dense wrote: » What did he say about the problems caused in the Arctic by CO2 exhaled in human breath then? Thanks.
d'Oracle wrote: » So you didn't listen then. Or even read a transcript.
Turtwig wrote: » Reading data is pointless without first attempting to understand context - and climate science isn't exactly a field you're going to grasp over a few hours. To take a very simple example. Do you know what has more influence on this planet's seasons? Its rotation? Its tilt? Its variable distance from the sun?
dense wrote: » What????? The UNIPCC and eh, "97% of scientists" have already concluded that the sun has basically nothing to do with anything and the only thing that has the dominant influence on climate is carbon dioxide:https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=444614&d=1520123292]
Turtwig wrote: » My post was referring to the conceptual understanding of seasons. I fail to see how your post is even relevant.
Turtwig wrote: » I'm very confused, if we assume carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas - it is, and if we assume green house gases alter the intensity of solar irradiance on a planet's surface - they do, then can we not assume that the exhalation of carbon dioxide from the body of a human has an impact on the climate of that planet? I'm at a loss to understand what is so wrong with that statement.
The very first time you learned about carbon dioxide was probably in grade school: We breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. Any eight-year-old can rattle off this fact. It should come as no surprise that, when confronted with the challenge of reducing our carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, some people angrily proclaim, "Why should we bother? Even breathing out creates carbon emissions!" This statement fails to take into account the other half of the carbon cycle. As you also learned in grade school, plants are the opposite to animals in this respect: Through photosynthesis, they take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, in a chemical equation opposite to the one above. (They also perform some respiration, because they need to eat as well, but it is outweighed by the photosynthesis.) The carbon they collect from the CO2 in the air forms their tissues - roots, stems, leaves, and fruit. These tissues form the base of the food chain, as they are eaten by animals, which are eaten by other animals, and so on. As humans, we are part of this food chain. All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants, which took it out of the air only recently.Therefore, when we breathe out, all the carbon dioxide we exhale has already been accounted for. We are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with. Remember, it's a carbon cycle, not a straight line - and a good thing, too!
dense wrote: » I fail to see how your "conceptual understanding of seasons" and your conceptual understanding of the sun's role is relevant. My post contextualises the sun's influence on weather, climate and ultimately seasons, and it is precious little according to the UNIPCC. Climate change is controlled by carbon dioxide, not the sun, according to the UNIPCC. Do you disagree with that assertion? What is your conceptual understanding of it?
Turtwig wrote: » So many questions. I am not obligated to answer any especially if they are rather pointless. Which I deem them to be. So only this once: i) I did not give my conceptual understanding of seasons - and intentionally so. ii) Radiative forcing is not what you seemingly appear to think it is. iii) Cannot agree or disagree with an assertion that ultimately doesn't exist.
Turtwig wrote: » Do you know what has more influence on this planet's seasons? Its rotation? Its tilt? Its variable distance from the sun?
dense wrote: » Still, I'm glad you heard what I heard.
Turtwig wrote: » Apparently I did not hear what you heard or are now implying.
Turtwig wrote: » I gotta be honest, I'm not even sure what you're asking.
Turtwig wrote: » Apparently I did not hear what you heard or are now implying. You seemingly attributed an exaggerated meaning to 4 or 5 words in isolation.
Akrasia wrote: » Scientists should be judged on their considered publications, not some quote mined out of context comment he made in a radio interview when asked a silly question.
Akrasia wrote: » If Sweeney had a history of falsifying and fabricating evidence to support his claim, then he would be a discredited source, like the 'news' websites Breitbart.com, blogs like 'notrickszone' and the 'journalists' James Dellinpole, David Rose, Christopher Monckton, Christopher Booker etc who have on many separate occasions been caught red handed spreading misinformation and falsifying data on a number of occasions.
dense wrote: » Sorry, I was asking if you disagreed with the UNIPCC's assessment there. You asked: "Do you know what has more influence on this planet's seasons? Its rotation? Its tilt? Its variable distance from the sun?" The UNIPCC has decided with some 95% certainty that human activities and co2 from humans burning fossil fuels (not c02 exhaled in human breath) "has more influence" and is responsible for causing the climate to change, and that the earth's rotation, tilt or variable distance from the sun isn't.
dense wrote: » From 2004, and news that Climate Change will cause Siberian weather here. "A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020."
Turtwig wrote: » A secret report, that none of us here presumably have the necessary clearance to access. Therefore, we have no way of verifying the report claim you are making and its original context. Nevermind confirming whether the alleged report even existed in the first place.
Turtwig wrote: » Again let me reiterate my confusion over how this question followed from my seasons remark. I can confidently say that the IPCC never stated that rotation, tilt, dist from the sun didn't influence the climate. You are muddling so many different concepts and definitions it's really hard to even know where to begin. If you are trying to imply the IPCC said that seasons aren't caused by tilt. (This is the only reason I can see why you would have made your original IPCC remark in response to my post mentioning seasons.) Then they most certainly did not state anything of that nature.
December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warned Arctic sea ice was declining at the fastest rate in at least 1,500 years with an impact that would be felt far outside the region and affect the lives of every single American. One of the research team, Jeremy Mathis, compared the Arctic to the planet’s refrigerator. “But the door to that refrigerator has been left open,” he said. “And the cold is spilling out, cascading throughout the northern hemisphere.”
Akrasia wrote: » Abrupt climate change is a much bigger risk than most people realise. We know that climates have shifted dramatically over the course of a few years in the past, we just don't know what the exact circumstances were that triggered these .
Turtwig wrote: » The trouble with risk is humans are quite crap at assessing it.
Akrasia wrote: » Abrupt climate change is a much bigger risk than most people realise. We know that climates have shifted dramatically over the course of a few years in the past, we just don't know what the exact circumstances were that triggered these changes. We have already seen big changes in the Jet Stream, the NAO has changed from mostly negative to mostly positive in recent decades, but these two climate drivers,, amongst others are severely impacted by changes in Arctic ice volumes, and there is likely to be a tipping point when the arctic ice loss causes a long term climate shift affecting global climate patterns.
I have asked multiple times in this thread what the skeptics think will happen when the arctic is ice free and they avoid the question because they know deep down that this would have profound impacts on the long established mechanisms that drive weather systems in the northern hemisphere. The arctic doesn't even need to be ice free, the rapid decline in temperature gradients between high and low latitudes is already destabilising these climate systems.
Casualsingby wrote: » Any thoughts on what might happen to the North Atlantic drift in the years to come if the current predictions come true?
