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

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

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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?

Deleted User 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

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm not sure that's the issue it was anymore though:

https://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2016/march/decoupling-of-global-emissions-and-economic-growth-confirmed.html

im very very wary of info from think tanks. a lot of s*ite out there. i think the implementation of economic systems and theories such as neoliberalism and neoclassical theory are having detrimental effects to this planet. we re doing incredible damage to the planet with such systems. we have to come up with better systems and fast

this documentary was aired on bbc during the week, pollution on the ganges and its catchment. may interest some here. very upsetting to watch actually.

Deleted User wrote: »

That growth is largely in financial activity, moving money from one bank account to another as opposed to actually making stuff.

All economic growth in recent years has been in the financial sector? Really?

For the first time apparently there's been a jet stream shift in the last couple of days. It's more than a little frightening what the consequences of this are.

It's quite unprecedented for the jet stream to cross the equator. It pretty much ends seasonality.

Last month was the hottest June on record. That makes it fourteen record-breaking months in a row:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/hottest-ever-june-sees-14th-month-of-record-temperatures-1.2728221

Deleted User wrote: »

Sensational headlines.

Thats a fine example of revisionism you've caught there

That was when they were still selling "global warming"
Before they had to climb down a bit and rebrand it as anthropogenic climate change.

Is the climate changing?
of course

Are we causing it?
probably

Can we stop it?
probably not

Is our best course of action to make plans for food and water security?
definitely
Will it happen ?
no

Why ?

Because of:

1. ISIL (Daesh, ISIS, insert next one here)
2. Democracy (Such as it is)
3. The Economy, Stupid !
4. Poverty
5. Human nature (we are just bald monkeys really)
6. Pokemon Go !
7. Netflix
8. Facebook
9. Twink
10. Enda Kenny
11. Michael Noonan
12. The entire Healy Rae Dynashty
13. The Rothschild Banking System (IMF)
14. The EU
15. THe US
16. Russia
17. CHina
18. INdia
19. Brazil
20. Ebola
21. Zika
22. Consumerism
23. corporate interests
24. Lobbyists
25. Greed
26. stupidity
27. Time (this is probably the most important factor)
28. Everyone on the planet's desire and expectation that a "modern" western lifestyle is achievable, sustainable or even remotely
29. Depression
30. Fear
31. Anxiety
32. Star Wars
33. Meat Eating
34. Cars
35. Holidays
36. Every other distraction or selfish goal that we as humans will use as a daily distraction from the impending collapse of our civilization, culture, way of life and hopes for the future.
37. I'm pretty sure you can see where this list is going
38. Rupert Murdoch
39. Trident
40. Brexit
41. Richard Bransons (his spin and sales pitch was terrific though)
42. Al Gore
43. every US president since about McKinley
44. The Queen of England
45. I'm gonna stop now. Massively TLDR;
46. There is hope out there. Seek it, Find it.
47. If you can't find it, seek inner peace. it tastes the same anyway

My sincere apple logies for the rambling tinfoil hat post. my overtired attempt at putting pith and humor in the same place.

Oh, and Twitter. them too :rolleyes:

AngryHippie wrote: »

Thats a fine example of revisionism you've caught there

That was when they were still selling "global warming"
Before they had to climb down a bit and rebrand it as anthropogenic climate change.

Eh, the IPCC was founded in 1988 and the term climate change was used long before that.

Climate change and global warming are interchangable. Global warming is causing climate change.

The anthropogenic part is included to avoid the inevitable denialist hijacking of every single discussion to say 'climate changes naturally blah blah'

Everyone knows that climate changes naturally, AGW or Climate change is not about the natural changes, it's only about the changes humans are causing to the global climate. (which are real and potentially catastrophic)

Deleted User wrote: »

Hottest since 1880, lol, hmmm that's not much of a record though in Earth's existence really.

Which is probably why it was not reported as such.

Deleted User wrote: »

Sensational headlines. The media love it.

Indeed they do. Scientists tend to be less keen.

Deleted User wrote: »

I remember the time they said in 2000 or so that our Children would not know what snow was , actually from the British Independent which was deleted but can still be found. How do I know it was deleted ? because I kept the bookmark.

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

That was a claim from Dr David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia and the Media jumped all over it with massive heading. That's what I'm talking about "that sort of thing" And there's no shortage of them either.

What he actually said was “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is” – you added the word “our”, which makes a big difference.

As an aside, there’s also often a big difference between science and what the media report as science.

Deleted User wrote: »

Well if people are that worried about Co2…

They’re not – that’s kind of the problem.

Deleted User wrote: »

Climate change is a distraction, the real tragedy is the loss of natural habitat, loss of bio-diversity and the massive increase in human population which is displacing all other life on Earth.

https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/living-planet-report-2018

Climate change isn't a distraction, it's the worst problem facing mankind since WW2. Climate change involves widespread loss of habitat through coral bleaching, destruction of rainforests, melting of polar ice and glaciers, increases in drought and heatwaves that make it unsustainable for species to survive where they once flourished.

There is no point in tackling the other issues unless we tackle climate change, and conversely, tackling climate change will also do a lot to improve biodiversity as some of the solutions to climate change are to reforestation and education in family planning and equality for girls in the developing world.

Akrasia wrote: »

Climate change isn't a distraction, it's the worst problem facing mankind since WW2. Climate change involves widespread loss of habitat through coral bleaching, destruction of rainforests, melting of polar ice and glaciers, increases in drought and heatwaves that make it unsustainable for species to survive where they once flourished.

There is no point in tackling the other issues unless we tackle climate change, and conversely, tackling climate change will also do a lot to improve biodiversity as some of the solutions to climate change are to reforestation and education in family planning and equality for girls in the developing world.

AP PHOTOS: Yemen’s displaced live on bread crumbs, leaves


Behind the Reporting: How the War in Yemen Became a Bloody Stalemate

Miscarriages and malnourishment: The perils of pregnancy in Yemen


Civilians bear brunt of landmine explosions in Shan State

Clearing the landmines of eastern Ukraine

Landmines kill almost hourly – let's end their brutal scourge for good


Why the U.S. Military Won't Give Up Its Cluster Bombs

Cluster Bombs Are Back—and America and Russia Can't Get Enough

Israeli Army Buying Local Cannons to Sidestep International Ban on Cluster Bombs

Life among Israeli cluster bombs in Lebanon


Stopping people killing each other seems like a top priority issue to me, but I can see why someone who advocates "family planning" (i.e. population control) in the third world might not care about that since the outcome is the same - less people which is the ultimate goal of the dark green elements of the environmental movement. You somehow fail to notice that people are dying because of man made global warfare while the number of people being killed by weather events an natural disasters has declined over the last century.

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

AP PHOTOS: Yemen’s displaced live on bread crumbs, leaves


Behind the Reporting: How the War in Yemen Became a Bloody Stalemate

Miscarriages and malnourishment: The perils of pregnancy in Yemen


Civilians bear brunt of landmine explosions in Shan State

Clearing the landmines of eastern Ukraine

Landmines kill almost hourly – let's end their brutal scourge for good


Why the U.S. Military Won't Give Up Its Cluster Bombs

Cluster Bombs Are Back—and America and Russia Can't Get Enough

Israeli Army Buying Local Cannons to Sidestep International Ban on Cluster Bombs

Life among Israeli cluster bombs in Lebanon


Stopping people killing each other seems like a top priority issue to me, but I can see why someone who advocates "family planning" (i.e. population control) in the third world might not care about that since the outcome is the same - less people which is the ultimate goal of the dark green elements of the environmental movement. You somehow fail to notice that people are dying because of man made global warfare while the number of people being killed by weather events an natural disasters has declined over the last century.

Oh feck off. I didn't say we shouldn't tackle war and famine, I said that it will be in vain in the long term if we don't solve climate change. The human suffering we see today will be amplified massively if we see global average temperatures increase 2 or 3c above pre-industrial temperatures and the temperatures won't stop increasing from there as feedbacks get activated.

There will never be peace in a world where conflicts of basic resources like fresh water and food are amplified due to climate change

And Family planning and educating girls is an essential element in poverty reduction and improvements in quality of life for the poorest people in the world.

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

As I pointed out the mass human suffering we see today is not due to environmental disaster however it is within the reach of man to resolve violent conflict. World peace is a desirable goal unlike maintaining a static arbitrary temperature value in perpetuity. It is is arrogant of you to pursue such a goal since you do not understand what causes earth's climate cycles and the remedies you are supporting are already hurting less well off people in this country. You live in a part of the northern hemisphere that is quite cold for much of the year and you expect people to be frightened by an unproven allegation that temperatures will rise by 2C if we don't pay more tax and subsidise more wind and solar industrial complexes.

Earths climate is very well understood. And we're not trying to maintain an arbitrary static temperature. We're trying to prevent human pollution and changes to land use from flipping the earths climate into a new state that is outside of the framework of the interglacial cycle that humans have evolved under, and into a much warmer state where many parts of the world will become uninhabitable causing massive global upheaval to human civilisation and the rest of the natural world


http://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252

The evidence from past cycles where warming has been dominant is that human civilisation thrives in such conditions, it is the cold cycles that coincide with mass starvation, death and destruction of civilisation.

There is no precedent for the temperatures we are facing unless we reduce our CO2 equivalent emissions.

We face temperatures hotter than we have experienced in the 2 million or so years since humans evolved as a species

That myth has been blown apart.

By blown apart, you mean disputed. But as the world warms, the impact of more and more severe heatwaves and droughts will inevitably lead to crop failures and migration and as water supplies dry up, this could lead to conflict between neighbouring countries or communities who may not already be on the best of terms. Your paper dismisses the US military calling climate change a Threat Multiplier. It is obvious that mass migration, famine, resource shortages could exacerbate conflicts between ethnic groups and cultures that don't like each other. American conservatives are sh1tting themselves about the possibility of a few thousand peasants trying to seek asylum in America. Climate change will lead to millions of displaced people from rising seas and people facing water and food shortages due to changes in their local climate.

It is not. Cheap abundant energy is, the kind that frees women from the drudgery of working without labour saving devices such as washing machines. Without that education as you desire it has no value to them and they need the children to take care of them in their old age since no social welfare system is possible.

So you're saying these women should aspire to having washing machines to ease the burdon of their domestic chores.

Or perhaps they could be educated and empowered to take control of their own lives and make their own choices

For those who are interested (4 mins. in), here is a summary by Professor Richard Lindzen outlining how the climate really works, what is known and the shortcomings of the climate alarmists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2q9BT2LIUA

Richard Lindzen is a busted flush. His theories on climate change have all been disproven and none of his predictions have come true and his own colleagues are appalled that he continues to make factually incorrect statements such as 'co2 is not a pollutant'. He's getting very well paid to speak at climate denial events and to appear on propaganda videos like at 'pragerU'

If you are so inclined James Cornett outlines the parts of the recent IPCC propaganda bulletin that you might have missed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA8n9fm5fwE

You need better sources. I watched that video and this guy doesn't understand what he's talking about.

He's actually a total clown. For example, at about 10 minutes in, says they drew in a line with ms paint onto a graph when it clearly shows on the graph that this red line is an analysis based on Marcott et al. This is the kind of rubbish you get when you have morons who think they know everything rushing through papers looking for things that they misunderstand just enough to think they've found a discrepancy in the science.

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

No it isn't, otherwise alarmists would not have needed to re-label catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming as climate change or adjust the data or maybe carry out a proper audit of the data used in their datasets.

Dude. Check your sources, seriously. The 'alarmists' never re-labled CAGW into 'Climate change. The term Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming was never used by 'alarmists', it is used by almost exclusively by climate change deniers chatting away to each other in their little bubble of blogs and in the comment sections in the media and youtube. It is a term that is never ever used by scientists in the literature.

On the other hand, 'Climate change' has been around for decades, the IPCC has been around since 1988

No we don't. Even though you claim the the climate is well understood the predictions made to date for temperatures have been consistently wrong and the claims of warmest year 'eva are grasping at straws while ignoring the margin of error.

Wrong again. The calculations for climate sensitivity made by Arrhenius in 1896 was about 3c for a doubling of CO2.. This is smack in the middle of the IPCC projections for Climate sensitivity

The physics are very well understood, almost incontrovertible. What we don't fully understand is the effect of all the various feedbacks. We have a good idea of what values they are likely to have, but we don't know for certain and likely won't know until we measure them in hindsight (by which time it's way too late to do anything about them)

I mean blown apart. The real reasons for today's mass migration are towards areas of the planet that offer a higher standard of living compared with subsistence living or political oppression and lack of opportunity in their homeland. Within China there is migration to the south-east, within Russia there is migration from the former colonies of the Soviet Union towards the west of the country in particular Moscow and St. Petersburg. In South and central America there is migration towards the prosperous North and there is migration from Africa and the middle East towards Europe all driven by economic opportunity and even the generous welfare states.

Of course people who are displaced are going to migrate to where there is opportunity for a better life. Duh. What do you think will happen when millions of people are displaced from their land because of rising seas or drought. Are they just going to wander around the deserts forever, or are they going to try to make their way to cities or places where there is opportunity to build a better life. What happens when the people living there don't like the mass migration driving down their own wages or standard of living? Conflict. The rise of anti immigrant populism like we're seeing in Europe and America, and ultimately violent conflict.

A degree in climate studies is not going to empower you when you are living a subsistence existence. That means no running water, no electricity and hard labor scratching a living off the land being one bad harvest away from wipeout. The only safety net in that environment is have your children take care of you when you can't work anymore.

Then they should get a degree in something else then. Actually, lets start by teaching them how to read. Allowing girls to dream of a life other than as a baby factory. Teach them that there is more to the world than subsistence. When they are educated they can become involved in politics, fight for representation so that they're not living hand to mouth.

He is correct CO2 is not a pollutant, it is essential for life on Earth. As a carbon based life form you depend on it or have you forgotten about the carbon cycle and essential processes like photosynthesis.

Things that are essential for life can also be toxic at the wrong dose. Nitrogen is essential for plants too, but if you put a small amount in a lake, it'll kill all the fish.

Carbon dioxide might be essential for photosynthesis, but it's toxic to humans. If you don't believe me, put a plastic bag over your head and breath (don't actually do this)
CO2 has a natural balance of about 280ppm, this is the carbon cycle in balance. Humans dug up billions of tonnes of oil coal and gas that took the natural carbon cycle tens of millions of years to sequester, and are burning it over the course of only a few centuries. We are fundamentally altering the composition of the atmosphere and you don't do that without consequences.

What is this about then? This is politics, the science is just the cover story to provide the optics.

Countries negotiate key messages of IPCC’s controversial ‘Special Report’

IPCC reports are drafted by scientists, but have to be signed off by every country who participate in the IPCC. Finalising the wording of the final reports is a long and laborious process of negotiation over what language is acceptable by consensus. The report is based on the science but the the final reports, especially the summary documents are usually conservative documents because unless you're saying the likes of Saudi Arabia hate the oil industry, they can only make statements that they can back up with extremely robust established science, anything that can not be fully backed up will be objected to by one of the fossil fuel exporting countries.

Only a lunatic thinks that the worlds governments are all colluding to make climate change seem worse than it is. If anything, there are governments all over the world resisting any attempts to tackle it and doing everything they can to drag their feet and avoid being held to committments to reduce oil, gas and coal consumption.

Even your own link confirms that the language in the SPM document was watered down significantly from it's earlier drafts

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Climate change has been happening forever. I remember when it used to be called global cooling.

How old are you? There were a couple of scientists predicting a cooling phase in the 70s which got picked up by the press and the usual tabloid exaggeration did not reflect the state of the science at all.
These few tabloid headlines have been repeated over and over and over and over again in the Denial blogosphere so that it gives the false impression that there was ever a clamour about potential global cooling.

Climate changes naturally over time due to certain known factors, none of which are responsible for the current warming which is incontrovertibly caused by humans. There is absolutely no scientific debate anymore that the warming in recent decades is caused by humans, and that if we continue to emit CO2 the warming will increase.

Under controlled conditions of a laboratory the results may be predictable and if their hypothesis was right they they would be able to make accurate predictions based on such experiments. For the past 30 years their predictions have been an abject failure. The ice caps are still there at the poles and Greenland and even Kilimanjaro still has snow and those islands that should have been under water a decade ago are still there and the northern passage is still as risky as ever. I guarantee that the ice caps will still be there if I ever get to retire decades from now.

Watch this animation and tell me that Arctic sea ice isn't in terminal decline.

Globally glaciers are in decline in most places. Kilamanjaro has lost about 30% of it's mass in recent decades. Record snow is a form of precipitation, or weather, which is not a disproof of climate change.

Well the sea has been rising for several hundred years now and we are doing just fine we have the technology to deal with it. If you look at your own country the trend has been rural to urban migration since the 19th century with some exceptional brief periods.

It's a matter of degree. We can handle a few MM of sea level rise, when we're talking about a centimeter of sea level rises per year, thats when it's dangerous. Similarly with migration. There is always migration of individuals looking to find a better life. When it becomes mass migration of populations, that creates much larger instability and political upheaval.

You need time to learn to read and write you have the conditions that allow you to do that . . . . the things you and I take for granted are not available to over 1 billion people on the planet. Without savings there is no surplus, without a surplus its a hand to mouth existence.

There is a huge discussion to be had about what drives human development. The literature is extremely clear that reduced family sizes and increased education, especially for girls are a huge factor in quality of life and the human development index.
It is ridiculous to suggest that the best way to help these people is to encourage them to have big families to the limit of their ability to feed them in the hope that some of them will survive long enough to care for the parents in their (premature) old age.

Without us recycling that sequestered carbon, the biosphere as you know it would starve.

Absolute horseh1t. The carbon cycle was doing perfectly fine before the industrial revolution and the mass emission of carbon into the air

It only really starts to become a serious problem for us about 7000 PPM, but even a crowded room can get to 3000 PPM. Besides most of it gets dissolved in the ocean so it's not a problem.

CO2 is toxic to humans at much lower levels than that. Studies have shown at above 600ppm it has a marked effect on human cognitive ability. People complain of poor air quality and have poor concentration and decision making.
At above 1000ppm there are significant declines in human cognition and above 2000ppm there are serious deficiencies in human cognition

CO2 in the air also affects the PH in our blood.

Humans have never existed with an atmosphere above 300ppm CO2. Now it's at 405ppm, even if we work hard to reduce our emissions, we're likely to see levels peak at close to 600ppm
When the levels of CO2 are this high in the atmosphere, it's impossible to escape short of breathing through a ventilator.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Carbon_dioxide_toxicity_and_climate_change_a_serious_unapprehended_risk_for_human_health

Most governments just put on a show they know full well if they try the lunatic ides proposed that they are cutting their own throats metaphorically speaking. People only really become concerned about their environment when the per capita GDP hits about €5000.

people become concerned about their environment when their crops fail and they have no food to eat. Or when their home is flooded due to unprecedented rainfall, or when the temperatures get so high that people can't sleep at night or work during the day or when they get infected with tropical diseases carried by pathogenic insects who are migrating north as temperatures increase....

dense wrote: »

Still twisting things to suit the global warming agenda?


Global cooling was a big deal in the 1970s, at least for the World Meteorological Organisation where its report from1979 at it's first climate conference stated:







https://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_537_en.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiT0fu76MDeAhUGasAKHVH0DCIQFjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0cfdak6gVLsoyeKsY2Lr2W


It was unusually cooler in the 1970s with nothing to suggest that we were heading towards earth's normal condition.


You're also aware that today (in spite of the alleged catastrophic global warming in the interim) the earth's average temperature is just below what the WMO said it was in 1979, 15°C.

That is absolutely nothing to do with the 'global cooling' as discussed before. That relates to the Holocene and Pleistocene epochs being unusually cool when compared to previous geological epochs where temperatures were much warmer.

There is no 'normal condition'. There are however conditions that are suitable for human life, and conditions that are unsuitable for human life. Humans evolve during the Pleistocena and have only existed during the Holocene when temperatures were stable within this interglacial cycle.
Human civilisation, in terms of our nations, infrastructure, history, heritage, culture, identity, technology etc has only existed during the holocene.

The previous Epoch, the Pliocene had an ice free arctic, and guess what was different back then? CO2 levels were above 400ppm

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-free-arctic-in-pliocene-last-time-co2-levels-above-400ppm/