"Global warming is real and humans are responsbile"

Turtwig

Filibuster wrote: »

Once the solar cycle starts going downhill (cycle 24 is a dud), the IPCC will revert to the 1970's position and state that humans are causing global cooling

Except they didn't even exist back then. The notion of global cooling appearing in less than 10 peer reviewed papers in the 70s. The vast majority were global warming though the forcing wasn't as clear as it is considered now. The media of course widely published references to one of the global cooling papers. Sort of like the Andrew Wakefield rubbish they influenced public opinion through ridiculous sensationalisms. But make no make mistake nobody in the IPCC claimed there would be global cooling. Nor did many climatologists in the 70s. Your reflection of the positions at that time is completely inaccurate and wrong.

riffmongous

riffmongous wrote: »

Is there any actual proof though of what the effect of a MM on the radiative forcing would be though?

Solar irradiance is lower during the solar minimums and the magnetic fields are lower thus allowing more cosmic rays into the upper atmosphere where they produce more clouds thus reducing the solar energy reaching the Earth's surface.

Turtwig

IngazZagni wrote: »

Why did they change the term "global warming" to climate change? That's because World temperatures have not risen at all over the past decade. That's fact.

The hypothesis that human's are responsible for warming is referred to as Anthropogenic Global Warming. It's been around with several decades. (An Irish man takes a lot credit here too btw.) Climate Change refers to the climate changing and global warming is the rise in the planets average temperature over a year. (Though typically taken as a five year cycle to smooth out variations.)

Those are the specific meanings of the terminology.

steddyeddy

Just a quick question to guys who think that this panel are following government advice on what conclusions to come to. Do you not think several governments have a lot to lose by a scientific panel effectively saying stop using as much fossil fuels?

Filibuster

Jernal wrote: »

Except they didn't even exist back then. The notion of global cooling appearing in less than 10 peer reviewed papers in the 70s. The vast majority were global warming though the forcing wasn't as clear as it is considered now. The media of course widely published references to one of the global cooling papers. Sort of like the Andrew Wakefield rubbish they influenced public opinion through ridiculous sensationalisms. But make no make mistake nobody in the IPCC claimed there would be global cooling. Nor did many climatologists in the 70s. Your reflection of the positions at that time is completely inaccurate and wrong.

They're turning their predictions already - calling it a "hiatus", lowering the increase in temperature ranges etc.

When solar activity decreased during the 1940s to 70s with a corresponding drop in temperature they called it Global Cooling and we were responsible for it.

When solar activity increased from 1970s to 2000s with a corresponding increasein temperature they called it Global Warming and we were reponsible for it.

When is CO2 going to kick in and drive the climate??

http://paulmacrae.com/links/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/010405m2.gif

_Redzer_

Filibuster wrote: »

Once the solar cycle starts going downhill (cycle 24 is a dud), the IPCC will revert to the 1970's position and state that humans are causing global cooling

You're mistaken for thinking global warming means an increase of temperature everywhere btw. More heat and energy in the atmosphere affects sea currents and wind currents. Notice how we are only as temperate as we are because of the Gulf Stream, if that were to recede due to more fresh water from melting ice caps diluting the salt which drives the conveyer mechanism of it, we would experience a temperature drop as well as more extreme weather.

Sea currents and changes go hand-in-hand with wind currents so that would have a knock-on effect on that too. The American and Russian heat waves last year where due to the trade winds dipping unusually low, that caused drought in those high latitude areas and more rainfall in lower areas, the Pakistan floods were caused because of the unusually low level of the trade winds that year.

Climate change is not so simplistic. It's not just 'temperature rises everywhere evenly', it's not true. It's going to affect wind and sea currents in very complex ways. Some places will get substantially warmer and arid, some cooler and wetter. The earth is always trying to balance itself out that way, and that'll be the more probably effect of global warming.

Hitchens

everyone on here who believes the nonsense that humans are to blame for what are planetery climate cycles should stop typing on electronic devices forthwith, if you truly believe the bullshít ........................but ye won't though, will ye? :pac:

kneemos

What would it take for the climate change scientists to say it's all over,no climate change anymore.

IngazZagni

Jernal wrote: »

The hypothesis that human's are responsible for warming is referred to as Anthropogenic Global Warming. It's been around with several decades. (An Irish man takes a lot credit here too btw.) Climate Change refers to the climate changing and global warming is the rise in the planets average temperature over a year. (Though typically taken as a five year cycle to smooth out variations.)

Those are the specific meanings of the terminology.

You explained the meaning of the terms...thanks. You ignored the point however.

Filibuster

steddyeddy wrote: »

Just a quick question to guys who think that this panel are following government advice on what conclusions to come to. Do you not think several governments have a lot to lose by a scientific panel effectively saying stop using as much fossil fuels?

The IPCC is a intergovernmental panel made up of government officials. The government officials review and edit the different drafts to suit their agenda.

Jonny7

Hitchens wrote: »

everyone on here who believes the nonsense that humans are to blame for what are planetery climate cycles should stop typing on electronic devices forthwith, if you truly believe the bullshít ........................but ye won't though, will ye? :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDj6WechLhw

Muise...

kneemos wrote: »

What would it take for the climate change scientists to say it's all over,no climate change anymore.

evidence

kneemos

Muise... wrote: »

evidence

Brilliant.

IngazZagni

steddyeddy wrote: »

Just a quick question to guys who think that this panel are following government advice on what conclusions to come to. Do you not think several governments have a lot to lose by a scientific panel effectively saying stop using as much fossil fuels?

For a developed Country, no. in fact there is a lot to be gained by balancing fossil fuels with green energy. Jobs, tax revenue etc. what about developing Countries however? This is a legitimate question. Do the Chinese Government have any scientific research into man made climate change? I would be interested in seeing that.

Turtwig

Filibuster wrote: »

They're turning their predictions already - calling it a "hiatus", lowering the increase in temperature ranges etc.

When solar activity decreased during the 1940s to 70s with a corresponding drop in temperature they called it Global Cooling and we were responsible for it.

When solar activity increased from 1970s to 2000s with a corresponding increasein temperature they called it Global Warming and we were reponsible for it.

When is CO2 going to kick in and drive the climate??

http://paulmacrae.com/links/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/010405m2.gif

I'm not sure how to begin here.

Who's they and when, and possibly where, exactly did they make these claims?

Solar activity follows a typical cycle. As it happens we've had one an unusually low decade of solar activity. Where the sun was surprising us by how little it was doing. The thing is we also had one of the warmest decades ever recorded since instrument measurements began. The predictions currently are that even if we have a maunder minimum this century it won't curtail warming.

C02 never stops driving the climate. Same with water vapour. The Sun. Earth's position and tilt. So many factors influence the climate. Which is why climatology is so interesting. We've managed to analyse these factors an their possible influences to retrace a history of the climate of this planet. (A day to day weather prediction would have been awesome but sadly that's still beyond us. )

No Pants

Hitchens wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436882/The-poster-boys-climate-change-thrive-icy-Arctic-Polar-bears-defy-concerns-extinction.html

Immigration of lesbian polar bears directed by Abu Hamza causing house prices to rise, climate to change and more benefits for sponging foreigners?

Corkfeen

Jonny7 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDj6WechLhw

Damn, you got there before me. Hitchens only by username.

Filibuster

Jernal wrote: »

Solar activity follows a typical cycle. As it happens we've had one an unusually low decade of solar activity. Where the sun was surprising us by how little it was doing. The thing is we also had one of the warmest decades ever recorded. The predictions currently are that even if we have a maunder minimum this century it won't curtail warming.

Temperature data has only been recorded since the 1850s. We are still largely at the top of a solar cycle, the highest since the 1850s. Saying we have the warmest decade ever recorded is a gross misrepresentation and is only alarmist in nature.

Turtwig

Filibuster wrote: »

Temperature data has only been recorded since the 1850s. We are still largely at the top of a solar cycle, the highest since the 1850s. Saying we have the warmest decade ever recorded is a gross misrepresentation and is only alarmist in nature.

Sorry, I should have clarified "since instrument measurements began."
Post edited.

steddyeddy

We can also use ice to quantify past CO2 levels.

Systemic Risk

bizmark wrote: »

:rolleyes: you know its a science right not a religion he can question it and it should be able to stand up to debate ? right ?

Yes but by definition if you want to refute a scientific arguement based on empirical evidence you should have some evidence to back your counter claim. Proclaiming something is bull**** generally isnt seen as debating

KyussBishop

Have any of the 'skepticsts' (more often denialists) actually bothered doing any kind of reading on the subject? Even just browsing a few Wikipedia pages will give you a decent overview.

Weird that there is the idea of a mass-conspiracy that government is corrupting scientific research to push the idea of climate change, when it is massive corporate lobby groups such as those connected to Exxon-Mobil (among many other oil giants), who are well documented for funding a huge number of the 'skeptics' (i.e. denialists pretending to be skeptics), who try to make out like there is no such thing as global warming.

Wonder what motive these massive oil giants would have, for denying global warming though, hmmm?

KyussBishop

An interesting point also:
The idea of 'economic growth' today is viewed as mandatory for the survival of economies, so that we don't get a total collapse of economies, just depressions/recessions instead; the way our economies depend upon creating money, by lending it out at interest (this means debt grows acceleratingly faster/greater than the total stock of money, forever), pretty much requires endless economic growth (and endless economic crashes too, since even with economic growth, debt still grows greater than money...).

This growth must be neverending and if this growth continues forever into the future, that means greater power usage by economies, and the need for greater power generation.

As a result of the second law of thermodynamics, there is always a minimum amount of heat loss associated with converting/generating energy, and this means that increasing power requirements caused by endless economic growth, will eventually generate enough heat to cook the earth in a few centuries (so obviously it must all change or risk collapse long before then).


So, that's actually what our current system of economics depends upon today. Endless economic growth, which is (quite literally) physically unsustainable/impossible.

There's a very good article on it here:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/


In short: In order to prevent eventual climate change, it's not enough to simply try and change how we produce power, but we actually have to change how economics is done itself (stuff that people like Herman Daly have figured out, with steady-state economics); attempting to do this, puts you in direct conflict with not just fossil-fuel dependent industry, but financial/banking industry, and a lot of other big business as well though (because not only do we need to change how we produce power, but we also need a way to create money that does not depend upon debt - a complicated topic in itself).

Rubeter

I wonder if any of the skeptics here could show a mechanism whereby we could pump masses of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and not change the climate.

This is a good representation of the amount of "Air" surrounding us, I think some of the less enlightened around might think The Atmosphere is some huge reservoir of gasses, it isn't, it is relatively a very small amount.

Filibuster

Rubeter wrote: »

I wonder if any of the skeptics here could show a mechanism whereby we could pump masses of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and not change the climate.

This is a good írepresentation of the amount of "Air" surrounding us, I think some of the less enlightened around might think The Atmosphere is some huge reservoir of gasses, it isn't, it is relatively a very small amount.

Well the IPCC cant, their model has been wrong in its predictions.

Rubeter

Filibuster wrote: »

Well the IPCC cant, their model has been wrong in its predictions.

I'll take it you can't then. Otherwise you would have.

KyussBishop

KyussBishop wrote: »

Wonder what motive these massive oil giants would have, for denying global warming though, hmmm?

To keep the party going for as long as possible, despite all the evidence that states that the easy stuff is gone and that soon renewables will cost no more than oil.

Not because renewables are cheaper, but oil will be more expensive due to the extra effort now needed to get it out of the ground, both factors which will become more and more relevant to future production. But the last thing oil companies want is for demand to collapse. Realistically, that won't happen until supply is past peak and declines regardless of the amount of money that is thrown at it.

Climate change will happen with or without human "help", just that all the additional energy that humans are adding to the ecosystem just speeds things up and skews it into a period of extra warming.

Modern human activity can't function without the additional energy obtained from ancient sunlight. The changes in human activity needed to stop CO2's continued rise are impossible to achieve without mass extermination and no one is going to want such a move.

_Redzer_

Rubeter wrote: »

I wonder if any of the skeptics here could show a mechanism whereby we could pump masses of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and not change the climate.

This is a good representation of the amount of "Air" surrounding us, I think some of the less enlightened around might think The Atmosphere is some huge reservoir of gasses, it isn't, it is relatively a very small amount.

Yep. People think we've some massive blanket of gass surrounding us but it's actually like the skin on a tomato, with the tomato representing earth in actuallity. It's extremely thin and quite sensitive to change. If using CFCs for less than 100 years was enough to eat a massive hole into the ozone layer, pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gass into it an not expecting any impact is just ignorance at it's finest.

KyussBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

To keep the party going for as long as possible, despite all the evidence that states that the easy stuff is gone and that soon renewables will cost no more than oil.

Not because renewables are cheaper, but oil will be more expensive due to the extra effort now needed to get it out of the ground, both factors which will become more and more relevant to future production. But the last thing oil companies want is for demand to collapse. Realistically, that won't happen until supply is past peak and declines regardless of the amount of money that is thrown at it.

Climate change will happen with or without human "help", just that all the additional energy that humans are adding to the ecosystem just speeds things up and skews it into a period of extra warming.

Modern human activity can't function without the additional energy obtained from ancient sunlight. The changes in human activity needed to stop CO2's continued rise are impossible to achieve without mass extermination and no one is going to want such a move.

Yes agree with pretty much all of that, except maybe the last bit - we aren't going to stop the rise in CO2, but I think if we actually start putting the worlds economic/productive resources into tackling this issue, we have time to exercise damage control and reverse it, before too much damage is done.

The way I look at it, the first thing we have to do is actually get the world economies fixed first (the solutions are actually ridiculously easy, and are a key part of steady-state economics: non-debt-based money), which is a mammoth task in overcoming propaganda and political/ideological-corruption in itself; then (and only then) can we start moving economic effort into tackling climate change, and keep it there (you can't do this without non-debt-based money - government will just be forced to cut funding to such efforts without it, whenever there is economic crisis), and then slowly transition to a worldwide steady-state economy (which inherently would mean solving the population growth issue).

I still think we're probably multiple decades away from making any progress on even the first part of that though - the key to it all in any case, is not technology or research, but actually fixing all that we already know is wrong, with economics; we know all the problems there, and the solutions, but it still looks like it's decades away just due to propaganda and general lack of knowledge/political-will surrounding it.

Drakares

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Climate change is cyclical. Global Warming is a racket, making money through fear. It's very easy to make a score, it's a business I'd like to get into.

Have you got a PhD in Environmental Science? So I guess you don't really know feck all about it, and coming to a concrete solution is kinda silly.