point for this is. It may not happen for centuries, or at all, or it might happen within our lifetimes.)

We can only make estimates of probability weighted on the best evidence we have available to us.

This is why Global warming is such a huge risk. It's an uncontrolled experiment that we can not reverse. We have ideas about what could happen, but we do not know for sure.

FootShooter

Nice explanation of the global warming "pause" and what it actually means:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/18/global-warming-pause-meaning

Maybe the system is just reaching a new "thermal equilibrium" after the end of the last little ice age, all the extra energy that mankind has added to the system may not have yet had an affect. :eek:

cnocbui

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe the system is just reaching a new "thermal equilibrium" after the end of the last little ice age, all the extra energy that mankind has added to the system may not have yet had an affect. :eek:

Yeah, It's amazing how there is a decades long hysteresis for warming caused by CO2, yet a big volcano goes off and the whole world cools within a year. No doubt the climate prestidigitators have a perfectly reasonable explanation.

Filibuster

Jernal wrote: »

You realise that our sea levels rose about almost 1/5 of a metre (and that's probably underestimated) since the beginning of the 1900s and that rate of rise is expected to increase. So I'm not even sure what your actual point is here?

This is the same horse**** as "it is the hottest ever since records began". Pick an arbitary date that suits your agenda and suggest that is the level the climate should be consistent with. Ignore the solar cyce that is actually causing the climate to change.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/sea-level-rate-of-change-and-solar-cycles-510.jpg?w=640

Turtwig

cnocbui wrote: »

Yeah, It's amazing how there is a decades long hysteresis for warming caused by CO2, yet a big volcano goes off and the whole world cools within a year. No doubt the climate prestidigitators have a perfectly reasonable explanation.

Hold a rock up in front of a light source. Light hitting it gets scattered in all directions. Similarly if you place rock particles, or in this case ash and volcanic aerosols, in the atmosphere incident radiation from the sun will get scattered in all directions. Due to the Earth being an oblate spheroid more heat radiation will be scattered back into the space than radiation that gets directed towards the earth's surface.* The net result being the particles contribute a cooling mechanism.

*If you have difficulty conceptualising this, imagine you can stand on a football with a flash light in your hand. Which is the bigger area that you could place the beam of the flash light inside? Anything that belongs to the ball, or anything that isn't part of the ball?

Jernal

Jernal wrote: »

Hold a rock up in front of a light source. Light hitting it gets scattered in all directions. Similarly if you place rock particles, or in this case ash and volcanic aerosols, in the atmosphere incident radiation from the sun will get scattered in all directions. Due to the Earth being an oblate spheroid more heat radiation will be scattered back into the space than radiation that gets directed towards the earth's surface.* The net result being the particles contribute a cooling mechanism.

*If you have difficulty conceptualising this, imagine you can stand on a football with a flash light in your hand. Which is the bigger area that you could place the beam of the flash light inside? Anything belong to the ball, or anything that isn't part of the ball?

Dust or the absence of dust in the atmosphere will have a rapid affect on the amount of energy hitting the earth's surface, CO2 increases the insulation properties of the atmosphere.

But if the heat energy is reduced, the planet will cool down regardless of how good the insulation is.

The extra heat energy & CO2 that mankind is adding to the system will cause a rise in temperatures, but only to a new level at which point heat lost will equal heat gained/ generated.

Thermal equilibrium will be restored.

The deniers say that there is no affect & the climate alarmists say that there is only positive feedback.

Turtwig

Filibuster wrote: »

This is the same horse**** as "it is the hottest ever since records began". Pick an arbitary date that suits your agenda and suggest that is the level the climate should be consistent with. Ignore the solar cyce that is actually causing the climate to change.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/sea-level-rate-of-change-and-solar-cycles-510.jpg?w=640

I'm still lost. What's the point here?

FootShooter

Deleted User wrote: »

Dust or the absence of dust in the atmosphere will have a rapid affect on the amount of energy hitting the earth's surface, CO2 increases the insulation properties of the atmosphere.

But if the heat energy is reduced, the planet will cool down regardless of how good the insulation is.

The extra heat energy & CO2 that mankind is adding to the system will cause a rise in temperatures, but only to a new level at which point heat lost will equal heat gained/ generated.

Thermal equilibrium will be restored.

The deniers say that there is no affect & the climate alarmists say that there is only positive feedback.

Yeah a point where human civilisation and maybe even human life will be impossible to sustain. If we use all of the estimated fossil fuels left, temperature may rise by an average of 20 C on land areas.

Of course this will take a very long time and we won't experience it so why bother with it. /s

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294.full

Filibuster

Jernal wrote: »

I'm still lost. What's the point here?