Global warming slowing down??

Weathering

After years and years of scaremongering about Global Warming and the impending effects it would bring by x date. I remember in the 90's it was rife. I saw many predictions from the BBC Weather stating that by 2010 snowfall would be x % less likely and largely confined to the Scottish Highlands. We all know what happened there. I always thought those sort of predictions were daft.

Over this past couple of years the rate of warming has slowed down. Now, Scientists are looking for a reason to explain this. Are they looking for the answer or the latest spiel that fits in to the previous predictions? Who knows. Which brings us to this video released by the BBC today http://www.bbc.com/weather/features/28901854

Please watch video before commenting.

Now I'm not disputing Global warming. I'm just not as convinced about previous predictions made concerning it. It seems it isn't turning out quite as they saw it and now came up with this as explained in the video. As John Hammond mentions they already knew about ocean cycles so why didn't they factor them in to their predictions to begin with?

If what they are saying is now true and their previous predictions didn't factor or allow strongly enough for the ocean cycles then all previous predictions about x temperature rise by x year are surely default and wrong.

Like I said I'm not disputing global warming. I'm not as convinced by it as I once was whenever their predictions aren't as accurate as they intended and then they proceed to find why they haven't happened? Thus blaming something else for them being wrong and not holding their hands up and saying we miscalculated/were wrong.

John Hammond mentions the Atlantic cycle lasts for 60 years. What does this mean for global warming?

Your thoughts?

MiNdGaM3

Weathering wrote: »

After years and years of scaremongering about Global Warming and the impending effects it would bring by x date. I remember in the 90's it was rife. I saw many predictions from the BBC Weather stating that by 2010 snowfall would be x % less likely and largely confined to the Scottish Highlands. We all know what happened there. I always thought those sort of predictions were daft.

Nuh-uh. The claim, by one guy, was that children wouldn't know what snowfall was like later this century. And when it did happen, it could cause extreme disruption.
I certainly don't agree with it, but anyway, one guys guess does not represent an entire field of science.

Weathering wrote: »

Over this past couple of years the rate of warming has slowed down. Now, Scientists are looking for a reason to explain this. Are they looking for the answer or the latest spiel that fits in to the previous predictions? Who knows. Which brings us to this video released by the BBC today http://www.bbc.com/weather/features/28901854

Please watch video before commenting.

Scientists learning more about the climate, discovering new things. All entirely as expected, it's how science works. It's a an interesting video, but Mr Hammond doesn't seem like the best science communicator. Climate change is primarily about the long term i.e., the climate. Short term variability will always be less predictable.

Weathering wrote: »

Now I'm not disputing Global warming. I'm just not as convinced about previous predictions made concerning it. It seems it isn't turning out quite as they saw it and now came up with this as explained in the video. As John Hammond mentions they already knew about ocean cycles so why didn't they factor them in to their predictions to begin with?

If what they are saying is now true and their previous predictions didn't factor or allow strongly enough for the ocean cycles then all previous predictions about x temperature rise by x year are surely default and wrong.

Like I said I'm not disputing global warming. I'm not as convinced by it as I once was whenever their predictions aren't as accurate as they intended and then they proceed to find why they haven't happened? Thus blaming something else for them being wrong and not holding their hands up and saying we miscalculated/were wrong.

John Hammond mentions the Atlantic cycle lasts for 60 years. What does this mean for global warming?

Your thoughts?

The important thing to remember about these internal climate cycles is that do not take or add energy to the climate system, they merely cause shifts in energy distribution. So they temporarily take heat into the deep ocean, then temporarily expel more heat into the atmosphere This particular ocean cycle, as well as the PDO/IPO, ENSO, etc, all go through warm and cool phases, but overall they have no trend. They cause variability about the mean but do not drive changes in long term trends. So when you examine their influence on the surface air temperatures over long time periods, the influence is close to 0.

But, CO2 and other GhGs don't have these cool cycles. We're simply putting more and more into the atmosphere, causing their warming potential to increase. This may seem counter-intuitive given that surface air temperature increases have slowed recently. But, when you consider than we have a cycle promoting cooling in the Atlantic, a cycle promoting cooling in the Pacific, we're going through the quietest solar cycle in over a century, we had increased aerosols from volcanoes and industrial pollution and we're still, somehow warming!? What on Earth (or elsewhere!) would it take to cause cooling? For now the oceans are taking the brunt of the heat, as can be seen in the ocean heat content readings.




The real concern, is what will the warming rate be like when these cycles change their phase?

Weathering

It was more than one person who said snowfall etc would be a distant memory in 15-20 years time. The BBC released a study stating as much with more damning verdicts for the short term which never materialised so do say it was only one person is incorrect.

So you don't think much of the video as Mr.Hammond isn't a great communicator. The video states the 60 cycle will almost delay global warming with very slight temperature increases year on year as opposed to the headline figures released earlier. I'm not disputing the seas getting warmer it's the delay in air temperatures I'm talking about.

You say there are learning new things so adjustments are to be expected. You missed the point then, he stated they already knew about the ocean cycle and it was nothing new to them so therefore they got their predictions wrong without any thing new coming to light. They just didn't factor it in or are looking for an excuse. So why should we take their predictions seriously if they made wrong predictions or didn't fully understand all the components involved ie the ocean cycle

Weathering

More info on temperatures decreasing from original predicted levels
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28870988

Once again I'm not disputing GW it is obvious that their predictions regarding it are far from accurate

MiNdGaM3

Weathering wrote: »

It was more than one person who said snowfall etc would be a distant memory in 15-20 years time. The BBC released a study stating as much with more damning verdicts for the short term which never materialised so do say it was only one person is incorrect.

So you don't think much of the video as Mr.Hammond isn't a great communicator. The video states the 60 cycle will almost delay global warming with very slight temperature increases year on year as opposed to the headline figures released earlier. I'm not disputing the seas getting warmer it's the delay in air temperatures I'm talking about.

You say there are learning new things so adjustments are to be expected. You missed the point then, he stated they already knew about the ocean cycle and it was nothing new to them so therefore they got their predictions wrong without any thing new coming to light. They just didn't factor it in or are looking for an excuse. So why should we take their predictions seriously if they made wrong predictions or didn't fully understand all the components involved ie the ocean cycle

You'll have to provide some evidence for your first claim, because it sounds like nothing I've heard, other than the example mentioned in my previous post.

Yes, the 60 year cycle, with 30 years of warming the air and 30 years of cooling the air has a net contribution to the surface warming trend of 0 over the 60 years cycle. It apparently started its cool phase in the late 90s, so we could expect it to continue for between another 5 to 20 years or so, before switching and encouraging more warming. It's just one factor that influences short term trends.
Here's the study abstract btw.http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897

Hammond is a weather forecaster, not a climatologist. So he's not necessarily the ideal person to comment on the study. Other ocean cycles have been known about, and this recent study seemed to be about the thermohaline circulation, but the extra evidence based on the argo floats was able to quantify the strength of this Atlantic cycle in slowing the warming trend. A single study is not definitive however, and more will be needed.

Once more, this cycle, and others like it, influence trends on 30 year timespans or less. In the long term, it's things like GhGs and orbital cycles that cause warming and cooling. This does not alter the long term predictions.

Weathering wrote: »

More info on temperatures decreasing from original predicted levels
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28870988

Once again I'm not disputing GW it is obvious that their predictions regarding it are far from accurate

As it says, when the cycle shifts warming will accelerate.

Hooter23

Apparently the "missing heat" is hiding in the atlantic ocean...lol

http://www.wunderground.com/news/missing-global-warming-heat-may-be-going-deep-atlantic-ocean-study-20140822

Weathering

From the year 2000-
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.

Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.

"We don't really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like," he said.

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

Hammond didn't conduct the study climatologists did he was repeating what they found so to dismiss it on that basis is unkind.

And yes, this does have impacts for long term predictions if they said it would be x warmer by x date and now this is delayed for a period of years due this surely that will have implications for the future when they didn't factor the ocean cycle in to their original predictions. Yes temperatures will still increase but not at the levels by x date which they originally forecast. They got it wrong

Atlantic Dawn

How convenient, their scaremongering has been exposed as nothing but a pure taxation exercise used by governments around the world. When their initial doom and gloom predictions don't come true they change their minds from calling it global warming to climate change, now they are adding a "pause" in as the weather is actually not getting as bad as they predicted.

Red Nissan

Weathering wrote: »

After years and years of scaremongering

Global waring was a political agenda hoax to raise more taxes and impose fuel levies to make more arms and pay for armies.

Scientists, especially professionals in the USA will give results to a brief, any brief, be that we can prove global warming to disproving it, whoever has the biggest wallet to pay for it, calls the results.

Sparks

Red Nissan wrote: »

Global waring was a political agenda hoax

Go tell that to Kiribati...

MiNdGaM3

Weathering wrote: »

From the year 2000-
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.

Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.

"We don't really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like," he said.

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

Hammond didn't conduct the study climatologists did he was repeating what they found so to dismiss it on that basis is unkind.

And yes, this does have impacts for long term predictions if they said it would be x warmer by x date and now this is delayed for a period of years due this surely that will have implications for the future when they didn't factor the ocean cycle in to their original predictions. Yes temperatures will still increase but not at the levels by x date which they originally forecast. They got it wrong

Which one of those says largely confined to the Scottish highlands by 2010? Most appear to be predictions of what might happen further in the future.

He wasn't repeating what they found, he was giving his take on it. What he said was fine, rather simplistic, but fine. He reiterated that it doesn't change the long term trend, as I've been saying. I'd suggest reading the paper, or comments from the scientists involved, or comments from other experts, rather than a opinion from a non expert. I wouldn't go to a vet for advice on my asthma, you know?


I'm not sure how else I can explain this. These cycles do not alter the long term trends. as even John Hammond said. In the same way a run of warm days in October doesn't bring into question whether winter will arrive, a slow down in warming now doesn't bring into question the warming properties of CO2, methane and other GhGs.

Many climate projections did get the current pattern correct, despite all the factors trying to cause cooling. Up to 2006, the warming trend was faster than predicted, now its going a bit slower, and in a few years it will go faster again. It's normal variability superimposed on the long term trend.

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

How convenient, their scaremongering has been exposed as nothing but a pure taxation exercise used by governments around the world. When their initial doom and gloom predictions don't come true they change their minds from calling it global warming to climate change, now they are adding a "pause" in as the weather is actually not getting as bad as they predicted.

Yep, because the IPCC used to be the IPGW, right? And the papers dating back a century discussing climate change are entirely fabricated, right? It's thousands of scientists, academics, researcher involved in a mass conspiracy, and only a hand full on oil funded bloggers and shills know the real truth. They try desperately to inform the public of the reality of climate change, but how can the selfless, honest PR folk, journalists, bloggers and politicians possibly compete with the money hungry gravy train scientific community, right?

Red Nissan wrote: »

Global waring was a political agenda hoax to raise more taxes and impose fuel levies to make more arms and pay for armies.

Scientists, especially professionals in the USA will give results to a brief, any brief, be that we can prove global warming to disproving it, whoever has the biggest wallet to pay for it, calls the results.

The greenhouse effect was fabricated by the lefty scientists. They even went to Venus and faked a greenhouse effect there. Those dastardly beggars!

Weathering

You are nit picking when you mention the Scottish highlands(if snowfalls are to become less of a feature they would be confined to mountainous areas and the S.H were mentioned as an example by that "One guy". I said It was more than one person who said snowfall etc would be a distant memory in the near future and you asked me to supply evidence to which I did. - "You'll have to provide some evidence for your first claim, because it sounds like nothing I've heard, other than the example mentioned in my previous post" to which I supplied you with 3 sources and you had nothing to say to that just bring up the S.H remark . In the 90's/ early naughties they were widespread reports of less and less snowfall in 10-15 years ie by 2010 and it hasn't happened, it was rampant. Global warming this,global warming that will do this, will do that. It hasn't happened. You call it a natural variant, maybe they were just wrong. Imagine that.

riffmongous

Who still says Global Warming?

catallus

Is there anything to be said for another mass?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it was always a conspiracy of the elites.

Video

The problem was we haven't had the tech to be able to monitor this stuff in the past... we have years of weather monitoring but do we have centurys of planet monitoring ? nope... my guess is this has happened before it will happen again. However i think we do need to start using natural resources... the sun for example for power instead of continuing to pollute the air.If we could find a way to use lightning as a power source that would be amazing but i'm no scientist and would think it impossible.

Oneiric 3

Video wrote: »

.If we could find a way to use lightning as a power source that would be amazing but i'm no scientist and would think it impossible.

Would be impossible in this country at least, the least lightning prone place in the entire multiverse. :rolleyes:

riffmongous wrote: »

Who still says Global Warming?

Why dude, is it not, like, hip anymore?

Video

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Would be impossible in this country at least, the least lightning prone place in the entire multiverse. :rolleyes:

If you could get a bolt from europe to hit a conductor and store the charge it would power half of europe for a few months (apparently).If we had some way of receiving a feed over the water then it could work for us too. But my imagination is runnign wild again.

Red Nissan

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

The greenhouse effect was fabricated by the lefty scientists. They even went to Venus and faked a greenhouse effect there. Those dastardly beggars!

On the subject of planets, I believe we lived on both Mars and Venus in distant times and in the another one of which only an asteroid belt remains.

I think our capacity to destroy planets far exceeded a few climate foibles.

riffmongous

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Why dude, is it not, like, hip anymore?

It's a simplistic description, nice for the media and agendas maybe but not very scientific

kindredspirit

Video wrote: »

The problem was we haven't had the tech to be able to monitor this stuff in the past... we have years of weather monitoring but do we have centurys of planet monitoring ? nope... my guess is this has happened before it will happen again. However i think we do need to start using natural resources... the sun for example for power instead of continuing to pollute the air.If we could find a way to use lightning as a power source that would be amazing but i'm no scientist and would think it impossible.

Nikola Tesla would have been able to do it. One of the greatest geniuses to have ever lived and never fully appreciated.

http://www.damninteresting.com/teslas-tower-of-power/

Coles

Around 1999-2000 I can distinctly remember reading a paper that stated that the trend in warming would slow for 15-20 years before emerging stronger again.

It's interesting that the climate change deniers only remember someone making off-the-cuff comments about snowballs. :rolleyes:

Red Nissan

Coles wrote: »

It's interesting that the climate change deniers only remember someone making off-the-cuff comments about snowballs. :rolleyes:

I'm a man made climate denier. Man can make vast changes to area of land in deed change the local climate and indeed effect the overall planet's climate but it's nothing that nature herself can do and has done in our habitation period on this island alone.

The population of this island has been brought to near extinction suddenly with two major climate change events that trees log as a 20 year stunted growth period.

Other areas of the world were effected and impacted negatively, while others bloomed, the Aztec and Myan communities were destroyed as a civilisation, until recently thought of from over farming and enslavement, now we know differently.

One good Icelandic Volcano eruption will do more damage to Ireland and the World than all of mankind's pollution put together since the industrial age.

Coles

Red Nissan wrote: »

I'm a man made climate denier. Man can make vast changes to area of land in deed change the local climate and indeed effect the overall planet's climate but it's nothing that nature herself can do and has done in our habitation period on this island alone.

The population of this island has been brought to near extinction suddenly with two major climate change events that trees log as a 20 year stunted growth period.

Other areas of the world were effected and impacted negatively, while others bloomed, the Aztec and Myan communities were destroyed as a civilisation, until recently thought of from over farming and enslavement, now we know differently.

Yeah, everything changes. Abrupt climate change can be caused by specific events and the consequences are bad. BUT there is a global consensus in the scientific community that Climate Change is being driven by human activity and that the consequences will be similar to other 'abrupt' changes. It is likely that the changes in our environment will be too quick for our systems of agriculture and habitation to adapt.

Change is not a problem. It is the rate of change.

One good Icelandic Volcano eruption will do more damage to Ireland and the World than all of mankind's pollution put together since the industrial age.

Sorry, but where did you get that information from. Was it the same source that informed you that humans used to live on Venus and Mars? :rolleyes:

ALL volcanic activity globally releases about 300 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

Human activity releases about 40 BILLION tonnes of CO2 annually.

That's 135 times more CO2 from human activity than Volcanos in an average year.

Red Nissan

Coles wrote: »

Sorry, but where did you get that information from. Was it the same source that informed you that humans used to live on Venus and Mars? :rolleyes: .

We haven't records for the big volcanic events and we haven't had a super volcano eruption in some 600,000 years, Yellow Stone was probably more responsible for the Dinosaur extinction extinction event 65m years ago after the double whammy of a giant meteor strike and massive under seas release of CO2.

Sparks

Red Nissan wrote: »

We haven't records for the big volcanic events and we haven't had a super volcano eruption in some 600,000 years

If we have no records for the big volcanic events,
(a) how do you think we know there have been big volcanic events at all;
(b) how do you think we know where they were;
(c) how do you think we know how big they were; and
(d) how do you think we know when they were?


Just because we weren't around to write stuff down doesn't mean there's no record of these things, you just have to find it, whether it be in the fossil record, in ice core samples, in sedimentary rock deposits, or wherever.

OldRio

Coles wrote: »

BUT there is a global consensus in the scientific community that Climate Change is being driven by human activity

Indeed. At least we can rely on scientist not to change data to suit their own agendas.;)

Global warming or climate change?
I suppose it depends on which title gets the best funding and/or most exotic location for a conference.

Red Nissan

Sparks wrote: »

(b) how do you think we know where they were;

Fossil records would be one, but it is not immediately evidential that it was any particular event.

The Boxing Day tSunami in 2004 is linked to the chain of activity which has devastated populations in recent history and no evidence has been left of previous inhabitants.

The Indonesian peninsula has been rediscovered a few times in the last 300 years, it was a vast unpopulated area of choice land, the state of which did not become evident until recently and the last known major event was the 1883 Krakatoa eruption and tSunami.

However, there have been even more massive events before this, that is now credited with depopulating entire regions and causing total obliteration.

One can see a state in soil, sand, rocks, trees etc, it's actual cause may be related to an event but not necessarily directly so.

Sparks

OldRio wrote: »

I suppose it depends on which title gets the best funding and/or most exotic location for a conference.

As far as I remember, it mostly depended on whether you were talking to a reporter who wanted a snappy headline or a climatologist writing an academic paper...

Sparks

Red Nissan wrote: »

The Boxing Day tSunami in 2004 is linked to the chain of activity which has devastated populations in recent history and no evidence has been left of previous inhabitants.

I rather think that's a statement that wouldn't stand up to an hour or two's work with a shovel in the areas you're talking about.

One can see a state in soil, sand, rocks, trees etc, it's actual cause may be related to an event but not necessarily directly so.

Which is why the scientific consensus on climate change took time and hard work to arrive at.

That doesn't mean it hasn't been arrived at, however. It also doesn't mean you can say "there are no records". There are, we just took longer to learn to read them.

Red Nissan

Sparks wrote: »

That doesn't mean it hasn't been arrived at, however. It also doesn't mean you can say "there are no records". There are, we just took longer to learn to read them.

There are no records in as much as we realise that an event has occurred and we then try to understand it.

This is particularly true for bad weather being reported in the past but no other evidence.

IE, if one could transpose to a noted date in the past where dramatic weather was reported our sensors would pick up pollution and massive CO2 levels that would exceed today's readings.

I would believe in Man Made Global Warming or Man Made Climate Change if the Governments of the World were not merely trading off 'Carbon Credits' so they can continue to pollute.

Pull the other one I say.

Sparks

Red Nissan wrote: »

IE, if one could transpose to a noted date in the past where dramatic weather was reported our sensors would pick up pollution and massive CO2 levels that would exceed today's readings.

Yeah, that's just... sorry, no, I don't have polite words for how silly that sentence was. You're just saying that we can't know what happened in the past because if we went back to it, we'd definitely see something utterly different to what we currently believe we'd see.

I would believe in Man Made Global Warming or Man Made Climate Change if the Governments of the World were not merely trading off 'Carbon Credits' so they can continue to pollute.

Correct me if I'm reading you wrong, but is your argument that the scientific consensus based on decades of evidence gathering and testing is wrong .... because a bunch of politicians don't want to accept it and instead came up with schemes like Carbon Credits in the belief that you can legislate reality away for long enough that it becomes the next guy's problem while you're retired somewhere with sunny beaches and umbrella drinks?

I'm not sure that's a sound basis for your argument.

Red Nissan

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, that's just... sorry, no, I don't have polite words for how silly that sentence was. You're just saying that we can't know what happened in the past because if we went back to it, we'd definitely see something utterly different to what we currently believe we'd see. .

Not quite. We'd SEE EXACTLY the same as today except WORSE, and today we are blaming the industrial revolution of the past two hundred years and continuing.

There are and were more powerful events that man had nothing to do with.

Red Nissan

Sparks wrote: »

I'm not sure that's a sound basis for your argument.

You summed up that part perfectly, we either do have a crisis or we don't. We either CAN do something about it or we can't.

I believe we are in crisis, but totally reject the notion that if I can persuade you to stop farting for a day, I can fart all I like during that day.

As I said pull the other one.

Coles

I'm just going to back away slowly from this thread...

Sparks

Red Nissan wrote: »

Not quite. We'd SEE EXACTLY the same as today except WORSE, and today we are blaming the industrial revolution of the past two hundred years and continuing.

So there are no records, but you know what we'd see.

Erm... how, exactly?

Sparks

Red Nissan wrote: »

You summed up that part perfectly, we either do have a crisis or we don't. We either CAN do something about it or we can't.

Those two aren't strictly speaking linked.
We do have a crisis; we currently aren't doing much about it; we technically could in the same way that we technically could go to the moon in 1969 (ie. it's possible with sufficient resources, but not trivial in any sense of the word and getting politicians to agree to devote the necessary resources usually takes some very pointy motivation indeed).

I believe we are in crisis, but totally reject the notion that if I can persuade you to stop farting for a day, I can fart all I like during that day.
As I said pull the other one.

Could you say that to the politicians instead of the climatologists though? Because that's a fair point if you're making it about carbon credits and the other schemes dreamt up by politicians, but it's a pretty weak argument to make to say climate change isn't real and/or isn't man-made.

Red Nissan

Sparks wrote: »

So there are no records, but you know what we'd see. Erm... how, exactly?

Already mentioned, this is now only being driven in a circle.

catallus

Nature started the war for survival and now she wants to quit, just because she's losing???? Pah!

Lies, lies, lies, and damned statistics.

Sparks

Red Nissan wrote: »

Already mentioned, this is now only being driven in a circle.

Ah, no.
I'm saying that we have records that tell us what we'd find in the atmosphere if we carried out your thought experiment - particulate deposits in ice cores, that sort of thing - and you've been saying no, that's wrong, we'd find things much worse than they are today.

Thing is, we can't both be right because not one of the records we do have has ever recorded CO2 levels this high during the past 15 million years or so and the last time they were this high, temperatures were about five degrees warmer and the ocean level was a good 30 metres higher than today.

Red Nissan

Sparks wrote: »

but it's a pretty weak argument to make to say climate change isn't real and/or isn't man-made.

This is me.

Climate change is happening, we are leaving the Ice Age, we are entering a period where we will have no ice on the surface of the planet. This is happening, man cannot stop this.

This may well be the extinction of mankind.

Man's presence on this planet is fostered by two things, the Magnetic Fields protecting the surface residents from lethal radiation, and the current position of the floating land masses which fosters weather engines which keeps this planet in a habitable threshold.

We are also moving out of this threshold, albeit quite slowly.

As long as we have weather we'll be grand, so we will get a bit wetter, a bit warmer and the food bowls will change as they did previously so too will the economic power shift, this is happening, this is real and it presents a real challenge for mankind.

We are not making this happen.

Sparks

Red Nissan wrote: »

man cannot stop this.

There's an old adage amongst engineers which advises those who would say "this cannot be done" to step to one side before speaking to avoid being run down by those doing it...

We are not making this happen.

Well, you think that, but when 97% of the world's climatologists all specifically agree that mankind is causing this, I'm just gonna go with their evidence-based statements. If you have evidence that contradicts those 97%... well, why haven't you published yet? You'd be famous...

Red Nissan

Sparks wrote: »

Well, you think that, but when 97% of the world's climatologists all specifically agree that mankind is causing this, I'm just gonna go with their evidence-based statements. If you have evidence that contradicts those 97%... well, why haven't you published yet? You'd be famous...

I've no personal evidence, I do collate other published reports and documentaries and I form my own opinion.

Evidence is there for interpretation, the evidence presented today, could have been presented in the past, repeatedly in the past over billions of years, I simply don't buy the man made aspects, I'd be more like Noah and build my own Arc and get to like seafood.

Akrasia

Red Nissan wrote: »

I've no personal evidence, I do collate other published reports and documentaries and I form my own opinion.

Evidence is there for interpretation, the evidence presented today, could have been presented in the past, repeatedly in the past over billions of years, I simply don't buy the man made aspects, I'd be more like Noah and build my own Arc and get to like seafood.

Which part of the greenhouse effect do you not accept?

Weathering

Coles wrote: »

Around 1999-2000 I can distinctly remember reading a paper that stated that the trend in warming would slow for 15-20 years before emerging stronger again.

It's interesting that the climate change deniers only remember someone making off-the-cuff comments about snowballs. :rolleyes:

Seeing as you can "Distinctly" remember perhaps you can link a source from 99/00 stating as such?

If you cared to read the thread there was a lot more to it that snow, it was an example of scaremongering gone wrong. If you feel the need to try and dumb it down before making your point then your point obviously wasn't up to much

Nabber

A tax on a theory is wrong.
Green tax can be likened to a tax to raise money for an asteroid defense.

The climate changes, it changed before humans, it will change after humans.

Gathering records that go back 100 years, to make predictions on something that has been fluctuating for billions of years and claiming we did it, that is just preposterous in any situation. There is no defined line on where the climate should be. We live by seasons and averages. Averages have highs and lows.
It has to be proven that humans are causing this, at the moment it is a theory, based on graphs of CO2 releases of humans and global averages. But the problem arises were the averages dip, yet as the only fact of this whole matter remains constant is we are releasing more CO2 everyday. We hear another theory to back up the 'slowdown' or 'cool averages'


My biggest gripe beside the green taxes, no weather event now is NOT the cause of manmade global warming. Big storm in Galway? Get used to it, global warming will have them rolling in every second month. Slight drought in the midlands, you better believe it, AGW will have you high and dry every year. Some island that you never heard of got 20cm of rain in 2 hours, sit back my friend, because AGW stops at nothing.....

Why can't meteorologists ever say, with the right conditions, this can be expected, but these conditions are rare, but not impossible.


Rant over

Godge

Climate change has always happened.

Before we were here, it was driven by other forces.

We are now adding our influence to those forces.

We are making a difference over a timespan of maybe 150 years. Can we make a difference to climate change over a timespan of 5,000 years? yet alone 50,000 years?

How long has the earth been habital for man? How long will it remain so, that is the question?

Oneiric 3

Sparks wrote: »

it's a pretty weak argument to make to say climate change isn't real and/or isn't man-made.

Asking from an objective standpoint but what if global warming/climate change is not/partially/entirely man-made though? Does it actually really matter? Are we adding more weight to a vague, theoretical concept that has little or no practical importance in everyday life than is warranted?

Coles wrote: »

climate change deniers

This seems to be a popular swipe by middle-man type advocates of AGW to somehow dismiss and belittle those that may have an alternative view on climate. Yet I not heard any climate scientist coming out with personal remarks like this. And if I was to, I would sincerely question their academic credentials and the institution/s they earned them in.

markfla

how I see it is, we were warned about increases in Hurricanes, tornadoes etc. and severe storms when the fact of the matter is there has been no observable increase in the last decade of these. In fact hurricanes have fallen off and there's no increase in tornadoes although the record on these is patchy before the satellite era. The increase in rain over these isle has abated and been attributed to the north Atlantic oscillation. Global sea ice the last two years has been on the increase...I understand variability can happen on a trend over time but we are being told the ocean is taking the heat...why the increae in sea ice. I'm very very far from an expert but from I've been picking up recently I've been getting sceptical of the whole thing not because I think there is a big political conspiracy, I just think we may have got it wrong? I had read up on sudden strat warming, geopotential height differences and affects on the jet stream, albedo effects, multi decadal oscillations etc. in a genuine effort to understand GW but maybe there is something we're missing going on what's being observed.

Sparks

Red Nissan wrote: »

Evidence is there for interpretation, the evidence presented today, could have been presented in the past, repeatedly in the past over billions of years

Yes, but every time that the evidence we see today is seen in the past, the point we're currently standing on is under 30 metres of ocean (and we have to go back 15 million years just to find the last occurrence of this).

I simply don't buy the man made aspects

So your argument against decades of evidence-based research and a consensus of 97% of the scientists who spend their professional lives studying this is that "you don't buy it".

Rather curious to how you'd prove the IPCC wrong when they say "nuh uh"...

Nabber wrote: »

A tax on a theory is wrong.

Pretty sure we don't tax theories.
But if you mean a tax levied to fund public projects based on scientific theory, then you must be really annoyed at how your taxes fund, for one of many many many examples, the healthcare system (unless you thought the germ theory of disease wasn't a theory).

Green tax can be likened to a tax to raise money for an asteroid defense.

I'm curious, is it asteroids you think don't exist or climate change?
(BTW, you already pay a tax to raise money for an asteroid defence, albeit at a remove - the European Space Agency has a Near Earth Orbit programme or two for tracking and planning for diversion and study)

The climate changes, it changed before humans, it will change after humans.

Definitely. It's just that we're driving this change.

Gathering records that go back 100 years

You're missing some zeros there. Borehole data goes back 500 years, various organic proxy records go back up to two thousand years, and Antarctic ice core data goes back about 100,000 years.

to make predictions on something that has been fluctuating for billions of years and claiming we did it, that is just preposterous in any situation.

Well, (a) that's not what's happening and (b) no, it just wouldn't be.

There is no defined line on where the climate should be. We live by seasons and averages. Averages have highs and lows.

You're forgetting your George Carlin. You're right, there's no defined line where the climate should be. The planet is fine, it's survived worse than us. It's people who're ****ed.

It has to be proven that humans are causing this, at the moment it is a theory

So (a) it has been proven insofar as any physical theory can be;
and (b) if you start saying "oh, it's just a theory" you're going to sound a lot like the young earth creationists who want evolution removed from school textbooks because "it's just a theory". And for the same reasons and with the same glaring errors, like your use of the word theory:

My biggest gripe beside the green taxes

Quick question - if your biggest gripe with the IPCC conclusions is the green taxes, at what point did you come by the belief that scientists have the legal authority (or for that matter, any hope at all) of designing and successfully introducing new taxes, while somehow managing to not introduce a tax that added a few zeros to the annual research budgets of every nation?
I mean, that's like believing that if you give a toddler a four kilo bucket of jelly beans that they'll just eat ten or twelve beans and reseal the bucket...

no weather event now is NOT the cause of manmade global warming.

According to Fox News and the tabloids.
Ask the meterologists however, and they'll put their head in their hands and get on with explaining in a tired, oh so tired voice that weather is not climate and that it would take years of observations of trends before you could say conclusively that weather event X was definitely caused by climate change, but that that doesn't mean that those trends don't exist.

Tabloids however, are too busy raising advertising revenue to do this, so they'll tell you that climate change is causing everything from today's rain to tomorrow's locust plague and then show you some breasts on page three to get you to not ask too many questions.

I don't think you can lay that at the IPCC's doorstep though, except in a flaming dog poop sort of way.

Godge wrote: »

We are making a difference over a timespan of maybe 150 years. Can we make a difference to climate change over a timespan of 5,000 years? yet alone 50,000 years?

Dunno, but we've managed it over a timespan of about 100 years so far...

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Asking from an objective standpoint but what if global warming/climate change is not/partially/entirely man-made though?

That was a valid question twenty years ago, not so much today because it's been settled.

Does it actually really matter?

Yes.

Are we adding more weight to a vague, theoretical concept that has little or no practical importance in everyday life than is warranted?

Think you might find you've understated its importance. It's not just a case of crying because your grandkids won't ever see a coral reef, it's the economic impact of the change that's going to wallop us. Just because it'll hit as you're retiring (if you're in your 30s now) and it's your kids who'll take the first solid kick in the fork doesn't mean that the impact won't be real -- it just means that there's a long enough gap between being able to do something to avert it and being walloped by it that no politician would ever be able to sell the cost of aversion as being worth it.

This seems to be a popular swipe by middle-man type advocates of AGW to somehow dismiss and belittle those that may have an alternative view on climate. Yet I not heard any climate scientist coming out with personal remarks like this.

Are you kidding?

And if I was to, I would sincerely question their academic credentials and the institution/s they earned them in.

Ah, right, I see. So if they don't comment on climate change denial then climate change isn't happening and if they do comment on it, their professional qualifications are suspect?

Quick question, what are your professional qualifications? I mean, you're the one arguing that 97% of the world's climatologists are wrong...

markfla wrote: »

how I see it is, we were warned about increases in Hurricanes, tornadoes etc. and severe storms when the fact of the matter is there has been no observable increase in the last decade of these.

Well, that's just wrong about hurricanes and tropical storms:

And the power in those storms is also increasing and seems correlated to sea surface temperature:


Now you might say correlation is not causation, but the climatologists and meteorologists said it before you did; but those are observations, not predictions, so even if you disagree with what's causing them, you don't get to say they're not happening...

Global sea ice the last two years has been on the increase

Er, no, it hasn't, and two years is too short to be looking at anyway. Yes, there's a trend for Arctic ice to fall and Antarctic ice to rise but they don't cancel out:



Worse yet, you're talking sea ice and ignoring land ice:







And worse yet, while it's too early to be sure, it looks like the IPCC was overly conservative about it:

FWVT

What about since 2007? The 2005 season really bumps up those averages, but what about the rake of lower years since?

It's the same with global temperature. A lot of the graphs that people post stop at 1997 or the early 2000s...conveniently.

Sparks

FWVT wrote: »

What about since 2007? The 2005 season really bumps up those averages, but what about the rake of lower years since?

Haven't found 2012 and 2013, but 2007-2011 is just more of the same ten-year trend: